State of California

Summary of Board Meeting
November 21, 1996

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

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



Public Meeting to Consider the Status of Implementation of the Low-Emission Vehicle Program


In September, 1990, the ARB adopted the Low-Emission Vehicle and Clean Fuels regulations. These regulations require automobile manufacturers to introduce progressively cleaner light- and medium-duty vehicles with more durable emission controls. Because of the long-term nature and technological challenges that the Low-Emission Vehicle regulations present, the ARB directed staff to update the Board at least biennially on the status of implementation of the regulations and to propose any appropriate modifications. This was the fourth Low-Emission Vehicle program review.

In assessing the status of implementation of the program, staff reviewed the available information and conducted discussions with individual vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers regarding the vehicle technologies likely to be implemented and their associated costs.

Since initial adoption of the Low-Emission Vehicle regulations in 1990, significant progress has been made toward compliance with the new emission standards. The technologies for meeting the transitional low-emission vehicle (TLEV), low-emission vehicle (LEV), and ultra-low-emission vehicle (ULEV) standards are developing on schedule. TLEVs were first introduced in 1993 and now comprise over 25% of new 1996 model year vehicles. 1996 also marked the introduction of the first gasoline powered LEV. More LEVs will be introduced in 1997. Many of the basic emission control approaches incorporated by these low-emission vehicles remain similar to those being used on vehicles that meet less stringent standards. The most significant improvements have been to traditional catalysts, which now warm up very rapidly and are substantially more durable than past technology, and to fuel control, which is much more precise and accurate than previous systems. Although some of the more difficult to control vehicles may need additional advanced emission control technologies to meet the stringent ULEV requirements, it is projected that the lead time available will allow manufacturers to successfully develop and implement new technologies on schedule.

The cost-effectiveness of TLEVs, LEVs, and ULEVs is estimated to be less than $1.00 per pound of emissions reduced. Overall, the Low-Emission vehicle program is on track, and no changes to the schedule or standards are necessary at this time.

Automakers have responded well to the additional flexibility offered by the modified ZEV program. Three automakers have indicated plans to introduce EVs prior to 1998. Also, it is apparent that automakers will offer battery/vehicle combinations distinct from other automakers, each with its own selling points . This indicates a highly competitive approach to the EV market that is necessary for technology and market growth.


Steven Douglas                                  American Automobile Manufacturers
                                                          Association (AAMA)

Bruce Bertelsen                                  Manufacturers of Emission Controls
                                                          Association (MECA)

Janet Hathaway                                  National Resource Defense Council



STAFF REPORT:  Yes (33 pages)

96-9-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standards


Health and Safety Code (H&SC) section 39608 requires the Board 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 1993 through 1995. Based on these data, the Board adopted the staff s recommendations of the following amendments to the area designation regulations:

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

     Redesignate the following as attainment for carbon monoxide:  Tuolumne
     County in the Mountain Counties Air Basin; Butte County (in its entirety),
     Placer County and Sacramento County (in their entirety) in the Sacramento
     Valley Air Basin; and a portion of Placer County in the  Lake Tahoe Air Basin.

     Redesignate the portion of El Dorado County in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin as
     nonattainment-transitional for carbon monoxide.

     Redesignate Calaveras County in the Mountain Counties Air Basin as
     nonattainment for PM10.

     Redesignate the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin as attainment for sulfates.

In addition to these amendments based on new data, the Board adopted the staff recommendations to amend the area designation regulations to reflect two new air basins. Last May, the Board approved regulations that divide the former Southeast Desert Air Basin into two new air basins: the Mojave Desert Air Basin and the Salton Sea Air Basin. Designations of these areas were modified to conform with the new air basin.


Lakhmir Grewal                                       Calaveras Co. APCD


Approved Resolution 96-55 by a unanimous vote.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (206 pages)

96-9-3 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Assessment of the Impacts of Transported Pollutants on Ozone Concentrations in California


Health and Safety Code Section 39610, requires the Air Resources Board to: assess transport between air basins or regions using characterizations of overwhelming, significant, or inconsequential; to establish mitigation requirements for identified upwind areas commensurate with their level of contribution; and to update the analysis at least once every three years. The staff's proposal represented the second triennial update.

Several transport working groups were established subsequent to the 1993 triennial update, as directed by the Board; the staff worked with these groups to develop its proposal. A public meeting was also held to seek the input of interested parties.

The staff's proposal included assessments of established ozone transport couples for the purpose of keeping the assessments current, based on more recent data. It also included new transport couples based upon new data or to conform with recently formed air basins. The following changes to the transport assessments were proposed and approved by the Board.

- Due to the splitting of the Southeast Desert Air Basin into the Mojave Desert
   and Salton Sea Air Basins, amend the ozone transport couple identifications
   and the transport mitigation to conform to the new air basins. The new couples
   would be the South Coast Air Basin to the Mojave Desert Air Basin
   (overwhelming and significant), the South Coast Air Basin to the Salton Sea
   Air Basin (overwhelming and significant), the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to
   the Mojave Desert Air Basin (overwhelming), and Mexico to the Salton Sea
   Air Basin (overwhelming and significant).

- Identify the San Joaquin Valley to the North Central Coast Air Basin as a
   new transport couple, with a transport characterization of significant.

- Eliminate the inconsequential transport classification from the Broader
   Sacramento Area to the Upper Sacramento Valley, leaving overwhelming
   and significant characterizations.

- Extend the area impacted by overwhelming transport of ozone or ozone
   precursors from the Broader Sacramento Area to include the central portion
   of the Mountain Counties Air Basin.


Eldon Heaston                                           Mojave Desert AQMD

Gene Kulesza                                            Riverside Cement Company


Approved resolution 96-56 by a unanimous vote.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (190 pages)

96-9-4 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a New Test Method for the Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products; and The Adoption of Amendments to the Test Method Sections of the California Regulations for Reducing VOC Emissions from Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products


The staff proposed that the Test Method Sections of the Antiperspirant and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products regulations be amended to reference Method 310, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products. Method 310 will be used to determine compliance with the applicable VOC standards established for each product category.
Method 310 unifies the existing test procedures and new procedures, defines the method precision and establishes a "step-by-step process" describing how the analytical results will be used for determining compliance with the regulations. In response to public comments, the staff agreed to include the "step by step process" of the method into the regulations and to add language in the resolution stating that the staff will report to the Board in six months and annually thereafter for a minimum of three years on the implementation of Method 310.


Laurie Nelson                                  Chemical Specialties Manufacturers

Michelle Stephens                            The Dial Corporation

Robin Gentz                                     The Clorox Co.


Approved Resolution 96-57 by a unanimous vote.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (33 pages)

96-9-5 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Amendments to the California Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products


When the consumer products regulation was adopted, the Board recognized that the future effective standards may present formulation challenges for manufacturers. The Board therefore directed staff to assess the industry's progress in meeting the standards and to periodically report back to the Board.

In response to this directive, the staff presented a technical assessment for the four product categories with January 1, 1997, effective dates. For three of these categories - fabric protectants, aerosol dusting aids, and automotive brake cleaners - staff concluded that most manufacturers have already developed or are developing complying products to meet the January 1, 1997, VOC standards on time. Therefore, the staff recommended that no change be made to those standards. For the fourth category, aerosol adhesives, staff concluded that additional time is needed to meet the January 1, 1997, 25 percent VOC standard. Staff proposed to postpone the effective date of the 25 percent standard from January 1, 1997, to January 1, 2002. Staff also proposed that the Board hold a public hearing by June 1, 2000, to review and consider any appropriate modifications to the 25 percent VOC standard.

After an in-depth environmental impacts assessment, staff also proposed the exemption of perchloroethylene from the VOC definition in the consumer products and aerosol coatings regulations. This follows similar action in March 1996 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to exempt perchloroethylene from their VOC definition because of this compound's low photochemical reactivity.

Staff also proposed to amend several definitions and make various other changes to the consumer products regulation in order to enhance clarity and improve enforcement. Staff also proposed an amendment specifying that the results of Method 310 (which the Board adopted as a separate item) take precedence over manufacturers' formulations records in situations where the records conflict with the test results.

Staff also proposed some additional changes to the consumer products, aerosol coatings, and antiperspirant and deodorant regulations to reflect two changes to State law as a result of Assembly Bill (AB) 1849. The VOC standard from 18 months to three years after the category's effective date. The second proposed amendment in response to AB 1849 places the authority to regulate all aerosol industrial adhesives, which was with the local districts, with the State.

Another change was proposed regarding the proposed exemption of perchloroethylene in the VOC definitions in the consumer products and aerosol coatings regulations. The staff proposed to include a requirement in the consumer products and aerosol coatings regulations requiring manufacturers of any perchloroethylene-containing consumer products to submit annual reports describing their perchloroethylene use for the next five years. The staff also proposed to conduct an assessment of the need to control perchloroethylene emissions from consumer products under the State toxic air contaminant program, and to report their findings back to the Board no later than June 1997. These amendments are intended to promote the California Environmental Protection Agency's policy of integrated pollution prevention and to address concerns regarding potential exposure of consumers to perchloroethylene from consumer products.

The Board voted to adopt all amendments proposed by the staff. The modifications presented at the hearing will be made available for public review and comment for