South Coast Air Quality Management District

1.

Minutes of May 3, 2002 Board Meeting

2.

Renew Contract to Purchase Private Data Network Services to Support Emissions Reporting System

3.

Execute Contracts and Reissue RFP for On-Road and Off-Road Categories Under FY 2001-02 Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program

4.

Approve Grants to Public School Districts and Private School Bus Operators to Retrofit 1058 Diesel School Buses with Particulate Traps Under Lower-Emission School Bus Retrofit Program

5.

Approve Salary and Benefits Adjustment for Noncontract Management, Confidential, and Attorney Employees

**6.

Approve Memorandum of Understanding for Office Clerical & Maintenance and Technical & Enforcement Bargaining Units

7.

Authorize Purchase and Installation of Video Projector for AQMD's Auditorium

8.

Execute Contract for Travel Agency Services

9.

Appropriate Funds and Amend Litigation Services Contract

10.

Execute Purchase Orders for Laboratory and Air Monitoring Network Equipment

11.

Award Contracts for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis Assistance

12.

Approve Additional Contracts for Diesel Particulate Trap Retrofit and Alternative Fuels Transit Bus Projects as Part of FY 2001-02 AB 2766 Discretionary Fund Work Program; Grant MSRC Authority to Adjust Project Costs Up to 5%; and Authority to Execute Agreements

13.

Public Affairs Report

14.

Hearing Board Report

15.

Civil Filing and Civil Penalties Report

16.

Lead Agency Projects and Environmental Documents Received by the AQMD

17.

Rule and Control Measure Forecast

18.

Annual Audit Report for Area Source Credit Rule 2506

19.

This item has been withdrawn by staff.

20.

Report on Emission Limits for Rule 1189 - Emissions from Hydrogen Plant Process Vents

21.

Status Report on Major Projects for Information Management Scheduled to Start During Last Six Months of FY 2001-02

22.

Report of RFPs and RFQs Scheduled for Release in June

23.

CARB's Subvention Program Audit of AQMD for FY 2000-01

24.

Best Available Control Technology Guidelines Report

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 24 AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 02-16, AMENDING (1) AQMD�S SALARY RESOLUTION FOR NONCONTRACT MANAGEMENT, CONFIDENTIAL AND ATTORNEY CLASSES EFFECTIVE JULY 8, 2002, (2) ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 115.1, AND (3) ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 457; AND RESOLUTION NO. 02-17, AMENDING AQMD�S SALARY RESOLUTION, SECTION 16 REGARDING OFFICE, CLERICAL & MAINTENANCE AND TECHNICAL & ENFORCEMENT BARGAINING UNITS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

25.

There were no items deferred from the consent calendar.

26.

Administrative Committee

27.

Investment Oversight Committee

28.

Legislative Committee

29.

Mobile Source Committee

30.

Stationary Source Committee

31.

Technology Committee

32.

Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee

33.

California Air Resources Board Monthly Report
(No Written Material - Transcripts of the meetings are available at CARB's web site, www.arb.ca.gov.)

34.

California Fuel Cell Partnership Steering Team Meeting

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY
DR. WILSON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 26 THROUGH 34 AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:

AB 2127 (Matthews) � Asthma and Lung Disease
Research Fund                                              SUPPORT

AB 2332 (Keeley) � Indoor Air Quality         SUPPORT

AB 2461 (Keeley) � Low-Emission Vehicles SUPPORT with
                                                                     AMENDMENT

AB 2774 (Pavley) � Advanced Technology Light-Duty Vehicles
                                                                                            SUPPORT

35.

Approve Advanced Air Pollution Research Plan for FYs 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05

Henry Hogo, Assistant DEO of Science & Technology Advancement, gave a brief presentation highlighting the research plan proposed as part of Initiative No. 5 - Strategic Alliance for Advanced Air Pollution Research of the Chairman�s Strategic Alliance Initiatives. Staff distributed to Board members, and made available to the public, copies of an errata sheet containing the following corrections to the Draft Research Plan:

• Title of Proposed Project G-20 in Table 3-1: "Develop Low-Cost Pollutant Sensor Technology for Small Emissions Sources Improved Methods for Measurement of Particulate Matter from Combustion Sources."

• Second line in the first paragraph on page 3-8 of the Plan: "� Advancement Update with the remaining $1.12 1.81M from the AQMD�s fiscal budget.
  (This is �"

Ms. Carney suggested that, in any reports back to the Board on the results of the research, staff should include how this research coincides with similar research being done by others.

Dr. Wallerstein recommended that staff make periodic reports to the appropriate Board committees that have oversight on the projects, and that way the full Board would receive reports by way of the committee meeting Minutes.

In response to Mr. Paulitz, Dr. Wallerstein explained that the research conducted as part of TAO�s annual plan pursuant to state law will be discussed in the proposed Research Plan and there will be linkages between those efforts and the other efforts occurring outside of TAO within the agency.

ON MOTION OF MS. CARNEY, SECONDED BY
MR. PAULITZ, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich and Bernson), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 35 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT RESEARCH PLAN:

Title of Proposed Project G-20 in Table 3-1: "Develop Low-Cost Pollutant Sensor Technology for Small Emissions Sources Improved Methods for Measurement of Particulate Matter from Combustion Sources."

Second line in the first paragraph on page 3-8 of the Plan:
"� Advancement Update with the remaining $1.12 1.81M from the AQMD�s fiscal budget. (This is �"

36.

Amend Rule 1168 - Adhesive and Sealant Applications

         Larry Bowen, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report. Staff distributed to Board members and made available to the public copies of revised VOC Limits and Effective Dates for Shoe, Luggage and Handbag Repair Adhesive, changing the effective date for the 250 grams per liter (gpl) VOC limit from 7-1-08 to 1-1-09. Dr. Wallerstein commented that representatives of the shoe repair industry addressed the Board on May 3, 2002 when the Board approved setting PAR 1168 for public hearing and they requested that the Board grant their industry a permanent exemption from Rule 1168 requirements, or an exemption until at least 2010. With the provision allowing an additional year for the shop owners to deplete their existing inventory of noncompliant adhesives, the revised effective date proposed by staff essentially grants an exemption until January 1, 2010. Staff will return to the Board with a further technology assessment before the effective date, and, if the adhesives are not at an acceptable price or will not work effectively for the industry, staff would at that point recommend further time or a permanent exemption.

         Ms. Carney indicated that although she may not have a technical conflict of interest on Rule 1168, she was uncomfortable participating in the public hearing and would, therefore, abstain both from discussion and voting on the matter.

         In response to Mr. Antonovich, staff explained that because most of the shoe repair facilities are not permitted by the AQMD, staff�s original estimation of emission reductions from this source category was based on usage information provided by those that sell or distribute some of the adhesive products. During the public workshop and consultation process, staff received input from the industry and, as a result of that, conducted a survey of the shop owners. As a result, staff included in the staff report a range of approximately 0.06 ton/day of VOC emissions reduction (based on what was reported by the product users) to approximately 0.25 ton/day (based on input from the adhesive distributors).

         Several Board members expressed concern regarding the proposed future VOC limit for the shoe repair industry because of the very small size of the businesses, the small amount of adhesive used and emission reductions at issue, and the limited resources of these businesses.

         Mr. Antonovich and Dr. Burke also expressed concern that the shoe repair segment was unknowingly swept into this adhesive rule which encompasses many different types of operations. With the proposed VOC limit effective date for the shoe repair industry being January 1, 2009, Mr. Antonovich wondered if it might be more appropriate not to implement a regulation for shoe repair adhesives until 2009 or 2010, if there has been sufficient advancement in technology by that time.

         Chairman Glover suggested that staff consider a way of reducing pressure on the shop owners, but still keep the pressure on the adhesive manufacturers to develop low-VOC products.

         Dr. Tisopulos commented that there are approximately 40 different categories under Rule 1168 and if the total emissions inventory were divided among these 40 categories, the emissions are all in the same order of magnitude. Staff�s concern was that if the AQMD exempts this particular source category, then there will be others coming forth with similar issues. Because the shoe repair shops are very small businesses, staff proposed to form a working group to assist the shoe repair industry in the transition to low-VOC adhesives and AQMD�s Technology Advancement Office would fund a project to determine the effectiveness of
low-VOC adhesives for the spectrum of substrates used by the shoe repair industry.

         Emphasizing that the entire effort relative to this rulemaking is regulatory relief, Dr. Wallerstein commented that the issue with the shoe repair industry is really a matter of policy for the Board to decide whether it wants to have a standard on the books and a reevaluation of that standard seven years from now or whether it wants to exempt this specific source category from the rule altogether. He noted that, in the past, the AQMD has had great success with placing milestones in the rules to be achieved, which have encouraged the formulators of adhesives to work with the industry and with the AQMD to develop the products.

         In response to Mr. Paulitz, staff indicated that the adhesives used in certain other categories under Rule 1168 could be used by the shoe repair industry.
Mr. Paulitz indicated that he, therefore, had no problem with exempting the shoe repair industry from Rule 1168 at this time, adopt the proposed amended rule with respect to the other categories in the rule, and when the compliant adhesives are available in 2010, regulate the shoe repair industry at that time. Mr. Silva and
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta indicated their concurrence with Mr. Paulitz�s comments.

         Expressing support for the staff proposal, Mr. Loveridge commented that the AQMD is at the point now where there are only smaller amounts of emission reductions to be gained from the sources regulated; however, those small amounts add up. Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley expressed her agreement with Mr. Loveridge and her belief that AQMD needs to nudge industry into taking action, otherwise the Board would be setting a new precedent.

         With regard to the proposed phaseout of methylene chloride based adhesives, Ms. Verdugo-Peralta asked that staff explain why it was concerned with toxics in this case, when Rule 1168 is a VOC rule and toxics are already addressed under Rule 1402. Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff had to develop amendments to the rule for shoe repair and auto trim components, and thought it would be appropriate to include this provision, which will reduce air toxics, because methylene chloride is a well-identified carcinogen and there are acceptable materials available that are both low-VOC and low-toxic to nontoxic.

MR. PAULITZ MOVED TO AMEND RULE 1168 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH A MODIFICATION TO EXEMPT THE SHOE REPAIR INDUSTRY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 1168. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. ANTONOVICH.

         The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals.

JEFF KAY, Silver Cup Shoe Repair
MR. JONG PARK, shoe repair business
*MR. KWON KI BAIK, Porto Shoe Repair
         Commented that AQMD staff did not get a true representation of the industry by visiting approximately 5 out of 600 shops in Los Angeles County and Orange County. Emphasized that they repair a variety of items � purses, luggage, jackets, pants, car covers � and it requires a variety of adhesives that have to be strong, durable, flexible, and have a drying time up to one hour and not require heat activation. The incremental costs in the staff report are not accurate and do not take into account items such as a $10,000 to $20,000 press required to repair soles with a low-VOC adhesive. These are very small businesses, usually operated by only one person, and they use very little adhesive. They have small profit margins and operate on very strict budgets; any additional costs would significantly impact their businesses. For these reasons, they believe an exemption from Rule 1168 is warranted for the shoe repair industry. (*Submitted Petition Against SCAQMD Proposed Amended Rule 1168, with numerous signatures)

FRED WALNUT and CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney at Law, representing Illinois Tool Works, TACC Adhesives Division
         Expressed disagreement with the proposed phaseout of methylene chloride adhesives, which would effectively mandate the use of water-based contact adhesives, because water-based adhesives do not work for all uses in all applications. TACC has developed compliant adhesives every time the AQMD has amended the rule and included milestones for achievement. Expressed belief that the health based concerns that staff has raised and the Board is concerned with can be addressed through the regulation of the use of methylene chloride adhesives. Rules 1401 and 1402 provide risk based limits for all facilities to meet if they hold AQMD permits. Submitted a proposal that would allow use of methylene chloride adhesives unless a facility has a AQMD permit that allows that use and has demonstrated that they can comply with either 1401 or 1402, whichever rule is applicable to their operations. (Submitted Written Comments)

         Dr. Tisopulos responded that there are acceptable adequately performing water-based adhesives available, and approximately 40 percent of industry (700 to 800 shops) have already made the conversion. With regard to the proposal by TACC, staff suspects that it gives the false expectation to the potential thousand facilities that they can obtain a permit from the AQMD and continue the use of methylene chloride. However, there are no more than a dozen facilities that may potentially be able to obtain a permit, and those with a severe limitation on the throughput. Staff would have to reject 99 percent of the permit applications because the limitation on the throughput would be so severe. Essentially, a facility using 10 gallons of adhesive per year would be exceeding Rule 1401 limitations, and businesses are not expected to survive with a 10- gallons-a year limit.

EDD PARKS, Louis and Company
         As a distributor of contact adhesives for use in high pressure laminates applications with 4,000 customers within the purview of the SCAQMD -- about 65 percent of which are very small shops -- expressed concern that additional restrictions and costs imposed on these small shops that are already in tenuous financial condition may prove to be the final straw for some of them. It will tend to make them less able to compete with shops from neighboring areas that do not have these additional restrictions, and a number of these businesses may seek to find other ways of obtaining noncompliant products.

ED HARE, Hare Enterprises
         Commented that there are high pressure laminates that can be used with water-based adhesives, but because of the additional costs involved with the drying time, heat, and so forth, it is not practical. While he expressed some reservations with the TACC proposal, he would support it as an alternative to the proposed phaseout of methylene chloride containing adhesives.

HEIDI K. McAULIFFE, National Paint & Coatings Association
         Expressed support for the proposed amendment to Rule 1168 pertaining to methylene chloride, but suggested the inclusion of a specialty category limited to the installation of headliners and dash coverings. These applications require more solvent in order to provide more "open time" for repositionability and to solubilize the polymers and resins required to provide high temperature bond strength needed for these applications. In the alternative, expressed support for the requirement that the AQMD conduct a technology assessment by 2004 to determine if effective products can be formulated at lower VOC levels. (Submitted Written Comments)

TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air
MARTHA ARGUELLO, Physicians for Social Responsibility
         Expressed support for the phaseout of methylene chloride, which is dangerous from its production to its use and disposal, as there are viable nontoxic alternatives available. Commented on the importance to public health of supporting nontoxic alternatives because industries are producing large quantities of materials that are widely distributed, as well as consideration of the health of the people that work with these highly toxic products on a daily basis.

GARY HUBBERT, Hub Marketing West
CLAUD MONRO, Cal-Panel
TODD WARREN, Westech Aersol Corp.
DAVE MAHONY, Edge Banding Services
DON LOREY, E.B. Bradley Co.
JEFF EVERITT, Rugby IPD Corporation
         Commented in support of the phaseout of methylene chloride as proposed by staff. Each have voluntarily elected not to manufacture, sell, or distribute non-methylene chloride containing adhesives. There are compliant water-based or solvent-based products that are noncarcinogenic and that will perform as well as products that contain methylene chloride in all high pressure laminate applications. Also, it is bad business strategy to sell products to their customers that could subject them to receive fines from OSHA and SCAQMD and also harm them or possibly harm their employees.

DR. KATY WOLF, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance
         Commenting in support of the phaseout of methylene chloride containing adhesives, expressed belief that it will actually reduce small businesses� costs for complying with regulations for four reasons. First, companies that are currently using methylene chloride based adhesives are opening themselves to workers compensation claims from illness as the result of exposure to methylene chloride or the future liability claims from workers who become ill at a later time. Second, many of the companies using the methyelene chloride based adhesives are in noncompliance with a stringent OSHA regulation that was passed in 1997, and OSHA has been performing enforcement inspections and levying substantial fines against companies that are in violation of the regulation. Third, virtually none of the companies using methylene chloride products have AQMD permits. They would pay lawyers and consultants to assist them in applying for the permits and attempting to comply with Rule 1401; and most of them would not get a permit. Fourth, these companies are subject to Proposition 65 and could have to pay substantial fines if they were sued for not giving the proper notification.

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

Written Comments Submitted by:
Korean Chamber of Commerce of Orange County
Korean American Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles
The Korean American Federation of Orange County
Korean American Federation of Los Angeles, Inc.
Phillips Plywood Co., Inc.

         At Chairman Glover�s request, Mr. Paulitz restated his motion. Dr. Wilson commented that the difference between staff�s proposal and Mr. Paulitz�s motion is that the proposal by Mr. Paulitz does not put pressure on the manufacturers to develop an alternative to what the shoe repair shops currently use; and he believes it is important to keep that pressure on. Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley added that under Mr. Paulitz�s motion, even if an alternative became available within the next seven years, they would not have to use it because they would have an exemption.

         Mr. Paulitz expressed his belief that by 2008 or 2009 the manufacturers will have a compliant substance because they will be working with the other adhesive users. At that time the Board could then revisit the rule and delete the exemption because of the availability of compliant adhesives. He felt it appropriate to place an exemption in the rule for the shoe repair industry at this time to eliminate the uncertainty and burden over small business owners.

THE MOTION BY MR. PAULITZ TO AMEND RULE 1168 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE MODIFICATION TO EXEMPT THE SHOE REPAIR INDUSTRY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 1168, FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:

 AYES: Burke, Antonovich, Glover, Silva, Verdugo-Peralta, Paulitz.

NOES: Loveridge, Wilson, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Mikels.

ABSTAIN: Carney.

ABSENT: Bernson.

DR. WILSON MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 36, AMENDING RULE 1138 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE REVISED VOC LIMITS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR SHOE, LUGGAGE AND HANDBAG REPAIR ADHESIVE, CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE 250 VOC LIMIT FROM 7-1-08 TO 1-1-09. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:

AYES: LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, Glover, Paulitz, and
            Wilson.

NOES: Antonovich, Burke, Silva, and Verdugo-Peralta.

ABSTAIN: Carney.

ABSENT: Bernson.

DR. BURKE MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE AGENDA ITEM NO. 36 TO THE JULY 12, 2002, FOR FURTHER BOARD DISCUSSION AND ACTION BY THE BOARD ONLY. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY
MR. MIKELS.

         Dr. Wallerstein noted that there was also an enforcement stay in effect for the automotive trim category. He recommended, if the Board was unanimous on the other provisions of the rule, to resolve the other provisions of the rule and leave the portion related to the shoe repair industry open for voting purposes only for the next Board meeting.

MR. MIKELS MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
NO. 02-18, AMENDING RULE 1168 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, EXCLUDING THE VOC LIMITS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR THE SHOE, LUGGAGE AND HANDBAG REPAIR ADHESIVE CATEGORY, AND CONTINUING THAT ISSUE TO THE JULY 12, 2002 BOARD MEETING FOR BOARD DISCUSSION AND ACTION ONLY. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. BURKE, AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: Antonovich, Burke, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge,
            Mikels, Paulitz, Silva, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: Carney.

ABSENT: Bernson.

37.

Amend Rule 1193 - Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Waste Collection Vehicles

         Henry Hogo, Assistant DEO/Science & Technology Advancement, gave the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals.

BILL SHEAFFER, Southern States Power Company, Inc.
         Recommended a broader application and coordination with AQMD staff on technology that would include natural gas as well as bio-fuel technology � technology that can equal or surpass the standards that are realized by CNG or LNG at this time. In other words, let Rule 1193 apply to the emissions, rather than the fuel source. Pointed out that, with bio-fuel, there is no conversion process required; it is simply changing the fuel. Therefore, the emission reductions are immediate and the entire fleet is burning cleaner the next day. Indicated that AQMD staff has agreed to work with them in the development and proving of this technology. (Submitted Written Comments.)

TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air, and MARTHA ARGUELLO, Physicians for Social Responsibility
         Recommended two modifications to the staff proposal. First, to amend the language defining dual fuel heavy duty vehicles under Section (c)(3) from a "dual fuel engine typically uses the alternative fuel to supply 85 percent of the total engine fuel requirements on a BTU basis". Suggested that "typically uses" be changed to "shall use" in order to ensure that at least 85 percent of alternative fuel use will be used by the engine. Second, requested that the Board direct staff to not only test the in-use emissions, but also to evaluate micro-pilot or high pressure injection systems to determine if the use of diesel fuel in these systems can be further reduced, thereby reducing further exposure to communities that are often impacted through the many trucks that are on stop and go cycles, but in particular, refuse trucks under Rule 1193. (Submitted Written Comments)

         Dr. Wallerstein responded that the intent originally of allowing these dual fuel engines was to serve as a bridge either to natural gas or to allow opportunity for this type of technology to be perfected and tested enough to show that it could provide equivalent emissions to the natural gas engines. Staff is concerned that if "typically" is changed to "shall" at this point in time and has the 85 percent specified, the engines may not qualify. Also, staff is not confident that, if the Board�s intent was to extend the sunset an additional year, that it would in fact be doing that if it were to use the word "shall." Staff does believe, however, when staff comes back to the Board in 2003 with the test data, that "typically" will need to be changed to "shall" if the AQMD is going to continue to allow the use of these engines.

         In response to Ms. Carney, Dr. Wallerstein amended the staff recommendation to include the micro-pilot and high pressure injection technologies, provided those are available and ready for testing.

LEE WALLACE, Southern California Gas Company
         Expressed support for the amendment to extend the sunset period for purposes of dual fuel waste vehicles by one year to July 2003. While the manufacturers of the dual fuel engines have made progress in demonstrating the emissions benefits for these engines, there are still questions that need to be answered before the engines should be accepted as fully compliant for Rule 1193 purposes. Expressed support also for consideration of the amendment proposed by the Coalition for Clean Air to keep the standard high for these dual fuel engines.

KEN PRETELL, Taormina Industries
         Recommended elimination of the sunset clause pertaining to purchase of dual fuel vehicles. Alternative fuel engine options are limited at best, so continuation of the dual fuel option is the only way to increase competition and flexibility, as well as help reduce incremental costs. If the sunset clause is not eliminated, it will devastate their dual fuel plans and cause harm to existing and future growth in this area.

PAUL BECK, Clean Air Partners
         Commented that they developed the dual fuel product that is being discussed, and, in response to the fleet rules, they have brought out all new products for 2002. The sunset proposals have caused many fleets who have already stepped forward, to do nothing and take a wait and see approach; extending the sunset will only continue that approach.

PAUL RYAN, California Refuse Removal Council and affiliated associations
         Commented that, since further emissions testing seems warranted, the in-use emission testing should be performed in a comprehensive side-by-side comparison between dedicated diesel refuse vehicles, dual fuel, and dedicated alternative fuel refuse vehicles.

JASON BRYCE RUSH, Ware Disposal, Inc.
         Expressed support for the amendment to Rule 1193 and believes it offers the small to mid-sized solid waste companies the necessary flexibility to comply with the rule without having to switch to dedicated fuel yet.

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

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY
MS. CARNEY, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson and Loveridge), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 02-19, AMENDING RULE 1193 AND APPROVING THE FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

38.

Submittal of Implementation Status of PM10 Portion of 1997 AQMP and PM10 Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Use

         Elaine Chang, DEO of Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, waived a formal presentation in the interest of time, and noted that the recommendation on this item is to submit the AQMD�s updated implementation schedule for the PM10 portion of the AQMP. In addition to the stated recommendation included in the board package, staff received additional language from EPA for inclusion in the Board�s action on this item. The additional language will commit the AQMD not only to update the Plan in 2003, but to also submit the updated plan to EPA. Once EPA approves the emission budgets associated with the Plan, staff will begin using the new budgets. Copies of the Addendum to Agenda Item #38 were distributed to Board members and made available to the public.

ON MOTION OF DR. BURKE, SECONDED BY
MR. ANTONOVICH, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Loveridge, Mikels, and Silva), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 02-20, DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO: 1) SUBMIT AN UPDATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE PM10 PORTION OF THE 1997 AQMP AND EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY USE TO CARB AND U.S. EPA FOR CONCURRENT REVIEW; AND 2) UPDATE THE PM10 PORTION OF THE AQMD IN 2003 INCLUDING THE EMISSIONS BUDGETS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO THE RESOLUTION:

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board requests that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approve the District�s commitment to forward to the California Air Resources Board for review and submittal to U.S. EPA as a revision to the State Implementation Plan by Spring 2003 the update to the PM10 portion of the AQMP, including revised emissions budgets using the latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board requests that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approve the emissions budgets based on the 1997 AQMP for use only until EPA finds adequate the revised budgets for the same years submitted as part of the Spring 2003 revision to the PM10 portion of the State Implementation Plan."

Dr. Burke congratulated Chairman Glover on her outstanding presentation to the Montrose Energy Conference, some of the highest level of people in energy in the world.

39.

Allocate Rule 2202 AQIP Funds to Assist in Purchase of Natural Gas Vehicles for Taxicab Services

AGENDA ITEM NO. 39 WAS, AT STAFF�S RECOMMENDATION, CONTINUED TO THE JULY 12, 2002 BOARD MEETING.

         Todd Campbell, of Coalition for Clean Air, introduced their new Clean Transportation Associate, Ms. Vandava Bali, to the Board.

         The Board recessed to closed session at 12:12 p.m., pursuant to Government Code sections:

• 54956.9(a) to confer with its counsel regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party--the action is MacDougall v. Thomas, AQMD, Los Angeles Superior Court Case
  No. GC027653; and

• 54957.6(a) to meet with labor negotiators regarding unrepresented employees [Agency designated representative: Barry Wallerstein; Unrepresented employees: Designated Deputies].

Possible Action Following Discussion in Closed Session Concerning Designated Deputy Contracts

         This item was continued to the July 12, 2002 Board meeting.

        Following closed session, Chairman Glover announced that the matters that the Board discussed in closed session that would require a report were continued to the next closed session of the Board, and the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.

        The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on June 7, 2002.

Respectfully Submitted,
 

SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk

Date Minutes Approved: ________________________

____________________________________________
                     Norma J. Glover, Chairman