94-12-1

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

The staff presented a short report on the status of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions approved by the Board at the November 15, 1994 hearing. After the hearing, staff assembled and delivered the SIP to U.S. EPA in time to meet the federal Clean Air Act deadline.

Two of the missing local elements are in the process of being completed. The Kern Desert Ozone Plan was adopted by the District Board on December 1st with no changes, and is being submitted to U.S. EPA. The Sacramento Regional Ozone Attainment Plan has been adopted by two of the five district boards, with minor revisions. The other three district boards are scheduled to act by December 15th. Staff anticipates being able to submit the final plan to U.S. EPA shortly thereafter. Staff will continue to work with the districts in the Sacramento region to address concerns over the impacts of the associated "bump-up" to a severe classification.

ORAL TESTIMONY:  None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:  None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  EO/OAQTP

STAFF REPORT:  No

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

The staff presented an update on vehicle manufacturers' progress towards meeting second generation on-board diagnostic requirements known as OBD II. The OBD II regulation was originally adopted in 1989. Under the direction of the Board, the staff has closely followed OBD II development efforts and has reported to the Board on a regular basis to address implementation concerns and to propose modifications to help ensure the effectiveness of the requirements.

The staff reported that more than 35 engine families have already been certified to meet the OBD II requirements; however, manufacturers have continued to express some concerns about OBD II implementation.

In response to such concerns, the staff proposed amendments to the OBD II requirements for catalyst monitoring and misfire detection, among others. The amendments address manufacturers' immediate implementation issues while maintaining, overall, the usefulness of OBD II systems in reducing in-use emissions from malfunctioning vehicles. The staff also proposed amendments to improve the effectiveness of evaporative system leak detection strategies, and to ensure that OBD II systems will be resistant to tampering.

After hearing the testimony, the Board adopted the staff's proposals with three minor modifications:

- With respect to the catalyst monitoring amendments, the staff proposed a
   malfunction criteria that is based on 1.5 times vehicle hydrocarbon standards.
   In response to lead time concerns, a phase-in period was proposed in
   conjunction with the malfunction criteria, and less stringent interim malfunction
   criteria are specified for vehicles not meeting the phase-in percentages. The
   staff originally proposed phase-in percentages of 40 percent in 1998,
   70 percent in 1999, and 100 percent with the 2000 model year. The Board
   modified the 1998 and 1999 model year percentages to 30 and 60 percent,
   respectively.

- Regarding evaporative system leak detection, the staff proposed an amendment
   that would require the detection of leaks as small as a as a 0.040 inch diameter
   hole). The Board adopted the amendment; however, the phase-in for the new
   requirement was delayed until the 2000 model year. The Board indicated that
   the implementation date could be moved up at a future Board hearing should it
   be determined that earlier compliance is achievable.

- The Board also modified the staff's proposal with respect to components and
   systems that have a relatively small impact on emissions when malfunctioning.
   The Board decided that such components should be monitored and the
   Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) should be illuminated if the impact on
   emissions is greater than 15 percent of the vehicle's standards. However, if
   emissions are affected by less than 15 percent of the standards, only a fault
   code needs to be stored (i.e., the MIL does not have to be illuminated).

The Board directed staff to continue following manufacturers' progress towards meeting the OBD II regulation, and to continue discussion regarding the OBD II tamper resistance requirements and vehicle reprogramming concerns. Should modifications be necessary based on these efforts, the staff was directed to report back to the Board with proposed amendments to address outstanding issues.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Barbara Wendling                                 American Automobile Mfr. Association

John Trajnowski                                    Ford

David H. Ferris                                      General Motors

Norman Nishikubo                                 Chrysler Corp.

Mark Stepper                                         Cummins

Michael Jay Grossman                            Lamborghini

John Russell Deane III                            Specialty Equipment Market
                                                              Association

Paul T. Haluza                                        Motor & Equipment Mfr. Association

Aaron M. Lowe                                     Automotive Parts & Accessories
                                                              Association

Jack Heyler                                            California Automotive Service

Chris Weaver                                         Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 94-67 by a vote of 6-2.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  MSD

STAFF REPORT:  Yes (112 pages)

ARB staff proposed an amendment to the M100 (100% methanol) motor vehicle fuel specifications which would allow fuel suppliers to sell a motor vehicle fuel that does not meet the luminosity requirement to vehicles which are equipped with some type of on-board fire suppression or luminosity enhancing system.

The current regulation, adopted in 1992, contains a flame luminosity requirement because the fuel burns without a readily visible flame under maximum daylight conditions. At the time of the original hearing, the Board delayed compliance of the luminosity requirement because an additive had not yet been identified which could meet the luminosity requirement while maintaining the low emissions performance of M100. For this reason, the deadline for compliance was delayed until January 1, 1995.

To date, staff have been unable to identify a luminosity agent that does not increase emissions. There are, however, several hundred M100 vehicles in California which would have to cease operations on January 1, 1995 because of the current luminosity requirement. Therefore, staff proposed an interim solution which would allow these vehicles to continue operating. Staff proposed that a non-complying fuel (e.g., a fuel that does not meet the luminosity requirement) could be sold or supplied as long as it could be demonstrated that the vehicle on which it would be used was equipped with some type of automatic fire suppression equipment or luminosity-enhancing system. All but four of the vehicles currently in operation in California are already equipped with fire suppression systems.

The Board adopted staff's proposal and directed staff to conduct a thorough risk assessment of M100 motor vehicle fuel and report their findings to the Board as soon as possible.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Glyn Short, Ph.D.                                  American Methanol Institute

Dan Fong                                              California Energy Commission

Paul Wuebben                                       South Coast AQMD

Timothy Taylor                                      Sacramento Metro AQMD

George Karbowski                                Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit
                                                             Authority

James E. Schroeder                               Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Christopher Colucci                               National Renewable Energy Laboratory

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 94-68 by a vote of 7-0.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  MSD

STAFF REPORT:  Yes (7 pages)