BILL ANALYSIS
SB 974
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 9, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Pedro Nava, Chair
SB 974 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: May 24, 2007
SENATE VOTE : 22-12
SUMMARY : Imposes a maximum $30 fee on each shipping container
processed at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland
to fund congestion management and air quality improvement
projects related to the ports. Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes various definitions to terms as specified.
2)Makes various findings and declarations relative to the burden
imposed on the state's highway system due to the sharp
increases in "overland" traffic resulting from containers
arriving and departing from the ports; needed mitigation of
the environmental pollution that is created by the operations
at the ports; and the improvement of goods movement
infrastructure and reduction of goods movement pollution.
3)Establishes the following four funds in the State Treasury:
Southern California Port Congestion Relief Trust Fund;
Southern California Port Mitigation Relief Trust Fund;
Northern California Port Congestion Relief Trust Fund; and
Northern California Port Mitigation Relief Trust Fund.
4)Requires the Ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Oakland, by
January 1, 2008, to develop a process to notify and collect
user fees from container cargo owners. The ports must notify
the cargo owners by June 1, 2008, that a maximum $30 per
twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) user fee will be assessed.
Certain information must be provided, such as the process and
frequency of payment, and that the user fee is being assessed
to improve goods movement infrastructure serving the port, and
to reduce pollution from all forms of port-related equipment.
5)Requires the three ports to assess the $30 (not to be
exceeded) TEU user fee beginning January 1, 2009, and collect
the fee twice a year, with 50% of the fees directed to a
California Transportation Commission (CTC)-administered
congestion relief fund (to fund projects that improve the flow
SB 974
Page 2
and efficiency of container cargo) and 50% to an California
Air Resources Board (ARB)-administered mitigation fund (to
mitigate environmental pollution caused by cargo movement).
Moneys deposited in the funds cannot be loaned or transferred
to the General Fund.
6)Establishes a process, beginning January 1, 2008, for CTC to
select eligible congestion relief infrastructure projects for
funding from the Southern California and Northern California
Congestion Relief Funds, giving priority to those projects
that have been designed to measurably reduce air pollution and
environmental impacts to local communities, and assisting in
attaining state and federal air quality goals, while
addressing the overall efficiency of container cargo movement.
Emission requirements are specified for all mobile non-road
equipment used on projects.
7)Establishes a process, beginning January 1, 2008, for ARB to
select port mitigation projects for funding from the Southern
and Northern California Port Mitigation Trust Funds that
reduce air pollution caused by movement of container cargo at
the ports, and are designed to reduce air pollution at the
ports in order to reach federal air quality attainment
standards.
8)Requires the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to report to
CTC on implementation of the Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Clean
Air Action Plan, and if certain goals are not met, prohibits
CTC from awarding funding to any project until the goals are
met (other than projects awarded funding prior to this
finding).
9)Authorizes the California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank (I-Bank) to enter into financing agreements
and issue revenue bonds for the purpose of financing or
refinancing port congestion relief and mitigation projects,
and specifies parameters for doing so.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes 11 ports in the state: Humboldt Bay, Hueneme,
Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Stockton. The law
allows each port to lay out, plan, and establish a general
plan and port system improvements and prescribe the
SB 974
Page 3
specifications for such improvements.
2)Requires, pursuant to the California Coastal Act, that each
port governing body prepare and adopt a port master plan that
includes:
a) Proposed uses of land and water areas.
b) Projected design and location of port land areas, water
areas, berthing, and navigation ways and systems intended
to serve commercial traffic within the area of jurisdiction
of the port governing body.
c) An estimate of the effect of development on habitat
areas and the marine environment, a review of existing
water quality, habitat areas, and quantitative and
qualitative biological inventories and proposals to
minimize and mitigate any substantial adverse impact.
d) Adequate public hearing and public participation in port
planning and development decisions.
3)Establishes the California Marine and Intermodal
Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) and
requests it to study and compile information on the impacts of
port growth on the state's transportation system and report
its findings to the Legislature with recommendations on
methods to better manage port growth and address the
environmental impacts of moving goods through the ports.
Establishes it as a regional subunit of the Marine
Transportation System National Advisory Council chartered by
the federal Secretary of Transportation under the Federal
Advisory Council Act.
4)Requires a public agency to approve certain mitigation for
port projects involving filling of subtidal habitats within
ocean or inland ports (Harbors and Navigation Code 1720 et
seq.).
5)Establishes CTC and sets various duties and procedures for
CTC. CTC is responsible for the programming and allocating of
funds for the construction of highway, passenger rail and
transit improvements throughout California.
6)Authorizes ARB to coordinate efforts to attain and maintain
SB 974
Page 4
ambient air quality standards and specifies its powers.
7)Creates I-Bank and specifies its powers.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, start-up costs of $200,000/year to ARB from the Air
Pollution Control Fund and $100,000/year to CTC from the State
Highway Account. Ongoing costs funded by fee revenues. I-Bank
administrative costs funded through financing agreements. Fees
revenues estimated to reach $500 million in 2008/09, growing to
over $1.5 billion annually by 2020 if the projected container
volume growth continues as expected. The fees would discontinue
after the eligible projects are constructed and any revenue
bonds are paid off.
COMMENTS : Ports are local government agencies governed by port
commissions that are responsible for developing, maintaining,
and overseeing the operation of shore side facilities for the
intermodal transfer of cargo between ships, trucks, and
railroads. In some cases, certain ports
have jurisdiction over affiliated airports, build and maintain
terminals for the passenger cruise ship industry, or manage
marinas and other public facilities. Many industrial,
manufacturing, and other businesses locate their facilities near
ports to take advantage of the low-cost inbound transportation
of raw materials and cost-efficient outbound shipments of
products for both
domestic and foreign markets.
As public entities, and due to their geographical location,
ports are regulated by several state and local government
agencies, including the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency, State Resources Agency, Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, State Air Resources Board, and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
California's 11 public ports, located along the coast from San
Diego to Humboldt and inland along the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers, are the global gateways for goods movement.
Governed by "port commissions," these local government bodies
develop, maintain, and oversee the operation of shore side
facilities for the intermodal transfer of cargo between ships,
trucks, and railroads. A significant number of jobs in the
state are tied to trade, and the value of international trade
alone exceeds $350 billion. Ports are seen as integral to
SB 974
Page 5
keeping California the sixth largest economy in the world.
According to a 2006 report by ARB, pollution from our state's
ports causes 2,400 premature deaths annually. ARB recently
estimated that over the next 15 years, polluting activity from
operations at California's ports will have an aggregate health
impact equivalent to approximately $200 billion in present value
dollars.
A disproportionate number of communities impacted by port
pollution are low-income communities of color, the state
currently shoulders much of these port-caused health costs. By
2020, ports and freight transport operations will be the largest
source of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions in the state, producing more diesel PM than all
passenger vehicles, off-road equipment and stationary sources
combined.
According to the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp.,
Southern California must spend at least $10.5 billion to improve
railroads, rail yards and highways to keep up with surging
international trade or risk losing more than 500,000 new jobs
and more than $1 billion of taxes a year. Inefficiencies in the
freight transport system are costly to the state. Improving our
rail system will reduce the number of diesel trucks on our
freeways and alleviate congestion. For example, "on-dock rail"
is a less polluting and more efficient alternative to trucking
goods on our freeways. Congestion costs Southern California
more than $10 billion in 2003.
Southern California risks losing $12.1 billion in federal
highway funds if federal Clean Air Act standards aren't met. So
far, the basin has failed to meet national standards for ozone
or for particulate emissions.
Trade activity loss/diversion?: The results from two research
studies examining the potential for diversion expressly due to
container fees suggest that significant diversion is unlikely
with a $30/TEU container fee. A study commissioned by the
Southern California Association of Governments between 2003 and
2005 found that cargo volumes are more sensitive to congestion
than to cargo fees. Without congestion relief, the study found
that even a modest container fee would result in the diversion
of some cargo. With congestion relief, however, volume cargos
would remain constant with a container fee up to $200/TEU. A
SB 974
Page 6
study titled "Cargo on the Move in California: Evaluating
Container Fee Impacts on Port Choice" conducted by Energy and
Environmental Research Associates LLC found that a $30/TEU fee
at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would increase a
shipper's voyage costs 1.5% to 2.5%, but given the high demand
for those ports, diversion is estimated to be less than 1.5%.
The same fee imposed at the Port of Oakland would increase
voyage costs 1.5% to 2.7%, and diversion is estimated to range
from 2% to 4.7%. Given that trade activity at the ports is
expected to double or triple by 2020, the authors conclude that
any diversion that occurs as a result of a $30/TEU container fee
would be rendered "unobservable."
Fee and commerce clause issue: Due to concerns that the SB 974
user fee is a tax, Legislative Counsel concludes that "it is our
opinion that a court faced with the question would find that the
charge proposed under Section 1745 is a valid regulatory fee
imposed under the police power of the state, as long as the
amount of the charge assessed does not exceed the reasonable
cost of providing the services described, and that amount bears
a reasonable relationship to the burdens created by the marine
terminal operators."
Regarding the commerce clause issue, Legislative Counsel
concludes that "there is not federal legislation relating to the
subjects addressed under [Section 1745]. Thus, it is our view
that, generally, the state may legislate in this area" and that
"we conclude that the charge proposed under Section 1745 would
survive scrutiny under the commerce clause of the United States
Constitution as a legitimate regulatory fee imposed under the
police power of the state."
Port of Oakland: The Port of Oakland proposes several
amendments that basically would allow them to control the funds,
since they are locally-collected, instead of statewide
authorities as identified in the bill.
Port of Long Beach: The Port of Long Beach voted to support
this bill provided the bill is amended as follows:
1)Require that user fees must be spent where collected.
2)Allow the use of user fee funds for port-related highway
projects, such as the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement
project and the State Highway 47 project.
SB 974
Page 7
3)Eliminate restrictions placed upon the port if emission
reduction goals are not achieved due to circumstances beyond
their reasonable control.
San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan: Approved by the
governing boards of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach on
November 20, 2006, the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan
is "the most comprehensive strategy to cut air pollution and
reduce health risks ever produced for a global seaport complex."
Additionally, port staff were directed to develop: A truck
replacement program to phase out all "dirty" diesel trucks from
the ports in five years, replaced with a new generation of clean
or retrofitted vehicles and driven by people who earn at least
the prevailing wage; aggressive milestones with measurable goals
for air quality improvements; recommendations to eliminate
emissions of ultra-fine particulates; a technology advancement
program to reduce green house gases; and a public participation
process with environmental organizations and the business
communities.
CALMITSAC: AB 2043 (Lowenthal) Chapter 942, Statutes of 2004,
requires CALMITSAC to hold public hearings, compile
comprehensive data on port-related issues, and report to the
Legislature on its findings. The report was released on May 1,
2007. The report indicates that "The bond initiative alone
won't solve California's goods movement problems however. Other
solutions are needed. The shipping industry strongly opposes
legislatively imposed container fees and Customs carve-outs.
CALMITSAC opposes both in this report. This does not mean that
industry arbitrarily opposes all user fees; but there should be
a clear distinction between a legislatively imposed fee and a
negotiated fee for projects that benefit the industry.
Project-specific revenue streams for focused, well-managed
projects can be protected for the benefit of bondholders and
users alike. Specific plans of finance must be developed around
a limited set of high-priority projects; i.e., future success
stories, that all stakeholders agree are absolutely essential,
as opposed to mandating user fees through legislation."
Opposition: Tax opposition agencies contended that this bill
really imposes a new tax and that taxes called fees are an
end-run around the Constitution. They believe that the tax/fee
should require a two-thirds vote for approval and imposition.
These opponents also cite general opposition to majority-vote
SB 974
Page 8
taxes disguised as fees and that such charges damage future
economic growth in the state. They believe the new fees will
increase the costs of goods and services and place a drag on the
economy.
The Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce says that its 1100 local
businesses are joining to ask California legislators to vote
against California SB 974. Hawaii is dependent on goods being
shipped there from California. The chamber and Hawaii shippers
estimate that the fee would cost businesses $68 million dollars
a year, or $50 for every man, woman and child in Hawaii.
Committee questions: This bill places an unequal burden upon
the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles that is not concurrently
placed upon the Port of Oakland regarding the withholding of
locally-collected funds in the event emission reduction goals as
identified in existing regional and local emission reduction
plans are not met. As the San Pedro ports have developed a
voluntary port air emission reduction plan, to have their
locally-generated funds withheld from allocation to them, should
identified goals not be met, does not seem justifiable,
especially when considering that the Port of Oakland is not held
to the same funding requirement and that emission increases
could be attributed to sources beyond their control. The author
may wish to speak to this conditioned inequity that is placed
upon the southern ports and not Oakland.
Related legislation: SB 927 (Lowenthal) and SB 760 (Lowenthal)
2006, would have imposed a fee on containers that are discharged
at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in order to fund rail
system improvements, pollution mitigation measures, and port
security enhancements. SB 760 was held under submission by the
Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 927 was vetoed by the
Governor indicating that "this measure is flawed in its
construction, application, lack of accountability and failure to
coordinate with other public and private financing sources
ignoring opportunities to leverage additional funding."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Alameda Corridor-East |Gateway Chamber Alliance |
SB 974
Page 9
|Construction Authority |Gateway Council of Governments |
|American Academy of Pediatrics, |(27 cities) |
|California Division |Interfaith Environmental |
|American Cancer Society |Council |
|American Heart Association |Lakewood Chamber of Commerce |
|American Lung Association of |Long Beach Alliance for |
|California |Children with Asthma |
|Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles |Long Beach Unified School |
|County |District |
|Bay Area Air Quality Management |Los Angeles Alliance for a New |
|District |Economy |
|Breast Cancer Fund |Los Angeles County Metropolitan |
|Breathe California |Transportation Authority |
|California Air Pollution |Mayor, Todd Campbell, City of |
|Control Officers Association |Burbank |
|California League of |Mayor, Curt Pringle, City of |
|Conservation Voters |Anaheim |
|California Natural Gas Vehicle |Medical Advocates for Healthy |
|Coalition |Air |
|California Nurses Association |Natural Resources Defense |
|California Teamsters |Council |
|California Thoracic Society |Parents for a Safer Environment |
|Cerritos Chamber of Commerce |Parents for Safer Schools |
|City of Burbank |Physicians for Social |
|City of Cudahy |Responsibility |
|City of Downey |Planning and Conservation |
|City of Lakewood |League |
|City of Long Beach |Plug In America |
|City of Commerce |Port of Long Beach (support |
|City of Signal Hill |only if amended) |
|City of South Gate |Progressive Christians Uniting |
|Coalition for Clean Air |Regional Asthma Management & |
|Coalition for A Safe |Prevention Initiative |
|Environment |San Gabriel Valley Council of |
|Coalition on the Environment |Governments |
|and Jewish Life |San Gabriel Valley Economic |
|of Southern California |Partnership |
|Communities for Clean Ports |Santa Barbara County Air |
|Community Action to Fight |Pollution Control District |
|Asthma |San Francisco Medical Society |
|Consumer Attorneys of |SEIU Local 721 (85,000 members) |
|California |Sierra Club California |
|Downey Chamber of Commerce |South Coast Air Quality |
|East Yard Communities for |Management District |
|Environmental Justice |South Bay Cities Council of |
SB 974
Page 10
|Elizabeth Hudson Elementary |Governments |
|School - |Strategic Concepts in |
|Environmental Committee |Organizing & Policy Education |
|Environmental Entrepreneurs |South Gate Chamber of Commerce |
|End Oil |Union of Concerned Scientists |
|Environment California |West Long Beach Association |
|Environmental Defense |West Oakland Environmental |
|Friends of the Earth |Indicators |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Abercrombie and Fitch |California Retailers |
|ACG Cotton Marketing LLC |Association |
|Ag Processing, Inc. |California Seed Association |
|Agricultural Council of |California Taxpayers |
|California |Association |
|Agriculture Transportation |California Trade Coalition |
|Coalition |California Trucking Association |
|Allenberg Cotton Co. |California Warehouse |
|Allen Group |Association |
|Aloha Airlines |Carriere Family Farms |
|American Apparel and Footwear |Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaii, |
|Association |Inc. |
|American Chemistry Council |Casual Male Retail Group, Inc. |
|American Cotton Shippers |Central Pacific Bank |
|Association |Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii |
|American Council for Food |Charming Shoppes, Inc. |
|Safety and Quality |Circuit City |
|American Eagle Outfitters Inc. |Coalition Opposed to SB 974 |
|American Electronics |Coca-Cola Bottling Company of |
|Association |California |
|American Foods Group |Coca-Coal Bottling Co. of |
|American Forest and Paper |Southern CA |
|Association |Colorado Food Products |
|American Import Shippers |Columbine Vineyards of Delano, |
|Association |CA |
|Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. |Corona Chamber of Commerce |
|Anzco Foods North American, |Crain Walnut Shelling, Inc. |
|Inc. |Crate & Barrel |
|APL |CTP Transport, Inc. |
SB 974
Page 11
|Association of International |Dairy America, Inc. |
|Automobile Manufacturers |Del Monte Foods |
|Association of Recycling |Derco Associates, Inc. |
|Industries |Diamond Foods, Inc. |
|Badger Forest Products |Distilled Spirits Council |
|Bank of Hawaii |Dole Food Company, Inc. |
|Beall's, Inc. |Dressbarn, Inc. |
|Belk, Inc. |Duncan and Sons Lines, Inc. |
|Best Buy |DVN Louis Dreyfus Corporation |
|Blue Diamond Growers |E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. |
|Bonanza Foods and Provisions, |ECOM USA, Inc. |
|Inc. |Edwards Luggage |
|Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. |EFI Logistics, Inc. |
|Border Valley Trading LTD |Ethan Allan Global, Inc. |
|Borders Group, Inc. |First Hawaiian Bank |
|Borges of California |Food Marketing Institute |
|Boscov's Department Stores, |Gap Inc. |
|LLC. |Grain Millers, Inc. |
|Braun Export |Greater Bakersfield Chamber of |
|Burger King, Inc. |Commerce |
|CA Commodity Export Corporation |Grocery Manufacturers/Food |
|Calcot LTC |Products Association |
|California Bean Shippers |Harland M. Braun and Company |
|Association |Hawaii Island Chamber of |
|California Business Properties |Commerce |
|Association |Hawaii Korean Chamber of |
|California Cattlemen's |Commerce |
|Association |Hawaii Tourism Authority |
|California Chamber of Commerce |Hedley Construction and |
|California Citrus Mutual |Development |
|California Cotton Ginners and |Heineken USA, Inc. |
|Growers Association |Hewlett-Packard Company |
|California Farm Bureau |Home Depot |
|Federation |Howard Jarvis Taxpayers |
|California Fisheries and |Association |
|Seafood Institute |Institute of Scrap Recycling |
|California Grain and Feed |Industries |
|Association |Intel Corporation |
|California Grape and Tree Fruit |JC Penny |
|League |Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores |
|California Grocers Association |Jockey International |
|California Independent Grocers |Kailua Chamber of Commerce |
|Association |Kohl's Corporation |
|California League of Food |Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of |
|Processors |Commerce |
SB 974
Page 12
|California Manufacturers & |Leading Lady |
|Technology Association | |
|California Metals Coalition | |
|California Nevada Soft Drink | |
|Association | |
|California Railroad Industry | |
|California Restaurant | |
|Association | |
|California Taxpayers' | |
|Association | |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Levi Strauss & Co. |Refuse Removal Council |
|Limited Brands, Inc. |Rekerdres and Sons Insurance |
|Limtiaco Company |Retail Industry Leaders |
|Linens-N-Things |Association |
|Liz Claiborne Inc. |Retail Merchants of Hawaii |
|Long Beach Area Chamber of |Rite-Aid |
|Commerce |Rocky Brands, Inc. |
|Lowes |Safeway, Inc. |
|Macy's/Macy's West |SAMPCO, Inc. |
|Mallory Alexander International |San Rafael Luggage Center |
|Logistics |Seaboard Foods LP |
|Mathiesen Maritime Services, |Securakey |
|Inc. |Seven-Eleven |
|Matson Navigation Company |Smurfit-Stone Container Company |
|Maurice's, Inc. |Sonnet Technologies |
|Mazda North American Operations |Southlands Organic Ltd |
|Meat Importers Council of |Southwest California |
|America |Legislative Council |
|Meridian Nut Growers LLC |Southwest Hide Company |
|Michaels Arts and Crafts |Specialty Crop Trade Council |
|Midwest Shippers Association |Spencer Gifts LLC |
|Miller Brewing Company |Spirit Halloween Superstores |
|Milpitas Chamber of Commerce |Sporting Goods Manufacturers |
|Mohawk Industries |Association |
|Murphy Imports, LLC |SSA Marine |
|Murrieta Chamber of Commerce |Starboard Alliance Company |
|NAIOP Inland Empire |Stop Hidden Taxes Coalition |
|NAIOP SoCal |Sunview Marketing International |
|National Association of |Target |
|Industrial and Office |Temecula Valley Chamber of |
|Properties - CA State Council |Commerce |
SB 974
Page 13
|National Association of |The Kitchen Collection, Inc. |
|Manufacturers |The Refrigerated Shipping |
|National Chicken Council |Association |
|National Coffee Association |TJX Companies, Inc. |
|National Federation of |Toy Association of Southern |
|Independent Business |California |
|National Industrial |Toy Industry Association, Inc. |
|Transportation League |Transgroup Worldwide Logistics |
|National Retail Federation |Travel Goods Association |
|National Turkey Federation |U.S. Association of Importers |
|Natural & Organic Imports |of Textiles & Apparel |
|Neiman Marcus |U.S. Chamber of Commerce |
|New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. |United Chambers of Commerce of |
|Newell Rubbermaid Inc. |the San Fernando Valley |
|Nike, Inc. |United Laundry Services, Inc. |
|Nisei Farmers League |United States Council for |
|North Dakota Department of |International Business |
|Agriculture |U.S. Dairy Export Council |
|Office Depot |USA Poultry & Egg Export |
|OZ Logistics Inc. |Council |
|Pacific Coast Council of |Valley Industry and Commerce |
|Customs Brokers & Freight |Association |
|Forwarders |Vergel N. Adonis Realty Inc. |
|Pacific Egg and Poultry |VF Outdoor, Inc. |
|Association |Voit Development Company |
|Pacific Merchant Shipping |Walgreens |
|Association |Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
|Panasonic Corporation of North |Washington State Potato |
|America |Commission |
|Payless Shoe source |Waterfront Coalition |
|Perry Ellis International |Weil Brothers Cotton, Inc. |
|Pier 1 Imports |Western Cotton Shippers |
|Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation |Association |
|Preferred Freezer Services |Western Growers |
|Ralphs Grocery Company |Western Home Furnishings |
|Red Wing Shoe Company |Association |
|Redondo Beach Chamber of |Western United Dairymen |
|Commerce |Wilson Homecare |
|Regional Legislative Alliance - |Wine Institute |
|Venture/Santa Bara |World Sake Imports |
|Counties |WS Badcock Corp, DBA Badcock |
| |Home Furnishings |
| | and More |
| | |
| | |
SB 974
Page 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093