State of California Air Resources Board

State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Summary of Board Meeting
December 14, 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.
James W. Silva
Doug Vagim

AGENDA ITEM #

95-13-1

Public Meeting to Update the Board on the Status of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CaRFG) Regulation Implementation Efforts

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

This is the fourth report to the Board on the status of the California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG) implementation efforts. Status reports were also provided in June 1994, and February and September 1995.

The Board was briefed on the three major implementation efforts by the CaRFG Advisory Committee and the three subcommittees on performance, supply, and public education, and ARB and California Energy Commission (CEC) staff.

Staff informed the Board that the Performance Subcommittee had prepared findings on the CaRFG performance and compatibility test program for gasoline-powered on-road and off-road vehicles, engines, and equipment. The Performance Subcommittee's findings indicated that results from the test program found no problems associated with the use of CaRFG and that CaRFG performs as well as current gasolines.

In addition, the findings discussed results on CaRFG fuel economy from studies and testing which found that CaRFG reduced fuel economy, on average, less than one-half mile per gallon from current gasolines.

The Board was also briefed on the current status of CaRFG supply implementation efforts. CEC staff continues to work with ARB staff and the Transition Subcommittee to develop and update forecasts for CaRFG supply and demand.

The CEC currently forecasts that supply will be more than adequate to meet demand and that refiners currently have the necessary production capacity to meet an increase in demand for the near future.

The Transition Subcommittee continues work with its members and affected parties to identify potential problems and solutions as they relate to CaRFG regional and distribution issues. The Transition Subcommittee also continues to work on identifying "what if" scenarios and potential solutions to respond to any potential disruptions in supply. ARB staff will also present proposed regulations to the Board in January that provide for variance provisions as required by recent legislation.

ARB staff briefed the Board on the CaRFG public education implementation efforts. The Public Education Subcommittee and ARB staff continue to implement the CaRFG public outreach plan, which was developed in consultation with a public outreach consultant using results from a statewide public opinion survey and from the input of the CaRFG Public Education Subcommittee.

The CaRFG public outreach efforts have emphasized extensive coordination between the ARB, industry, and environmental organizations to reach key audiences in California. Briefings have taken place with representatives from automotive, medical, environmental, and business organizations, as well as legislators. Outreach products that have been developed to date include: fact sheets, a newsletter, brochures, videos, and other related outreach materials. More outreach products will be developed in the near future. ARB staff continues to develop a rapid response plan to respond to any critical implementation issues and events that could arise.

ORAL TESTIMONY: None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION: None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: SSD

STAFF REPORT: No

95-13-2

Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CaRFG) Regulations, including Amendments Regarding the Downstream Blending of Oxygenates

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

The staff presented to the Board a number of proposed amendments to the California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG) regulations. The proposed amendments will provide compliance flexibility to the gasoline producers without sacrificing any of the emission reduction benefits of the regulations. The amendments were proposed after many discussions with the gasoline producers and reflect many of the producers' suggestions.

The most significant of the proposed amendments was a proposal to allow gasoline producers who blend oxygenates into gasoline downstream from where the gasoline is produced to have compliance determined on the basis of the properties of gasoline after the oxygenates have been added. These provisions allow gasoline producers to take advantage of the beneficial properties of the oxygenates, from a compliance standpoint. Because oxygenates typically do not contain any of the chemical compounds which are regulated by the CaRFG regulations, the addition into gasoline of oxygenates reduces the concentration of the compounds that are regulated under the CaRFG regulations. This reduction is the most beneficial property of oxygenates. The proposed amendments generally follow a similar approach in the federal reformulated gasoline regulations adopted by the U.S. EPA.

The amendments pertaining to the downstream blending of oxygenates include a number of provisions to ensure that the regulations are enforceable. The amendments include notification, reporting, sampling, testing and recordkeeping requirements designed to facilitate enforcement. Also included are restrictions on the blending and transferring of non-oxygenated gasoline, and quality audit requirements for gasoline producers.

The staff also proposed a number of less significant amendments designed to fine-tune the CaRFG program and provide additional compliance flexibility. These amendments pertain to: 1) the averaging period specified in the averaging provisions for providing offsets for "high-property" gasoline, 2) changes between flat and averaging limits when using the predictive model to comply, 3) the definition of a gasoline production facility, 4) the calculation of "qualifying" gasoline volume and the counting of this volume, under the small refiner provisions, 5) the wintertime oxygenate period for San Luis Obispo, 6) the RVP period applicable to refiners during April, 1996, and 7) restrictions on the combination of oxygenated and non-oxygenated gasoline.

The Board directed the Executive Officer to make the approved amendments available to the public for a supplemental comment period of 15 days, and to then adopt the amendments with such additional modifications as may be appropriate in light of comments received, or present the regulations to the Board for further consideration, if warranted, in light of the comments.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Mike Kulakowski Texaco

Cindy Hasenjager California Renewable Fuels Council

Robert Warden Chevron

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

The Board approved resolution 95-48, with modifications, by a 8-0 vote.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: SSD

STAFF REPORT: Yes (47 pages)

95-13-3

Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the National Security Exemption for Military Tactical Vehicles and Equipment

The proposed regulations would exempt military tactical vehicles and equipment from the ARB's emission standards for on-road and off-road engines pursuant to the federal provisions for national security exemptions. In addition, a California-only exemption was proposed for those vehicles that fall within the proposed definition of military tactical vehicles and equipment as meaning "any on-road motor vehicle or off-road vehicle or equipment owned by the U.S. Department of Defense and/or the U.S. military services and used in combat, combat support, combat service support, tactical or relief operations, or training for such operations," but do not require a federal exemption in that they meet federal emission standards. This exemption from California standards is necessary for the military to maintain a uniform, combat-ready fleet worldwide. Maintaining a separate tactical fleet meeting California-only standards could seriously impair the military's logistics for deploying tactical equipment, and thus, the military's readiness for national defense. However, the U.S. Department of Defense will be required to submit to the ARB a list of all vehicles that are excluded and/or exempted and which are located in the State of California.

Currently, California's emission standards are more stringent than federal standards for some categories of vehicles and equipment which the military may use in combat and tactical operations. Without these provisions in California regulations, the military would have to comply with two different sets of requirements from the U.S. EPA and the ARB. General concern over California having different requirements than federal regulations for these types of vehicles/equipment prompted the military to request that the ARB adopt the U.S. EPA's exemption and exclusion provisions for military tactical vehicles and equipment. Consequently, the objective of this /regulatory action is to align with the U.S. EPA's national security exemption and exclusion policies.

Military tactical vehicles and equipment include weapon systems used on the battle ground, portable equipment to support logistical and combat aircraft, vehicles to transport combat and support personnel during military operations, and other military equipment weapon systems. Most of these vehicles/equipment are designed to unique military specifications, but some are commercially designed. However, all of these vehicles/equipment must be capable of being deployed and maintained worldwide, in remote harsh environments, as well as in urban locations. Also, military technicians must be able to use common technical manuals and interchangeable parts to repair the equipment at any location. Because of these unique military requirements, it was recognized that it would not be feasible to meet the federal new engine emissions standards for many tactical vehicles and equipment items that the military may deploy in time of war. Consequently, military combat or tactical vehicles such as armor and/or weaponry are excluded from the motor vehicle regulations under 40 CFR 85.1703(a).

In addition, the military tactical vehicles that do not qualify for exclusions may be granted national security exemptions by the U.S. EPA under the Clean Air Act, Section 203(b)(1), which states that any new motor vehicle or engine may be exempted for reasons of national security. Under specific guidelines, the military would be able to submit requests for exemptions to the U.S. EPA for tactical vehicles and spare engines that are not excluded, yet need to be exempted from regulations because of the unique military design. The U.S. EPA grants exemptions under the condition that new or existing tactical vehicles must comply with the emission standards in effect in the first year of procurement, or reprocurement, unless tactical vehicle mission objectives would be substantially impaired. The U.S. EPA then issues a certificate of conformity that would allow manufacturers who were awarded the contract for procurement to manufacture those vehicles, engines, or equipment. The U.S. EPA will have similar regulations and guidelines for off-road engines, as well, since the off-road heavy-duty diesel cycle engine regulations become effective in 1996, both in California and nationally.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Capt. Kathy Dodge U.S. Dept. of Defense

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 95-49 by a vote of 8-0.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: MSD

STAFF REPORT: Yes (12 pages)

95-13-4

Public Meeting to Update the Board on the Zero-Emission Vehicle Program

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

At the November Board meeting, the Board directed the staff to propose modifications to the ZEV program and to provide a status report to the Board in December and a final proposal no later than March 1996. A public workshop was held on December 6, 1995 to discuss potential modifications to the program. At this workshop, staff presented three main concepts representing different perspectives on which direction the program should assume in the future. Forty witnesses provided comments.

Concept A suggests that the mandate be eliminated and the program rely solely on performance standards and market forces to bring ZEVs to California. Concept B relies on a combination of market forces and regulatory requirements, with a commitment by the automakers to introduce increasing numbers of ZEVs starting in 1998. Concept C suggests that the mandate be maintained, however, with a slower phase-in of ZEVs than the current program and advanced technology incentives.

Staff presented these three concepts to the Board and received comments from thirty-nine witnesses. In order for the staff to have additional time to review the proposals, the Chairman directed a continuation of the Board meeting to December 21, 1995. Major stakeholders who presented comments to the Board on December 14 included representatives of legislators, the oil industry, environmental groups, automobile manufacturers, California businesses, electric utilities, battery companies, research groups, and citizens. In general, Concept A was favored by legislative and oil industry representatives; Concept B was favored by auto manufacturers; and Concept C was favored by environmental groups and electric utilities.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Tom Austin Sierra Research

Supervisor Jon Mikels South Coast AQMD

Matt Saboraria Assemblyman Curt Pringle

John Larrea Assemblyman Mickey Conroy

Reuel Jones Assemblyman Bruce Thompson

Laurie Conaty Assemblyman Bernie Richter

Ana Arakelian Assemblyman James Rogan

George A. Plescia Assemblyman Bill Morrow

John Grimley Senator Ray Haynes

Kevin Smith Senator Rob Hurtt

Ben Ovshinsky Ovonic Battery Company

Paul Knepprath American Lung Assoc. of California

Janet Hathaway Natural Resources Defense Council

Joe Caves Union of Concerned Scientists

Tim Carmichael Coalition for Clean Air

Gary A. Patton Planning& Conservation League

Ed Maschke CALPIRG

Bill Van Amberg CALSTART

Cecile Martin California Electric Transportation
Coalition

John Weber SoCal Gas

Lloyd Dixon RAND

Dave Hermance Toyota Technical Center

John Schutz Nissan R & D

Kelly Brown Ford

Paul Edison Pullam Citizen

Stephen Heckeroth Homestead Enterprises

Bruce Parmenter Citizen

Clare Bell Electric Auto Association

Chuck Olson Citizen

Peter W. Barnes Citizen

Leo Heagerty U.S. Electricar

Tom Gage AC Propulsion Inc.

William Craven Electrosource, Inc.

Jerry Cole Advanced Lead-Acid Battery
Consortium

Jim Haagen-Smit Citizen

Samuel A. Leonard General Motors

Reg Modin Chrysler Corporation

Sonia Hamel The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

V. John White Sierra Club

FORMAL BOARD ACTION: None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: MSD

STAFF REPORT: No

95-13-5

Public Meeting to Consider the Approval of a Proposed Report to the Governor and Legislature on State and Federal Air Quality Planning Processes, as Required by AB 2751 (Statutes of 1994, Chapter 189)

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

AB 2751 requires the ARB to prepare and submit a report to the Governor and Legislature, on or before December 31, 1995, to identify the following: 1) the requirements in state and federal law for the preparation and submittal of local air district plans to achieve state and federal ambient air quality standards; 2) any inconsistencies in state and federal deadlines for the preparation and submittal of plans; 3) any duplication or overlap in the state and federal planning processes and related data collection and inventory requirements; and 4) any recommendations for changes in state law to align state and federal air quality planning processes, and to reduce duplication and paperwork for air districts.

Staff presented the proposed report to the Board, addressing the above topics, with one modification. The proposed report recommended two changes to state law: 1) align the federal and state emissions inventory base years used in plans; and 2) clarify the state status report requirements so that these annual reports could also be used for federal progress reporting. Air districts disagreed with the second recommendation and preferred that this issue be addressed administratively rather than through changes to state law. This modification was made and approved by the Board.

ORAL TESTIMONY: None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 95-50, with a modification, by a vote of 8-0.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: EO/OAQTP

STAFF REPORT: Yes (7 pages)