BOARD
MEETING
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
JOE
SERNA,
JR.
BUILDING
CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
CENTRAL
VALLEY
AUDITORIUM,
SECOND
FLOOR
1001
I
STREET
SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY,
MAY
20,
2004
9:
00
A.
M.

JAMES
F.
PETERS,
CSR,
RPR
CERTIFIED
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
LICENSE
NUMBER
10063
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD
MEMBERS
Dr.
Alan
Lloyd,
Chairperson
Dr.
William
Burke
Mr.
Joseph
Calhoun
Ms.
Dorene
D'Adamo
Supervisor
Mark
DeSaulnier
Professor
Hugh
Friedman
Dr.
William
Friedman
Mr.
Matthew
McKinnon
Mrs.
Barbara
Riordan
STAFF
Ms.
Catherine
Witherspoon,
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Tom
Cackette,
Chief
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Michael
Scheible,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Ms.
Lynn
Terry,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Ms.
Diane
Johnston,
General
Counsel
Ms.
Kathleen
Tschogl,
Ombudsman
Mr.
Steve
Albu,
Chief,
Engineering
Studies
Branch
Mr.
Richard
Bode,
Chief,
Health
and
Exposure
Assessment
Branch,
RD
Mr.
Robert
Cross,
Chief,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
Ms.
Cynthia
Garcia,
Air
Pollution
Specialist
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iii
APPEARANCES
COTNINUED
STAFF
Mr.
Dean
Hermano,
Air
Resources
Engineer,
Aftermarket
Parts
Section
Ms.
Peggy
Jenkins,
Manager,
Indoor
Health
Exposure
Assessment
Section
Mr.
Jack
Kitowski,
Manager,
On­
Road
Control
Regulation
Branch,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
Mr.
Allen
Lyons,
Chief,
Mobile
Source
Operations
Dvision,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
Mr.
Mike
McCarthy,
Manager,
Advanced
Engineering
Section
Ms.
Annmarie
Mora,
Air
Pollution
Specialist,
Research
Division
Mr.
Mike
Terris,
Senior
Staff
Counsel
Ms.
Eileen
Tutt,
Air
Pollution
Specialist,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
Dr.
Barbara
Weller,
Manager,
Population
Studies
Section
ALSO
PRESENT
Dr.
Shannon
Baxter,
Advisor
to
Secretary
Tamminen,
CalEPA
Mr.
John
Cabral,
Blue
Streak
Electronics
Mr.
Robert
Clarke,
Truck
Manufacturers
Association(
TMA)

Mr.
David
Darge,
Powertrain
Electronics,
LLC
Mr.
Steve
Douglas,
Alliance
of
Automobile
Manufacturers
Mr.
David
Ferris,
Powertrain
Mr.
Steve
Hoke,
NorthState
Truck
Equipment,
Inc
Mr.
Frank
Krich,
DaimlerChrysler
Mr.
Aaron
Lowe,
Automotive
Aftermarket
Industry
Association
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iv
APPEARANCES
CONTINUED
ALSO
PRESENT
Mr.
Jed
Mandel,
Engine
Manufacturers
Association(
EMA)

Mr.
Pete
Meier,
Honda
Mr.
Mark
Saxonberg,
Toyota
Mr.
Russ
Schinizing,
Cardone
Mr.
Lisa
Stegnik,
Engine
Manufacturers
Assocation
(
EMA)

Mr.
Kerby
Suhre,
Consultant,
EEPod
LLC
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
v
INDEX
PAGE
Opening
Remarks
by
Chairperson
Lloyd
1
Roll
Call
1
Pledge
of
Allegiance
1
Item
04­
5­
1
2
Chairperson
Lloyd
2
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
3
Staff
Presentation
3
Item
04­
5­
2
10
Chairperson
Lloyd
10
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
10
Discussion
and
Q&
A
14
Motion
14
Discussion
and
Q&
A
15
Vote
15
Item
04­
5­
3
16
Chairperson
Lloyd
16
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
22
Dr.
Baxter
23
Staff
Presentation
26
Discussion
and
Q&
A
37
Item
04­
5­
4
47
Chairperson
Lloyd
47
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
49
Staff
Presentation
50
Discussion
and
Q&
A
56
Ombudsman
Tschogl
62
Mr.
Jed
Mandel
64
Mr.
Robert
M.
Clarke
68
Motion
72
Vote
72
Item
04­
1­
04
72
Chairperson
Lloyd
72
Executive
Officer
73
Staff
Presentation
74
Discussion
and
Q&
A
83
Mr.
Steve
Douglas
90
Mr.
Kerby
Suhre
92
Mr.
Steve
Douglas
97
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
vi
INDEX
CONTINUED
PAGE
Item
04­
1­
04(
continued)

Mr.
Kerby
Suhre
102
Mr.
Aaron
Lowe
103
Mr.
John
Cabral
106
Mr.
Russ
Schinizing
108
Mr.
David
Darge
109
Mr.
Frank
Krich
115
Mr.
Pete
Meier
115
Ms.
Lisa
Stegink
116
Mr.
Steve
Hoke
119
Mr.
David
Ferris
120
Mr.
Mark
Saxonberg
121
Adjournment
128
Reporter's
Certificate
129
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
1
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
morning.
The
May
20th,

3
2004,
public
meeting
of
the
Air
Resources
Board
will
come
4
to
order.

5
Dr.
Friedman,
would
you
please
lead
us
in
the
6
Pledge.

7
(
Thereupon
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
was
8
Recited
in
unison.)

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

10
Clerk
of
the
Board,
please
call
the
roll.

11
BOARD
CLERK
ANDREONI:
Dr.
Burke?

12
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Present.

13
BOARD
CLERK
ANDREONI:
Mr.
Calhoun?

14
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Here.

15
BOARD
CLERK
ANDREONI:
Ms.
D'Adamo?

16
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Here.

17
BOARD
CLERK
ANDREONI:
Professor
Friedman?

18
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Here.

19
BOARD
CLERK
ANDREONI:
Dr.
Friedman?

20
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Here.

21
BOARD
CLERK
ANDREONI:
Mr.
McKinnon?

22
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Here.

23
BOARD
CLERK
ANDREONI:
Supervisor
Patrick?

24
Mrs.
Riordan?

25
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Here.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
2
1
BOARD
CLERK
ANDREONI:
Supervisor
Roberts?

2
Chairman
Lloyd?

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Here.

4
Supervisor
DeSaulnier
is
running
late.
He
got
5
caught
in
traffic.
He's
taking
the
meaning
of
bike
to
6
work
seriously.

7
We're
on
fast
track
today
since
we
have
another
8
meeting
starting
at
1
o'clock.
So
I
know
my
colleagues
9
would
like
to
see
that
we
move
through
this
as
10
expeditiously
as
possible.
So
I
don't
have
any
opening
11
statement.

12
I'd
just
like
to
remind
anyone
in
the
audience
13
who
wishes
to
testify
on
today's
agenda
items,
please
sign
14
up
with
the
Clerk
of
the
Board.
And
if
they
have
copies
15
of
written
presentations,
to
provide
30
copies
to
the
16
Board
Clerk.

17
And
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
today
is
04­
5­
1,

18
our
monthly
public
health
update.

19
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
20
Presented
as
follows.)

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Although
the
Board
is
very
22
familiar
with
associations
between
particulate
air
23
pollution
and
mortality
in
the
general
population,
there
24
is
much
less
information
about
that
experience
with
25
interest.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
3
1
Today
we're
going
to
hear
about
a
South
Korean
2
study
which
I
understand
that
Dr.
Friedman
worked
with
3
staff
to
identify.

4
So
with
that,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
Ms.

5
Witherspoon
to
complete
the
item
and
begin
staff
6
presentation.

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Good
morning,

8
Chairman
Lloyd,
members
of
the
Board.

9
The
Health
Study
staff
is
about
to
present
and
10
evaluate
the
association
between
infant
mortality
and
11
particulate
exposures
in
Seoul,
South
Korea.
Although
the
12
levels
of
particulate
pollution
are
much
higher
in
that
13
country
than
in
the
United
States,
there
is
literature
14
here
that
supports
the
association
between
particulate
15
exposure
and
the
risk
of
infant
mortality
as
well.

16
Ms.
Cynthia
Garcia
will
make
today's
17
presentation.

18
MS.
GARCIA:
Thank
you,
Ms.
Witherspoon.

19
Good
morning,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
20
Board.

21
In
today's
health
update
we
will
discuss
the
22
results
of
two
studies
evaluating
the
possible
23
associations
between
particulate
air
pollution
and
infant
24
mortality
in
Seoul,
South
Korea,
and
the
United
States.

25
Although
several
studies
have
recorded
elevated
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
4
1
incidents
of
mortality
in
the
elderly
in
relation
to
2
particulate
pollution,
much
less
information
exists
on
3
adverse
effects
of
particulate
pollution
in
infants.

4
Understanding
the
relationship
between
5
particulate
pollution
and
infant
mortality
is
very
6
important,
since
infants
may
be
especially
vulnerable
to
7
air
pollution.

8
The
first
study
is
"
Infant
susceptibility
of
9
mortality
to
air
pollution
in
Seoul,
South
Korea."
The
10
purpose
of
this
five­
year
study
was
to
compare
to
effects
11
of
air
pollution
on
mortality
among
three
groups:

12
Infants,
defined
as
babies
aged
1
month
to
1
13
year;

14
Individuals
aged
2
to
64
years
old;
and
15
The
elderly
aged
65
and
over.

16
Investigators
defined
infants
in
this
study
as
17
age
1
month
to
1
year
in
order
to
limit
the
effects
of
18
pregnancy
outcomes
on
mortality.
However,
conditions
19
during
pregnancy
can
influence
mortality
outcomes
after
20
one
month
of
age.
In
addition,
this
study
did
not
21
differentiate
between
low
and
normal
birth
weight.

22
Premature
birth
and
other
risk
factors
were
also
not
23
accounted
for.

24
Seoul
is
the
largest
metropolitan
city
and
the
25
major
air
pollution
sources
are
automobile
exhaust
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
5
1
domestic
heating.

2
Pollutant
measurements
were
taken
from
27
3
monitoring
sites,
which
represent
all
of
the
4
administrative
zones
in
the
city.
Meteorological
data
5
were
collected
from
a
station
in
the
central
part
of
6
Seoul,
and
included
temperature
and
relative
humidity.

7
The
investigators
calculated
the
relative
risk
of
8
respiratory
mortality
for
changes
in
the
level
of
air
9
pollution
on
the
same
day
as
the
mortality
event.

10
As
is
the
case
in
many
studies
of
this
type,
the
11
investigators
also
looked
at
air
pollution
levels
up
to
12
seven
days
before
the
mortality
event
and
determined
that
13
using
the
air
pollution
data
on
the
day
of
the
mortality
14
event
gave
them
the
most
consistent
and
robust
results.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
MS.
GARCIA:
The
air
pollution
data
for
the
time
17
period
of
the
study
are
presented
here.
Although
data
18
were
collected
on
an
hourly
basis,
24
hour
averages
were
19
constructed
for
PM10,
nitrogen
dioxide,
sulfur
dioxide,

20
and
carbon
monoxide.
For
ozone,
daily
8­
hour
averages
21
were
constructed.
The
data
shown
are
the
mean,
median,

22
minimum,
and
maximum
24­
hour
levels
of
pollutants,
except
23
for
ozone,
which
relates
to
an
8­
hour
level.

24
In
mean
PM10
level
in
Seoul
is
higher
than
the
25
mean
in
the
Los
Angeles
air
basin
of
California,
although
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
6
1
the
range
in
the
Los
Angeles
air
basin
is
larger.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
MS.
GARCIA:
The
investigators
found
that
4
exposures
of
PM10
was
associated
with
increased
5
respiratory
mortality
in
infants
1
month
to
1
year
old.

6
Infant
mortality
increased
by
102
percent
for
each
43
7
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
increase
in
PM10.
Although
8
mortality
in
other
age
groups
was
significantly
associated
9
with
PM10,
the
effect
size
was
smaller,
6.6
percent
in
10
persons
aged
2
to
64
and
6.3
percent
in
those
over
65.

11
The
advantage
of
this
study
was
that
the
authors
12
were
able
to
compare
the
association
between
respiratory
13
mortality
and
PM10
across
the
population.
The
findings
14
that
infants
were
most
at
risk
of
respiratory
mortality
15
from
increased
exposure
to
PM10
relative
to
other
age
16
groups
lends
credence
to
the
idea
that
infants
may
be
17
especially
vulnerable
to
the
adverse
effects
of
air
18
pollution.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MS.
GARCIA:
Now,
I
would
like
to
change
our
21
focus
to
a
study
concerning
air
pollution
and
infant
22
mortality
conducted
in
the
United
States.

23
Woodruff
and
colleagues
conducted
a
study
to
24
evaluate
the
relationship
between
infant
mortality
and
25
particulate
pollution
in
several
metropolitan
areas
across
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
7
1
the
United
States.

2
Infants
born
between
1989
and
1991
were
eligible
3
for
the
study.
As
in
the
paper
from
Seoul,
an
infant
was
4
defined
as
babies
between
1
month
and
1
year
old.
For
5
this
study,
an
infant's
exposure
was
considered
to
be
the
6
mean
of
the
PM10
levels
for
the
first
2
months
of
life.

7
The
range
of
PM10
exposure
in
this
study
was
from
11.9
to
8
68.8
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.

9
Because
it
is
known
that
many
factors
may
10
influence
an
infant's
risk
of
mortality,
the
authors
took
11
into
account
the
effects
of
maternal
education,
marital
12
status,
maternal
race,
maternal
smoking
during
pregnancy,

13
average
temperature,
and
year
and
month
of
birth
when
they
14
built
their
models
for
statistical
analysis.
Even
with
15
adjustment
for
all
these
factors,
infant
mortality
16
increased
with
increasing
PM10
levels.
Infant
respiratory
17
mortality
among
normal
birth
weight
infants
increased
20
18
percent
per
10
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
increase
in
19
PM10.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
MS.
GARCIA:
The
main
conclusion
of
both
studies
22
is
that
PM10
is
significantly
related
to
infant
mortality
23
due
to
respiratory
causes
even
in
the
United
States.

24
These
studies
add
to
our
knowledge
of
the
significant
25
health
effects
of
PM10
in
infants.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
8
1
There
are
several
limitations
to
both
of
these
2
papers
that
should
be
noted.
The
authors
in
the
Seoul
3
paper
did
not
take
into
account
important
factors
such
as
4
maternal
smoking
or
education.
Neither
study
considered
5
exposure
to
environmental
tobacco
smoke,
or
ETS.

6
Another
limitation
that
should
be
addressed
is
7
the
fact
that
both
studies
looked
at
only
outdoor
8
concentrations
of
pollutants.
Infants,
especially
infants
9
less
than
a
year
old,
spend
most
of
their
time
indoors.

10
It
is
unclear,
therefore,
how
representative
the
outdoor
11
concentrations
of
pollutants
were
of
the
infant's
true
12
exposure.

13
Future
investigators
need
to
take
these
important
14
limitations
into
account
when
designing
and
conducting
15
studies
to
understand
the
relationship
between
infant
16
mortality
and
air
pollution.

17
This
concludes
my
presentation.
I'll
be
happy
to
18
answer
any
questions.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.

20
Dr.
Friedman.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
both
these
22
studies
are
of
interest
and
they
offer
some
provocative
23
findings.
But
they're
both
flawed
in
a
couple
of
24
different
ways.

25
In
neither
the
American
study
or
the
Korean
study
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
9
1
is
a
count
taken
of
the
common
causes
of
infant
mortality:

2
Prematurity
and
malformations,
which
by
themselves
are
3
responsible
for
the
bulk
of
infant
mortality.
And
none
of
4
the
data
is
corrected
for
or
normalized
for
those
very,

5
very
important
factors.

6
The
indoor
air
quality
issue
is
very
important.

7
And
it
was
very
interesting
because
the
Research
Division
8
did
a
great
job.
When
I
spoke
to
them
by
phone
and
raised
9
the
issue,
they
went
and
they
contacted
Kirk
Smith,
the
10
professor
from
Berkeley
who
gave
us
the
indoor
air
talk
a
11
few
weeks
ago
actually.
And
he
provided
some
references
12
about
indoor
air
quality
in
urban
Korea,
where
the
cooking
13
is,
you
know,
with
kerosene
and
some
barbecues
and
so
14
forth
and
so
on.
And
the
apartments
tend
to
be
small
and
15
very
underventilated.

16
It
was
interesting
that
in
Korea
tobacco
smoke
17
was
not
particularly
important
as
an
indoor
pollutant
18
compared
to
the
American
study.

19
But
you're
right,
I
mean
infants
spend
that
first
20
year
of
life
indoors.
And
the
usual
source
of
21
pollution
­­
the
indoor
pollution
is
the
outdoor
motor
22
vehicles
and
so
forth
and
so
on
both
in
Korea
and
in
23
America.

24
So
the
studies
are
interesting.
They're
25
provocative.
There
undoubtedly
is
an
association
between
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
10
1
PM10
and
mortality.
But
what
the
real
numbers
are
can't
2
be
known
until
they
take
into
account
the
usual
causes
of
3
infant
mortality.
And
in
neither
study
was
that
done.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

5
Any
other
comments?

6
Thank
you.

7
Since
it's
not
a
regulatory
item
it's
not
8
necessary
to
officially
close
the
record,
so
we'll
move
on
9
to
the
next
item.

10
The
next
item
is
research
proposal,
Item
04­
5­
2.

11
This
project
has
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
12
the
Research
Screening
Committee
and
will
further
analyze
13
the
results
from
the
California
portable
classroom
study.

14
Our
colleagues
at
the
CEC
are
funding
the
analysis
of
15
ventilation
and
other
energy­
related
factors,
while
we
16
added
funding
to
examine
the
relationship
between
17
socioeconomic
indicators
and
environmental
conditions
in
18
both
portable
and
traditional
classrooms.

19
Mr.
Bode,
does
the
Research
Division
staff
have
20
anything
additional
they
want
to
say
on
this
proposal?

21
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

22
Actually
would
you
like
Annmarie
to
go
though
and
23
do
a
little
presentation?

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Just
very
quickly
maybe
for
25
our
colleagues.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
11
1
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
MORA:
Thank
you,

2
Chairman
Lloyd.

3
As
mentioned,
we
have
one
research
proposal
today
4
that
was
reviewed
and
approved
by
ARB
staff
and
the
5
Research
Screening
Committee.

6
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
7
Presented
as
follows.)

8
As
you
may
recall,
the
Air
Resources
Board
and
9
the
Department
of
Health
Services
recently
conducted
a
10
study
to
assess
environmental
health
conditions
in
11
California's
portable
classrooms
as
required
by
the
12
California
Health
and
Safety
Code.

13
A
great
deal
of
new
data
were
collected
for
the
14
portable
classroom
study.
However,
detailed
analyses
of
15
some
of
these
data
were
not
funded
in
the
initial
study.

16
The
ARB
needs
further
analysis
of
the
PCS
data
to
help
17
refine
specific
recommendations
to
schools
and
guide
18
further
activities
for
preventing
indoor
environmental
19
quality
problems
in
schools.

20
The
California
Energy
Commission
is
also
21
interested
in
further
analysis
of
the
data
in
order
to
22
obtain
information
needed
for
updating
their
building
23
energy
efficiency
standards
for
schools.
A
public
24
solicitation
was
issued
for
this
follow­
on
work,
and
25
Westat
was
the
selected
contractor.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
12
1
The
Commission
is
providing
the
major
funding
for
2
this
effort,
with
a
nominal
contribution
by
the
ARB.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
MORA:
The
objective
of
5
this
study
is
to
further
analyze
variables
on
ventilation,

6
other
energy­
related
factors,
and
socioeconomic
7
indicators,
and
examine
relationships
with
indoor
air
8
quality
and
other
environmental
characteristics.

9
Specifically,
the
contractor
will
characterize
10
the
distribution
of
energy
and
comfort­
related
11
characteristics
of
portable
and
traditional
classrooms
in
12
a
statewide
representative
sample
of
kindergarten
through
13
12th
grade
public
classrooms
from
the
portable
classroom
14
study.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
MORA:
They
will
also
17
describe
in
detail
the
relationships
between
key
building
18
variables
such
as
building
age
and
the
type
of
condition
19
of
ventilation
systems
and
indoor
environmental
quality
20
measures
in
the
portable
classroom
study
data
set.

21
This
work
will
include
an
environmental
justice
22
aspect
which
includes
the
analysis
between
pollutant
23
levels
and
a
school's
socioeconomic
indicators
such
as
24
student
body
ethnicity
and
proximity
to
nearby
pollutant
25
sources.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
13
1
­­
o0o­­

2
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
MORA:
The
ARB
and
other
3
agencies
need
the
results
of
the
proposed
study
within
the
4
next
18
months.
School
construction
and
renovation
have
5
accelerated
due
to
recent
passage
of
large
state
bond
6
issues
and
growth
in
the
state
population.
The
ARB
is
7
advising
school
groups,
architects,
manufacturers,
and
8
others
on
design
and
construction
approaches
for
improved
9
indoor
environmental
quality.

10
The
Commission
will
begin
revising
its
building
11
energy
efficiency
standards
again
next
year
and
must
have
12
new
information
by
mid­
2005
to
be
used
in
their
next
13
review.

14
The
Department
of
General
Services
is
also
15
revising
state
standards
for
state­
leased
portable
16
classrooms
in
the
next
one
to
two
years
and
would
like
to
17
benefit
from
the
additional
analyses.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
MORA:
The
portable
20
classroom
study
data
offer
an
opportunity
to
gain
insight
21
on
various
energy­
efficiency
measures,
the
impacts
of
22
those
measures
on
indoor
environmental
quality
and
23
comfort,
and
the
specific
causes
of
and
solutions
to
those
24
impacts.
Therefore,
we
request
that
you
approve
this
25
follow­
on
project.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
14
1
This
completes
the
presentation.
Do
you
have
any
2
questions?

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

4
Any
questions?

5
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
I
would
­­

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dr.
Friedman
and
Mr.

7
McKinnon.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
think
this
is
9
an
eminently
approvable
proposal.
It's
funded
by
the
CEC,

10
so
you
can't
beat
the
price.

11
(
Laughter.)

12
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
mean
the
13
portable
classroom
study
accumulated
a
tremendous
amount
14
of
data.
And
it
really
does
need
to
be
looked
at
in
a
15
sophisticated
statistical
way,
and
that's
what
this
16
proposal
is
all
about.
I
frankly
­­
since
there's
a
bit
17
of
a
fishing
expedition,
taking
all
this
data
and
just
18
subjecting
it
to
that
kind
of
statistical
approach,
I
19
thought
it
was
perfectly
appropriate
to
add
the
20
environmental
justice
notion
that
perhaps
using
the
school
21
data,
which
is
available
to
us,
to
see
if
questions
can
22
arise
from
the
analysis,
that
can
then
be
approached
more
23
scientifically.

24
So
I
think
the
proposal
is
eminently
approvable
25
and
I
would
so
make
a
motion.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
15
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

2
Mr.
McKinnon.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I'll
second
the
motion,

4
Mr.
Chairman.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

6
Mr.
McKinnon.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah,
I
also
support
the
8
proposal.

9
And
as
someone
who
grew
up
in
an
urban
school
10
district
in
a
very
fast
growing
city,
my
recollection
is
11
the
funds
were
flowing
to
the
outer
suburbs
to
build
new
12
schools
and
the
urban
schools
were
receiving
portable
13
classrooms.
And
I
can
well
tell
you
that
I
spent
most
of
14
elementary
school
with
asthma
because
of
the
heaters
in
15
those
classrooms.
And
I
think
there
are
definite
16
demographic
links,
urban
and
suburban,
certainly
in
our
17
older
neighborhoods
and
in
many
cases
the
EJ
18
neighborhoods,
and
I
compliment
staff
for
adding
sort
of
19
that
analysis
to
this.
And
I
think
we
should
do
well
to
20
support
the
motion.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

22
Seeing
no
other
comments,
we've
got
a
motion,
a
23
seconder.

24
All
in
favor
of
approving
the
research
proposal
25
say
aye.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
16
1
(
Ayes.)

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Anybody
against?

3
No.

4
Thank
you
very
much.

5
Thank
you,
staff.

6
We'll
take
a
moment
while
we
move
on
to
the
next
7
agenda
item,
04­
5­
3,
an
update
to
the
Board
on
the
8
Governor's
hydrogen
vision
for
California.

9
I
mentioned
this
is
to
give
the
Board
an
update
10
on
the
view
of
the
Governor's
vision
for
hydrogen
for
11
California.
The
vision
was
outlined
in
Executive
Order
12
S­
7­
04,
signed
by
Governor
Schwarzenegger
a
month
ago
13
today.
The
Executive
Order
directs
CalEPA
in
concert
with
14
the
State
Legislature
and
consultation
with
relevant
state
15
and
local
agencies
to
develop
a
plan
for
the
transition
in
16
California
to
a
hydrogen
economy.

17
And
I
thought,
given
the
amount
of
publicity
this
18
had,
it
would
be
good
to
provide
an
update
from
my
19
colleagues,
an
overview
of
how
this
fits
in
and
what
we're
20
doing,
what's
ARB's
involvement.

21
Secretary
Tamminen
will
direct
the
effort
to
22
develop
a
hydrogen
blueprint
plan,
along
with
two
23
distinguished
advisors,
Dr.
Shannon
Baxter,
leading
the
24
governmental
or
"
internal"
stakeholders,
and
Daniel
Emmet
25
of
Energy
Independence
Now
leading
the
external
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
17
1
stakeholder
side.

2
I
am
also
honored
to
be
a
member
of
the
advisory
3
panel
being
chaired
by
Secretary
Tamminen.

4
Fortunately
we
have
Dr.
Baxter
here
today.
Thank
5
you
for
taking
your
time
from
your
spin
class
so
we
can
6
come
here
today.

7
(
Laughter.)

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Is
Daniel
going
to
come?

9
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
I
think
he's
10
upstairs.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
would
like
to
maybe
­­
I'd
12
like
to
introduce
him
as
well.

13
But
for
those
of
you
who
know,
Shannon
worked
14
with
us
for
many
years
as
representative
of
ARB
on
15
hydrogen
and
as
a
representative
to
the
fuel
cell
16
partnership.
And
we
have
now
put
her
on
loan
to
the
17
Secretary
to
implement
this
program.
So
we're
delighted
18
to
have
that
linkage
being
continued
­­
linkage
there.

19
And
then
we
have
Eileen
who
is
taking
over
from
20
that
will
be
giving
the
presentation
today.

21
I
think
the
hydrogen
fuel
offers
California
both
22
environmental
and
economic
benefits.
I
think
it
also
23
provides
a
way
to
move
away
from
our
nearly
total
24
dependence
on
petroleum
as
a
transportation
fuel.

25
As
the
Governor
and
Secretary
Tamminen
both
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
18
1
stressed,
none
of
this
will
be
easy
and
none
of
this
will
2
be
rapid.
But
we
must
begin
the
transition
towards
a
more
3
diverse
fuel
sector
now,
as
it
will
take
considerable
4
time.
I
think
it
will
take
a
decade
or
two
no
matter
when
5
you
start.
So
I
think
given
the
run­
up
in
gas
prices,

6
given
the
environmental
footprint
of
petroleum,
given
the
7
recommendation
that
the
ARB
and
CEC
made
in
AB
2076
to
8
reduce
dependence
on
petroleum,
I
think
it's
very
9
important,
and
I
think
it's
wonderful
that
in
fact
we
have
10
this
vision
before
us.

11
I
think
the
other
thing,
that
public
policy
will
12
be
poorly
served
were
we
to
wait
for
a
problem
to
occur
13
before
we
take
action,
whether
the
causes
be
14
environmental,
such
as
an
abrupt
climate
change
event,
or
15
economic,
such
as
a
disruption
in
our
oil
supply.
And
I
16
think
we've
just
got
to
look
back
to
the
events
of
the
17
last
month
to
see
what
the
impact
of
the
breakage
of
the
18
pipeline
north
of
San
Francisco
both
in
terms
of
gas
19
prices,
but
also
the
impact
of
the
environment
and
the
20
adverse
impact
on
air
quality,
the
killing
of
wildlife,
et
21
cetera.
So
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
look
at
22
other
ways
of
providing
some
energy
here
as
well.

23
Last
month
I
was
pleased
to
participate
with
24
about
a
thousand
colleagues
in
the
National
Hydrogen
25
Association's
15th
annual
conference,
which
for
the
first
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
19
1
time
ever
was
hosted
in
California
rather
than
Washington
2
DC.
The
conference
generated
excitement
as
we
all
began
3
to
realize
we
are
on
the
cusp
of
a
national
effort,
and
4
really
international
effort,
to
diversify
energy
resources
5
and
to
move
towards
a
hydrogen­
based
economy.

6
I
will
also
say
at
this
point
­­
and
maybe
at
the
7
end
of
my
comments
offer
Dr.
Burke
the
opportunity,

8
because
I
know
he's
organizing
and
staff
organizing
a
9
major
international
conference.
So
at
the
end
of
this,

10
Dr.
Burke,
maybe
you'd
like
to
say
a
few
words
on
that
11
part
of
it.

12
During
the
NHA
conference
we
were
honored
by
the
13
presence
of
the
U.
S.
Secretary
of
Energy,
Spencer
Abraham,

14
who
just
the
day
before
attending
the
conference
had
15
announced
$
350
million
in
awards
for
hydrogen
research
16
projects.
Many
of
these
projects
will
occur
in
17
California.
Included
in
the
awards
were
several
of
our
18
elite
universities,
national
laboratories
located
in
19
California,
and
California
industries.
The
research
20
efforts
supported
by
the
Department
of
Energy
will
further
21
the
goal
of
making
the
hydrogen
economy
a
reality.

22
Recognizing
this
is
not
a
short
term,
but
again
23
we
can
see
a
lot
of
this
money
is
coming
here.
We're
24
delighted
again
with
the
Governor's
efforts
to
get
money
25
to
California
and
the
administration
to
push
it
here.
And
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
20
1
so
I
think
this
is
a
wonderful
opportunity
to
work
in
2
conjunction
with
efforts
at
the
federal
level.

3
Because,
as
you
will
recognize,
President
Bush
4
made
the
announcement
looking
for
hydrogen
and
fuel
cell
5
vehicles
in
the
next
decade.
And
then
he
announced
the
6
IPHE,
International
Partnership
for
Hydrogen
Economy,

7
which
again
is
pulling
nations
together
worldwide.

8
I
think
the
other
piece
­­
and
I
guess
I
don't
­­

9
maybe
I
could
ask
staff
if
we
could
provide
the
Board
10
members
the
document
we
put
together
for
the
unveiling
of
11
the
executive
order.
And
that
is
the
key
piece
here,
that
12
hydrogen
in
California
also
means
business.
There's
also
13
tremendous
opportunities
going
on,
action
that's
going
on.

14
So
I
don't
know
if
we
have
a
copy
of
that.
Maybe
before
15
the
Board
meeting
we
can
see
that.

16
I
think
the
other
piece
of
it
that
we
should
17
indicate
­­
because
we
read
many
articles
now
also
about
18
the
concern
that
we're
focusing
too
much
on
the
long
term
19
and
not
enough
on
the
short
term.
And
I
think
it's
20
important
to
recognize
that
the
hydrogen
highway
network
21
effort
is
part
of
the
Governor's
ambitious
environmental
22
action
plan,
which
commits
to
a
whole
complement
of
air
23
quality
improvement
measures.
Likewise,
the
Air
Resources
24
Board
will
continue
in
our
efforts
to
protect
public
25
health
to
the
maximum
extent
feasible
in
the
near­,
mid­,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
21
1
and
long­
term.

2
And
we
will
not
back
down
from
any
of
our
3
commitments
and,
in
fact,
we
will
redouble
our
efforts
to
4
ensure
that
our
actions
provide
the
greatest
benefits
5
possible
to
protect
our
children,
other
sensitive
groups,

6
and
broader
population.
For
example,
we
have
the
efforts
7
going
on
in
the
super­
clean
cars;
the
efforts
under
the
8
ZEV
program;
the
pushing
hybrids
of
all
kinds;
the
zero
9
emissions
goal,
both
battery
and
fuel
cells;
the
reduction
10
in
petroleum
dependency
on
AB
2076;
the
upcoming
11
regulation
which
we
will
consider
in
September
as
a
result
12
of
the
AB
1439
to
reduce
greenhouse
gases,
which
again
13
will
provide
some
push
in
technology.
So
I
think
that
14
will
continue,
as
well
as
our
efforts
to
reduce
exposure
15
to
diesel
particulate,
working
also
with
EPA
on
new
16
engines.
So
we're
not
sacrificing
anything
here.
In
fact
17
we're
going
even
stronger.

18
And
this
administration
very
clearly
recognizes
19
actions
taken
today
must
support
clean
air
now
and
clean
20
the
air
for
future
generations.
So
we
would
be
very
21
remiss,
and
it
won't
happen,
to
lose
site
of
one,

22
sacrificing
the
other.
We
need
to
do
both.
And
in
fact
23
it's
possible
to
do
both.
And
I
think
the
Governor
and
24
Secretary
Tamminen
will
also
be
looking
at
some
of
the
25
short­
term
measures
in
the
future.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
22
1
So
to
me
it's
particularly
exciting
to
see
the
2
challenge
we
have
ahead
of
us.
I'm
looking
forward
to
the
3
presentation.
And
I
think
­­
I
think
we
will
see
there
4
that
this
is
not
going
to
be
easy.
But,
on
the
other
5
hand,
not
responding
to
this
challenge,
not
looking
to
the
6
future,
not
trying
to
change
the
paradigm
here
I
think
7
would
be
not
commensurate
with
Californians'
capabilities
8
and
vision
and
global
leadership.

9
So
with
that
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
our
10
Executive
Officer
to
introduce
the
item
and
begin
staff
11
presentation.

12
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,

13
Chairman
Lloyd.

14
Since
the
signing
of
the
Executive
Order
one
15
month
ago
today,
staff
has
been
working
closely
with
16
CalEPA
on
the
administrative
policy
and
potential
17
regulatory
steps
we
need
to
take
to
implement
the
18
Governor's
vision.
We
are
committed
to
supporting
this
19
effort
because
it
enhances
our
own
programs
for
the
20
deployment
of
zero­
emission
technologies,
and
because
it
21
is
a
step
towards
successful
introduction
of
non­
petroleum
22
alternatives
in
the
transportation
sector.

23
This
update
will
highlight
the
progress
made
so
24
far
and
the
planned
actions
for
the
development
of
25
California's
Hydrogen
Economy
Blueprint
Plan.
Staff
will
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
23
1
also
discuss
other
aspects
of
Secretary
Tamminen's
near­,

2
mid­,
and
long­
term
strategy
to
lead
California
to
energy
3
independence.
Finally,
staff
will
briefly
summarize
other
4
activities
that
are
supportive
of
the
Governor's
hydrogen
5
initiative.

6
Dr.
Shannon
Baxter,
Director
of
the
Governor's
7
team
for
the
hydrogen
initiative
and
on
loan
from
ARB
to
8
CalEPA,
has
joined
us
today
to
provide
her
perspective
on
9
where
we're
headed
and
to
respond
to
questions
the
Board
10
may
have.
Staff
thanks
her
very
much
for
coming,

11
particularly
in
light
of
her
incredibly
hectic
schedule.

12
I'd
now
like
to
ask
Dr.
Baxter
to
set
the
stage
13
before
we
proceed
with
staff
presentation,
which
will
be
14
made
by
Eileen
Tutt.

15
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
Thank
you,

16
Catherine.

17
First,
on
behalf
of
Secretary
Terry
Tamminen,
I
18
would
like
to
thank
you
for
inviting
me
to
participate
in
19
this
update
on
California
­­

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
you
speak
a
little
bit
21
more
into
the
mic
please.

22
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
Really
23
close,
huh?
Sort
of
like
on
American
Idol.

24
Okay.
On
behalf
of
Agency
Secretary
Terry
25
Tamminen,
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
inviting
me
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
24
1
participate
in
this
update
on
the
California
Hydrogen
2
Highway
Network
Initiative.

3
I
would
also
like
to
take
the
time
to
thank
Dr.

4
Lloyd
for
inviting
me
to
work
for
him
over
the
last
four
5
years
that
I
served
as
the
alternative
energy
specialist
6
in
the
Chair's
office.
I
can
tell
you
from
experience
7
that
he's
truly
a
visionary,
a
statesman,
and
is
8
delightful
to
work
for
as
alongside.

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Take
the
rest
of
the
day
off.

10
(
Laughter.)

11
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
There's
nowhere
to
12
go
but
downhill.

13
(
Laughter.)

14
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
Finally,

15
thank
you
to
ARB's
management
and
staff
for
their
support
16
on
the
California
Hydrogen
Highway
Network
Initiative
and
17
the
California
Hydrogen
Blueprint
Plan.

18
Of
course
the
Air
Resources
Board
is
known
19
throughout
the
world
for
setting
precedence
and
reducing
20
emissions
from
vehicles.
This
Board
and
the
ones
that
21
came
before
it
has
a
pioneering
spirit
and
dedication
that
22
has
been
instrumental
in
bringing
us
to
this
pivotal
point
23
in
time.

24
As
a
former
advisor
to
Chairman
Lloyd
and
now
25
advisor
to
Agency
Secretary
Tamminen
on
hydrogen
issues,
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
25
1
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
ARB
as
we
enter
2
into
a
new
era
in
which
we
will
strive
to
accelerate
the
3
use
of
hydrogen,
particularly
renewable
hydrogen,
to
power
4
the
buildings
where
we
live
and
work
as
well
as
the
5
vehicles
that
carry
us
between
them.

6
You
will
hear
from
Eileen
Tutt's
presentation
7
that
there
is
a
great
need
to
move
towards
hydrogen
as
the
8
state's
energy
carrier.
California
has
the
type
of
9
top­
down
government
support
that
experts
agree
is
10
essential
to
the
success
of
a
transition
to
a
sustainable
11
future.
And
industry
is
poised
to
bring
hydrogen
efforts
12
to
our
state
using
federal
dollars
leveraged
with
private
13
sector
investment.

14
Industry,
government,
enviros,
and
academics
15
agree
that
while
there
is
much
work
to
be
done,
there
are
16
no
show­
stoppers
to
hydrogen
power.
However,
they
do
17
point
to
a
chicken
or
the
egg
problem:
Who
will
18
manufacture
the
hydrogen
cars
without
hydrogen
fueling
19
stations,
and
who
will
build
the
hydrogen
fueling
stations
20
if
there
are
no
vehicles
to
use
them?
We
can
address
this
21
issue
in
California.

22
Although
the
problem
exists
with
most
other
23
alternative
fuels,
hydrogen
is
different.
Hydrogen
allows
24
for
the
prospects
of
distributed
power
generation
25
alongside
vehicle
fueling
in
the
form
of
energy
stations,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
26
1
home
fueling
that
is
safe
and
convenient,
vehicles
that
2
use
skateboard
chassis
platforms
that
are
easily
converted
3
from
a
family
sedan
to
a
roadster,
vehicles
that
are
not
4
only
safe
for
the
driver
but
also
for
the
people
in
the
5
other
vehicles
around
him,
transportation
that
is
clean
6
and
quiet,
personal
vehicles
that
can
serve
as
backup
7
power
during
times
of
crisis,
energy
independence
for
8
California,
the
U.
S.,
and
every
other
sovereign
land.
All
9
of
these
things
are
possible.
We
are
only
limited
by
our
10
imagination.

11
I
am
very
happy
to
be
serving
Secretary
Tamminen
12
and
the
Governor
and
the
State
of
California
in
this
13
effort.
Thank
you
for
your
attention.

14
Ms.
Eileen
Tutt,
will
please
give
the
staff
15
presentation
now.

16
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
Yes.
Thank
you,

17
Dr.
Baxter.

18
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
19
Presented
as
follows.)

20
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
I'll
start
with
a
21
few
slides
to
demonstrate
why
we
need
the
hydrogen
highway
22
and
provide
some
context
for
this
effort.
I
will
then
23
highlight
the
Governor's
hydrogen
economy
blueprint
plan
24
and
describe
briefly
some
of
the
recent
announcements
that
25
will
support
this
plan.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
27
1
­­
o0o­­

2
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
There
are
a
3
number
of
reasons
why
California
once
again
must
take
a
4
leadership
role
and
move
our
state
towards
a
5
hydrogen­
based
economy.

6
First,
our
near
total
dependence
on
petroleum
in
7
the
transportation
sector
results
in
deleterious
effects
8
on
our
environment,
sending
our
children
to
school
with
9
inhalers,
and
threatening
our
vast
natural
resources.

10
Every
year
1.7
million
Californians
go
to
the
hospital
for
11
respiratory
illnesses
and
6,500
deaths
attributed
to
air
12
pollution.

13
The
damages
to
public
health
and
the
environment
14
provide
a
compelling
case
in
and
of
themselves.
But
there
15
is
also
a
clear
economic
downside
if
we
continue
with
16
business
as
usual.
A
stable
economy
in
this
state
is
17
dependent
on
a
stable
fuel
supply
from
sustainable
18
sources.
We
cannot
continue
our
dependence
on
petroleum
19
from
politically
unstable
regions
in
a
time
when
worldwide
20
demand
for
petroleum
continues
to
increase
and
supply
is
21
uncertain.

22
Finally,
given
our
recent
experience
with
23
electricity
shortages
and
our
history
of
gasoline
24
shortages
and
price
spikes,
it
would
be
prudent
for
25
California
to
develop
renewable
energy
resources
and
look
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
28
1
to
distributed
generation
that
is
energy
production
that
2
is
independent
of
the
electricity
grid.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
Governor
5
Schwarzenegger
and
Agency
Secretary
Tamminen
are
committed
6
to
moving
our
state
towards
an
environmentally
superior
7
and
sustainable
fuel
for
the
transportation
sector.

8
In
the
near
term
the
focus
will
be
on
public
9
education
and
awareness,
with
a
concerted
effort
to
10
empower
each
of
us
to
be
more
responsible
as
we
consider
11
our
transportation
needs.

12
In
the
mid
term
the
focus
will
be
on
improved
13
vehicle
fuel
economy
and
hybridization.
The
long­
term
14
goal
will
be
the
California
hydrogen
highways,
which
will
15
be
a
part
of
the
larger
movement
towards
a
hydrogen
16
economy.

17
The
focus
of
today
is
the
California
Hydrogen
18
Economy
Blueprint
Plan.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
But
I'd
like
21
first
to
point
out
the
steps
that
the
state
has
taken
to
22
reduce
emissions
from
vehicles
and
move
California
away
23
from
total
petroleum
dependence.

24
As
Dr.
Lloyd
mentioned
earlier,
the
Air
Resources
25
Board's
low
emission
vehicle
and
zero
emission
vehicle
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
29
1
regulations,
which
took
effect
in
1994,
will
result
in
2
about
a
90­
percent
reduction
in
criteria
and
toxic
3
emissions
from
cars
and
trucks
by
2010
and
help
to
4
accelerate
the
commercialization
of
zero­
emission
advanced
5
technologies
such
as
hydrogen
fuel
cell
vehicles.

6
Staff
is
currently
developing
regulations
that
7
would
result
in
significant
reductions
in
greenhouse
gas
8
emissions
from
vehicles.
These
proposed
regulations
will
9
be
presented
for
your
consideration
in
September
of
this
10
year.

11
In
July
of
last
year
this
Board
and
the
12
California
Energy
Commission
jointly
approved
13
recommendations
to
the
Governor
and
Legislature
that
would
14
result
in
reductions
in
petroleum
usage
to
15
percent
15
below
current
levels
in
the
2020
timeframe.
Those
16
recommendations
were
presented
to
the
Governor
and
the
17
Legislature
in
the
form
of
a
joint
report
by
the
18
California
Energy
Commission
and
the
California
Air
19
Resources
Board,
whose
staff
worked
very
closely
for
two
20
years
to
evaluate
specific
options
that
would
reduce
21
California's
dependence
on
petroleum.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
Finally,
the
California
Energy
Commission
24
released
its
integrated
energy
policy
report
in
December
25
of
last
year.
This
report
stressed
that
unless
California
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
30
1
acts
aggressively
to
change
the
energy
usage
trends
in
2
transportation,
this
state
will
face
further
supply
3
disruptions
and
price
volatility.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
In
addition
to
6
the
actions
taken
by
the
state
above,
California's
local
7
and
state
government
actions
­­
governments
are
members
of
8
public/
private
partnerships
that
have
long
advocated
for
9
hydrogen
vehicles
and
hydrogen
as
an
energy
resource.

10
California
is
home
to
the
California
Fuel
Cell
11
Partnership,
which
was
created
in
1999
and
whose
members
12
include
the
fuel
cell
and
vehicle
manufacturers,
energy
13
providers,
and
government
agencies.
The
partnership
will
14
play
a
critical
role
in
the
development
of
the
hydrogen
15
highways
plan.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
The
California
18
Stationary
Fuel
Cell
Partnership,
which
was
formed
in
2001
19
and
consists
of
20
member
agencies
and
organizations
at
20
all
levels
of
government
and
non­
governmental
21
organizations,
will
be
key
to
the
success
of
the
hydrogen
22
highways
effort
as
well.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
The
hydrogen
25
highway
is
one
of
the
top
priorities
of
Governor
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
31
1
Schwarzenegger.
On
January
6,
2004,
in
his
State
of
the
2
State
address,
the
Governor
said,
"
I
am
going
to
encourage
3
the
building
of
a
hydrogen
highway
to
take
us
to
the
4
environmental
future.
I
intend
to
show
the
world
that
5
economic
growth
and
the
environment
can
coexist.
And
if
6
you
want
to
see
it,
then
come
to
California."

7
The
Governor's
vision
is
to
make
hydrogen
8
available
to
consumers
in
the
2010
timeframe.
A
9
public/
private
partnership
would
be
created
to
provide
up
10
to
200
stations
along
California's
interstate
highways.

11
This
vision
is
intended
to
ensure
that
the
infrastructure
12
is
in
place
for
future
hydrogen
vehicles.

13
Most
experts
agree
that
the
infrastructure
14
vehicle
chicken­
and­
egg
problem
that
Dr.
Baxter
mentioned
15
is
one
of
the
biggest
obstacles
keeping
us
dependent
on
16
petroleum
in
the
transportation
sector.
The
17
infrastructure
to
fuel
these
vehicles
will
likely
be
18
multi­
use;
that
is,
unlike
a
gasoline
station
that
can
19
only
be
used
to
refuel
gasoline
vehicles,
most
early
20
hydrogen
fuel
stations
would
be
energy
stations.
These
21
stations'
primary
use
in
the
early
years
may
be
providing
22
power
to
a
building
or
industrial
purposes.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
The
Governor's
25
vision
included
a
hydrogen
highways
plan
with
significant
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
32
1
numbers
of
hydrogen
fueling
and
energy
stations
in
place
2
along
California's
interstate
highways
by
2010.
Depending
3
on
the
location
of
these
energy
stations,
the
emphasis
4
would
be
on
using
renewable
sources
such
as
farm
waste,

5
green
waste,
solar
or
wind
to
generate
power.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
This
map
from
the
8
fuel
cell
partnership
indicates
where
stations
are
located
9
currently.
It
is
likely
that
future
stations
would
be
10
located
in
clumps
around
urban
centers
and
then
linked
11
together
along
the
interstate
highways.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
So
how
are
we
14
going
to
get
from
the
Governor's
vision
to
implementation?

15
To
this
end,
the
Governor
signed
Executive
Order
S­
7­
04,

16
of
which
you
all
have
a
copy.

17
This
Executive
Order
designates
California's
21
18
interstate
highways
as
the
California
Hydrogen
Highway
19
Network.

20
This
Executive
Order
further
directs
the
21
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency
in
concert
with
22
the
State
Legislature
and
in
consultation
with
the
23
Resources
Agency
and
other
relevant
state
and
local
24
agencies
to
develop
a
California
Hydrogen
Economy
25
Blueprint
Plan
for
the
rapid
transition
to
a
hydrogen
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
33
1
economy
in
California.
This
plan
is
due
to
the
Governor
2
and
the
Legislature
in
January
of
2005.

3
The
blueprint
plan
must
include
financing
4
mechanisms,
encourage
public/
private
partnerships,
promote
5
environmental
and
economic
benefits,
and
ensure
the
lowest
6
possible
greenhouse
gas
and
other
pollutant
emissions.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
Dr.
Shannon
9
Baxter
lead
the
effort
to
put
together
an
executive
level
10
panel
that
will
direct
the
development
of
the
hydrogen
11
economy
blueprint
plan.
This
panel
will
be
chaired
by
12
Agency
Secretary
Tamminen
and
will
be
advised
by
teams
of
13
experts
on
various
relevant
topics.

14
The
panel
will
report
to
a
senior
review
15
committee
that
consists
of
cabinet
members
and
16
legislators.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
This
slide
lists
19
the
panel
members,
all
of
which
whom
have
committed
to
the
20
development
of
the
blueprint
plan,
and
many
of
whom
are
21
contributing
staff
to
the
expert
topic
teams
that
will
22
advise
them.

23
Our
chairman
will
be
on
the
panel,
along
with
24
other
distinguished
public
and
private
leaders.
The
25
environmentalist
interests
are
recognized
by
two
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
34
1
representatives.
And
we
have
Mr.
Luis
Arteaga
from
the
2
Latino
Issues
Forum
representing
the
concerns
of
low
3
income
and
minority
communities.

4
The
panel
will
meet
for
the
first
time
this
5
afternoon
to
kick
off
this
effort.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
As
this
panel
8
moves
forward,
the
efforts
of
all
our
partners
currently
9
working
together
to
bring
hydrogen
vehicles
to
consumers
10
will
be
included.
The
public
sector,
from
local
agencies
11
to
international
agencies,
will
be
consulted.
Fuel
12
suppliers
and
auto
makers
will
be
key.

13
All
those
who
can
help
to
increase
the
use
of
14
renewable
sources
of
hydrogen
in
energy
and
fueling
15
stations,
including
the
biomass
industry
and
big­
box
16
retailers
with
energy
needs
that
are
large
enough
to
17
benefit
from
hydrogen
fuel
cell
energy
stations
and
18
refueling
operations,
all
will
be
critical
to
our
success.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
How
are
we
going
21
to
pay
for
this
­­
for
the
development
of
the
California
22
Hydrogen
Highways
Network
as
called
for
by
our
Governor?

23
There
is
a
ground
swell
of
support
for
the
hydrogen
24
highways
network
from
all
sectors
of
the
economy.
And
the
25
recognition
that
we
simply
must
move
away
from
petroleum
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
35
1
as
the
only
fuel
used
for
transportation
has
benefited
in
2
this
regard.

3
The
partners
in
this
effort
are
contributing
most
4
of
the
cost
as
well
as
most
of
the
human
resources.

5
CalEPA
and
the
Air
Resources
Board,
along
with
the
6
California
Energy
Commission
and
other
state
and
local
7
agencies,
will
provide
human
resources
and
some
of
the
8
costs.
Federal
funds
will
be
essential
during
the
9
implementation
phase
of
the
blueprint
plan,
and
in
the
10
early
stages
of
commercialization
some
revenue
bonds
will
11
be
necessary.

12
However,
in
the
long
term
it
will
be
essential
13
that
the
marketplace
take
over
and
the
California
economy
14
reap
the
benefit
of
being
the
technological
leader
in
15
innovative
environmentally
friendly
solutions.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
Federal
funds
18
have
already
begun
to
flow
towards
this
effort,
as
just
19
last
month
the
Department
of
Energy
awarded
$
350
million
20
in
hydrogen
research
projects.
Four
of
the
five
21
demonstration
awards
were
given
to
demonstration
projects
22
that
will
take
place
in
California.
Six
California
23
universities
were
awarded
as
centers
of
excellence
for
24
their
individual
efforts
in
specific
areas
for
25
infrastructure
and
demonstration,
education,
and/
or
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
36
1
research
projects.

2
Additionally,
national
labs
and
private
sector
3
firms
located
in
California
won
awards
as
centers
of
4
excellence
for
individual
efforts,
for
infrastructure
and
5
demonstration,
and
research
and
education
projects.

6
We
have
the
support
of
the
federal
government
7
already
as
this
state
moves
towards
the
hydrogen
highway
8
and
hydrogen­
based
economy.
Our
tremendous
efforts
are
9
likely
to
bring
more.

10
­­
o0o­­

11
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
We
also
have
12
industry
support.
What
makes
the
move
towards
hydrogen
as
13
a
transportation
fuel
unique
relative
to
other
alternative
14
fuels
that
have
achieved
only
marginal
success
is
that
15
both
the
auto
and
the
oil
industry
have
aligned
up
in
16
support
of
hydrogen­
powered
vehicles.
All
of
the
five
17
major
auto
makers
as
well
as
four
of
the
major
petroleum
18
suppliers
received
Department
of
Energy
grants
for
19
hydrogen
vehicle
demonstration
projects.

20
BMW
has
announced
that
they
will
have
hydrogen
21
internal
combustion
engine
vehicles
commercially
available
22
in
2007.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
TUTT:
In
the
end
we
25
must
continue
to
act
to
address
both
the
near­
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
37
1
mid­
term
need
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
2
and
to
diversify
our
energy
needs.
There
is
no
intention
3
to
sacrifice
any
of
our
current
programs
or
move
away
from
4
the
long­
term
vision
this
agency
has
always
had.
Hydrogen
5
allows
us
to
move
away
from
a
single
source
of
energy
in
6
the
transportation
sector
and
provides
us
with
an
7
opportunity
to
take
full
advantage
of
renewable
sources
of
8
energy.

9
It
may
also
be
a
solution
that
will
protect
us
10
from
the
adverse
impacts
of
global
warming,
ensure
clean
11
air
for
all,
and
help
keep
our
economy
strong.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.

13
Mrs.
Riordan.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I
have
a
request,
not
a
15
question.

16
I'd
like
to
have
at
your
convenience
a
little
bit
17
more
information
about
the
grants
that
are
awarded
here
in
18
the
project
description.
And
you
can
just
send
that
to
me
19
at
a
later
date
whenever
it's
compiled.

20
Thank
you.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Professor
Friedman.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
just
wanted
to
23
thank
you
for
a
very
clear
and
well
articulated
24
presentation.
It
was
easy
to
hear
and
to
understand
it.

25
So
I
thank
you,
Eileen.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
38
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

2
Ms.
D'Adamo.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
have
a
question
about
4
what
is
envisioned
in
terms
of
distance
between
stations.

5
What
would
be
an
ideal
distance
between
stations
versus
6
what
is
feasible
on
a
short
term?

7
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
Currently
8
the
automotive
manufacturers
like
to
have
stations
at
9
least
70
miles
­­
not
more
than
70
miles
apart.
And
10
that's
partly
due
to
the
challenges
associated
with
11
hydrogen
storage
on
board
the
vehicles.
And
quite
a
bit
12
of
the
money
out
of
this
DOE
award
went
to
centers
of
13
excellence
at
the
national
laboratories
to
develop
low
14
pressure
hydrogen
storage.
So
they're
working
on
that
15
issue.

16
The
proposal
that
you've
seen
that
came
from
the
17
Governor's
office
and
Secretary
Tamminen,
those
­­
when
it
18
talks
about
150
to
200
stations
along
California's
19
interstate
freeways,
that's
at
an
interval
of
about
every
20
20
miles.
This
was
actually
a
proposal
I
think
to
get
21
people
thinking
about
the
possibility
what
really
can
be.

22
I
think
in
reality
when
we
start
putting
in
23
stations,
we'll
start
in
the
urban
areas
and
they'll
be
24
much
closer
than
that.
And
then
we'll
start
to
link
the
25
urban
areas
in
California
north
to
south
and
so
forth,
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
39
1
hopefully
all
the
way
up
into
British
Columbia
by
the
year
2
2010
for
their
Olympics.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'd
also
like
to
again
4
applaud
the
efforts
of
Dr.
Burke
and
his
colleagues
at
5
South
Coast.
Because
if
you
look
at
the
preponderance
of
6
proposed
stations,
they
are
clustered
in
the
L.
A.
area.

7
And
I
think
that's
due
to
the
support
that
you've
8
provided,
Dr.
Burke,
for
this
network
and
looking
ahead
to
9
build
those
out.
So
I
think
we
really
like
and
appreciate
10
what
you've
done.
And
obviously
South
Coast
is
going
to
11
be
a
key
player
as
we
move
ahead
down
this
road.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Just
a
question.

13
Are
there
theoretical
estimations
of
what
volume
14
of
hydrogen
gets
you
how
many
miles
and
what
volume
is
a
15
refill
for
a
vehicle?

16
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
Presently
17
the
vehicles
have
about
five
kilograms
of
hydrogen
on
18
board.
And
a
kilogram
of
hydrogen
has
about
the
energy
19
equivalence
of
a
gallon
of
gasoline.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
So
then
very
few
21
people
are
going
to
travel
70
miles
to
get
a
fill­
up
22
without
running
out
of
hydrogen?

23
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
Well,
no,

24
the
efficiency
of
a
fuel
cell
vehicle
can
be
up
to
two
25
times
that
of
an
internal
combustion
engine
vehicle.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
40
1
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
So
35
miles?

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No.
If
you're
carrying
five
3
kilograms
on
board
times
­­

4
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
So
it
would
be
5
about
40
miles
per
kilogram?

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No,
it
­­
well,
it
depends
on
7
what
your
­­
if
you're
looking
maybe
about
50
miles
a
8
gallon,
40
miles
a
gallon,
you've
got
five
times
that.
So
9
you're
looking
at
150
to
200
miles,
something
like
that.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Just
trying
to
11
get
some
notion
of
how
long
when
I
have
my
hydrogen
12
vehicle
it's
going
to
take
me
to
go
to
someplace
to
get
a
13
refill.

14
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
If
you
just
15
want
to
talk
about
range
­­
they
can
get
70
miles.
That's
16
why
the
auto
makers
like
the
stations
to
be
every
70
miles
17
right
now.
But
the
range
right
now
is
probably
about
200
18
miles
per
fueling.
But
of
course
what
people
expect
is
19
over
300
miles,
which
has
been
the
issue
in
the
past
with
20
some
of
the
low
emission
vehicles.
So,
again,
that's
the
21
hydrogen
storage
issue
and
getting
enough
hydrogen
on
22
board
at
low
pressures.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
the
key
thing
is,
you
24
know,
you
can
get
ranges
up
to
250
miles.
But
some
come
25
down
to
150.
It
depends
on
whether
you
use
high
pressure
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
41
1
storage
of
10,000
PSI
or
5,000
PSI.
So
I
think,
as
2
Shannon
mentioned,
these
are
some
of
the
key
issues
that
3
have
to
be
worked
on
for
public
acceptance.

4
But,
no,
they're
far
more
than
­­
you
know,
they
5
can
go
reasonable
distances.
And
to
put
that
in
context,

6
remember
what
we
had
with
the
battery
electrics.
And
the
7
other
piece
of
that,
now
one
of
the
ways
they've
been
able
8
to
extend
some
of
the
range,
all
the
fuel
cell
vehicles
9
are
hybrids
of
different
kinds
­­
they're
mostly
battery
10
hybrids,
with
the
exception
of
Honda,
which
has
got
an
11
ultra
capacity.

12
So
another
example
where
the
work
that
I
think
13
the
Board
has
basically
promoted,
encouraged
are
electric
14
drive,
it's
a
direct
carryover
to
these
fuel
cell
15
vehicles.
So
I
think
that's
the
nature
of
that.

16
Mr.
McKinnon.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah,
sort
of
picking
up
18
where
you
were
on
­­
the
whole
question
of
technology
19
being
driven
by
moving
on
something.
While
I'm
probably
a
20
skeptic
on
how
long
it's
going
to
take
to
get
there
with
21
hydrogen,
because
of
the
energy
conversion
questions,
I
do
22
see
­­
and
I
think
we
learned
last
night
about
technology
23
that's
developing
and
in
fact
the
reformer
technology
that
24
may
help
us
with
cleaning
up
diesel.

25
So,
you
know,
I
look
forward
to
sort
of
­­
you
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
42
1
know,
it
take
courage
to
move
forward
over
sort
of
a
long
2
initiative.
And
while
you
can
be
skeptical,
there
are
3
rewards
along
the
way.
And
just
as
there
were
with
the
4
electric
car,
I'm
sure
there
will
be
with
the
fuel
cell.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
context.

6
I'd
also
like
to
recognize
another
key
person
in
7
the
implementation
of
this,
is
Ann
Baker,
a
Deputy
8
Secretary
of
Cal
EPA
for
External
Affairs.
Ann
came
over
9
from
working
with
Assemblywoman
Fran
Pavley.
And
so
she's
10
a
key
member
of
the
team
now.
Not
­­
obviously
in
11
hydrogen,
but
also
looking
into
the
clean
gas
regulations.

12
So
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that.

13
Dr.
Burke,
did
you
want
to
mention
also
your
14
conference
coming
up
in
­­

15
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Rather
than
talk
about
the
16
conference,
which
is
going
to
be
in
August
in
Palm
Springs
17
so
I
can
come
down
and
get
a
tan
and
think
about
hydrogen,

18
I'd
like
to
ask
the
doctor
a
question
about
what
she
19
thinks
the
impact
of
the
proposed
terminal
at
Long
Beach
20
will
have
on
this
overall
program?

21
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
I'm
sorry.

22
I
had
a
little
bit
of
trouble
hearing
you.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I
have
a
little
cold.
I'm
24
sorry.

25
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
The
effect
of
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
43
1
LNG
terminal
on
hydrogen
deployment
in
California.

2
CAL
EPA
SECRETARY'S
ADVISOR
BAXTER:
Oh,
I
have
3
to
tell
you
I'm
not
up
to
speed
on
that
issue.
I
4
apologize.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I
had
a
meeting
on
that
6
yesterday
with
the
­­
people.
And
they
obviously
have
the
7
corner
worldwide
on
hydrogen.
And
it
was
very
exciting
8
what
they
said
because
what
they
are
planning
on
doing
is,

9
in
addition
to
providing
the
gas
for
commercial
purposes,

10
they're
providing
one
percent
of
the
gas
for
11
transportation
purposes,
which
will
be
available
at
12
fueling
stations
possibly
even
closer
than
20
miles.

13
And
so
we're
really
excited
about
that
down
in
14
the
South
Coast.
And
I
think
that
that
is
right,
you
15
know
­­
the
timeframe
is
really
a
skeptical
thing.
But
16
something
like
this
can
compress
the
timeframe
17
significantly.
So
that's
­­
it's
an
interesting
18
development.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
the
other
­­
the
20
other
piece
of
it
I
think
is
that
people
ask,
"
Okay.

21
What's
different?
Why
do
we
think
that
this
effort
may
be
22
different
from
the
effort
to
promote
methanol
in
23
California
or
to
get
battery
electric
vehicles?"

24
And
I
think
one
of
the
key
things
from
my
mind
is
25
that,
as
we
saw
in
the
presentation,
all
of
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
44
1
stakeholders,
the
auto
companies,
the
energy
companies,

2
everybody
has
got
major
programs,
major
investments
3
working
here.
Nobody
doubts
that
this
is
not
­­
going
to
4
take
a
long
time.
And
so
it's
not
a
short­
term
fix.

5
But
everybody's
recognizing
more
and
more
that
6
something
has
to
be
done.
With
what's
going
on
in
the
7
rest
of
the
world,
going
on
in
the
Middle
East,
with
the
8
competition
­­
those
of
you
who
saw
the
Financial
Times
9
this
week,
the
competition
for
more
scarce
petroleum
from
10
the
growth
in
India,
China
and
other
areas,
it
stands
to
11
reason
that
we
really
have
to
look
at
these
­­
some
of
12
these
alternatives.

13
You
know,
is
it
a
given
that
we'll
get
where
we
14
want
to
go?
No.
But
on
the
other
hand,
if
we
don't
have
15
that
objective,
we'll
never
get
anywhere.
So
I'm
excited
16
that
we're
starting
on
a
long
path.
But
on
the
other
17
hand,
I
think
we've
got
short­
term,
medium­
term
objectives
18
which
will
set
us
on
a
­­
I
think
a
truly
exciting
path.

19
And
as
you
said,
Mr.
McKinnon,
we're
going
to
see
some
20
spinoffs
here
that
we
probably
don't
recognize.
And
we're
21
encouraging
all
the
other
technology.
We're
not
22
abandoning
anything.

23
Dr.
Burke.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I
just
got
back
from
a
fuel
25
conference
in
Belgium.
And
it
seems
like
we're
totally
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
45
1
out
of
step
with
Europe
at
this
point,
because
they
have
2
minimal,
if
any,
interest
in
hydrogen
or
alternative
3
fuels.
They're
really
trying
to
clean
up
diesel.
And
4
it's
their
wave
of
the
future.
So
I
was
just
shocked
at
5
how
little
interest
there
really
was
in
any
alternative
6
fuels
on
the
international
scene.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah.
Although
I
think
from
8
our
impression
dealing
with
the
people
over
there
on
the
9
partnership,
you
know,
I
think
­­
some
areas
may
be
that
10
way,
but
I
think
there's
other
areas
that
have
got
a
lot
11
of
interest.
Although
they
probably
got
more
interest
in
12
some
of
the
bio­
fuels,
the
bio­
diesel
and
the
alternatives
13
there,
and
with
their
big
emphasis
on
climate
change
14
issues.
And
I
think
they
see
hydrogen
as
further
off
and
15
they
see
a
role
more
before
hydrogen
in
the
stationary
16
sector.

17
Any
other
comments
from
­­
Mr.
McKinnon.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah,
I
just
­­
I
want
to
19
sort
of
reaffirm
something.
I
think
that
getting
to
the
20
point
where
we
produce
it
in
a
sustainable
fashion
is
21
really,
really
important
to
get
what
matters
about
moving
22
to
hydrogen.
But
I
think
what's
been
good
is
the
Board
23
has
stayed
and
the
­­
everybody
working
on
it
has
sort
of
24
stayed
open
to
any
approach
to
get
there.
And
I
think
we
25
wouldn't
have
got
the
reformers
had
that
not
­­
had
there
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
46
1
not
been
an
openness.
So
there's
sort
of
a
balancing
act
2
I
think
towards
getting
to
a
sustainable
way
of
getting
3
hydrogen
and
making
sure
that
technology
sort
of
is
left
4
open
to
develop.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We're
fortunate
enough
to
6
have
a
growing
interest
towards
natural
gas,
which
can
be
7
reformed
to
hydrogen.
And
we've
the
electrolysis
as
well
8
as
the
renewable.
And
I
think,
as
was
indicated
in
the
9
presentation,
different
ways
of
generating
hydrogen
10
throughout
the
state
from
renewable
resources
using
11
agriculture,
using
waste,
I
think
is
a
tremendous
12
opportunity.

13
And
I'm
also
aware,
Supervisor
DeSaulnier,
of
14
significant
effort
now
growing
up
in
the
Bay
Area
to
pull
15
together
the
various
activities
going
on
there
to
join
up
16
with
the
active
work
at
South
Coast
and
over
with
the
17
partnership.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Yeah,
since
right
now
19
we
can't
compete
with
Dr.
Burke's
athletic
teams,
I
think
20
we'll
try
to
compete
north/
south
with
­­
and
try
to
catch
21
up
with
you
on
hydrogen.
We
are
behind,
but
I
know
22
there's
a
commitment
from
our
new
air
pollution
control
23
officer,
who
we
got
from
the
South
Coast.
And
I
think
in
24
the
next
five
years
we'll
catch
up
to
you.
And
it'll
25
probably
take
longer
for
the
Giants
to
catch
up
to
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
47
1
Dodgers.
So
­­

2
(
Laughter.)

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I'm
not
saying
anything
5
about
athletic
teams
today.
You
know,
Matt's
in
mourning.

6
So
I'm,
you
know,
I'm
trying
to
be
considerate.
So,
you
7
know,
it
is
what
it
is.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
You're
so
kind.

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
On
the
other
hand,
the
Bay
10
Area
does
have
two
football
teams.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
I'm
not
sure
we're
12
ahead
in
that
category
either.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Anyway,
with
seriousness,

14
again,
I'd
like
to
thank
staff
very
much.

15
Did
I
get
a
positive
response
in
providing
us
16
with
some
of
the
booklets
on
the
business
aspects
of
that.

17
And,
please,
pass
on
to
Daniel
­­
again,
I
wish
18
he
was
here
because
Daniel
Emmet
from
Energy
Independence
19
Now
was
key,
together
with
Rick
Margolis
­­
Margolan,

20
working
with
Terry
before
he
joined
CalEPA.
So
that
was
21
very
important.

22
So
with
that,
since
it's
not
a
regulatory
item,

23
not
necessary
to
officially
close
the
record,
I'd
like
to
24
take
a
minute
while
we
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
item,

25
which
is
04­
5­
4,
Engine
Manufacturer
Diagnostic
System
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
48
1
Requirements.

2
As
I
indicated,
move
ahead
to
Agenda
Item
04­
5­
4,

3
Engine
Manufacturer
Diagnostic
System
Requirements.

4
The
Air
Resources
Board
and
the
U.
S.
EPA
have
5
been
working
long
and
hard
to
reduce
emissions
from
new
6
heavy­
duty
engines.
At
last,
success
appears
to
be
right
7
around
and
corner.
And
it's
really
pleasant
to
report
8
that.

9
Also
referring
back
to
Mr.
McKinnon's
point,

10
we
­­
some
of
us
had
the
benefit
of
an
excellent
11
presentation
from
MEEKA
and
its
members
yesterday.
And
I
12
think
we
all
came
away
tremendously
encouraged
by
the
13
progress
in
reducing
both
PM
and
NOx
from
the
heavy­
duty
14
sector.
And
I
think
it
restores
our
faith.
I
think
that
15
we're
heading
the
right
way
and
that
we
can
keep
pushing
16
ahead
for
tougher
and
tougher
standards.
And
the
17
industry's
doing
its
very
best
and
it's
succeeding
in
18
getting
to
lower
and
lower
emissions
so
that
in
fact
we
19
can
see
clean
diesel
­­
clean
diesel
engines
there.

20
I
think
starting
in
the
2007
to
2008
model
year
21
timeframe
the
emission
standards
for
heavy­
duty
gasoline
22
and
diesel
engines
will
become
much
more
stringent,
as
23
we're
aware
of.
We're
shifting
to
a
brand
new
world
of
24
sophisticated
engine
controls,
with
more
advanced
on­
board
25
computers,
the
use
of
after­
treatment
devices,
and
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
49
1
feedback
groups
to
make
sure
the
entire
systems
function
2
as
they
should.

3
And
I
think
it's
­­
as
we've
seen
the
evolution
4
in
the
automobile
as
we
look
under
our
hood
from
the
'
70s
5
or
the
'
60s
to
today
and
recognize
what
we
have
under
6
there
or
what
­­
how
difficult
it
is
to
address
that,
I
7
think
we're
seeing
the
same
thing
migrating
to
the
8
heavy­
duty
sector
particularly
with
the
reduction
in
9
sulfur
in
the
fuels.

10
I
think
today
staff
is
bringing
forward
because
11
they
see
this
evolution
and
to
start
phasing
in
heavy­
duty
12
diagnostic
systems
so
that
they
can
help
ensure
that
the
13
engines
meet
the
standards
in­
use
and
remain
clean
for
14
their
entire
life.

15
And,
again,
it's
my
understanding
that
Europe
is
16
already
making
strides
in
this
direction.
So
I
think
that
17
again
maybe
we
see
some
more
of
a
global
effort
here
to
18
address
this
issue
and
make
sure
that
the
emission
control
19
systems
stand
up
for
the
period
of
time.

20
So
with
that
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
Ms.

21
Witherspoon
to
provide
us
with
an
overview
of
what
staff
22
will
be
covering
today.

23
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,

24
Chairman
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
Board.

25
As
your
own
statement
just
indicated,
staff
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
50
1
believes
that
the
stringent
heavy­
duty
emission
standards
2
taking
effect
in
between
2007
and
2010
would
be
3
facilitated
by
the
side­
by­
side
introduction
of
diagnostic
4
systems.
These
systems
would
enable
vehicle
5
manufacturers,
vehicle
drivers,
and
vehicle
mechanics
to
6
know
quickly
when
an
emission
control
component
is
7
malfunctioning
and
will
provide
information
to
help
them
8
make
the
proper
repairs.

9
The
proposed
requirements
will
have
a
secondary
10
benefit
of
encouraging
manufacturers
to
make
their
11
emission
control
components
as
durable
as
possible,
which
12
is
beneficial
to
the
consumers
and
assist
in
in­
use
13
compliance.

14
I
will
now
turn
the
presentation
over
to
Mr.
Mike
15
McCarthy
of
the
Mobile
Source
Control
Division.

16
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
17
Presented
as
follows.)

18
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
Thank
19
you,
Ms.
Witherspoon.

20
Good
morning,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
21
Board.

22
Today
I
would
like
to
present
staff's
proposal
23
for
a
new
regulation
that
would
apply
to
heavy­
duty
24
engines
and
would
require
all
engines
to
be
equipped
with
25
an
engine
manufacturer
diagnostic
system,
also
known
as
an
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
51
1
EMD
system.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
As
you
4
probably
recall,
the
concept
of
vehicle
diagnostic
systems
5
is
fairly
simple.
The
diagnostic
system
is
comprised
of
6
an
on­
board
computer,
input
and
output
components
such
as
7
sensors
and
valves,
and
software
routines
to
carry
out
the
8
diagnostics.

9
The
system
uses
information
from
various
input
10
components
to
detect
malfunctions
of
emission
controls
on
11
the
vehicle.
The
system
also
illuminates
a
warning
light
12
to
alert
the
vehicle
driver
and
stores
fault
information
13
for
repair
technicians.
On­
board
diagnostic
systems
known
14
as
OBD
II
have
already
been
in
place
since
the
1996
model
15
year
for
all
light­
and
medium­
duty
vehicles.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
The
18
reason
we
are
here
today
is
heavy­
duty
trucks.
On­
road
19
heavy­
duty
diesel
trucks
account
for
a
substantial
portion
20
of
oxides
of
nitrogen,
or
NOx,
and
particulate
matter,
PM,

21
emissions.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
As
you
24
can
see
from
these
pie
charts,
on­
road
trucks
account
for
25
approximately
20
percent
of
both
NOx
emissions
and
diesel
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
52
1
PM
emissions
projected
for
the
2010
year.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
And
as
4
you
are
probably
aware,
more
stringent
emission
standards
5
for
on­
road
heavy­
duty
engines
have
already
been
adopted
6
and
are
being
phased
in
starting
with
the
2007
model
year.

7
The
primary
method
that
will
be
used
to
get
to
8
those
2007
standards
is
using
new
or
improved
emission
9
control
technologies.

10
­­
o0o­­

11
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
From
this
12
chart,
you
can
see
there's
a
substantial
reduction
in
PM
13
standards
that
first
applies
in
2007
and
the
incremental
14
NOx
reductions
that
take
place
in
2007
and
then
further
in
15
2010.
Engine
manufacturers
are
continuing
to
work
on
16
improvements
to
new
and
existing
emission
controls
to
meet
17
these
standards.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
At
this
20
time,
however,
there
are
no
diagnostic
system
requirements
21
for
heavy­
duty
vehicles
or
engines.
The
EMD
system
staff
22
is
proposing
today
would
help
ensure
that
these
new
and
23
improved
emission
controls
continue
to
work
properly
24
throughout
the
life
of
the
engine.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
53
1
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:

2
Accordingly,
the
proposed
EMD
regulation
would
3
apply
to
on­
road
diesel
and
gasoline
engines
and
would
be
4
required
in
all
2007
and
subsequent
model
years.
The
5
requirements
are
designed
to
target
the
major
emission
6
control
components
expected
to
be
used
for
the
2007
model
7
year.
The
system
would
also
build
upon
the
existing
8
diagnostics
that
manufacturers
have
voluntarily
9
implemented
over
the
years
to
help
repair
technicians
fix
10
vehicles
with
drivability
or
performance
problems.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
Under
the
13
proposal
engine
manufactures
would
be
required
to
equip
14
all
engines
with
an
EMD
system
that
performs
functional
15
monitoring
of
the
fuel
system,
the
exhaust
gas
16
recirculation,
or
EGR,
system,
and
the
PM
trap.
These
are
17
the
three
major
emission
controls
that
will
be
used
to
18
satisfy
the
2007
emission
standards.
The
monitors
for
19
these
systems
would
be
calibrated
and
designed
to
detect
20
malfunctions
that
cause
the
system
to
operate
outside
of
21
design
limits
rather
than
prescribed
emission
thresholds.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
Engine
24
manufacturers
would
also
be
required
to
monitor
any
other
25
electronic
input
or
output
components
that
are
emission
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
54
1
related
or
are
used
for
the
other
EMD
system
monitors.
An
2
example
of
such
a
component
could
be
an
exhaust
3
back­
pressure
sensor
that
is
used
to
monitor
the
PM
trap.

4
As
it
is
used
for
another
EMD
system
monitor
or
PM
trap,

5
the
back­
pressure
sensor
would
also
need
to
be
monitored.

6
Monitoring
for
these
components
would
be
limited
to
7
detection
of
electrical
circuit
faults
and
proper
8
function.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
Lastly,

11
the
EMD
system
would
also
be
required
to
alert
the
vehicle
12
operator
of
a
detected
malfunction
by
illuminating
a
13
warning
light,
and
would
be
required
to
store
fault
14
information
about
detected
malfunctions
to
assist
repair
15
technicians
in
finding
and
fixing
the
problem.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
Regarding
18
cost
effectiveness,
today's
regulation
is
expected
to
19
result
in
virtually
no
additional
cost
to
engine
20
manufacturers.
The
primary
reason
is
that
the
EMD
system
21
will
make
use
of
hardware
such
as
sensors
that
the
22
manufacturer
will
already
be
adding
to
meet
the
2007
23
emission
standards.

24
The
cost
for
that
added
hardware
has
already
been
25
accounted
for
when
the
2007
standards
were
adopted.
The
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
55
1
only
remaining
cost
will
be
for
the
development
of
2
software
routines
in
the
on­
board
computer.
Given
the
3
limited
number
of
diagnostics
required
and
the
ability
to
4
spread
the
cost
out
over
each
engine,
the
incremental
cost
5
per
engine
is
virtually
zero.

6
It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
expected
7
additional
costs
are
so
low
because
the
engine
8
manufacturers
have
indicated
that
they
were
already
9
planning
on
implementing
many
of
these
diagnostics.
As
10
such,
today's
proposed
requirement
ensures
that
engine
11
manufacturers
follow
through
on
those
commitments.

12
Given
that
the
primary
purpose
of
the
EMD
system
13
is
to
help
make
sure
we
retain
the
emission
benefits
14
projected
for
the
2007
tailpipe
standards,
the
cost
15
effectiveness
was
calculated
by
combining
the
EMD
system
16
with
the
2007
emission
standards,
resulting
in
a
cost
17
effectiveness
of
$.
42
per
pound
of
NOx
plus
NMHC
and
$
3.42
18
per
pound
of
PM.

19
Again,
the
primary
benefit
of
EMD
is
to
protect
20
the
emission
benefits
already
projected
from
the
'
07
21
tailpipe
standards.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
One
of
24
the
important
things
to
note
about
today's
proposal
is
25
that
it
really
is
the
first
step
towards
a
comprehensive
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
56
1
heavy­
duty
diagnostic
regulation.
Staff
is
planning
on
2
coming
back
to
the
Board
next
year
with
another
regulation
3
for
Board
consideration.

4
It
will
be
structured
more
like
the
current
OBD
5
II
regulation
for
light­
duty
vehicles
and
will
require
6
comprehensive
monitoring
of
all
emission
control
7
components
and
systems
instead
of
targeting
only
the
major
8
ones.
It
will
also
require
malfunctions
to
be
detected
9
before
prescribed
emission
levels
are
exceeded,
and
will
10
require
a
standardization
of
several
aspects,
including
11
the
warning
light
and
the
method
for
communicating
fault
12
information
to
repair
technicians.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
Which
15
brings
us
to
a
summary
of
today's
item.

16
Heavy­
duty
diesel
trucks
account
for
a
17
significant
portion
of
NOx
and
PM
emissions,
and
more
18
stringent
emission
standards
are
beginning
in
the
'
07
19
model
year.
Along
with
those
standards
is
increased
20
reliance
on
emission
controls.
And
an
EMD
system
is
the
21
necessary
first
step
to
ensure
those
emission
controls
are
22
working
properly
to
maintain
low
emission
levels
in
use.

23
Staff
is
continuing
to
work
on
a
second
24
generation
of
more
comprehensive
requirements
and
25
anticipates
being
back
to
the
Board
next
year
with
a
new
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
57
1
proposal.

2
This
concludes
the
staff's
presentation.
Thank
3
you.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
Any
questions?

5
Mr.
Calhoun.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Mike,
did
I
understand
you
7
to
say
that
most
of
the
components
required
for
the
8
monitoring
are
present
in
the
plan
to
be
placed
on
these
9
engines
any
way?

10
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
In
11
discussions
with
the
engine
manufacturers,
they've
12
planned
­­
indicated
that
they
had
planned
to
monitor
most
13
of
these
components
on
their
own,
primarily
for
service
14
reasons,
for
drivability
or
performance
problems.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Over
the
years
the
federal
16
government
has
sort
of
taken
a
lead
on
heavy­
duty
engines
17
in
both
gasoline
and
diesel.
Where
is
EPA
relative
to
18
this
particular
issue?

19
ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
MANAGER
McCARTHY:
They
20
participated
side
by
side
with
us
during
the
discussions
21
and
negotiations
that
went
on
for
this
rulemaking.
And
we
22
met
with
the
engine
manufacturers
several
times.
Again,

23
it
was
jointly
EPA
and
ARB
meeting
at
the
same
time.

24
So
what
they've
indicated
is
they'd
like
to
adopt
25
the
same
regulation
or
the
similar
regulation
in
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
58
1
calendar
year,
put
out
a
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
and
2
do
the
same.
So
I
think
we
really
have
in
­­
closer
than
3
we
have
in
past,
is
worked
together
to
come
up
with
a
4
proposal
that's
going
to
work
for
both
agencies
so
we
can
5
apply
it
to
both
­­
to
all
50­
state
trucks.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Thank
you.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Professor
Friedman.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
To
what
extent
have
9
you
accommodated
the
concerns
of
diesel
­­
of
Detroit
10
Diesel
and
of
the
EMA,
specifically
with
respect
to
11
limiting
this
to
engines?
It
looks
like
your
amendment
­­

12
your
amended
­­
or
modification
to
the
proposed
13
regulations
seeks
to
address
some
of
those
concerns.
And
14
I
was
unfortunately
out,
and
I
tried
to
hear,
but
­­

15
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
The
EMD
16
proposal
is
limited
to
the
engine
itself
except
where
17
there
might
be
a
sensor
located
on
the
truck
or
on
another
18
part
of
the
drive
train
that
is
necessary
to
initiate
the
19
engine
monitors.
So
if
it
needed
some
information
from
20
something
on
the
transmission
in
order
to
cause
the
engine
21
monitor
to
run,
then
that
would
have
to
be
monitored.

22
But
this
is
a
fairly
big
issue.
And
when
we
come
23
back
with
a
full
OBD
program,
this
is
going
to
be
an
issue
24
of
contention
of
where
does
the
responsibility
of
the
25
engine
manufacturer
stop
vis­
a­
vis
the
whole
truck.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
59
1
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Okay.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
What
about
the
alt
fuel
issue
3
that
was
raised
by
EMA?

4
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
The
5
proposal
you
have
in
front
of
you
today
does
not
apply
to
6
alt
fuel
engines.
It
just
­­
in
the
timeframe
that
we're
7
looking
at,
it
just
did
not
appear
to
us
that
it
was
8
reasonable
to
have
resources
put
on
OBD
for
alt
fuel
9
engines
and
­­
or
EMD
for
alt
fuel
engines.
But
we
will
10
consider
that
when
we
do
the
full
proposal
for
you
next
11
year,
which
right
now
would
be
targeted
for
the
2010
model
12
year
when
the
next
phase
of
emission
standards
go
into
13
place.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
this
was
just
an
alert
15
from
them
that
they
have
some
concerns?

16
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yeah.

17
And
I
think
it's
just
simply
that
most
of
the
alt
fuel
18
engine
models
are
relatively
low­
volume
models.
It
takes
19
resources
to
develop
an
OBD
system,
and
resources
are
20
short.
So
in
this
short
timeframe
here
of
'
07,
it
could
21
have
resulted
in
some
of
the
alt
fuel
engines
not
being
22
available.
So
we
just
didn't
think
it
was
essential
to
do
23
it
at
this
time.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
I
have
one
more
question,

25
Mr.
Chairman.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
60
1
Tom,
Mike
stated
earlier
and
you
sort
of
2
reiterated
what
he
just
said,
that
next
year
or
2005
you
3
plan
to
come
back
with
a
comprehensive
set
of
regs.

4
Do
you
think
you're
allowing
yourself
enough
time
5
to
learn
the
things
that
you
need
to
know
in
order
to
be
6
able
to
develop
a
complete
set
of
OBD
regs
by
that
time?

7
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
From
8
the
staff's
viewpoint,
we
do
think
that's
the
case.
I
9
think
you
might
get
a
different
answer
from
the
engine
10
manufacturers.
But
we
believe
we
have
a
vision
of
what
a
11
full
OBD
system
for
a
heavy­
duty
diesel
truck
or
a
gas
12
truck
would
look
like.
And,
you
know,
the
difference
is
13
that
what
we're
proposing
today
kind
of
finds
the
parts
14
that
have
short
circuits,
have
open
circuits
on
the
15
sensors
where
the
control
system
is
completely
at
one
end
16
of
this
limit
versus
the
other
end.

17
What
we
propose
to
develop
for
the
2010
timeframe
18
would
be
one
like
we
have
on
cars,
where
the
drifting
or
19
the
deterioration
of
any
of
the
components
can
be
tied
to
20
the
level
of
emissions
and
the
warning
light
goes
off
21
that.
And
we
have
a
vision
of
how
that
would
work.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Yeah,
but
what
are
the
23
limits
though?
That's
the
thing
I
guess
I'm
really
24
focusing
on.
You
want
to
be
certain
that
wherever
these
25
pass/
fail
limits,
if
you
want
to
design
them
that
way,
are
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
61
1
set
that
you
don't
have
false
failures
and
that
type
of
2
thing.

3
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Right.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
So
do
you
think
you
will
5
have
acquired
enough
experience
in
such
a
short
period
of
6
time
to
do
that?

7
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
The
8
answer
is
yes.
We
think
we
have
a
good
vision
of
it.
And
9
in
the
one
year
that
follows
roughly
from
now
we'll
be
10
working
with
the
engine
manufacturers
to
try
to
narrow
11
down
what
exactly
those
limits
are.
But
in
our
mind
the
12
importance
is
to
get
to
that
concept.
And
the
exact
level
13
of
the
trigger
for
the
diagnostic
is
something
that
we
14
certainly
will
learn
more
in
the
next
year
on.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

16
Any
other
questions?

17
Yes.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
What
­­
maybe
I
19
missed
this,
too.
What
would
be
the
effect
on
fuel
20
efficiency
or
economy
of
this
regulation?
I
mean
would
21
there
be
any
incentives
to
treat
­­
to
go
back
to
defeat
22
devices?
I
don't
want
to
open
up
an
old
wound,
because
23
we've
addressed
that.
But
when
we
get
the
full
regs
24
coming
along.
So
I'm
just
wondering
what
is
the
impact
on
25
fuel
efficiency?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
62
1
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
don't
2
think
there's
any
direct
impact
of
fuel
efficiency
on
EMD.

3
It's
just
software
and
sensors.
But
clearly
to
the
extent
4
that
it
or
the
follow­
on
OBD
proposal
do
a
better
job
at
5
detecting
faults
which
may
have
an
impact
on
fuel
6
efficiency
and
those
get
corrected
by
the
trucker
and
7
their
mechanics,
then
it
would
have
a
positive
effect
8
on
­­
could
have
a
positive
effect
on
fuel
efficiency.

9
But
in
terms
of
the
reference
back
to
the
10
off­
cycle
emissions
and
stuff,
I
think
we
have
that
11
controlled
by
the
2007
­­
in
fact,
2004
standards,
which
12
have
provisions
in
it
and
standards
that
essentially
don't
13
allow
these
off­
cycle
or
­­
off­
cycle
conditions
that
14
create
high
emissions.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

16
Madam
Ombudsman,
would
you
please
describe
the
17
public
participation
process
which
occurred
during
the
18
development
of
this
item,
and
share
any
observations
or
19
concerns
you
have
with
us
at
this
time.

20
OMBUDSMAN
TSCHOGL:
Thank
you.

21
Mr.
Chairman
and
members
of
the
Board.
The
22
Advanced
Engineering
Section
started
work
on
the
Engine
23
Manufacturer
Diagnostic
System,
EMD,
Regulation
in
late
24
2002.
Since
then
staff
has
had
numerous
meetings,
both
25
teleconferences
and
face­
to­
face
meetings
with
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
63
1
individual
engine,
transmission,
and
major
vehicle
2
manufacturers
and
coach
builders.

3
Staff
also
has
met
with
EMA,
TMA,
and
their
legal
4
counsel.
The
meetings
were
held
in
El
Monte
and
Chicago.

5
Additionally,
staff
has
met
with
the
American
6
Trucking
Association,
which
nationally
represents
owners
7
and
operators
of
the
affected
heavy­
duty
vehicles.

8
To
ensure
that
all
affected
parties
were
notified
9
of
the
regulation,
staff
attempted
to
identify
and
10
estimate
the
smaller
vehicle
manufacturers
and
coach
11
builders
that
are
not
represented
by
TMA
and
repair
12
technicians
and
owners
and
operators
of
heavy­
duty
13
vehicles
including
transit
buses.
Staff
contacted
various
14
associations
related
to
the
heavy­
duty
industry
for
this
15
information
and
was
unable
to
obtain
much
information.

16
In
July
2003,
staff
published
the
draft
staff
17
report
and
regulation,
subsequently
held
a
public
workshop
18
last
October.

19
The
notice
for
this
public
hearing
was
posted
on
20
the
official
EMD
regulatory
website
as
well
as
mailed
out
21
to
all
known
interested
parties
on
April
2nd,
2004.

22
Thank
you.
This
concludes
my
remarks.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

24
We
have
two
witnesses
signed
up.
I'd
like
to
25
call
them
up.
Just
a
reminder,
if
they
have
written
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
64
1
copies
of
the
testimony,
to
provide
it
to
the
Clerk
of
the
2
Board.

3
First
is
Jed
Mandel
and
then
Robert
Clarke.

4
MR.
MANDEL:
Good
morning.

5
Am
I
on
here?

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.
Well
­­

7
MR.
MANDEL:
More
or
less,
right?

8
I
was
giving
you
an
opening,
Chairman
Lloyd.

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Closer,
closer.

10
Yeah,
don't
faint
on
us.

11
MR.
MANDEL:
I'm
Jed
Mandel,
speaking
on
behalf
12
of
the
Engine
Manufacturers
Association.

13
Today
marks
another
example
of
an
ARB
rule
that
14
EMA
and
its
members
are
able
to
support.
This
has
become
15
a
much
more
frequent
occurrence
of
late,
probably
as
a
16
result
of
two
significant
factors:
The
engine
17
manufacturers
represented
by
EMA
are
following
through
on
18
their
commitment
to
reduce
emissions
significantly
from
19
the
products
they
make.
And
the
staff
has
committed
to
20
work
with
us
to
implement
programs
that
reduce
unnecessary
21
regulatory
cost
and
burdens
so
long
as
the
overall
22
effectiveness
of
ARB's
emissions
reduction
programs
are
23
not
compromised.

24
We
think
that
the
proposed
EMD
rule
is
a
good
25
example
of
the
staff's
commitment,
and
we
acknowledge
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
65
1
thank
the
staff
for
their
efforts.
We
in
turn
have
2
committed
to
working
with
ARB
and
EPA
on
the
3
implementation
of
on­
board
diagnostic
requirements
for
the
4
heavy­
duty
engine
industry.

5
The
EMD
rule
is
just
the
first
step.
It
has
been
6
developed
to
minimize
the
likelihood
that
there
will
be
7
any
adverse
impact
on
the
real
prize:
Timely
compliance
8
and
marketplace
acceptance
of
the
stringent
2007
9
heavy­
duty
engine
tailpipe
standards.

10
The
proposed
EMD
rule
and
the
ultimate
adoption
11
of
additional
on­
board
diagnostic
requirements
also
should
12
be
adopted
in
coordination
with
EPA
to
assure
a
harmonized
13
nationwide
program.
It
is
critical
to
engine
14
manufacturers
that
there
be
a
single
uniform
set
of
15
on­
board
diagnostic
requirements
applicable
nationwide
to
16
heavy­
duty
engines.

17
In
working
with
the
staff
on
the
EMD
proposal,
we
18
have
emphasized,
and
the
staff
has
agreed,
that
the
19
heavy­
duty
engine
industry
cannot
and
should
not
be
20
responsible
for
any
diagnostic
and
monitoring
requirements
21
that
go
beyond
the
engine
and
after­
treatment
system.
The
22
EMD
rule
should
explicitly
exclude
from
its
coverage
any
23
requirements
for
monitoring
or
reporting
on
transmission
24
or
other
power­
train
components.
We
believe
that
the
25
language
in
the
proposed
EMD
rule
is
not
as
clear
on
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
66
1
point
as
it
should
be.

2
We
also
believe
that
the
EMD
rule
should
not
3
apply
to
alternative
fueled
heavy­
duty
engines.
The
staff
4
agrees
with
us.
And
I
know
in
the
back
of
the
room
is
now
5
proposed
15­
day
language
changes,
and
we
support
those
6
changes.
And
those
changes
fully
address
the
concerns
7
that
I've
just
shared
with
you.

8
As
a
result,
we
ask
the
Board
to
direct
the
staff
9
to
work
with
us
through
the
15­
day
notice
process
to
10
clarify
the
scope
of
the
EMD
rule,
to
make
sure
that
it's
11
limited
to
the
engine
and
after­
treatment
system
of
12
gasoline­
and
diesel­
fueled
engines.

13
If
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
pleased
to
14
answer
them.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much,
Jed.

16
Again,
really
appreciate
those
words.
And,
again,
I
17
congratulate
staff
on
working
with
you
and
congratulate
18
your
members
on
the,
you
know,
huge
investment,

19
significant
progress
that's
being
made
to
reduce
20
emissions.
So
we
really
applaud
that
and
it's
really
nice
21
to
hear
that.

22
MR.
MANDEL:
We
appreciate
that.
And
as
was
23
noted
in
the
staff
presentation,
there
is
some
heavy
24
lifting
yet
to
be
done.
We
will
probably
be
back
before
25
you,
and
we
know
we'll
be
working
with
the
staff
in
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
67
1
coming
year.
There
are
going
to
be
some
difficult
issues.

2
But
we
are
committed
to
working
with
the
staff
to
try
and
3
address
them.
And
we
will
share
with
you
our
concerns
if
4
they
haven't
been
addressed.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
I
know
we
can
count
on
6
you
to
ensure
that
there's
no
slippage
of
the
2007
and
7
2010
implementation
dates.

8
MR.
MANDEL:
You
can
count
on
us.
You
have
heard
9
that
commitment
from
engine
manufacturers
before.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.
I
think
that's
very
11
important.
So
we're
delighted
to
hear
that.

12
MR.
MANDEL:
Good.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
I
understand
from
your
14
comments
there
that
the
15­
day
notice
will
address
those
15
issues.
And
so
clearly
that's
right
on
board
there.

16
Any
other
questions,
comments?

17
We're
going
to
let
you
off
lightly.
Thank
you
18
very
much
indeed,
Jed.

19
MR.
MANDEL:
I
won't
know
what
to
do
without
a
20
question
from,
you
know,
Matt
McKinnon
or
others.

21
He's
smiling
at
me.
But
I
­­
that's
good.

22
That's
a
good
thing.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You're
baiting
him.

24
MR.
MANDEL:
No,
I'm
teasing
­­
I'm
just
teasing
25
him.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
68
1
(
Laughter.)

2
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I'm
with
Jed
on
this
one.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.

4
MR.
MANDEL:
Thank
you
very
much.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

6
Next
we
have
Robert
Clarke.

7
MR.
CLARKE:
Mr.
Chairman
and
members
of
the
8
Board.
Good
morning.
I
am
Robert
Clarke,
President
of
9
the
Truck
Manufacturers
Association.

10
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
to
the
11
Board
the
views
of
the
North
American
Truck
Manufacturing
12
community
on
this
very
important
issue.

13
TMA
represents
the
major
North
American
14
manufacturers
of
medium­
and
heavy­
duty
trucks
with
gross
15
vehicle
weight
ratings
of
19,500
pounds
and
greater.

16
TMA
members
are
Ford
Motor
Company,
Freightliner,

17
General
Motors
Corporation,
International
Truck
and
Engine
18
Corporation,
the
Isuzu
Commercial
Truck
of
America,
Mack
19
Trucks,
PACCAR,
and
Volvo
Trucks
of
North
America.

20
Over
the
past
16
months
TMA
and
its
member
21
companies
have
appreciated
the
opportunity
to
work
and
22
comment
directly
with
the
CARB
staff
during
the
23
development
of
these
engine
diagnostic
requirements.

24
On
February
25th
of
last
year
we
presented
25
information
to
the
staff
and
showed
them
five
different
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
69
1
medium­
and
heavy­
duty
trucks
which
exemplified
the
2
variety
of
vocations
in
which
trucks
are
used
and
the
3
resulting
wide
range
of
equipment
and
features
that
are
4
installed
to
perform
the
functional
requirements
5
associated
with
those
applications.

6
A
copy
of
that
presentation
is
included
with
the
7
statement.
We
highlighted
the
importance
of
flexible
8
requirements,
especially
as
it
related
to
electronic
9
communications
or
architectures
and
protocols.

10
On
October
16th
of
last
year
and
again
in
January
11
of
this
year
we
presented
information
and
views
to
the
12
staff
in
response
to
the
proposal
they
published
in
July
13
of
last
year.
We
noted
the
extensive
research,

14
engineering,
and
testing
resources
TMA
members
and
their
15
engine
suppliers
were
and
are
expending
to
make
certain
we
16
can
deliver
reliable,
cost
effective
and
fully
17
emissions­
compliant
products
to
our
customers
in
2007
and
18
beyond.

19
We
emphasized
at
that
meeting
the
2007
standards
20
was
our
highest
priority,
one
that
should
not
be
undercut
21
by
having
to
spread
our
resources
over
too
many
project
22
areas.
We
cautioned
that
attempting
to
ingrate
elaborate
23
OBD
systems
into
our
products
now
would
compromise
our
24
ability
to
integrate,
test
and
produce
vehicles
that
meet
25
the
stringent
2007
prime
engine
emissions
requirements.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
70
1
Those
presentations
are
also
attached
to
the
statement.

2
TMA
is
pleased
that
CARB
heard
our
comments
and
3
factored
them
into
the
proposed
requirement
that
is
before
4
the
Board
today.
The
new
requirement
mirrors
the
2007
and
5
2010
engine
standard
in
that
it
embodies
a
multi­
step
6
building­
block
approach
that
will
enable
engine
and
truck
7
chassis
manufactures
to
produce
greatly
simplified
yet
8
very
capable
engine
diagnosis
systems
for
2007.
More
9
sophisticated
systems
will
follow
in
the
future.

10
Engine
and
truck
manufacturers
will
now
have
the
11
time
needed
to
focus
our
full
attention
and
resources
on
12
the
successful
introduction
of
our
2007
products.

13
Equally
important,
motor
carriers,
engine
14
servicing,
and
compliance
auditing
personnel
will
have
the
15
ability
to
confirm
that
the
new
emissions
reducing
systems
16
are
functioning
properly.
We
believe
this
is
a
reasonable
17
approach
to
accomplishing
our
shared
goal
of
a
cleaner
18
environment.

19
Finally,
we
concur
with
the
comments
that
Jed
and
20
our
colleagues
at
the
Engine
Manufacturers
Association
21
just
made
about
limiting
the
scope
of
this
rule
and,

22
therefore,
encourage
the
Board
to
adopt
the
staff's
23
proposal
modified
on
that
basis.

24
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman
and
members
of
the
Board.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
Again,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
71
1
thank
you
for
those
positive
statements,
too.

2
I
thank
staff
for
working
with
the
Truck
3
Manufacturers
Association.

4
Any
comments
from
the
Board?

5
Thank
you
very
much.

6
MR.
CLARKE:
Thank
you.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
will
now
close
the
record
8
on
this
agenda
item.
However,
the
record
will
be
reopened
9
if
and
when
the
15­
day
notice
of
public
availability
is
10
issued.
Written
or
oral
comments
received
after
this
11
hearing
date
but
before
the
15­
day
notice
is
issued
will
12
not
be
accepted
as
part
of
the
official
record
on
this
13
agenda
item.
If
and
when
the
record
is
reopened
for
a
14
15­
day
comment
period,
the
public
may
submit
written
15
comments
on
the
proposed
changes,
which
will
be
considered
16
and
responded
to
in
the
final
statement
of
reasons
for
the
17
regulation.

18
Any
ex
parte
communications
from
my
colleagues
on
19
the
Board?

20
Seeing
none.

21
We
have
a
resolution
before
us,
with
a
22
clarification
that
was
put
forward
by
staff
on
the
15­
day
23
changes
to
accommodate
some
of
the
concerns
of
EMA
and
so
24
forth.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I'd
like
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
72
1
move
the
resolution
­­

2
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Second.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
­­
with
the
15
day.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good.

5
All
in
favor
say
aye.

6
(
Ayes.)

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Anybody
against?

8
No.
unanimous.

9
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.

10
And
thank
you,
staff.
It's
always,
by
the
way,
a
11
pleasure
to
see
you
come
up
from
El
Monte
with
so
much
of
12
the
good
work
going
on
down
there.
So
I
really
appreciate
13
it.

14
Where
are
we
going
to
be
next
month?
In
El
15
Monte?

16
Yes.
So
we
look
forward
to
­­
yes.

17
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
take
a
ten­
minute
break
to
18
give
the
court
reporter
time.

19
We're
actually
­­
I
won't
say
ahead
of
schedule.

20
But
we're
in
good
time
here.
I
don't
want
to
tempt
fate.

21
But
why
don't
we
­­
by
quarter
of
by
that
clock,
give
us
22
ten
minutes
to
take
a
break
for
the
court
reporter
and
23
change
staff.
And
then
we
will
continue
with
the
final
24
agenda
item.

25
(
Thereupon
a
recess
was
taken.)

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
73
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
last
agenda
item
today
is
2
04­
1­
4,
an
update
from
staff
on
amendments
to
the
3
California
Motor
Vehicle
Service
Information
Regulation
4
that
the
Board
approved
in
January.

5
As
you
may
recall,
the
rule
amendments
expanded
6
the
applicability
of
the
regulation
to
cover
heavy­
duty
7
vehicles
and
address
an
outstanding
issue
related
to
8
access
to
anti­
theft
system
information.

9
Two
issues
came
up
in
January
that
the
Board
10
directed
staff
to
report
back
on.
We
also
left
the
11
rulemaking
record
open
at
that
time
so
we
could
receive
12
and
consider
comments
related
to
the
linkage
between
the
13
service
information
access
requirements
and
the
heavy­
duty
14
engine
diagnostic
proposal
we
just
received
­­
just
15
considered.

16
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
Ms.
Witherspoon
to
17
introduce
the
item
and
begin
staff
presentation.

18
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,

19
Chairman
Lloyd.

20
As
you
indicated,
the
staff
presentation
today
21
will
focus
on
work
done
to
address
remaining
service
22
information
issues
from
the
January
hearing.

23
As
directed
by
the
Board,
staff's
continued
to
24
work
closely
with
the
stakeholders
to
determine
whether
25
our
proposed
solution
to
the
ongoing
issue
of
access
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
74
1
immobilizer
initialization
information
can
be
further
2
refined
or
improved.

3
The
staff
was
also
asked
by
the
Board
to
evaluate
4
vehicle
manufacturers
potential
legal
liability
resulting
5
from
the
use
of
diagnostic
tools
and
information
provided
6
to
the
aftermarket.

7
Staff's
ready
to
present
the
result
of
these
8
efforts
and
how
it
plans
to
bring
closure
to
these
issues.

9
At
this
point
I'll
turn
the
presentation
over
to
10
Mr.
Dean
Hermano
of
the
Mobile
Source
Operations
Division
11
to
explain
staff's
findings
in
more
detail.

12
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
13
Presented
as
follows.)

14
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
Thank
you,
Ms.

15
Witherspoon.

16
And
good
morning
to
you,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
17
members
of
the
Board.

18
Today
I
will
update
you
on
the
staff's
findings
19
in
regards
to
the
recently
approved
amendments
to
the
20
Motor
Vehicle
Service
Information
Regulation.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
I'll
begin
with
23
a
brief
overview
of
California's
Motor
Vehicle
Service
24
Information
requirements.
The
Board
originally
adopted
25
this
regulation
in
December
2001
as
required
by
Health
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
75
1
Safety
Code
Section
43105.5,
a
new
section
created
by
2
Senate
Bill
1146
in
September
2000.

3
The
intent
of
this
regulation
­­
or
Legislation
4
is
to
ensure
that
independent
service
facilities
and
5
aftermarket
part
companies
have
access
to
the
same
6
information
and
tools
available
to
franchise
dealerships.

7
The
includes
service
manuals,
wiring
diagrams,
and
8
diagnostic
tools.
Making
this
information
available
9
allows
independent
service
providers
to
be
better
equipped
10
to
effectively
carry
out
emission­
related
repairs
and
give
11
vehicle
owners
greater
options
regarding
where
their
12
vehicles
can
be
serviced.

13
The
requirements
apply
to
all
1994
model
year
and
14
later
motor
vehicles
equipped
with
on­
board
diagnostic
15
systems.

16
This
regulation
is
very
similar
to
federal
17
provisions
for
service
information
access,
with
both
rules
18
requiring
direct
access
through
the
Internet
or
on­
line
19
viewing
or
downloading
of
service
information.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
This
past
22
January
the
staff
provided
the
Board
with
an
update
on
the
23
Service
Information
Program
and
proposed
a
few
amendments
24
to
improve
and
clarify
the
regulation.
The
two
most
25
notable
proposed
amendments
were:

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
76
1
One,
requirement
for
light­
duty
manufacturers
to
2
develop
and
provide
a
mobilizer
anti­
theft
system
3
initialization
procedures
based
on
the
use
of
low­
cost
4
tools
and
hardware.

5
This
requirement
currently
contained
in
the
6
federal
regulation
would
reduce
the
costs
associated
with
7
the
replacement
of
on­
board
computers
in
the
field
and
the
8
quality
control
testing
of
remanufactured
on­
board
9
computers.

10
Secondly,
the
staff
proposed
to
extend
the
11
regulation's
applicability
to
cover
heavy­
duty
vehicles
12
once
they
are
equipped
with
on­
board
diagnostic
systems.

13
Amendments
were
approved
at
the
hearing,
but
all
14
issues
related
to
each
of
these
proposals
were
not
15
completely
resolved.
The
Board
thus
directed
staff
to
16
look
into
continued
remanufacture
concerns
with
time
17
delays
associated
with
some
of
the
service­
based
18
immobilizer
procedures
already
available
for
immobilizer
19
initialization
and
2)
what
liability
issues
heavy­
duty
20
manufacturers
may
face
in
making
their
tools
and
related
21
information
available
for
purchase
to
the
aftermarket.

22
Lastly,
the
Board
asked
staff
to
keep
a
service
23
information
rulemaking
record
open
until
the
Engine
24
Manufacturers
Diagnostic
Regulation
was
considered
in
25
order
to
provide
heavy­
duty
manufacturers
with
an
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
77
1
additional
opportunity
to
comment
on
any
concerns
related
2
to
the
impact
of
the
EMD
proposal
on
these
requirements.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
In
regards
to
5
computer
remanufacturers
the
Board
asked
the
staff
to
meet
6
again
with
affected
stakeholders
to
see
if
a
solution
7
facilitating
the
testing
of
immobilizer­
equipped
on­
board
8
computers
can
be
found
that
better
addresses
9
remanufacturers
means.

10
The
staff
met
with
vehicle
manufacturers
and
11
computer
remanufacturer
representatives
on
April
21st
of
12
this
year.
At
that
meeting
the
remanufacturer
13
stakeholders
proposed
that
a
more
efficient
solution
to
14
the
problem
would
be
for
vehicle
manufacturers
to
design
a
15
special
bench
test
software
routine
into
their
on­
board
16
computers.
Issues
of
cost
and
security
regarding
this
17
proposal
were
discussed.

18
The
vehicle
manufacturers
opposed
the
idea
of
19
special
software
to
disable
the
immobilizer
for
testing
20
purposes
because
there
is
no
incentive
for
them
to
expend
21
resources
creating
software
changes
for
the
benefit
of
22
their
competition
and
because
such
software
could
23
potentially
create
immobilizer
security
issues.

24
They
also
reiterated
their
view
that
the
cost
and
25
time
delay
issues
that
result
from
using
service
equipment
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
78
1
and
procedures
to
test
remanufactured
computers
are
2
manageable
by
the
aftermarket.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
This
table
5
compares
key
aspects
of
the
two
computer
testing
solutions
6
discussed.

7
Staff
estimates
that
the
service­
procedures­
based
8
solution
in
the
first
column
favored
by
the
vehicle
9
manufacturer
should
not
increase
the
cost
of
replacement
10
computers
by
more
than
$
2.50
per
unit.
The
estimates
for
11
a
vehicle
software
change
is
less
than
$
1
per
vehicle.

12
Both
estimates
are
based
on
cost
figures
provided
by
the
13
affected
stakeholders.

14
Use
of
the
vehicle
manufacturers'
service
15
procedures
for
initialization
does
not
raise
new
system
16
security
issues
because
the
procedures
are
already
17
available
to
the
service
industry.
Vehicle
manufacturers
18
are
concerned,
however,
that
software
changes
to
create
a
19
mode
for
bench
testing
computers
could
be
exploited.

20
The
staff
believes
that
while
security
problems
21
may
arise,
it
should
be
possible
for
manufacturers
to
22
minimize
such
problems
through
the
design
process.

23
The
vehicle
manufacturers
have
consistently
been
24
opposed
to
changing
vehicle
software
and,
therefore,
will
25
not
do
so
voluntarily.
Therefore,
further
regulatory
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
79
1
amendments
would
be
needed
to
bring
a
vehicle
software
2
solution
to
fruition.

3
The
service
procedure
solution
does
not
require
4
additional
revision
to
the
regulation.

5
Lastly,
staff
continues
to
believe
that
a
special
6
requirement
specifically
intended
to
benefit
on­
board
7
computer
remanufacturers
goes
against
the
language
and
8
intent
of
Health
and
Safety
Code
43105.5.
No
such
concern
9
exists
for
the
solution
based
on
immobilizer
service
10
procedures.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
Overall
the
13
staff
has
concluded
that
both
of
the
solutions
are
14
technically
feasible
in
facilitating
continued
testing
of
15
remanufactured
on­
board
computers.
Furthermore,
the
staff
16
believes
that
either
solution
can
be
implemented
without
17
creating
major
costs
or
business
process
issues
for
the
18
affected
industries.
Notwithstanding,
the
staff
continues
19
to
hold
that
from
a
regulatory
point
of
view,
reliance
on
20
the
service
procedure
solution
best
balances
stakeholders'

21
concerns
and
issues
for
the
following
reasons:

22
One,
the
solution
can
be
used
to
facilitate
23
testing
of
both
existing
and
future
vehicles.

24
It
does
not
create
any
conflict
with
the
intent
25
of
Senate
Bill
1146
as
it
pertains
to
remanufacturers.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
80
1
And,
third,
it
won't
raise
new
security
issues
2
for
vehicle
manufacturers.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
Another
5
immobilizer­
related
issue
raised
at
the
January
hearing
6
was
a
request
from
Honda
Motor
Company
for
additional
lead
7
time
to
comply
with
the
requirement
for
immobilizer
8
initialization
procedures
that
are
based
on
low­
cost
9
tools.
Honda
has
asked
to
extend
the
lead
time
through
10
the
2009
model
year
to
address
needed
hardware
and
11
software
changes
on
some
of
its
models.

12
Honda
is
currently
still
working
with
the
ARB
13
staff,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

14
which
also
has
a
2007
model
year
deadline
for
this
15
requirement,
and
with
aftermarket
stakeholders
to
address
16
concerns
and
questions
associated
with
the
request
for
17
added
lead
time.
Based
on
the
outcome
of
these
18
discussions
the
staff
can
amend
the
regulation
if
19
appropriate
to
provide
for
the
extra
lead
time
through
the
20
15­
day
regulatory
change
process.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
Another
question
23
raised
at
the
January
Board
hearing
was
whether
heavy­
duty
24
vehicle
manufacturers
can
be
held
liable
should
the
25
diagnostic
and
reprogramming
tools
and
information
they
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
81
1
make
available
be
misused.

2
For
example,
if
a
technician
uses
a
tool
to
3
improperly
configure
an
engine
or
if
an
aftermarket
4
diagnostic
tool
manufacturer
improperly
designs
its
5
product,
could
the
vehicle
manufacturer
be
held
liable
for
6
any
resulting
vehicle
damage?
Following
the
business
7
practices
that
are
currently
used
in
the
light­
duty
8
industry,
ARB
staff
and
Legal
Office
have
determined
that
9
legal
liability
can
be
controlled
through
the
use
of
10
indemnity
or
hold­
harmless
agreements
as
a
condition
for
11
sale
of
the
tools
and
information.
All
indications
to
the
12
ARB
staff
are
that
these
agreements
have
been
used
13
reasonably
and
that
likely
the
industry
would
not
raise
14
any
anti­
competitive
issues.

15
The
staff
believes
that
such
agreements
can
also
16
be
used
by
the
heavy­
duty
industry
to
address
liability
17
issues.

18
The
staff
also
recognizes
that
prior
to
the
first
19
requirements
for
light­
duty
manufacturers
to
make
20
available
proprietary
tools
and
reprogramming
equipment,

21
lead
time
was
provided
for
them
to
incorporate
necessary
22
safeguards
to
minimize
any
opportunities
for
tampering
or
23
accidental
misuse
of
the
tools.

24
Considering
the
fact
that
heavy­
duty
tools
are
at
25
least
as
complex
and
powerful
as
those
used
in
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
82
1
light­
duty
industry,
the
staff
believes
that
it
is
2
important
to
ensure
that
heavy­
duty
manufacturers
also
3
have
ample
lead
time
to
incorporate
necessary
safeguards
4
for
their
use.
Therefore,
the
staff
intends
to
draft
5
15­
day
changes
to
the
regulation
that
would
delay
6
requirements
on
the
heavy­
duty
manufacturers
for
the
7
availability
of
reprogramming
tools
and
related
8
reprogramming
and
bidirectional
control
information
until
9
2010.

10
Data
stream
information
would
still
have
to
be
11
made
available
starting
with
EMD
implementation
in
2007,

12
because
this
type
of
information
cannot
by
definition
13
change
an
engine's
calibration
or
its
performance.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
In
conclusion,

16
through
continued
discussions
with
the
stakeholders,
the
17
staff
believes
it
has
the
information
necessary
to
bring
18
closure
to
the
outstanding
issues
related
to
this
19
rulemaking.

20
The
Staff
plans
to
make
additional
adjustments
to
21
the
regulation
discussed
in
this
presentation
through
the
22
regulatory
15­
day
change
process.
Other
minor
23
modifications
to
the
regulatory
language
resulting
from
24
discussions
with
affected
stakeholders
since
the
January
25
hearing
will
also
be
part
of
that
process.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
83
1
Further,
the
staff
will
continue
to
work
with
2
stakeholders
to
address
new
issues
that
arise
out
of
3
implementation
of
these
requirements
and
will
propose
4
amendments
as
necessary
at
a
future
Board
update.

5
Thank
you.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Thank
you
very
much.

7
Chairman
Lloyd
had
to
absent
himself
for
a
time
8
and
asked
me
to
continue
with
the
meeting.

9
I
understand
that
is
not
a
regulatory
item,
that
10
is,
there's
no
resolution
before
us.
We
don't
have
any
11
need
for
any
ex
parte
communication
reportage.
There's
no
12
need
for
an
ombudsperson
report.

13
So
are
there
any
questions
or
comments?

14
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
I
have
one
quick
question
15
I'd
like
to
ask
the
staff.

16
I
think
you
stated
that
there
was
a
stakeholders'

17
meeting
in
April?

18
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
April
21st,
yes.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
And
at
that
meeting
the
20
remanufacturers
presented
­­

21
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Joe,
we
can't
hear
22
you.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Okay.
I'll
try
to
talk
a
24
little
louder.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
That's
better.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
84
1
Thanks.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
I
believe
you
said
at
that
3
meeting
the
remanufacturers
made
a
proposal
that
would
4
require
the
OEMs
to
install
a
special
software
to
test
5
this
system,
is
that
correct?

6
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
Correct.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
And
did
I
understand
you
8
to
say
that
to
impose
that
requirement
would
be
9
inconsistent
with
the
statute
or
intent
of
the
statute?

10
AIR
RESOURCES
ENGINEER
HERMANO:
Well,
in
regards
11
to
the
Health
and
Safety
Code
and
the
actual
language
of
12
the
Senate
bill
that
authorizes
us,
there
is
no
provision
13
specifically
for
remanufacturers
to
access
this
14
information.
But
back
in
2001
when
the
original
15
regulation
was
adopted,
the
Board
asked
us
to
see
if
we
16
could
find
a
way
for
remanufacturers
to
be
able
to
get
the
17
information
without
sacrificing
vehicle
security.
So
18
we've
done
every
effort
we
could
since
2001
and
since
19
January
of
this
year
to
do
that.
And
at
this
point
I
20
think
we've
kind
of
exhausted
most
of
the
options
that
we
21
have
at
hand.

22
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Mr.
Calhoun,
Let
23
me
see
if
I
can
put
that
in
a
slightly
different
way.
The
24
statute
requires
that
OEMs
must
share
the
information
that
25
they
have,
but
that
they
are
not
required
to
create
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
85
1
information
solely
for
the
use
of
the
aftermarket
industry
2
that
they
weren't
producing
for
their
own
behalf.
And
3
that's
the
difference
here
in
the
issue
about
statutory
4
authorization
to
require
it.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
All
right.
Thank
you.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Any
other
comments?

7
Ms.
D'Adamo.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Well,
just
as
a
follow­
up
9
to
that.

10
I
understand
that
it
does
not
require
the
OEMs
to
11
create
any
additional
information.
But
it's
­­
this
Board
12
would
not
be
precluded.
And
I
would
just
like
perhaps
13
Legal
to
respond
to
that.
In
other
words,
would
we
still
14
have
the
discretion
to
require
the
vehicle
software
15
changes?
And
if
so,
what
sort
of
legal
liability
would
16
that
present?

17
GENERAL
COUNSEL
JOHNSTON:
I'm
not
sure
that
the
18
Board
would
have
that
discretion,
because
the
statute
is
19
fairly
specific
in
requiring
that
the
Board
has
authority
20
to
direct
information
be
shared
by
the
OEMs
with
the
21
aftermarket.
But
the
statute
is
definitely
not
going
to
22
the
point
where
it
directs
that
the
ARB
can
require
that
23
OEMs
create
information
that
is
available
to
the
24
aftermarket
sector.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Okay.
And
then
­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
86
1
SENIOR
STAFF
COUNSEL
TERRIS:
If
I
may
add
to
2
that.
The
statute
basically
gives
authority
for
the
Board
3
to
require
the
OEMs
to
provide
specific
information.
And
4
that
when
the
statute's
read
in
the
whole,
it
makes
it
5
clearer
that
with
regard
to
the
computer
systems,

6
and
which
the
initialization
system
is
a
part
of,
is
that
7
its
information
is
to
be
limited
to
information
to
allow
8
for
the
installation
of
computers
and
­­
the
installation
9
and
the
initialization
of
the
computer
system.

10
And
if
you
look
at
the
legislative
history,
it's
11
made
it
clear
that
rebuilders
were
first
included
in
the
12
early
iterations
of
the
bill
and
then
they
were
taken
out.

13
And
so
in
reading
the
statute
as
a
whole
and
looking
at
14
the
legislative
history,
we
find
that
the
OEMs
are
not
15
required
to
redesign
their
computer
systems
to
allow
for
16
the
initialization
to
permit
rebuilding.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Okay.
And
then
I
have
a
18
follow­
up
question
on
costs
for
staff.
I
know
one
of
the
19
reasons
that
we
asked
staff
to
take
a
look
at
this
in
the
20
interim
between
the
hearings
was
to
see
if
there
was
a
way
21
that
the
costs
could
be
brought
down
by
perhaps
looking
at
22
some
other
alternatives
such
as
vehicle
software
changes.

23
Could
staff
go
through
­­
I
see
here
on
this
24
chart
on
slide
5
the
cost
impact.
This
would
be
per
25
vehicle
or
per
computer
tested.
But
if
staff
could
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
87
1
provide
information
about
what
the
overall
costs
would
be
2
to
the
OEMs
versus
the
aftermarket
industry.

3
MOBILE
SOURCE
DIVISION
OPERATIONS
DIVISION
CHIEF
4
LYONS:
Sure,
we
can
do
that.

5
We
received
cost
estimates
from
both
the
vehicle
6
manufacturers
to
implement
a
software
change
solution
and
7
from
the
aftermarket
on
the
cost
to
implement
a
8
service­
procedures­
based
solution.
And
just
taking
the
9
costs
that
were
given
to
us,
the
vehicle
manufacturers
10
estimated
up­
front
costs
ranging
from
a
million
to
two
11
million
initial
costs.
And
then
ongoing
costs
ranging
12
from
about
500,000
to
about
800,000.
Those
would
be
13
yearly
costs.

14
The
remanufacturers
on
the
other
hand
estimate
15
that
it
would
cost
essentially
a
million
dollars
to
16
retrofit,
if
you
will,
40
on­
board
computer
testers.
So
17
that
works
out
to
about
$
25,000
per
tester.

18
It's
my
understanding
that
there
are
two
major
19
remanufacturers,
who
would
incur
about
a
million
dollars
20
each,
and
then
there
are
a
number
of
smaller
players.
We
21
haven't
gotten
cost
estimates
on
exactly
how
that
would
22
come
out.
But
we
would
estimate
that
they
have
less
than
23
50
percent
in
the
market
share,
so
that
total
cost
on
the
24
remanufacturers
would
be
less
than
$
4
million.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
And
how
about
ongoing
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
88
1
costs
for
the
remanufacturers?

2
MOBILE
SOURCE
DIVISION
OPERATIONS
DIVISION
CHIEF
3
LYONS:
Well,
those
are
costs
to
develop
and
implement
4
testers
­­
or
initialization
stations
for
all
of
their
5
existing
testers.
The
ongoing
costs
would
only
come
in
to
6
the
extent
that
they
have
to
redo
that
process
to
account
7
for
new
vehicle
immobilizer
designs.
And
we
don't
have
8
any
information
on
how
quickly
those
immobilizer
systems
9
change
and,
therefore,
how
quickly
the
manufacturers
will
10
have
to
reinvest.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Anything
further.

12
Matt
­­
Mr.
McKinnon.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
have
a
lot
of
pretty
14
good
recollection
of
the
last
hearing
and
having
some
real
15
difficulty
with
some
of
the
costs
discussion
coming
from
16
the
remanufacturers.

17
And
I
remember
there
being
sort
of
a
confusion
in
18
arguments
about
the
difference
in
an
original
19
manufacturers
and
a
remanufacturers
and
the
big
price
20
difference
between
the
two,
which
is
­­
obviously
if
21
you're
not
manufacturing
something
from
scratch,
it's
22
going
to
cost
less.

23
But
I
guess
the
thing
that
sort
of
really
­­
to
24
me
sort
of
tells
me
we're
in
the
right
place
­­
and
maybe
25
I
can
be
convinced
otherwise
today
­­
is
that
sort
of
my
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
89
1
understanding,
and
albeit
empirical,
is
that
replacement
2
of
these
computers
is
a
very,
very
rare
occurrence.
I've
3
never
had
to
do
it.
I
called
my
dad
today,
74
years
old,

4
he's
had
to
do
it
once.
So
I
guess
what
I'm
curious
about
5
is
if
we
have
to
weigh
­­
and
I
think
what
we're
being
6
asked
to
weigh
is
giving
up
the
security
of
vehicles
for
7
an
industry
that
remanufactures
that
is
somewhat
created
8
by
the
regulatory
environment.

9
If
we
have
to
weigh
safety
and
security
of
cars
10
versus
this
industry's
ease
in
merchandising
­­

11
remanufacturing,
it's
real
important
to
me
to
know
how
12
often
it
occurs.
Okay?
Because
if
it's
as
rare
as
I
13
think
it
is,
I
don't
think
we
should
be
giving
up
security
14
of
people's
cars
for
that
rare
of
an
occurrence.
So
if
15
you
have
the
answer
how
often
it
happens,
if
anybody
16
that's
going
to
testify,
I'd
be
real
curious
in
knowing
17
that.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Thank
you.

19
Any
other
questions
or
comments?

20
We
have
a
list
of
13
requests
to
speak.
In
view
21
of
the
fact
that
we're
going
to
lose
a
quorum
and
we
plan
22
to
adjourn
within
a
little
bit
more
than
an
hour,
I'm
23
going
to
ask
that
each
of
you
hold
your
presentation
to
24
five
minutes
maximum.
If
you
want
to
aggregate
and
that
25
would
allow
somebody
to
continue
or
if
you
want
to
join
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
90
1
together.
But
I
have
13,
and
that
would
work
out
to
be
2
about
five
minutes
apiece.

3
I
hope
that's
not
going
to
be
a
hardship.

4
Okay.
Mr.
Douglas
­­
Steve
Douglas
is
first,

5
then
Kerby
Suhre,
and
then
Aaron
Lowe.

6
MR.
DOUGLAS:
Thank
you,
Professor
Friedman,

7
members
of
the
Board.

8
I
know
how
much
you
enjoy
PowerPoint
9
presentations
and
we
certainly
have
that.

10
But
I
thought
it
might
be
important
for
you
to
11
see
some
real
hardware,
some
parts,
some
vehicle
parts.

12
And
I
thought
that
might
help
you
understand
the
issue
a
13
little
bit
better.

14
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
15
Presented
as
follows.)

16
MR.
DOUGLAS:
For
the
record,
I'm
Steven
17
Douglas.
I'm
with
the
Alliance
of
Automobile
18
Manufacturers.
And
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
both
the
19
Alliance
and
the
Association
of
International
Automobile
20
Manufacturers
today.
Together
we
represent
the
entire
21
new
­­
all
of
the
automobile
manufacturers.

22
So
first
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
the
Board's
23
diligence
on
this
issue,
vehicle
service
information,
and
24
specifically
express
our
appreciation
for
the
staff.

25
They've
gone
above
and
beyond
the
call
of
duty
on
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
91
1
issue,
as
they
routinely
do.
And
I
think
­­
you
know,
we
2
appreciate
that.
And
I'm
certain
the
ECU
remanufacturers
3
do
as
well.

4
So
with
that,
I
would
like
to
give
you
just
a
5
little
bit
of
background
on
this.
The
reason
that
we're
6
here
today.
In
many
cases
the
vehicle
anti­
theft
system
7
uses
the
engine
computer
to
prevent
starting
a
vehicle,

8
unless
the
anti­
theft
system
determines
that
an
authorized
9
key
is
being
used.

10
For
example,
the
anti­
theft
system
will
prevent
11
the
engine
computer
from
energizing
the
fuel
injectors
or
12
energizing
the
ignition.
These
features
prevent
or
at
13
least
deter
vehicle
theft.
In
fact,
at
the
December
2001
14
hearing
the
California
Highway
Patrol
noted
that
15
automotive
thefts
had
dropped
from
a
high
of
300,000
to
16
180,000
the
prior
year.

17
Our
data
from
NHTSA
indicates
that
thefts
are
18
down
by
55
percent
since
1985.
And
they
attribute
both
­­

19
attribute
this
in
large
part
to
the
vehicle
anti­
theft
20
systems.

21
So
it's
really
unquestionable
that
the
vehicle
22
anti­
theft
system
improved
vehicle
security.
It
reduces
23
the
enforcement
­­
law
enforcement
burden.
It
reduces
the
24
cost
to
consumers
through
lower
insurance
rates.

25
However,
this
system
also
makes
testing
ECUs
at
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
92
1
the
factories
more
difficult,
where
the
vehicle's
not
2
available.
All
they
have
is
the
engine
control
unit.
But
3
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
your
regulation
on
the
vehicle
4
service
information.
And
I
want
to
make
that
clear.
The
5
Vehicle
Service
Information
Regulation
is
not
the
reason
6
they
have
concerns
that
their
costs
are
increasing.
It's
7
because
of
the
anti­
theft
system.

8
And,
again,
we
believe
that,
as
we'll
9
demonstrate,
we've
provided
an
adequate
solution
in
the
10
form
of
a
low­
cost
test
bench
that
the
ECU
remanufacturers
11
can
use
at
a
reasonable
cost
to
test
these
systems.

12
And
with
that,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
now
to
13
Kerby
Suhre.
He's
with
EEPod.
And
we've
asked
him
to
put
14
together
a
bench
test.
And
this
is
the
solution
that
we
15
would
propose.
And
he
has
the
details
of
it.
He
has
the
16
cost
of
putting
this
system
together.
And
with
that
I
17
have
some
other
slides,
but
I'll
turn
it
over
to
him
so
he
18
can
get
started.

19
MR.
SUHRE:
Good
morning,
Chairman
Lloyd,
Board
20
members.
I'm
going
to
start
a
demo
here
very
quickly
so
21
that
we
can
move
through
this.
It
requires
some
time
to
22
do
an
initialization.
And
then
I'll
describe
what
is
23
going
on
here.

24
So
let
me
start
the
demo,
and
then
I'll
describe
25
it.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
93
1
Okay.
What
we
have
here
is
the
Ford
module
2
reprogramming
demonstration
for
doing
PATS
initialization.

3
PATS
stands
for
passive
anti­
theft
system.

4
And
to
start
the
demo,
I'm
going
to
show
that
I
5
have
two
sets
of
keys
here.
One
set
of
keys,
as
I
turn
it
6
on
you'll
see
the
PATS
enable
and
then
the
other
enable
7
that
allows
the
spark
injectors
and
all
of
the
engine
8
functions
to
work.

9
And
you'll
see
as
I
turn
that
on,
this
comes
on,

10
this
will
go
off.
And
the
green
light
indicates
that
this
11
engine
module
here
would
enable
it
to
perform
all
of
the
12
engine
functions.

13
I'm
going
to
pull
that
set
of
keys
out,
move
to
a
14
new
set
of
keys.
This
would
be
the
situation
you
have
15
with
a
remanufacturer.
He's
got
a
set
of
keys
that
won't
16
enable
the
engine
to
run
with
this
software
and
an
17
interface
box.
My
company
as
well
as
many
others
saw
18
these
J2534
interface
boxes.
You
can
use
the
Ford
module
19
reprogramming
software,
go
into
this
PATS
function.

20
And
this
portion
takes
awhile
to
run.
This
is
21
again
part
of
the
anti­
theft
measure.
It
takes
ten
22
minutes
for
the
reinitialization
to
occur.
And
while
that
23
is
going
on,
I'm
going
to
switch
over
and
talk
about
this
24
demo
setup.

25
The
setup
we
have
here
­­
this
portion
here
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
94
1
nothing
more
than
a
switch
and
a
place
to
put
the
key.

2
There
is
a
PATS
transceiver.
There's
a
transponder
built
3
into
the
key.
This
is
an
intelligent
key
system.
And
4
there's
a
transceiver
here
that
talks
with
the
key
and
5
then
talks
over
a
proprietary
protocol
to
the
engine
6
controller
module.
This
example
here
is
a
2004
Taurus
7
speaking
hand
protocol.

8
And
then
I'm
talking
to
the
engine
control
9
module.
This
is
just
a
breakout
box
through
a
standard
10
J1962
SE
OBD
connector
over
to
this
box,
which
is
a
J2534
11
interface
­­
standard
J2534
over
to
the
DC
performing
the
12
initialization.

13
I've
got
a
breakdown
­­
I
guess
we
switched
to
a
14
picture
here.

15
If
we
can
switch
back
to
the
slide.

16
I've
got
a
breakdown
of
the
cost
of
this
17
particular
setup.
We
have
the
PATS
transceiver
­­
this
18
black
part
here
­­
$
30.
Two
PATS
keys
with
transponders,

19
$
96.
This
key
cylinder
module,
61.

20
I
also
listed
an
E­
PATS
module.
Ford
has
two
21
implementations,
one
where
the
PATS
is
built
into
the
22
engine
control
module,
as
is
the
case
here
called
I­
PATS.

23
They
also
have
a
version
where
it's
external
called
24
E­
PATS.
So
I
included
that
cost
because
this
would
be
a
25
bench
setup
that
could
do
any
Ford
module.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
95
1
The
PCM
connector,
$
50.
I
put
in
the
breakout
2
box,
95.
The
FMP
software
is
the
software
that
I
started
3
with.
Ford
offers
it
again
in
three
flavors.
You
can
buy
4
it
for
as
long
as
you
need
it,
at
relatively
low
prices,

5
if
you
need
it
for
short
term
or
for
long
term.

6
The
J2534
interface
box.
This
is
the
box
that
my
7
company
sells,
four
seventy­
five.
And
then
the
cable
to
8
the
J1962
connector
at
$
55.

9
So
a
total
cost
of
this
set
up,
$
957
not
10
including
the
PC
or
power
supply,
assuming
that
you
would
11
have
that
in
your
normal
ECU
test
bench
setup.

12
You
want
me
to
go
through
the
­­
okay.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
MR.
SUHRE:
I've
got
a
couple
other
slides
that
15
we'll
talk
about
some
of
the
differences
between
this
16
setup
and
some
of
the
other
manufacturers.
General
Motors
17
has
an
auto­
learn
feature
in
their
ECUs.
So
you
can
do
­­

18
you
can
reinitialize
their
engine
control
modules
without
19
any
of
this
equipment
other
than
the
power
supply,
where
20
you
­­
it
requires
a
30­
minute
wait
for
it
to
learn
the
21
new
combination
with
the
anti­
theft
module.
Or
they
also
22
have
a
scan
tool
method,
which
would
be
­­
could
be
23
similar
to
this
with
a
J2534
pass
through,
which
they're
24
going
to
support
in
the
future,
or
with
their
hand­
held
25
scan
tools
so
you
can
reinitialize
their
modules
quicker.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
96
1
Similar
ten­
minute
wait
to
the
Ford
system
that
you're
2
seeing
here.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
MR.
SUHRE:
DaimlerChrysler
offers
a
diagnostic
5
test
mode.
Their
data
is
available
through
ETI
for
the
6
purpose
of
performing
tests
to
make
sure
that
these
7
signals
work,
the
starter,
the
fuel
pump,
the
injectors,

8
to
make
sure
that
they
all
function
properly.
You
don't
9
have
to
have
­­
you
don't
have
to
have
­­
you
don't
have
10
to
bypass
the
anti­
theft
mode
to
be
able
to
do
that.
So
11
you
can
do
that
similar
to
this
setup
here
where
you
would
12
use
again
a
pass­
through
tool
with
the
ETI
information,
or
13
you
could
use
their
scan
tool
to
perform
that
function.

14
Mazda
is
an
identical
setup
to
this,
just
a
15
different
piece
of
software.
They're
also
off
our
16
web­
base
software.

17
By
the
way,
I
didn't
explain
it
earlier.
But
the
18
software
that
I'm
running
here
is
actually
attached
to
the
19
web.
It's
for
the
purposes
of
reprogramming
as
well.

20
This
is
a
side
function
of
it.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
MR.
SUHRE:
Other
OEM
examples:
Toyota,
Lexus,

23
Subaru
­­
there's
a
long
list
­­
are
similar
to
this
demo,

24
except
again
they
use
their
scan
tool
in
place
of
a
J2534
25
module.
I
can't
speak
for
them
directly,
but
my
guess
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
97
1
in
the
future
you
will
see
a
lot
more
manufacturers
2
support
this
style
of
approach.
It
benefits
everyone,

3
including
them.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
SUHRE:
And,
finally,
we
have
a
list
of
6
manufacturers
whose
modules
can't
be
rebuilt.
They
7
have
­­
I
don't
know
how
to
put
it,
but
they
have
very
8
secure
systems
where
the
modules
are
married
up
via
the
9
VIN
and
the
anti­
theft
module
directly
to
the
powertrain
10
control
module
­­
the
engine
control
module.
And
they
11
can't
be
unmarried.
It's
a
very
secure
system
and,

12
therefore,
cannot
be
rebuilt
and
reprogrammed.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
MR.
SUHRE:
That's
it
at
this
time.
I'll
turn
it
15
back
over
to
Steve
while
we
wait
for
the
initialization
to
16
finish.
Then
we'll
return
back
to
this
for
a
moment.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You
had
the
ten
minutes,

18
Steve.
You
just
finishing
up?

19
MR.
DOUGLAS:
What's
that?

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You
had
the
ten
minutes.
Are
21
you
just
wrapping
up?

22
MR.
DOUGLAS:
Yes,
yes.
Well,
while
they're
23
doing
the
reprogramming.
And
I
would
ask
that
you
devote
24
any
time
that
Ford,
Chrysler,
Honda,
Toyota
have
to
my
25
presentation.
They'd
limited
us
to
five
minutes
each.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
98
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
MR.
DOUGLAS:
Just
wanted
to
give
you
a
brief
4
background.

5
The
auto
makers
have
been
working
cooperatively
6
with
the
ARB,
with
the
staff,
with
EPA,
with
independent
7
repair
technicians,
the
mom
and
pop
service
stations,
and
8
the
tool
companies
over
the
last
five
years.
And
the
9
process
and
the
results
can
only
be
described
as
complete
10
success.
And
I
think
most
people
would
describe
it
as
11
that.
It's
been
successful
for
the
auto
makers,
for
the
12
service
stations,
and
for
the
tool
companies,
and
for
the
13
motoring
public
for
that
matter.

14
I
can
say
with
a
hundred
percent
confidence
that
15
no
one
would
have
predicted
where
we
are
today
from
where
16
we
were
five
years
ago.
We've
made
enormous
strides.

17
Today
every
automobile
manufacturer
provides
their
service
18
information
for
both
the
emission
control
as
well
as
the
19
non­
emission
control,
air
bags,
antilock
brakes.
They
20
provide
that
over
the
Internet.
They
provide
factory
21
training
information,
and
factory
tools
to
independent
22
repair
shops.

23
They
provide
tool
information
to
aftermarket
tool
24
companies
so
they
can
build
universal
tools
that
would
25
work
on
Ford,
GM,
Chrysler,
Toyota,
and
Nissan.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
99
1
And,
finally,
auto
makers
are
the
ones
who
2
spearheaded
this
reprogramming
so
that
a
repair
shop
or
a
3
dealer
shop
can
reprogram
any
vehicle
with
just
this
small
4
black
box
here,
which
retails
for
around
I
think
$
300
to
5
$
400.
And
it's
manufactured
by
a
number
of
companies,

6
that
and
a
personal
computer.

7
So
I
think
we've
gone
a
long
way.
And
I
wanted
8
to
stress
too
­­
there
was
some
discussion
at
the
last
9
hearing
or
maybe
­­
I
thought
maybe
some
confusion
that
10
perhaps
this
regulation
had
some
adverse
unintended
11
consequences.
And
that's
just
not
the
case.
The
12
regulation
as
it
stands
today
benefits
everyone.
It
13
benefits
independent
repair
shops
and
it
benefits
tool
14
companies
and
it
­­
and
I
think
you
could
ask,
and
the
ECU
15
rebuilders
would
say
they're
better
off
because
of
this
16
regulation.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
MR.
DOUGLAS:
Just
to
highlight
the
OEM
19
resources.
Ms.
D'Adamo
had
asked
about
how
­­
the
cost
of
20
this.
The
initial
­­
we
did
some
conservative
estimates.

21
And
I
say
they're
conservative
because
we
only
assumed
22
there
were
15
automobile
manufacturers.
In
fact
there's
23
probably
closer
to
25
manufacturers.
We
didn't
include
24
any
costs
for
travel
of
engineers
and
such.
And
there
25
would
be
a
considerable
amount
of
travel.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
100
1
But
it
does
break
up
into
two
cost
elements:
The
2
initial
development
cost,
because
you
have
to
develop
the
3
software,
you
have
to
test
it.
You
have
to
make
sure
that
4
you
don't
jeopardize
vehicle
security
because
then
­­
you
5
have
to
make
sure
you
don't
damage
the
vehicle.
So
that's
6
the
up­
front
cost.
And
we
estimate
that
to
be
a
couple
of
7
million
dollars.

8
And
then
there's
the
ongoing
costs.
Any
time
you
9
change
the
fuel
injectors
you
have
to
go
back,
make
sure
10
the
software
still
works
the
way
it's
intended
to.
And
11
then
of
course
if
you
have
a
new
product,
you
have
to
do
12
all
this
­­
all
of
the
initial
development.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
MR.
DOUGLAS:
Comparing
that
in
contrast
to
a
15
requirement
for
all
of
the
automobile
manufacturers
to
16
redesign
all
the
vehicle
computers
and
NFS
systems,
the
17
ECU
rebuilders
solution
allows
their
companies
to
choose
18
which
computers
they
want
to
rebuild.
In
many
cases,
the
19
ECU
rebuilders
have
already
­­
have
much
of
this
20
equipment.
And
they're
rebuilding
ECUs
now
so
they
have
a
21
lot
of
this
equipment.
And,
therefore,
their
costs
would
22
only
be
the
marginal
costs
to
expand
that
to
the
new
23
products.

24
I
think
it
would
be
ECU
rebuilders
­­
it's
25
appropriate
that
they
bear
the
cost
for
the
equipment
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
101
1
will
be
in
their
factories,
that
will
be
producing
their
2
products
at
that
time.

3
Finally,
I
think
the
cost
of
constructing
these
4
test
benches
is
going
down
as
a
result
of
ARB
and
EPA
5
regulations
that
now
require
the
auto
makers
to
provide
an
6
inexpensive
method
of
reprogramming
and
reinitializing
the
7
computers.
We've
offered
to
work
with
the
rebuilders,
and
8
we
have,
and
I
think
you
see
what
we
have
here,
which
is
a
9
low­
cost
solution.

10
­­
o0o­­

11
MR.
DOUGLAS:
Finally,
just
to
again
address
the
12
issue
of
legislative
requirements.
Eleven
forty­
six
now
13
is
involved
in
every
single
meeting
associated
with
this.

14
It
doesn't
require
­­
it
didn't
direct
ARB
to
redesign
the
15
vehicle
to
accommodate
remanufacturers.
In
fact,
the
16
provision
for
rebuilding
was
specifically
deleted
by
the
17
author
during
this
legislative
development.
Even
­­

18
still,
even
as
it
was
originally
proposed,
the
bill
never
19
discussed
redesigning
vehicles
for
the
benefit
of
20
remanufacturing.
It
was
only
for
­­
it
was
only
21
information,
which
I
think
we're
providing.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
MR.
DOUGLAS:
Just
to
summarize
and
wrap
it
up.

24
The
current
regulations
do
benefit
everyone.
On
the
ECU,

25
rebuilders
just
want
more
benefit.
There
are
low­
cost
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
102
1
test
benches
available,
which
we're
demonstrating
here.

2
And,
finally,
this
hasn't
­­
you
haven't
heard
a
3
lot
of
discussion
about
air
quality
because
it's
not
4
related
to
air
quality.
This
is
about
transferring
cost
5
from
the
ECU
rebuilders
to
the
automobile
manufacturers.

6
And
that's
all
I
have.

7
We
do
agree
with
the
staff's
conclusion
that
the
8
best
solution
is
with
the
service
procedures
and
a
test
9
bench.

10
And
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
11
have.
And
I
think
initialization
is
complete
now.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

13
MR.
SUHRE:
Okay.
With
the
initialization
14
complete
we'll
just
show
the
last
step
here
real
quick.

15
We
got
security
access.
We
come
in.
And
what
16
you
do
is
we
erase
current
key
codes
in
the
module.

17
It's
warning
us
that
we
will
need
two
keys
to
18
restart
it.

19
And
when
this
is
complete
it
will
give
us
some
20
instructions
on
how
to
reprogram
two
new
keys.
So
it
21
wants
us
to
turn
the
ignition
off.
Turn
it
on
with
key
1.

22
And
you'll
notice
with
key
1
we
still
just
get
the
PATS
23
LED
"
not
enabled."
It
requires
two
keys
for
the
Ford
24
system
to
work.

25
We'll
take
the
second
key.
And
now
you
see
we're
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
103
1
back
to
two
keys
reprogrammed.
Everything's
enabled.
You
2
could
test
this
module.

3
Thank
you.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

5
Any
questions?

6
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Just,
Mr.
Chairman,
I
7
appreciated
the
demonstration.
I
think
that's
very
8
helpful
for
us
to
see.

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

10
Aaron
Lowe,
John
Cabral,
and
David
Darge.

11
MR.
LOWE:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

12
I
was
waiting
for
my
PowerPoint.

13
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
14
Presented
as
follows.)

15
MR.
LOWE:
But
thank
you
very
much
for
the
16
opportunity
to
testify.
My
name's
Aaron
Lowe
and
I'm
with
17
the
Automotive
Aftermarket
Industry
Association.
And
we
18
have
been
­­
we
appreciate
the
patience
of
the
Board
in
19
trying
to
address
this
issue,
which
is
of
major
importance
20
to
our
rebuilder
members
and
also
to
our
service
21
facilities
that
purchase
those
rebuilt
computers.

22
The
problem
that
we're
dealing
with
was
created
23
because
the
vehicle
manufacturers
designed
their
24
immobilizer
systems
in
such
a
way
that
they
didn't
take
25
into
consideration
the
problems
of
the
in­
use
repair
shop
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
104
1
and
the
parts
industry
obviously,
the
aftermarket.

2
It's
important
to
remember
that
SB
1146
corrected
3
the
problem
by
ensuring
that
the
service
industry,
and
we
4
also
think
the
rebuilders,
to
have
the
information
5
necessary
to
initialize
these
systems.
So
we
had
to
6
correct
the
problem
because
in
the
service
industry
they
7
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
initialize
or
work
with
these
8
systems
had
there
not
been
a
solution
put
into
SB
1146.

9
There
are
1.2
million
ECUs
every
year
in
this
country.
So
10
it's
a
pretty
sizable
replacement
part.

11
It's
also
important
to
remember
that
these
are
a
12
very
expensive
purchase
for
the
consumer.

13
After
the
January
Board
meeting
during
the
14
discussion
we
went
back
and
looked
at
a
proposal
­­
tried
15
to
find
a
proposal
that
would
resolve
a
lot
of
the
issues
16
that
were
raised
by
the
Board
during
that
meeting.
And
we
17
retained
the
services
of
an
engineer
who
had
extensive
18
experience
in
working
with
vehicle
software
to
come
up
19
with
a
low­
cost
solution
that
would
not
have
any
impact
on
20
the
theft
of
that
vehicle.
And
we
think
a
one
second
21
immobilizer
test
that
we
developed
resolves
that
issue.

22
We
also
don't
see
how
this
solution
has
any
23
conflict
with
SB
1146.
We
believe
that
the
rebuilders
are
24
covered
­­
they
are
included
in
the
scope
of
1146
at
the
25
beginning.
And
it
does
require
that
initialization
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
105
1
included
as
far
as
a
requirement
to
complete
the
repair
of
2
a
vehicle.
So
we
don't
see
where
this
would
be
prohibited
3
from
being
required.
They're
not
actually
changing
4
anything
about
the
ECU
as
part
of
this
solution.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You're
half
way
through
your
6
five
minutes.

7
MR.
LOWE:
Okay.
Well,
then
I'm
just
about
done.

8
Actually
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
John
Cabral.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
MR.
LOWE:
This
is
an
important
­­
oh,
I'm
sorry.

11
It's
important
to
remember
what
the
cost
is
of
12
this
equipment.
If
you
look
at
these
ECUs,
these
are
13
those
currently
on
the
market.
As
you
can
see,
the
cost
14
for
an
ECU
where
there's
competition,
there's
between
15
two
­­
there's
some
that
are
above
like
700
to
400,
but
16
most
of
them
are
$
200
or
less.
And
that's
because
there's
17
competition
in
the
market.

18
You
also
see
that
the
OE
price
and
the
19
aftermarket
price
are
getting
closer
and
closer
together.

20
And
that
serves
to
indicate
that
competition
is
much
more
21
intense
in
the
aftermarket
and
that
the
OE's
are
really
22
pushing
on
the
price
to
try
to
keep
­­
to
compete
against
23
our
industry.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
MR.
LOWE:
But
then
when
you
look
at
where
­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
106
1
I've
bypassed
a
slide.
I'm
sorry.

2
Okay.
If
you
looked
at
a
Toyota
Camry
where
3
there's
no
competition
for
repairs,
the
price
is
well
over
4
a
thousand
dollars.
So
if
we
begin
to
lose
the
5
competitive
industry
for
the
rebuilders,
the
cost
to
6
consumers
by
maintaining
their
car
when
their
ECU
fails,

7
which
is
a
key
part
of
the
emission
system,
it
is
going
to
8
be
fairly
expensive.

9
Now,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
John
Cabral,

10
who's
going
to
talk
about
how
the
rebuild
­­
the
impact
of
11
the
bench
test
proposal
on
the
rebuilders
in
the
factory.

12
MR.
CABRAL:
Good
morning,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
13
honored
Board
members.

14
I'd
like
to
thank
the
manufacturers
for
giving
us
15
such
a
wonderful
demonstration.
I'm
sure
it
simplified
16
everything
for
everyone.

17
The
bench
test
idea
proposes
that
we
simulate
18
on­
vehicle
conditions
in
a
factory
environment.
And
this
19
slide
show
will
show
the
typical
components
that
are
20
required
as
he
showed
that
are
necessary
to
initialize
the
21
immobilizer
system
on
a
bench.

22
Based
on
a
number
of
­­
this
is
one
setup.
This
23
is
for
one
particular
vehicle.
But
based
on
the
number
of
24
keys,
modules,
and
transceivers
required,
just
for
Ford
25
alone
we
have
upwards
of
40
different
combinations.
And
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
107
1
seeing
that
we
need
three
setups
per
tester
to
satisfy
the
2
ten­
minute
delay,
we're
talking
about
a
substantial
number
3
just
for
one
manufacturer
alone.
And
not
to
mention
the
4
fact
that
these
two
keys
now
have
to
travel
in
the
factory
5
environment
taped
to
this
ECU
in
order
for
it
to
be
tested
6
as
it
goes
along.

7
So
I'd
just
like
the
Board
to
see
what
kind
of,

8
you
know,
complicated
procedure
this
is
just
to
be
able
to
9
test
an
ECU,
where
we
never
had
this
before.
And
the
OE
10
supplied
remanufacturers
don't
have
this
issue.

11
Furthermore,
once
the
manufacturers
change
their
12
systems
on
an
ongoing
basis
­­
and
sometimes
they
do
it
13
yearly,
sometimes
they
don't
­­
we're
going
to
have
to
14
develop
these
systems
on
an
ongoing
basis.
We
don't
know
15
what
these
costs
are
just
yet.
I
mean
from
manufacturer
16
to
manufacturer
these
components
vary
widely
in
price.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
MR.
CABRAL:
This
one
­­
this
slide
shows
the
19
same
system
for
a
Toyota.
This
one
is
assuming
that
the
20
Toyota
uses
the
J2534
reprogramming
tool.
We
have
a
price
21
for
this
tool
costed
at
$
1,800.
And
this
is
the
actual
22
posted
price
on
the
website
for
True
Technology's
J2534
23
programming
tool.
Though
the
cost
that
was
given
by
the
24
manufacturer
was
only
$
400.
If
it's
$
400,
we'd
like
to
25
know
about
it.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
108
1
Currently
Toyota
uses
their
factory
tool.
And
if
2
they
used
their
factory
tool
for
initialization,
the
cost
3
jumps
substantially.
And
you'll
also
notice
that
some
of
4
these
modules
compared
to
the
Ford
modules,
like
the
5
transponder,
key
computer,
and
the
transceivers
and
the
6
keys
cost
significantly
more
than
it
did
with
the
Ford.

7
And,
you
know,
if
you
get
into
Mercedes
or
other
8
higher­
end
vehicles,
those
costs
can
jump
twofold
or
9
threefold.

10
I'm
now
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Russ
Schinizing,

11
and
he's
going
to
explain
some
of
the
costs
that
are
12
incurred
with
some
of
these
setups.

13
Thank
you.

14
MR.
SCHINIZING:
Good
afternoon.

15
The
summary
of
these
costs
are
just
what
they
16
are,
summaries.
The
details
have
been
provided.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
MR.
SCHINIZING:
But
there's
initial
manpower
19
costs
and
system
development
costs
and
then
there's
20
hardware
costs.
All
totaling
­­
remanufacturer
to
a
21
little
over
a
million
dollars.
And
they
don't
include
22
some
of
the
costs
you
were
talking
about,
because
they're
23
very
unknown.
There's
training,
future
upgrades,
ongoing
24
maintenance
with
the
40
different
systems
or
the
hundreds
25
of
different
systems
we'll
have
to
have
in
the
factory.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
109
1
These
costs
will
significantly
eliminate
the
2
value
proposition.
You
saw
Aaron's
slide
that
showed
how
3
close
the
reman
list
price
is
to
the
OE
new
price.
That
4
value
proposition
is
shrinking
day
by
day.
And
as
that
5
value
proposition
continues
to
erode,
you'll
find
that
6
there
is
­­
once
the
value
proposition
is
gone
for
reman'd
7
ECUs,
there
will
be
no
more
competition
because
all
there
8
will
be
available
is
new
and
the
only
new
available
will
9
be
at
one
source.
There
will
be
no
more
extra
sources
of
10
new
for
healthy
competition.
And
the
prices
will
go
up,

11
as
you
saw.

12
These
costs
we
don't
think
are
practical
and
we
13
feel
aren't
even
necessary
with
the
proposal
that
we
have.

14
We
have
a
truly
practical
solution,
that
is
low
cost,

15
non­
obtrusive
to
the
vehicle
operation
or
the
anti­
theft
16
operation.
And
mainly
­­
most
of
the
manufacturers
costs
17
are
centered
around
the
development
of
a
Mode
A.
And
we
18
are
not
asking
for
a
Mode
A,
as
proposed
by
the
vehicle
19
manufacturers.

20
Our
proposal
does
not
interfere
with
the
21
vehicle's
operation
or
security
system.
And
to
explain
22
this,
Dave
Darge
is
coming.
He's
a
senior
engineer
from
23
Powertrain
Electronics,
a
limited
liability
corporation.

24
MR.
DARGE:
Hello.
My
name
is
Dave
Darge
from
25
Powertrain
Electronics.
I'd
like
to
go
over
a
couple
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
110
1
things.

2
One
of
the
things
that
we're
working
on
is
3
that
­­
based
on
the
supplied
estimates
we
received
from
4
the
OEM,
they're
trying
to
implement
a
new
special
test
5
mode
which
we're
not
asking
them
to
do.
It's
not
our
6
intention
to
request
or
develop
anything
that
has
to
do
7
with
the
J1979
or
Mode
A.
Simply
we're
trying
to
8
implement
a
one
second
test
which
is
active
only
the
first
9
second
after
the
key
is
turned
on.
This
test
is
only
run
10
once.
And
then
once
the
engine
runs,
it's
never
run
ever
11
again.
This
does
not
affect
any
of
the
existing
fuel,

12
spark,
starter
control,
or
security
system.
The
PCM's
13
existing
engine
control
software
will
stay
the
same
as
it
14
is
today
and
the
security
will
stay
as
it
is
today.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
MR.
DARGE:
This
slide
shows
what
is
current.

17
Basically,
the
key
on
­­
the
key
is
installed,
the
engine
18
starts
normally.
That's
current
technology.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MR.
DARGE:
With
our
one
second
test
the
same
21
thing.
The
key's
going
to
get
turned
on,
the
engine's
22
going
to
start
normally.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
MR.
DARGE:
We're
proposing
that
the
25
communication
between
the
PCM
and
the
test
bench
is
done
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
111
1
with
current
wires
and
inputs
and
outputs
that
already
2
exist
in
the
bench
and
the
PCM,
so
the
communications
will
3
not
be
any
cost
to
the
OEM.

4
If
we
go
with
their
current
test
method,
there's
5
a
high
cost
and
long
delays.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
MR.
DARGE:
We're
proposing
this
one
second
test:

8
The
key
is
on,
within
one
second
the
security
is
pleased,

9
and
then
we'll
go
to
Mode
D.
That
is
our
goal,
is
to
make
10
the
computer
think
it's
okay
to
run
on
the
bench
test.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
MR.
DARGE:
Basically
this
is
a
simplified
13
diagram
which
shows
what
it
takes
to
initiate
this
test.

14
I
won't
go
into
details
because
of
time
constraints.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
MR.
DARGE:
The
next
slide,
G,
shows
what
happens
17
when
the
security
is
satisfied.
We
go
to
Mode
D,
which
18
means
PCM
can
run
and
can
be
tested
on
the
test
bench.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MR.
DARGE:
And
the
final
slide
is
actually
the
21
whole
complete
system.
To
save
time
you
can
review
this
22
on
your
own.
And
this
does
not
change
any
of
the
security
23
which
is
currently
in
place
today.
And
it's
a
cost
24
effective
way.
There's
very
little
software
to
be
25
proposed.
And
it's
doable
for
the
OEMs.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
112
1
Thank
you.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

3
MR.
DARGE:
Any
questions?

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Questions?

5
No.
No
questions.
Thank
you.

6
MR.
LOWE:
Could
I
just
make
a
couple
of
7
concluding
remarks?

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

9
MR.
LOWE:
We're
trying
to
move
as
quick
as
we
10
could.
And
I
know
you
have
time
constraints.

11
The
solution
we
have
is
low
cost.
As
they
said,

12
Mode
A
is
not
require.
It's
non­
obtrusive
to
the
security
13
system
or
the
ECU.
It
just
­­
it's
a
piece
of
software
14
that's
added
on
to
the
computer
to
just
check
it
in
the
15
first
second
before
the
engine's
on.
It
in
no
way
makes
16
the
car
any
easier
to
steal.
And
we
think
it
will
help
17
reduce
the
cost
significantly
for
the
engine
rebuilders
at
18
a
very
low
cost
for
the
manufacturers
to
put
together.

19
And
I
appreciate
your
time
on
this.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

21
Just
for
clarification.
Did
Russ
speak?

22
MR.
SCHINIZING:
Yes.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
I
thought
­­
out
of
24
order.
Okay,
thank
you.

25
And
thank
you
for
consideration.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
113
1
Mr.
McKinnon.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah,
we
­­
the
thing
I'm
3
interested
in
is
the
occurrences.
We
heard
a
number
of
4
1.5
million
per
year.

5
How
many
automobiles
operate
in
the
United
States
6
per
year?
Do
we
have
any
idea?

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Well,
the
number
8
in
California
­­

9
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Or
that's
vehicles
10
actually.

11
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
­­
is
28
million,

12
which
is
generally
ten
percent
of
the
U.
S.
market.
So
200
13
million.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Two
hundred
eighty
15
million?

16
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Something
like
17
that,
200
to
300
million.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
And
how
many
computers
19
tend
to
be
on­
board
a
car?

20
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Of
that
fleet,

21
how
many
have
computers?

22
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah.

23
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,

24
the
majority
of
them,
since
there's
been
computers
since
25
1981.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
114
1
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
One?

2
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
No,

3
since
1981
there
have
been
computers
on
virtually
all
4
cars.
So
I
think
the
majority
of
those
cars
­­
you
know,

5
a
high
fraction
of
that
200
to
300
million
have
computers.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Okay.
And
how
many
7
computers
per
car?

8
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Oh,
I
9
think
the
one
they're
talking
about
is
one.
It's
the
main
10
ECU
or
main
control
computer.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Okay.

12
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
There
13
are
lots
of
other
computers
on
cars,
but
it's
­­
that's
14
one.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
So
it's
1.5
million
out
16
of
something
like
3
million.
So
it's
a
fraction
of
a
17
percent.

18
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
19
that
­­
the
data
they
presented
which
is
the
million
20
dollars
type
number
is
the
same
data
we
used
to
come
up
21
with.
But
on
a
per­
computer
basis
it's
two
and
a
half
22
dollars.
And
you
saw
the
price
of
the
computer
is
two
23
hundred
and
some
dollars,
on
the
low
end
at
least.
And
so
24
it
has
an
impact
that
looks
like
one
percent.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Okay.
Thank
you.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
115
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

2
Now
we
have
Frank
Krich,
John
Trajnowski.
One
of
3
you,
I
guess,
are
going
to
give
up
the
five
minutes
that
4
Steve
took.

5
John,
are
you
going
to
forfeit
completely?

6
MR.
TRAJNOWSKI:
I
think
so.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
We
really
8
appreciate
that.

9
MR.
KRICH:
Thank
you,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
members
10
of
the
Board.
My
name
is
Frank
Krich,
Senior
Planning
11
Specialist,
DaimlerChrysler
Corporation.
And,
again,
in
12
lieu
of
saving
time
I'm
going
to
pass
my
time
to
the
13
others.

14
But
I
do
want
to
make
one
statement,
and
that
we
15
agree
with
the
staff's
conclusion
that
the
existing
16
service
procedure
solution
is
the
best
regulatory
17
approach.

18
And
with
that
brief
statement,
I'll
pass
to
the
19
others,
unless
there's
any
questions
for
me
in
particular.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
don't
think
so.
Thank
you.

21
MR.
KRICH:
Thank
you.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
we'll
move
through.

23
Steve
did
such
a
superb
job
with
his
colleague,

24
Kerby,
there.

25
Then
we
go
to
Pete
Meier
from
Honda.
And
then
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
116
1
Lisa
Stegink
and
Steve
Hoke.

2
MR.
MEIER:
Good
morning,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
3
members
of
the
Board.
My
name
is
Pete
Meier
from
American
4
Honda.

5
We
support
the
Alliance
­­
AAIM
position.
We
6
have
nothing
further
to
add,
unless
you
have
questions.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Great.
Thank
you.

8
Lisa
Stegink,
Steve
Hoke,
David
Ferris.

9
MS.
STEGINK:
Good
morning,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
10
members
of
the
Board.

11
I'm
actually
here
to
testify
on
the
heavy­
duty
12
aspects
of
the
Service
Information
Rule,
as
you
recall
13
from
the
hearing
in
January.
So
I'm
switching
topics
14
here.

15
I
will
be
brief.

16
I
am
pleased
to
address
the
second
part
or
what
17
we
consider
the
second
part
of
the
EMD
service
information
18
rulemaking
agenda.

19
The
heavy­
duty
engine
industry
has
not
previously
20
been
subject
to
a
service
information
requirement
in
21
California.
However,
we
acknowledge
and
support
the
22
application
of
service
information
requirements
to
the
23
heavy­
duty
industry
as
a
corollary
to
heavy­
duty
EMD,

24
which
the
Board
has
just
adopted.

25
Like
EMD,
we
think
it
is
essential
that
the
SIR
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
117
1
requirements
for
heavy­
duty
engines
be
implemented
in
a
2
way
that
assures
that
compliance
with
and
acceptance
of
3
the
2007­
and­
later
model
year
tailpipe
standards
are
not
4
jeopardized.

5
As
you
know,
there
is
an
existing
ARB
SIR
6
template
in
practice
for
the
light­
and
medium­
duty
7
vehicle
industries.
That
template
does
not
reflect
the
8
realities
of
the
heavy­
duty
engine
industry
and
9
marketplace
and,
as
such,
is
not
the
best
place
to
start
10
for
implementing
heavy­
duty
engine
SIR
requirements.
A
11
lot
of
detailed
and
nuanced
modifications
are
required
in
12
order
to
make
the
existing
SIR
template
and
practice
13
applicable
to
heavy
duty.

14
Noting
the
well
known
axiom
that
the
Devil
is
in
15
the
details,
we
urge
the
Board
to
direct
the
staff
to
work
16
with
us
and
other
interested
stakeholders
to
assure
that
17
all
the
appropriate
and
necessary
heavy­
duty
engine
18
industry
modifications
are
made
to
the
Service
Information
19
Rule.

20
Similarly,
and
as
noted
above,
the
Service
21
Information
Rule
is
being
adopted
for
heavy­
duty
engines
22
in
conjunction
with
the
EMD
rule.
As
you
are
well
aware,

23
the
EMD
requirements
for
2007
are
not
the
final
word
on
24
on­
board
diagnostic
requirements.
Further
requirements
25
are
coming,
and
we've
committed
to
working
with
the
staff
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
118
1
on
those
additional
requirements.
But
in
the
meantime,

2
those
additional
requirements
have
been
deferred.

3
Likewise,
there
are
aspects
of
the
SIR
4
requirements
that
have
been
proposed
for
adoption
now
but
5
which
are
not
set
to
go
into
effect
until
after
the
2009
6
model
year.
We
believe
that
it's
critical
to
a
successful
7
roll­
out
of
both
the
additional
service
information
8
requirements
and
the
additional
on­
board
diagnostic
9
requirements
for
the
Board
to
consider
them
in
context
10
with
one
another.

11
As
such,
we
urge
the
Board
to
defer
adoption
now
12
of
any
heavy­
duty
service
information
requirements
that
13
does
not
take
effect
until
after
2009.
Instead,
we
14
suggest
that
the
staff
repropose
any
additional
post­
2009
15
heavy­
duty
service
information
requirements
after
we
have
16
had
a
chance
to
work
with
the
staff
on
the
next
round
of
17
on­
board
diagnostic
requirements.

18
If
you
have
any
questions,
I
would
be
pleased
to
19
answer
them.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

21
Does
staff
have
any
problems
with
her
testimony?

22
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
23
the
only
thing
that
doesn't
happen
in
2007
is
the
tooling
24
information,
which
we
had
proposed
to
delay
to
2010.
And
25
I
don't
think
it
­­
I
think
it
makes
sense
that
we
could
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
119
1
deal
with
that
in
2005
as
part
of
OBD
because
OBD
will
2
have
an
effective
date
of
probably
2010.
So
it
makes
3
sense
to
link
that
one
piece
together.
The
rest
of
it
4
though
would
still
­­
the
rest
of
the
service
information
5
requirements
would
still
go
into
effect
in
2007,
at
least
6
as
staff
would
propose
it.

7
So
just
the
one
part
on
tooling.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
you
would
continue
to
work
9
with
EMA?

10
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yeah.

11
And
we
could
just,
you
know,
delete
that
part
from
the
­­

12
during
the
15­
day
changes
if
that's
what
your
direction
13
is.
And
then
we'll
bring
it
back
up
to
you
next
year
in
14
the
more
comprehensive
OBD
proposal.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Is
that
satisfactory?

16
MS.
STEGINK:
That
would
be
­­
yes,
we
would
17
agree
with
that.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

19
Questions
from
the
Board?

20
Thank
you
very
much.

21
MS.
STEGINK:
Thank
you.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Steve
Hoke
and
David
Ferris.

23
MR.
HOKE:
Good
morning.
My
name's
Steve
Hoke.

24
I'm
from
NorthState
Truck
Equipment
up
in
Redding,

25
California.
And
I'd
like
to
make
certain
remarks
on
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
120
1
heavy­
duty
­­
for
the
heavy­
duty
diesel
engines.

2
I
speak
for
many
diesel
engine
rebuilders,
and
I
3
can
say
that
it's
very
important
for
us
as
rebuilders
and
4
repair
facilities
to
have
­­
and
to
heavy­
duty
truck
5
owners
on­
board
diagnostic
capability
on
all
heavy­
duty
6
diesel
engines.

7
Since
the
information
flow
on
OBD
diagnostic
is
8
almost
nonexistent
in
the
heavy­
duty
market,
I'd
like
to
9
see
that
the
OEMs
have
all
their
OBD
and
EMD
diagnostic,

10
not
reprogramming
information,
available
on
the
Internet.

11
And
we
also
agree
with
the
ARB
staff
on
12
implementing
their
EMD
for
the
vehicle
emission
systems.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

14
And
David
Ferris.

15
MR.
FERRIS:
I
just
have
one
brief
comment.
And
16
we
support
the
Alliance
comments
of
course.

17
But
there
was
some
confusion
between
the
­­
the
18
ECU
rebuilders
had
proposed
a
software
change.
And
we
19
looked
at
that
closely.
We
did
a
cost
estimate
for
what's
20
referred
to
as
a
Mode
A
test
mode
software
change.
And
21
Aaron
Low
was
correct
about
that.
And
he
indicated
he
22
thought
that
was
a
more
expensive
change.
That's
not
the
23
case.

24
The
reason
why
we
did
the
cost
estimate
for
the
25
Mode
A
change
is
because
we
believe
it
would
be
easier
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
121
1
implement
less
expensive
and
more
secure.
So
if
we
had
to
2
make
some
kind
of
software
change,
we'd
prefer
to
make
3
that
one.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

5
I
guess
this
is
a
discussion
­­
this
is
not
a
6
regulatory
item.
It's
an
informational
item?

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
That's
correct.

8
You
acted
on
the
regulation
in
January.
And
it's
before
9
the
staff
at
this
time
to
do
the
15­
day
change
process.

10
And
so
this
item
is
informational
for
you.
But
you
can
of
11
course
give
direction
to
us
as
we're
carrying
on
with
12
15­
day
changes.
But
you
don't
have
the
actual
rule
in
13
front
of
you.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
no,
I
­­

15
GENERAL
COUNSEL
JOHNSTON:
And,
in
addition,
you
16
will
have
to
close
the
record
because
the
record
was
left
17
open
for
these
additional
comments
today.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

19
MR.
SAXONBERG:
Chairman
Lloyd,
my
name
is
Mark
20
Saxonberg.
I'm
from
Toyota
Motor
Sales
U.
S.
A.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Did
I
miss
you?

22
MR.
SAXONBERG:
I
had
signed
up
to
testify
today.

23
And
if
you
wouldn't
mind
­­

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No,
I
guess
I
was
­­

25
MR.
SAXONBERG:
Since
Toyota
was
a
target
here
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
122
1
today,
I'd
like
an
opportunity
to
defend
our
honor.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
was
zealous
in
moving
ahead
3
there.
And
I'm
sorry.
I
lumped
you
in
with
Ford
and
4
DaimlerChrysler.
I
apologize
for
that.

5
MR.
SAXONBERG:
Well,
I
am
part
of
the
party.

6
But
since
they
were
picking
on
me,
if
you'd
bear
with
me
7
for
just
a
moment,
I
do
have
a
statement.

8
As
I
said,
my
name
is
Mark
Saxonberg.
I'm
the
9
Service
Technology
Manager
with
Toyota
Motor
Sales
U.
S.
A.

10
And
I'd
like
to
start
out
by
saying
that
Toyota
is
a
11
strong
supporter
of
the
Air
Resources
Board
Service
12
Information
Rule
and
have
been
since
the
very
beginning.

13
The
issue
today
is
whether
to
require
auto
makers
14
to
add
a
function
to
their
engine
control
computers
so
15
it's
going
to
make
it
easier
for
aftermarket
rebuilders
to
16
remanufacturer
those
computers.

17
And
while
the
aftermarket
rebuilders
admittedly
18
have
solutions
that
will
allow
them
to
rebuild
these
19
computers
already,
they're
contending
here
today
that
the
20
solutions
are
too
costly.
And,
therefore,
they
want
every
21
auto
maker
to
implement
a
special
diagnostic
function
in
22
every
one
of
our
engine­
control
computers
literally
across
23
the
industry
to
save
tooling
costs
to
remanufacturer
some
24
fraction
of
those
computers.
And
I
think
it's
a
fairly
25
small
fraction.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
123
1
While
implementing
a
special
test
function
is
on
2
the
surface
a
fairly
benign
thing,
beneath
the
surface
it
3
causes
several
significant
problems.

4
All
of
the
diagnostic
functions
on
today's
5
computers
compete
for
limited
memory
resources.
Computer
6
architecture
changes,
they're
not
a
simple
matter
both
in
7
terms
of
cost
and
in
terms
of
lead
times.

8
Further,
every
new
mandated
function
has
the
9
potential
to
displace
important
diagnostic
functions
that
10
could
make
it
easier
and
more
efficient
to
diagnose
and
11
repair
emissions
failures.

12
As
an
example,
Toyota's
implemented
several
new
13
automated
diagnostic
routines
for
evaporative
emissions
14
and
feedback
fuel
systems
over
the
last
several
years.

15
These
functions
make
it
fast,
simple
and
extremely
16
accurate
to
diagnose
emissions
failures.
The
memory
17
available
to
do
this
on
the
computer
is
in
direct
18
competition
with
CARB­
mandated
functions.
So
if
we
add
a
19
mandated
function,
we
may
have
to
omit
another
diagnostic
20
function.

21
It's
also
important
to
understand
the
true
impact
22
that
engine
control
computer
replacement
has
on
clean
air
23
efforts.
Statistically
speaking,
very
few
emissions
24
failures
are
caused
by
a
failed
engine
control
computer.

25
Computers,
especially
engine­
control
computers
are
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
124
1
most
misdiagnosed
part
on
the
automobile.
A
large
2
percentage
of
all
the
computers
replaced
in
the
U.
S.

3
there's
nothing
wrong
with
them.

4
The
typical
failure
mode
of
an
emission
system
is
5
a
sub­
component
of
the
system,
one
of
the
parts
on
the
6
car,
or
related
wiring.

7
Engine­
control
computer
replacement
rarely
is
an
8
emissions
failure
repair.
This
is
corroborated
by
9
statistics
from
EPA
and
the
data
coming
out
of
every
smog
10
check
program
across
the
nation.

11
While
the
results
of
this
Board's
finding
today
12
may
reduce
the
testing
costs
for
aftermarket
rebuilders,

13
statistics
from
smog­
check
programs
indicate
that
it
will
14
have
virtually
no
impact
on
making
the
California
fleet
15
any
cleaner.
And
in
fact
it
won't
even
reduce
owner
costs
16
to
repair
emissions
failures.

17
The
rebuilders
contend
here
that
they
need
18
regulatory
assistance
to
ensure
continued
competition
to
19
keep
auto
makers'
parts
prices
in
check.
They've
gone
on
20
record
citing
OEM
engine­
control
computer
prices
compared
21
to
aftermarket
prices
as
being
very
high.
And,
granted,

22
Toyota
does
have
some
high
prices
for
engine­
control
23
computers.
But
there's
a
very
good
reason
for
it.
Our
24
engine­
control
computer
pricing
is
a
function
of
the
cost
25
of
quality.
And
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
our
competition
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
125
1
for
market
share.

2
We
sell
very
few
engine­
control
computers
because
3
it
is
a
critical
component
on
the
car.
If
it
doesn't
4
work,
it
leaves
our
customers
stranded
somewhere.
We
5
manufacture
those
computers
to
zero­
defect
standards.

6
It
costs
more
to
maintain
the
quality
control
7
that
we
put
into
our
engine­
control
computers.
That's
why
8
they
cost
more.
Because
our
quality
standards
are
so
9
high,
the
failure
rate
is
extremely
low.
And
I
pulled
10
some
statistics
yesterday
just
to
make
the
point.
We
sold
11
430,000
Camrys
in
Year
2002.
We
only
replaced
350
12
engine­
control
modules
under
warranty.
And
keep
in
mind
13
that
virtually
100
percent
of
all
of
the
parts
are
under
14
warranty.
So
those
were
all
warranty
parts.
And
that
was
15
during
the
last
13
months.
So
this
amounts
to
less
than
16
one­
tenth
of
one
percent
failure
rate
for
vehicles
that
17
are
about
three
years
old
now.

18
The
same
holds
true
for
older
models.
A
1993
19
Corolla,
as
an
example,
we
sold
191,000
of
those.
Now,

20
there's
only
120,000
that
are
left
on
the
road
today.
But
21
the
failure
rate
of
those
computers
is
so
low
that
we
only
22
sold
17
computers
last
year
for
120,000
cars
that
are
on
23
the
road.
Now,
granted,
rebuilders
sold
some,
too.
But
24
if
we're
only
10
percent
of
the
market,
that's
still
less
25
than
two­
hundredths
of
one
percent
of
the
total
vehicles
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
126
1
out
there
that
have
replacement
computers.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You
about
to
wrap
up?

3
MR.
SAXONBERG:
Yes.

4
So
I
guess
in
conclusion
we
respectfully
request
5
that
the
Board
support
the
staff
in
their
request
not
to
6
amend
the
Service
Information
Rule
any
further.

7
And
I'd
like
to
thank
you
very
much.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

9
How
would
­­
how
does
the
service
information
for
10
the
Prius
­­
does
that
change
at
all,
the
hybrid
compared
11
to
­­

12
MR.
SAXONBERG:
Are
you
talking
about
13
availability
of
the
information,
or
is
the
information
14
different
than
it
is
for
other
vehicles?

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
latter
one.

16
MR.
SAXONBERG:
Certainly
hybrid
technology
is
17
different,
parts
of
it
are
different
than
cars
that
came
18
before
it.
Although
a
large
subset
of
the
information
is
19
exactly
the
same.
There's
still
an
internal
combustion
20
engine,
engine
control
system
and
so
on.
The
hybrid
part
21
is
a
little
different
than
technicians
are
used
to.
But
22
they'll
learn
it
the
same
way
they
learned
electronic
23
ignition
systems
and
engine
control
systems.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
questions?

25
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
127
1
Well
any
comments
from
my
colleagues?

2
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

3
It
might
be
worthwhile
for
the
staff
to
sort
of
4
summarize
where
they
are
relative
to
this
particular
5
regulation
so
we'll
know
­­

6
MOBILE
SOURCE
DIVISION
OPERATIONS
DIVISION
CHIEF
7
LYONS:
Summarize
where
we
are
on
the
immobilizer
issue?

8
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Yes.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
You
have
five
10
minutes.

11
MOBILE
SOURCE
DIVISION
OPERATIONS
DIVISION
CHIEF
12
LYONS:
I
have
to
do
it
much
quicker.

13
The
bottom
line
is
that
we
came
into
this
hearing
14
saying
that
we've
­­
the
Board
adopted
a
regulatory
15
amendment
in
January
which
makes
the
cost
of
16
initialization
equipment
cheaper
for
both
the
service
17
industry
and
for
the
rebuilders.
And
we
think
that
the
18
availability
of
that
equipment
provides
a
cost
effective
19
method
for
the
remanufacturers
to
continue
20
remanufacturing.

21
Therefore,
we're
proposing
to
­­
replying
to
go
22
along
with
that,
saying
process
and
not
require
the
23
vehicle
manufacturers
to
implement
any
special
software
24
changes
to
address
this
issue.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Seeing
no
other
comments,
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
128
1
guess
­­
I
guess
we
don't
need
a
motion
on
this.
We'd
2
approve
the
staff
position
here?

3
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Well,
we
4
understood
you
to
say
earlier
that
you
would
like
us
to
5
follow
through
on
the
heavy­
duty
tooling
adjustment
in
our
6
15­
day
changes.
And
we
will
do
that.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
we
have
to
officially
8
close
the
record
on
this
agenda
item.
So
we
will
do
that.

9
And
close
the
item
there.

10
And,
again,
thank
you,
staff.
Thank
you
for
11
working
with
the
industry
and
reporting
back
to
us
just
as
12
we
had
requested.
So
I
appreciate
that
very
much.

13
Seeing
no
other
agenda
items
and
no
other
14
business,
that
will
officially
bring
the
May
20th
meeting
15
of
the
Air
Resources
Board
to
a
close.

16
Thank
you
very
much.
And
thank
my
colleagues.

17
(
Thereupon
the
California
Air
Resources
18
Board
meeting
adjourned
at
12:
05
p.
m.)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
129
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
REPORTER
2
I,
JAMES
F.
PETERS,
a
Certified
Shorthand
3
Reporter
of
the
State
of
California,
and
Registered
4
Professional
Reporter,
do
hereby
certify:

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

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

13
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
have
hereunto
set
my
hand
14
this
31st
day
of
May,
2004.

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

