Notice having been duly given, the regular meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board was held at District Headquarters, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Members present:
Councilmember Norma J. Glover, Vice Chairman
Cities of Orange County
Councilmember Richard Alarcón (arrived during closed session)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich
County of Los Angeles
Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Supervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San Bernardino
Wayne H. Nastri
Governor’s Appointee
Councilmember Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County
Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange
Councilmember Nell Soto (left at approximately 11:30 a.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Members Absent:
Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
Cities of Riverside County
The meeting was called to order at 9:40 a.m. by Chairman Burke.
• Opening Comments
Chairman Burke. Administered the oath of office to James W. Silva, who was reappointed as Orange County’s representative on the Board, for a term ending January 15, 2002.
Agenda Item No. 43 was taken out of order.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to closed session at 9:44 a.m.,
• Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, to consider appointment of a public employee (Title: Executive Officer); and
• Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to confer with counsel regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party. The action is entitled Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. SCAQMD, U.S. District Court Case No. 97-6916 HLH (SHx).
(Mr. Alarcón arrived during closed session.)
The Board reconvened at 10:48 a.m. General Counsel Peter Greenwald stated that there was no decision made by the Board in closed session which required a public report.
Mr. Nastri commented that one of the things he has learned since becoming a Board member is that the Board needs to have an open, fair and collaborative process. Although he believes the District has one of the most outstanding individuals that he knows as Acting Executive Officer--a man that he personally admires, and will give him as much support as possible--he still believes the Board has an obligation to the public and to the stakeholders to go through an open process for selection of a permanent Executive Officer.
Chairman Burke pointed out that the panel which evaluated proposals submitted in response to the RFP for executive search services did select a firm. He suggested that the Board move forward with retaining that particular firm. Ms. Glover and Ms. Soto believed the firm selected to be Norman Roberts and Associates.
Joseph Contaoi, Director of Administrative and Human Resources, indicated his agreement that Norman Roberts and Associates was the firm selected by the evaluation panel. He also expressed his belief that the time period proposed by the selected firm was three to four months to complete the process, including the firm meeting with Board members individually to get their input as to the skills and qualifications sought in an Executive Officer.
Mr. Greenwald advised that prior to taking any action, the Board would, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Board, have to add an agenda item to consider this matter.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: Loveridge.
Chairman Burke commented that it was the consensus of the Board that the selected firm meet with the Personnel Committee as soon as possible to set up the parameters and get the executive search process started, and that the firm move expeditiously in meeting with Board members to get their input on the qualifications sought in an Executive Officer and in completing the executive search process.
With respect to the search firm interviewing the Board members, Mr. Greenwald suggested that the phrase "consistent with the Brown Act" be included in the motion. Counsel will give advice to the Board at a later time to insure that any interviewing takes place in a manner that is consistent with the Brown Act. He also suggested that the motion by the Board include action to execute a contract with the search firm.
Mr. Mikels sought clarification on counsel’s suggestion, expressing his concern that if counsel advises that it is a violation of the Brown Act for the search firm to meet with each individual Board member, then only a minority of the Board might be able to talk to the search firm about the Executive Officer position, and all the other Board members would have no input.
Mr. Alarcón commented that, as Chair of the Legislative Committee, he would have no problem with agendizing the consultant to address the Committee and have a discussion in full public session about what the Committee believes the Board should be looking for in terms of an executive officer. The Board has a committee structure that encompasses the entirety of the Board, and if the various committees agendized the item, he believes the interviewing can be accomplished in full public session. His only concern is that he, like Mr. Paulitz, does not recall the name of the firm that was selected by the evaluation panel. Therefore, he suggested that the firm not be named in the motion.
Ms. Glover commented that her assumption, in reading the proposals, was that the search firm would meet individually with each one of the Board members and from that process, have a profile of what the Board wanted in an executive officer. She questioned counsel as to whether that process would constitute a serial meeting.
Mr. Greenwald responded that he believes the search firm can meet individually with Board members, but he would like the opportunity to advise the Board later to ensure that no serial meeting occurs in violation of the Brown Act.
Ms. Glover amended and restated her motion as follows:
1) TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE FIRM SELECTED BY THE RFP EVALUATION PANEL TO CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SEARCH SERVICES;
2) THAT THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEET WITH THE SEARCH FIRM AND MAKE THE THEM AWARE OF THE BOARD’S DESIRE THAT THEY TRY TO SHORTEN THE TIME FOR THE SEARCH FROM WHAT WAS STATED IN THEIR PROPOSAL; AND
3) THAT THE SEARCH FIRM INTERVIEW EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, CONSISTENT WITH THE BROWN ACT, IN A VERY TIMELY MANNER. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE INTERVIEWING OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS BY THE SEARCH FIRM WOULD VIOLATE THE BROWN ACT, THE INTERVIEWING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC SESSION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE BOARD COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO.
Mr. Mikels stated that he could not support the motion with two unknown basic elements, identification of the search firm and whether or not the Board member interviewing process is legal.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: Loveridge.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Dr. Wallerstein noted that staff had provided to the Board a memo outlining changes to staff’s recommendation on Agenda Item No. 7. The revised recommendation was to move forward with only one of the three proposed projects: Refinement of Fuel-Cycle Emissions Analyses. With respect to the other two projects--Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Electrical Vehicles Relative to Internal Combustion Engines and Demonstration of a Fast-Response On-Board NOx Sensor for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--the ARB is in the process of initiating the RFP process over again. Staff will bring those two items back to the Board at a later date.
Agenda Item No. 3 was held for discussion.
1) APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 AND 8 THROUGH 27, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF; AND
2) APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 7, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ARB IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000 TO COST-SHARE REFINEMENT OF FUEL-CYCLE EMISSIONS ANALYSES, AS SET FORTH IN STAFF’S REVISED RECOMMENDATION.
Ms. Soto commented that the Board decided at its February 13, 1998 meeting to delay action on this item to allow for further review of the proposed contract by the MSRC, in light of the Board’s well-known resistance to questionable sole-source justifications. However, the MSRC still proposes a sole-source contract with The Planning Center for the full contract amount ($500,000). She indicated that she voted against the recommendation at the MSRC meeting and will vote against it today as well.
Ms. Soto further commented that the Board’s support and debate over this item has brought to light a number of problems that the MSRC is beginning to review. These problems include: overburdened staff and MSRC Technical Advisory Committee volunteers; lack of understanding of the differences, real and perceived, between publicly- and privately-controlled bidding processes; the lack of interest in working with local government to secure savings; and, what bothered her the most, the lack of respect for the AQMD Board, which was clearly shown when the request to go out to bid on this item was not honored. Therefore, even if the Board approves this item, she believes the Board’s actions have benefited the MSRC.
Mr. Paulitz clarified that there is no position by the Board that it is against sole-source contracting. There was concern expressed in the past with respect to justification for sole-sourcing. The Board had an ad hoc committee review the matter, and the Board subsequently approved additional language to the contracts manual to clarify justification for sole-sourcing.
Mr. Marvin V. Rush, EV1 Club, addressed the Board and commented that as an owner of a General Motors EV1 electric car, it is very difficult for him to find out where the 200 charging sites are located, which freeway offramps to take, and exactly how to get to the sites. The proposed signs will save time and concern and increase utilization of EVs by EV owners. More importantly, however, these signs will be seen by millions of people, even those who are not currently driving electric vehicles, and he believes the signs could possibly be the most significant advertising that could be done to promote electric vehicles.
Ms. Soto clarified that she is not against the signage, she is against the proposal to sole-source this contract with a private company that would conduct a region-wide bidding process, with MSRC oversight. She believes the staff and technical committee reports for this contract showed no respect for the basic public agency role of controlling public monies through competitive RFP processes. There are differences in what potential bidders--especially minorities-- will see in an RFP released by a private company, compared to an RFP from a public agency. Right or wrong, there are still many stigmas related to private company RFPs, including questions of fairness, that discourage bid submittals and healthy competition.
Mr. Mikels questioned counsel as to the Board’s authority to object to an individual contract included in the work program.
Barbara Baird, District Counsel, responded that counsel has consistently interpreted the work program to consist of the project, the amount of money and the recipient. In April of 1997, the Board approved the work program, in concept. That item, however, did not include all of the necessary elements of this particular project, which are: project description, price and the recipient. Therefore, she believes the Board has the authority to accept or reject this particular element of the work program as proposed by the MSRC.
MS. SOTO MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFUSE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MSRC ON AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. SILVA, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Nastri, Silva and Soto.
NOES: Lee, Mikels, Paulitz and Wilson.
ABSENT: Loveridge.
BOARD CALENDAR
SB 1203 (Hayden) - Airport Expansion SUPPORT with AMENDMENTS
SB 1247 (Hayden) - PM2.5 Reporting SUPPORT with AMENDMENTS
(Ms. Soto left at approximately 11:30 a.m.)
Jack Broadbent, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance, reported that the Administrative and Stationary Source Committees directed staff to meet with industry representatives to get their input on the proposed study. Staff met with industry representatives, and the RFP before the Board incorporates industry’s suggestions. The Board letter refers to industry’s interest in co-funding this project, but staff’s latest discussions with the industry representatives indicate that they would rather be involved in participating as part of a technical advisory committee.
Mr. Robert Wendoll, EL RAP, addressed the Board to express support for the proposed study and his belief that the study should yield valuable information to assist staff in evaluating options for future amendments to Rule 1113. While he regrets that it was not possible to arrange for the study to be co-sponsored under a full and equal partnership between the District and EL RAP, they are, nevertheless, pleased that staff has invited their participation in a technical advisory role and look forward to working with staff to insure that the study will be as complete, accurate and policy-relevant as possible.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
In the interest of time, staff waived an oral report on this item. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
MS. B.J. KIRWAN, Attorney, on behalf of 3M Company
Commenting that their new HFE solvent will enable manufacturers in the basin to be more competitive, urged the Board to amend Rule 102 as recommended.
JOHN BILLHEIMER, Reality Group
Expressed full support for PAR 102, but noted that the early price estimates for the new exempt materials are $80 to $90 per gallon--nearly ten times the price of traditional solvents. No socioeconomic analysis was performed because the new materials are optional, and are not required to be used. Because of the price, these solvents will likely only be used in very specialized applications. He questioned, however, that once these solvents have been proven effective in the specialized uses, whether the District or EPA will make it a requirement for all types of applications. He asked, therefore, that the District, without holding up Board adoption of the proposed amendments, conduct a socioeconomic analysis. (Submitted Written Comments.)
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
The staff report was given by Jack Broadbent, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance.
Mr. Silva questioned why the District could not cut back on the AB 2588 program so that a fee increase would not be necessary.
Mr. Broadbent responded that staff has been cutting back the costs for the program considerably, but there are a number of HRAs that have to be finalized. Staff has streamlined the program to the maximum extent feasible, however, much of the information coming from the inventorying work, as well as the HRAs, are used in support of the environmental justice initiatives. Staff expects to eliminate the final HRAs out of the program over the next two years, and the basis for the fee increase is to accomplish that work.
Mr. Silva commented that he believes the District should be cutting back, not increasing, the fee and, therefore, he did not support the staff recommendation on this item.
Mr. Paulitz commented that part of the problem was caused by the State Legislature, which eliminated many from having to pay the fees and put the burden on the people who were left. He expressed his belief that there is a problem with this program, and it will come to the forefront in about three years, after all the money is exhausted and the District cannot raise the fees anymore, politically, yet still have the program to process.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air and Natural Resources Defense Council
Commented that a year ago, they stood before the Board and were extremely critical of the progress that had not been made relative to the AB 2588 program. Over the last year, District staff has fallen pitifully short of meeting its goals for finalizing HRAs, initiating public notifications for toxic emissions, and implementation of risk reduction programs by facilities that pose the greatest risk. They do not believe that the District has given enough of a priority to this program, and urged the Board to instruct staff to make it a priority in 1998 to finalize the HRAs of the facilities that pose the greatest risk to the community.
CURT COLEMAN, Attorney, on behalf of CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
Concurring with the remarks by Mr. Carmichael, commented that as long as the HRAs remain unreviewed and no finality is reached, millions of dollars in fees get paid in every year to keep the program going; and indicated that maybe if it were changed to a piecework basis where the District got paid on a per-risk-assessment-reviewed-and-approved basis, it could dig out from under this morass.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
AYES: Lee, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz and Wilson.
NOES: Alarcón, Burke, Glover and Silva.
ABSENT: Antonovich, Loveridge and Soto.
Dr. Wallerstein pointed out that if the District does not submit a fee proposal for the ARB to incorporate in the statewide fee rule, the Board will have to assess a separate component for the AB 2588 fees as part of amendments to the District’s fee rules in May 1998.
There being no action taken by the Board, Agenda Item No. 40 was, by operation of procedure, continued to the April 10, 1998 Board meeting.
At Mr. Mikels’ request, Elaine Chang, Director of Planning, gave a brief report on the item. Mr. Mikels raised questions regarding: (i) what relevance the inventory analysis has for the conformity demonstration of the current iteration of the RTP; (ii) how the analysis figures into the VOC shortfall that originally appeared in the RTP, and if the dedicated lane on Route 60 was the methodology by which the VOC shortfall in the RTP was taken care of; (iii) what impact, if any, the new modeling would have on the conformity demonstration for VOC in the current RTP; and (iv) a comparison between the VOC inventory for conformity purposes in the 1994 AQMP versus the 1997 AQMP, and how that impacts the conformity demonstration of the current RTP.
Chairman Burke noted that the Board would lose a quorum shortly, and suggested a continuance of this item to the April Board meeting.
Staff requested that a representative from SCAG address the Board regarding the need for Board action on this item at this time.
Mr. Arnie Sherwood, SCAG, commented that the conformity in this basin for transportation projects and plans lapses April 14, 1998. In order for SCAG to make a transportation conformity finding in PM10 for the years 2010 and 2020, emission budgets for 2010 and 2020 must be submitted to the U.S. EPA. SCAG has requested that the AQMD adopt the 2010 and 2020 emission inventories that were included in the 1997 AQMP to serve as the 2010 and 2020 PM10 emission budgets. If the Board approves submission to ARB of the emission inventories as the PM10 emission budgets for 2010 and 2020, the ARB has indicated it will forward the PM10 emission budgets to EPA, and EPA has 45 days to approve it. Therefore, in order for the federal agencies to approve the transportation plan that SCAG will adopt on April 16, 1998, SCAG needs the PM10 emission budgets approved by the Board at this meeting.
(Mr. Alarcón left at 12:00 p.m.)
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air
Expressed opposition to the staff recommendation on this item, commenting that their assessment is that SCAG has failed to demonstrate conformity for ozone. Before now, SCAG acknowledged that they have failed to demonstrate conformity for particulates. Under federal law, credit cannot be taken for emission reductions for a program that you do not have funding for or legal authority to implement; and that is what has happened in the current RTP. The reason the Coalition believes this should be an issue of importance to the AQMD is that ultimately, if SCAG does not achieve those emission reductions through transportation control measures or other methods, the public is going to look to other agencies to make up that shortfall--and the AQMD will be the first in line for this region. They believe staff could do more to insure that SCAG is in fact achieving the emission reduction goals in the 1994 SIP.
GAIL RUDERMAN FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
1) Expressed agreement with Mr. Carmichael regarding SCAG’s portion of the emission reductions coming back to rest with the AQMD if the Board agrees to change the inventories for PM10. 2) Commented that they objected to the 1997 AQMP in 1996 and, in January 1997, they submitted scientific comments that were prepared by a consultant NRDC hired regarding the modeling that was done on PM10 (a different modeling technique was used for the 1997 AQMP than what was used for the 1994 AQMP). The consultant concluded that the model was underestimating PM10 emissions for 2006 by at least 100 percent. That is what lead them to believe that even by the year 2006, the PM10 goals for this region would not be attained. They are concerned about then taking those 2006 levels and extending that to 2010 and 2020 on the assumption that PM10 goals will be attained because of reductions in VOC and NOx emissions. The reality, they believe, is that many of the measures being assumed to bring these emissions down are not funded, many are not realistic, and many lack implementation authority. 3) Submitted a copy of their 1997 comments for the record, and she suggested the Board consider delaying its decision on this item so that Board members can review the comments and the NRDC can discuss the matter further with District staff.
JAMES ORTNER, Orange County Transportation Authority
Expressing support for the staff recommendation on this item, reminded the Board that it approved the PM Plan in 1997, and SCAG is now asking that the numbers be forwarded on so that the budgets can be used by SCAG.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Mikels commented that he has received conflicting information with regard to the impact of the April 16, 1998 date. One thing that is definite, he takes serious objection to the cost of the VOC emission reduction measures contained in the RTP. He does not believe it had adequate public comment, and he believes there is considerable disagreement from members of the Inland Empire. He requested a one-month continuance of this item in order to obtain more information as to what the impact of the inventory numbers are for the approveability of the RTP.
Regarding Agenda Item No. 40, Mr. Paulitz noted that the board letter does not indicate that the item was approved by the Administrative Committee and the Stationary Source Committee; only that it was reviewed by both committees. He wondered if there was any dissent at the committee level, and why there was at the board level.
Ms. Glover, Chair of the Administrative Committee, responded that she believed the item was approved by that Committee. Ms. Lee, Chair of the Stationary Source Committee, responded that the Stationary Source Committee cannot approve the item, but they reviewed it and had recommendations. One of the recommendations was that staff bring forward alternatives for the Board to consider in terms of the funding issue.
Carol Coy, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance, gave the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
GAIL RUDERMAN FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council and Coalition for Clean Air
Expressed opposition to the audit report and, as a member of the audit committee that the Board will be hearing from at its May 1998 meeting regarding the three-year audit report, commented that the principal concern about both the one-year report and the three-year report is that there were almost no emissions reductions since 1993. It is difficult, therefore, for them to understand how the Board could find equivalent emissions reductions to prior AQMPs with command-and-control rules, when there has been no emissions reductions under the RECLAIM trading program. The other issue is that there is discussion in the audit report of the variety of control equipment that has been installed by a number of facilities. However, an analysis performed by staff showed that only one percent of the facilities actually installed control equipment.
CURTIS COLEMAN, CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
Commented that RECLAIM has been a very successful program, providing industry with a degree of flexibility that it has not had before; and expressed support for the audit report, with the following comments: (i) the report understates the problems that have been encountered with the CEMS and the computerized reporting and data gathering, and companies are being required to use missing data in situations where it is not their fault that the data was not successfully acquired by the District even though it was sent by the company; and (ii) improvements need to be made in moving the District from a permit-unit-by-permit-unit approach to a facilitywide-permit approach because having a hybrid system makes it difficult for companies to keep track of what bills apply to what equipment once that equipment is merged into the facility permit. They will be working with staff to try to address these issues, but believe the report does accurately reflect the status of the program, which is that: (i) NOx and SOx emissions are being reduced consistent with the approved AQMP; (ii) these improvements will continue in the future; (iii) this program is a much more cost-effective way of achieving the desired reductions than the traditional command-and-control approach; and (v) RECLAIM is generating much better data on what the emissions are, and at reduced compliance cost for the District than the former program.
OTHER BUSINESS (Continued)
Catherine Wasikowski, Director of Transportation Programs, presented the preliminary results of the study of voluntary ridesharing activities for employers with 100-249 employees, conducted pursuant to Senate Bill 836. The study concluded that emission equivalency did not result during 1997 from voluntary emission reduction activities. A large portion of the shortfall in emission reductions resulted from worksites with 100-249 employees no longer participating in direct emission reduction strategies.
The following individuals addressed the Board:
MICHAEL CARROLL, Attorney, on behalf of Regulatory Flexibility Group
Commented that he wanted to make sure that the connection is being made between the report the Board received on this item and Rule 1610, which, in light of concerns expressed at the February 13, 1998 Board meeting, is currently under review. If the threshold for the ridesharing program is dropped back down to worksites with 100 or more employees, approximately 3,500 new, smaller businesses will be brought into the rideshare program. The most cost-effective way to comply with the rideshare requirements at this time is to pay fees into Rule 2202 (AQIP), and those fees are then used to generate credits through the car scrapping program under Rule 1610. If there are problems with Rule 1610, then those problems should be addressed. Rule 1610 should not be eliminated, however, without realizing that it provides a tremendously important benefit.
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney, on behalf of CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
Expressed belief that the report confirms fears they had several years ago when they urged that the ridesharing program be dropped, that this is not a program that is getting large emission reductions, but it does have the potential to be tremendously expensive and extremely administratively burdensome for companies for whom it will not work. Where it does work for a company, it works well; and those companies should be encouraged to keep their programs in effect. But, it should not be mandated for every company.
Mr. Antonovich commented that he also shares the concern that the District not return to a mandatory ridesharing program for worksites with 100 to 249 employees, which SB 836 specifically repealed. These worksites experienced a 0.2 percent increase in vehicle ridership over the past year, and clearly are not to blame for any shortfall in the emission reductions. He believes the District needs to have a vigorous promotion on the value of direct emission reduction strategies, where applicable, using the AQIP.
Ms. Wasikowski added that if those employers do come back under Rule 2202 as it is now, they would have the option of the AQIP and the emission reduction strategies, as well as ridesharing.
Mr. Mikels noted that Board members were provided copies of a draft letter that stemmed from discussions at the February 27, 1998 Mobile Source Committee meeting, in which staff was asked to prepare a letter seeking direction from the State Legislature in this matter. The letter is to be sent to the Speaker and the President Pro Tem and the caucus leaders in both houses. The draft letter states two options: (i) reinstate all requirements for smaller-sized employers; or (ii) institute a modified program with fewer requirements and further test voluntary rideshare enhancements. He suggested, however, that the letter be sent without suggesting any options.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
ADJOURNMENT
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on March 13, 1998.
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chairman
ACRONYMS
AB = Assembly Bill
AQIP = Air Quality Investment Program
AQMD = (South Coast) Air Quality Management District
AQMP = Air Quality Management Plan
ARB/CARB = (California) Air Resources Board
CE-CERT = College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research and Technology
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CMA = California Manufacturers Association
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
EV = Electric Vehicle
FY = Fiscal Year
HFE = Hydrofluoroether
HRA = Health Risk Assessment
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
MSERC = Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credit
MSRC = Mobile Source (Air Pollution Reduction) Review Committee
NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen
PAMS = Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PM10 = Particulate Matter < 10 microns
PR = Proposed Rule
RFP = Request for Proposals
RTP = Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments
SIP = State Implementation Plan
SOx = Oxides of Sulfur
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound