MEETING
BEFORE
THE
CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
BOARD
HEARING
ROOM
2020
L
STREET
SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY,
DECEMBER
11,
1998
8:
30
A.
M.

Vicki
L.
Ogelvie,
C.
S.
R.
License
No.
7871
Janet
Nicol,
C.
S.
R.
License
No.
9764
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
ii
MEMBERS
PRESENT
Barbara
Riordan,
Chairperson
Joseph
C.
Calhoun
Mark
DeSaulnier
John
D.
Dunlap,
III
Dr.
William
Friedman
Lynne
T.
Edgerton
Jack
C.
Parnell
Barbara
Patrick
Sally
Rakow
Ron
Roberts
Staff:

Michael
Kenny,
Executive
Director
Tom
Cackette,
Chief
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Mike
Scheible,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Kathleen
Walsh,
General
Counsel
Jim
Schoning,
Ombudsman
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iii
I
N
D
E
X
­­
o0o­­

Page
Proceedings
1
Call
to
Order
1
Opening
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
1
AGENDA
ITEMS:

98­
14­
5
Public
Meeting
to
Consider
Research
Proposals
Introductory
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
1
Staff
Presentation:

John
Holmes,
Ph.
D.
1
98­
14­
7
Public
Meeting
to
Consider
an
Augmentation
of
an
ICAT
contract
titled,
"
Dynamically
Optimized
Recirculation
Coupled
with
Fluidized
Bed
Adsorption
to
Cost
Effectively
Control
Emissions
from
Industrial
and
Solvent
Operations
Introductory
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
3
Staff
Presentation:

John
Holmes,
Ph.
D.
3
98­
15­
1
Public
Hearing
to
Consider
the
Adoption
of
Proposed
Revisions
to
the
Regulation
for
Statewide
Portable
Equipment
Registration
Program
Introductory
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
5
Staff
Presentation:

Mike
Kenny
5
Mike
Tollstrup
7
Bruce
Oulrey
12
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iv
I
N
D
E
X
(
Continued)
­­
o0o­­

Page
Public
Comment:

Larry
Bowen
16
Jeb
Stuart
21
Paul
Buchanan
22
Terry
Ellis
27
95­
15­
2
Public
Meeting
to
Consider
Request
for
Public
Hearing
to
Review
the
Decision
of
the
Executive
Officer
to
Order
the
Recall
of
Motor
Vehicles
Introductory
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
33
Staff
Presentation:

Robert
Jenne
34
Kirk
Oliver
37
Toyota:

Ned
Isokawa
38
Charles
Lockwood
40
98­
15­
3
Public
Meeting
to
Consider
a
Proposed
Determination
Pursuant
to
Health
and
Safety
Code
Section
43830(
g)
of
the
Comparative
Ozone
Forming
Potential
of
Elevated
RVP
Gasoline
Containing
10
Volume
Percent
Ethanol
Introductory
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
49
Staff
Presentation:

Mike
Kenny
50
Jose
Gomez
53
Kathleen
Mead
74
Public
Presentation:

Don
Lucas
78
Bob
Dinneen
83
Gary
Whitten
89
Bob
Heckert
94
Al
Jessel
96
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
v
I
N
D
E
X
(
Continued)
­­
o0o­­

Page
Public
Comment:

Paul
Donahue
98
Megan
Smith
100
Dawn
Forsythe
106
V.
John
White
108
Necy
Sumait
113
Thomas
Toy
118
Paul
Knepprath
122
Neil
Koehler
125
Lloyd
Forest
131
98­
9­
2
Continuation
of
Public
Hearing
to
Consider
an
Amendment
to
the
California
Cleaner
Burning
Gasoline
Regulations
Increasing
the
CAP
Limit
for
Oxygen
from
2.7
to
3.5
percent
by
Weight
Introductory
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
149
Staff
Presentation:

Mike
Kenny
149
Dean
Simeroth
150
Richard
Vincent
150
Public
Comment:

Neil
Cuelior
153
98­
15­
4
Public
Hearing
to
Consider
an
Amendment
to
the
Specifications
for
Liquefied
Petroleum
Gas
Intended
for
Use
in
Motor
Vehicles
Introductory
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
154
Staff
Presentation:

Mike
Kenny
157
Tony
Brasil
159
Kathleen
Mead
165
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
vi
I
N
D
E
X
(
Continued)
­­
o0o­­

Page
Public
Comment:

Kate
Drakos
167
Bruce
Irion
171
Baron
Glassgow
174
Alina
Kulikowski­
Tan
177
William
Platz
180
98­
6­
1
Continuation
of
a
Public
Hearing
to
Consider
the
Appeals
of
the
City
of
Los
Angeles
from
Order
Nos.
070297­
04
and
040198­
02
of
the
Great
Basin
Unified
Air
Pollution
Control
District
Introductory
remarks
by
Chairperson
Riordan
199
Public
Comment:

Brian
Lamb
200
David
Hotchkiss
201
Andrea
Lawrence
201
Open
Session
to
Provide
an
Opportunity
for
Members
of
the
Public
to
Address
the
Board
on
Subject
Matters
within
the
Jurisdiction
of
the
Board
205
Adjournment
206
Certificate
of
Reporter
207
Certificate
of
Reporter
208
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
1
1
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
2
­­
o0o­­

3
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Ladies
and
Gentlemen,
I
would
4
like
to
reconvene
the
meeting
on
the
second
day
of
the
State
5
Air
Resources
Board.

6
It
is
now
in
session,
and
it
is
a
continuation
for
7
two
items
that
we
are
going
to
carry
over
from
yesterday.

8
These
are
items
that
we
could
not
get
to
last
9
night,
but
we
are
going
to
get
to
today
in
short
order.

10
The
first
one
is
categorized
as
our
Research
11
Proposals,
98­
14­
6.
There
are
eight
proposals,
and
I
think
12
what
I
might
do
is
just
shortcut
Dr.
Holmes
just
slightly,
if
13
I
might,
if
that
is
agreeable,
Dr.
Holmes,
and
ask
if
all
the
14
Members
have
had
the
opportunity
to
read
those
proposals
and
15
then
open
it
up
for
questions
of
staff
as
opposed
to
16
introduction
of
the
Item.

17
Are
there
some
questions?

18
Supervisor
Patrick,
do
you
have
a
question?

19
BOARD
MEMBER
PATRICK:
You
can
tell
I
am
shifting
20
around
in
my
seat,
so
I
do
have
a
question.

21
It
is
about
your
Spare
the
Air
Study
that
you
are
22
going
to
do,
and
I
notice
you
did
not
choose
the
San
Joaquin
23
Valley
as
part
of
your
research
proposal,
and
I
am
wondering
24
if
the
information
that
you
get
about
the
other
Spare
the
Air
25
Programs
in
the
Sacramento
and
the
Bay
Area
will
be
able
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
2
1
be
used
for
our
Spare
the
Air
Program
in
the
San
Joaquin
2
Valley?

3
DR.
HOLMES:
The
idea
here
is
to
develop
a
generic
4
methodology
for
calculating
the
benefits
of
such
programs
5
that
can
be
used
in
not
only
Sacramento
and
Bay
Area
but
also
6
the
Valley
and
in
Los
Angeles,
all.

7
Many
of
these
districts
have
these
programs.
EPA
8
now
will
allow
us
to
take
credit
for
the
air
quality
benefits
9
in
these
programs
in
our
State
Implementation
Plan.

10
So,
this
would
be
of
value
to
all
districts
to
have
11
such
programs.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
PATRICK:
I
think
this
is
a
marvelous
13
idea,
and
I
am
really
looking
forward
to
finding
out
what
the
14
results
of
it
are.

15
These
things
are
a
little
bit
hard
to
quantify,
and
16
so
the
purpose
of
this
is
to
give
you
ability
and
the
17
districts
the
ability
to
quantify
the
emissions
reductions
18
from
the
Spare
the
Air;
is
that
correct?

19
DR.
HOLMES:
Exactly.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
PATRICK:
Thank
you.

21
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Any
other
questions
22
that
Board
Members
have?

23
Then
the
Chair
would
entertain
a
motion.

24
DR.
HOLMES:
Madam
Chairman,
we
do
have
eight
25
research
proposals,
but
we
also
have
one
contract
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
3
1
augmentation
for
one
of
the
ICAT
projects.

2
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
What
I
was
going
to
do,
Dr.

3
Holmes,
is
deal
with
the
Research
Proposals
first,
and
then
I
4
am
going
to
come
to
ICAT.

5
DR.
HOLMES:
Oh,
I
beg
your
pardon.

6
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
No
problem.

7
You
are
faster
than
I
am.
Actually,
it
is
all
8
right,
Dr.
Holmes.

9
I
do
have
a
motion
from
Ms.
Edgerton
for
approval
10
of
the
Item
on
Research
Proposals.

11
Mr.
Parnell
seconds
the
motion.
Is
there
any
12
further
discussion?

13
All
those
in
favor
of
the
Item,
signify
by
saying
14
aye.

15
Opposed,
no.

16
The
motion
carries.

17
Now,
let
me
do
the
ICAT
augmentation.
This
next
18
Item
on
the
Agenda
is
98­
14­
7.
This
is
to
increase
funding,

19
Dr.
Holmes,
just
a
brief
mention
of
what
this
is,
and
I
would
20
appreciate
that.

21
DR.
HOLMES:
This
is
a
project
that
we
have
22
co­
sponsored
with
the
South
Coast
and
others
to
develop
23
solvent
recovery
systems
for
large
painting
operations
and
24
other
kinds
of
facilities.

25
The
South
Coast
has
become
so
interested
in
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
4
1
that
they
want
to
expand
it
beyond
the
original
intent
of
2
what
we
were
going
to
do,
so
they
are
giving
the
Air
3
Resources
Board
$
50,000,
and
for
administrative
simplicity
is
4
simply
just
to
augment
our
contract
rather
than
for
them
to
5
establish
a
separate
contract
with
the
folks
who
are
doing
6
this
at
Steel
Case.

7
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Are
there
any
8
questions
for
the
staff
or
Board
Members?

9
BOARD
MEMBER
PATRICK:
Motion
to
approve.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Second.

11
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Motion
by
Supervisor
Patrick
12
and
second
by
Mr.
Dunlap.

13
Any
discussion
on
the
motion?

14
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
signify
by
15
saying
aye.

16
Opposed,
no.

17
The
motion
carries.

18
DR.
HOLMES:
Thank
you
very
much.

19
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
and
thank
the
20
Research
staff
very
much.

21
Wait
for
just
a
moment
while
we
change
staff.

22
You
know,
I
actually
think
in
reality
these
chairs
23
are
still
warm
from
our
presence
yesterday
for
so
many
hours.

24
While
people
are
taking
their
seats,
let
me
just
25
deal
with
a
procedural
question
here,
and
that
is
before
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
5
1
begin
this
item,
and
it
will
apply
to
all
further
Agenda
2
Items,
I
would
like
to
let
you
know
that
we
are
changing
a
3
little
bit
the
request
for
testimony.

4
Instead
of
our
Clerk
to
the
Board
handling
it
here
5
in
the
room,
outside,
just
outside
the
room,
assembly
hall
6
here,
are
tables
and
sign­
up
forms
for
you
to
indicate
your
7
interest
in
testifying
before
this
Board
and
on
what
8
particular
item
you
would
like
to
testify.

9
Those
tables
are
and
the
people
there
will
take
10
your
requests
and
manage
to
organize
them,
and
then
I
will
11
call
on
you
at
the
appropriate
time.
If
you
have
written
12
testimony,
I
would
just
like
to
remind
you
that
or
a
written
13
statement,
please
give
the
staff
20
copies
for
that.

14
I
would
be
greatly
appreciative
of
that
and
so
15
would
they.

16
The
first
Item
on
the
regular
Agenda
beginning
17
today
is
98­
15­
1.
This
is
a
public
hearing
to
consider
the
18
adoption
of
proposed
revisions
to
the
regulation
for
19
Statewide
Portable
Equipment
and
Registration
Programs.

20
At
this
point
I
would
like
to
ask
Mr.
Kenny
to
21
introduce
this
item
and
begin
the
staff's
presentation.

22
MR.
KENNY:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chairman
and
Members
23
of
the
Board.

24
In
1995,
legislation
was
enacted
requiring
the
Air
25
Resources
Board
to
develop
and
implement
a
uniform
system
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
6
1
Statewide
registration
and
regulation
for
portable
equipment.

2
In
response,
the
Board
adopted
regulations
for
the
3
Statewide
Registration
Program
on
March
27,
1997.

4
In
adopting
the
regulation,
the
Board
directed
5
staff
in
consultation
with
local
air
districts,
affected
6
industry
and
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
7
Agency
to
evaluate
the
applicability
of
the
Statewide
8
Registration
Program
to
portable
equipment
operating
in
9
California
coastal
waters
and
to
address
any
implementation
10
issues
and
other
potential
issues.

11
The
Board
instructed
staff
to
report
back
within
12
one
year
of
implementation
of
the
regulations
with
any
13
recommended
amendments.

14
Over
the
last
year,
staff
has
worked
with
the
15
various
parties.
Based
on
our
discussions
and
the
experience
16
gained
over
the
last
year,
we
are
proposing
several
17
amendments
to
the
regulations.

18
These
amendments
eliminate
the
need
for
duplicative
19
permits,
allow
increased
flexibility
and
reduce
the
cost
of
20
operation.

21
The
amendments
also
provide
for
registration
of
22
portable
equipment
when
operating
in
California
territorial
23
waters.
The
proposed
amendments
to
the
regulations
will
have
24
an
overall
positive
environmental
impact
and
will
not
25
interfere
with
the
attainment
or
maintenance
of
State
or
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
7
1
Federal
air
quality
standards.

2
Since
February
of
1998,
staff
has
worked
closely
3
with
industry
and
the
local
air
districts
to
develop
the
4
regulatory
amendments.
These
amendments
are
needed
to
5
address
issues
discovered
during
the
first
year
of
6
implementation.

7
During
that
time,
staff
faced
the
task
of
8
developing
amendments
that
satisfy
the
concerns
of
affected
9
parties
but
also
remain
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
law
10
without
compromising
air
quality.

11
The
amended
regulations
before
you
for
12
consideration
today
represent
the
product
of
that
effort.
As
13
proposed,
the
amendments
to
the
regulations
are
expected
to
14
continue
to
provide
a
smooth
transition
from
district
permits
15
to
Statewide
Registration
and
provide
expedited
replacement
16
of
older
equipment
with
lower
emitting
technologies.

17
Now,
Mr.
Mike
Tollstrup,
of
the
Stationary
Source
18
Division,
will
explain
our
proposal
to
you.

19
MR.
TOLLSTRUP:
Good
morning,
Madam
Chairman
and
20
Members
of
the
Board.

21
For
this
Agenda
Item,
staff
will
present
proposed
22
amendments
to
the
regulations
for
the
Statewide
program
to
23
register
and
regulate
portable
engines
and
their
associated
24
equipment.

25
The
proposed
amendments
to
the
regulation
are
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
8
1
response
to
the
Board's
directions
to
evaluate
the
2
applicability
of
the
Statewide
Registration
Program
to
3
portable
engines
operating
in
California
coastal
waters
and
4
to
address
the
other
aspects
of
the
program
learned
from
5
implementation
during
the
past
year.

6
In
the
interest
of
time,
staff
will
present
a
7
shortened
version
of
the
presentation
package.
Copies
of
the
8
slide
presentation
are
available
at
the
back
of
the
room.

9
From
September
1998
to
the
present,
over
750
10
applications
have
been
received.
This
represents
over
10,000
11
portable
engines
and
associated
equipment.

12
Staff
has
completed
processing
of
over
500
of
these
13
applications.
This
represents
over
9,000
engines
and
14
associated
equipment.

15
Staff
is
currently
evaluating
the
remaining
250
16
applications.
The
average
processing
time
for
issuing
17
registrations
has
been
about
60
days,
which
includes
the
18
determination
of
completeness
review.

19
Once
an
application
is
complete,
it
takes
about
30
20
days
for
staff
to
process
an
application.

21
The
following
slides
will
summarize
staff's
22
proposed
amendments.
The
current
regulation
prohibits
23
Statewide
registration
of
equipment
operated
offshore
and
24
equipment
subject
to
Federal
regulations
such
as
a
new
source
25
performance
standard.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
9
1
Staff
is
proposing
to
amend
the
regulations
to
2
allow
Statewide
registration
of
portable
equipment
operating
3
within
State
territorial
waters
and
rock
crushing
operations
4
subject
to
new
source
performance
standards,
sub
part
000.

5
Portable
equipment
subject
to
other
Federal
6
regulations
will
remain
ineligible
for
registration.

7
In
addition,
staff
recommends
removing
the
existing
8
selected
catalytic
reduction
requirement
for
continuance
9
operating
dredges
because
of
technological
feasibility
10
problems
we
have
encountered.

11
To
assure
there
is
no
air
quality
impact
from
this
12
amendment,
staff
recommends
requiring
all
State
registered
13
dredges
be
retrofitted
with
certified
engines
by
the
year
14
2005
and
be
subject
to
onshore
district
offset
requirements.

15
It
has
become
clear
through
implementation
of
the
16
regulation
that
the
operation
of
the
associated
equipment
at
17
some
locations
may
be
better
suited
for
district
permit
18
programs
where
site
specific
analysis
to
determine
potential
19
impacts
can
be
performed.

20
An
example
of
the
type
of
operation
staff
is
21
concerned
about
would
be
a
rock
crushing
operation
operating
22
in
serpentine
quarry.

23
Staff
proposes
to
amend
the
regulation
to
make
24
Statewide
registration
of
the
associated
equipment
invalid
at
25
locations
where
the
nature
of
the
activity
performed
may
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
10
1
result
in
hazardous
pollutant
emissions.

2
This
determination
will
be
made
on
a
case
by
case
3
basis.

4
Other
proposed
amendments
include,
we
have
added
5
additional
incentive
to
promote
the
use
of
cleaner
technology
6
and
encourage
expedited
conversion
of
large
engine
fleets
to
7
cleaner
engines.

8
For
example,
incentives
can
include
a
significant
9
reduction
in
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirement
for
10
cleaner
engines.

11
Staff
proposes
revising
requirements
for
12
spark­
ignition
engines
and
associated
equipment.
In
13
addition,
because
the
proposed
amendments
would
allow
a
14
number
of
new
categories
to
apply
for
Statewide
registration,

15
staff
is
proposing
to
provide
additional
time
for
the
16
registration
of
resident
engines
and
equipment
to
July
1,

17
2000.

18
Finally,
staff
is
proposing
additional
amendments
19
that
are
non­
substantive,
being
either
clarification
or
minor
20
technical
revisions.

21
Staff
believes
that
the
proposed
amendments
will
22
not
result
in
any
adverse
environmental
impact.
Staff's
23
conclusions
are
based
on
the
following.

24
The
proposed
revisions
for
State
territorial
waters
25
are
consistent
with
existing
district
offset
requirements.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
11
1
In
addition,
the
regulation
provides
a
number
of
incentives
2
which
will
encourage
the
rapid
replacement
of
retrofit
of
3
many
of
the
higher
emitting
engines
with
cleaner
4
technologies.

5
The
proposed
amendments
are
not
expected
to
have
6
any
major
cost
impacts
to
assure
that
districts
have
adequate
7
resources
to
enforce
the
requirements
of
the
new
source
8
performance
standards,
sub
part
000
sources.

9
Staff
is
proposing
to
amend
the
regulation
to
allow
10
districts
the
ability
to
charge
for
the
actual
cost
of
11
enforcement.

12
With
regard
to
business
impacts,
many
businesses
13
would
potentially
benefit
from
the
proposed
amendments.

14
Benefits
include
eliminating
the
need
for
duplicative
15
permits,
increase
flexibility
and
reduce
cost
of
permitting.

16
Also,
since
this
is
a
voluntary
program,
businesses
17
will
elect
to
seek
State
registration
if
it
is
financially
18
advantageous
and
administratively
convenient.

19
In
addition
to
staff's
proposed
amendments
20
highlighted
in
earlier
slides,
staff
is
proposing
an
21
additional
amendment
which
would
be
subject
to
a
15­
day
22
comment
period,
and
the
Board's
approval,
the
Board
Members
23
have
a
copy
of
the
15­
day
amendments
as
attachment
B
of
the
24
proposed
Resolution.

25
Staff
is
proposing
to
add
a
provision
that
requires
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
12
1
the
Air
Resources
Board
in
consultation
with
the
Secretary
2
for
Environmental
Protection
to
determine
if
the
regulation
3
should
be
retained,
revised
or
repealed
within
five
years
of
4
the
effective
date
of
implementing
the
proposed
amendments.

5
In
addition,
for
a
major
project
that
operates
6
within
State
territorial
waters,
staff
is
proposing
to
adding
7
provisions
allowing
districts
the
ability
to
review
projects
8
potential
air
quality
impact
prior
to
commencement
of
the
9
project.

10
Finally,
staff
is
proposing
to
add
emission
limits
11
for
spark­
ignition
engines
of
15
pounds
per
day
for
NOx
and
12
25
pounds
per
day
for
VOC.
This
applies
for
spark­
ignition
13
engines.

14
The
proposed
amendments
are
available
to
the
public
15
in
the
back
of
the
room.

16
In
conclusion,
ARB
staff
recommends
that
the
Board
17
adopt
the
proposed
amendments
with
staff's
proposed
18
modifications.

19
I
thank
the
Board
for
the
time
to
hear
this
20
presentation.
I
would
be
glad
to
respond
to
any
questions
21
that
you
might
have.

22
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Staff
or
Ombudsman
Office,

23
would
you
comment
on
the
process,
please?

24
MR.
OULREY:
Madam
Chairman,
Members
of
the
Board,

25
this
Board
adopted
the
original
portable
equipment
regulation
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
13
1
in
March
of
1997
for
the
mandate
established
by
Assembly
Bill
2
531,
signed
in
to
law
by
Governor
Wilson
in
October
1995.

3
The
regulation
amendments
that
are
before
you
today
4
were
developed
between
February
4,
1998
and
the
present.
The
5
amendments
were
developed
with
assistance
of
the
portable
6
equipment
program
work
group.

7
The
work
group
consists
of
about
25
individuals
8
from
local,
state
and
federal
air
quality
agencies,
as
well
9
as
from
effected
industries
such
as
oil
services,
well
10
drilling
sand
and
gravel
operation,
construction,
sanitation,

11
rental
and
manufacturing.

12
Many
members
of
the
work
group
were
part
of
the
13
original
group
that
helped
develop
the
1997
portable
14
equipment
regulation.
During
the
current
round
of
revisions
15
to
the
regulations
in
1998
ARB
staff
met
with
the
work
group
16
four
times,
once
each
on
February
4,
February
24,
March
4
and
17
May
13
to
identify
issues
and
develop
the
regulatory
18
amendments.

19
Staff
also
held
at
least
six
individual
meetings
20
between
April
16
and
September
30,
1998
with
effected
21
industries
and
associations.
The
individual
meetings
22
included
representatives
primarily
from
the
dredging
23
industry.

24
Staff
held
the
meetings
to
work
out
agreeable
25
requirements
for
portable
equipment
operating
and
State
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
14
1
territorial
waters.

2
Staff
met
with
18
air
districts
from
around
the
3
state,
some
on
numerous
occasions
between
February
27
and
4
November
19,
1998.

5
Additionally,
ARB
staff
made
a
presentation
to
the
6
California
Air
Pollution
Control
Officers
Association
on
its
7
proposed
regulation
on
October
8,
1998.

8
The
Item
was
workshopped
three
times
in
1998,
once
9
in
Sacramento,
on
August
18,
once
in
Bakersfield,
on
August
10
20,
and
once
in
Diamond
Bar,
on
August
21.

11
Over
700
individuals
including
parties
from
12
industry,
trade
associations
and
government
agencies
who
are
13
typically
interested
in
regulatory
activities
affecting
14
portable
equipment
were
invited
to
participate
in
each
of
the
15
public
workshops.

16
Additionally,
all
of
individuals
that
are
currently
17
operating
under
the
State
Portable
Equipment
Registration
18
Program
were
invited
to
participate
in
the
workshops.

19
ARB
staff
provided
opportunity
for
public
input
20
into
the
regulation
during
each
of
these
times.
In
total,

21
ARB
staff
held
about
500
telephone
conversations,

22
teleconferences
and
meetings
with
effected
parties,

23
industries,
trade
associations
and
government
agencies
during
24
the
development
of
the
proposed
regulation.

25
On
October
23,
1998,
staff
mailed
out
copies
of
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
15
1
staff
report
to
over
700
individuals,
representing
the
2
public,
government
agencies
and
industry.

3
The
staff
report
was
made
available
on
the
Web
on
4
October
23,
1998.

5
Finally,
notices
of
this
hearing
were
sent
to
6
approximately
1500
individuals,
including
environmental
7
groups,
industry
and
government
agencies
on
October
23,
1998.

8
Subsequent
to
the
release
of
the
staff
report
in
9
October,
staff
revised
the
report
in
response
to
comments
10
from
the
San
Diego
Air
District.

11
Other
than
representatives
of
the
Portable
12
Equipment
Work
Group,
stakeholders
outside
the
San
Diego
Air
13
District
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
review
and
comment
on
14
these
changes.

15
If
the
Board
approves
the
report,
because
of
the
16
recent
changes
referred
to,
there
will
be
a
legally
required
17
15­
day
extension
for
public
notification
and
comment.
We
18
recommend
that
the
1500
person
mailing
list
referred
to
above
19
be
used
for
purposes
of
this
notification.

20
As
you
can
see,
to
this
point
in
time
the
staff
has
21
done
a
good
job
reaching
out
to
all
the
appropriate
22
stakeholders
and
effected
parties
and
involving
them
in
an
23
exclusive,
deliberative
and
meaningful
public
process.

24
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Bruce,
would
you,
please
25
identify
yourself?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
16
1
MR.
OULREY:
Sure.
My
name
is
Bruce
Oulrey.

2
I
am
Deputy
Ombudsman
for
the
Air
Resources
Board.

3
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

4
Mr.
Kenny,
are
there
any
other
comments
that
you
5
have?

6
Board
Members,
do
you
have
any
questions
for
staff
7
on
this
Item
at
this
time?

8
All
right.
We
will
move
right
into
our
witnesses.

9
Mr.
Larry
Bowen,
from
South
Coast
Air
Quality
10
Management
District,
followed
by
Jeb
Stuart
from
the
11
Construction
Industry
Air
Quality
Coalition.

12
MR.
BOWEN:
Madam
Chairman,
and
Members
of
the
13
Board,
I
am
Larry
Bowen,
I
am
a
Senior
Manager
with
the
South
14
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District.

15
This
morning
to
your
Clerk
I
presented,
submitted
a
16
letter
from
Dr.
Barry
Waterstein,
Senior
Executive
Officer,

17
and
he
has
asked
me
today
to
present
verbally
a
summary
of
18
those
comments.

19
I
want
to
say
the
South
Coast
Air
Quality
20
Management
District
generally
supports
the
proposal
by
your
21
staff
today
and
would
recommend
this
adoption.

22
I
do,
however,
want
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
issues,

23
one
of
which
we
will
request
consideration
of
amendment
to
24
portion
of
that
proposal.

25
The
other
two
items
I
just
nearly
want
to
clarify
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
17
1
for
the
record
what
the
intention
of
this
very
complex
issue
2
is,
two,
the
information
has
been
distributed
to
your
clerk
3
and
I
also
believe
that
the
copies
have
been
provided.

4
We
do
have
language,
I
do
not
know
whether
you
want
5
to
project
it
for
the
public,
also,
I
will
touch
the
issue
6
more.

7
The
more
important
issue
of
that
area
in
which
we
8
wish
to
consider,
you
consider,
amendment
to
the
proposal
9
deals
with
the
issue
spark­
ignition
resident
engines
in
the
10
staff
proposal
for
alternative
mass
cap
emission
limits
for
11
those,
in
lieu
of
the
concentration
emissions
elements
for
12
the
technology
requirements,
and
if
you
look
at
table
2
is
an
13
area
that
is
of
discussion,
is
that
in
your
current
proposal,

14
this
is
subject,
does
not
include
the
amendment
that
was
15
proposed
earlier
this
morning.

16
We
looked
at
this,
as
you
can
see
in
table
2,
in
17
each
of
the
columns
there
was
a
very
large
emission
cap
rate
18
that
was
authorized
for
those
engines.

19
In
the
South
Coast
District,
we
have
required
the
20
technology
requirement
for
the
concentration
emission
limits
21
since
1983
as
our
VOC
requirement.
We
do
have
a
rule
on
our
22
books
regulating
control
of
internal
combustion
engines
that
23
require
the
emission
limitation
requirements
that
are
24
proposed
there,
and
therefore,
we
believe
in
the
South
Coast
25
District
that
the
alternative
for
mass
emission
cap
is
not
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
18
1
allowable.

2
Therefore,
we
recommend
for
consideration
that
this
3
mass
emission
cap
can
be
excluded
for
applicability
in
the
4
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District.

5
Now,
I
did
receive
this
morning
and
have
not
had
an
6
opportunity
to
look
at
the
staff's
amendment
proposal
which
7
reduces
those
amounts,
and
that
is
by
far
a
better
approach.

8
We
would,
however,
recommend
that
you
also
consider
9
our
proposal
to
exclude
the
South
Coast
District
for
this
10
section
of
the
rule.

11
We
believe
that
the
technology
requirement
or
the
12
concentration
limits
are
far
better
means
to
enforce
the
13
requirements
of
the
rule.

14
The
two
other
items
that
I
will
just
briefly
15
mention
included
in
the
text
of
Dr.
Watersteins's
letter,
it
16
said
first
of
all
we
want
to
make
it
very
clear
that
we
17
understand
the
requirements
that
are
proposed
for
the
18
dredging
operations
and
for
the
operation
in
the
State
19
territorial
waters,
regardless
of
the
technology
requirements
20
that
the
emission
limitations
emission
caps
and
the
21
Department
of
Air
Resources
review
do
protect
the
air
quality
22
in
our
district,
and
then
we
can
support
those
amendments
23
provided
those
caps
for
retaining
are
in
there.

24
The
second
item
has
to
do
with
the
alternative
25
record
keeping
requirements.
We
do
support
those.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
19
1
However,
we
want
to
make
it
very
clear
for
the
2
record
that
we
believe
that
it
is
the
responsibility
for
the
3
source
operator
to
assure
that
adequate
records
are
kept
and
4
accurately
kept
and
remain
readily
available
to
the
districts
5
to
make
sure
they
are
operating
in
compliance.

6
That
concludes
my
comments.
I
would
be
glad
to
7
answer
any
questions.

8
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Bowen,
before
we
have
9
questions,
let
me
just
ask
staff
to
respond
to
particularly
10
the
first
issue
that
you
raised.

11
MR.
VENTURINI:
Glad
to,
Madam
Chairman.

12
I
will
ask
Mr.
Tollstrup
to
provide
our
response
on
13
that.

14
MR.
TOLLSTRUP:
As
Mr.
Bowen
mentioned,
we
did
15
speak
to
before
the
meeting
this
morning.

16
Staff's
proposed
amendment
is
on
a
15­
day
change
to
17
lower
the
limits
from
100
pounds
per
day
to
15
pounds
and
25
18
pounds
respectively
to
NOx
and
VOC.

19
We
believe
the
limits
represent
a
good
compromise
20
on
the
existing
PPM
we
have
in
the
regulation.
The
21
regulation
as
currently
drafted
does
require
back
for
the
non
22
resident
engines
that
the
requirements
that
Mr.
Bowen
is
23
talking
about
apply
to
resident
engines
only,
which
there
is
24
a
limited
number.

25
The
South
Coast
backup
requirements,
we
might
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
20
1
mention,
do
not
apply
to
grandfathered
and
non­
road
engines.

2
Our
requirements
would
actually
apply
to
non­
road
engines
3
once
we
receive
approval
from
U.
S.
EPA.

4
So,
the
staff
is
proposing
to
lower
the
limits.

5
Like
I
mentioned,
we
believe
that
it
is
a
compromise
that
it
6
allows
a
number
of
engines
that
we
run
across
that
have
a
7
history
of
operating
within
the
State,
they
do
not
have
the
8
ability
to
purchase
after­
market
controls,
it
is
not
9
available
for
the
engines,
and
it
provides
them
the
10
opportunity
to
get
into
the
program.

11
MR.
VENTURINI:
I
am
sorry.
Peter
Venturini,

12
Chief,
Stationary
Source
Division.

13
When
we
made
the
adjustment
to
the
cap
to
reduce
14
the
NOx
and
VOC
cap
from
115
and
25
respectively,
what
15
basically
we
did
was
took
those
concentration
limits
that
are
16
in
the
regulation
and
converted
to
an
equivalent
daily
limit.

17
So,
what
you
come
down
to
in
the
discussion
with
18
Larry
is
with
our
daily
cap,
base
would
be
limited
to
about
19
12
hours
of
operation.

20
With
a
concentration
limit
as
Mr.
Bowen
is
21
referring,
an
engine
would
operate
sufficiently
longer,
but
I
22
think
talking
to
Mr.
Bowen
they
have
a
compliance
preference
23
for
the
concentration
limit.

24
It
is
kind
of
like
six
of
one,
half
dozen
of
25
another.
So,
I
think
from
my
perspective
I
would
not
have
an
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
21
1
objection
to
adding
his
language
except
in
the
South
Coast
2
they
prefer
the
concentration
of
it,
but
it
is
really
six
of
3
one,
half
dozen
of
another.

4
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
We
will
note
that.

5
Thank
you,
Mr.
Venturini.

6
Mr.
Stuart,
come
forward.
It
is
very
nice
to
see
7
you.

8
I
have
to
tell
my
colleagues
that
this
is
the
first
9
air
quality
official
that
I
ever
met
as
an
elected
official,

10
and
Jeb,
it
is
very
nice
to
see
you.

11
He
was
formerly
the
head
of
the
South
Coast
Air
12
Quality
District.
It
is
nice
to
see
you,
and
welcome,
and
13
please
introduce
yourself
and
your
new
role
in
representing
14
the
industry.

15
MR.
STUART:
Madam
Chairman
and
Members
of
the
16
Board,
my
name
is
Jeb
Stuart,
and
I
am
representing
the
17
Construction
Industry
Air
Quality
Coalition,
which
are
18
practically
all
of
the
contractors
in
the
South
Coast
Air
19
Basin.

20
My
organization
first
of
all
would
like
to
express
21
its
appreciation
to
the
CARB
staff
and
particularly
Peter
22
Venturini,
Ray
Menabroker,
Mike
Tollstrup
and
his
staff
for
23
developing
certainly
the
most,
very
flexible
regulation,
one
24
that
is
very
cost­
effective
and
one
that
costs
about
25
one­
tenth
of
the
fees
that
most
of
the
county
districts
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
22
1
charge.

2
Also,
they
have
been
able
to
turn
around
3
applications
in
weeks
instead
of
months,
which
is
certainly
a
4
wonderful
thing
for
people
that
have
to
have
registration.

5
Also,
I
do
not
know
how
to
say
this,
but
there
are
6
probably
three
or
four
thousand
engines
in
the
State
or
maybe
7
more
that
never
got
permitted
by
any
district.

8
I
am
convinced
that
with
this
program
with
its
9
general
structure
that
we
can
get
a
lot
of
those
four
or
five
10
thousand
owners
to
get
their
engines
registered.

11
It
will
be
a
real
improvement
for
air
quality
that
12
I
think
your
program
will
give
you,
and
I
might
also
mention
13
that
the
regulation
is
just
as
stringent
as
any
district
14
regulation
or
rules.

15
So,
not
too
many
disbenefits
of
air
quality,
and
I
16
thank
you.

17
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

18
Nice
to
see
you.

19
Let
me
call
Mr.
Paul
Buchanan
up
and
Mr.
Terry
20
Ellis,
you
are
next
on
our
witness
list.

21
MR.
BUCHANAN:
Good
morning,
Madam
Chair
and
22
Members
of
the
Board
and
staff.

23
My
name
is
Paul
Buchanan.
I
am
Regional
Manager,

24
and
I
represent
Prime
Equipment.

25
We
are
in
the
business
of
renting
and
selling
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
23
1
number
of
product
lines
that
involve
engines.
I
would
like
2
to,
I
am
commenting
on
a
couple
of
items
that
were
included
3
in
a
written
testimony
that
was
submitted.

4
The
first
would
be
extension
of
the
registration
5
deadline.
We
strongly
support
the
extension,
and
we
feel
6
that
the
initial
nine­
month
period
was
not
sufficient
to
get
7
all
the
engines
registered.

8
We
want
to
be
sure
that
the
amendments
will
allow
9
registration
and
grandfathering
of
the
non­
resident
10
equipment.
If
not,
we
feel
that
the
Board
should
allow
this
11
equipment
to
be
registered
and
grandfathered
on
the
condition
12
it
is
included
in
the
compliance
plan
to
either
upgrade
or
13
replace.

14
The
second
item
would
be
the
expansion
of
15
compliance
plan
provisions.
This
is
listed
in
Section
3
of
16
our
written
testimony.
It
supports
the
expansion
of
the
17
compliance
plan
opportunities.

18
We
would
like
to
suggest
that
the
Board
direct
the
19
staff
to
find
ways
to
expand
it
even
further,
such
as
20
allowing
equipment
that
does
not
meet
the
emissions
standards
21
to
be
registered
if
included
again
in
that
compliance
plan.

22
We
feel
that
it
would
also
benefit
air
quality
by
23
encouraging
the
rapid
turnover
of
some
of
the
older
equipment
24
that
is
out
in
the
field
running.

25
Probably
the
most
important,
we
have
an
item
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
24
1
concern
in
the
fast
track
registrations
for
the
rental
2
equipment
industry.
While
we
feel
that
the
staff
has
done
a
3
marvelous
job
in
reducing
that
time
frame
down
to
a
60­
day
4
period,
in
our
business
it
is
very
difficult
when
we
have
a
5
demand
or
a
need
that
has
to
happen
tomorrow,
and
we
as
a
6
representative
of
some
new
product
lines,
we
stock
a
lot
of
7
these
engines
in
inventory
that
would
retail
to
end
users.

8
If
we
have
a
need
come
up
for
rental,
we
would
like
9
to
have
the
ability
to
utilize
for
larger
orders
some
of
that
10
equipment
and
the
processing
time
of
60
days
is
not
11
sufficient
for
us
to
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
that
12
business.

13
We
believe
it
is
a
forgone
conclusion
that
if
these
14
are
certified
engines
in
the
first
place
that
they
would
be
15
registered,
and
so
it
is
probably
a
time
issue
and
not
an
air
16
quality
issue.

17
That
pretty
well
concludes.
I
would
just
like
to
18
urge
the
Board
to
direct
the
staff
to
work
with
the
rental
19
industry
to
develop
a
fast
track
program
to
turn
around
the
20
registration
process
even
more
quickly
than
it
has
been
done,

21
and
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
22
where
Prime
Equipment
is
concerned.

23
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Buchanan.

24
Let's
see,
staff
do
you
have
any
comments
or
25
concerns?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
25
1
MR.
TOLLSTRUP:
Yes,
in
response.

2
I
understand
there
are
three
issues
here.
The
3
first
dealt
with
resident
versus
non­
resident.
The
way
that
4
the
reg
is
currently
structured,
to
qualify
for
residency
it
5
requires
they
either
have
a
district
permit
now
or
they
have
6
some
history
of
operating
in
the
State.

7
I
am
not
sure
whether
the
proposed
amendments
we
8
are
opening
up
that
period
of
time
once
again
to
register
the
9
engines
would
cover
Mr.
Buchanan's
concerns,
but
that
goes
10
beyond
that,
where
the
district
does
not
require
a
permit,

11
all
you
need
to
do
is
show
us
that
you
have
some
history
of
12
operating
in
the
State
and
that
qualifies
you
for
residency
13
in
the
program.

14
So,
that
should
cover
a
number
of
the
engines
that
15
you
had
some
concerns
over.

16
As
far
as
relief
from
the
compliance
plan,
we
have
17
provisions
in
the
regulation
right
now
that
basically
allow
18
an
owner
operator
of
a
fleet
of
engines
to
enter
into
an
19
agreement
with
us
to
convert
those
engines
over
to
cleaner
20
engines
within
a
specified
time
period,
and
right
now
21
depending
on
the
number
of
engines,
it
is
either
18,
24
or
36
22
months,
in
the
interim
they
do
have
some
minimum
control
23
requirements
that
they
do
have
to
meet.

24
What
we
relieve
them
from
in
the
time
period
that
25
we
granted
during
the
compliance
plan
are
the
record
keeping
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
26
1
and
reporting
requirements
on
some
of
the
emission
limits.

2
Staff
would
not
recommend
giving
up,
as
I
understand
Mr.

3
Buchanan's
comment,
he
is
asking
that
we
give
up
the
minimum
4
control
requirement
to
let
some
of
these
engines
in
under
a
5
compliance
plan,
and
we
think
a
lot
of
the
control
6
requirements
that
we
have
are
minimum.

7
They
are
fairly
easy
for
the
engines
to
meet,
and
8
we
recommend
keeping
those
emission
limits
in
place
in
the
9
regulation
and
keeps
the
dirtier
engines
out.

10
As
to
the
fast
track
permitting
system,
staff
is
11
always
looking
for
ways
to
expedite
the
registration
process.

12
We
do
not
believe
that
there
is
anything
in
the
regulation
13
that
precludes
Mr.
Buchanan
from
pre­
registering
groups
of
14
engines
to
meet
customer
demands,
and
we
think
there
are
a
15
number
of
options
in
the
program,
and
we
would
be
more
than
16
happy
to
work
with
Mr.
Buchanan
to
see
if
there
was
something
17
we
could
do
with
compliance
and
regulations
to
fast
track
his
18
concerns.

19
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Let's
see,
Mr.

20
Buchanan,
if
I
have
a
business
card,
I
do.

21
We
will
try
to
work
with
you,
and
staff
can
get
in
22
touch
with
you
and
work
with
you
on
the
permitting
in
terms
23
of
how
fast
we
can
do
this.
We
want
to
help
you,
obviously.

24
Thank
you
very
much.

25
Mr.
Terry
Ellis.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
27
1
MR.
ELLIS:
Good
morning,
Madam
Chairman
and
Board
2
Members
and
staff.

3
Short
and
sweet.
That
is
what
I
was
told
this
4
morning,
and
that
is
what
I
am
going
to
do.

5
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Identify
yourself
for
the
6
record
and
who
you
represent.

7
MR.
ELLIS:
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
I
am
going
8
to
be
short
and
sweet
first.

9
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Well,
that
is
important,
too.

10
MR.
ELLIS:
Those
that
know
me,
know
that
is
not
11
possible.

12
Terry
Ellis,
Regulatory
Affairs
Manager,
for
Gary
13
Drilling
and
Portable
Equipment,
owner.
I
am
also
the
14
Executive
Director
of
the
Coalition
of
Petroleum
Services,

15
better
known
as
COPS,
which
is
the
major
category
of
16
registered
units
within
the
portable
equipment
program
17
representing
the
petroleum
industry
and
services
of
portable
18
equipment
to
it.

19
My
comments,
again,
like
I
say,
will
be
brief.

20
We
have
been
a
part,
I
have
been
a
part
of
the
21
portable
equipment
program
since
the
inception.
We
birthed
22
it
in
the
local
districts
and
brought
it
before
­­
and
we
23
are
basically
directed
or
forced
to
take
it
to
a
legislative
24
route
and
ended
up
here
in
1995
and
began
a
working
25
relationship.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
28
1
Therefore,
I
have
never
in
my
regulatory
life,

2
which
spans
20
years,
had
such
a
cooperative
effort
from
such
3
a
carefully
listening
staff
taking
a
very
difficult
issue
4
that
EPA
and
CARB
years
ago
said
could
not
be
done
and
bring
5
it
to
this
point.

6
So,
my
comments
are
for
the
complicated
issue
and
7
so
many
interests
at
stake
that
this
regulation
and
its
8
proposed
amendments
are
fully
supported
by
myself
and
the
9
industry
as
the
most
flexible
way
to
deal
with
portable
10
equipment
and
its
needs,
and
also
address
the
air
quality
11
issues.

12
Because,
as
of
this
morning
I
am
also
here
to
pick
13
up
four
more
certifications
for
diesel
engines
to
move
40
or
14
50
year
old
diesel
engines
into
new
engine
standards,
not
15
only
for
today
but
beyond
2001
and
into
the
future,
and
this
16
program
was
the
birthplace
for
that,
so
this
program
does
17
work,
and
it
does
give
us
the
flexibility
and
does
provide
18
incentives.

19
Turn
now,
as
of
Monday
night,
a
meeting
with
20
Detroit
Diesel,
an
international
product
to
be
distributed
21
worldwide
and
certified
here
by
CARB,
so
I
thank
the
staff,

22
and
I
thank
the
Board
for
their
time.

23
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Well,
thank
you.

24
Very
good
words
and
good
message
and
brief
and
to
25
the
point.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
29
1
Thank
you
very
much.

2
That
completes
the
list
of
persons
that
have
signed
3
up
to
testify.

4
Let
me
ask
if
there
are
any
written
submissions
to
5
put
into
the
record
before
we
move
on
to
a
discussion
of
the
6
Item
by
the
Board
Members.

7
MR.
VENTURINI:
Yes,
there
are,
Madam
Chairman.

8
Mr.
Tollstrup
will
summarize
those
briefly.

9
MR.
TOLLSTRUP:
The
staff
has
received
a
total
of
10
five
comment
letters,
which
I
will
briefly
go
over.

11
The
North
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District
and
12
Lake
County
QMAD
shared
similar
concerns
in
common
letters.

13
Both
districts
are
opposed
to
staff's
inclusion
of
the
rock
14
crushing
operation,
subject
to
the
new
source
performance
sub
15
part
000,
the
staff
response
basically
because
of
the
16
stringent
daily
and
annual
emission
limits
and
the
inclusion
17
of
the
sub
part
000
sources
into
the
Statewide
program
will
18
only
be
limited
to
the
smaller
operations,
we
have
stringent
19
limits
that
will
keep
only
the
smaller
one's
in.

20
Under
the
Statewide
program,
there
will
be
no
21
change
in
enforcement
authority.
Districts
delegated
22
authority
through
the
U.
S.
EPA
authority
will
continue
to
23
enforce
the
sub
part
000
requirements.

24
The
U.
S.
EPA
will
continue
to
enforce
where
25
deligation
has
not
yet
been
granted
to
a
district.
A
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
30
1
Statewide
registration
only
replaces
district
permits.
There
2
is
nothing
in
our
program
that
would
preclude
local
3
jurisdictions
from
land
use
decisions,
CEQA
requirements
or
4
other
programs
outside
of
the
air
district
programs
that
are
5
protective
of
specific
sites
from
undesirable
impacts.

6
With
regards
to
operations
at
locations
where
7
process
of
materials
may
result
in
the
emission
of
hazardous
8
air
pollutants,
the
State
registration
program
is
not
valid
9
at
those
locations.
Instead
the
districts
would
be
able
to
10
require
permits
for
operation
at
those
sites.

11
In
addition
Lake
County
requested
that
Statewide
12
registrations
be
posted
with
specific
operating
conditions
at
13
each
site,
and
State's
staff
response
is
that
is
an
existing
14
requirement
that
the
registration
and
specific
conditions
15
must
be
posted
at
all
times.

16
The
other
comment
letter
we
received
was
from
SMUD.

17
SMUD
is
requesting
that
the
residency
requirements
be
18
extended
to
cover
engines
purchased
by
SMUD
between
1996
and
19
1998.

20
As
it
stands
now,
they
would
not
apply
for
our
21
program.
Staff
is
opposed
to
SMUD's
request.

22
One
of
the
primary
goals
of
the
Statewide
23
regulation
was
to
preclude
dirty
engines
from
coming
in
to
24
the
program.
The
regulation
was
designed
to
place
tightened
25
constraints
on
the
criteria
for
establishing
residency,
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
31
1
opening
up
that
residency
criteria
could
result
in
a
large
2
number
of
the
higher
emitting
engines
coming
into
our
3
program.

4
In
addition
to
the
comment
letters,
we
received
two
5
letters
of
support.
One
was
from
the
Santa
Barbara
Air
6
Pollution
Control
District.
The
other
was
from
the
Rain
for
7
Rent
Company.

8
Thank
You.

9
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

10
Before
I
officially
close
the
record,
let
me
ask
if
11
any
of
the
Board
Members
have
questions
of
the
staff.

12
Seeing
none,
then
I
will
officially
close
the
13
record
now
on
this
Agenda
Item.
However,
the
record
will
be
14
reopened
within
the
15­
day
notice
of
public
availability
when
15
the
15­
day
public
notice
is
issued.

16
Written
or
oral
comments
received
after
this
17
hearing
date
but
before
the
15­
day
notice
is
issued
will
not
18
be
accepted
as
part
of
the
official
record
on
this
Agenda
19
Item.
When
the
record
is
reopened
for
the
15­
day
comment
20
period,
the
public
may
submit
written
comments
and
proposed
21
changes
which
will
be
considered
and
responded
to
in
the
22
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
for
the
regulation.

23
This
item
does
have
an
ex
parte
requirement.
Are
24
there
any
communications
that
need
to
be
disclosed
on
the
25
record
now?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
32
1
Okay.
You
have
a
Resolution
before
you.
It
is
2
98­
77.

3
The
Board
has
had
a
chance
to
go
over
it.

4
Mr.
Dunlap.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Yes,
Madam
Chairman,
I
would
6
like
to
talk
about
for
a
moment
the
South
Coast
amendment
7
that
has
been
proposed
and
ask
Mr.
Kenny
a
question,
if
that
8
is
okay,
or
Mr.
Venturini.

9
South
coast
amendment,
Mr.
Kenny,
is
that
10
acceptable?

11
MR.
KENNY:
Yes,
it
is,
Mr.
Chair
­­
Mr.
Dunlap.

12
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
See,
they
have
not
forgotten
13
you.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
I
have
been
trying
to
change
15
my
ways.

16
MR.
KENNY:
I
was
going
to
say,
your
Honor.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Okay.
I
think
if
the
South
18
Coast
amendment
seems
okay,
those
witnesses
that
testified,

19
anybody
of
the
four
that
would
have
had
a
problem
with
us,

20
making
that
move,
that
would
have
a
problem
with
us,
okay,

21
then
I
propose
that
we
adopt
the
Resolution
that
staff
has
22
proposed,
but
include
the
South
Coast
amendment,
which
deals
23
with
spark­
ignition
engines,
and
it
is
found
in
table
2,
help
24
me
out,
Kathleen.

25
MR.
KENNY:
Actually,
I
think
the
easiest
way
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
33
1
probably
do
it
is
on
various
letters
there
is
an
attachment
2
to
it,
and
that
table
on
the
bottom
there
is
the
provision
3
across
the
table,
it
shows
except
in
the
South
Coast,
has
a
4
parenthetical
for
all
three
boxes.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
So,
that
is
what
we
will
do.

6
So,
that
would
be
my
motion.

7
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Is
there
a
second?

8
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Second.

9
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Supervisor
Roberts.

10
Any
further
discussion?

11
Let
me
take
a
voice
vote.

12
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
signify
by
saying
13
aye.

14
Opposed,
no.

15
The
motion
is
carried.

16
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
to
those
that
17
testified,
again,
a
very
positive
note
for
the
staff,
and
I
18
do
appreciate
all
the
outreach
that
you
obviously
did
for
a
19
number
of
months
with
an
incredible
number
of
people.
Thank
20
you.

21
All
right.
We
will
take
just
a
brief
moment
while
22
staff
changes,
and
we
will
go
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
23
Agenda.
This
is
Item
98­
15­
2.

24
Let
me
invite
my
colleagues
back
to
the
dias
and
25
move
on
to
this
Agenda
Item,
which
is
Agenda
Item
98­
15­
2.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
34
1
For
those
of
you
in
the
room
who
are
interested
in
2
the
Item,
if
you
would
come
to
the
front,
and
we
will
move
3
on.

4
If
there
is
anyone
wishing
to
provide
testimony
5
today,
again,
I
remind
you
of
the
tables
outside
the
assembly
6
room
to
sign
up.
If
you
have
a
written
statement
be
sure
to
7
give
20
copies
to
the
staff
at
that
table.

8
This
is
a
public
meeting,
number
98­
15­
2,
to
9
consider
a
request
for
a
public
hearing
to
review
the
10
decision
of
the
Executive
Officer
to
Order
the
Recall
of
11
Motor
Vehicles.

12
At
this
point
I
would
like
the
Senior
Staff
13
Counsel,
Robert
Jenne,
to
introduce
the
item,
after
which
we
14
will
first
hear
from
staff
and
then
Toyota.

15
MR.
JENNE:
Thank
you.

16
As
Chairman
Riordan
just
indicated,
I
am
a
lawyer
17
in
the
ARB,
Office
of
Legal
Affairs,
and
I
am
introducing
18
this
item
today
because
General
Counsel,
Kathleen
Walsh,
has
19
asked
to
me
to
act
as
a
legal
advisor
to
the
Board
for
this
20
Item
since
this
is
a
contested
matter
in
which
the
General
21
Counsel
is
representing
the
ARB
staff.

22
The
matter
involves
a
motor
vehicle
recall
order
23
issued
by
Executive
Officer
Michael
Kenny
on
September
2,

24
1998.
The
recall
order
directs
Toyota
Motor
Corporation
to
25
develop
a
recall
plan
for
a
number
of
engine
families
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
35
1
certified
by
Toyota
for
California
sale.

2
Under
ARB
regulations,
a
manufacturer
subject
to
a
3
recall
order
may
request
a
hearing
to
contest
the
Executive
4
Officer's
decision
to
issue
the
order.
Toyota
has
filed
a
5
petition
requesting
such
a
hearing.

6
Now,
under
the
Board's
judicatory
regulation,

7
Toyota
is
entitled
to
receive
a
hearing,
and
the
Board
has
8
three
options
for
how
the
hearing
will
be
conducted.

9
What
the
Board
will
consider
today
is
which
of
10
these
three
options
will
be
used
to
conduct
the
hearing.

11
It
is
my
understanding,
before
I
go
any
farther,

12
just
to
let
you
know,
is
that
during
the
last
several
days
13
Toyota
and
ARB
staff
had
a
number
of
discussions
about
the
14
hearing
procedures
and
have
reached
an
agreement
on
the
basic
15
outline
on
the
procedures
that
they
are
recommending
for
the
16
Board's
approval
today,
and
that
agreement
is
embodied
in
the
17
Resolution
Number
98­
81,
which
should
be
included
in
the
18
packet
that
you
have
in
front
of
you.

19
So,
to
go
over
the
three
options
that
the
Board
20
has,
the
hearing
to
be
conducted
as
the
first
option
is
that
21
the
full
Board
may
decide
to
hear
the
matter
itself.

22
The
second
option
is
for
the
Board
to
appoint
a
23
committee
no
fewer
than
two
Board
Members
to
hear
the
matter,

24
and
the
third
option
is
for
the
hearing
to
be
conducted
by
an
25
Administrative
Law
Judge,
or
ALJ,
from
the
Office
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
36
1
Administrative
Hearings,
in
the
Department
of
General
2
Services.

3
If
a
Committee
of
the
Board
or
an
ALJ
conducts
the
4
hearing,
the
Committee
or
ALJ
would
prepare
a
recommended
5
decision
for
consideration
by
the
full
Board.
The
full
Board
6
would
not
be
bound
to
accept
the
recommended
decision
and
7
would
retain
the
final
authority
to
make
whatever
decision
8
the
Board
believes
is
appropriate.

9
I
would
also
like
to
mention
that
under
ARB
10
regulations,
the
hearing
must
be
initiated
on
or
before
11
December
16,
1998,
but
the
Board
is
empowered
to
delay
the
12
hearing
date
if
necessary
to
obtain
the
services
of
an
ALJ.

13
My
understanding
is
that
both
Toyota
and
ARB
staff
14
believe
that
an
extension
is
appropriate
in
this
case.

15
So,
with
that
short
introduction,
ARB
staff
and
16
Toyota
would
now
like
to
address
the
Board
and
explain
their
17
recommendations.

18
ARB
staff's
position
will
be
presented
by
Mr.
Kirk
19
Oliver,
Senior
Staff
Counsel,
from
the
ARB
legal
office.

20
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Let
me
give
some
21
guidelines
to
both
staff
and
to
Toyota,
if
I
might.

22
In
thinking
about
what
was
a
reasonable
time
to
23
make
your
case,
and
I
think
I
am
going
to
ask
staff
to
stay
24
within
about
a
10
minute
presentation,
please.
I
hope
you
25
can
do
that,
and
Toyota
a
20­
minute
presentation
and
stay
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
37
1
within
those
guidelines,
because
we
could
probably
discuss
it
2
for
the
rest
of
the
day,
and
unfortunately,
we
just
cannot,

3
because
we
have
a
big
Agenda
to
follow.

4
So,
let
us
try
to
stay
in
those
guidelines,
and
I
5
will
kind
of
watch
the
time
for
you.

6
Thank
you.

7
MR.
OLIVER:
Thank
you,
Chairman
Riordan,
and
I
can
8
be
even
briefer
than
that.

9
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Well,
that
will
be
all
in
10
your
favor.

11
MR.
OLIVER:
The
way
this
case
got
here
was
through
12
an
ordered
recall
that
was
issued
in
September
to
Toyota.

13
Toyota
filed
a
petition
that
would
stay
the
recall,

14
and
we
responded
to
that
petition.
Now
the
time
has
come
to
15
decide
who
will
hear
the
case.

16
We,
in
discussions
with
Toyota,
have
reached
an
17
agreement
that
is
embodied
in
the
Resolution
that
is
there
18
before
you
that
the
most
efficient
way
to
hear
the
case
would
19
be
to
refer
it
to
an
Administrative
Law
Judge
in
the
Office
20
of
Administrative
Hearings.

21
That
Resolution
that
you
have
before
you
would
22
accomplish
that
referral.
It
would
also
make
the
finding
23
that
is
necessary
under
the
regulations
to
delay
the
hearing
24
date,
and
we
encourage
you
to
adopt
that
Resolution.

25
We
are
available
to
answer
any
other
questions
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
38
1
you
might
have,
but
again,
that
Resolution
is
something
that
2
we
have
reached
in
discussions
and
through
compromise
and
3
agreement
with
counsel
from
Toyota.

4
We
and
Toyota
believe
that
it
represents
the
best
5
way
to
go
to
handle
this
matter.

6
Thank
you.

7
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

8
I
will
now
call
on
representatives
from
Toyota.

9
Would
you
come
forward,
please,
and
give
us
your
name
for
the
10
record
and
your
representation,
whether
you
are
the
attorney
11
or
Toyota
or
whomever
you
are.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
EDGERTON:
Madam
Chairman,
just
a
13
point
of
information,
because
I
was
not
aware
of
what
you
all
14
agreed
on
yesterday,
is
it
correct
then
that
Toyota
is
15
withdrawing
its
request
to
us
to
order
the
Executive
Officer,

16
or
direct
the
Executive
Officer
to
withdraw
the
Recall
Order?

17
MR.
ISOKAWA:
Yes.

18
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

19
If
you
would
like
to
begin.

20
MR.
ISOKAWA:
Good
morning,
Madam
Chair
and
Members
21
of
the
Board.
My
name
is
Ned
Isokawa,
one
of
the
lawyers
22
representing
Toyota.

23
It
is
my
pleasure
to
appear
before
you
today.
I
24
will
get
right
to
it.

25
I
urge
the
Board
to
adopt
the
Resolution
that
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
39
1
before
you.
We
have
worked
it
out
in
a
series
of
meetings
2
with
Ms.
Walsh
and
Mr.
Oliver,
and
it
represents
the
views
of
3
Toyota
and
staff
in
how
best
to
accomplish
the
hearing
that
4
needs
to
be
held
in
this
matter.

5
I
want
to
make
a
few
comments
that
will
last
a
6
couple
of
minutes,
and
then
I
will
get
out
of
the
way
and
be
7
responsive
to
any
questions.

8
This
is
my
first
time
before
the
Air
Board,
and
one
9
of
the
things
that
I
always
do
if
I
have
the
time
is
to
10
appear
in
front
of
the
tribunal
to
get
a
feel
for
what
is
11
going
on.

12
So,
I
was
here
yesterday,
and
I
suspect
yesterday
13
was
a
rather
unusual
day,
but
it
struck
me
when
I
listened
to
14
those
standing
where
I
am
standing
stating
views
about
15
perspective
on
the
process
that
was
just
ending,
and
some
16
dissatisfaction
that
he
or
his
clients
may
or
may
not
have
17
had
with
it.

18
Toyota
and
I
do
not
want
to
be
in
that
position.
I
19
do
not
want
to
be
in
front
of
you
ever
with
that
kind
of
20
message
to
you.
I
am
pledging
to
you
on
behalf
of
my
client
21
and
my
own
personal
behalf
that
I
will
work
with
staff
in
a
22
way
to
achieve
a
compromise
here
on
any
kind
of
procedural
23
matters,
on
process
questions
so
that
we
get
what
we
all
want
24
here,
which
is
a
fair
and
impartial
hearing
and
a
just
one
25
with
a
just
result.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
40
1
With
that,
I
wanted
you
to
hear
that
from
me
2
because
I
do
not
want
to
have
to
make
the
speech
like
was
3
made
here
yesterday.
I
have
no
expectation
I
am
going
to
4
have
to
do
that,
but
I
want
you
to
have
my
assurance,
and
5
that
is
our
view
point
that
we
are
approaching
this
process
6
which,
after
all,
is
just
starting,
and
we
have
the
ability
7
to
control
it
and
do
it
right.

8
That
is
what
we
want
to
do.

9
Now,
before
I
step
aside
here,
I
would
like
to
10
introduce
Mr.
Charles
Lockwood,
who
is
from
the
association
11
of
International
Automobile
Manufacturers,
and
after
he
has
a
12
few
words,
I
have
one
following
brief
comment
that
takes
13
about
10
seconds,
and
I
am
also
available
to
answer
and
14
respond
to
any
inquiries
from
the
Board.

15
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

16
We
will
hold
then
any
inquiry
until
after
Mr.

17
Lockwood
speaks.

18
Mr.
Lockwood,
would
you
identify
yourself
for
the
19
record,
please.

20
MR.
LOCKWOOD:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Charles
21
Lockwood.

22
I
am
the
Vice
President,
General
Counsel,
of
the
23
Association
of
International
Automobile
Manufacturers,
and
as
24
an
aside,
I
might
tell
you
that
the
first
time
I
appeared
25
before
this
Board,
Dr.
Hockenschmidt
was
the
Chair.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
41
1
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
That
was
sometime
back,

2
right,
how
many
years
ago?

3
MR.
LOCKWOOD:
That
was
more
than
25.
That
is
all
4
I
will
say.

5
AIAM,
of
course,
supports
the
Resolution
before
6
you.
We
have
filed
this
morning
with
staff
the
notice
of
the
7
intent
of
the
Association
to
participate
in
the
hearing.

8
We
find
that
there
are
a
couple
of
issues
that
may
9
have
potential
implications
for
all
of
the
automobile
10
industry
that
were
raised
in
the
recall
notice,
particularly
11
issues
about
the
notice
of
the
test
procedures
involved
and
12
secondly
regarding
the
meaning
of
the
term
defeat
device.

13
We
plan
to
cooperate
fully
with
the
staff
in
the
14
development
and
process
of
the
hearing
and,
of
course,
will
15
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.

16
Thank
you.

17
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

18
Are
there
any
questions
for
Mr.
Lockwood?

19
Seeing
none,
then
please
come
back
and
make
your
20
final
statement.

21
MR.
ISOKAWA:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chair.

22
I
just
wanted
to
inform
the
Board
that
I
learned
23
yesterday
that
today
the
Board
will
receive
a
notice
of
24
intent
to
participate
in
the
public
hearing
from
General
25
Motors
Corporation
and
Daimler
Chrysler
Corporation,
and
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
42
1
believe
that
their
grounds
for
being
interested
in
2
participating
are
parallel
to
those
just
expressed
to
you
by
3
Mr.
Lockwood,
and
that
is
end
of
what
I
wanted
to
say,
Madam
4
Chair.

5
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Fine.
I
appreciate
the
6
brevity.

7
Let
me
ask
if
there
are
any
questions
of
the
Board
8
for
the
speaker?

9
Yes,
Ms.
Edgerton.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
EDGERTON:
Are
you
saying
then
that
11
you
agree
to
the
participation
of
General
Motors
and
Daimler
12
Chrysler?

13
MR.
KENNY:
Yes,
we
do.

14
I
think
that
is
an
issue
that
we
basically
want
to
15
raise
in
the
context
of
the
Administrative
Law
tribunal,
and
16
essentially
look
at
all
the
issues
that
are
surrounding
them.

17
We
are
not
prepared,
I
think,
today
to
respond
to
18
them.

19
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

20
Mr.
Dunlap.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
I
know
this
is
a
different
22
kind
of
discussion
here,
but
from
where
I
sit,
it
seems
to
me
23
I
would
want
to
limit
the
discussion
so
we
could
do
an
24
effective
job
on
the
facts
rather
than
bringing
in
a
lot
of
25
other
parties.
It
seems
to
me
just,
that
is
my
gut
instinct,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
43
1
so
I
appreciate
you
kind
of
asking
that,
but
I
did
not
come
2
away
with
any
kind
of
a
feeling
or
answer,
not
having
gone
3
through
this
process,
I
do
not
think
I
would
be
willing
to
4
bring
other
people
into
this.

5
If
it
is
appropriate,
I
will
ask
you,
sir,
why
6
would
we
want
to
have
other
automobile
companies
sitting
in
7
on
this
process
as
it
involves
you
pretty
much
exclusively?

8
MR.
ISOKAWA:
It
is
our
view,
and
I
think
the
view
9
of
the
other
manufacturers
who
want
to
intervene,
under
the
10
regulations
that
prevent
such
intervention
or
participation
11
in
the
hearing
that
the
issues
as
we
see
them
framed
right
12
now.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Are
broader
industry
14
implications?

15
MR.
ISOKAWA:
Yes.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Okay.

17
But
wouldn't
it
have
the
ability
to
lengthen
the
18
discussion
and
make
it
perhaps
a
little
bit
more
involved
19
than
it
might
need
to
be?

20
Plus,
you
guys,
I
know
are
very
competitive
people,

21
generally
right?
You
do
not
like
people
looking
into
your
22
business.

23
I
am
a
simple
man
here.
Maybe
I
am
missing
24
something.
But
if
you
would
illuminate
that,
I
would
be
25
grateful.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
44
1
MR.
ISOKAWA:
We
are
competitive
and
we
do
have
2
some
similar
interests,
though
in
the
issues
that
are
framed
3
by
this
recall
order,
and
you
are
obviously
right,
it
does
4
have
the
potential
to
lengthen
the
process
out
and
make
it
5
more
cumbersome
and
cumulative,
but
that
is
one
of
the
6
reasons
why
we
want
to
make
sure
to
work
with
staff
and
with
7
the
ALJ,
or
should
you
decide
to
adopt
the
Resolution
to
make
8
sure
that
we
are
not
reinventing
the
wheel
time
and
time
9
again.

10
You
have
our
assurance
that
we
will
be
working
11
towards
that,
so
there
is
not
any
kind
of
cumulative
kind
of
12
effort
made
that
lengthens
up
the
process
unnecessarily.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Well,
one
of
the
ways
to
do
14
that
would
be
to
hire
very
expensive
outside
counsel
so
that
15
the
meter
is
running,
and
the
longer
it
goes
it
is
really
16
painful
for
you,
that
is
the
way
to
keep
everybody
on
point,

17
I
guess.

18
Okay.
I
at
least
have
a
better
understanding.

19
Thank
you.

20
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Ms.
Edgerton.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
EDGERTON:
I
think
this
is
my
last
22
comment.

23
I
am
comfortable
with
the
Resolution,
and
I
24
appreciate
very
much
your
working
hard
on
it
and
coming
to
a
25
agreement
on
that.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
45
1
I
think
it
was
wise.
It
was
unlikely
that
we
have
2
altered
in
any
way
the
action
of
the
Executive
Officer.
I
3
have
reviewed
it
carefully,
the
direction
is
very
clear
and
I
4
am
convinced
that
the
authority
is
there
for
the
recall,
and
5
my
comment
would
be
merely
that
is
probably,
Mr.
Dunlap,
what
6
everyone
will
be
discussing,
whether
the
authority
exists
in
7
the
ARB
to
recall.

8
I
would
say
that
what
I
have
seen
as
a
matter
of
9
fact
is
that
there
has
perhaps
been
assumption
that
civil
10
penalties
were
all
that
was
at
risk
for
some
of
the
car
11
companies,
and
most
certainly
the
diesel
settlement
that
we
12
saw
at
the
national
level
did
not
include
a
recall.

13
So,
I
can
see
why
there
is
consternation
in
the
14
industry.
However,
in
the
standpoint
of
air
agencies
charged
15
with
the
responsibility
of
implementing
the
Clean
Air
Act
at
16
some
point,
the
point
has
to
strengthen,
and
it
does
have
to
17
be
clear
that
there
is
going
to
be
recall
in
important
cases.

18
Now,
if
the
recall
is
for
some
reason
the
court
19
does
not
agree
that
we
have
the
authority
to
recall,
I
would
20
caution
you
all
that
it
is
quite
likely
in
California
that
21
would
be
corrected
in
legislation
subsequent
thereto.

22
So,
I
make
these
comments
because
I
am
impressed
23
with
your
collaborative
effort
and
spirit
and
long
range
24
trying
to
make
sure
everything
works,
and
you
may
want
to
25
take
that
into
account.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
46
1
Thank
you.

2
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Ms.
Edgerton.

3
Any
other
questions?

4
Ms.
Rakow.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
RAKOW:
Just
a
quick
question
for
our
6
legal
advisor.

7
Could
you
just
explain
to
me
the
role
of
8
interveners?
Is
it
allowed
under
the
law
that
anyone
can
9
intervene
in
the
case
of
the
agency?

10
MR.
JENNE:
I
am
glad
that
you
asked
that.
I
was
11
just
going
to
comment
on
that.

12
We
have
specific
regulations
that
say
how
the
13
process
is
supposed
to
go,
and
there
is
a
particular
14
provision
that
allows
interested
parties
if
they
choose
to
15
participate
in
the
hearing
and
what
they
think
is
16
appropriate,
it
is
also
to
make
sure
that
the
process
does
17
not
get
out
of
hand.

18
It
allows
the
ALJ
or
whoever
would
be
hearing
the
19
case
to
impose
reasonable
limitations
on
what
the
intervening
20
parties
may
say.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
RAKOW:
That
has
been
my
past
22
experience,
and
I
just
wondered
if
it
was
true
in
this
case.

23
MR.
JENNE:
Yes,
it
is.

24
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

25
I
am
glad
that
you
worked
out
the
procedure
that
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
47
1
think
is
a
very
good
beginning.

2
MR.
ISOKAWA:
I
think
it
is
the
first
step
of
many,

3
Madam
Chair.

4
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Good.

5
I
will
entertain
a
motion.

6
Yes,
Supervisor
Roberts.

7
MS.
HUTCHENS:
Madam
Chairman,
you
have
a
witness.

8
You
have
one
witness.

9
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
No.
Mr.
Lockwood
testified.

10
Thank
you
very
much.

11
Supervisor
Roberts.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Before
I
do
so,
and
just
so
13
I
am
sure
that
I
am
not
causing
any
problems,
but
before
I
14
leave,
being
a
very
satisfied
owner
and
driver
of
a
Toyota,

15
of
which
I
am
still
making
payments
on
that,
that
does
not
16
disqualify
me
in
any
way,
does
it,
Kathleen?

17
MS.
WALSH:
We
certainly
have
no
objections.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Then
I
move
Resolution
19
98­
15­
2
(
sic).

20
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
And
there
is
a
second
by
21
Supervisor
Patrick.

22
MR.
JENNE:
There
is
a
clarification.

23
I
believe
it
is
Resolution
98­
78,
just
for
24
clarification.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Sorry.
Let
us
try
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
48
1
again.

2
Resolution
98­
81
is
the
correct
number.

3
Excuse
me.
It
is
Agenda
Item
98­
15­
2,
on
4
Resolution
98­
81.

5
Excuse
me.

6
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
That
is
not
a
problem
because
7
I
did
not
even
catch
it.

8
Thank
you
very
much.

9
Any
further
discussion
on
this
motion?

10
I
will
take
a
voice
vote.

11
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
signify
by
saying
12
aye.

13
Opposed,
no.

14
The
motion
is
carried.

15
I
want
to
thank
everybody
for
working
together
on
16
this.
Thank
you.

17
We
will
take
just
a
brief
break,
I
think,
while
we
18
allow
staff
to
change,
and
why
don't
we
take
about
a
19
five­
minute
break.

20
(
Thereupon
a
brief
recess
was
taken.)

21
22
23
24
25
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
49
1
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Let
me
invite
my
colleagues
2
back
to
the
dais.

3
MS.
EDGERTON:
Chairwoman
Riordan,
while
people
4
are
taking
their
seats,
I
wanted
to
make
just
one
comment.

5
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Wait
until
they
sit
down.

6
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
if
I
could
have
your
7
attention,
please,
I
would
like
to
go
back
to
the
agenda.
I
8
have
a
desire
to
make
this
be
an
efficient
day.

9
Ms.
Edgerton,
you
had
a
comment.

10
MS.
EDGERTON:
Yes.
Chairwoman
Riordan,
I'd
like
11
to
­­
I
meant
to
do
this
at
the
first
of
the
day,
but
you
12
got
the
meeting
started
so
quickly
that
I
didn't
have
a
13
chance
to.

14
I
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
you
for
15
your
excellent
management
of
the
meeting
yesterday
and
of
16
last
month,
and
tell
you
how
pleased
I've
been
with
your
17
handling
of
it,
acting
chairwoman,
and
it's
been
a
real
18
privilege.
And
good
luck
with
the
rest
of
the
day.

19
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

20
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Big
improvement
over
the
21
previous.

22
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
For
the
audience
who
may
not
23
realize,
this
is
the
chairman.
I'm
but
his
assistant.

24
MR.
DUNLAP:
That
is
not
true.

25
By
the
way,
I
want
to
correct
Lynn.
She
is
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
50
1
chairman.
The
Governor
appointed
her.
She
is
the
one.
So
2
there's
no
acting
about
it.

3
MS.
EDGERTON:
What
did
I
say?

4
MR.
DUNLAP:
She's
been
keeping
me
hopping,
asking
5
me
to
work
on
this
or
that.
I
assure
you,
she's
got
the
6
reins.

7
Yes,
it
is
an
improvement.

8
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

9
And
I
have
a
good
group
of
people
working
with
me.

10
Yesterday
was
just
a
marathon
is
what
it
was
and
11
if
you
can
survive
that,
I
guess
we
can
survive
it
all.

12
This
is
agenda
Item
98­
15­
3.

13
I'd
like
to
remind
you
in
the
audience
that
the
14
sign­
up
table
is
outside
the
assembly
room,
for
those
who
15
wish
to
testify.

16
And
this
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
a
17
proposed
determination
pursuant
to
Health
and
Safety
Code
18
section
4383(
g)
of
the
comparative
ozone­
forming
potential
19
of
elevated
RVP
gasoline
containing
ten
volume
percent
20
ethanol.

21
At
this
point
I'd
like
to
ask
Mr.
Kenny
to
22
introduce
the
item
and
begin
the
staff's
presentation.

23
Mr.
Kenny.

24
MR.
KENNY:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chairman
and
members
25
of
the
Board.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
51
1
Last
August,
staff
presented
to
the
Board
a
2
proposal
to
raise
the
oxygen
cap
to
three
and
a
half
percent
3
by
weight
to
increase
the
flexibility
of
refiners
in
meeting
4
the
gasoline
requirements
in
California.

5
Raising
the
oxygen
cap
would
allow
the
use
of
ten
6
volume
percent
ethanol
in
gasoline.

7
The
Board
expressed
concerns
regarding
the
8
potential
impacts
of
raising
the
oxygen
cap,
given
that
a
9
finding
on
the
ozone­
forming
potential
had
not
yet
been
10
made.

11
Thus,
the
Board
delayed
action
on
the
oxygen
cap
12
until
a
finding
on
ozone­
forming
potential
could
be
13
considered.

14
Today
we
are
presenting
to
you
a
staff
15
recommendation
on
a
finding
pursuant
to
Health
and
Safety
16
Code
section
43830,
subparagraph
G,
on
the
ozone­
forming
17
potential
of
elevated
RVP
gasoline
containing
ten
percent
18
ethanol.

19
Health
and
Safety
Code
Section
43830,
subparagraph
20
G,
enacted
in
1991
exempts
gasoline
blends
containing
ten
21
volume
percent
ethanol
from
the
RVP
standard.

22
This
exemption
is
eliminated
if
the
ARB
determines
23
on
the
basis
of
independently
verifiable
automobile
exhaust
24
and
evaporative
emission
tests
performed
on
a
representative
25
fleet
of
automobiles
that
the
ethanol
blend
would
result
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
52
1
a
net
increase
in
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
the
total
2
emissions,
excluding
the
emissions
of
oxides
and
of
3
nitrogen,
when
compared
to
the
total
emissions,
excluding
4
emissions
of
oxides
and
nitrogen
from
the
same
automobile
5
fleet
using
gasoline
that
meets
all
applicable
6
specifications
for
Phase
2
reformulated
gasoline
established
7
by
this
Board.

8
That's
the
longest
sentence
I
think
I've
ever
9
read.

10
Accordingly,
staff
has
evaluated
the
ozone­
forming
11
potential
of
ethanol
gasoline
and
will
be
presenting
their
12
recommendation
regarding
the
Health
and
Safety
Code
13
provision
for
your
consideration.

14
Staff's
recommendation
is
based
on
the
results
of
15
an
extensive
12­
vehicle
test
program
conducted
by
the
ARB
in
16
consultation
with
an
ethanol
work
group
composed
of
17
representatives
of
the
ethanol
industry,
the
automobile
18
industry,
the
oil
refining
industry,
the
US
EPA,
ARB
staff
19
and
other
interested
parties.

20
This
program
cost
over
a
million
dollars
in
21
equipment
and
resources.

22
In
addition,
the
staff
also
reviewed
other
test
23
programs.
The
findings
from
these
test
programs
support
the
24
findings
from
our
own
test
program.

25
At
this
time,
I'd
like
to
introduce
Mr.
Jose
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
53
1
Gomez,
who
will
give
the
staff's
presentation.

2
MR.
GOMEZ:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Kenny.

3
Good
morning,
Madam
Chairman
and
members
of
the
4
Board.

5
Today
I
will
present
to
you
the
staff's
6
recommendation
on
the
finding
of
the
ozone­
forming
potential
7
of
gasoline
containing
ten
percent
ethanol
and
having
a
one
8
psi
increase
in
Reid
Vapor
Pressure,
or
RVP,
compared
to
a
9
fully­
complying
gasoline.

10
I
will
provide
a
brief
summary
of
the
events
11
leading
up
to
this
regulation.

12
I
will
describe
the
current
regulatory
13
requirements
for
Reid
Vapor
Pressure
and
oxygen
in
gasoline.

14
I
will
discuss
our
evaluation
of
the
ARB
test
15
program
data
and
summarize
other
supporting
evidence
on
the
16
effects
of
RVP
and
oxygen
on
exhaust
and
evaporative
17
emissions.

18
I
will
briefly
outline
the
key
issues
considered
19
during
the
evaluation
process.

20
And
I
will
present
staff's
recommendation
on
the
21
proposed
finding
of
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
gasoline
22
with
ten
percent
ethanol
having
a
one
psi
RVP
increase.

23
Last
spring
the
staff,
at
the
request
of
the
24
gasoline
refining
industry,
began
assessing
ways
to
provide
25
additional
compliance
flexibility
in
the
reformulated
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
54
1
gasoline
program.

2
As
part
of
that
assessment,
we
considered
several
3
options,
including
adding
an
evaporative
model,
adjusting
4
some
of
the
cap
limits,
including
raising
the
oxygen
cap,

5
updating
the
exhaust
predictive
model,
and
eliminating
the
6
wintertime
oxygen
requirements
in
the
areas
that
have
7
attained
the
federal
CO
standard.

8
Last
August
the
staff
presented
for
your
9
consideration
two
proposals.
One,
to
remove
the
minimum
10
oxygen
content
requirement
in
areas
that
have
attained
the
11
federal
CO
standard.
The
second
proposal
was
to
raise
the
12
oxygen
content
cap
to
3.5
weight
percent.

13
The
other
flexibility
options
considered
were
14
delayed
until
technical
issues
can
be
resolved.

15
At
the
August
Board
hearing,
the
Board
approved
16
the
proposal
to
remove
the
minimum
wintertime
oxygen
content
17
requirement
in
areas
that
are
in
attainment
for
the
federal
18
CO
standard.

19
However,
the
Board
delayed
raising
the
oxygen
cap
20
until
they
consider
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
gasoline
21
containing
3.5
weight
percent
oxygen,
or
more
specifically
22
ten
volume
percent
ethanol
with
a
one
psi
RVP
increase.

23
On
the
Board's
direction,
we
evaluated
the
24
ozone­
forming
potential
of
gasoline
with
ten
volume
percent
25
ethanol
and
having
the
one
psi
RVP
increase
and
will
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
55
1
presenting
our
recommendation
to
you
today.

2
Now
I
will
provide
a
brief
summary
of
the
3
regulatory
requirements
for
RVP
oxygen
in
gasoline.

4
The
Board
has
a
long
history
of
regulating
5
gasoline
properties
that
are
released
through
vehicle
6
emissions.
Regulation
of
gasoline
properties
began
in
1971
7
when
the
volatility,
or
RVP,
of
the
gasoline
was
limited
to
8
nine
pounds
per
square
inch
during
the
summer
months.

9
Controlling
gasoline
volatility
is
critical
to
reducing
10
evaporative
emissions
from
gasoline
used
in
vehicles,
as
11
well
as
the
gasoline
distribution
system.

12
Over
the
years
the
Board
has
continued
to
lower
13
the
volatility
of
gasoline.

14
In
1971
the
Board
limited
the
RVP
to
nine
psi,

15
which
resulted
in
a
730
ton
per
day
reduction
in
evaporative
16
hydrocarbon
emissions
from
motor
vehicles
and
the
17
distribution
and
marketing
of
gasoline.

18
In
1992
the
Board
lowered
the
RVP
limit
to
7.8
19
psi,
which
reduced
the
VOC
emissions
by
another
220
tons
per
20
day.

21
The
Board
lowered
the
RVP
limit
further
to
7.0
psi
22
in
1996
as
part
of
the
cleaner­
burning
gasoline
regulations,

23
which
achieved
an
additional
110
tons
per
day
of
VOC
24
emissions.
The
110
tons
per
day
reduction
in
evaporative
25
VOC
emissions
accounts
for
about
60
percent
of
the
VOC
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
56
1
benefits
gained
from
the
cleaner­
burning
gasoline
program.

2
As
you
can
see,
controlling
gasoline
volatility
3
has
been
a
major
component
of
our
emission
control
program.

4
It
has
resulted
in
a
total
reduction
of
over
a
thousand
tons
5
per
day
of
VOCs
from
motor
vehicles
and
the
storage
and
6
distribution
of
gasoline.

7
While
evaporative
emissions
have
been
greatly
8
reduced,
they
continue
to
significantly
contribute
to
the
9
total
emissions
from
gasoline
motor
vehicles.
This
graph
10
shows
the
projected
contribution
of
evaporative
emissions
to
11
the
total
gasoline
motor
vehicle
inventory.
The
relative
12
contribution
of
the
evaporative
emissions
to
the
total
13
increases
from
the
current
30
percent
to
about
35
percent
by
14
2005.

15
The
California
reformulated
gasoline
regulations
16
set
limits
on
other
properties
besides
RVP.
Depending
on
17
the
compliance
option
used,
most
properties
can
vary
up
to
18
the
cap
limits.
However,
the
RVP
level
was
fixed
because
of
19
its
importance
to
evaporative
emissions.
Development
of
an
20
evaporative
model
will
be
necessary
before
RVP
is
allowed
to
21
vary.

22
One
of
the
other
properties
regulated
under
the
23
California
reformulated
gasoline
program
is
oxygen.
The
24
plan
for
oxygen
content
is
1.8
to
2.2.
However,
refiners
25
can
certify
alternative
gasoline
formulations
with
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
57
1
oxygen
content
from
zero
to
2.7
weight
percent
through
the
2
use
of
the
predictive
model.

3
Ethanol,
as
well
as
other
oxygenates,
can
be
used
4
to
meet
the
oxygen
content
requirement,
but
because
the
5
current
oxygen
content
cap
precludes
the
use
of
ten
percent
6
ethanol,
ethanol
blends
do
not
qualify
for
an
RVP
exemption.

7
Adding
ethanol
to
gasoline
will
increase
the
8
volatility
of
the
resulting
gasoline
blends.
As
can
be
seen
9
here,
blending
ten
percent
ethanol
will
increase
the
Reid
10
vapor
pressure
of
the
resulting
gasoline
blend
by
11
approximately
one
pound
per
square
inch.
This
impact
on
12
volatility
has
emissions
implications.
It
also
presents
13
practical
challenges
to
the
use
of
ethanol
gasoline.

14
Prior
to
the
introduction
of
the
federal
15
reformulated
gasoline
program
in
1995
and
our
reformulated
16
gasoline
requirements
in
1996,
ethanol
had
been
used
17
primarily
to
improve
the
octane
of
gasoline
and
to
reduce
CO
18
emissions.

19
However,
since
the
reformulated
gasoline
programs
20
were
implemented,
most
refiners
have
chosen
not
to
use
21
ethanol
to
meet
the
oxygen
content
requirements.

22
Historically
about
five
to
ten
percent
of
the
California
23
gasoline
had
been
blended
with
ethanol.

24
Recently,
some
refiners
have
started
to
use
some
25
ethanol
in
producing
cleaner­
burning
gasoline.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
58
1
Historically,
the
Legislature
provided
an
RVP
2
exemption
to
gasoline
blends
that
contained
ten
percent
3
ethanol.
The
initial
exemption
was
enacted
into
law
in
1981
4
and
renewed
in
1986
and
again
in
1988.

5
The
current
exemption
was
codified
into
law
in
6
1991.
This
exemption
is
conditioned
on
the
ethanol
blends
7
having
equal
or
lower
ozone­
forming
potential
than
the
8
fully­
complying
gasoline.

9
State
law
requires
that
gasoline
that
contains
ten
10
percent
ethanol
be
exempt
from
the
Board's
RVP
limit
unless
11
the
Board
determines
that
ozone­
forming
potential
of
the
12
total
emissions
excluding
oxides
of
nitrogen
will
increase
13
compared
to
complying
gasoline.

14
Last
August
the
Board
delayed
raising
the
oxygen
15
cap
to
3.5
weight
percent,
which
would
have
allowed
the
use
16
of
ten
volume
percent
ethanol.
The
Board
was
concerned
that
17
without
the
Board's
finding
on
the
ozone­
forming
potential,

18
the
RVP
of
ten
volume
percent
ethanol
blends
would
increase,

19
which
would
result
in
increased
emissions.

20
The
state
law
requires
that
the
finding
on
the
21
ozone­
forming
potential
be
made
based
on
independently
22
verifiable
data
from
a
representative
fleet
of
vehicles.

23
It
further
requires
that
the
comparison
be
based
24
on
the
total
emissions
of
each
fuel,
excluding
NOx,
tested
25
on
the
same
representative
fleet.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
59
1
Now
I
will
describe
our
evaluation
of
the
2
ozone­
forming
potential
of
gasoline
containing
ten
percent
3
ethanol
with
one
psi
RVP
increase
compared
to
complying
4
gasoline.

5
We
relied
on
the
recently­
completed
ARB
test
6
program
designed
to
meet
the
criteria
of
state
law
to
7
conduct
our
assessment
of
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
8
gasoline
containing
ten
percent
ethanol
with
a
one
psi
9
average
increase.

10
We
also
reviewed
other
studies
such
as
those
11
conducted
by
Auto/
Oil
and
other
evaluations
of
the
data,

12
such
as
the
US
EPA
complex
model.

13
I
will
now
describe
the
ARB
test
program,
discuss
14
our
analysis
of
the
data
and
present
the
results
of
our
15
evaluation.

16
In
late
1995
we
established
a
work
group
to
help
17
us
define
the
scope
of
the
test
program.
Participants
in
18
the
work
group
include
the
ethanol
industry,
the
oil
19
refining
industry,
the
automotive
industry,
the
US
EPA
and
20
other
interested
parties.

21
We
held
numerous
meetings
during
the
test
program
22
development
and
consulted
with
the
work
group
or
its
23
technical
subcommittee
during
the
duration
of
the
program.

24
The
ARB
expended
more
than
$
1
million
in
funds
and
25
resources
on
this
program.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
60
1
The
test
program
provided
for
testing
to
occur
in
2
two
phases.
Phase
1
involved
testing
12
vehicles
for
3
exhaust
emissions
and
six
for
evaporative
emissions.
The
4
testing
was
deemed
necessary
and
the
Phase
1
data
would
5
allow
refinement,
if
appropriate,
of
the
test
protocol
for
6
Phase
2.

7
The
test
gasoline
blends
were
made
from
the
same
8
base
gasoline.
The
complying
fuel
was
oxygenated
with
11
9
volume
percent
MTBE,
and
had
a
target
RVP
of
seven
psi.
The
10
ethanol
blend
was
oxygenated
with
ten
percent
ethanol,

11
resulting
in
an
RVP
eight
psi.

12
We
tested
12
1990
through
1995
model
year
vehicles
13
for
exhaust
emissions.
Six
of
these
vehicles
were
also
14
tested
for
evaporative
emissions.

15
All
test
samples
collected
were
speciated
to
allow
16
determination
of
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
the
17
emissions.

18
This
test
program
is
one
of
the
largest
single
19
data
sets
on
speciated
hydrocarbon
emissions
of
gasoline
20
containing
ten
percent
ethanol
and
having
a
one
psi
RVP
21
increase
collected
to
date.

22
The
test
vehicles
represent
the
types
of
vehicles
23
most
operated
in
California.
These
vehicles
represent
70
24
percent
of
the
vehicle
miles
traveled.
All
the
vehicles
25
tested
have
three­
way
catalyst
and
fuel
injection.
These
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
61
1
control
technologies
were
introduced
in
1981
and
used
in
2
virtually
all
1996
and
newer
model
year
vehicles.

3
The
test
vehicles
represent
normal
and
moderate
4
emitting
vehicles
from
1986
and
newer
model
year.
These
5
vehicles
account
for
about
32
percent
of
the
reactive
6
organic
gas
emissions,
42
percent
of
the
CO
emissions
and
48
7
percent
of
the
NOx
emissions
in
the
light­
duty
motor
vehicle
8
emissions
inventory.

9
We
measured
exhaust
emissions
using
two
test
10
procedures,
the
federal
test
procedure
representing
normal
11
driving
conditions,
and
a
test
procedure
representing
more
12
severe
driving
conditions
for
off­
cycle
emissions,
referred
13
to
here
as
the
REP05
test
procedure.

14
We
also
measured
evaporative
emissions
for
two
of
15
the
three
evaporative
modes,
hot
soak
and
diurnal.
Running
16
loss
tests
were
not
performed
because
the
test
facility
was
17
unavailable
at
the
time.

18
Running
loss
emissions
were
calculated
using
an
19
ARB
draft
evaporative
model,
which
is
based
on
the
US
EPA
20
complex
model.

21
The
test
procedures
are
standardized
efforts
to
22
represent
different
elements
of
the
real
world
conditions
23
motor
vehicles
encounter.

24
To
evaluate
the
ozone
emissions
impact
of
these
25
fuels,
the
individual
test
modes
must
be
combined.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
62
1
As
mentioned,
the
FTP
represents
normal
driving
2
and
the
REP05
severe
driving.
We
combined
them
in
3
proportion
to
their
driving
activity.

4
We
also
combined
the
exhaust
and
evaporative
5
emission
differences
between
the
two
fuels
using
the
6
inventory.

7
Throughout
the
test
program
we
kept
the
work
group
8
informed
of
our
progress
and
provided
the
preliminary
data
9
as
it
became
available.

10
The
final
data
set
was
released
last
May.
We
11
analyzed
the
data
and
shared
the
results
of
our
analysis
12
with
the
work
group
in
July
and
again
in
October.

13
We
also
held
a
workshop
on
the
ozone­
forming
14
potential
determination
in
October.

15
We
received
suggestions
from
some
of
the
work
16
group
stakeholders.

17
We
also
received
comments
from
other
18
representatives
of
the
ethanol
industry.

19
We
considered
all
comments
and
input
provided
and
20
published
the
final
report
in
November.

21
I
will
now
summarize
the
results
of
our
analysis
22
of
the
test
data.

23
This
table
summarizes
key
results
from
the
test
24
program
for
the
exhaust
and
evaporative
mass
emissions.
As
25
expected,
the
ten
percent
ethanol
gasoline
with
the
one
psi
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
63
1
RVP
increase
had
lower
CO
emissions
compared
to
the
combined
2
gasoline.

3
It
also
had
slightly
lower
exhaust
potency
weight
4
of
toxics.
However,
it
had
increased
exhaust
NMOG
and
NOx
5
emissions
compared
to
the
complying
gasoline.

6
With
respect
to
evaporative
emissions,
as
expected
7
the
one
psi
higher
RVP
of
the
ten
percent
ethanol
blend
8
resulted
in
large
increases
in
evaporative
mass
emissions
of
9
NMOG
and
potency
weighted
toxics.

10
The
percent
changes
for
evaporative
emissions
11
shown
here
include
the
calculated
emissions
for
running
12
losses.

13
This
table
shows
the
results
for
combined
exhaust
14
and
evaporative
emissions,
including
the
calculated
running
15
loss
emissions
difference.

16
The
combined
emissions
increased
for
all
17
pollutants
except
for
CO.

18
The
ozone­
forming
potential
of
the
total
19
emissions,
excluding
oxides
of
nitrogen,
increased
by
17
20
percent.

21
This
increase
incorporates
the
benefits
to
the
22
ozone­
forming
potential
from
the
lower
CO
emissions
of
the
23
ten
percent
ethanol
blend.

24
As
shown
in
the
column
labeled
likelihood,
our
25
statistical
evaluation
provides
a
high
level
of
confidence
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
64
1
that
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
the
ten
percent
ethanol
2
blend
with
one
psi
higher
RVP
is
greater
than
that
of
the
3
complying
gasoline.

4
As
a
sensitivity
check
we
also
calculated
the
5
ozone­
forming
potential
assuming
there
is
no
difference
in
6
running
loss
emissions
between
the
two
test
fuels.

7
We
note
that
this
is
an
unrealistic
assumption
8
because
loss
emissions
will
increase
with
increased
RVP.

9
In
this
case
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
the
10
total
emissions,
excluding
NOx,
but
including
CO,
increased
11
by
six
percent
for
the
ten
percent
ethanol
gasoline
with
a
12
one
psi
RVP
increase,
compared
to
the
complying
gasoline.

13
Again,
our
statistical
evaluation
shows
that
there
14
is
a
96
percent
likelihood
that
the
observed
results
are
15
directionally
correct.

16
Based
on
the
results
of
this
test
program,
we
17
conclude
that
ten
percent
ethanol
gasoline
for
the
one
psi
18
RVP
increase
results
in
higher
ozone­
forming
potential
than
19
complying
gasoline.

20
To
further
evaluate
the
impacts
of
our
RVP
in
21
oxygen
on
emissions
we
reviewed
the
existing
database,

22
including
the
studies
shown
here.
I
will
now
briefly
23
describe
these
studies
and
summarize
the
general
findings
of
24
our
review
of
the
existing
data.

25
Of
the
studies
reviewed,
the
Auto/
Oil
program
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
65
1
the
most
extensive
research
effort
looking
at
the
effects
of
2
fuel
properties
on
motor
vehicle
emissions.

3
This
was
a
multiyear
$
40
million
effort
that
4
evaluated
multiple
fuel
properties
in
two
vehicle
fleets,
an
5
older
fleet
and
a
current
fleet.

6
The
older
vehicles
were
pre­
1995
model
year.
The
7
current
technology
vehicles,
similar
to
those
in
our
test
8
program,
represent
1998
technology.

9
Each
vehicle
test
fleet
consisted
of
roughly
20
10
vehicles.

11
Auto/
Oil
also
conducted
an
evaluation
of
the
fuel
12
effects
on
high­
emitter
vehicles.

13
Automotive
Testing
Laboratories
conducted
two
test
14
programs
for
the
ARB
looking
at
the
effect
of
oxygen
on
RVP
15
and
emissions.
These
studies
used
the
fleet
of
vehicles
16
ranging
from
1973
to
1991
model
year.

17
The
American
Petroleum
Institute
study
consisted
18
of
11
vehicles
tested
on
several
fuels,
including
four
that
19
vary
RVP
and
oxygen.
The
vehicles
tested
in
this
study
were
20
1981
to
1989
model
years.

21
Our
evaluation
of
the
substantial
database
on
the
22
effects
of
RVP
on
emissions
shows
that
increasing
RVP
only
23
by
one
psi
will
result
in
large
increases
in
evaporative
gas
24
emission.

25
Also
the
data
show
that
increasing
RVP
has
a
small
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
66
1
effect
on
exhaust
hydrocarbon,
CO
and
NOx
emissions.

2
These
data
also
show
that
adding
oxygen
only
3
improves
combustion
and
primarily
reduce
CO
emissions.

4
The
data
also
show
that
adding
oxygen
increases
5
NOx
emissions
and
has
a
small
effect
in
reducing
exhaust
6
hydrocarbon
emissions.

7
The
effect
of
oxygen
appears
to
be
less
pronounced
8
in
new
technology
vehicles
such
as
low­
emission
vehicles
and
9
ultra
low­
emission
vehicles.

10
The
data
review
also
provide
information
on
the
11
relative
reactivity
of
the
exhaust
and
evaporative
12
emissions.
The
data
show
that
evaporative
emissions
are
30
13
to
40
percent
less
reactive
than
exhaust
emissions
and
that
14
the
reactivity
is
not
significantly
affected
by
the
type
of
15
oxygenate
used.

16
In
summary,
the
existing
data
show
that
the
17
increase
in
evaporative
gas
emissions
from
gasoline
with
a
18
one
psi
RVP
increase
cannot
be
offset
by
the
lower
19
reactivity
of
the
evaporative
emissions
and
the
exhaust
20
benefits
from
the
higher
oxygen
content
of
ten
percent
21
ethanol
blends.
This
finding
is
consistent
with
the
results
22
of
our
test
program.

23
We
further
evaluated
the
effects
of
RVP
and
oxygen
24
by
reviewing
the
available
emissions
models.
Both
the
US
25
EPA
and
ARB
have
approved
models
that
predict
emissions
as
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
67
1
function
of
fuel
properties.

2
The
EPA
complex
model
has
both
exhaust
and
3
evaporative
components.
EPA
exhaust
model
contains
a
high
4
emitter
component
and
the
normal
emitter
component.
The
EPA
5
model
is
based
on
data
for
a
1990
technology
vehicle
fleet.

6
The
ARB
predictive
model
currently
only
addresses
7
exhaust
emissions.
As
in
the
regulations,
the
RVP
is
fixed
8
as
seven
psi
in
the
ARB
model.

9
We
used
the
EPA
complex
models
to
predict
the
10
emissions
difference
for
a
gasoline
with
3.5
weight
percent
11
oxygen
or
ten
percent
ethanol,
and
a
one
psi
increase
in
RVP
12
compared
to
a
complying
gasoline.

13
The
results
show
that
evaporative
emissions
14
increased
by
40
percent
and
exhaust
hydrocarbon
emissions
15
increased
by
three
percent.

16
The
combined
exhaust
and
evaporative
emissions
17
increased
by
14
percent.

18
This
is
consistent
with
the
results
of
the
ARB
19
test
program
where
we
found
an
18
percent
increase
in
20
hydrocarbons.

21
Finally,
we
sought
peer
review
of
our
evaluation.

22
We
followed
the
formal
Cal
EPA
process
for
obtaining
peer
23
review
of
our
analyses.
This
peer
review
process
was
24
established
pursuant
to
last
year's
Senate
Bill
1320.

25
The
peer
review
was
conducted
by
Dr.
Don
Lucas
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
68
1
with
the
University
of
California
Berkeley,
and
Lawrence
2
Berkeley
National
Laboratory,
who
specializes
in
3
combustion­
generated
pollutants
and
the
development
of
4
measurement
diagnostic
procedures.

5
Dr.
Lucas
was
elected
by
the
chancellor's
office
6
of
the
University
of
California
to
perform
the
peer
review.

7
The
peer
review
found
that
the
staff's
conclusions
8
on
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
ten
percent
ethanol
9
gasoline
on
the
one
psi
RVP
increase
appears
correct
and
is
10
justified
by
the
information
presented.

11
The
peer
review
also
found
that
the
assumptions
12
made
in
the
staff's
evaluation
are
reasonable
and
that
the
13
emissions
are
calculated
in
a
consistent
manner.

14
Now
I
will
briefly
highlight
the
key
issues
raised
15
and
considered
in
our
evaluation.

16
In
the
process
of
our
evaluation
of
the
17
ozone­
forming
potential,
we
considered
several
issues
raised
18
primarily
by
the
representatives
of
the
ethanol
industry.

19
Concern
was
expressed
that
the
test
fleet
is
not
20
representative
of
the
in­
use
fleet.

21
As
I
noted,
the
vehicles
tested
represent
22
emissions
technology
going
back
to
1991
and
used
in
23
virtually
all
vehicles
after
1985.
These
types
of
vehicles
24
represent
a
very
high
percentage
of
the
vehicle
miles
25
traveled
today.
They
also
represent
a
significant
portion
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
69
1
of
the
emissions
from
motor
vehicles.
Also,
results
of
the
2
Auto/
Oil
test
program
show
that
older
vehicles
have
3
directionally
similar
response
to
changes
in
oxygen
and
RVP
4
as
the
vehicles
tested
in
the
ARB
test
program.

5
Concern
was
expressed
that
no
high­
emitting
6
vehicles
were
tested.
The
definition
used
by
US
EPA
and
ARB
7
for
high­
emitter
vehicles
that
emit
is
that
at
least
two
8
times
the
standard.
Generally
these
vehicles
have
faulty
9
emission
control
systems
or
other
mechanical
problems
that
10
cause
such
high
emissions.
The
Auto/
Oil
test
program
tested
11
high
emitters
and
found
them
to
be
highly
unstable.
The
12
Auto/
Oil
study
accounted
for
the
test
to
test
the
13
variability
of
these
vehicles
and
concluded
that
the
14
response
to
oxygen
and
RVP
is
consistent
with
that
of
15
normal­
emitting
vehicles.

16
The
high
emitters
used
by
the
US
EPA
in
developing
17
their
model
also
shows
that
high
emitters
have
large
18
variability
in
their
emissions.

19
This
graph
illustrates
the
variation
in
the
data
20
for
normally
high
emitters.
The
graph
on
the
left
is
21
hydrocarbons
and
on
the
right
is
NOx.

22
From
the
EPA
database
we
plotted
the
average
23
difference
in
the
emission
between
two
fuels
that
differ
in
24
oxygen
content
and
RVP.
The
error
bar
is
the
95
percent
25
confidence
interval
about
the
average.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
70
1
You
can
see
that
the
data
for
high­
emitter
2
vehicles
have
large
variation.
With
such
high
variation
it
3
is
difficult
to
isolate
fuel
effects
from
vehicle
effects.

4
In
conclusion,
the
results
from
these
test
5
programs
for
older
vehicles
and
for
high
emitters
are
6
directionally
consistent
with
the
results
of
the
ARB
test
7
program.

8
We
believe
that
the
emissions
response
in
the
9
fleet
of
vehicles
tested
in
the
ARB
test
program
is
10
reasonably
representative
of
the
response
in
the
overall
11
fleet.

12
Concern
was
expressed
that
the
number
of
vehicles
13
tested
was
inadequate
to
provide
statistically
sound
14
results.

15
Our
analysis
showed
that
the
data
provides
16
statistically
significant
results.
The
statistical
analysis
17
shows
that
the
likelihood
that
the
directional
change
in
the
18
emissions
is
real
and
is
greater
than
90
percent.

19
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
further
testing
is
unlikely
to
20
change
the
results
of
the
evaluation.

21
It
was
suggested
that
the
way
we
included
the
CO
22
emissions
in
our
analysis
undercounted
this
contribution
to
23
ozone­
forming
potential.

24
We
accounted
for
CO
consistent
with
the
ARB's
CO
25
inventory
in
determining
the
appropriate
weight
for
CO's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
71
1
contribution
to
ozone­
forming
potential.

2
Ambient
air
quality
measurements
of
CO
and
3
hydrocarbon
and
tunnel
studies
support
the
CO­
to­
hydrocarbon
4
ratios
in
the
inventory,
which
are
used
in
our
analysis.

5
It
was
suggested
that
the
use
of
total
6
hydrocarbons
in
the
determination
of
ozone­
forming
potential
7
is
inappropriate.

8
The
ARB
analyses
used
the
measure
NMOG
data
to
9
calculate
ozone­
forming
potential.

10
The
total
hydrocarbon
inventory
was
used
to
11
generate
an
NMOG
emissions
inventory.
The
NMOG
inventory
is
12
then
used
to
combine
the
exhaust
and
evaporative
emissions.

13
It
was
suggested
that
including
running
loss
14
emissions
in
the
analysis
was
inappropriate
because
they
15
were
not
measured
in
the
test
program.

16
At
the
start
of
the
test
program
the
work
group
17
agreed
that
running
loss
emissions
would
be
calculated
18
rather
than
measured
because
the
facilities
that
were
19
required
were
unavailable.

20
We
used
the
calculated
values
for
running
loss
21
from
an
ARB
drop
model,
which
is
based
on
the
US
EPA
22
evaporative
model.

23
As
I
showed
you
earlier,
we
also
conducted
a
24
sensitivity
analysis
by
assuming
the
difference
in
running
25
loss
emissions
between
the
two
fuels
to
be
zero.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
72
1
Even
under
this
case,
the
ten
percent
ethanol
2
gasoline
with
one
psi
RVP
increase
had
greater
ozone­
forming
3
potential
than
the
complying
gasoline.

4
It
was
suggested
that
the
urban
airshed
models
are
5
the
best
way
to
determine
ozone
formation.

6
It
is
unnecessary
to
conduct
urban
airshed
7
modeling
to
make
the
required
finding
of
the
ozone­
forming
8
potential.
When
the
net
reactivity
adjusted
NMOG
emissions
9
increase,
the
models
will
show
a
directional
increase
in
10
ozone
concentration.

11
We
included
the
comments
on
our
analyses
of
the
12
test
data
as
part
of
the
information
provided
for
peer
13
review.
We
also
provided
our
response
to
those
comments
for
14
review.

15
With
respect
to
the
issues
raised,
the
peer
review
16
report
concurs
with
staff's
analysis
and
assumptions.

17
As
I
mentioned,
the
peer
review
found
that
the
18
staff's
conclusion
on
the
ozone­
performing
potential
of
ten
19
percent
ethanol
gasoline
with
one
psi
RVP
appears
correct
20
and
is
justified
by
the
information
presented.

21
Now
I
would
like
to
briefly
describe
our
plan
for
22
future
activity
on
providing
additional
compliance
23
flexibility.

24
We
plan
to
continue
the
assessment
started
last
25
spring
to
evaluate
ways
to
provide
additional
flexibility
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
73
1
the
cleaner­
burning
gasoline
program,
while
maintaining
the
2
substantial
emission
benefit
from
the
program.

3
We
will
continue
to
evaluate
the
feasibility
of
4
updating
the
current
exhaust
predictive
model
and
the
5
development
of
an
evaporative
model.

6
An
evaporative
model
is
needed
before
flexibility
7
on
the
RVP
limit
can
be
provided.

8
We
will
also
consider
the
benefits
offered
by
the
9
use
of
ten
percent
ethanol
gasoline
plans
and
will
evaluate
10
how
to
properly
credit
such
benefits.

11
To
conclude,
the
staff's
evaluation
of
the
12
ozone­
forming
potential
of
ten
percent
ethanol
gasoline
with
13
a
one
psi
RVP
increase
meets
the
requirements
of
state
law.

14
The
results
show
the
high
degree
of
certainty
that
15
ten
percent
ethanol
gasoline
with
one
psi
RVP
increase
has
16
greater
ozone­
forming
potential
compared
to
complying
17
gasoline,
and
thus
should
not
be
exempt
from
the
RVP
18
standard.

19
The
ARB
test
program
results
are
consistent
with
20
existing
data,
and
the
independent
peer
review
of
the
21
staff's
evaluation
of
the
ozone­
forming
potential
concurs
22
with
staff's
finding
and
recommendation.

23
Staff
recommends
that
the
Board
make
the
finding
24
that
gasoline
containing
ten
percent
ethanol
with
one
psi
25
RVP
increase
increases
ozone­
forming
potential
compared
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
74
1
complying
gasoline.

2
The
proposed
finding
would
preserve
the
emissions
3
benefits
gained
by
the
cleaner­
burning
gasoline
program.

4
The
finding
does
not
prohibit
the
use
of
ethanol
5
in
gasoline
and
it
allows
the
Board
to
consider
raising
the
6
oxygen
cap
to
allow
ten
percent
ethanol
in
gasoline
without
7
increasing
emissions.

8
We
recognize
that
ten
percent
ethanol
blends
offer
9
additional
benefits
and
are
committed
to
work
with
10
interested
parties
to
explore
ways
to
properly
credit
such
11
benefits
to
the
use
of
the
ethanol,
while
preserving
the
12
emission
benefits
of
the
reformulated
gasoline
program.

13
This
concludes
my
presentation.
I
thank
you
for
14
your
time.

15
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

16
Let
me
ask,
there's
an
important
component
to
17
this.
Well,
actually
there
are
two
important
components.

18
First
is
our
ombudsman's
program,
and
I'd
like
you
19
to
comment
about
the
process
that
this
item
has
gone
through
20
before
coming
to
the
Board.

21
MS.
MEAD:
Thank
you.
For
the
record
my
name
is
22
Kathleen
Mead.
Madam
Chairman,
members
of
the
Board.

23
Although
this
item
is
not
a
regulatory
item,
the
24
outcome
of
your
decision
on
the
item
could
change
current
25
regulations
affecting
stakeholders
concerned
with
oxygenates
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
75
1
and
gasoline
fuel
production,
therefore
the
process
by
which
2
it
comes
to
you
for
approval
is
important.

3
The
item
was
initiated,
as
you
heard,
in
October
4
1995
when
a
technical
working
group
was
established
to
5
develop
and
oversee
a
test
program
to
determine
the
6
ozone­
forming
potential
of
the
gasoline
containing
ten
7
percent
ethanol.

8
Invitations
to
participate
were
sent
to
the
9
American
Automobile
Manufacturers
Association,
California
10
Renewable
Fuels
Council,
Western
States
Petroleum
11
Association,
General
Motors
Corporation
and
Ford
Motor
12
Company.

13
Each
of
these
organizations
became
active
members
14
of
the
working
group
along
with
California
Rice
Industry
15
Association,
the
Renewable
Fuels
Association,
Arco,
Chevron,

16
Parallel
Products,
Sierra
Club,
Communities
for
Better
17
Environment,
California
Energy
Commission,
California
18
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture
and
US
EPA.

19
To
develop
the
test
protocol,
staff
conducted
20
three
working
group
meetings
on
November
1st,
17th
and
21
December
6th
of
1995,
and
distributed
a
draft
test
plan
for
22
comment
in
May
of
1996.

23
The
plan
was
finalized
in
September
'
96
and
24
testing
began.

25
To
keep
the
work
group
informed
of
the
testing
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
76
1
status,
staff
provided
the
work
group
with
six
status
2
reports.
They
were
issued
in
November
of
1996,
March,
June
3
and
November
of
1997,
and
March
and
May
of
this
year.

4
Each
report
was
accompanied
by
preliminary
data
in
5
electronic
format.

6
After
each
update,
staff
fielded
phone
calls
from
7
the
Renewable
Fuels
Association,
Sierra
Club,
American
Lung
8
Association,
WSPA,
and
other
interested
parties.

9
Last
May
the
final
data
set
was
distributed
to
the
10
working
group
and
made
available
on
ARB's
Web
site.

11
Staff
provided
a
preliminary
assessment
of
the
12
data
on
June
10th
of
this
year
and
held
a
work
group
meeting
13
on
July
15th
and
October
22nd
to
discuss
the
data
analysis.

14
A
public
workshop
was
held
on
October
27th
of
this
15
year.
1700
stakeholders
were
notified
by
mail.
They
16
included
representatives
of
gasoline
and
diesel
interests,

17
refiners,
petroleum
product
trade
groups,
petroleum
product
18
vendors,
government
agencies,
consultants,
oxygenate
trade
19
groups,
organization
of
vehicle
users,
environmental
20
advocates
and
private
citizens.

21
In
addition,
the
workshop
notice
was
posted
on
22
ARB's
Web
site.

23
30
persons
participated
in
the
workshop
24
representing
the
National
Corn
Growers
Association,

25
Renewable
Fuels
Association,
WSPA,
Exxon,
Tosco,
Mobile,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
77
1
Toyota,
Methanex,
Sierra
Club,
South
Tahoe
Public
Utility
2
District,
California
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture,

3
California
Energy
Commission
and
other
interested
4
stakeholders.

5
As
you
heard
from
staff,
an
independent
peer
6
review
of
the
technical
analysis
was
conducted
by
Dr.
Don
7
Lucas
of
the
University
of
California
Berkeley
and
Lawrence
8
Livermore
National
Laboratory.

9
On
November
17th
staff
mailed
the
final
report
and
10
analysis
of
the
test
data,
today's
Board
hearing
notice
and
11
the
proposed
finding
to
over
400
aforementioned
12
stakeholders.

13
This
information
was
also
available
on
ARB's
Web
14
site.

15
In
conclusion,
staff
conducted
an
effective
16
outreach
to
stakeholders
to
identify
all
potential
issues
17
and
promote
participation
by
all
parties
interested
in
the
18
recommendation
before
you
today.

19
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

20
Mr.
Kenny,
any
other
comments
that
you
might
have?

21
All
right.
There
is,
I
think,
another
important
22
component
of
this
and
that
is
the
peer
review.
I'd
like
to
23
invite
Dr.
Don
Lucas
from
the
University
of
California
at
24
Berkeley
to
come
forward,
please,
to
the
podium.
We
welcome
25
you.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
78
1
Give
us
your
name
and
maybe
even
a
better
title
of
2
who
you
represent.

3
DR.
LUCAS:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Donald
4
Lucas.
I'm
a
staff
scientist
at
the
Lawrence
Berkeley
5
National
Laboratory
and
a
researcher
in
the
School
of
Public
6
Health
at
UC
Berkeley.
I
have
a
PhD
in
physical
chemistry
7
from
UC
Berkeley.
My
research
interest
includes
8
combustion­
generated
air
pollutants
and
developing
new
9
diagnostic
methods
to
measure
those
pollutants.

10
I've
served
as
a
reviewer
for
the
US
EPA,

11
Department
of
Energy,
State
of
California,
University
of
12
California,
and
the
Health
Effects
Institute.

13
I'm
also
an
investigator
and
one
of
the
authors
on
14
the
recent
MTBE
report
requested
by
Senate
Bill
521,
an
15
assessment
of
the
human
health
and
environmental
risks
and
16
benefits
of
MTBE
gasoline.

17
We
reviewed
previous
data
on
the
combustion
18
byproducts
of
MTBE
in
laboratory
and
vehicle
studies
and
19
performed
laboratory
experiments
in
a
flow
reactor.

20
I
was
asked
to
review
the
ARB
report
presented
21
today.

22
My
work
was
performed
under
the
interagency
23
agreement
No.
98­
004
where
the
University
agrees
to
provide
24
peer
scientific
review
of
scientific
work
conducted
by
state
25
agencies.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
79
1
I
also
read
previous
studies
relating
to
the
2
subject
and
the
comments
and
reviews
made
by
other
3
interested
parties
and
the
subsequent
responses
of
the
ARB
4
staff.

5
These
comments
were
often
very
valuable
and
they
6
helped
clarify
how
the
work
was
done
and
how
the
analysis
7
was
performed.

8
As
described
in
the
staff
presentation,
the
9
results
indicate
that
the
fuel
containing
ethanol
produces
10
more
hydrocarbons,
NOx
and
toxics
with
lower
emissions
and
11
CO.
The
ozone­
forming
potential
is
higher
for
the
ethanol
12
blend,
compared
to
the
MTBE
fuel.

13
This
is
an
important
study
with
valuable
data
14
collected
in
a
well­
controlled
and
documented
manner.

15
Proper
calibration,
validation
and
quality
control
16
methods
are
reported.

17
This
is
a
significant
point,
because
while
there
18
are
many
comments
and
critiques
of
the
conclusions,
there
is
19
little
criticism
of
the
data
itself.

20
While
it
is
a
good
study,
it's
not
perfect.
As
a
21
laboratory
experimental
scientist,
I
don't
think
that
any
22
experimental
program
can
be
perfect.

23
For
example,
the
inclusion
of
running
losses
is
24
crucial,
and
I
don't
think
there
was
much
value
in
analyzing
25
the
results
without
including
running
loss
data.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
80
1
Unfortunately,
there
were
no
direct
measurements
2
of
running
losses.
The
emissions
were
estimated
from
the
3
hot
soak
emissions,
which
is
the
best
measurement
to
use,

4
since
the
conditions
producing
the
emissions
are
most
5
similar.

6
It
is
my
opinion
that
the
methods
used
to
combine
7
the
test
data
with
inventory
amounts
to
determine
the
8
expected
changes
in
emissions
are
consistent
and
reasonable
9
for
all
pollutants.

10
The
calculation
of
the
ozone­
forming
potential
11
including
effects
from
CO
in
the
exhaust,
while
complicated,

12
appear
correct.

13
There
have
been
many
comments
directed
to
the
14
number
of
vehicles
tested
as
they
are
representative
of
the
15
vehicle
fleet.

16
The
number
of
vehicles
to
test
is
fairly
easy
to
17
answer,
since
robust
statistical
methods
can
be
used
to
18
determine
if
the
results
are
significant.

19
In
this
study
the
12
vehicles
tested
resulted
in
20
near
certain
probability
that
the
ethanol
fuel
blend
has
a
21
higher
ozone­
forming
potential,
that
no
additional
testing
22
of
vehicles
of
this
type
is
needed.

23
The
question
about
what
is
a
representative
24
vehicle
fleet
is
much
harder
to
answer.
The
composition
of
25
the
fleet
can
be
measured
by
many
different
parameters,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
81
1
changes
with
time,
and
is
complicated
by
a
complex
testing
2
procedure
that
itself
requires
a
long
time.

3
The
vehicles
tested
here
are
representative
of
the
4
significant
fraction
of
the
current
fleet.
However,
the
5
entire
fleet
is
not
covered,
and
I
don't
know
what
it
would
6
take
to
cover,
say,
90
or
99
percent
of
the
emissions
or
7
vehicle
types
in
this
fleet.

8
Other
reviewers
suggest
that
high
emitters
should
9
be
tested,
and
the
ARB
report
addressed
this
issue.

10
For
example,
in
the
Auto/
Oil
study
quoted
11
previously
on
high
emitters,
mass
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,

12
CO
and
NOx
were
not
significantly
different
in
comparisons
13
of
normal
and
higher
emitters,
and
possible
fuel
effects
14
were
masked
by
uncontrolled
variations
in
the
engine.

15
It
might
be
impossible
to
obtain
repeatable
and
16
reliable
data
from
high­
emitting
vehicles,
and
the
number
of
17
vehicles
that
would
be
needed
for
statistically
significant
18
results
cannot
be
estimated
accurately.

19
The
ARB
report
also
reviewed
previous
testing
20
programs
that
examined
the
effect
of
different
fuels
on
21
emissions
and
the
modeling
results
using
EPA's
and
ARB
22
models.

23
While
direct
comparisons
cannot
be
made,
these
24
studies
yield
results
similar
in
direction
and
magnitude
and
25
tend
to
support
the
conclusions
reached
by
the
ARB
staff.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
82
1
In
summary,
I
believe
that
the
work
performed
in
2
this
study
is
of
high
quality.
The
conclusions
reached
by
3
the
ARB
staff
appear
correct
and
are
justified
by
the
data
4
analysis
performed.
The
emissions
are
calculated
in
a
5
consistent
and
defendable
manner
and
the
assumptions
made
in
6
reaching
the
conclusions
are
reasonable.

7
Thank
you.

8
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Dr.
Lucas,
thank
you
very
much.

9
This
was
an
added
component
that
I
think
is
a
very
10
important
one
in
terms
of
peer
review.
I
think
it
is
a
good
11
thing
and
I
hope
in
the
future
we
can
continue
to
use
our
12
university
systems
as
we
did
today,
because
it
lends
13
credence
to
the
staff
report.

14
I'm
going
to
ask
if
you
would
be
available
15
throughout
the
balance
of
the
testimony,
if
you
can
remain
16
through
this
item.

17
DR.
LUCAS:
Certainly.

18
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

19
Let
me
ask
the
Board
members
if
there
are
any
20
questions
of
Dr.
Lucas
at
this
time?

21
I
don't
believe
there
are.
And
so
I
appreciate
22
your
being
here
and
thank
you
very
much.

23
We
have
a
number
of
witnesses,
and
I
am
going
to
24
ask
some
consideration
for
you
to
keep
to
about
a
25
five­
minute
presentation.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
83
1
If
you
have
written
testimony,
obviously
that's
2
made
a
part
of
the
record.
I
would
appreciate
it
if
you
3
didn't
read
your
testimony,
but
rather
sort
of
directly
told
4
us
what
your
issues
are.

5
I'm
going
to
ask
that
we
use
the
timing
system
6
that
is
at
the
podium.
Green
light
obviously
means
7
everything
is
fine,
keep
going.
When
you
see
the
yellow
8
light,
you
know
you're
about
one
minute
from
the
end.
And
9
of
course
the
red
light
means
I
would
like
a
conclusion.

10
So
let
us
begin.
Mr.
Bob
Dinneen
from
Renewable
11
Fuels
Association,
followed
by
Dr.
Gary
Witten,
from
Systems
12
Application
International.
Come
forward,
please.

13
Give
us
your
name
for
the
record
and
who
you
14
represent.

15
MR.
DINNEEN:
Good
morning,
Madam
Chairman,
Board
16
members
and
staff.
My
name
is
Bob
Dinneen.
I
am
the
17
legislative
director
for
the
Renewable
Fuels
Association.

18
We
are
the
national
trade
association
for
the
domestic
19
methanol
industry.

20
I
have
represented
approximately
55
21
ethanol­
producing
facilities
across
the
country,
including
22
two
right
here
in
California
that
are
producing
ethanol
from
23
waste
products.

24
Now,
as
my
title
suggests,
I'm
not
a
technical
25
person.
The
technical
comments
on
behalf
of
the
association
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
84
1
are
going
to
be
made
by
Dr.
Whitten,
but
I
do
have
some
2
quick
points
to
make,
and
I
hope
to
be
as
sensitive
as
I
can
3
to
your
time
restraints.

4
The
first
question
I
have,
point
I
would
have,
is
5
really
with
regard
to
process.
And
I
think
that
the
process
6
that
has
been
involved
here
with
regard
to
your
7
determination
on
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
ethanol
8
fuels
is
incomplete.

9
I
give
you
great
credit,
the
staff
great
credit,

10
for
acting
to
lift
the
oxygen
cap.
It's
a
good
first
step,

11
frankly,
given
the
unanimous
support
by
the
Legislature
for
12
legislation
to
lift
the
cap
that
was
evidenced
during
the
13
last
assembly.
That
step
is
probably
long
overdo.
But
it
14
is
a
good
step.

15
The
cap
has
stifled
competition
here
in
California
16
among
oxygenates.
The
cap
has
resulted
in
essentially
an
17
MTBE
program
only.
Other
areas
of
the
country
that
have
18
implemented
clean
fuels
programs
in
the
absence
of
a
cap
19
have
had
a
competitive
oxygenate
market
and
have
not
had
20
many
of
the
problems
that
are
being
visited
upon
your
21
clean­
burning
gasoline
program.

22
But
the
determination
that's
being
made
today
in
23
relation
to
that
cap
is
woefully
inadequate.

24
The
staff
seems
intent
now,
after
seven
years
of
25
largely
ignoring
this
issue,
of
focusing
just
on
the
narrow
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
85
1
question
of
what
is
the
ozone
impact
attributable
to
a
2
one­
pound
waiver.

3
It
seems
to
me
that
the
more
valuable
question
for
4
the
ARB
to
analyze
is
where
is
the
ozone
equivalency
between
5
ethanol
and
MTBE?
There's
a
great
deal
of
scientific
6
consensus
right
now
that
there
are
indeed
benefits
to
the
7
use
of
ethanol.
The
ARB
finally
today
in
its
presentation
8
recognized
that
that
is
the
case,
that
there
are
benefits
to
9
increased
oxygen
content,
reduced
carbon
monoxide
emissions,

10
increased
exhaust
VOC
reductions
and
reduced
reactivity.

11
These
benefits
have
been
ignored
in
the
current
predictive
12
model.

13
Now,
it
may
be,
frankly,
that
ultimately
a
one
14
pound
waiver
is
not
appropriate,
that
it
will
lead
to
15
increased
ozone
formation.
I
don't
believe,
based
upon
what
16
you
have
before
you,
that
that
determination
can
be
made,

17
but
let's
say
just
that
that
is
certainly
possible.

18
I
would
suggest
to
you,
though,
that
it
is
equally
19
true
that
the
one­
pound
penalty
that
is
now
imposed
on
20
refiners
that
want
to
utilize
ethanol
in
this
clean­
burning
21
program
is
also
inappropriate.
And
making
a
finding
today
22
on
just
that
one­
half
of
the
equation,
just
the
one­
pound
23
waiver
is
inappropriate,
prejudices
whatever
the
Board
or
24
the
staff
might
do
later
on
to
determine
what
indeed
is
that
25
ozone
equivalency.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
86
1
I
would
say
also,
I
think
this
is
an
important
2
point,
that
the
process
lacks
some
context.
Merely
adding
3
up
VOC
emissions,
even
trying
to
do
ozone­
forming
VOC
4
emissions,
just
adding
them
up,
doing
a
counting
process,

5
ignores
what
happens
to
those
emissions
in
the
atmosphere.

6
We
do
believe,
and
we
think
that
there's
a
great
7
consensus,
that
urban
airshed
modeling
studies
are
indeed
8
the
best
way
to
evaluate
the
relative
ozone­
forming
9
potential
of
competing
fuels.

10
The
RFA
provided
staff
with
a
number
of
urban
11
airshed
modeling
studies
showing
the
relative
equivalency
of
12
ethanol
and
MTBE,
and
those
were
largely
dismissed.

13
The
most
comprehensive
urban
airshed
modeling
14
studies
that
have
ever
been
done
on
this
issue
suggest
there
15
is
essentially
no
difference
between
ethanol
with
volatility
16
increase
and
MTBE.
Lot
of
technical
reasons
for
that,
but
17
that's
what
the
urban
airshed
modeling
studies
show.

18
Now,
there
are
a
couple
that
show
that
there's
a
19
slight
increase.
But
when
you're
talking
about
one
or
two
20
part
per
billion
benefit
from
ethanol,
as
most
of
the
urban
21
airshed
studies
show,
or
part
per
billion
detriment
from
22
ethanol,
as
one
urban
airshed
study
shows,
you're
talking
23
about
less
than
one
percent
difference
in
120
part
per
24
billion
standard.

25
Now,
we're
in
the
Christmas
season,
so
maybe
it's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
87
1
appropriate
that
the
ARB
engage
in
an
exercise
that
is
2
essentially
counting
angels
on
the
head
of
a
pin,
but
I'd
3
suggest
to
you
that
in
the
process
you're
losing
the
saving
4
grace
of
ethanol
and
the
program
is
suffering
as
a
result.

5
The
second
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
I
do
6
believe
that
the
test
program
itself
is
flawed.

7
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Dinneen.

8
MR.
DINNEEN:
Yes.

9
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
See
the
red
light
there?

10
MR.
DINNEEN:
I
do.

11
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
We've
got
to
make
a
conclusion
12
very
soon.

13
MR.
DINNEEN:
I
will.
I
have
more
extensive
14
comments,
and
I'll
try
to
submit
those
to
the
record.
I
15
appreciate
your
indulgence.

16
Like
I
said,
We
do
have
the
some
concerns
about
17
the
way
the
test
program
has
been
conducted,
the
number
of
18
vehicles,
things
of
that
nature.

19
Maybe
just
one
concluding
comment,
and
I'll
let
20
Dr.
Whitten
address
some
of
those
technical
things.

21
A
concluding
comment
would
be
this.
You've
got
22
the
clean­
burning
gasoline
program
right
now
that's
broken.

23
It's
broken
not
because
it's
not
reducing
emissions.
It
is.

24
It's
broken
not
because
of
the
oxygen
standard,
because
25
oxygenates
in
fact
help
refiners
meet
the
standards
that
are
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
88
1
required
in
effect,
and
oxygenates,
particularly
ethanol,

2
can
provide
other
environmental
and
public
policy
benefits
3
as
well.

4
It's
broken
because
the
program
has
been
built
5
around
MTBE.
And
unless
you
find
a
way
to
make
sure
that
6
there's
competition
in
the
market,
that
ethanol
can
compete
7
effectively
in
this
market,
it's
going
to
continue
to
cause
8
problems,
lawsuits,
consumer
complaints,
refiner
angst
about
9
liability
with
regard
to
MTBE,
water
contamination.
These
10
are
serious
problems
that
are
facing
this
program
and
11
threatens
the
integrity
of
this
important
program.

12
There
are
areas
of
the
country
which
ethanol
is
13
used
in
this
the
program
quite
effectively.
American
14
Lung
­­

15
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Dinneen.

16
MR.
DINNEEN:
I
know.

17
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
I
am
going
to
be
­­
I'm
going
18
to
start
taking
time
from
your
witness
and
I
don't
want
to
19
do
that.

20
MR.
DINNEEN:
I
apologize.

21
My
final
point,
look,
if
you
figure
out
a
way
to
22
make
ethanol
work
in
this
program,
if
you
engage
in
a
23
process
such
that
we
can
identify
where
between
a
one­
pound
24
penalty
and
one­
pound
waiver
the
actual
science
is,
I
think
25
your
program
will
be
the
better
for
it.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
89
1
That's
all.

2
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

3
Dr.
Gary
Whitten,
followed
by
Bob
Heckert,

4
followed
by
Dr.
Al
Jessel
and
Rick
Best.

5
DR.
WHITTEN:
Good
morning,
Madam
Chairman,
Board
6
members.
My
name
is
Gary
Whitten.
I'm
chief
scientist
at
7
Systems
Applications
Internation.

8
I've
been
studying
smog­
forming
chemistry
for
9
about
25
years.
I
have
a
PhD
in
atmospheric
and
gas
phase
10
chemistry.

11
This
morning
I
would
like
to
go
over
the
issue
of
12
using
methanol
in
place
of
MTBE.

13
First
of
all,
what
was
expected,
the
main
thing
is
14
reduction
in
CO
and
the
fact
that
it
can
play
a
role
in
the
15
ozone
forming.

16
Second
part
of
it
is
that
they
used
the
urban
17
airshed
model
that
­­
and
the
existing
regulatory
and
other
18
mass
submissions
models,
that
the
one­
pound
waiver
can
be
19
justified.

20
The
third
item
I
want
to
talk
about
is
the
21
representativeness
of
the
12­
vehicle
fleet
that
was
tested
22
and
how
it
could
come
to
a
evaluate
­­
come
up
with
a
number
23
that
says
it's
really
only
less
than
ten
percent
of
the
24
total
mobile
exhaust
hydrocarbons.

25
I've
given
you
a
little
handout
sort
of
like
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
90
1
slides
to
go
along
with
this.

2
First
issue
is
carbon
monoxide.
We've
known
that
3
carbon
monoxide
emissions
changes
due
to
oxygen
in
gasoline
4
can
mitigate
the
ozone
problem
since
at
least
1988.
And
I
5
testified
before
US
Congress
on
that
issue
at
that
time.

6
And
that
was
part
of
the
history
of
where
the
7
one­
pound
waiver
has
come
from
on
a
national
scale.

8
Using
the
urban
airshed
model,
we
found
an
9
interesting
surprise
most
recently,
that
carbon
dioxide
in
10
the
atmosphere
accounts
for
as
much
as
11
percent
of
the
11
ozones
that
are
formed
every
day
in
urban
atmosphere.
So
12
this
is
a
very
important
ingredient
in
that
10
percent,
11
13
percent
is
making
that
much
of
a
difference.

14
The
new
test
data,
the
very
comprehensive
data
on
15
these
12
cars,
shows
us
that
carbon
monoxide
can
be
reduced
16
as
much
as
ten
percent
by
the
little
extra
oxygen
that's
17
seen
in
ethanol
compared
to
MTBE.

18
The
urban
airshed
model
run
that
we
did
actually
19
consisted
of
about
a
ten
different
sensitivity
runs,
testing
20
the
sensitivity
of
the
various
parts
of
the
mobile
emissions
21
inventory
like
running
loss
emissions
and
exhaust
emissions
22
and
diurnal
emissions
and
all
of
those
kinds
of
things,
so
23
that
we
can
then
combine
those
sensitivities
to
come
up
with
24
an
overall
evaluation.

25
The
modeling
run
that
we
used
was
recently
put
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
91
1
together
by
the
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District
2
and
the
ARB
working
together
on
the
so­
called
1997
AQMP.

3
Part
of
that
modeling
looked
into
predictions
of
4
ozone
in
the
Los
Angeles
basin
for
the
year
2000.
It's
5
based
­­
one
of
the
important
simulations
in
that
AQMP
was
6
based
on
1987
meteorology.
On
the
second
day
of
that
7
simulation
you
saw
about
a
148
parts
per
billion
for
the
8
year
2000.
So
this
looks
like
it's
giving
a
result
that's
9
what
we
might
expect
for
that
to
happen
on
a
smoggy
day.

10
By
using
the
models
that
predict
the
various
11
emissions
changes,
this
urban
airshed
model
suggests
that
a
12
one­
pound
waiver
can
be
justified.

13
But
it's
important
also
to
know
that
notice,
note
14
that
when
you
do
an
urban
airshed
model
for
over
a
couple
of
15
days,
you
see
areas
of
the
basin
where
maybe
some
of
the
16
ozone
goes
up
a
little
bit
and
some
ozone
goes
down
a
little
17
bit
and
there's
two
criteria
that
we
used
to
say
that
there
18
was
no
difference
in
ozone,
and
one
was
the
highest
one­
hour
19
peak,
which
is
where
the
standards
have
been
set
up
until
20
this
year,
and
where
the
urban
airshed
model
is
used
in
the
21
State
Implementation
Plan
to
show
attainment.
So
that
22
one­
hour
maximum
is
an
important
criteria.

23
The
second
one
is
the
pending
standard
of
eight
24
hours,
and
the
urban
airshed
model
can
be
used
for
that.

25
And
you
got
a
little
different
result
between
one
and
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
92
1
other.

2
But
the
emissions
inventory
was
adjusted
using,

3
first
of
all,
the
Air
Resources
Board
predictive
model,

4
which
is
for
exhaust
emissions.
It's
based
on
some
7,000
5
federal
test
procedure
tests,
costing
millions
and
millions
6
of
dollars
to
prepare
that
data,
and
it's
a
statistically
7
optimized
rendition
of
those
7,000
data
points.

8
The
new
12­
car
vehicle
tests
represents
an
9
increase
of
less
than
one
percent
to
that
database.

10
And
so
if
some
56
new
data
points,
even
though
11
they
are
very
expensive,
and
they
do
provide
information
on
12
speciated
hydrocarbons,
that
we
did
not
really
have
very
13
well
before.

14
Also
it
has
information
on
aggressive
driving
that
15
we
didn't
have
before.

16
It's
a
very
valuable
test,
but
again
it
does
17
contribute
less
than
one
percent
to
the
total
database
for
18
the
predictive
model.

19
And
the
second
model
that
we
used
was
the
one
that
20
the
ARB
proposed
for
evaporation
increases
due
to
RVP.
This
21
suggests
that
the
increases
are
also
less
than
what
was
22
observed
on
the
12­
vehicle
fleet,
but
it's
actually
only
six
23
cars
that
were
tested
for
evaporative
emissions.

24
I'm
quite
troubled
by
the
idea
that
these
six
cars
25
and
evaporative
emissions
and
only
12
cars
in
exhaust
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
93
1
emissions
are
expected
to
represent
the
30
million
cars
that
2
are
going
to
be
burning
this
gasoline
in
California.

3
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Dr.
Whitten,
as
you
can
see,

4
we've
got
a
red
light
there,
so
you
want
to
draw
it
to
5
close.

6
DR.
WHITTEN:
I'll
make
one
last
very
brief
point
7
on
the
representativeness.

8
We've
claimed
that
it's
less
than
ten
percent.

9
The
ARB
claims
it's
over
32
percent
or
32
percent
of
the
10
total
emissions.

11
You
can
arrive
at
the
32
percent
by
taking
cars
12
that
emits
say
up
to
800
milligrams
per
mile.
And
if
you
13
take
cars
that
only
emit
only
400
milligrams
per
mile,
the
14
number
is
more
like
ten
percent.

15
And
during
the
flexibility
hearings
SAI
did
a
16
reestablishment
of
the
predictive
model,
splitting
it
at
the
17
400
milligram
point,
and
we
found
that
the
most
important
18
change
of
this
dual
model
where
you
had
a
high
emitter
model
19
about
400,
and
one
below,
most
important
change
was
that
it
20
gave
more
credit,
more
reduction
to
oxygen
in
a
fuel
and
it
21
was
coming
from
the
vehicles
that
were
above
400
milligrams
22
per
mile
emissions
test.

23
And
this
fleet
that
was
tested,
the
highest
single
24
vehicle
was
only
300
milligrams.

25
So
none
of
the
vehicles
of
the
12
are
represented
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
94
1
by
not
necessarily
high
emitters,
but
certainly
above
the
2
400
milligram
mark,
which
has
been
a
common
standard
in
3
California
since
1977.

4
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much.

5
Are
there
any
questions
for
this
witness?

6
Thank
you,
Dr.
Whitten.

7
Mr.
Bob
Heckert.

8
MR.
HECKERT:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chair,
and
seasons
9
greetings.
My
name
is
Bob
Heckert.
And
I
am
the
10
communications
manager
for
the
California
Rice
Promotion
11
Board.

12
And
I'd
like
to
come
here
today
to
relay
some
13
thoughts
that
the
rice
industry
association
had
had
over
14
this
matter,
as
well
as
individual
growers.

15
What
I'm
hearing
on
the
countryside
is
they'd
like
16
to
see
a
delay
in
today's
decision,
so
that
a
couple
of
17
things
might
happen
first.

18
Before
I
suggest
what
those
might
be,
you
should
19
know
that
the
California
rice
industry
has
invested
heavily
20
in
at
least
one
ethanol
plant
and
probably
two
in
the
not
21
too
distant
future.
We
see
these
as
the
best
opportunity
to
22
utilize
or
divert
rice
straw
from
burning
practices,
which
23
has
come
before
this
Board
enumerable
times,
as
my
friend,

24
Mr.
Kenny,
knows.

25
And
therefore
we
have
a
keen
interest
in
trying
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
95
1
develop
this
burning
alternative.

2
All
these
studies
are
very
fine
and
I
know
the
3
staff
has
done
a
tremendous
job,
a
lot
of
time
and
lot
of
4
dedication
to
this
effort,
but
the
mere
reason
we
want
to
5
see
this
slowed
down
a
bit
is
to
take
another
look
at
what
6
happens
in
the
process
of
producing
ethanol,
that
is
by
7
diverting
rice
straw
from
field
burning,
what
benefits
are
8
accrued
when
you
count
that
into
having
an
RVP
waiver
in
9
place?

10
In
other
words,
we
would
produce
less
NOx.
Can
we
11
subtract
that
from
the
extra
NOx
that
would
be
produced
by
12
having
the
evaporative
losses
out
there?
We
think
that's
13
something
which
needs
to
be
considered.
And
I'm
sure
you
14
all
will
at
some
point
in
the
future,
if
I
heard
correctly
15
in
the
staff
report.

16
Also
if
there
is
not
enough
offset
there
in
order
17
to
make
up
for
those
additional
evaporations,
let's
look
at
18
a
different
mitigation.
Perhaps
we
need
a
better
gas
cap.

19
I
don't
know.
That
might
be
something
to
look
at.

20
We'd
like
to
see
the
scope
of
this
study
expanded
21
just
a
bit
and
delayed
until
we
can
have
a
few
better
22
answers
as
to
those
points.

23
I
think
that
would
conclude
our
discussion
at
this
24
point.

25
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
And
I
thank
you
very
much.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
96
1
Are
there
any
questions
for
this
witness?

2
Thank
you.

3
Dr.
Al
Jessel,
followed
by
Rick
Best,
Ms.
Megan
4
Smith,
and
Dawn
Forsythe.

5
DR.
JESSEL:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chairman
and
the
6
rest
of
the
members
of
the
Board.
I
won't
take
up
much
of
7
your
time.
I'm
going
to
focus
my
comments
on
a
very
8
specific
issue
concerning
the
peer
review.

9
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Yes.

10
DR.
JESSEL:
The
copy
I
have
is
dated
December
11
2nd,
1998.
I
congratulate
the
Board
for
actually
getting
12
the
peer
review
conducted,
and
Dr.
Lucas,
I
think,
has
done
13
a
fine
job.

14
I
just
want
to
make
one
point,
which
I
think
is
15
going
to
be
important
as
we
move
into
another
process
to
16
reconsider
fuels
regulations
and
perhaps
the
RVP
spec
that
17
are
I
think
that
most
people
in
this
room
are
committed
to.

18
The
peer
reviewer
concludes,
and
I'm
going
to
read
19
it
directly
off
my
copy
of
here,
it
says
the
conclusion
of
20
the
ARB
staff
is
that
California
reformulated
gasoline
21
containing
ten
percent
ethanol
results
in
an
increased
22
ozone­
forming
potential
if
the
RVP
limit
is
not
limited
to
23
seven
pounds
per
square
inch.

24
Our
position
is
that
that
is
much
too
narrow
a
25
finding,
and
really
is
in
conflict
with
the
finding
as
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
97
1
stated
by
the
staff
report,
what's
sitting
before
you
as
a
2
proposal.

3
What
this
says
is
that
in
no
way
could
you
find
4
that
RVP
could
be
raised
above
seven,
potentially
even
5
offset.
And
I
think
that
may
be
prejudicial
to
the
process
6
that
I
think
we're
all
going
to
come
into
very
shortly.

7
Historically,
that
statement
was
found
in
the
8
original
draft
proposal
that
CARB
staff
had
put
out
for
9
public
comment.
It's
not
currently
the
way
it's
stated
in
10
the
draft
before
you
now.

11
But
I
want
to
put
on
the
record
the
fact
that
I
12
believe
that
this
is
a
misstatement
of
the
finding,
with
all
13
due
respect
to
the
peer
reviewer,
and
I
think
it's
wise
to
14
have
that
on
the
record,
because
otherwise
it
may
very
much
15
prejudice
the
process
that
we're
all
going
to
move
into
at
16
some
point.

17
So
that's
the
extent
of
my
comment.

18
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Jessel.

19
I
don't
know
if
the
staff
would
like
to
comment
20
now,
or
the
reviewer,
at
this
point
or
later.
It's
up
to
21
you.

22
MR.
SIMEROTH:
My
name
is
Dean
Simeroth,

23
California
Air
Resources
Board
staff.

24
Our
view
is
that
we're
trying
to
make
the
finding
25
on
the
complete
waiver
as
it's
written
in
the
Health
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
98
1
Safety
Code,
not
that
something
is
slightly
above
seven
and
2
may
be
prohibited.
Try
to
preserve
some
flexibility.

3
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

4
And
thank
you,
Dr.
Jessel.

5
The
next
witness
is
Rick
Best.
If
you
would
come
6
forward
and
identify
yourself
for
the
record
and
who
you
7
represent.

8
MR.
DONAHUE:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chair.
My
name
is
9
Paul
Donahue,
appearing
for
Mr.
Best,
who
is
unable
to
10
remain
for
the
entire
procedure.

11
I'm
here
today
on
his
behalf,
and
actually
on
12
behalf
of
six
environmental
organizations
who
are
as
13
follows:
The
California
Public
Interest
Research
Group,

14
Communities
for
a
Better
Environment,
Californians
Against
15
Waste,
the
Silicon
Valley
Toxics
Coalition,
the
National
16
Audubon
Society,
and
Clean
Water
Action.

17
All
of
the
above
organizations
urge
the
Board
18
today
to
withhold
making
a
final
decision
on
the
matter
19
pending
in
front
of
you
right
now
concerning
RVP
gasoline,

20
until
all
appropriate
variables
are
considered
and
there
are
21
enough
testing
has
been
conducted
to
produce
some
adequate
22
data.

23
The
letter
I'm
summarizing
is
in
the
record,
but
24
it
is
our
belief
that
a
yes­
no
determination
that
you're
25
being
asked
to
make
today
is
­­
does
not
and
should
take
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
99
1
into
account
the
growing
contamination
of
drinking
water
2
supplies
by
MTBE,
the
nonpersistence,
the
nonmobility
and
3
nontoxicity
of
ethanol
in
soil
and
water,
and
the
4
availability
in
California,
as
was
previously
mentioned,
of
5
vast
agricultural
and
other
waste
resources
that
can
be
6
converted
to
ethanol.
This
step
should
be
a
first
step,
not
7
a
final
decision,
in
the
effort
to
take
advantage
of
the
8
benefits
of
using
ethanol
in
California.

9
The
draft
report
appears
to
fall
short
of
that
10
standard
in
a
number
of
ways,
because
only
12
vehicles
have
11
been
tested,
and
those
types
tested
represent
only
about
ten
12
percent
of
the
emissions
inventory.

13
Furthermore,
high­
emitter
vehicles
were
not
14
tested,
and
ARB's
reason,
the
staff
report
indicated
these
15
vehicles
were
known
to
have
highly
variable
emissions,
but
16
that
seems
to
buttress
the
argument
that
a
larger
number
of
17
vehicles
should
be
tested
to
smooth
out
and
make
a
more
18
complete
result
from
the
variables.

19
Many
of
the
tests
cited
in
the
study
yields
that
20
when
averaged
they
show
emission
changes
that
are
smaller
21
than
the
standard
deviation.
These
throw
the
findings
into
22
question
and
argue
for
a
larger
pool
of
tested
vehicles.

23
Until
these
shortcomings
are
rectified,
we
do
not
24
see
how
the
ARB
can
answer
this
question
about
ozone­
forming
25
potential
of
an
ethanol
blend
compared
to
the
currently
used
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
100
1
fuel
blends.

2
And
we
urge
the
Board
to
step
back
and
reassess
3
the
study
until
it
has
a
chance
to
revise
to
answer
these
4
questions.

5
Thank
you,
Madam
Chair
and
members,
for
your
time.

6
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Donahue.
And
7
thank
you
for
representing
Mr.
Best.

8
Ms.
Megan
Smith.

9
MS.
SMITH:
Good
morning,
Madam
Chairman
and
10
members
of
the
Board.
By
the
way,
I
like
the
title
Madam
11
Chairman.
It
has
a
ring
to
it.

12
I'm
Megan
Smith,
co­
director
of
the
American
13
Bioenergy
Association
located
in
Washington,
D.
C.

14
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
15
testify
before
you
on
behalf
of
my
association
regarding
16
gasoline
blended
with
ten
percent
ethanol.

17
California
has
a
great
opportunity
to
support
an
18
emergence
in
California­
based
industry,
that
is
biomass
19
conversion
to
ethanol.

20
I
came
out
to
California
some
five
years
ago
while
21
employed
at
the
National
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory
to
22
explore
the
potential
for
biomass
ethanol
in
the
state.

23
Since
that
time,
we've
discovered
that
California
24
has
enough
biomass
waste
resource
to
produce
four
billion
25
gallons
of
ethanol
per
year.
This
equates
to
approximately
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
101
1
three
times
the
amount
needed
to
displace
the
MTBE
now
being
2
used
in
California's
gasoline.

3
The
definition
of
biomass
is
any
matter
composed
4
of
cellulose
and
lignin.
Examples
in
California
include
5
agriculture
residues
such
as
rice
and
wheat
straw,
orchard
6
prunings
and
pecan
shells;
forest
residues,
such
as
forest
7
thinnings
and
mill
operator's
waste;
and
the
paper
component
8
of
solid
waste,
of
which
California
has
plenty
of
each.

9
The
benefits
of
biomass
ethanol
are
many
and
far
10
outweigh
the
supposed
VOC
problem
for
which
ethanol
is
11
always
condemned.

12
But
I'm
not
going
to
address
this
issue
on
a
13
technological
level
today,
as
there
are
others
in
the
14
ethanol
industry
that
will
do
this
eloquently.

15
Instead,
I
ask
that
you
consider
increasing
the
16
oxygen
cap
while
at
the
same
time
leaving
in
place
the
17
one­
pound
waiver
for
ethanol
that
California
had
the
18
foresight
to
put
in
effect
several
years
ago.

19
If
not
convinced
to
do
so
by
my
ethanol
20
colleagues,
based
on
their
scientific
evidence
regarding
21
emissions,
I
ask
that
you
do
this
based
on
the
potential
22
benefits
biomass
ethanol
may
bring
to
the
State
of
23
California
in
the
near
future,
including
reduction
of
air
24
emissions
through
residue
burning
abatement.

25
But
in
order
for
biomass
methanol
to
become
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
102
1
reality,
corn­
based
ethanol
must
be
used
in
the
meantime
to
2
guarantee
that
a
market
for
ethanol
exists
for
biomass
3
ethanol
once
it's
produced
in
California.

4
The
current
ethanol
industry
converts
to
ethanol
5
only
currently
available
biomass,
that
is
starch
inside
the
6
corn
kernel
itself.
The
rest
of
the
plant
is
biomass.
This
7
is
where
corn­
or
starch­
based
ethanol
and
biomass­
or
8
cellulose­
based
ethanol
differ.

9
Aside
from
absurdly
low
oil
prices,
corn­
based
10
ethanol
cannot
compete
with
gasoline
without
its
tax
11
incentives
due
to
the
high
feedstock
price
of
corn.

12
Biomass,
on
the
other
hand,
is
a
less
expensive
13
feedstock,
much
of
it
regarded
as
waste.

14
Also,
biomass
ethanol
plants
supply
their
own
15
power
through
conversion
of
biomass'
lignin
component.

16
These
two
things,
cheaper
feedstock
costs
and
17
self­
supporting
energy
supply,
make
biomass
ethanol
more
18
cost
effective
than
corn­
based
ethanol.

19
Because
of
this
difference,
biomass
ethanol
will
20
be
able
to
directly
compete
with
gasoline
in
the
very
near
21
future.

22
Biomass
ethanol
can
help
eliminate
municipal
solid
23
waste
ag
and
forest
residues.
Many
landfills
in
California
24
are
turning
away
waste,
only
to
find
there
are
few
other
25
disposal
options.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
103
1
California's
committee
on
alternatives
to
rice
2
straw
burning
has
determined
the
conversion
of
rice
straw
to
3
ethanol
as
one
of
the
few
viable
options.

4
In
addition,
yard
and
orchard
trimmings,
and
even
5
pecan
shells,
may
in
the
future
actually
acquire
value,

6
increasing
farm
income.

7
Biomass
ethanol
can
also
help
make
forests
safer
8
and
healthier.
Forest
fires
stemming
from
immense
fuel
9
loading
have
severely
threatened
human
life
and
property.

10
Biomass
ethanol
can
therefore
help
California
11
alleviate
air
pollution
by
converting
rice
straw
and
forest
12
residues
to
ethanol
that
would
otherwise
burn,
emitting
13
great
amounts
of
air
pollutants.

14
Also,
state
money
would
be
saved
by
preventing
15
imperative
fire­
fighting
practices,
which
are
extremely
16
costly
to
California
and
the
federal
government
on
the
17
upwards
of
$
1
billion
per
year.

18
As
another
benefit,
biomass
ethanol
can
improve
19
biomass
power
economics.

20
As
you
know,
California
has
recently
lost
about
21
one­
third
of
its
capacity
supplied
by
biomass
power
plants.

22
Biomass
ethanol
plant
generates
enough
energy
from
23
biomass'
lignin
component
to
actually
operate
the
plant,

24
while
still
having
excess
electricity
left
over
to
sell
to
25
the
grid.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
104
1
Analytical
data
has
revealed
that
coupling
of
2
biomass
power
plants
­­
sorry
­­
of
biomass
ethanol
plant
to
3
these
power
plants
may
actually
keep
some
of
them
4
operational
through
improved
economics.

5
Three
biomass
ethanol
plants
totalling
50
to
60
6
million
gallons
per
year
production
are
now
in
the
planning
7
stages
in
California,
ready
for
production
in
about
three
to
8
five
years.
One
plant
will
convert
rice
straw,
one
will
9
convert
rice
straw
and
wood
waste,
and
one
will
convert
wood
10
waste
only.

11
On
October
20th
of
this
year,
a
groundbreaking
12
ceremony
took
place
in
Louisiana
to
retrofit
a
starch­
based
13
ethanol
plant
to
use
sugarcane
waste
as
its
biomass
14
resource.

15
California
therefore
will
have
the
benefit
of
16
expanding
on
the
learning
curve
of
this
first­
of­
a­
kind
17
plant,
which
will
make
construction
and
operation
of
18
California
plants
that
much
easier.

19
In
summary,
the
California
State
Legislature
asked
20
for
an
evaluation
of
environmental
benefits
for
MTBE
21
alternatives.

22
I
believe
I've
covered
these
for
biomass
ethanol.

23
The
recent
UC
Davis
report
and
the
CEC
reports
24
support
banning
MTBE,
and
demonstrate
that
there
are
no
25
unsurmountable
cost
barriers
to
using
ethanol
in
California.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
105
1
But
to
expand
this
industry
quickly
to
displace
2
MTBE
with
ethanol
is
going
to
require
a
commitment
from
3
California.

4
I
believe
that
if
California
doesn't
use
5
corn­
based
ethanol
as
a
bridge
to
biomass­
based
ethanol,
in
6
the
future
California
may
lose
its
opportunity
for
this
fuel
7
and
all
of
its
many
benefits,
as
it
will
be
hard
to
8
resurrect
the
oxygenated
fuels
program.

9
The
corn
ethanol
industry
claims
it
can
rise
to
10
the
occasion
of
supplying
most
of
the
MTBE
replacement
11
within
a
few
years
by
expanding
their
existing
capacity.

12
If
California
gave
the
Midwest
this
opportunity,

13
biomass
ethanol
could
eventually
be
phased
in
to
displace
14
Midwest
ethanol.

15
The
only
barrier
to
using
ethanol
in
California
is
16
the
current
oxygen
cap,
along
with
the
threat
of
eliminating
17
the
one­
pound
RVP
waiver.

18
Biodegradable
California­
based
ethanol
can
provide
19
California
with
its
many
benefits,
including
a
reduction
of
20
open
field
burning
and
its
air
pollutants
if
this
barrier
21
was
taken
down.

22
As
a
closing
thought
­­

23
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Closing
thought.

24
MS.
SMITH:
As
a
closing
thought,
please
don't
let
25
California
throw
the
biomass
ethanol
baby
out
with
the
MTBE
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
106
1
contaminated
bathwater.

2
Thank
you.

3
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

4
Appreciate
your
testimony.

5
Dawn
Forsythe,
John
White,
and
Necy
Sumait,
Thomas
6
Toy,
if
you
will
queue
up,
the
list
of
witness.

7
Please
introduce
yourself
and
who
you
represent.

8
MS.
FORSYTHE:
Madam
Chair,
members
of
the
Board,

9
my
name
is
Dawn
Forsythe.
I'm
the
district
information
10
officer
from
the
South
Tahoe
Public
Utility
District.

11
I
started
out
early
this
morning
from
South
Tahoe
12
and
my
brain
wasn't
functioning
right.
If
it
was
I
would
13
have
brought
with
me
the
copy
of
the
Tahoe
Daily
Tribune.

14
You
were
the
headlines
this
morning,
"
State
Acts
to
Protect
15
Water
Quality."
I
hope
you're
the
headlines
on
Monday,
our
16
next
edition,
that
you
can
act
to
protect
groundwater.

17
As
you
know,
South
Tahoe
has
lost
35
percent
of
18
our
drinking
water
wells
to
MTBE
contamination.
Because
of
19
variable
pumping
rates,
that's
17
percent
of
our
drinking
20
water.

21
We're
in
dire
straits
in
South
Tahoe.
As
you
22
know,
we
are
a
small
community,
30,000.
We
serve
30,000
23
people.
But
this
holiday
and
next
summer
our
population
can
24
triple
and
at
times
quadruple.
And,
frankly,
we're
on
the
25
edge
with
our
water
supply.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
107
1
We
were
hoping
to
replace
it.
We
got
a
site
that
2
we
thought
was
an
upgradient
of
a
gas
station,
of
any
gas
3
stations.
We
were
pretty
sure
that
it
was
MTBE
free.

4
Unfortunately
it's
on
Forest
Service
land
and
that
project
5
has
been
stopped
because
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
wants
6
to
investigate
eagle
habitat.

7
We
had
another
site
where
hydrogeologists
gave
us
8
90
percent
confidence
level
that
there
would
be
no
MTBE
in
9
the
lower
aquifers,
in
the
deeper
aquifers.
And
maybe
it's
10
our
luck,
but
MTBE
is
there.
Now,
it's
at
very
trace
levels
11
.12,
.17,
.29,
.30.
It's
going
up.

12
And
people
say
why
are
you
worried
about
such
13
small
minute
traces
of
MTBE?
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
if
14
Godzilla
is
in
your
neighborhood,
you
don't
go
out
and
have
15
a
barbecue
on
the
front
lawn.
What
you
do
is
you
go
in
the
16
house,
you
turn
off
the
lights,
turn
down
the
stereo
and
17
hope
that
Godzilla
goes
the
other
way.

18
We're
hoping
that
Godzilla
will
go
the
other
way
19
or
that
someone
will
come
in
and
kill
the
creature.

20
Now,
we're
not
air
people.
We're
not
gas
people.

21
We're
water
people.

22
And
the
simple
fact
is
that
MTBE
is
contaminating
23
our
groundwater,
and
ethanol
and
gasoline
would
not.

24
When
the
President
wanted
to
kill
Godzilla,
he
25
called
in
the
Air
Force.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
108
1
You
are
the
Air
Force
for
the
State
of
California.

2
Please
help
us
stop
Godzilla's
rampage
through
South
Tahoe.

3
Please
consider
the
water
considerations
when
you're
looking
4
at
the
air.

5
This
is
so
important,
as
if
we're
all
to
protect
6
the
environment
of
South
Tahoe
and
other
communities
7
throughout
California.

8
Thank
you.

9
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

10
Remind
me,
what
did
that
headline
say
again?

11
MS.
SMITH:
"
State
Acts
to
Protect
Water
Quality."

12
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Good.
Good
for
us.

13
Let
me
invite
Mr.
White
to
come
forward.
Necy
14
Sumait
next,
Thomas
Toy,
Paul
Knepprath
and
finally
Loyd
15
Forest.

16
MR.
WHITE:
Madam
Chairman,
members,
good
morning.

17
My
name
is
V.
John
White.
And
I'm
here
today
representing
18
Sierra
Club
California.

19
I
apologize
on
behalf
of
my
colleague,
Bonnie
20
Holmes­
Gen,
who
has
been
working
on
this
issue
for
the
club,

21
and
who
was
unable
to
be
here,
so
I'm
trying
to
fill
in.

22
You
have
a
letter
in
the
record
from
the
Sierra
23
Club
on
these
issues
and
in
respect
to
the
time,
I'll
be
24
brief.

25
I
think
that
the
staff
report
and
the
peer
review
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
109
1
speaks
for
itself
in
terms
of
the
facts
that
you
have
before
2
you.

3
We're
grateful
that
the
staff
successfully
4
completed
the
12­
car
study,
which
I
think
for
those
of
us
5
that
reflect
on
Auto/
Oil
and
other
kinds
of
studies
that
we
6
have,
shouldn't
be
seen
as
a
small
number.
It
may
be
that
7
we
want
more
cars,
but
this
is
a
significant
number
of
cars,

8
and
the
data
is
statistically
significant.

9
We're
particularly
pleased,
having
supported
10
Senator
Sher's
legislation,
to
see
that
ARB
be
the
first
11
agency
we
believe
to
utilize
the
peer
review
process.
We
12
think
that
that's
something
that's
very
healthy
for
the
13
future.

14
The
findings,
again,
with
regard
to
the
17
percent
15
increase
in
ozone­
forming
potential,
again,
I
think
you
16
recall
that
it
doesn't
include
NOx.
For
some
reason
the
17
Legislature
in
its
wisdom
suggested
you
not
take
that
into
18
consideration,
but,
regardless,
we
know
that
that's
a
19
factor.

20
Simply
put,
the
open­
ended
volatility
waiver
21
simply
can't
be
allowed.
There
isn't
the
basis
for
doing
it
22
on
air
quality
grounds.

23
Also,
I
think
the
conservativism
of
the
staff's
24
work
on
this
has
to
be
underscored
by
the
Argon
National
25
Laboratory
study
that
found
significant
increases
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
110
1
aldehydes,
and
peroxyacyl
nitrates
in
the
atmosphere.

2
These
are
toxic
and
highly
reactive,
therefore
3
since
they
weren't
considered,
I
would
suggest
that
the
4
staff's
conclusions
are
in
fact
conservative.

5
Sierra
Club
is
not
opposed
to
the
use
of
ethanol
6
gasoline.
We
recognize
its
potential
as
a
sustainable
7
waste­
producing
environmentally
beneficial
project.
We
have
8
supported
subsidies
for
rice
straw
and
other
forms
of
9
biomass
ethanol
and
will
do
so
in
the
future.

10
However,
we
have
a
strong
belief
that
all
the
11
gasoline
additives
need
to
comply
fully
with
California's
12
air
quality
regulations.

13
Tosco
has
met
this
challenge
in
the
Bay
Area
and
14
it's
currently
selling
compliant
ethanol
blends.

15
I
think
your
staff
suggested,
Dr.
Jessel
as
well,

16
that
additional
regulatory
mechanisms
to
facilitate
the
use
17
of
methanol
may
be
available
and
the
only
thing
you're
18
taking
off
the
table
today
is
the
RVP
exemption.

19
I
think
as
time
has
shown
that
the
predictive
20
model
and
inputs
that
can
be
put
in
with
everybody's
21
participation
can
in
fact
yield
some
substantial
flexibility
22
and
opportunities.

23
A
lot
of
folks
never
thought
you
all
would
do
the
24
oxygen
cap,
but
when
you
found
a
way
to
do
it
right,
you
did
25
it.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
111
1
So
I
think
that
I
have
confidence
that
the
Board
2
as
it
strives
to
move
forward
into
the
next
period
will
be
3
successful.

4
In
that
regard,
we
don't
think
it's
too
soon
for
5
you
to
consider
the
next
step
toward
attainment
and
look
6
forward
to
helping
CARB
define
appropriate
standards
for
7
Phase
3
reformulated
gasoline
in
the
very
near
future.

8
Also,
I
would
mention
in
response
to
the
issues
9
raised
on
the
water
issue,
that
the
Sierra
Club
has
joined
10
with
other
groups
in
putting
before
the
State
Auditor
11
General
some
information
about
the
nature
of
the
water
12
contamination
failure
that
we
have
in
the
state.

13
I
look
forward
in
the
future
to
this
Board
perhaps
14
taking
a
more
direct
interest
in
involvement,
just
as
15
Mr.
Del
Piero
was
here
yesterday,
looking
at
your
process
16
with
regard
to
protecting
the
water
quality
with
respect
to
17
his
concerns.

18
And
I
think
the
Board
can
no
longer
sit
passive
19
with
respect
to
the
regulation
of
the
state's
gasoline
20
infrastructure,
because
there
has
been
a
systemic
breakdown
21
that
jeopardizes
far
more
than
the
water
supply
with
respect
22
to
MTBE
contamination.

23
And
in
fact
if
the
true
record
of
this
story
is
24
ever
told,
this
Board
will
have
been
found
to
have
been
25
aware
and
conversant
with
those
issues,
but
did
not
have
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
112
1
responsibility
or
authority.

2
One
of
the
things
I
look
forward
to
in
the
coming
3
years
as
we
do
multi­
media
analysis
between
any
cost
4
regulatory
agencies
­­
Ms.
Rakow
remembers,
I
think
when
the
5
Energy
Commission
played
a
very
significant
role
with
this
6
Board
with
respect
to
the
launch
of
this
program.

7
I
think
it's
clear
now
that
the
fuel
8
infrastructure
of
the
state,
the
impact
of
fuels
on
that
9
fueling
infrastructure
and
the
impact
on
that
fueling
10
infrastructure
on
the
groundwater
supplies
is
something
that
11
this
body
has
to
take
­­

12
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Can
you
speak
up?
We're
13
getting
to
­­
there
was
a
request
for
you
to
speak
up.
What
14
they
didn't
know
was
the
red
light
was
on
and
I
knew
that
15
you
were
going
to
conclude
soon.

16
MR.
WHITE:
I'd
also
like
to
extend
not
only
best
17
wishes
for
the
holidays,
but
congratulations
to
this
Board
18
for
its
service
over
the
last
several
years
and
particularly
19
for
a
stunning
bit
of
achievement
in
the
last
quarter
of
the
20
Board's
year.
Very
substantial
body
of
work
has
been
21
accomplished
and
we
congratulate
you
and
commend
you
for
you
22
public
service.

23
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

24
And
I
know
that
extends
to
the
staff
too,
because
25
they're
­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
113
1
MR.
WHITE:
Absolutely.

2
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
­­
very
much
a
part
of
that
3
incredible
record
that
we
have
undertaken.

4
Thank
you
very
much,
Mr.
White.

5
Necy,
you're
going
to
have
to
pronounce
your
last
6
name
correctly.

7
MS.
SUMAIT:
Good
morning.
I
am
Necy
Sumait,
with
8
Arkenol
Inc.,
a
California­
based
company.

9
I'm
also
here
on
behalf
of
the
Clean
Fuels
10
Development
Coalition,
CFDC.

11
We're
pleased
to
provide
­­
to
have
the
12
opportunity
to
present
comments
on
California
Air
Resources
13
Board's
consideration
of
the
ozone­
forming
potential
of
14
ethanol
blended
fuels.

15
We
would
like
to
commend
CARB
on
its
efforts
to
16
lift
the
current
oxygen
cap
on
gasoline
in
order
to
provide
17
more
options
for
the
use
of
clean­
burning
oxygenates,
while
18
also
providing
additional
refiner
flexibility
to
meet
the
19
environmental
goals
of
California's
clean­
burning
gasoline
20
program.

21
However,
we
do
not
feel
it
is
prudent
at
this
time
22
to
include
in
the
determination
a
position
under
23
ozone­
forming
potential
of
such
blends.

24
CFDC
is
a
nonprofit
organization
with
a
diverse
25
membership
of
more
than
two
dozen
member
companies
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
114
1
representing
a
variety
of
industry
interests,
but
include
2
fuel
oxygenate
producers,
American
automobile
manufacturers
3
and
independent
US
refiners
and
others
involved
in
the
4
agriculture
and
clean
fuel
business.

5
CFDC
supports
the
continued
implementation
of
the
6
existing
federal
and
California
cleaner­
burning
fuel
7
programs,
which
demonstrated
their
ability
to
reduce
air
8
pollution.

9
Arkenol,
who
I'm
from,
is
a
member
of
CFDC.

10
Arkenol
is
a
technology
development
company
with
patented
11
technologies
to
convert
a
wide
range
of
waste
materials
such
12
as
rice
straw
and
green
waste
into
bio­
based
industrial
13
chemicals,
such
as
fuel­
grade
ethanol.

14
Arkenol's
developing
project
opportunities
15
worldwide,
including
a
rice
straw
to
ethanol
plant
here
in
16
Sacramento
County.

17
This
project
and
others
like
it
responds
to
ARB's
18
search
for
alternatives
to
rice
straw
disposal
and
19
improvements
in
air
quality
from
the
avoidance
of
open
field
20
burning.

21
The
availability
of
technology
like
Arkenol's
22
allows
for
the
conversion
of
California's
abundant
biomass
23
resources
into
home­
grown
fuels,
while
providing
solutions
24
to
our
issues
of
waste
management,
air
pollution
and
25
economic
development.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
115
1
CARB's
determination
of
the
ozone­
forming
2
potential
of
methanol
blends
as
a
result
of
efforts
to
3
increase
the
oxygen
cap
from
its
current
level
of
2.7
to
4
3.5,
which
would
allow
the
use
of
ten
percent
volume
ethanol
5
blends
and
give
refiners
more
flexibility
in
developing
6
formulations
of
gasoline
and
improve
air
quality
in
the
7
State
of
California.

8
The
constantly
fluctuating
science
of
fuel
9
formulations
and
the
relationship
with
automobile
emissions
10
has
made
this
a
complicated
and
difficult
issue.

11
The
proposed
determination
by
the
Board
that
12
elevated
RVP
gasoline
results
in
increased
ozone­
forming
13
potential
is
a
serious
determination
with
far­
reaching
14
ramifications.
In
fact,
this
determination
could
have
an
15
impact
in
the
future
use
of
oxygenates
in
gasoline,
and
16
therefore
deserves
careful
scrutiny.

17
The
stated
objective
of
giving
refiners
more
18
flexibility
by
allowing
blends
of
ten
percent
ethanol
is
an
19
admirable
goal,
but
itself
will
not
result
in
any
measurable
20
quantities
of
ethanol
being
utilized.

21
At
the
same
time,
however,
we
believe
it's
22
premature
to
make
a
determination
that
such
ethanol
blends
23
increase
the
potential
for
ozone
formation
and
urge
that
24
this
issue
be
examined
further.

25
There
are
a
number
of
benefits
to
increased
oxygen
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
116
1
content
in
gasoline
and
additional
environmental
gains
are
2
available
to
California
refiners
using
ten
percent
volume
3
blends,
particularly
with
the
availability
of
technology
4
such
as
Arkenol's
biomass
to
ethanol
will
allow
for
an
5
expanded
use
of
local
biomass
like
rice
straw
and
provide
6
the
benefits
that
Ms.
Smith
described
earlier.

7
Given
the
constraints
that
ethanol
has
faced
8
relative
to
meeting
RVP
requirements,
this
determination
by
9
the
Board
could
have
the
practical
effect
of
eliminating
10
ethanol
as
an
oxygenate
and
a
clean­
burning
gasoline
11
program.

12
If
problems
associated
with
other
oxygenates
13
result
in
a
limitation
on
their
use,
the
entire
program's
14
use
of
oxygenates
could
be
in
jeopardy.

15
Therefore,
the
very
relief
to
refiners
the
rule
16
seeks
to
provide
would
be
lost,
as
well
as
the
many
air
17
quality
benefits
that
have
come
from
us
from
the
use
of
18
oxygenates
in
gasoline.

19
According
to
the
supply
and
cost
alternatives
to
20
MTBE
and
gasoline
study,
the
CEC,
if
the
scope
of
replacing
21
MTBE
were
to
be
broadened
to
include
the
elimination
of
all
22
oxygenates
from
gasoline,
the
cost
impact
to
consumers
would
23
be
the
greatest,
regardless
of
the
length
of
time
allowed
24
for
the
transition.
That
decision
may
need
to
increase
25
gasoline
cost
to
California
of
over
one
billion
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
117
1
consumers.

2
We
are
in
agreement
with
the
California
Department
3
of
Food
and
Ag's
analysis
that
there
is,
and
others
here,

4
that
there
is
sufficient
disagreement
among
experts
5
regarding
the
assumptions,
the
methodology
and
the
modeling
6
protocols
that
warrant
continued
vehicle
emissions
testing
7
work
beyond
Phase
1.

8
This
should
also
assure
that
the
light­
duty
9
vehicle
fleet
relative
to
the
source
of
emissions
is
10
appropriately
represented
in
the
test
protocol.

11
We
believe
it's
incorrect
to
focus
on
the
massive
12
emissions
without
regard
to
the
level
of
toxicity
or
13
reactivity.

14
Not
all
VOCs
are
alike
in
terms
of
toxicity
or
15
reactivity.
The
loss
of
oxygenates
could
result
in
an
16
increase
of
more
carcinogenic
compounds
at
the
expense
of
17
less
toxic
ones.

18
Reducing
oxygenates
would
produce
a
fuel
that
is
19
more,
rather
than
less,
reactive,
because
of
an
increase
in
20
the
use
of
aromatics.

21
Furthermore,
the
CARB
test
program
was
not
based
22
on
a
representative
fleet
of
vehicles
to
make
such
an
23
important
determination.
The
lack
of
high
emitters
among
24
the
test
vehicles
and
the
overall
small
amount
of
vehicles
25
is
not
sufficient
to
provide
a
conclusion,
given
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
118
1
importance
of
maintaining
a
viable
role
for
all
oxygenates
2
and
gasoline.

3
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
I
think
I'm
going
­­

4
MS.
SUMAIT:
Even
the
likelihood
of
this
5
determination
will
impact
that
role.

6
We
respectfully
urge
the
Board
to
refrain
from
7
making
this
determination
at
this
time.

8
Future
tests
to
determine
ozone­
forming
potential
9
need
to
be
conducted
with
more
in­
depth
examination
and
with
10
a
much
wider
vehicle
population.

11
In
conclusion,
California
will
need
all
available
12
options
during
the
next
three­
year
period
to
make
cleaner
13
burning
gasolines.
A
decision
at
this
time
such
as
is
being
14
proposed
would
virtually
eliminate
the
use
of
a
renewable
15
cleaner­
burning
gasoline
component
with
a
multitude
of
16
additional
benefits
for
the
state.

17
Thank
you.

18
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

19
Mr.
Toy.

20
Give
us
your
name
and
who
you
represent,
for
the
21
record,
please.

22
And
you
can
adjust
that
microphone
up.

23
MR.
TOY:
Thank
you.
Good
morning,
Madam
Chair
24
and
committee.
My
name
is
Thomas
Toy
and
I
work
for
an
25
experiential
education
school
out
of
Coloma,
California,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
119
1
namely
Current
Adventures.

2
I
work
with
children,
primarily
in
water,
namely
3
Lake
Natoma
and
the
lower
American
River
in
our
adventure
4
camps.

5
After
the
findings
were
published
about
MTBE,
I
6
felt
that
the
children
in
our
program
were
being
put
at
7
risk.
I
became
interested
in
­­
I
can't
read
my
own
8
writing
­­
in
oxygenate
alternative
and
see
ethanol
as
a
9
viable
substitute.
Not
only
is
it
renewable,
it
also
10
doesn't
harm
the
children
I
signed
up
in
our
programs.

11
Just
briefly,
I
feel
the
findings
in
98­
15­
3
are
12
inconclusive
and
that
ethanol
is
a
very
green
alternative.

13
And
I
think
the
kids
would
agree.

14
So
thank
you
very
much
and
enjoy
your
day.

15
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
for
being
here
to
16
testify.

17
Ms.
Edgerton.

18
MS.
EDGERTON:
Mr.
Toy,
I
think
all
of
us
share
a
19
concern
about
a
clean
environment
for
the
children.
We
have
20
probably
the
most
important
children's
health
study,
an
air
21
quality
study,
ongoing
in
the
nation
right
now
in
our
22
research
portfolio.

23
My
understanding
of
the
findings
of
the
staff
on
24
this
is
that
if
we
go
ahead
and
make
the
finding
that
you've
25
recommended,
in
fact
we'll
be
recognizing
that
the
tests
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
120
1
show
more
air
pollution,
not
less,
if
you
have
the
2
unwaivered
ethanol.

3
I
mean,
I
wanted
­­
I'm
a
little
confused
by
your
4
position,
because
what
the
staff
report
basically
says
is
we
5
need
to
make
this
finding
because
ethanol
is
more
­­
has
6
higher
Reid
vapor
pressure,
and
therefore
is
more
reactive
7
and
therefore
will
cause
­­
has
more
ozone­
forming
8
potential.

9
Gentlemen,
can
you
­­

10
MR.
SIMEROTH:
That's
basically
correct.
Blending
11
ethanol
into
gasoline
results
in
the
result
of
having
a
12
higher
Reid
vapor
pressure
of
approximately
one
pound
per
13
square
inch.
The
test
results
would
show
that
that
results
14
in
a
significant
increase
in
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,

15
which
results
in
a
higher
ozone­
forming
potential
in
the
16
atmosphere.

17
MS.
EDGERTON:
So
thank
you.
I'm
not
a
scientist.

18
MR.
TOY:
I'm
not
either.

19
That
was
one
of
my
problems
when
I
read
studies
20
such
as
this.

21
What
I
have
found,
I
guess,
just
reading
through
22
98­
15­
3
and
in
terms
of
just
a
person
from
the
general
23
public
that
I
feel
if
we
did
use
ethanol
now,
currently,
in
24
the
formulated
fuels
that
we
have,
that
the
benefits
would
25
outweigh
the
cost
of
MTBE.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
121
1
And
that
what
I
would
like
to
see,
again
coming
2
from
the
general
public
perspective,
is
that
we
can
use
3
ethanol
at
the
moment,
and
then
down
the
road
reformulate
4
gases
so
that
the
ozone
increases
or
the
clean
air
­­
let
me
5
see
if
I
can
say
that
again.
So
that
we
can
reformulate
6
gases
down
the
road
so
that
it
would
accommodate
the
ethanol
7
usage
in
a
much
more
greener
way.

8
MS.
EDGERTON:
Just,
just
in
­­
without
belaboring
9
this,
from
my
study
I
think
what
we're
doing
here
is
going
10
to
improve
the
­­
it's
a
positive
step
in
terms
of
11
protecting
the
children's
health.

12
So
you
might
want
to
look
a
little
more
carefully
13
on
that.
You
may
keep
your
view
when
you
walk
out
of
here,

14
but
I
just
­­
we
have
a
different
view
as
to
what
the
15
consequence
would
be.

16
It's
also
my
understanding
that
you
can
spend
a
17
little
more
money
and
bring
down
that
Reid
vapor
pressure
in
18
the
ethanol.
It's
not
spend
a
little
more
money,
it's
spend
19
a
lot
more
money,
isn't
it.
I
mean,
in
the
blends.

20
MR.
SIMEROTH:
We
have
Tosco
in
the
Bay
Area
is
21
using
ethanol
to
make
cleaner­
burning
gasoline.
They
also
22
used
it
last
summer
and
fully
complied
with
our
Reid
vapor
23
pressure
requirements.

24
And
I
think
what
you're
hearing
this
staff
commit
25
to
is
to
look
at
how
do
we
correctly
credit
ethanol's
use
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
122
1
for
potential
adjustments
to
our
standards
and
still
2
preserve
the
benefits
of
the
program
and
have
flexibility.

3
MS.
EDGERTON:
Thank
you.
So
the
point
is
if
you
4
bring
down
the
Reid
vapor
pressure
in
the
ethanol,
then
it
5
can
be
competitive
in
terms
of
its
clean
air
benefit.

6
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Toy,
for
coming.

7
We
appreciate
that.

8
Mr.
Paul
Knepprath
and
Neil
Koehler
will
be
the
9
last
speaker
on
our
agenda
on
this
item.

10
MR.
KNEPPRATH:
Good
morning,
Madam
Chair
and
11
members.
It's
nice
to
be
here
today.
I
will
try
to
keep
my
12
comments
brief.

13
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Good.

14
MR.
KNEPPRATH:
My
name
is
Paul
Knepprath,

15
representing
the
American
Lung
Association
of
California,

16
and
our
medical
arm,
the
California
Thoracic
Society.

17
Simply
put,
the
American
Lung
Association
supports
18
the
finding
and
your
action
on
that
finding
as
the
staff
has
19
recommended
it
to
you.

20
Looking
at
the
science
and
looking
at
the
studies
21
that
have
been
done,
it
appears
that
this
has
been
fairly
22
exhaustive,
that
it
is
consistent
with
other
studies
that
23
have
been
done
on
this
issue,
and
we
support
that.

24
The
American
Lung
Association
is
not
against
25
ethanol,
per
se.
In
fact
our
position
on
fuel
is
that
we're
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
123
1
fuel
neutral.
We
want
fuels
to
be
used
that
will
give
us
2
the
most
emission
reductions
and
the
most
public
health
3
benefits.
So
we
want
to
make
it
clear
that
we're
certainly
4
not
up
here
today
to
oppose
the
use
of
ethanol
or
the
5
ethanol
industry.
And
in
fact
as
most
of
you
know,
we
have
6
been
supportive
of
all
the
efforts
to
reduce
rice
straw
7
burning
and
to
use
the
fuel
stock
from
rice
straw
for
any
8
purpose
that
might
benefit
the
environment
or
public
health,

9
including
the
production
of
ethanol
fuels.
So
I
want
to
be
10
very
clear
on
the
record
for
that
issue.

11
We
are
concerned
about
the
ozone­
forming
impacts
12
that
have
been
found
in
the
ten
percent
ethanol,
and
just
13
say
that
we
think
that
in
a
time
when
we're
still
not
14
meeting
our
attainment
for
ozone
that
it
seems
unwise
for
us
15
to
move
down
the
road
of
perhaps
creating
more
barriers
for
16
reaching
containment
based
on
the
results
from
the
studies
17
that
have
been
shown
in
this
area.

18
The
other
issue
that
we
wanted
to
note,
and
we
do
19
have
this
in
the
letter
on
record,
is
that
the
study
showed
20
and
found
vehicle
emissions
of
toxic
air
pollutants
from
ten
21
percent
ethanol
fuel
to
increase
by
about
13
percent.
And
22
while
this
in
the
staff
report
the
calculated
potency
23
increase
of
only
five
percent,
much
of
that
was
in
acid
24
aldehydes,
which
US
EPA
has
classified
as
a
probable
25
carcinogen.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
124
1
These
also
promote
the
creation
of
PAM,
the
2
perooxylacyl
nitrates,
in
the
atmosphere,
which
also
3
contribute
to
smog­
forming
potential.
So
we
want
to
also
4
make
note
of
that.

5
There's
also
the
issue
of
commingling
ten
percent
6
ethanol
fuel
with
non­
ethanol
California
RFG
and
the
results
7
of
this
kind
of
mixed
commingling
on
ozone­
forming
8
potential.
We
think
that
the
multiplier
effect
should
be
9
investigated
on
the
cleaner­
burning
gasoline
program
before
10
making
any
decision
on
the
waiver.

11
The
ARB's
clean­
burning
gasoline
program
has
12
brought
real
air
quality
and
public
health
benefits
beyond
13
the
levels
even
predicted
from
the
beginning
of
this
14
program.

15
We
want
to
urge
caution
in
the
adoption
of
any
16
changes
to
the
program
that
may
risk
reducing
these
17
benefits.

18
We
urge
the
Board
to
accommodate
the
use
of
19
ethanol
under
the
existing
regulatory
regime,
so
that
the
20
benefits
of
substituting
ethanol
for
MTBE
or
other
21
oxygenates
can
be
obtained
without
eroding
air
quality
22
benefits.

23
Thank
you.

24
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Knepprath.

25
Mr.
Koehler
come
forward,
please.
Give
us
your
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
125
1
name
and
who
you
represent,
and
you
can
adjust
that
2
microphone.

3
MR.
KOEHLER:
Good
morning.
I
think
it's
still
4
morning.

5
My
name
is
Neil
Koehler.
I'm
president
of
6
Parallel
Products.
We
are
a
company
in
Southern
California
7
that
converts
the
waste
products
from
the
food
and
beverage
8
industry
into
ethanol.

9
And
I
would
say
that
it
was
because
of
my
very
10
deep­
seated
environmental
convictions
that
I
entered
this
11
business
in
the
first
place,
and
that
I
truly
believed
in
12
the
benefits
that
ethanol
in
all
forms,
in
gasoline,
in
13
straight
use,
in
fuel
cells,
that
it
is
truly
a
fuel
for
the
14
future,
is
the
only
renewable
fuel,
the
only
liquid
fuel
15
commercially
produced
in
the
world
that
is
derived
from
16
renewable
resources.

17
As
we
move
into
the
next
millennium
and
global
18
climate
changes
takes
on
significance
as
possibly
the
19
largest
air
quality
problem
we
face,
ethanol
is
very
much
a
20
part
of
the
solution.

21
I'm
a
bit
confused
by
this
whole
process
today
and
22
very
frustrated,
frankly,
because
I
feel
that
what
we're
23
doing
here
is
engaging
in
a
negative
exercise
that
somehow
24
is
suggesting
that
ethanol
is
the
problem
and
not
part
of
a
25
solution.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
126
1
We
know
MTBE
is
a
problem.
We
know
we
need
to
get
2
MTBE
out
of
the
gasoline
in
California.
We
know
that
it
was
3
probably
a
lack
of
looking
at
the
bigger
picture
that
put
us
4
in
the
position
where
we
are
today,
where
we
have
an
MTBE
5
monopoly
in
this
state
and
that
ethanol
has
been
6
systematically
excluded
from
the
program.

7
It
was
ever
since
'
95
when
the
CBG
program
went
8
into
effect.
We've
been
shipping
our
ethanol
to
every
state
9
around
California
that
welcomes
its
use
in
its
clean­
burning
10
programs,
without
the
MTBE
problems
that
we're
having
here
11
in
the
State
of
California.

12
So
we
clearly
have
a
problem
and
we
need
to
have
13
the
political
will
and
the
technical
abilities
and
the
14
creative
thinking
to
solve
this
problem,
and
what
we're
15
engaged
in
here
today
is
so
far
from
that.

16
Just
a
couple
of
specifics
here.

17
Where
I'm
very
very
confused
with
what
we
are
18
doing
today
is
that
the
Legislature
has
always
wanted
to
19
make
sure
that
ethanol
was
given
a
fair
role
in
gasoline.

20
That's
why
when
the
vapor
pressure
allowance
was
most
21
recently
extended
in
1992,
I
believe
it
was,
that
there
were
22
the
environmental
safeguards
to
make
sure
that
the
ozone
was
23
protected,
because
while,
Ms.
Silva,
while
it
is
true
that
24
there
are
increases
when
you
add
small
amounts
of
ethanol
to
25
gasoline,
I'll
say
one
thing,
ethanol
as
a
pure
compound
has
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
127
1
an
RVP
of
two,
very
very
low,
so
it's
not
ethanol
in
and
of
2
itself,
it's
the
blending.

3
But
there
are
offsets.
We've
talked
about
them.

4
The
CARB
staff
recognizes
them.
But
the
models,
the
5
regulatory
framework
we
have
today
does
not
incorporate
the
6
benefits
of
ethanol.

7
I
applaud
staff
for
wanting
to
engage
with
all
the
8
stakeholders
to
understand
what
those
are,
so
that
we
can
9
establish
environmental
equivalents.

10
But
what
the
Legislature
said
was
that
if
you're
11
going
to
make
this
finding
that's
before
you
today
it
must
12
be
on
the
basis
of
a
representative
sample
of
the
vehicles.

13
We
do
not
have
a
representative
sample
of
the
14
vehicles
in
today's
finding,
and
this
is
where
I
must
appeal
15
to
Mr.
Dunlap,
because
he
was
the
one
that
had
the
political
16
vision
to
say
we
need
to
do
this
test
in
the
first
place.

17
It
was
125­
vehicle
test.
Phase
1
was
merely
to
fine
tune
18
the
test
to
go
on
to
Phase
2.
There
is
nothing
in
the
19
protocols
that
suggests
after
12
vehicles
we
were
going
to
20
draw
a
technical
conclusion.

21
And
in
fact
because
there
was
enough
concern
on
22
our
industry's
part,
and
I
was
on
the
ethanol
working
group,

23
that
this
would
become
an
issue,
I
said,
hey,
what's
to
keep
24
this
being
a
set­
up
that
you
do
Phase
1,
that
is
not
25
representative,
and
we
don't
go
on
to
do
the
full
test?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
128
1
Don't
worry,
that's
not
what
is
intended
here.
And
that's
2
exactly
what
we
have
before
us
today.
Very
serious
problem.

3
The
vehicles
that
were
tested
are
a
very
narrow
4
slice.
I
think
even
in
the
peer
review
it
was
clearly
5
stated
that
the
test
was
representative
of
the
vehicles
6
tested,
but
the
vehicles
tested
were
not
representative
of
7
the
fleet
in
California.

8
We've
presented
technical
information
today
that
9
would
suggest
it
was
representative
of
only
ten
percent
of
10
the
total
emission
inventories,
the
CARB
staff
is
saying
11
it's
closer
to
35
percent,
but
that's
when
you
assume
that
12
the
12­
vehicle
class
that
was
tested
was
representative
even
13
of
that
class.
And
we
know
that
it
was
not,
because
it
was
14
the
cleanest
burning
­­
we
know
that
cleanest
burning
15
vehicles
give
you
the
less
benefit
for
the
use
of
oxygen.

16
It
helps
you
in
the
older
vehicles
and
the
vehicles
that
are
17
not
quite
operating
in
tune.

18
So
it's
a
very
serious
problem.

19
The
California
Air
Resources
Board
themselves,
I
20
have
document
I
have
here
that
defines
what
is
a
21
representative
fleet
of
vehicles
for
determining
alternative
22
specifications
in
California
gasoline.

23
And
to
just
quote
a
couple
of
sentences,
the
test
24
fleet
required
by
subsection
shall
consist
of
each
vehicle
25
category
contributing
at
least
three
percent
of
the
sum
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
129
1
NMOG
emissions.
This
was
not
done.

2
Within
­­
and
then
consequently,
or
a
fourth
point
3
on
this
particular
section,
says
that
over
all
categories
4
for
the
fleet
or
at
least
five
percent
­­
over
all
5
categories
tested,
the
total
number
of
vehicles
shall
be
at
6
least
20.
And
we
have
12.
So
we
have
a
serious
problem.

7
There
was
no
consensus,
contrary
to
some
of
the
8
statements
that
are
made
in
the
staff
report.
A
majority
of
9
the
ethanol
work
group
members,
which
included
the
broad
10
range
of
stakeholders,
did
not
agree
with
the
findings,
and
11
the
majority
of
those
stakeholders,
and
you've
heard
from
12
them
today,
we
have
a
majority
of
environmental
groups
13
represented
today,
we
have
the
agricultural
industry,
we
14
have
the
water
agencies,
we
have
the
ethanol
industry,
we
15
have
the
people
that
want
to
build
rice
to
ethanol
plants
in
16
this
state,
are
saying
is
premature
to
make
this
finding.

17
This
is
a
negative
for
one
of
the
most
positive
alternatives
18
to
the
use
of
MTBE
in
California
gasoline
today.

19
We're
not
saying
that
there
are
not
problems
with
20
the
vapor
pressure
issue,
but
they
are
mitigated,
and
that
21
by
the
benefits
and
that
we
have
to
get
our
arms
around
the
22
totality
of
the
impacts
and
that
we
enter
into
a
23
collaborative
process
to
determine
that.

24
The
only
way
­­

25
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
I
think
that
was
an
excellent
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
130
1
conclusion.

2
MR.
KOEHLER:
I
have
one
last
statement,
because
I
3
mean
this
from
the
bottom
of
my
heart,
based
upon
the
way
4
that
I
review
all
of
the
aspects
of
this,
and
I
think
it's
5
adequately
and
abundantly
made
clear
by
the
testimony
you
6
heard
today,
is
that
you
would
be
shirking
your
technical
7
and
your
legal
and
your
public
policy
responsibilities
if
8
you
make
this
finding
today.

9
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
consideration.

10
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

11
We
have
one
person
to
add
to
the
witness
list.

12
Loyd
Forest,
come
forward,
please.

13
Ms.
Edgerton.

14
MS.
EDGERTON:
Yes.
Can
either
of
you
gentlemen,

15
Mr.
Venturini
or
Mr.
Simeroth,
comment
on
this
assertion
16
that
there
was
no
agreement
or
there
was
very
little
17
agreement
in
the
work
group?
My
impression
was
that
there
18
was,
from
what
I
heard,
was
there
was
a
great
deal
of
19
agreement
with
the
findings,
certainly
the
peer
review
is
in
20
agreement.
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
chance
to
reply
to
21
that.

22
MR.
SIMEROTH:
The
staff
report
does
not
say
that
23
there
was
an
agreement.

24
The
ethanol
industry
and
the
representatives
of
25
the
industry
did
not
agree
with
the
conclusions.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
131
1
We
have
other
letters
from
other
representatives
2
of
the
work
group
who
did
agree
with
the
conclusions.

3
That's
one
of
the
reason
why
we
subjected
the
4
findings
to
the
peer
review
process
because
we
had
­­

5
MR.
SCHEIBLE:
I
think
if
you
look
at
it
as
6
various
interest
groups
with
technical
expertise,
the
auto
7
manufacturers
clearly
looked
at
the
data
and
found
that
they
8
supported
the
staff's
analysis.
The
oil
industry
that
makes
9
the
fuel
and
must
live
with
the
rules
and
must
make
the
10
decisions
on
additives,
reviewed
it
and
agreed
with
the
11
staff
analysis.

12
We
had
the
peer
review
and
we
have
other
parties
13
that
also
have
looked
at
it.

14
So
in
terms
of
they
were
quite
a
few
ethanol
15
interest
groups
or
parties
that
are
interested
in
furthering
16
the
use
of
ethanol,
they
would
like
to
see
additional
work
17
done
and
would
like
to
see
the
decision
delayed.

18
I
believe
the
other
parties,
generally
it's
fair
19
to
characterize
them
as
they
reviewed
the
technical
work,

20
they
find
it
adequate,
they
find
the
finding
to
be
21
sufficiently
done
by
staff.

22
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Koehler,
no,
no.
Thank
23
you.

24
Mr.
Forest.

25
MR.
FOREST:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chairman.
I'm
Loyd
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
132
1
Forest,
TSS
Consultants.
We're
a
consulting
firm
that
2
specializes
in
biomass
technologies,
such
as
biomass
to
3
ethanol.

4
We're
also
involved
in
the
Gridley
ethanol
5
project,
as
many
of
you
know,
and
a
recently­
announced
6
biomass
ethanol
project
at
Collins
Pines
in
Chester,

7
California,
that
used
wood
waste.

8
And
we
previously
worked
on
the
Arkenol
9
biomass­
to­
ethanol
project.

10
But
we
work
on
all
technologies,
biomass
power,

11
and
it's
a
narrow
niche,
but
it's
our
niche
in
the
12
marketplace.

13
I'd
like
to
make
a
couple
points
and
I
really
like
14
to
pick
up
on
Mike
Scheible's
comment.

15
I
think
the
interest
from
the
biomass
and
ethanol
16
industry
is
certainly
more
work
in
addressing
what
17
alternatives
there
are
for,
if
not
a
full
one­
pound
RVP
18
waiver
based
upon
diverting
the
material
that's
open
field
19
burning
on
the
ag
side
or
the
forest
side,
where
is
that
20
equilibrium.

21
And
I
think
it's
been
probably
maybe
a
disservice
22
from
a
public
benefit
standpoint
to
pose
the
question
only
23
as
E10
or
one
pound
per
square
inch
exemption
or
no
ethanol
24
in
the
marketplace.

25
So
I
would
urge
the
Board,
and
I
think
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
133
1
reinforce
the
letter
that
Bob
Heckert
sent
to
you
on
this
2
issue
and
his
testimony
earlier
today,
to
further
3
investigate
the
alternatives
for
using
ethanol
in
the
4
reformulated
gasoline
and
how
to
mitigate
them
and
where
is
5
that
optimization
point.

6
So
I
would
not
want
to
lose
that
in
the
hearing
7
today.
I
think
it's
worthy
in
terms
of
California's
need
to
8
solve
its
open
fuel
burning
problem,
as
well
as
its
need
to
9
reduce
the
air
emissions
from
an
air
pollutant
standpoint.

10
I'd
also
suggest
the
theme
is
probably
among
many
11
of
the
stakeholders
here
and
the
reference
that
was
made
to
12
not
closing
the
door
just
with
a
seven
pound
per
square
inch
13
Reid
vapor
pressure
to
look
at
some
alternatives
in
that.

14
In
that
sense
I
think
if
I
were
in
the
oil
15
industry
and
I
allowed
oil
in
the
ground,
that's
an
illiquid
16
asset,
and
the
only
way
to
make
it
liquid
is
to
sell
it,

17
presently
the
more
I
sell
this
year,
the
more
valuable
that
18
asset
is
from
the
chief
financial
officer
and
CPA
would
tell
19
me,
I
would
certainly
probably
be
resisting
the
use
of
20
ethanol
in
gasoline
in
California.

21
I'm
not
condemning
that.
I'm
saying
from
a
22
business
standpoint
it
makes
good
sense.

23
But
looking
at
it
from
a
public
benefit
standpoint
24
and
the
ag
industry
standpoint,
the
worst
industry
in
air
25
quality,
there's
a
larger
set
of
public
benefits
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
134
1
certainly
the
Air
Board
has
a
responsibility
to
address.

2
And
I
would
commend
your
staff
on
skillfully
3
juggling
all
these
stakeholders
and
the
addressing
this
4
issue,
but
I
would
suggest
that
typically
as
Americans
we
5
have
three
alternatives,
two
extremes
and
a
moderate
6
position
in
between,
and
all
I'm
saying
here
is
what
the
7
French
do
is
two
extreme
alternatives,
either
zero
ethanol
8
or
ten
percent
ethanol,
and
we
probably
need
some
compromise
9
in
between
that
addresses
something
that
mitigates
the
needs
10
and
the
number
of
the
areas,
including
air
quality
and
water
11
quality.

12
So
I
appreciate
your
time,
and
I
also
would
13
appreciate
your
patience.

14
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Forest,
Mr.
Dunlap
has
a
15
question
for
you.

16
MR.
DUNLAP:
Jack
and
I
had
some
questions
and
17
you're
the
perfect
one
to
help
us
with
these.

18
The
first
part
­­
by
the
way,
I
should
acknowledge
19
for
some
of
the
newer
Board
members,
Mr.
Forest
had
spent
a
20
lot
of
time
helping
us
in
the
rice
straw
alternatives
areas,

21
and
served
as
chair
of
committees
and
what
not,
and
has
done
22
an
awful
lot
in
state
government,
and
he's
been
a
friend
to
23
this
organization,
so
when
he
shows
up,
usually
I
pay
24
particular
attention,
because
it's
an
issue
that
merits
our
25
attention.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
135
1
The
first
part
of
your
commentary,
Loyd,
a
moment
2
ago
where
you
suggested
some
things
that
we
might
do,
can
I
3
get
you
to
maybe
specify
those
and
the
mechanics
of
what
we
4
have
before
us
today?
How
would
we
do
this?

5
MR.
FOREST:
I
think
your
staff
has
done
some
work
6
on
looking
at
what
the
benefits
the
air
pollution
reductions
7
would
be
from
diverting
things
like
rice
straw,
orchard
8
prunings
into
a
product
such
as
ethanol.

9
And
all
I'm
suggesting
is
that
it
doesn't
look
10
like
those
benefits
have
been
given
any
credit
in
11
considering
a
reduction
on
the
one
pound
per
square
inch.

12
MR.
DUNLAP:
Because
of
what
would
happen
if
you
13
burned
them
in
the
open
field
environment?

14
MR.
FOREST:
Yeah.
And
I'm
not
­­
by
the
way,
I
15
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
your
staff.
They've
dealt
with
me
16
professionally
every
time
I've
asked
them
really
dumb
17
questions.
But
I
also
respect
some
of
their
conclusions.

18
But
I
would
suggest
there
is
a
middle
ground
here
19
that
should
be
further
addressed
by
the
Board
and
the
staff.

20
And
then
I
think
beyond
that
if
I
were
a
public
21
official
looking
at
the
ARB
staff,
I
probably
ask
how
would
22
you
mitigate
a
full
one
pound
per
square
inch
Reid
vapor
23
pressure
exemption,
in
terms
of
meeting
your
objectives,
not
24
increasing
the
emission
in
the
air.

25
And
that
probably
gets
beyond
just
the
question
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
136
1
open
field
burning,
but
I
think
it
would
be
a
service
to
the
2
Board
and
possibly
the
public
to
have
some
of
the
3
alternatives
addressed
by
the
staff
and
brought
back.

4
MR.
DUNLAP:
Now,
let
me
come
back
to
Mike,
you
5
and
I
had
some
conversations
in
this
regard.

6
One
of
the
things
Mr.
Parnell
and
I
were
chatting
7
about
was
how
to
incentivize
or
give
credit
for
some
things
8
like
energy
considerations
or
for
not
having
open
field
9
burning
and
some
efficiencies
that
we
realize
as
a
society
10
and
some
benefits
that
we
realize,
which
are
things
that
11
this
Board
unfortunately
has
a
lot
of
power
as
people
would
12
assert,
but
it's
limited
primarily
to
one
area.
I
mean,
the
13
air
quality
impacts.
And
that's
frustrating.

14
But,
Mike,
maybe
the
two
Mikes,
is
there
something
15
we're
missing
or
is
there
something
more
we
can
do
here?

16
How
do
we
give
credit
or
incentivize
in
some
way
this
other
17
good,
positive
activities
relative
to
burning,
relative
to
18
energy,
et
cetera?
What
can
do?
What
do
we
need
to
change?

19
How
do
we
get
through
this?

20
MR.
SCHEIBLE:
I
think
we're
sensitive,
and
21
acknowledge
that
the
biomass
industry
can
have
air
quality
22
benefits,
that
reducing
burning
can
have
air
quality
23
benefits,
in
output
of
forest
management
and
other
things.

24
It's
very
­­
technically,
I'd
say
our
assessment
25
is
that
those
benefits
aren't
going
to
be
great
enough
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
137
1
even
on
a
statewide
basis
offset
the
kind
of
benefit
you
see
2
from
the
cleaner
burning
gasoline.
It's
something
like
the
3
vapor
pressure,
which
is
extremely
important.

4
Also,
the
cleaner
burning
gasoline
program
has
5
most
of
its
benefits
in
Los
Angeles
and
San
Diego
and
the
6
Bay
Area
and
the
Valley,
areas
in
the
high
ozone
days
where
7
burning
is
basically
not
an
issue,
and
has
toxics
8
reductions.
It
adds
to
PM.

9
So
it's
very
hard
to
go
in
and
create
a
here's
a
10
credit
that
you
now,
when
you
make
a
fuel,
get
that
credit.

11
It's
much
easier
to
say
there
are
reasons
why
we
want
to
do
12
things
that
make
this
industry
have
a
higher
chance
of
13
success
and
I
think
we're
open
to
that.

14
I
just
also
want
to
address
the
issue,
since
I
15
have
the
microphone,
of
what's
next.

16
We
don't
see
this
finding
today
as
biasing
the
17
staff
or
anything
we
would
bring
to
the
Board
in
terms
of
18
our
next
step,
which
is
to
go
into
the
cleaner
burning
19
gasoline
regulations,
say
how
do
we
amend
those
regulations
20
so
that
it's
far
easier
to
produce
non­
oxygenated
fuel,
and
21
that
that
becomes
more
of
a
choice,
because
that's
the
22
safest
choice,
that
it's
easier
to
use
oxygen
in
a
way
that
23
is
­­
it
recognizes
the
emission
benefits
and
takes
into
24
account
any
emissions
benefits.

25
What
we're
saying
I
think
is
the
science
is
clear,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
138
1
the
studies
have
been
done,
we've
put
tremendous
resources
2
into
this.
The
answer
is
not
going
to
change.

3
The
RVP
waiver
when
you
use
ten
percent
ethanol
is
4
not
the
way
to
do
it.

5
We'll
have
to
come
back
with
regulations
that
6
should
provide
for
greater
emphasis
for
using
ethanol
as
an
7
oxygenate.

8
I
don't
know
whether
we're
going
to
march
away
9
from
MTBE,
be
forced
to
phase
out
MTBE
or
exactly
what
the
10
answer
is
going
to
be,
but
I
know
we're
going
to
do
things
11
to
make
its
use
far
less
needed
in
the
state.

12
And
I
guess
we
pledged
to
you
to
do
that
in
a
way
13
that
recognizes
the
benefits
of
adding
oxygen,
will
probably
14
give
vastly
improved
opportunity
towards
ethanol
and
the
15
biomass
industry.

16
On
the
other
hand,
the
one
RVP
waiver,
we've
done
17
more
than
an
adequate
job
of
defining
technically
and
18
scientifically
what
the
law
requires
of
us,
and
it's
clear,

19
it's
not
the
way
to
go
to
do
it.

20
MR.
DUNLAP:
And
that's
the
question
relative
to
21
legislation.
You
know
what
I
mean?

22
And
maybe,
Jack,
I
probably
muddled
this
for
you.

23
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Parnell.

24
MR.
PARNELL:
No,
you
did
not.

25
We
had
the
discussion.
And
certainly
while
Loyd
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
139
1
is
at
the
microphone
I,
for
one,
think
and
I
think
people
2
from
the
Lung
Association
and
others
who
are
here
would
3
grant
that
there
are
other
factors
out
there
that
we
simply
4
don't
understand
well
enough
and
we
would
be
enormously
in
5
error
today
if
we
in
any
way
prejudice
against
ethanol
and
6
its
ultimate
use
in
whatever
formulation,
or
in
whatever
7
market
opportunity
there
is
for
it.

8
And
it
just
seems
to
me
that
that
isn't
what
we're
9
doing.
I
agree
that
isn't
what
we're
doing.
In
fact
we're
10
trying
to
gain
some
flexibility
to
do
what
we
need
to
do
to
11
go
on
to
the
next
step.

12
I
have
great
sensitivity
to
what
both
Bob
Heckert
13
said,
not
only
because
of
my
roots
in
agriculture,
but
14
because
of
my
sincere
desire
to
want
to
clean
up
this
15
environment.

16
And
so
every
time
you
take
a
step
it
is
subject
to
17
all
kinds
of
misunderstanding.

18
But
in
fact
here
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
take
a
19
step
that
will
allow
us
some
flexibility
to
move
on
to
the
20
next
step.

21
And
I
would,
for
one,
like
to
ask
the
staff
to
do
22
just
exactly
what
Mr.
Dunlap
suggested,
that
we
make
a
23
sincere
effort
to
work
with
those
around
us
to
quantify
24
those
other
factors
to
really
fully
understand
what
it
is
25
we're
dealing
with
in
a
larger
sense.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
140
1
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
I
think
we
can
very
comfortably
2
give
that
kind
of
direction.

3
MR.
PARNELL:
Make
sense?

4
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
If
you
don't
take
an
action
5
today,
because
it's
not
quite
there,
but
let
me
as
the
6
chairman
just
say
we'd
like
the
staff
to
respond
to
what
7
you've
heard
in
terms
of
some
concerns
or
­­

8
MR.
KENNY:
We
will
look
at
that
and
we
will
look
9
at
ways
of
trying
to
quantify
these
other
benefits,
because
10
we
do
acknowledge
that
there
are
other
benefits
from
the
use
11
of
ethanol.

12
To
some
extent,
what's
been
happening
today
is
13
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
polarization
occurring,
and
14
we
do
not
want
to
see
that
happen.

15
What
we'd
really
like
to
do
is
see
the
16
environmental
benefits
from
ethanol
recognized
and
actually
17
incorporated
into
society,
but
at
the
same
time
what
we
want
18
to
do
is
maintain
the
benefits
that
we've
gotten
from
the
19
air
quality
program
in
the
state.

20
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
And
Mrs.
Rakow,
and
then
I'll
21
come
back
to
you,
Mr.
Dunlap.

22
MRS.
RAKOW:
Just
very
quickly.

23
On
quantifying
benefits,
I
know
it's
a
very
24
difficult
task
to
actually
come
up
with
a
formula
of
the
25
criteria
to
get
a
number,
equivalency
number.
Dick
Bilas,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
141
1
who
is
now
head
of
the
PUC,
president
of
PUC,
worked
on
this
2
a
great
deal
when
he
was
commissioner
at
the
Energy
3
Commission,
and
the
Energy
Commission
has,
over
the
years,

4
tried
to
get
a
handle
on
quantifying
benefits.
I
don't
know
5
at
what
stage
they
might
be,
but
that
might
be
a
source
that
6
you
might
converse
with
too
and
see
what
they
have
­­
if
7
they've
ever
come
up
with
anything
definitively.

8
MR.
KENNY:
We'd
be
happy
to
coordinate
with
them.

9
Actually
we
have
a
very
good
relationship
with
the
staff
10
over
there
and
we
will
take
advantage
of
it.

11
MRS.
RAKOW:
I
don't
know
whether
it's
ever
had
a
12
result.

13
And
the
other
thing
I'm
just
curious
about,

14
several
years
ago
there
was
an
interagency
biomass
15
committee.
Is
that
still
going
or
do
you
know?

16
MR.
FOREST:
I
don't
think
it's
still
going.
In
17
fact,
I
think
the
state,
and
this
is
probably
what's
18
happening
to
the
symptom
of
it,
lacks
a
biomass
policy
as
a
19
state
policy.
It's
coordinated
in
one
of
the
agencies
and
20
it
probably
needs
to
be
resurrected.

21
And
relative
to
your
other
comment,
in
recent
22
discussion
with
some
of
­­
you
came
from
the
Energy
23
Commission,
Sally,
and
I
know
you're
very
familiar
with
24
it
­­
but
recent
discussion
with
some
of
the
staff,
they
25
want
to
go
back
and
address
the
benefits
formally
in
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
142
1
project.
So
I
think
there's
an
opportunity
for
the
­­

2
MRS.
RAKOW:
There
is
an
opportunity
for
this
3
agency,
I
think,
to
be
taking
an
aggressive
role
in
4
promoting
an
interagency
action.

5
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Parnell
has
a
question.

6
MR.
PARNELL:
It's,
I
guess,
it
is
a
question.

7
Does
that
give
you
any
sense
of
warm
fuzzy
feeling
that
8
there
is
a
light
at
the
end
of
this
tunnel,
Loyd?

9
MR.
FOREST:
I
think
it's
appropriate
on
the
10
Board's
part,
and
I
heard
the
staff
willing
to
do
that,
to
11
look
at
some
alternatives
and
putting
ethanol
into
the
12
reformulated
gasoline
market.

13
And
I
would
also
suggest
that
at
least
from
our
14
standpoint,
we're
very
concerned
that
that
not
increase
the
15
air
pollution
in
the
state.
We
live
here,
our
kids
live
16
here,
our
grandkids
live
here.
So
we're
supporting
of
17
finding
a
win­
win­
win
among
these
stakeholders.

18
And
as
far
as
warm
fuzzy
feeling,
as
you
know,

19
Jack,
you
and
I
have
both
been
in
the
livestock
business,
I
20
believe
I
have
a
sold
a
horse
when
I've
seen
money
in
hand.

21
MR.
PARNELL:
I
understand
that.

22
But
let
me
say
this,
so
it's
on
the
record.
So
23
many
times
in
the
area
of
fuel
we
have
a
lot
of
air
quality
24
issues
and
I
understand
those
we
deal
with
them
every
day,

25
they're
difficult
to
deal
with,
but
there
is
another
issue
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
143
1
that
we
don't
often
talk
about,
and
we
float
over
this.

2
This
is
a
renewable
source.
We
plant
the
seed,
it
3
grows,
we
have
some
stuff
to
deal
with,
we
call
it
biomass,

4
we
process
it,
we
put
into
a
use
and
then
we
can
do
it
over
5
again
next
year
and
the
next
year
and
the
next
year
and
the
6
next
year
without
using
up,
we
have
all
that
we
started
7
with.

8
And
so
long
as
we
pay
careful
attention
that
we
9
don't
degrade
the
environment
in
the
process,
this
is
a
10
win­
win.
This
is
a
win­
win.
And
we
need
to
really
spend
a
11
lot
of
time
focusing
on
how
we
can
do
this
and
do
it
12
effectively.

13
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Okay.

14
MR.
PARNELL:
That's
the
end
of
my
sermon.

15
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Forest.
You've
16
been
a
good
witness
to
kind
of
take
all
of
the
discussion
17
and
we
appreciate
that
and
we
appreciate
your
being
here.

18
Let's
move
on.

19
MR.
DUNLAP:
Whatever
we
do,
for
the
audience,

20
blame
Loyd.

21
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Let's
move
on.

22
This
item
is
not
a
regulatory
item,
but
I
do
need
23
to
ask
staff
to
read
the
letters
of
people
who
were
unable
24
to
be
here.

25
MR.
VENTURINI:
Madam
Chair,
we
do
have
a
few
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
144
1
letters
that
we
would
like
to
read
into
the
record.

2
Mr.
Simeroth
will
do
that.

3
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Simeroth.

4
MR.
SIMEROTH:
We
did
receive
a
letter
from
the
5
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture
that
asks
­­
they
had
6
expressed
concern
also
about
the
adequacy
of
the
test
fleet.

7
We
believe
we've
addressed
that
already,
reiterate
that
we
8
still
feel
the
fleet
is
representative.
It
represents
12
9
model
years
of
vehicles,
it
goes
back
12
years,
70
percent
10
of
the
vehicle
miles
traveled
representative.
And
I
think
11
we've
agreed
to
agree
with
the
ethanol
industry
on
whether
12
it's
10
or
30
percent
of
hydrocarbons.

13
In
terms
of,
they
also
brought
up
the
urban
14
airshed
modeling
issue.
Staff
has
looked
at
that
15
extensively.
We've
reviewed
the
models
that
the
Renewable
16
Fuels
Association
has
asked
us
to
review.
We
find
that
17
there's
not
appropriate
for
one
or
more
reasons
for
use
in
18
California.

19
We
have
also
ran
our
own
urban
airshed
models
20
looking
at
the
one
psi
increase
when
you
do
not
include
NOx
21
that
shows
ozone
goes
up.

22
I
think
that's
the
response
to
Food
and
Ag.

23
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Simeroth.

24
MR.
SIMEROTH:
They
also
asked
for
a
delay.

25
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Let
me
just
indicate
something
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
145
1
that
I
would
appreciate
your
doing.
I
think
that
we
ought
2
to
send
over
the
peer
review
to
that
department.
It
might
3
be
interesting
to
them.

4
MR.
SIMEROTH:
We
have
sent
it
to
them.

5
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Have
you
sent
it
to
them?

6
Well,
they
didn't
read
it,
did
they.

7
MR.
SIMEROTH:
Apparently
not.

8
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Apparently
not.

9
MR.
SIMEROTH:
We've
also
received
a
number
of
10
other
letters.
Start
with
the
American
Association
of
11
Automobile
­­
American
Automobile
Manufacturers'

12
Association.
They
support
the
staff's
finding.
They
concur
13
that
the
recently
developed
data
and
test
program
would
14
suggest
a
one
psi
RVP
waiver,
call
it
waiver
now,
would
15
adversely
impact
California
air
quality.
They
concur
that
16
test
vehicles
and
test
program
represent
a
significant
17
portion
of
the
current
on­
road
fleet
and
number
of
units.

18
They
see
no
additional
benefit
in
testing
additional
19
vehicles.
Despite
critical
comments
from
some
people,
the
20
AAMA
sees
nothing
in
the
data
that
would
change
the
21
significant
conclusions
of
the
test
program.
One
psi
22
waiver,
now
the
full
waiver,
would
not
only
increase
23
emissions,
but
would
­­
let
me
skip
that
one.
Increase
24
emissions.

25
Recommends
the
ARB
to
deny
the
waiver,
encourages
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
146
1
the
staff
and
industry
to
explore
additional
flexibility
2
within
the
existing
program
to
accommodate
ethanol
without
3
degrading
air
quality.

4
Association
of
International
Automobile
5
Manufacturers
concurs
that
a
one
psi
waiver
for
ethanol
6
would
increase
oxides
of
nitrogen
and
CO
emissions.
One
psi
7
waiver
would
degrade
fuel
quality,
which
would
impact
8
industry
efforts,
auto
industry's
efforts,
to
comply
with
9
the
recently­
adopted
LEV
2
standards.
Urges
the
Board
to
10
deny
the
waiver.

11
Daimler
Chrysler
basically
reiterated
the
12
Association
of
International
Automobile
Manufacturers'

13
findings,
and
urges
the
Board
to
reject
the
full
waiver.

14
American
Methanol
Institute
states
the
test
15
program
was
properly
designed
and
productive.
The
test
16
program
results
confirm
long­
standing
engineering
judgment
17
held
by
the
auto
industry
and
oil
refiners
and
regulators.

18
Results
are
consistent
with
prior
studies.
Recognizes
that
19
additional
flexibility
should
be
developed,
recommends
the
20
waiver
not
be
granted.

21
Oxygenated
Fuel
Association
basically
said
the
22
same
thing
as
the
American
Methanol
Institute.
Supports
the
23
staff's
findings
and
again
recommends
we
pursue
additional
24
flexibility.

25
Western
States
Petroleum
Association
letter
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
147
1
concurs
with
the
staff's
finding,
which
is
sound
and
2
supported
by
compelling,
verifiable
scientific
data.
States
3
that
other
data
on
record
supports
staff's
finding.

4
Encourages
staff
to
further
evaluate
flexibility
in
the
5
gasoline
program
to
accommodate
ethanol,
while
preserving
6
the
benefits
of
the
program.
Recommends
that
the
Board
7
adopt
staff's
finding.

8
The
other
letters
were
addressed
by
commenters.

9
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Kenny,
any
final
comments?

10
Board
members,
there
is
a
resolution
before
you
11
and
we're
going
to
assume
you
have
had
a
chance
to
look
at
12
that
resolution,
and
I'd
entertain
a
motion.

13
SUPERVISOR
ROBERTS:
Madam
Chairman,
I'm
not
one
14
to
draw
this
out
any
further.
I'll
make
a
motion
in
support
15
of,
if
I
have
the
correct
resolution,
I
think
it's
98­
78.

16
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
That
is
correct,
Supervisor
17
Roberts.

18
Is
there
a
second
to
the
motion?

19
SUPERVISOR
ROBERTS:
Do
we
need
to
also
­­
I
think
20
we're
all
in
the
same
position,
we
feel
this
appropriate
to
21
approve
this,
at
the
same
time
to
be
encouraging
staff
to
22
continue
to
work
with
those
in
the
industry
to
see
if
there
23
are
ways
to
utilize
this
product
that
we'd
very
much
like
to
24
see
put
into
use.
So
if
that
can
be
a
separate
direction.

25
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Yes.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
148
1
SUPERVISOR
ROBERTS:
As
part
of
the
motion,
I
2
would
like
that
to
be
the
case.

3
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
I'd
like
to
do
that
and
4
I'd
entertain
a
second
to
that.

5
MRS.
RAKOW:
Second.

6
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Second,
Ms.
Rakow.

7
Thank
you
very
much
further.

8
Further
discussion
on
this?

9
Seeing
or
hearing
none,
let's
vote
on
motion
and
10
the
addition
to
that
beyond
the
resolution.

11
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
signify
by
saying
12
aye.

13
(
Ayes.)

14
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
Opposed,
no.

15
(
No
response.)

16
CHAIRMAN
RIORDAN:
The
motion
carries.

17
And
thank
you
very
much,
staff.
Appreciate
that.

18
Between
this
item
and
the
next
item,
is
there
much
19
of
a
staff
change
that
we
need
go
through?
I'd
like
to
kind
20
of
move
right
along.

21
//

22
//

23
//

24
//

25
//

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
149
1
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Do
you
need
a
couple
minutes
2
there?

3
All
right.
Good.

4
Let
me
indicate
to
the
audience
while
staff
is
5
changing
places
that
this
next
Item
is
98­
9­
2.

6
It
is
a
continuation
of
a
public
hearing
to
7
consider
an
amendment
to
the
California
Cleaner
Burning
8
Gasoline
Regulations
increasing
the
Cap
Limit
from
Oxygen
9
from
2.7
to
3.5
percent
by
weight.

10
If
I
might,
Mr.
Kenny,
may
I
ask
you
to
introduce
11
this
particular
Item.

12
MR.
KENNY:
Yes.
Thank
you,
Madam
Chairman
and
13
Members
of
the
Board.

14
We
will
now
continue
a
hearing
that
began
last
15
August.
At
that
meeting
the
staff
made
two
regulatory
16
proposals
concerning
oxygen
and
gasoline.
The
proposals
were
17
part
of
a
continuing
effort
to
provide
requirements
with
more
18
flexibility
in
managing
their
use
of
the
oxygen
and
19
maintaining
gasoline.

20
One
proposal,
which
the
Board
adopted
partially,

21
the
minimum
oxygen
content
required
for
gasoline
in
the
22
winter
and
the
other
proposal
raises
the
cap
limit
on
oxygen
23
to
3
1/
2
weight
percent,
and
we
are
taking
that
proposal
up
24
again
today.

25
Proposed
new
oxygen
cap
will
make
it
legal
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
150
1
produce
gasoline
with
10
percent
ethanol
with
no
other
action
2
by
this
Board,
the
RVP
exception
in
Section
43830(
g)
would
3
then
take
that
practical
effect.

4
Therefore,
the
Board
did
not
want
to
consider
the
5
higher
oxygen
cap
until
we
had
decided
to
issue
all
the
6
ozones
for
potential
of
emissions
from
gasoline
with
10
7
percent
ethanol,
and
having
just
dealt
with
the
later
issue,

8
we
can
now
return
to
the
oxygen
cap
proposal.

9
In
the
past
year,
we
have
worked
extensively
on
10
ways
to
provide
refiners
with
more
practical
latitude
in
how
11
they
use
oxygenated
gasoline.
We
believe
that
the
Board
12
should
do
what
is
possible
in
this
regard
as
long
as
the
13
emissions
benefits
from
cleaner
burning
gasoline
are
not
14
reduced.

15
The
increase
in
the
oxygen
cap
that
we
proposed
in
16
August
would
raise
the
allowable
ethanol
content
in
gasoline
17
to
about
10
percent.
That
would
improve
the
utility
of
18
ethanol
to
refiners
as
potential
alternatives
to
MTBE.

19
By
allowing
10
percent
ethanol
to
qualify
such
20
gasoline
to
be
produced
without
an
RVB
control
under
the
21
Health
and
Safety
Code
Section,
this
has
been
considered
by
22
the
Board
and
it
has
not
been
our
issue.

23
Consequently,
at
this
time
I
would
like
to
24
introduce
Mr.
Simeroth,
who
will
review
the
staff
proposal.

25
MR.
SIMEROTH:
Mr.
Kenny,
I
am
going
to
ask
Mr.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
151
1
Richard
Vincent
of
my
staff
to
present
the
staff's
proposal.

2
MR.
VINCENT:
Madam
Chairman
and
Board
Members,
the
3
content
slide
for
this
shows
the
three
topics
to
be
covered
4
in
this
presentation.

5
Last
August,
the
Board
heard
the
staff's
proposals
6
for
changes
in
the
California's
RFG
regulations
to
give
7
refiners
more
flexibility
in
their
use
of
the
oxygenates,
and
8
the
Board
adopted
the
proposal
to
receive
the
winter
oxygen
9
program
in
the
carbon
monoxide
attainment
areas,
and
also
the
10
Board
made
technical
changes,
technical
corrections
in
the
11
regulations.

12
However,
the
Board
decided
to
postpone
action
on
13
the
proposed
increase
in
the
oxygen
cap
until
the
Board
could
14
determine
whether
or
not
gasoline
with
10
percent
ethanol
and
15
not
subject
to
the
RVP
limit
would
cause
increased
divisions
16
and
increase
the
ozone
potential.

17
Increasing
the
oxygen
cap
to
3
1/
2
weight
percent
18
would
allow
10
percent
ethanol
in
some
gasolines,
such
19
gasolines
would
be
subject
to
the
particulate
model
which
20
would
ensure
that
the
higher
oxygen
content
would
not
lead
to
21
increases
in
NOx
or
toxic
exhaust
emissions.

22
The
matters
of
the
evaporative
emissions
in
the
23
ozone
forming
potential
of
the
emissions
from
gasoline
with
24
10
percent
ethanol
have
just
been
considered
by
the
Board.

25
Staff
determined
that
the
current
predicted
model
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
152
1
remains
applicable
for
the
higher
oxygen
cap.
With
the
2
higher
cap,
refiners
can
add
more
ethanol
than
they
do
now
to
3
gasoline,
thereby
getting
more
octane
and
volume
benefit
than
4
is
now
possible
with
ethanol.

5
Since
the
U.
S.
EPA
allows
oxygen
over
2.7
percent
6
to
be
provided
only
by
ethanol,
the
higher
cap
limit
would
7
not
increase
the
amount
of
MTBE
used
in
gasoline.
Now
since
8
the
Board
has
dealt
with
the
RVP
exemption
of
the
10
percent
9
ethanol,
we
recommend
that
the
Board
now
raise
the
oxygen
cap
10
limit
to
3
1/
2
weight
percent.

11
That
concludes
the
staff's
presentation.

12
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Oh,
my
goodness.
Here
I
am.

13
It
is
going
to
be
a
long
day.
Pardon
me.

14
All
right.
Do
the
Board
Members
have
any
questions
15
for
this
abbreviated
wonderful
staff
report?

16
Apparently
not.
So,
we
will
go
into
our
witness
17
list.

18
I
have
one
person
at
this
point
who
signed
up
to
19
speak,
Megan
Smith.

20
Ms.
Megan
Smith.
Is
she
still
here?

21
Megan
Smith.
I
knew
she
had
to
catch
an
airplane,

22
so
maybe
that
is
where
she
is,
and
she
might
have
signed
up
23
early.

24
Is
there
anyone
else
wishing
to
speak
on
this
25
particular
item?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
153
1
I
did
not
have
anybody
on
the
witness
list
except
2
Megan
Smith.

3
Seeing
none,
then
I
will
return
it
back
to
Mr.

4
Kenny,
and
let
me
do
this,
the
written
submissions,
I
think
5
there
probably
are
some.

6
MR.
SIMEROTH:
Madam
Chairman,
there
are
two
7
written
submissions,
the
Western
States
Petroleum
Association
8
wanted
it
to
go
on
record
that
they
are
neutral
on
this
item,

9
and
they
have
no
recommendation
either
way,
and
the
other
is
10
from
the
American
Ethanol
Institute,
and
they
are
raising
the
11
CEQA
issue,
and
there
is
the
possibility
that
the
increased
12
oxygen
cap
may
bear
on
the
CEQA
analysis.

13
We
do
not
think
that
that
is
correct.
We
think
14
that
the
differences
between
seven
percent
ethanol
and
ten
15
percent
ethanol
would
not
change
our
analysis.

16
It
is
an
issue
that
we
have
evaluated,
and
we
do
17
not
see
any
issue
there
or
any
increased
potential
for
18
problems
for
the
environment.

19
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
And
that
is
the
end
of
yours?

20
MR.
SIMEROTH:
That
is
it.

21
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Cuelior,
I
am
not
going
22
to
ask
your
name
first,
and
I
apologize
you
are
going
to
have
23
to
identify
yourself.

24
MR.
CUELIOR:
Neil
Cuelior,
the
pronunciation
does
25
not
look
anything
like
its
spelling.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
154
1
In
concept
we
support
and
our
industry
supports
a
2
coalition
of
people
that
we
have
been
involved
with
in
trying
3
to
help
ethanol
find
a
role
in
this
program
to
support
4
lifting
the
oxygen
cap.

5
It
is
very
important
to
note
that
it
is
totally
6
contingent
upon
RVP
flexibility,
and
I
would
like
to
just
7
follow
up
with
my
remarks
from
before,
I,
too,
and
our
8
industry
and
coalition
that
we
are
part
of
are
absolutely
9
committed
to
environmental
equivalence.

10
So,
we
are
not
advocating
anything
in
this
program
11
that
would
in
any
way
degrade
the
environment.
In
fact,
we
12
think
that
ethanol
not
only
has
the
ability
to
provide
the
13
same,
if
not
better,
air
quality
benefits,
but
it
also
has
14
all
these
other
environmental
benefits
that
Mr.
Parnell
so
15
eloquently
attested
to.

16
But
the
issue
that,
as
we
talked
to
the
refiners,

17
is
that
lifting
the
oxygen
cap
in
itself
does
nothing
to
aid
18
in
the
introduction
of
ethanol
into
California
gasoline.
It
19
is
economically
impossible
to
produce
enough
sub
grade
RVP
20
gasoline
to
add
ethanol
to.

21
That
is
why
there
is
a
level
of
vapor
pressure
22
tolerances
that
are
absolutely
warranted,
and
I
think
there
23
is
going
to
be
an
effort
on
the
part
of
the
Air
Resources
24
Board
to
try
to
quantify
those.

25
Our
point
was
that
should
have
been
done
before
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
155
1
negative
finding,
but
that
is
done,
and
we
are
now
into
the
2
cap,
and
so
it
is
just
important
to
go
on
the
record
and
to
3
say
if
the
Board
claims
it
has
done
something
today
to
help
4
the
cause
of
ethanol
that
would
be
an
inaccurate
assessment,

5
because
without
a
level
of
the
vapor
pressure
flexibility
6
that
I
think
we
will
get
to
that
there
really
is
nothing
7
being
done
to
help
the
cause
of
finding
a
replacement
for
8
MTBE
in
today's
findings.

9
So,
while
we
support
this,
I
would
point
out
that
10
we
have
got
to
move
to
a
collaborate
process
and
get
away
11
from
the
failed
policies
and
politics
of
the
past,
and
12
certainly
our
industry,
and
I
would
say
the
majority
of
the
13
stakeholders
in
this
room
today
are
willing
to
enter
into
a
14
new
collaborate
process.

15
We
have
not
seen
the
willingness
on
the
part
of
16
technical
staff
to
enter
into
a
good
faith
way
into
that,
but
17
maybe
we
will
get
that
behind
us,
and
then
we
will
be
able
to
18
in
the
future.
I
do
not
know.

19
But
I
certainly
hope
so,
and
we
will
try
with
all
20
of
the
resources
we
have
and
the
creativity
to
do
that.

21
The
Legislature
last
year
unanimously
with
no
votes
22
of
opposition
passed
a
bill
that
would
have
lifted
the
oxygen
23
cap
and
would
have
actually
put
in
context
the
same
sort
of
24
offsets
we
had
suggested
that
we
are
talking
about,
and
when
25
I
hear
the
Board
Members
wanting
to
do
and
I
would
like
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
156
1
note
that
there
was
only
one
entity
in
California
that
was
2
opposed
to
that
bill,
and
that
was
the
California
Resources
3
Board,
and
it
was
unanimously
supported
by
an
incredibly
4
broad
coalition,
environmental,
agricultural,
resource
groups
5
and
was
opposed
by
one,
the
California
Air
Resources
Board,

6
authored
by
one
of
the
most
outstanding
environmental
7
legislators
in
California,
Assemblywoman
Bowen
and
now
8
Senator
Bowen,
so
I
am
sure
the
Legislature
will
have
9
something
to
say
on
all
these
issues,
and
hopefully,
we
can
10
get
past
a
lot
of
the
negativity
that
we
have
experienced
and
11
move
forward
to
a
brand
new
day
here,
because
I
know
ethanol
12
will
be
a
part
of
that,
and
hopefully,
we
can
all
roll
up
our
13
sleeves
and
move
in
that
direction.

14
So
with
the
cap,
it
is
great.
It
is
a
great
start.

15
It
does
not
do
anything
of
itself
to
help
the
cause
of
16
ethanol.

17
Thank
you.

18
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.
That
concludes
19
the
witness
list.

20
Since
all
of
the
testimonies,
the
written
21
submissions,
and
the
staff's
comments
for
this
item
have
been
22
entered
into
the
record
and
the
Board
has
not
granted
an
23
extension
of
the
comment
period,
I
am
officially
closing
the
24
record
on
this
portion
of
Agenda
Item
number
98­
9­
2.

25
Written
or
oral
comments
received
after
the
comment
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
157
1
period
has
closed
will
not
be
accepted
as
part
of
the
2
official
record
on
this
Agenda
Item.

3
There
are
ex
parte
requirements
on
this
item.
Are
4
there
any
to
disclose
from
the
Board
Members?

5
Seeing
none,
there
is
a
Resolution
before
us.
This
6
is
number
98­
79,
and
it
contains
the
staff's
7
recommendations.

8
Do
I
have
a
motion
on
that?

9
Supervisor
Patrick.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Second.

11
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Supervisor
Patrick
to
support
12
and
seconded
by
Dunlap.

13
Any
discussion
on
the
motion?

14
Seeing
or
hearing
none,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
15
motion,
signify
by
saying
aye.

16
Opposed,
no.

17
The
motion
carries.

18
Thank
you
very
much.

19
Staff
really
caught
me
by
surprise,
because
we
went
20
so
fast.
Where
were
you
yesterday?

21
All
right.
Next
before
us,
and
do
we
need
any
22
change
here
in
staff?

23
No.
We
are
okay.

24
Agenda
Item
98­
15­
4,
let
me
ask
Mr.
Kenny
to
25
introduce
this
item
and
the
staff
presentation.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
158
1
MR.
KENNY:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chairman
and
Members
2
of
the
Board.

3
This
item
is
a
proposal
from
staff
to
change
the
4
fuel
specification
for
LPG
sold
for
use
in
motor
vehicles.

5
LPG
is
commonly
known
as
propane.

6
The
changes
are
proposed
to
preserve
the
current
7
supply
of
complying
fuel
to
owners
of
LPG
vehicles
while
8
assuring
a
quality
vehicle
fuel
with
adequate
emissions
9
performance.

10
At
the
March
1997
Board
hearing,
the
Board
approved
11
the
delay
in
implementing
its
previously
adopted
five
percent
12
limit
on
the
propene
content
on
motor
vehicle
LPG.
In
13
approving
the
delay,
the
Board
directed
staff
to
evaluate
14
alternative
specifications
for
motor
vehicle
grade
LPGs,
and
15
the
Board
also
made
it
clear
that
if
staff
were
unable
to
16
make
an
alternative
recommendation,
staff
should
propose
an
17
ongoing
solution
that
would
eliminate
the
need
for
revisiting
18
this
item
in
any
future
hearings.

19
First,
I
would
like
to
briefly
summarize
the
20
history
of
the
Board's
action
with
respect
to
LPGs.
The
LPG
21
specifications
were
originally
adopted
in
1992
and
include
a
22
maximum
limit
on
the
propene
content
at
five
percent
by
23
volume
and
a
maximum
limit
on
the
butane
and
heavier
content
24
at
2.5
percent
by
volume.

25
However,
out
of
the
concern
that
the
supply
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
159
1
complying
LPG
might
be
unreliable,
the
Board
delayed
2
implementing
the
five
percent
propene
level
until
January
3
first
1995,
and
set
an
interm
propene
limit
at
10
percent.

4
In
1994
and
again
in
1997,
after
concluding
5
complying
fuel
would
not
be
available
Statewide,
the
Board
6
extended
the
effective
date
for
the
five
percent
propene
7
limit.

8
The
current
effective
date
is
January
first,
1999.

9
Following
the
Board's
direction,
staff
formed
the
LPG
task
10
force
which
is
comprised
of
members
representing
refiners,

11
LPG
distributors,
engine
manufacturers
and
vehicle
parts
12
manufacturers
and
others.

13
The
staff's
group
developed
and
implemented
a
test
14
program
to
determine
if
there
were
alternate
LPG
15
specifications
that
had
equivalent
performance
durability
and
16
emissions
when
used
in
engines
that
represent
the
latest
17
technology.

18
The
staff
has
worked
with
the
LPG
task
group
to
19
identify
an
alternative
specification
for
vehicle
LPG
that
20
could
be
acceptable
in
terms
of
emissions
and
major
21
performance.

22
On
the
basis
of
this
work
and
other
information,

23
staff
is
proposing
an
alternative
to
the
specifications
to
24
take
effect
in
January.
Staff
is
recommending
that
the
25
interim
10
percent
propene
limit
that
has
been
in
place
since
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
160
1
1992
to
replace
the
five
percent
limit
and
that
limit
on
2
butane,
butene
and
heavier
hydrocarbons
be
amended
to
five
3
percent
by
volume.

4
The
staff
believes
these
changes
are
necessary
to
5
ensure
continuing
supplies
and
complying
LPG
for
vehicular
6
use.
Failure
to
ensure
adequate
supply
of
LPG
could
result
7
in
current
and
potential
owners
of
LPG
powered
vehicles
8
selecting
gasoline
or
diesel
powered
vehicles,
resulting
in
9
an
increase
in
emissions.

10
Now,
Tony
Brasil
will
give
the
staff
presentation.

11
Tony.

12
MR.
BRASIL:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Kenny.

13
Good
afternoon,
Madam
Chairman
and
the
Board
14
Members.
I
will
summarize
the
regulatory
history
and
the
15
issues
regarding
LPG
that
bring
us
here
today.

16
I
will
provide
an
overview
of
the
LPG
test
program
17
and
results
and
will
present
staff's
proposal
and
its
18
effects.

19
In
1992,
the
Board
adopted
motor
vehicle
grade
to
20
LPG
specifications
to
ensure
fuel
quality
for
vehicles,
and
21
the
Board
set
specifications
for
certifying
new
engines
and
22
for
in­
use
LPG
based
on
an
ASTM
standard
for
special
duty
23
propane,
which
would
put
the
limit
on
propene
at
five
24
percent.

25
To
ease
the
transition
to
the
new
standards,
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
161
1
Board
included
an
interim
limit,
allowing
10
percent
propene,

2
also
referred
to
as
HV
10.
This
is
the
limit
in
effect
3
today.

4
Under
this
average,
the
propene
content
is
about
5
four
percent.
The
rest
of
the
United
States
can
use
the
6
broad
specifications
of
commercial
grade
LPG
in
vehicles.

7
Recently
the
U.
S.
EPA
adopted
commercial
grade
LPG
8
as
the
motor
vehicle
certification
fuel
but
has
not
set
a
9
standard
for
in­
use
LPG.

10
Commercial
grade
LPG
has
up
to
50
percent
propene.

11
Because
of
concerns
with
limited
supply
and
distribution
of
12
LPG
complying
with
the
five
percent
propene
limit,
the
13
Western
Propane
Gas
Association
petitioned
the
Board
in
1994
14
and
again
in
1997
to
continue
the
10
percent
interim
propene
15
limit.

16
Concerns
arise
because
there
is
little
incentive
17
for
fuel
suppliers
to
change
the
propene
content
in
LPG,
and
18
most
marketers
and
users
cannot
segregate
the
two
grades
of
19
LPG.

20
Our
1996
survey
of
wholesalers
show
that
out
of
104
21
sites
currently
selling
to
vehicles,
only
38
would
still
be
22
able
to
if
the
propene
limit
for
motor
vehicles
LPG
is
23
reduced
to
five
percent.

24
The
Board
recognized
that
implementing
the
five
25
percent
propene
limit
would
restrict
supply,
and
the
few
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
162
1
users
would
be
able
to
secure
it
for
consistent
supply.

2
Therefore,
the
Board
granted
its
delay
each
time.

3
However,
at
the
1997
hearing,
the
Board
directed
staff
to
4
investigate
alternative
in­
use
specifications
and
emphasized
5
that
if
staff
were
unable
to
make
a
recommendation
by
today's
6
Board
hearing,
the
five
percent
propene
limit
would
take
7
effect
in
January
of
1999,
and
there
would
be
no
more
delays.

8
In
response
to
the
Board's
direction,
staff
formed
9
the
LPG
task
group.
The
task
group
is
comprised
of
members
10
representing
more
than
30
organizations,
including
the
auto
11
industry,
heavy­
duty
engine
manufacturers,
fuel
suppliers,

12
distributors
and
others.

13
The
LPG
task
group
designed
and
implemented
the
14
test
program
to
evaluate
various
skilled
composition
and
the
15
overall
cost
exceeded
over
a
half
a
million
dollars.

16
The
LPG
task
group
selected
these
five
LPG
blends
17
for
consideration.
The
base
fuel
meets
the
certification
18
fuel
specifications
in
our
regulations
as
propene
content
19
four
percent,
and
as
you
see
the
test
fuel
have
varied
20
propene
up
to
21
percent
and
butene
up
to
20
percent.

21
Today
what
we
are
proposing
is
represented
by
fuel
22
one
with
10
percent
propene.
I
show
in
the
right
columns
the
23
octane
rating
for
fuel
one,
and
there
is
only
one
octane
24
number
below
that
of
the
base
fuel.

25
Fuel
five
was
added
later
in
the
process
and
was
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
163
1
not
tested
for
octane.
The
results
of
the
emissions
tests
2
show
that
fuel
one
with
ten
percent
propene
and
five
percent
3
butene
was
the
most
similar
to
the
base
fuel
with
the
four
4
percent
propene.

5
The
emissions
of
the
other
tests
were
higher.
On
6
the
Cummins
engine,
there
was
no
increase
in
emissions,

7
except
for
NOx.
NOx
increased
nine
percent,
and
the
8
allowance
for
testing
was
six
percent.

9
The
results
on
the
Ford
vehicle
showed
no
10
significant
increase
in
emissions
for
any
pollutant.
The
11
performance
tests
are
in
progress,
but
the
durability
tests
12
have
not
started.

13
The
results
should
be
available
early
next
year.

14
The
Cummins
engine
was
selected
by
the
task
group
for
15
performance
and
durability
testing,
because
it
was
more
16
sensitive
to
fuel
changes
than
the
Ford
engine.

17
Limited
engine
performance
data
collected
on
the
18
Cummins
engine
during
emission
testing
do
not
provide
any
19
evidence
that
fuel
one
with
ten
percent
propene
and
five
20
percent
butene
is
likely
to
present
performance
problems.

21
Also
in
the
past,
Detroit
Diesel
Company
conducted
22
its
own
performance
tests
on
the
prototype
series
50
engine
23
with
a
10
percent
propene
fuel.

24
The
test
showed
no
concerns
within
the
normal
25
operating
range
of
that
engine.
Based
on
this
information
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
164
1
and
the
fact
that
the
10
percent
propene
limit
has
been
in
2
effect
for
the
last
four
years
without
any
report
of
3
problems,
we
feel
it
is
appropriate
to
make
a
recommendation.

4
We
are
recommending
the
following:
That
the
Board
5
retain
the
present
maximum
propene
limit
of
10
volume
percent
6
effectively
limiting
the
content
to
the
same
cap
as
cleaner
7
burning
gasoline;
set
a
limit
on
butene
at
five
percent;
and
8
set
a
new
standard
limiting
butene
heavier,
except
butane,
to
9
a
one­
half
percent.

10
As
a
result
of
comments
received,
we
get
to
the
11
release
of
the
staff
report,
we
are
also
proposing
to
lower
12
the
limits
on
sulfur
in
efforts
to
make
the
cap
the
same
as
13
it
is
for
gasoline,
and
I
am
proposing
to
make
minor
14
technical
modifications
to
clarify
the
test
methods
and
the
15
limits
on
butane
and
butene
and
heavier.

16
These
last
two
changes
are
different
than
what
we
17
have
noticed
and
will
be
subject
to
the
15­
day
comment
18
period,
if
adopted.

19
If
staff's
proposal
is
adopted,
there
will
be
20
little
change
from
the
current
situation.
The
average
21
propene
content
is
likely
to
remain
at
four
percent
but
will
22
be
allowed
to
continue
to
vary
up
to
the
ten
percent
limit.

23
We
may
forego
a
maximum
potential
emission
decrease
24
of
a
tenth
of
per
ton
a
day
for
NOx
activity
adjusted
25
hydrocarbons,
if
we
assume
all
of
the
vehicle
grade
LPG
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
165
1
contains
10
percent
propene
since
the
in­
use
average
is
only
2
four
percent
propene,
the
impact
would
be
less.

3
Staff's
proposal
also
assures
an
adequate
supply.

4
Their
restricted
supply
by
going
to
the
five
percent
propene
5
limit
would
result
in
increased
emissions
that
LPG
vehicles
6
are
replaced
by
diesel
or
gasoline
vehicles.

7
The
proposed
changes
will
have
no
economic
impacts
8
compared
to
what
is
being
done
today
and
do
not
affect
the
9
SIP.
We
will
continue
the
plan
performance
and
durability
10
test,
and
we
will
evaluate
the
results
when
the
tests
are
11
complete,
but
we
do
not
anticipate
any
performance
or
12
durability
problems.

13
However,
if
we
find
any
significant
new
14
information,
we'll
return
before
the
Board
with
appropriate
15
recommendations.

16
Because
vehicle
technology
is
changing
rapidly,
we
17
are
committed
to
continue
considering
new
information
as
18
technology
evolves.

19
In
closing,
if
adopted,
our
proposal
will
maintain
20
the
status
quo
and
assure
that
it
will
continue
supply
of
21
complying
LPG.
The
average
propene
content
is
expected
to
22
remain
close
to
four
percent,
the
same
as
the
certification
23
fuel
as
preserved.

24
The
original
intent
in
having
the
in­
use
fuel
is
25
similar
to
the
certification
fuel.
We
do
not
expect
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
166
1
average
propene
content
to
change,
because
there
is
no
2
incentive
for
suppliers
to
change
their
existing
practices.

3
Staff's
proposal
provides
users
with
a
high
quality
4
fuel
for
vehicles.
No
other
state
does.

5
The
10
percent
propene
maximum
is
merely
a
cap
that
6
does
not
change
the
users
ability
to
obtain
a
higher
grade
7
fuel
nor
does
it
prevent
vehicle
manufacturers
from
requiring
8
premium
grade
fuels
as
some
do
today.

9
There
is
essentially
no
economic
impact
by
this
10
proposal,
and
finally
it
does
not
affect
the
SIP
because
no
11
emission
benefit
from
the
LPG
fuel
standards
were
claimed
in
12
the
SIP.

13
This
concludes
my
presentation.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Thank
you.

15
We
will
move
to
the
Ombudsman.

16
Ms.
Meade
would
you
like
to
give
a
report.

17
MS.
MEADE:
Madam
Chair
and
Members
of
the
Board
18
i,
n
preparation
for
today's
proposal,
the
staff
formed
an
LPG
19
task
group
in
February
1997,
which
was
comprised
of
37
20
organizations
representing
vehicle
heavy­
duty
engine
21
manufacturers,
refiners,
fuel
suppliers
and
LPG
distributors.

22
Staff
worked
closely
with
the
group
to
develop
the
23
test
protocol.
In
addition,
later
the
same
year
the
testing
24
program
project
manager
was
selected,
the
Adapt
Group,
a
Los
25
Angeles
based
consulting
firm
with
expertise
in
private,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
167
1
public
institutional
partnerships
and
extensive
experts
in
2
LPG
fuel
issues.

3
Between
February
1997
and
September
of
1998,
staff
4
held
10
LPG
task
force
meetings
to
develop
a
memorandum
of
5
understanding,
project
goals
to
test
protocol
and
to
receive
6
testing
updates.

7
Each
meeting
summary
was
mailed
to
each
task
force
8
member
and
posted
on
ARB's
website.
Numerous
phone
calls
9
were
handled
by
staff,
averaging
about
20
per
week
during
the
10
first
six
months
of
the
project.

11
In
addition,
staff
met
with
the
project
manager
12
once
a
week
during
the
implementation
of
the
testing
program
13
beginning
in
April
1998.

14
On
October
23,
staff
mailed
the
staff
report
15
together
with
the
notices
of
the
November
10
workshop
and
16
today's
Board
hearing.
These
items
were
also
posted
on
ARB's
17
Website.

18
The
mailing
went
to
1300
individuals,
including
19
task
force
members,
groups
which
have
been
participating
in
20
the
past
with
ARB's
fuel
regulations,
environmental
21
organizations,
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
other
governmental
22
institutions.

23
On
November
10,
the
workshop
was
attended
by
15
24
interested
parties,
including
representatives
of
Ford
Motor
25
Company,
Engine
Manufacturing
Association,
Cummins
Engine
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
168
1
Companies,
Arco
Products,
and
the
Western
Propane
Gas
2
Association.

3
In
conclusion,
staff
worked
closely
with
affected
4
parties
and
provided
adequate
access
to
participation
in
the
5
development
of
the
item
now
before
you.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Very
good.
Thank
you.

7
Mr.
Kenny,
would
you
add
anything?

8
MR.
KENNY:
No,
no,
thank
you.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
What
I
think
we
will
do,
we
10
will
hop
into
the
witnesses.

11
Kate
Drakos.
I
will
ask
everyone
that
we
call
to
12
sit
in
the
front
row
or
two.

13
Bruce
Irion,
Baron
Glassgow,
Alina
Tan
and
Bill
14
Platz.

15
One
thing
I
should
mention,
at
various
times
there
16
are
Board
Members
that
are
not
sitting
up
here.
In
the
back
17
they
are
taking
their
lunch,
and
we
have
a
speaker
for
18
listening,
and
I
know
I
have
been
up
and
down,
and
I
want
you
19
to
know
I
have
been
listening
to
what
the
testimony
is.

20
MS.
DRAKOS:
Thank
you.
Good
afternoon,
Members
of
21
the
Board
and
staff.

22
My
name
is
Kate
Drakos,
and
I
am
representing
the
23
Engine
Manufacturers
Association.
EMA
members
include
the
24
manufacturers
of
engines
utilizing
liquid
petroleum
gas
and
25
small
utility
engines
for
industrial
application
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
169
1
alternative
fuel,
heavy­
duty
engines,
all
of
which
are
all
2
included
in
today's
discussion
on
liquifed
petroleum
gas.

3
Now,
in
the
interest
of
time,
I
will
shorten
up
my
4
oral
statement,
but
I
would
like
to
say
that
EMA
has
5
submitted
a
more
expansive
comment
that
is
in
the
record.

6
I
will
proceed
with
a
modified
version
here.
First
7
of
all,
the
staff's
proposed
fuel
specifications
changes
will
8
lower
the
octane
reading
in
the
commercial
fuel
used
in
our
9
member
company
engines.
California
octane
rating
is
known
as
10
anti­
NOx
fuel.

11
LPG
engines
which
are
derived
from
diesel
platforms
12
are
designed
for
HD
5
fuel
octane
quality.
These
engines
13
operate
at
higher
compression
ratios
and
load
factors
than
14
traditional
light­
duty
LPG
engines.

15
These
design
considerations
were
adopted
to
16
maintain
diesel
engine­
like
performance,
good
fuel
economy,

17
lower
emissions
and
long
life.

18
By
increasing
the
propene
content
of
the
fuel,
the
19
octane
reading
of
that
fuel
will
be
lowered,
and
this
in
turn
20
will
reduce
our
design
margin
and
thus
jeopardize
the
21
performance
and
durability
of
these
engines.

22
Secondly,
data
from
the
program
indicates
that
23
increasing
the
propene
level
increases
the
amount
of
NOx
and
24
other
ozone
forming
hydrocarbon
emissions,
although
this
may
25
be
used
as
an
acceptable
trade­
off
to
ensure
a
reasonable
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
170
1
supply
of
LPG
for
LPG
vehicle
community
in
California.

2
EMA
believes
the
Board
must
keep
this
in
mind
when
3
considering
a
broader
LPG
specification.

4
Next,
the
CARB
LPG
task
group
has
not
completed
its
5
work.
The
group
was
formed
to
address
technical
issues
6
associated
with
a
new,
less
restricted
standard
for
LPG
7
engines.

8
Only
the
emission
testing
portion
of
the
program
9
has
been
completed.
Combustion
performance
and
limited
10
durability
testing,
which
makes
up
almost
two­
thirds
of
the
11
program,
has
yet
to
be
done.

12
As
technology
continues
to
advance,
durability
13
becomes
a
critical
issue,
and
any
new
or
amended
commercial
14
fuel
specifications
must
be
shown
to
be
acceptable
over
the
15
use
of
the
life
of
the
engine.

16
It
is
critical
that
the
remainder
of
the
program
be
17
completed.
Finally,
and
perhaps
most
importantly,
the
Board
18
must
assure
that
any
broadening
of
the
LPG
commercial
fuel
19
specification
is
accompanied
by
strict
enforcement
of
that
20
specification
at
the
point
of
retail
sale.

21
If
the
LPG
specification
is
to
be
relaxed
from
HV
5
22
to
HV
10,
it
remains
critical
for
CARB
to
monitor
the
in­
use
23
fuel
to
ensure
that
limits
on
the
fuel
are
met
and
that
24
contaminants
do
not
enter
the
fuel
supply.

25
Also,
if
the
LPG
specification
is
to
be
relaxed,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
171
1
EMA
requests
that
language
be
inserted
in
the
Resolution
2
which
allows
for
an
automatic
reconsideration
of
the
new
3
specifications
at
a
later
time
if
it
turns
out
that
it
is
4
demonstrated
either
for
completion
of
the
present
CARB
LPG
5
test
program
or
from
future
relevant
data
that
the
broadened
6
commercial
LPG
specifications
is
harmful
to
the
engines
or
7
the
environment.

8
In
summary,
the
EMA
requests
that
the
Board
fully
9
consider
all
of
the
ramifications
of
a
broader
commercial
LPG
10
specification,
including
octane
reduction,
air
quality,
the
11
effect
on
engine
durability
and
the
need
for
enforcement
of
12
fuel
quality
at
the
retail
level.

13
We
also
request
that
in
the
future
data
from
the
14
CARB
LPG
test
program
which
is
still
underway
or
field
use
15
that
indicates
that
HV
10
adversely
affects
the
manufacturers
16
engine
durability
and
or
performance,
CARB
will
consider
17
whether
HV
10
is
an
appropriate
commercial
specification
in
18
developing
new
proposals
if
it
is
deemed
necessary.

19
EMA
thanks
you
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
and
20
looks
forward
to
working
with
the
staff
in
the
future.

21
I
will
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.

22
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

23
Are
there
any
questions
of
this
witness?

24
Seeing
none,
thank
you
very
much.

25
Mr.
Bruce
Irion,
and
followed
by
Baron
Glassgow.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
172
1
If
you
would
introduce
yourself
for
the
record,

2
please,
and
who
you
represent.

3
MR.
IRION:
Good
afternoon.
I
am
Bruce
Irion.

4
I
work
for
the
Martinez
Refining
Company,
in
5
addition
to
that,
Equilon
Enterprises.

6
We
welcome
staff's
proposals.
The
way
to
promote
7
the
use
of
LPGs
and
motor
vehicle
fuel,
we
urge
the
Board
to
8
encourage
continued
investigation
with
additional
fuel
9
flexibility
to
promote
the
same.

10
I
am
sure
if
you
have
read
through
the
staff
11
report,
I
think
there
are
some
things
in
there
that
I
think
12
are
relevant,
and
I
would
like
to
quote
quickly
from
page
5,

13
the
amendments
were
proposed
to
preserve
and
enhance
the
14
current
supply
to
complying
fuel
owners
of
LPG
vehicles
while
15
assuring
adequate
emission
performance.

16
On
page
4
the
staff's
proposal,
will
not
have
any
17
impacts
on
the
State
Implementation
Plan
because
these
fuel
18
specifications
are
not
a
sub
strategy.

19
On
the
same
page,
the
emission
from
gasoline
20
vehicles
have
greater
ozone
warrant
potential
and
much
21
greater
toxic
contents
than
do
emissions
from
LPG
vehicles,

22
and
also,
LPG
fuel
engines
produce
virtually
no
particulate
23
matter
compared
to
diesel
engines.

24
Finally,
from
page
24,
if
the
continued
25
availability
of
complying
LPG
due
to
the
proposal
promises
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
173
1
the
sale
of
even
a
few
new
LPG
engines
in
vehicles
in
lieu
of
2
the
gasoline,
diesel
vehicles,
that
effect
in
the
proposal
3
could
be
a
decrease
in
future
emissions.

4
I
would
also
like
to
add
a
couple
of
things
which
I
5
got
from
the
Energy
Information
Administration
in
December
6
1997,
alternatives
to
traditional
transportation
fuels,
1996,

7
I
believe
it
is,
like
everything
else,
available
on
the
Web.

8
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.
Amazing.

9
MR.
IRION:
Isn't
technology
wonderful?

10
In
1996,
this
report
indicates
that
LPG
vehicles
11
accounted
for
75
percent
of
all
alternative
fuel
vehicles,
75
12
percent,
and
80
percent
of
those
LPG
vehicles
were
privately
13
owned
versus
45
percent
from
non­
LPF
alternate
fuel
vehicles.

14
From
these
statements,
it
is
clear
that
LPG
is
the
15
fuel
of
choice
for
alternative
fuel
owners
and
overwhelmingly
16
so
for
private
owners
of
alternative
fuel
vehicles.

17
Also,
CARB's
LPG
fuel
standard
will
not
ignore
the
18
emissions
consideration
but
was
primarily
adopted
to
promote
19
the
use
of
LPG
as
an
alternative
fuel.

20
We
believe
that
the
proliferation
of
LPG
as
an
21
alternative
fuel
needs
to
continue
and
is
best
served
by
22
having
as
much
flexibility
as
fuel
standards
that
consumer
23
acceptance
will
allow.

24
As
the
staff
report
indicates,
less
than
10
percent
25
of
propane
marketed
is
used
in
motor
vehicles,
and
in
fact,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
174
1
while
some
LPG
marketed
by
refiners
may
meet
motor
vehicles
2
fuel
specifications,
I
am
not
aware
of
any
refiner
that
3
guarantees
this
product
meets
these
specifications,
meets
4
specifications
anymore
restrictive
than
commercial
grade
LPG.

5
We
are
concerned,
of
course,
that
any
overly
6
restrictive
motor
vehicle
fuel
specification
could
stifle
LPG
7
fuel
vehicles
by
limiting
supply
availability.

8
I
have
heard
concerns
raised
that
a
flexible
fuel
9
standard
might
impair
the
performance
for
emission
10
characteristics
of
engines.
I
do
not
view
these
concerns
as
11
problems.

12
The
emission
performance
of
engines
will
continue
13
to
be
judged
against
the
certification
fuel
that
has
not
14
changed.
Furthermore,
in
the
same
fashion
that
certain
15
gasoline
vehicles
are
recommended
for
use
of
92
octane
16
fuels,
there
is
nothing
in
this
regulation
that
precludes
a
17
manufacturer's
ability
to
specify
the
use
of
the
stringent
18
fuel
then
required
by
the
regulation.

19
Finally,
we
trust
gasoline
users
to
make
judgments
20
in
deciding
adequate
performance
for
their
engines.
Why
21
should
we
assume
that
all
alternative
fuel
vehicle
owners
22
would
exercise
any
poorer
judgment?

23
It
does
not
seem
reasonable.
A
more
restrictive
24
requirement
should
be
set
for
LPG,
and
for
gasoline,
I
was
25
also
struck
by
your
comment,
Tony,
about
the
EPA
adopting
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
175
1
commercial
grade
propane
as
standard
one,
their
fuel.

2
Again,
we
support
the
recommendation
of
staff
to
3
increase
LPG
motor
vehicle
fuel
flexibility
and
encourage
the
4
Board
and
staff
to
continue
to
explore
LPG
fuel
flexibility
5
as
a
way
of
encouraging
it
use
as
alternative
fuel.

6
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

7
Mr.
Baron
Glassgow,
followed
by
Ms.
Kulikowski­
Tan.

8
MR.
GLASSGOW:
Good
afternoon.

9
My
name
is
Baron
Glassgow,
and
I
appreciate
the
few
10
moments
I
am
going
to
spend
with
you
today,
and
I
emphasize
11
the
few
moments.

12
I
am
the
Director
of
Field
Services
for
the
13
National
Propane
Gas
Association,
and
I
staff
NPGA's
Engine
14
Power
Committee.

15
I
am
here
effectively
to
ask
you
to
either
16
temporarily
adopt
the
standard
before
you
or
to
delay
17
adoption
until
the
LPG
task
force
has
completed
its
work.
As
18
what
will
be
demonstrated
in
my
very
brief
comments
today,

19
the
future
of
propane
as
a
motor
fuel
in
California
is
really
20
at
stake
in
this
conversation
today.

21
The
fine
reputation
today
of
the
ARB
leads
your
22
conclusions
to
be
used
nationwide,
certainly
by
the
Federal
23
Government
and
by
other
states
in
the
development
of
24
regulations
to
be
used
throughout
the
country
and
sometimes
25
with
unforeseen
consequences.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
176
1
First
I
want
to
just
point
out
briefly
the
reason
2
that
the
National
Propane
Gas
Association
is
interested
in
3
this
issue.
As
a
member
of
the
LPG
task
force,
we
have
been
4
a
contributor
to
the
participation,
financially
and
as
well
5
as
the
task
force
in
terms
of
effort.

6
Our
membership
includes
4,000
businesses
in
26
7
countries,
including
hundreds
of
businesses
and
thousands
of
8
employees
here
in
California.
We
are
a
trade
association
9
that
represents
every
spectrum
of
the
propane
industry
from
10
the
large
mom
and
pop
industry
to
the
large
corporation
to
11
tank
manufacturers.

12
With
the
propane
producers,
we
represent
everybody
13
and
in
this
particular
case,
it
is
interesting,
as
Bruce
14
pointed
out,
and
I
am
not
going
to
repeat
the
statistics
that
15
he
had
put
in
his
comments,
but
certainly
propane
as
a
motor
16
fuel
is
the
predominant
alternative
fuel.

17
As
he
indicated,
75
percent
of
vehicles
located
in
18
the
country
running
on
alternative
fuel
are
running
on
19
propane.
The
fuel
spec
that
you
have
before
is
really
20
interesting
in
that
it
really
does
things
that
the
staff
21
report
doesn't
reflect,
I
think.

22
The
staff
report
indicates,
and
if
I
can
­­
the
23
staff
is
not
aware
of
any
LPG
producers
or
marketers
who
24
alter
their
facilities
or
operations
to
allow
for
segregation
25
of
vehicular
LPG.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
177
1
I
think
the
conclusion
that
is
being
drawn
through
2
those
comments
is
that
because
preparation
has
not
been
made
3
that
therefore
there
is
not
a
problem
with
that,
and
I
guess
4
that
would
be
similar
to
saying
you
have
not
purchased
a
5
ticket
for
a
trip,
therefore,
it
is
not
going
to
cost
you
6
anything.

7
I
think
in
this
particular
case
we
have
not
8
purchased
the
ticket
for
the
trip
because
we
are
not
sure
if
9
we
are
going
to
take
the
trip
or
not.

10
The
difficulty
that
has
began
is
that
propane
is
11
really
a
singular,
the
infrastructure
for
propane
really
12
allows
for
a
singular
fuel.
The
national
propane
spec
that
13
you
have
for
commercial
grade
propane
really
reflects
the
14
realities
of
the
propane
industry.

15
We
have
propane
distribution
that
goes
nationwide.

16
Just
because
a
propane
is
sold
here
in
California
does
not
17
mean
it
is
different
propane
which
is
used
in
Arizona,

18
Nevada,
Utah.
We
bring
propane
into
California,
and
we
take
19
propane
out
of
California.

20
The
commercial
grade
propane
that
is
called
from
a
21
national
level
reflects
the
realities
of
propane.
There
is
22
one
distribution.
There
is
one
tank.
There
is
one
refilling
23
mechanism.

24
It
is
all
transparent
across
the
country.

25
Essentially
this
spec
will
likely
call
for
a
dual
system,
one
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
178
1
for
propane
motor
fuel
and
one
for
non
propane
motor
fuel,

2
and
frankly,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
the
propane
industry
is
3
not
established
to
accommodate
a
separate
motor
fuel
4
facility.

5
The
quickest
way
that
we
can
kill
the
California
6
use
of
propane
as
an
alternative
fuel
is
to
require
7
segregated
propane
as
a
motor
fuel.
The
economics
will
not
8
support
it.
The
infrastructure
and
production
will
not
9
support
that.

10
In
essence,
what
I
would
like
to
encourage
you
to
11
do
is
delay
this
for
a
few
months
until
the
LPG
task
force
12
work
is
done,
or
adopt
this,
recognizing
that
it
is
probably
13
a
temporary
adoption,
and
it
will
come
back
to
you
asking
14
that
you
reconsider
this
once
the
information
is
fully
15
available
from
the
LPG
task
force.

16
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.

17
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

18
Are
there
any
questions
for
this
witness
by
any
of
19
the
Board
Members?

20
Thank
you
very
much.

21
The
next
witness
is
Ms.
Kulilowski,
and
the
final
22
witness
is
Mr.
Platz.

23
If
you
would
identify
yourself
for
the
record
and
24
who
you
represent.

25
MS.
KULIKOWSKI­
TAN:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chairman
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
179
1
the
Board.

2
My
name
is
Alina
Kulikowski­
Tan.
I
am
with
the
3
Adept
Group,
the
project
manager
of
the
ARB
LPG
fuel
blends
4
evaluation
project.

5
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
acknowledge
the
ARB
6
staff
and
the
consortium
and
task
group
who
sponsored
this
7
project.
Without
their
guidance
and
time
and
sponsorship,

8
this
would
not
have
been
possible.

9
This
project
has
been
a
very
exciting
project.
We
10
have
gained
new
insight
every
step
of
the
way,
and
we
have
11
now
garnered
not
only
national
attention
but
international
12
attention.

13
We
are
getting
inquiries
all
over
the
world
about
14
this
project.
The
project
is
well
under
way.
We
are
in
the
15
middle
of
the
second
phase
of
testing.

16
We
are
also
still
fund
raising
for
the
project.

17
In
light
of
these
circumstances,
what
I
would
like
18
to
emphasize
today
is
that
we
as
project
managers
support
19
staff's
proposal
and
ask
that
the
Board
consider
the
20
following
modifications
or
additions.

21
We
would
ask
that
the
Board
review
the
data
from
22
the
performance
and
combustion
testing
and
durability
testing
23
when
it
is
complete.
We
estimate
that
will
be
in
about
six
24
months.

25
We
ask
that
there
be
mandatory
review
by
the
Board
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
180
1
within
no
more
than
three
years.
A
lot
of
things
change
in
2
this
industry
in
three
years.
They
change
year
to
year.

3
The
technology
that
we
are
using
to
test
in
this
4
program
right
now
did
not
exist
two
years
ago.
So,
to
assure
5
that
the
agreed­
upon
testing
program
is
completed,
as
I
6
mentioned,
we
are
about
halfway
through,
and
we
are
still
7
fund
raising,
I
appeal
to
the
Board
that
they
give
the
staff
8
the
support
they
need
to
complete
this
program.

9
This
is
a
very
exciting
program.
I
cannot
stress
10
that
it
has
given
a
lot
of
insight
to
many
different
players
11
in
this
industry
and
related
to
this
industry
about
how
LPG
12
functions
as
a
motor
fuel.

13
We
learned
a
whole
heck
of
a
lot
in
the
emissions
14
phase.

15
Allow
for
equivalent
LPG
blend
formulations.
This
16
is
an
off­
shoot
off
of
what
the
ARB
has
already
done
with
17
diesel.
We
think
this
is
a
model
that
should
be
considered.

18
We
are
asking
that
the
Board
support
staff
looking
19
into
looking
at
equivalent
formulations
and
also
to
support
20
staff
in
maybe
developing
emissions
prediction
models
because
21
of
all
that
we
have
learned
so
far.

22
The
final
is
delete
the
butane,
butene
and
heavier.

23
This
is
usually
a
very
valued
issue,
and
staff's
attention
to
24
this
issue
is
correct.

25
We
as
the
project
manager
have
not
addressed
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
181
1
issue
so
far
in
the
project.
The
task
group
has
not
2
addressed
it
in
their
dialogues.

3
In
summary,
I
would
like
to
say
thank
you
very
much
4
for
the
support
you
have
given
the
project
today.
I
would
5
also
like
to
extent
thanks
to
the
staff
and
to
all
those
who
6
have
made
it
possible.

7
Thank
you.

8
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
9
you
for
your
testimony.

10
Staff,
I
do
not
know
whether
you
want
to
make
any
11
comments
on
any
of
the
speakers,
and
then
what
I
would
like
12
you
to
do
is
do
the
written
submission,
if
there
are
any
­­

13
I'm
sorry,
Mr.
Platz,
I
forgot
you,
and
I
apologize.

14
I
am
so
excited
to
get
to
the
end
of
this
Agenda.

15
MR.
PLATZ:
It
is
all
right,
Madam
Chairman.

16
You
are
saving
the
best
for
last.

17
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Best
for
last.
I
apologize.

18
MR.
PLATZ:
Well,
as
many
of
you
probably
know,
I
19
am
also,
if
not
the
signatory,
at
least
the
reason
why
we
20
keep
getting
to
discuss
this
issue
every
couple
of
years.

21
Officially,
my
name
is
William
Platz.
I
am
22
currently
the
President
of
the
Western
Propane
Gas
23
Association.

24
This
is
a
voluntary
organization
made
up
of
some
25
175
propane
marketers,
distributors,
fuel
producers
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
182
1
equipment
suppliers
in
the
State
of
California
and
2
represented
also
in
Nevada
now.

3
I
want
to
remind
the
Board
that
propane
or
LPG
is
4
sold
for
many
different
uses,
not
only
for
engine
fuel
but
5
for
heating
purposes,
water
heating,
cooking,
et
cetera,
and
6
any
given
market
area
in
California
is
served
by
a
minimum
of
7
at
least
three
if
not
more
marketers.

8
Industry
is
deeply
fragmented,
highly
competitive.

9
We
eat
our
young.

10
Most
of
our
companies
are
small
mom
and
pop
11
organizations
as
opposed
to
the
large
groups
that
you
deal,

12
say
PG&
E
or
Southern
California
Gas
Company.
We
are
not
set
13
up
that
way,
and
frankly,
we
have
a
hard
time
getting
along
14
and
agreeing
on
much
of
anything.

15
For
the
past
two
years,
WPGA
has
been
working
16
closely
with
staff
and
the
Engine
Manufacturers
on
the
LPG
17
task
group
in
order
to
achieve
a
workable
fuel
specification.

18
We
recognize
that
the
decision
point
here
before
19
you
today
is
will
LPG
engine
fuel
have
a
limit
of
5
percent
20
or
10
percent
of
propene,
not
none
of
the
above,
and
I
will
21
address
some
of
the
other
little
side
issues
on
that
one
in
a
22
minute.

23
Therefore,
at
this
point
WPGA
feels
they
have
no
24
choice
but
to
support
staff's
recommendation
to
limit
the
25
propene
content
to
10
percent
by
volume
and
the
butane
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
183
1
content
to
5
percent
by
volume,
and
in
our
opinion
this
is
a
2
workable
interim
solution,
as
most
of
the
LPG
produced
in
3
California
meets
and
frequently
exceeds
this
specification,

4
that
is
the
propene
and
butane
contents
are
most
of
the
time
5
lower
from
most
of
the
production
points
in
California.

6
In
our
opinion,
the
results
of
emission
testing
has
7
been
conducted
over
the
past
two
years.
The
task
group
8
supports
our
contention
that
an
even
wider
LPG
specification
9
may
be
appropriate,
so
we
do
not
want
to
close
the
door.

10
We
believe
that
as
engine
fuel
metering
technology
11
improves
and
emissions
equipment
is
enhanced,
the
need
for
a
12
stringent
LPG
fuel
specification
is
lessened.

13
We
applaud
staff's
willingness
to
continue
the
14
dialogue
developed
between
our
industry
and
look
forward
to
15
continuing
the
performance
and
durability
testing
of
LPG
16
powered
engines
in
the
future.

17
We
are
confident
that
this
specification
today
and
18
future
specifications
of
tomorrow
will
build
the
AFV
fleet
19
population
in
California
while
at
the
same
time
sustain
the
20
existing
fleet
of
some
40,000
propane
powered
trucks,
vans
21
and
taxis
that
are
in
California's
current
vehicle
22
population.

23
These
platitudes
aside,
WPGA
and
certainly
a
number
24
of
companies
such
as
myself
have
some
real
concerns
as
to
25
how
CARB
intends
to
enforce
compliance
of
this
fuel
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
184
1
specification.
You
heard
EMA
ask
for
vigorous
compliance
on
2
the
retail
level.

3
I
am
assuming
that
the
Department
of
Measurement
4
Standards
is
going
to
be
the
agency
that
promulgates
5
enforcement
procedures,
but
DMS
does
not
answer
directly
to
6
this
Board,
to
my
knowledge.

7
We
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
that
you
as
the
8
Board
publicly
give
the
staff,
DMS,
industry,
engine
9
manufacturers
some
direction
and
opinion
as
to
where
and
how
10
compliance
is
to
be
administered,
if
you
truly
desire
future
11
growth
of
LPG
as
an
alternative
engine
fuel.

12
Engine
manufacturers
have
a
major
investment
in
13
engine
development.
They
want
to
sell
some
engines.
We
14
marketers
have
a
major
investment
in
the
distribution
system,

15
but,
as
Baron
Glassgow
indicated
to
you,
we
are
prepared
to
16
only
sell
one
LPG.

17
The
fuel
producers
on
the
other
hand
make
gasoline,

18
diesel
and
jet
fuel.
That
is
their
primary
product.
While
19
LPG
is
a
profitable
niche
market,
it
really
only
amounts
to
20
three
percent
of
their
overall
sales.

21
Refiners,
with
the
exception
of
Bruce
here
from
22
Shell,
still
have
the
perception
right
or
wrong
that
LPG
is
23
equivalent
to
sawdust.
Economics
drive
what
is
and
is
not
in
24
LPG
in
any
given
month,
and
ASTM
specifications
aside,
it
25
gets
pretty
tempting
in
the
winter
time
when
propane
demand
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
185
1
is
up
for
heating
purposes
and
sales
margins
are
high
to
2
spike
that
LPG
with
a
little
extra
propene,
if
not
a
few
3
unknown
hydrocarbons.

4
The
Agenda
Item
today
is
limited
to
approval
or
5
denial
of
only
a
small
portion
of
the
overall
alternative
6
motor
fuel
vehicles
regulation.
The
main
body
of
this
7
regulation
specifically
defines
liquefied
petroleum
gas
as
8
one
of
seven
of
the
alternative
fuels.

9
If
you
want
to
call
the
P­
series,
fuel
number
8,
I
10
suppose
you
could.
It
continues
that
no
person
shall
sell,

11
offer
for
sale
or
supply
an
alternative
fuel
intended
for
use
12
in
motor
vehicles
unless
it
conforms
with
applicable
13
specifications
of
which
we
are
trying
to
adopt.

14
Alternative
fuel
shall
be
deemed
to
be
intended
for
15
use
in
motor
vehicles,
and
I
will
get
back
to
that
one
in
a
16
minute.
Motor
vehicles,
if
it
is
sold
or
offered
for
sale
or
17
supplied
to
a
person
engaged
in
the
distribution,
all
of
us
18
on
the
marketing
side
are
engaged
in
the
distribution
of
19
alternative
fuels,
because
for
the
most
part
our
fleet
20
operates
on
our
own
fuel,
unless
the
person
selling,
and
that
21
is
talking
about
our
suppliers,
unless
the
person
supplying
22
or
selling
the
fuel
demonstrates
that
he
or
she
has
taken
23
reasonably
prudent
precautions
to
assure
that
the
fuel
will
24
not
be
used
as
a
motor
vehicle
fuel
in
California.

25
Now,
the
Vehicle
Code
in
California
defines
a
motor
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
186
1
vehicle
as
a
vehicle
that
is
self­
propelled.
So
while
the
2
LPG
specification
applies
to
fleets
and
forklifts,
it
does
3
not
apply
to
the
myriad
of
irrigation
engines,
wind
machines,

4
floor
buffers
and
LPG
powered
generators
in
California,

5
unlike
gasoline
and
diesel,
which
are
precisely
defined
by
6
CARB
in
Title
13.

7
There
are
no
other
provisions
aside
from
what
we
8
have
just
reviewed
in
this
or
any
other
regulation
that
gives
9
DMS
the
authority
to
administer
LPG
specifications.
In
our
10
minds,
Section
2291
of
Title
13
clearly
gives
an
out
to
the
11
companies
that
make
or
import
LPG
by
simply
stating
in
12
writing
that
they
sell
only
commercial
grade
propane,
which
13
is
exactly
what
we
get
today,
and
that
their
product
is
14
unsuitable
for
engine
fuel
use.

15
Now
the
practical
matter,
most
LPG
produced
or
16
imported
in
California
can,
in
fact,
meet
this
17
specifications.

18
But
nobody
is
holding
the
producers
feet
to
the
19
fire.
The
producers
have
said
up
until
now
that
hardly
even
20
sometimes
be
held
to
the
ASTM
specifications
let
alone
engine
21
fuel
specifications.
This
is
entirely
a
game
of
trust
that
22
has
no
oversight.

23
As
I
said
in
the
beginning
of
my
remarks
the
24
distribution
side
of
the
propane/
LPG
industry
is
composed
25
mainly
of
mom
and
pop
operators.
They
do
not
have
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
187
1
financial
wherewithal
to
distribute
multiple
LPG
blends
nor
2
the
inclination
as
their
single
largest
LPG
engine
fuel
3
demand
is
likely
to
be
their
own
delivery
and
service
fleet.

4
In
today's
oil
economics,
there
is
not
a
clamor
to
5
purchase
or
convert
private
fleets
to
LPG
use,
and
the
Feds
6
have
taken
a
decidedly
soft
approach
on
EPACT
and
Clean
Air
7
Act
fleet
purchase
requirements.

8
So,
aside
from
an
unknown
quantity
of
LPG
powered
9
lift­
trucks,
propane
use
as
an
engine
fuel
does
not
currently
10
have
much
use
potential
for
growth,
and
in
fact,
unlike
the
11
other
statistics
that
were
quoted,
the
API
statistic
show
the
12
fuel
sales
in
this
particular
area
are
going
down.

13
Compliance
and
exposure
to
fines
for
this
or
any
14
other
LPG
engines
fuel
specification
would
appear
to
fall
15
squarely
on
the
shoulders
of
those
marketers
you
folks
should
16
be
relying
upon
to
distribute
this
clean
burning
alternative
17
fuel.

18
But
we
have
no
control
over
the
specification
of
19
LPG
we
are
purchasing
nor
the
capital
required
to
set
up
20
testing
facilities
to
prudently
assure
ourselves
that
the
LPG
21
that
we
receive
complies
with
California
specification
for
22
our
own
fleets
let
alone
our
customers.

23
If
the
producers
will
not
certify
or
are
not
24
required
to
certify
to
what
they
are
selling,
how
are
we
as
25
marketers
supposed
to
determine
whether
or
not
our
LPG
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
188
1
complies?

2
Frankly,
it
is
easier,
cheaper
and
far
safer
to
3
purchase
and
operate
diesel
powered
Bobtails
and
pickups
for
4
propane
delivery.
I
do
not
think
this
is
where
this
Board
5
wants
to
go,
but
as
a
practical
matter,
it
is
already
where
6
we
are
headed.

7
Now,
the
argument
we
hear
on
the
producers
side
is
8
that
enforcement
of
engine
fuel
specifications
on
all
propane
9
when
so
little
of
it
is
used
for
engines
will
shorten
supply,

10
primarily
propane
supply,
by
some
8,000
barrels
per
day.

11
This
is
a
lot
of
propane,
and
it
cannot
be
possibly
12
made
up
with
increased
imports
of
specification
propane
from
13
outside
Northern
California.

14
There
is
not
enough
rail
cars,
and
there
are
not
15
enough
transports.

16
But
what
are
the
refineries
going
to
do
with
it?

17
They
make
gasoline
and
diesel,
and
they
make
propane,
whether
18
they
like
to
or
not.

19
They
cannot
fuel
it
all.
They
cannot
burn
it
in
20
the
refineries.

21
The
same
infrastructure
argument
holds
for
22
exporting
the
stuff
to
any
place
outside
of
the
State,
and
23
the
last
time
I
looked,
8,000
barrels
a
day
of
California's
24
specification
propane
still
yielded
$
125,000
of
daily
revenue
25
stream.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
189
1
In
our
opinion,
that
is
worth
investing
some
money
2
to
cleanup
some
propane
for
a
couple
of
refiners
out
there.

3
Like
I
said
before,
90
percent
of
the
propane
made
in
4
California
today
supposedly
meets
this
proposed
engine
fuel
5
specification,
but
the
regulations
do
not
guarantee
that
the
6
fuel
will
be
made
available.

7
As
a
practical
matter,
imposing
a
fuel
standard
8
would
be
much
less
expensive
and
far
more
equitable
to
9
marketers
if
it
were
enforced
uniformly
at
the
producer
level
10
where
it
is
made.

11
In
addition,
the
uniform
standard
would
address
12
engine
fuel
uses
outside
of
the
purview
of
current
13
regulations.

14
An
enforcement
of
a
uniform
specification
15
production
would
address
the
residual
matter
problem
that
we
16
marketers
periodically
face,
but
as
written
in
Title
13,

17
Section
2290,
does
not
address
the
availability
problem.

18
If
DMS
only
looks
to
the
marketer
for
compliance,

19
this
regulation
could
result
in
less
LPG
being
sold
to
AFVs.

20
It
could
lead
to
heavy
price
discounting
of
non
complying
LPG
21
into
the
propane
market.

22
This
fuel
ultimately
may
end
up
in
fueling
engines.

23
It
could
lead
to
abandonment
of
a
market
segment
by
marketers
24
that
refuse
to
be
bothered
by
fuel
specification
regulations.

25
They
already
have
too
many
regulations
to
deal
with
now.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
190
1
The
cost
to
enforce
Title
13
as
currently
written
2
will
be
far
higher
at
the
end­
use
level
because
of
the
3
quantity
and
variety
of
locations
where
LPG
is
used
as
an
4
engine
fuel.

5
Compliance
officers
will
need
to
sample
engine
fuel
6
from
containers
as
small
as
eight
gallon
forklift
cylinders
7
to
as
large
as
30,000
gallon
storage
tanks
at
some
fleet
8
locations.

9
Not
to
mention,
as
I
said
before,
the
thousands
of
10
LPG
powered
Bobtails
in
California
that
use
the
cargo
tank
11
not
a
separate
motor
fuel
tank
as
its
motor
fuel
tank.

12
Sounds
complicated
to
me.
Yes,
I
have
one
page
13
left.

14
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Platz,
could
you
move
15
that
along.

16
MR.
PLATZ:
I
appreciate
the
Board's
indulgence.

17
This
issue
boils
down
to
accountability
and
who
18
would
accept
responsibility.
The
answer,
WPGA
suggests,
is
19
that
if
we
were
to
have
a
fuel
specification
for
LPG
engine
20
fuel,
then
California
should
require
all
LPG
sold
in
the
21
State
comply
with
this
uniform
specification.

22
If
uniformity
is
good
enough
for
gasoline
and
23
diesel,
it
should
be
good
enough
for
propane.
It's
the
24
producers
that
make
the
stuff
who
should
be
held
to
this
25
specification
rather
than
the
market
who
has
no
control
over
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
191
1
the
quality
of
the
LPG
he
or
she
buys
and
resells.

2
So,
we
are
respectfully
requesting
that
you
folks
3
direct
staff
to
draw
up
regulations,
because
we
know
they
do
4
not
exist
yet
for
future
approval
that
addresses
uniform
5
specifications
for
all
LPG
sold
in
California.

6
I
want
to
also
thank
you
for
being
patient
with
me.

7
You
guys
have
seen
me
come
up
here
a
couple
of
times
now,
and
8
we
really
appreciate
that
you
have
been
working
with
this
9
industry.

10
But
having
said
that,
let
me
repeat
that
we
too
do
11
not
think
we
are
done.
Performance
and
durability
testing
12
needs
to
be
completed
on
this
proposed
engine
fuel.

13
We
must
continue
to
explore
additional
engine
fuel
14
specifications
and
the
potential
use
of
fuel
additives
for
15
LPG
engines,
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
the
working
16
relationship
that
we
have
with
you
folks
today.

17
If
I
could
have
one
more
minute.

18
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
A
short
one.

19
MR.
PLATZ:
A
couple
of
issues
that
were
brought
up
20
in
the
other
comments,
my
company
operates
two
propane
21
engines.

22
Today
I
have
had
those
engines
replaced
for
about
23
10
months,
operating
on
what
propane
is
available
to
me
24
today.
We
have
had
some
residual
matter
problems
with
some
25
propane
that
is
not
addressed
in
this
specification
today.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
192
1
We
have
had
build­
up
of
what
we
refer
to
as
2
refining
oil.
That
has
been
solved
somewhat
with
technology
3
in
that
there
is
a
filtering
mechanism
that
we
have
to
drain
4
on
a
daily
basis
for
those
engines.
We
have
not
had
any
5
performance
in
combustion
problems
with
the
fuel
we
are
6
burning.

7
So,
it's
just
been
a
matter
of
whatever
happens
to
8
be
left
behind
of
some
of
that
propane.

9
The
other
issue
that
I
want
to
kind
of
echo
what
10
Alina
had
to
say,
the
task
group
has
not
had
a
chance
to
11
discuss
the
.5
limitation
on
the
butenes
and
heaviers.

12
The
other
one
that
comes
to
mind
that
I
noticed
13
today
was
the
sulfur
content,
the
lowering
of
sulfur
content
14
from
120
parts
per
million
to
80
parts
per
million.

15
There
is
known
that
the
propene
industry
can
lower
16
the
sulfur
content
of
propane,
because
what
we
are
doing
when
17
we
add
an
odorant
to
propane,
we
are
adding
a
sulfur
base
18
compound,
and
that
120
parts
per
million
weight
is
the
19
minimum
required
for
the
odorant
that
we
have
to
put
into
20
propane.

21
So,
to
lower
that
to
80
parts
per
million
actually
22
is
a
health
and
safety
concern.

23
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Thank
you,
Mr.
Platz.

24
I
appreciate
your
comments
and
the
extensiveness
of
25
them.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
193
1
Staff,
any
responses,
and
then
I
want
you
to
do
the
2
written
submission
into
the
record.

3
MR.
VENTURINI:
Madam
Chairman,
let
me
make
a
4
couple
of
comments,
and
I
think
both
Mr.
Simeroth
and
Mr.

5
Jennings
want
to
make
a
few
comments.

6
I
want
to
first
address
the
performance
issue.
We
7
are
very
well
aware
that
there
is
some
additional
work
being
8
done
on
the
program
to
take
a
look
at
durability
and
9
performance.

10
We
were
hoping
that
that
work
would
have
been
done
11
in
time.
Here
it
has
not.

12
We
fully
intend
to
review
that
work,
and
if
that
13
work
suggests
that
we
need
to
make
an
adjustment,
we
will
14
certainly
bring
that
back
to
the
Board.

15
The
other
question
that
was
raised
regarding
16
availability,
a
little
concern,
because
we
believe
what
we
17
are
proposing
to
you
today
assures
that
there
will
be
18
availability
of
LPG
in
California
for
those
vehicles
by
19
basically
putting
the
10
percent
which
is
basically
the
20
status
quote
in
place.

21
I
also
have
the
perception
that
there
is
a
desire
22
to
actually
increase
the
10
percent
to
some
much
higher
level
23
or
even
go
to
the
national
or
commercial
grade
quality
24
standard,
which
would
be
upwards
of
50
percent.
We
do
not
25
believe
that
is
appropriate
to
do.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
194
1
At
this
point,
I
would
like
to
ask
Mr.
Jennings
to
2
address
the
issue
having
to
do
with
all
LPG
meeting
one
spec,

3
and
Mr.
Simeroth
can
address
the
item
about
the
sulfur
and
4
butene.

5
I
think
that
covers
the
major
items.

6
MR.
JENNINGS:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Venturini.

7
The
ARB's
authority
to
regulate
fuels
is
limited
to
8
an
authority
to
regulate
motor
vehicle
fuels.
For
all
of
our
9
motor
vehicle
fuels
regulations,
the
regulations
are
written
10
in
such
a
way
that
they
only
apply
to
that
fuel
when
it
is
11
intended
for
use
in
motor
vehicles.

12
For
instance,
the
Federal
RFG
regulations
apply
to
13
gasoline
used
in
boats,
but
our
regulation
does
not
apply
to
14
gasoline
use
in
boats,
because
we
do
not
have
the
authority
15
to
do
that.

16
Therefore,
we
treat
LPG
in
a
similar
way
to
the
way
17
we
treat
gasoline
and
diesel
fuel.

18
In
terms
of
the
points
that
Mr.
Platz
made
about
19
what
level
enforcement
will
take
place,
when
we
were
dealing
20
with
alternative
fuels,
such
as
LPG,
where
only
10
percent
of
21
it
is
used
as
a
fuel
for
motor
vehicles,
we
had
to
come
up
22
with
a
way
where
we
could
fairly
try
to
catch
that,
but
at
23
the
same
time
not
subject,
beyond
our
authority,
all
of
that
24
sort
of
fuel
to
the
same
standard,
and
we
came
up
with
a
25
structure
that
is
in
the
regulation
and
that
prohibits
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
195
1
producers
from
selling
LPG
to
LPG
distributors
who
are
2
engaged
in
distributing
LPG
for
motor
vehicle
fuel
unless
the
3
producer
reasonably
knows
on
the
basis
of
reasonably
prudent
4
actions
that
the
LPG
will
not
be
used
for
motor
vehicles.

5
So,
if
the
distributor
simply
says
to
the
producer,

6
I
want
LPG
that
I
can
sell
for
use
in
motor
vehicles
and
as
7
well
as
for
other
purposes,
it
would
be
illegal
for
the
8
producer
to
sell
noncompliant
products.

9
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Thank
you
for
those
10
comments.

11
MR.
SIMEROTH:
Madam
Chairman
and
Members
of
the
12
Board,
we
held
two
workshops.

13
One
was
a
sunset
review
workshop,
and
the
other
one
14
was
a
workshop
on
the
full
staff
proposal.
This
was
15
subsequent
to
the
45­
day
release,
after
the
staff
proposal.

16
At
those
two
workshops
the
engine
manufacturers,

17
Ford
and
Cummins
requested
that
we
consider
a
more
stringent
18
sulfur
content
requirement.

19
We
said
that
we
would
consider
that.
We
also
20
investigated
what
is
the
sulfur
content
in
the
fuel
being
21
produced
and
distributed
today.

22
What
we
are
talking
about
is
the
sulfur
content
not
23
the
full
content.
It
is
only
the
weight
of
the
sulfur
part
24
of
the
captan
molecule.
We
were
provided
information
25
indicating
that
that
is
being
made
and
distributed
at
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
196
1
approximately
30
parts
per
million,
and
a
standard
of
80
2
parts
per
million
weight
of
sulfur
would
not
be
a
problem
for
3
the
production
and
distribution
of
complying
motor
vehicle
4
LPG
or
other
LPGs
as
far
as
that
goes.

5
This
would
be
the
same
sulfur
cap
as
in
our
present
6
gasoline
regulation.
The
reason
that
we
were
asked
to
7
consider
this
is
if
the
new
LPG
vehicles
are
going
to
be
made
8
and
put
on
the
market,
they
are
going
to
have
to
consider
the
9
same
type
of
catalytic
control
equipment
that
is
being
put
on
10
these
clean
equipment,
that
is
the
concern
about
the
sulfur.

11
It
looks
like
we
can
accommodate
and
give
them
12
assurance
that
they
are
not
going
to
see
above
the
80
cap
13
that
is
presently
in
the
gasoline.

14
The
butane
and
heavier
is
to
address
some
of
the
15
issues
that
were
raised.
The
heavier
part
is
that
we
do
not
16
allow
the
oils
and
things
that
is
barely
showing
up
in
at
17
least
in
some
fuel
and
that
should
not
be
there.

18
It
may
be
something
we
need
to
look
into
and
see
19
why
it
is
showing
up.
We
limit
that
to
half
a
percent.

20
That
is
to
keep
the
total,
all
of
the
contents
from
21
being
higher
than
the
cap
that
is
in
the
specification.

22
Again,
drawing
the
analogy
between
the
gasoline
and
23
the
LPG
is
to
allow
them
to
meet
the
same
standards
as
the
24
vehicle
manufacturers.
We
do
not
think
this
is
going
to
be
a
25
burden.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
197
1
Again,
these
compounds
are
normally
present
in
2
extremely
low
levels,
and
we
do
not
have
any
information
3
otherwise
at
this
point.

4
In
terms
of
us
developing
a
model
along
the
line
of
5
what
is
in
the
reformulated
gasoline
program,
I
would
like
to
6
be
able
to
do
that,
but
the
database
does
not
exist
to
allow
7
us
to
do
that.

8
I
also
concur
in
the
comment
about
the
octane,
and
9
what
we
have
proposed,
we
are
less
than
one
octane
difference
10
than
our
reference
calibration
fuel.

11
I
cannot
see
that
less
octane
will
impact
the
12
performance
of
the
engines.

13
I
think
that
covers
most
of
the
issues.
We
14
basically
looked
at
all
of
the
information
and
feel
that
the
15
staff
recommendation
represents
what
we
think
is
defensible
16
at
this
point
in
time.

17
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Simeroth.

18
Let
us
put
the
written
submissions
into
the
record,

19
and
then
I
will
open
it
up
for
Board
questions
to
the
staff.

20
MR.
SIMEROTH:
Madam
Chairman
and
Members
of
the
21
Board,
we
have
a
letter
from
the
Advanced
Technology
22
International
Corporation.

23
They
are
a
manufacturer
of
an
additive
for
these
24
types
of
fuels,
and
they
ask
that
we
give
consideration
of
25
use
of
their
additive.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
198
1
In
talking
to
the
Engine
Manufacturers,
we
have
not
2
found
any
support
for
including
an
additive
specification
at
3
this
point
in
time,
but
we
will
continue
to
have
discussions.

4
We
have
a
letter
from
Ford
Motor
Company.

5
Generally
Ford
agrees
with
the
changes
recommended
by
the
6
staff,
the
circumstances
in
terms
of
the
insuring
the
steady
7
supply,
basically
some
of
the
same
comments,
but
they
think
8
that
it
is
worth
while
going
with
the
staff's
recommendations
9
to
ensure
the
steady
supply
of
LPG
and
promote
the
sales
of
10
LPG.

11
They
also,
Ford
recommends
the
80
PPM
sulfur
limit
12
for
the
reasons
I
discussed
earlier,
and
they
support
the
13
proposed
cap
of
.5
volume
percent
on
the
butanes,
butenes
and
14
heavier
components.

15
ARCO
Products,
a
company
also
provided
a
letter.

16
They
feel
that
there
may
be
a
potential
for
in
the
future
for
17
certifying
other
formulation
of
LPG
and
asked
us
to
continue
18
working
with
them.
They
feel
the
five
percent
propene
limit
19
would
discourage
the
use
of
LPG
and
recommend
we
go
with
the
20
10
percent.

21
And
going
with
the
10
percent,
keep
in
mind
that
22
they
would
like
to
work
with
us
on
developing
future
23
modifications
and
which
we
are
agreeing
to.

24
The
Industrial
Truck
Association,
with
forklifts
in
25
this
case,
sent
us
a
letter
saying
that
poorer
LPG
fuel
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
199
1
quality
is
a
problem
for
many
years,
effecting
both
2
durability
and
performance
and
brought
it
to
our
attention
in
3
the
past,
basically
our
Mobile
Source
Division.

4
They
are
encouraging
that
we
not
relax
the
H
25
5
standard
and
retain
the
H
25,
except
they
are
not
supplying
6
any
evidence
why
we
should
do
that
except
for
the
statement.

7
We
contacted
them
and
found
that
the
problems
they
8
are
referring
to
in
terms
of
performance
and
durability
are
9
not
associated
with
the
staff
proposed
10
percent
propene
10
fuel
but
proposed
with
fuels
with
that
much
higher
limits,

11
that
was
the
subsequent
conversation.

12
They
are
also
expressing
concerns
with
the
13
enforcement
and
basically
saying
that
we
should
enforce
it.

14
We
have
a
comment
from
the
California
Trade
and
15
Commerce
Agency
recommending
that
we
implement
the
staff
16
proposed
changes,
which
you
heard
today.

17
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.

18
MR.
SIMEROTH:
That
concludes
the
letters
you
see.

19
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

20
Mr.
Kenny,
any
other
comments?

21
Board
Members,
any
questions
for
staff?

22
Mrs.
Rakow.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
RAKOW:
Yes.
I
notice
in
the
15­
day
24
proposed
changes
that
the
staff
is
recommending
a
period
of
25
five
years
for
the
review
to
see
whether
it
should
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
200
1
revised,
retained,
et
cetera,
and
one
of
our
witnesses
had
2
suggested
a
three­
year
period,
because
of
the
speed
with
3
which
technology
changes.

4
Is
five
years
sort
of
a
standard?

5
MS.
WALSH:
Five
years
is
basically
a
standard
that
6
we
have
included
in
all
of
our
regulations
that
you
see
7
coming
through,
yesterday
and
today.

8
So,
if
the
Board's
consensus
is
to
move
that
up
to
9
three
years,
that
would
be
appropriate.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
RAKOW:
That
would
not
be
any
11
difficulty.

12
Okay.

13
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Any
other
questions
14
for
staff?

15
All
right.
This
is
an
item
that
I
need
to
close
16
the
record
on,
and
I
will
now
close
that
record,
however,
the
17
record
will
be
reopened
when
the
15­
day
notice
of
public
18
availability
is
issued.

19
Written
or
oral
comments
received
after
the
hearing
20
date
but
before
the
15­
day
notice
is
issued
will
not
be
21
accepted
as
a
part
of
the
official
record
on
this
Agenda
22
Item.

23
When
the
record
is
reopened
for
15­
day
comment
24
period,
the
public
may
submit
written
comments
on
the
25
proposed
changes
which
will
be
considered
and
responded
to
on
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
201
1
the
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
for
the
regulation.

2
This
has
ex
parte
requirement.
Are
there
any
to
3
disclose
by
any
Board
Members?

4
Seeing
none,
then
we
will
move
on
to
the
Item,
the
5
Resolution
is
98­
80.

6
Is
there
a
motion?

7
BOARD
MEMBER
PARNELL:
So
moved.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
DUNLAP:
Second.

9
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Moved
by
Mr.
Parnell.

10
Seconded
by
Mr.
Dunlap.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
RAKOW:
May
I
make
a
comment
that
is
12
not
going
to
add
to
the
Resolution,
but
it
occurred
to
me
13
when
the
staff
reports
back
in
six
months
or
whatever
time
it
14
is,
if
the
study
is
concluded
at
that
time,
it
would
be
maybe
15
advisable
to
decide
whether
it
would
be
a
three­
year
or
16
five­
year
period.

17
That
is
just
for
staff
to
keep
in
mind.
I
should
18
have
said
that
earlier.

19
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Okay.
Are
there
any
other
20
points
that
anyone
wants
to
make?

21
The
motion
is
before
us.

22
All
in
favor
of
the
motion,
signify
by
saying
aye.

23
Opposed,
no.

24
The
motion
carries.

25
Now
we
are
on
to
the
next
Item,
which
is
Item
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
202
1
98­
6­
1.

2
The
two
principal
people
that
are
involved
in
that,

3
of
course,
are
not
people,
entities,
City
of
LA,
and
the
4
Great
Basin
Unified
Air
Pollution
Control
District,
there
are
5
two
representatives,
and
I
would
like
them
to
come
forward.

6
Let
me
begin
the
record
with
the
following.
This
7
Item
is
a
continuation
of
the
public
hearing
to
consider
the
8
appeals
of
the
City
of
Los
Angeles
from
Orders
Numbers
9
070297­
04
and
040198­
02
of
the
Great
Basin
Unified
Air
10
Pollution
Control
District.

11
This
Item
has
been
continued
from
our
July
30,
1998
12
Board
hearing.
The
appeals
are
from
two
orders
adopted
by
13
the
District
under
the
Health
and
Safety
Code
42316.

14
The
first
order
requires
that
the
City
implement
PM
15
10
control
measures
on
the
dry
bed
of
Owens
Lake,
and
the
16
second
order
requires
the
City
to
pay
the
fees
to
the
17
District.

18
The
City
appealed
both
of
these
orders
to
this
19
Board,
as
allowed
by
State
law,
and
I
do
not
think
we
will
20
all
forget
that.

21
At
the
July
hearing,
both
the
District
and
the
city
22
reported
that
they
had
recently
signed
a
Memorandum
of
23
Agreement
and
requested
the
Board
to
continue
the
Appeal
of
24
the
control
measure
order
until
the
December
Board
hearing.

25
In
the
meantime,
I
understand
that
the
District
has
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
203
1
adopted
a
revision
to
the
Owens
Valley
State
Implementation
2
Plan
in
accordance
with
the
Memorandum
of
Agreement,
and
that
3
the
City
and
the
District
are
here
today
to
jointly
ask
this
4
Board
to
dismiss
both
of
the
City's
Appeals.

5
A
dismissal
would
formally
end
the
administrative
6
proceedings
before
this
Board
on
the
Appeals.

7
Let
me
ask
Mr.
Hotchkiss
and
Mr.
Lamb
to
comment.

8
MR.
LAMB:
Madam
Chairman,
I
am
Brian
Lamb.

9
I
am
District
Counsel
for
the
Great
Basin
Unified
10
Air
Pollution
Control
District.
I
could
not
have
done
a
11
better
summary.

12
You
have
taken
everything
I
might
have
said.

13
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
My
staff
is
very
good
about
14
this.

15
MR.
LAMB:
I
ask
you
to
merely
approve
the
16
stipulation
dismissal
with
prejudice
of
the
two
pending
17
appeals
at
this
time.

18
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
and
let
us,
we
19
will
have
Mr.
Hotchkiss
on
the
record
representing
the
City
20
of
LA.

21
MR.
HOTCHKISS:
I
am
the
District
Attorney
for
the
22
City
of
Los
Angeles,
and
I
would
really
like
to
add
to
the
23
record
that
the
Resolution
of
these
two
Appeals
probably
24
could
not
be
affected
in
the
satisfactory
manner
that
they
25
have
without
all
the
work
that
was
done
by
your
staff.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
204
1
I
want
to
compliment
you
on
that.

2
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
and
I
3
appreciate
that.

4
Now
finally,
Andrea
Lawrence,
who
is
Mono
County
5
Supervisor,
would
like
to
speak,
and
she
is
on
the
Governing
6
Board,
of
course,
of
the
Great
Basin.

7
MS.
LAWRENCE:
Thank
you,
Madam
Chair.
I
am
Andrea
8
Lawrence,
Mono
County
Supervisor,
on
the
Governing
Board
of
9
the
Great
Basin
Air
Pollution
Control
District.

10
I
thank
you
so
much
for
a
few
moments
of
your
time
11
in
light
of
a
heavy
Agenda.
Where
I
am
is
especially
12
delighted
and
pleased
to
be
here
in
seeing
and
additionally
13
hearing
the
two
attorneys,
one
from
the
District
and
the
City
14
of
Los
Angeles
asking
for
your
dismissal
of
the
15
administrative
appeals
challenging
our
plan.

16
Now
that
is
behind
us,
we
have
every
reason
to
hope
17
that
as
a
result
of
the
settlement,
the
District,
we
have
18
begun
a
new
period
of
working
cooperatively
on
working
on
the
19
plan
that
will
ultimately
see
the
essential
act
completed,

20
which
is
the
attainment
of
the
clear
air
standards
by
1996
­­

21
don't
I
wish
­­
2006.

22
But
there
is
something
equally
important
that
we
23
have
to
do
today,
because
all
of
us
who
are
in
the
decision
24
making
process
know
full
well
that
there
are
stages
and
there
25
are
phases
and
there
are
plateaus
and
there
are
highs
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
205
1
peaks
and
valleys,
while
in
the
process
of
doing
this,
we
2
have
clearly
got
to
acknowledge
the
great
efforts
of
3
leadership
and
vision
that
make
these
things
possible,
and
in
4
recognizing
this,
the
Great
Basin
on
our
regular
Board
5
meeting
on
November
16
met
and
unanimously
adopted
a
6
Resolution
honoring
John
Dunlap,
III,
upon
his
occasion
of
7
his
retirement
from
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.

8
There
is
a
note
that
says
here,
and
I
will
not
9
recite,
it
is
lengthy
and
laudatory
passages,
but
instead
it
10
is
enough
to
say
that
when
we
were
at
impasse,
Chairman
11
Dunlap
and
all
of
you
on
the
Board,
your
actions
clearly
made
12
it
possible
for
us
to
be
empowered
both
at
the
State
level
13
and
the
City
of
Los
Angeles
and
the
County
Air
Resources
14
Board
to
come
together
and
put,
as
we
say
in
local
politics,

15
the
pedal
to
the
metal,
or
where
the
rubber
hits
the
road,

16
and
all
those
quaint
phrases,
that
get
us
down,
sitting
down
17
and
doing
the
job
we
need
to
do.

18
It
was
done
and
done
very
successfully,
and
we
were
19
very
pleased
with
it.
It's
certainly
taken
years
of
20
fruitless
litigation,
which
none
of
us
need
anymore
of.
We
21
just
need
to
sit
down
and
solve
our
problems,
and
that
is
22
what
happened
with
this
one.

23
Now,
I
would
like
to,
I
have
something,
we
have
24
something
here.
We
have
for
you,
Mr.
Dunlap,
our
enormous
25
appreciation
to
you
for
your
leadership
and
vision
in
this,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
206
1
and
the
People
of
the
Eastern
Sierra
clearly
want
to
thank
2
you
for
generations
to
come
for
being
such
a
positive
role,

3
and
that
goes
to
all
of
you
for
contributing
to
this
happy
4
resolution,
and
I
hope
you
notice
up
here,
this
is
our
5
characteristically
angry
moment
on
the
Owens
Lake,
as
you
6
notice
going
on
up
through
here,
it
clearly
acknowledges
our
7
enormous
appreciation
of
all
of
us
on
the
east
side
for
a
8
very
important
role
you
have
all
played.

9
We
thank
you
very
much.

10
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.
And
that
is
well
11
deserved.

12
This
is
a
rather
happy
occasion
that
I
would
close
13
the
record.
I
do
not
think
that
staff
has
any
comment
to
go
14
with
this.

15
I
would
like
to
close
the
record
on
this.
It
is
16
just
a
pleasure
to
be
able
to
do
that.

17
There
is
no
Resolution
before
the
Board,
but
what
18
we
need
to
do
is
to,
as
jointly
requested
by
the
District
and
19
by
the
City,
to
have
a
motion
and
second
to
dismiss
with
20
prejudice
the
appeals
by
the
City
of
LA,
and
I
am
not
going
21
to
repeat
those
order
numbers.
We
will
make
them
a
part
of
22
the
record
of
the
Great
Basin
Unified
Air
Pollution
Control
23
District.

24
It
was
moved
and
seconded
by
Supervisor
Patrick
and
25
Mr.
Dunlap.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
207
1
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
this
item?

2
BOARD
MEMBER
RAKOW:
No,
but
what
a
wonderful
3
Christmas
present
to
the
people
of
Owens
Valley.

4
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Let
me
ask
now,
all
those
in
5
favor
of
the
motion,
signify
by
saying
aye.

6
Opposed,
no.

7
The
motion
is
carried.

8
We
congratulate
you.

9
I
just
have
a
footnote.
At
a
meeting
some
time
10
back,
it
was
GIS
information
talking
about
our
ability
to
map
11
and
do
things,
and
guess
what
the
topic
was
that
they
use
as
12
an
example,
Great
Basin,
and
I
think
Ms.
Edgerton
and
I
13
clearly
say
that
we
know
a
lot
of
that
Basin,
and
we
have
14
good
memories
of
the
views
that
we
had
there.

15
So,
we
look
forward
to
coming
back
and
seeing
it
16
when
it
is
crystal
clear.

17
We
have
one
item,
and
that
is
the
public
comment
18
period,
as
it
is
appropriate
for
any
public
agency,
this
is
a
19
open
comment
period
for
people
to
bring
before
the
Board
20
items
that
were
not
on
the
Agenda
but
in
our
jurisdiction.

21
Is
there
anybody
to
speak
under
the
public
comment
22
period?

23
Seeing
none,
that
is
wonderful.

24
We
will
adjourn
this
meeting,
as
we
have
no
further
25
business
before
us.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
208
1
I
just
have
to
say
two
things,
though,
as
the
2
Chairman
I
have
a
prerogative.
Former
Mr.
Chairman,
that
is
3
to
say
thank
you
to
all
of
you.
This
was
an
incredible
4
Agenda.

5
I
think
when
we
look
back
on
it
with
some
pride,
we
6
have
accomplished
a
lot.
We
particularly
accomplished
a
lot
7
this
year
under
the
guidance
of
Mr.
Dunlap,
and
I
wish
to
8
wish
all
of
you,
the
staff
who
worked
so
hard
for
us,
the
9
very
best
of
holidays.

10
There
are
a
number
of
holidays
coming
up
for
a
11
number
of
religions,
and
I
wish
you
all
the
very
best
and
a
12
safe
trip
home
everybody.

13
MR.
KENNY:
And
if
I
could
just
make
a
couple
quick
14
comments.

15
I
also
want
to
thank
the
Board.
When
we
counted
16
out
the
number
of
witnesses
that
you
heard
over
the
last
two
17
days,
we
stopped
at
100,
and
it
continued
to
go
beyond
that,

18
so
I
also
want
to
wish
you
on
behalf
of
the
staff
a
very
19
happy
and
restful
holidays
in
light
of
the
last
two
days.

20
Thank
you
very
much.

21
CHAIRPERSON
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
and
we
are
22
adjourned.

23
(
Thereupon
the
Air
Resources
Board
meeting
24
was
adjourned
at
1:
30
p.
m.)

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
209
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
2
3
I,
VICKI
L.
OGELVIE,
a
Certified
Shorthand
4
Reporter
of
the
State
of
California,
do
hereby
certify:

5
That
I
am
a
disinterested
person
herein;
that
the
6
foregoing
hearing
was
reported
in
shorthand
by
me,
Vicki
L.

7
OGELVIE,
a
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
of
the
State
of
8
California,
and
thereafter
transcribed
into
typewriting.

9
I
further
certify
that
I
am
not
of
counsel
or
10
attorney
for
any
of
the
parties
to
said
hearing
nor
in
any
11
way
interested
in
the
outcome
of
said
hearing.

12
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
have
hereunto
set
my
hand
13
this
twentieth
day
of
December,
1998.

14
15
16
VICKI
L.
OGELVIE
17
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
License
No.
7871
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
210
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
2
3
I,
JANET
H.
NICOL,
a
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
4
of
the
State
of
California,
do
hereby
certify
that
I
am
a
5
disinterested
person
herein;
that
I
reported
the
foregoing
6
meeting
in
shorthand
writing;
that
I
thereafter
caused
my
7
shorthand
writing
to
be
transcribed
into
typewriting.

8
I
further
certify
that
I
am
not
of
counsel
or
9
attorney
for
any
of
the
parties
to
said
meeting,
or
in
any
10
way
interested
in
the
outcome
of
said
meeting.

11
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
have
hereunto
set
my
hand
12
this
20th
day
of
December
1998.

13
14
15
16
Janet
H.
Nicol
17
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
License
Number
9764
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
