State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Summary of Board Meeting
November 16, 1995

Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
Sacramento, California

MEMBERS PRESENT: 
Hons. John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
Eugene A. Boston, M.D.
Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
Lynne T. Edgerton, Esq.
M. Patricia Hilligoss
John S. Lagarias, P.E.
Jack C. Parnell
Barbara Riordan
Ron Roberts
James W. Silva
Doug Vagim

AGENDA ITEM #

95-12-1

Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Criteria for Designating Areas of California as Nonattainment, Attainment, or Unclassified, Amendments to the Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Amendments to the San Joaquin Valley and Southeast Desert Air Basin Boundaries

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

The staff presented proposed amendments to three separate, but related, regulations: (1) the San Joaquin Valley and Southeast Desert Air Basin boundaries, (2) the criteria for designating areas for the State standards, and
(3) the area designations for State standards.

1.  Air Basin Boundaries

     The Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 39606(a) requires the Board
     to divide the State into air basins based on similar meteorological and
     geographic conditions, considering political boundary lines when practicable.
     The Kern County and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
     Districts (APCD) have endorsed proposals to include two areas, the Kern
     River Valley and the Cummings Valley, in the Kern County APCD. These
     areas were previously part of the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD. In
     addition, both districts requested that the Board make the same change in the
     air basin boundaries. In response to the districts' request, the ARB staff
     proposed the Board amend the Kern County portion of the air basin
     boundaries to include the Kern River Valley and the Cummings Valley within
     the area of the Southeast Desert Air Basin.

2.  Designation Criteria

     HSC section 39607(e) requires the Board to establish and periodically
     review criteria for designating areas of California as nonattainment, attainment,
     or unclassified for the State standards. As a result of this periodic review, the
     staff proposed several amendments and minor technical revisions as described
     below:

          Amend the procedures in Appendix 2 for identifying highly irregular or
          infrequent events to include the unusual concentration event, thereby
          providing a mechanism for excluding anomalous data from the area
          designation process.

          Revise Appendix 2 and sections 70303, 70303.5, 70304, and 70306
          to clarify current practices, make the language of the regulations internally
          consistent, delete obsolete or unnecessary language, and correct
          grammatical errors.

3.  Area Designations

     HSC section 39608 requires the Board to use the designation criteria to
     designate areas as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassified for the State
     standards. These area designations must be reviewed annually. In this year's
     review, the staff considered air quality data collected during 1992 through
     1994. Based on these air quality data and the proposed amendments to the
     designation criteria, the staff recommended the following amendments to the
     area designations:

          Redesignate Northern Sonoma County in the North Coast Air Basin
          as attainment for ozone.

          Redesignate Mono County in the Great Basin Valleys Air Basin as
          nonattainment for ozone.

          Redesignate Sutter County in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin as
          attainment for carbon monoxide.

          Redesignate Inyo County in the Great Basin Valleys Air Basin as
          attainment for carbon monoxide.

          Redesignate the Sacramento County Portion of the Census Bureau
          Urbanized Area in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin as
          nonattainment-transitional for carbon monoxide.

          Redesignate the City of Calexico in the Southeast Desert Air Basin as
          nonattainment for carbon monoxide.

          Redesignate the South Coast Air Basin as attainment for nitrogen
          dioxide.

The Board adopted the amendments to all three regulations, as proposed.

ORAL TESTIMONY:  None

BOARD ACTION:

Adopted Resolution 95-46 by a 10 to 0 vote.

STAFF REPORT:  Yes (199 pages)

95-12-2

Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

The staff presented to the Board proposed amendments to the California regulation requiring deposit control additives in motor vehicle gasoline. In general, the amendments clarified certification test fuels, updated the additive evaluation test methods, and clarified various definitions within the regulation.

At the board hearing, the staff recommended to delay action on the proposed amendments to the recordkeeping requirements of the regulation. Staff stated that the United States Environmental Protection Agency would be promulgating a final federal gasoline additive regulation sometime in 1996. Staff recommended that the Board wait until the federal regulation is finalized to see how it applies to California. This would help to avoid any duplication between the federal and California regulations.

To simplify the criteria for certification test fuels, staff proposed to require that certification test fuels used for vehicle tests represent the maximum properties of the gasoline formulation being requested for certification. Staff also proposed to allow certain properties of the certification test fuels to vary as much as 20 percent below the maximum properties requested for certification to account for inaccuracies in certification test fuel blending.

In addition, the staff proposed to update the referenced test procedures to be consistent with the latest American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods for evaluating port fuel injector and intake valve deposits. The updated ASTM procedures were based on the test methods referenced in the regulation and feature additional specificity and improved quality control.

Other proposed amendments were to clarify the regulation and enhance compliance, and enhance compliance, and enhance compliance, amendments to clarify ambiguous definitions within the regulation and to include additional specificity to the certification application requirements.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Steve Smith                                     Western States Petroleum Association

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

The Board approved resolution 95-47 by a 11-0 vote.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  SSD

STAFF REPORT:  Yes (45 pages)

95-12-3

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

Staff presented an oral status report regarding consumer product manufacturers' efforts to comply with the "future effective" volatile organic compound (VOC) standards established in the Phase I consumer product regulation and the Phase II amendments.

When the Board adopted the Phase I consumer product regulation in October 1990, and the amendments to the regulation, known as Phase II, in January 1992, they recognized that the eleven product categories with future effective standards represented formulation challenges to manufacturers. Because of this, the Board directed the staff to monitor the industry's progress in meeting the future effective standards and to report back to the Board on that progress.

The status report focused primarily on the four product categories with January 1, 1996, standard effective dates. The four categories are single-phase aerosol air fresheners, engine degreasers, "all other forms" (non-aerosol) glass cleaners, and nail polish removers. Staff determined that, overall, most manufacturers have already developed or are developing complying products to meet the VOC standards for the four product categories, and concluded that a variety of complying products will be available within each of the four categories for consumer use in 1996 and beyond.

A second status report will be presented in the fall of 1996 and will emphasize the industry's progress in complying with the seven product categories with future effective standards on January 1, 1997, and beyond. The seven product categories are hairsprays, automotive brake cleaners, aerosol dusting aids, fabric protectants, aerosol household adhesives, crawling bug insecticides, and personal fragrance products.

ORAL TESTIMONY:  None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:  None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  SSD

STAFF REPORT:  None

95-12-4

Public Meeting to Update the Board on the Technological Progress of Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

As part of the ongoing review of the technological progress of ZEVs, the staff conducted a series of public forums in 1995. For this item, the staff provided an informational report to update the Board on information received at the final forum in the series - the Benefits and Cost Forum held on November 8, 1995. The staff was directed by the Board to determine how information received at the final forum affects the conclusions reached from earlier forums, which were summarized and presented to the Board in October.

In the October Board Meeting, the staff reached some preliminary conclusions about the ZEV program. These include: (1) lead-acid batteries are the primary high- volume option for 1998 electric vehicles; (2) although some advanced batteries are possible in 1998, high production volumes of advanced batteries are not expected until about 2001; (3) realizing the promise of advanced batteries requires pilot production and vehicle demonstrations using advanced batteries between now and 1999; and (4) the current ZEV requirement could be more responsive to these issues.

Major stakeholders who participated in the Benefits and Cost Forum include environmental groups, physicians, automobile manufacturers, California businesses, electric utilities, government associations, petroleum industry representatives, and consumer groups. A broad range of incremental cost, air quality benefits, and cost-effectiveness estimates were provided, each driven by underlying assumptions. Assumptions which influenced various studies' conclusions include initial vehicle incremental cost estimates in the near-term, economies of scale realizations, battery types, and the expected number of EVs, among others. The economic effects of the ZEV program on the whole were interpreted to be very positive by some presenters, very negative by others, and somewhat minimal in impact by yet others.

The major automakers who presented comments indicated that they do not believe EVs will become cost-competitive within the 2003-2006 time frame. However, small EV manufacturers and some industry consultants believed that EVs could be produced at reasonable costs even in low volumes. Several individuals presented information on additional benefits and costs which they believe should be taken into consideration. Costs include health expenses related to air pollution, oil industry subsidies, and costs associated with safety hazards of gasoline vehicles and fuel transport. Benefits include reductions in air toxics, CO, PM, and CO2 attributable to EVs, reduced noise impacts, improved energy security, savings from improved utility load management, reduced lead content in gasoline vehicle batteries, and improved technologies for hybrid-electric vehicles, fuel cells, and other applications.

Many presenters stated that the air quality benefits of any alternatives to the current ZEV program must equal those expected to be achieved as a result of the program, and that many of the alternatives discussed to date are already included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The staff concluded that the Benefits and Cost Forum did not alter the staff's conclusions reached at the October Board Meeting. The staff remains convinced that the current ZEV program could be amended to be responsive to issues raised at the forums. However, the staff also concluded that there are significant long-term emission reductions associated with the ZEV program which are a critical element of the SIP, and alternatives to the existing program must offer equivalent or better air quality benefits.

In addition to the Benefits and Cost Forum update, the staff commented on several safety issues. The staff concluded that EVs have inherently safer attributes than gasoline vehicles, EV batteries used in production models will not spill acid or explode, and EV safety issues are being addressed through the development of new standards and guidelines. Furthermore, an emergency response training program for EVs is being developed and will formally begin in 1996.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Chairman directed the staff to propose ZEV program modifications to the Board. Proposed alternatives must offer equivalent or better emissions reductions. The staff is to provide a status report to the Board in December and a final proposal no later than March 1996.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

David Nunenkamp                           Assemblyman Bernie Richter

John Larrea                                      Assemblyman Mickey Conroy

M. John Grimley                               Senator Ray Haynes

Valory Brown                                   Assemblyman Steve Baldwin

Reuel Jones                                       Assemblyman Bruce Thompson

Matt Saboraria                                  Assemblyman Curt Pringle

Tom Austin                                        WSPA

Jamie Phillips                                      Planning& Conservation League

Lewis Uhler                                        National Tax Limitation Committee

Paul Knepprath                                  American Lung Assoc. of California

Steve Moss                                        M. Cubed

Joseph Caves                                     Union of Concerned Scientists

Anita Mangels                                    Californians Against Hidden Taxes

Bill Ward                                           Drivers for Highway Safety

Janet Hathaway                                  Natural Resources Defense Council

Anthony Trujillo                                  Citizen

Cecile Martin                                      California Electric Transportation
                                                           Coalition

Jerry Mader                                         Advanced Battery Task Force

Bill Van Amberg                                   CALSTART

Michael Semmens                                 Electrosource

Mike Wirsch                                         SMUD

Bonnie Holmes                                      Sierra Club

Robert Efrus                                          Advanced Lead-Acid Battery
                                                             Consortium

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:  None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  MSD

STAFF REPORT:  No

Copyright 1995