State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Summary of Board Meeting
December 14, 1995
Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
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
|AGENDA ITEM #
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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: &