The meeting was called to order at 9:40 a.m. by Chairman Mikels.

1. Opening Comments

Ms. Soto. Announced that a Leadership Summit would be held in the City of Alhambra on March 24, 1995. The summit will bring together Los Angeles communities and government, environmental, ethnic and business leaders for an in-depth discussion of clean air issues and to work together in support of both jobs and environmental goals. She and Chairman Mikels will send each Board member an invitation including details of the summit, and information on the summit will be available for the public at the AQMD's Public Information Center. Ms. Soto requested that, if possible, the March 24 meetings of the Administrative Committee and Stationary Source Committee be rescheduled so that as many Board members as possible could attend the Leadership Summit.

2. Swearing in of Newly Appointed Board Members

Vice Chairman Burke administered the oath of office to Jon D. Mikels, who was reappointed as the County of San Bernardino's representative on the Board, and
Ronald O. Loveridge, who was appointed to succeed S. Roy Wilson as the Cities of Riverside County's representative on the Board. Both terms will end on January 15, 1999.

3. Report of the Public Advisor, Small Business Assistance, and Economic Development Offices for the Period of October 1 through December 31, 1994

La Ronda Bowen, Public Advisor, highlighted the activities of the Public Advisor, Small Business Assistance and Economic Development Offices for the fourth quarter of 1994.

(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 9:53 a.m.)

CONSENT CALENDAR

3(A) Set a Public Hearing on March 10, 1995 to Consider Amendments to the
AQMD's Rules and Regulations, and to Adopt Any Necessary California
Environmental Quality Act Documentation for the Following:

Amend RECLAIM Rule 2011, Appendix A - Protocol Monitoring, Reporting,
and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOx); and Amend RECLAIM
Rule 2012, Appendix A - Protocol Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

4. Minutes of January 13, 1995 Board Meeting

5. Addendum to Report to the California Air Resources Board on the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's Assembly Bill 2766 Program for Fiscal
Year 1993-94

6. Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994

7. Recommendation to Award Contract for Update Training Sessions to Employee
Transportation Coordinators as Required by Rule 1501

8. Recommendation to Accept Funds Into the Pass-Through Agency Fund From the
U.S. Department of Energy and Appropriate Those Funds Into an Agreement for
the CleanFleet Demonstration

9. Recommendation to Cosponsor an Evaluation of Factors that Affect Diesel
Exhaust Toxicity

10. Development of the AQMD Delegation and Substitution Process

11. Status Report on AQMD Listing of Environmental Documents and Lead
Agency Projects Received by the AQMD for Review and Comment

12. PM10 Reasonable Further Progress Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency for the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley

13. Recommendation to Approve Vendor List and to Purchase Personal Computer
Hardware, Software and Installation Services

14. Rule Forecast Report

15. Annual Report on Air Quality and Wildland Fires

16. Recommendation Regarding a Request for Proposals for Source Emissions
Testing by Outside Contractors

Agenda Items 3(A), 4, 5, 7, 10 and 13 were held for discussion.

A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 AND 14 THROUGH 16 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

3(A) Set a Public Hearing on March 10, 1995 to Consider Amendments to the AQMD's Rules and Regulations, and to Adopt Any Necessary California Environmental Quality Act Documentation for the Following:

Amend RECLAIM Rule 2011, Appendix A - Protocol Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOx); and Amend RECLAIM Rule 2012, Appendix A - Protocol Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Mr. Silva expressed concern regarding the economic impact of the rules' requirements on the affected businesses, and questioned the rationale. Pat Leyden, DEO of Stationary Source Compliance, responded that the proposed amendments address sections of the adopted rules that require large NOx and SOx sources to install continuous emissions monitors (CEMs) and report to the AQMD the actual emissions from those facilities. This monitoring and reporting of actual emissions is the basic enforcement part of the RECLAIM trading program. The affected facilities were allowed one year to install and test the CEMs and connect reporting equipment which will electronically transmit the emissions data to the AQMD. In the interim, the emissions data is being reported to the AQMD through submittal of manual paper records relating to fuel usage. AQMD staff manually enters the records into a data base that analyzes site-by-site compliance with the RECLAIM rules. Shortly after adoption of the rules, RECLAIM facilities were randomly placed in two separate cycles which resulted in Cycle 1 facilities (January 1, 1994 - January 1, 1995) having 12 months to comply and Cycle 2 facilities (July 1, 1994 - July 1, 1995) actually having 18 months to comply. The proposed amendments will ensure Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 facilities in both NOx and SOx markets are treated equitably as to the missing data requirements.

Mr. Silva further commented that companies should be allowed the flexibility to maintain non-operating equipment on the facility permit without being required to install costly emissions monitors on such equipment. In response Ms. Leyden agreed to provide Mr. Silva a copy of staff's rule interpretation on this issue which basically states that if the equipment is clearly not operating, a condition will be included on the facility permit placing that equipment in a non-operating status.

4. Minutes of January 13, 1995 Board Meeting

Ms. Soto requested that Agenda Item No. 11 on Page 2 of the Minutes be revised to reflect, in Dr. Burke's comments, his support for Board assistants and their important role for those Board members who do not have such assistance provided to them by their respective cities or counties.

5. Addendum to Report to the California Air Resources Board on the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Assembly Bill 2766 Program for Fiscal Year 1993-94

Larry Stevens addressed the Board on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) and the City of San Dimas regarding unexpended AB 2766 funds currently being held by cities. Preliminary results from a survey of SGVOG members indicate that cities are looking for more guidance on appropriate activities to fund under the AB 2766 program, and they have discussed with AQMD staff possible approaches to needed education such as workshops, written guidelines, and brochures. (Submitted Written Comments)

Mr. Paulitz commented that as a City of Montclair Councilmember, he is aware of this problem and believes that if the AQMD provides cities with guidelines on the proper use of the AB 2766 funds, it will be favorably reflected in the next audit report. Ms. Soto added her support for the cities on this item, and pointed out that the amount of money quoted in the report as unspent is not because the cities do not need the funds, but because the cities save funding from year to year for specific expenditures.

7. Recommendation to Award Contract for Update Training Sessions to Employee Transportation Coordinators as Required by Rule 1501

Ms. Terry Solis of The Solis Group addressed the Board in opposition to the staff recommendation. She outlined concerns with the bidding, evaluation and selection process stated in her letter to the Governing Board dated February 9, 1995.

Staff responded that Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were sent to 59 firms interested in submitting a proposal. Those same 59 firms were also sent notice of the pre-bid meeting.
Ms. Solis was not notified of the meeting because she obtained the RFP from a source other than the AQMD. She did, however, become aware of the pre-bid meeting and was able to have a representative from her firm attend the meeting. Information on staff's recommendation for awarding the bid was provided to Ms. Solis in accordance with AQMD's policy of releasing such information to the public only after it has been officially approved by the Executive Officer and the information has been provided to Board members. The difference between the scoring system in the RFP (100 possible points) and the scoring system explained in the staff recommendation (400 possible points) was the result of there being four panel reviewers and, therefore, a combined total of 400 possible points.

With respect to Total Employee Relations ("Total"), the firm recommended by staff for awarding of the bid, their cost-effectiveness rating was increased by their offer of additional services such as a $5,000 two-day training workshop for AQMD staff, refreshments for the Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs) and six people on site for the training sessions. As certified minority owned-, woman-owned or disabled veteran owned-business enterprises (MBE/WBE/DVBE), the firms ranked second and third were given 10 additional points. Total did not receive any additional points, although the firm offered in its proposal to have the two-day training workshop performed by a MBE/WBE/DVBE-certified firm. Total scored the highest points overall because it had the most cost-effective and technically-qualified proposal.

Transportation Programs Director Catherine Wasikowski also clarified that staff's statement at the pre-bid meeting was not that the meeting was only being held because the Board made staff do so; but that unlike past years, the contract for this year's training sessions for ETCs would be submitted to the Board for approval.

Ms. Haggard suggested that since the Board anticipates amending Rule 1501 in April 1995, contracting for ETC training should be postponed until after the Board has taken action on the proposed amendments. She believed it imprudent and premature to contract for training in existing methods when there may be new methods adopted by the Board in April.

Ms. Soto indicated her agreement with Ms. Haggard's comments, and expressed her belief that it is not fair to require participants to pay for training which is required by AQMD regulations.

Ms. Lee suggested that the Board extend the existing contract, which expires in March 1995, and reconsider the contract--without having to go through the RFP process again--at the time the Board considers amendments to Rule 1501.

MS. HAGGARD MOVED TO CONTINUE AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 UNTIL AFTER THE BOARD HAS TAKEN ACTION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1501, AND EXTEND THE EXISTING CONTRACT AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE CONTINUED UPDATE TRAINING SESSIONS TO EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATORS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. LEE.

At Ms. Soto's suggestion,

THE MOTION BY MS. HAGGARD WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT AFTER TAKING ACTION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1501, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT ANOTHER RFP SHOULD BE ISSUED FOR THE UPDATE TRAINING SESSIONS. THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: Albright, Braude, Burke, Haggard, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: Antonovich.

ABSENT: None.

Teresa Moren of AMCS, whose request to address the Board had been inadvertently overlooked, spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. She commented that she also had requested and received the RFP, but there was no mention of the pre-bid meeting. By chance, she found out about the meeting from someone else. She expressed her concern that the existing contractor, Total Employee Relations, was not making their best effort as far as planning the training sessions and the facilities arranged by them for the training sessions.

10. Development of the AQMD Delegation and Substitution Process

Larry Stevens, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments; Ms. Terry Parker, California Air Resources Board; and Jim Birckhead of Western Riverside Council of Governments addressed the Board in support of the staff recommendation.

Mr. Stevens requested Board support of the following guiding principles (set out in more detail in written comments submitted to the Board):

(1) Further work is needed in simplifying the process to facilitate local government implementation of air quality regulations.

(2) The rules that are to be delegated or substituted should be flexible menu-based options. If so, the process for delegation would be virtually non-existent because the flexibility needed would occur through administrative delegation.

(3) Although the proposed procedures give some consideration to performance standard approaches, there is too strong of a focus on "bean-counting" which improperly leads to the conclusion that actions taken can be measured to the smallest level of detail.

(4) AQMD should consider allowing local governments to achieve multiple purposes (air quality, congestion management and related regulations) with one program whenever possible.

(5) A continuing role should be facilitated for local government on task forces, working groups and similar study actions as measures are prepared for adoption and implementation.

Ms. Haggard expressed support for the proposed procedures, but was concerned that the procedures had not been reviewed by the Interagency AQMP Implementation Committee (IAIC) before being submitted to the Board for approval.

Ms. Soto agreed with comments made about allowing local governments more flexibility and making the procedures more simple. She added that since she was not a member of the Board when the delegation/substitution concept was included in the 1994 AQMP, she wanted to publicly express her support for what AQMD staff and the working group accomplished. It is her hope that through this process, the AQMD can create a stronger relationship with local government.

Mr. Paulitz indicated his support for the proposed procedures, and Mr. Braude stressed the need for cooperation by local government and the public in order to achieve clean air in the basin.

MS. HAGGARD MOVED TO REFER THE DELEGATION AND SUBSTITUTION PROCESS TO THE IAIC FOR REVIEW AND SUBMITTAL BACK TO THE BOARD. THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED.

In response to Ms. Soto, Barry Wallerstein, DEO of Planning, Transportation & Information Management, indicated staff's agreement with the points made by Mr. Stevens and staff's belief that the existing document has the flexibility to accomplish what he requested.

Ms. Soto added that the statements made by Mr. Stevens with respect to flexibility and simplicity should also be considered in the IAIC's review of this item.

A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO REFER AGENDA THE DELEGATION AND SUBSTITUION PROCESS TO THE IAIC FOR REVIEW AND SUBMITTAL BACK TO THE BOARD.

13. Recommendation to Approve Vendor List and to Purchase Personal Computer Hardware, Software and Installation Services

Dr. Burke indicated a conflict of interest on this item, and requested from staff a list of all computer purchases by the AQMD for the past three years, justification for those purchases and how the equipment is currently being used.

A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, WITH DR. BURKE AND MR. ANTONOVICH ABSTAINING, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 13 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

ON MOTION OF MR. ALBRIGHT, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS NO. 3(A), NO. 4 (INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT OF PAGE 2 OF THE MINUTES TO REFLECT IN
DR. BURKE'S COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEM NO. 11 HIS SUPPORT FOR BOARD ASSISTANTS AND THEIR IMPORTANT ROLE FOR THOSE BOARD MEMBERS WHO DO NOT HAVE SUCH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO THEM BY THEIR RESPECTIVE CITIES OR COUNTIES) AND NO. 5, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

BOARD CALENDAR

Agenda Item No. 17 was held for discussion after action on Items 18 through 22.

18. Administrative Committee Report

19. On-Road Transportation Committee Report

20. Planning/Stationary Source Committee Report

21. Technology Committee Report

22. Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee Report

ON A MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS 18 THROUGH 22 AS RECOMMENDED.

17. Legislation Committee Report and Recommendations

Chairman Mikels noted that Board members had received notification with regard to the federal court's action on the proposed stipulation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and plaintiffs in that action regarding the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). He commented that Congressman Jay Kim has introduced legislation in Congress, HR 304, relative to the FIP and SIP; and there is discussion that Congressman
Jerry Lewis will also introduce similar legislation. Chairman Mikels referred the items to the Legislation Committee to consider at its next meeting and report back to the Board with a recommendation as to whether or not those congressional legislative efforts should be supported by the Board.

ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE REPORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO IMPLEMENT SB 1134 ADMINISTRATIVELY AND TO INCORPORATE THE BILL INTO RULE 1501 REVISIONS IN A TIMELY FASHION AS RECOMMENDED.

23. Recommendation Regarding Board Committees

Chairman Mikels described his proposal for committee reorganization. In response to
Ms. Soto's interest in being a member of the Stationary Source Committee, he explained that the committees were limited to no more than six board members and there are already six on that committee. Listed below are the five standing Committees recommended by Chairman Mikels.

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

Chairperson: Jon Mikels

Members: Stephen Albright, Michael Antonovich, William Burke,
Candace Haggard, Leonard Paulitz

Staff Liaison: Nick Nikkila

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Chairperson: William Burke

Members: Stephen Albright, Michael Antonovich, James Silva,
Nell Soto, Roy Wilson

Staff Liaison: Tom Eichhorn

MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEE

Chairperson: Candace Haggard

Members: Marvin Braude, Mee Hae Lee, Ronald Loveridge, Nell Soto

Staff Liaison: Barry Wallerstein

STATIONARY SOURCE COMMITTEE

Chairperson: Stephen Albright

Members: Marvin Braude, Candace Haggard, Mee Hae Lee,
Ronald Loveridge, James Silva

Staff Liaison: Pat Leyden

TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Chairperson: Leonard Paulitz

Members: Jon Mikels, William Burke, Roy Wilson

Staff Liaison: Alan Lloyd

ON MOTION OF MR. MIKELS, SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 23 AS RECOMMENDED.

24. Recommendation Regarding Board Member Assistance

Chairman Mikels stated that following discussion on this item at the January 13, 1995 Board meeting, the item was referred to the Administrative Committee for further consideration.

Dr. Wilson commented that he expressed his objections to the recommendation at the January Board meeting. In reviewing the Minutes of the Administrative Committee meeting, he was disappointed that it seemed to focus on who could hire and terminate Board member assistants, rather than the basic issue of why the Board needs to increase the amount of salaries for Board member assistants. Although he has not had an assistant provided by the AQMD or the City for the seven years he has served on the Board, he does not object to Board members having assistants. His objection was to compensation of $45 an hour, which he believes to be excessive and circumvents the intent of the Legislature which attempted to place a cap on the governance of the AQMD by limiting Board member compensation to $100 per day and a maximum of $1,000 per month.

Another concern expressed by Dr. Wilson was that while the AQMD has significantly reduced both its staff and its budget, the Board has gone from $0 budgeted in 1991 for Board member assistance to $60,000 budgeted in 1992 and $240,000 budgeted in 1993. The present recommendation is to raise the amount to $300,000, which he believes is contrary to good judgment and contrary to the message the Board has been sending out that they want to ease the economic impact on business and industry. Mr. Braude added his full support to the comments by Dr. Wilson.

Chairman Mikels clarified that there are two classifications: Board Member Assistant, with a maximum compensation rate of up to $25 an hour; and Board Member Consultant, with a maximum compensation rate of up to $45 an hour. The job descriptions indicate that the differences in background, experience and capabilities are the deciding factors as to classification. There is also a cap on the total amount eligible for expenditure by each Board member, regardless of the rate of compensation. He also added that the amount budgeted was not entirely expended, and less than half of the Board members utilized this assistance.

Ms. Soto stated for the record that, as a representative of 63 cities, she could not provide those cities the best possible representation without the help of her assistant. The cities have strongly expressed the desire to be involved in the process, and her assistant has been particularly beneficial in that regard. She believes the money for Board member assistants is being well spent and wished that they could be paid more.

Mr. Paulitz commented that he had not realized that the budget for board member assistance had increased so significantly. When he hired an assistant, he voluntarily reduced his assistant's compensation rate because he felt, from an administrative point of view, that the amount was not justified in the overall budget context. He supported the objective of having Board member assistants, but thought the Board should perhaps reconsider the compensation rates.

Mr. Albright expressed concern regarding visibility of some of the Board member assistants, and hoped that Board members would not send their assistants to committee meetings and other public meetings in their absence. Mr. Albright also requested that staff provide an accounting of money spent for assistants for the next Board meeting.

Dr. Burke's belief was that a monolithic approach to Board member assistance is inappropriate, since the needs and availability of assistance to various Board members range dramatically. Some Board members have vast resources from governmental agencies available for their research and their defining of policy. Others have enormous personal experience dealing with air quality issues. With the addition of new Board members and the tremendous amount of background and complexity of the rules and issues, Board members will need assistants or they will have to dedicate an enormous amount of personal time and resource to this effort.

DR. WILSON MOVED TO TABLE THE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING BOARD MEMBER ASSISTANCE, AND RE-VISIT THE ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AQMD BUDGET WHEN THE BOARD CONSIDERS ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. BRAUDE AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:

AYES: Albright, Braude, Loveridge, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.

NOES: Antonovich, Burke, Haggard, Lee, Mikels and Silva.

ABSENT: None.

ON A MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 24 AS RECOMMENDED BY CHAIRMAN MIKELS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: Albright, Antonovich, Burke, Haggard, Lee, Mikels, Silva and Soto.

NOES: Braude, Loveridge, Paulitz and Wilson.

ABSENT: None.

-o-

Dr. Burke requested that the ex parte policy be placed on the agenda for the next Administrative Committee meeting.

-o-

PUBLIC HEARINGS

25. Receive Public Input on the Executive Officer's Program Goals/Objectives for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Budget

Dr. Lents reported that the purpose of this item was to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the AQMD's work program and budget for the next fiscal year.

The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individual:

JOHN BILLHEIMER, Consultant

Suggested that there be allocations available in the budget for research involving reformulation of toxic- and volatile organic compound-containing coatings, paints, inks and adhesives for small businesses whose use of these materials is so small that installation of add-on control equipment is not a cost-effective option. The manufacturers of these materials cannot justify conducting much research for what amounts to approximately 5 percent of the national market or 1 percent of the international market. (Submitted Written Comments.)

There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.

In response to Mr. Braude, Director of Finance Patrick Pearce outlined the chronology of the budget development process and milestones expected before the public hearing scheduled for May 12, 1995 for Board adoption of the Fiscal Year 1995-96 budget.

Ms. Haggard suggested that when the budget is being developed there be more emphasis placed on expanding the use of market incentives in AQMD rules and development of a pricing mechanism for mobile sources. Additionally, she believed there should be time limitations set so that in the event one course is not working, the District is able to change its course. Since there was no mention in the goals of any legislative platform, Ms. Haggard suggested that one goal should be to work with the federal and state legislature to insure that the District can comply with the Clean Air Act and also implement emission reduction strategies instead of strict average vehicle ridership (AVR).

In response to Ms. Haggard's concern that Item IV-A of the Goals and Objectives, "Continue to develop and implement improvements to Regulation XV", did not appropriately reflect the Board's direction toward Regulation XV, Dr. Lents agreed to add language to
Item IV-A indicating a shift away from AVR towards emission reduction types of measures.

ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO APPROVE THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S PROGRAM GOALS/OBJECTIVES AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 12, 1995 FOR ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AQMD BUDGET, AS RECOMMENDED.

26. Amend RECLAIM Rule 2011, Appendix A - Protocol Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) Emissions

Pat Leyden, DEO of Stationary Source Compliance, indicated that this item was related to Agenda Item No. 3(A). Staff's recommendation was that the Board continue this public hearing to March 10, 1995 so that proposed amendments to both Rule 2011 and Rule 2012 can be combined in one hearing.

ON MOTION OF MR. BRAUDE, SECONDED BY MR. ALBRIGHT, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RECLAIM RULE 2011, APPENDIX A, TO THE MARCH 10, 1995 BOARD MEETING.

27. Amend Rule 1302 - Definitions

Ms. Leyden reported that staff originally brought this item before the Board in November 1994 as a minor correction of a definition in New Source Review (NSR). Issues were raised at the public hearing relating to federal public noticing requirements and the definition of a major source, and the public hearing was continued by the Board to its February 1995 meeting in order to allow staff additional time to resolve the issues. Staff recommended that the Board close the public hearing and take no action on Rule 1302. The proposed amendments will be incorporated with proposed amendments to Regulation XIII scheduled for hearing at the June 9, 1995 Board meeting.

ON MOTION OF MR. BRAUDE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO RECEIVE AND FILE AGENDA ITEM NO. 27.

28. Adopt Proposed Regulation XXXI - Acid Rain Permit Program

The staff report was given by Alene Taber, Program Supervisor. In response to
Mr. Braude, staff clarified the rationale and intent of the proposed regulation and identified the affected utility facilities.

The public hearing was opened and, there being no public testimony, the hearing was closed.

ON MOTION OF MR. BRAUDE, DULY SECONDED, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 95-2, ADOPTING REGULATION XXXI AND CERTIFYING THE EXEMPTION FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

29. Amend Rule 1121 - Control of Nitrogen Oxides from Residential Type Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters

The staff report was given by Pang Mueller, Senior Manager. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from Eric Lannes, Bradford White Corporation, and Frank Stanonik, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, in opposition to the proposed amendments relating to compliance and certification which they believe are unnecessarily burdensome and stringent. They requested the following revisions to the proposed amended rule:

Change Subparagraph (d)(1) to require one sample in each basic model be tested instead of three.

With respect to Subparagraph (d)(4), exempt water heater models from the requirement of
re-certification every three years, as long as these models are included in a NOx certification program that requires periodic audit testing.

Language should be added to Subparagraph (f) to provide consistency with the test protocol in its measurement accuracy tolerances when conducting verification tests.

(Written Comments Submitted.)

Ms. Leyden responded that the three suggested revisions seemed appropriate to staff, and recommended that the Board continue the public hearing on this item to the March 10, 1995 Board meeting to allow staff time to review and incorporate the revisions into the Proposed Amended Rule.

Mr. Paulitz asked for staff's response to questions raised in the letter dated February 1, 1995 to Board members from Edwin J. Cowan concerning how a market incentive program could be productive without including a mandatory reduction in NOx limits.

Dr. Lents responded that under the Area Source Credit program, the water heater manufacturers will be able to receive credits for reducing NOx emissions below the limit of 40 nanograms/joule. Those credits can then be purchased by other sources that are exceeding emissions limits. This is expected to encourage sources to search for ways of achieving the greatest amount of emission reductions in the most cost-effective manner.

ON MOTION OF MR. ALBRIGHT, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1121 TO THE MARCH 10, 1995 BOARD MEETING.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items,
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)

There was no public comment on non-agenda items.

CLOSED SESSION

29A. Recommendation to Discuss in Closed Session Real Estate Negotiations with Datatape, Inc. Regarding Property Located at 9150 Flair Drive, El Monte, California

30. Recommendation Regarding a Closed Session to Consider Pending or Potential Litigation and Personnel Matters

The Board recessed to closed session at 12:15 p.m. as set forth below.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a), to confer with legal counsel regarding the following pending litigation:

(i) Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV88 4414 HLH

(ii) Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA, DC Circuit Court Case No. 92-1303

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, to confer with Real Property Negotiator regarding property at 9150 Flair Drive, El Monte, California 91731.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no action taken in closed session to report, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman Mikels at 12:30 p.m.

The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on February 10, 1995.

Respectfully Submitted,

SAUNDRA MCDANIEL

Senior Deputy Clerk

Date Minutes Approved: _______________________________

__________________________________________________

Jon D. Mikels