State of California

Summary of Board Meeting
December 11, 1998

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

MEMBERS PRESENT: Hons. Barbara Riordan, Chairman
Mark DeSaulnier
Joseph C. Calhoun. P.E.
John D. Dunlap, III
Lynne T. Edgerton, Esq.
Jack C. Parnell
Barbara Patrick
Sally Rakow
Ron Roberts


98-14-6 Consideration of Research Proposals

The Board approved resolutions 98-67, 98-68, 98-69, 98-70, 98-71, 98-72, 98-73, and 98-74 by a unanimous vote.
98-14-7 Public Meeting to Consider an Augmentation of an ICAT contract titled, "Dynamically Optimized Recirculation Coupled with Fluidized Bed Adsorption to Cost Effectively Control Emissions from Industrial Coating and Solvent Operations"


This ICAT project was originally presented to the Board in June 1996 and was submitted by Air Quality Specialists for $236,000. The project is designed to demonstrate and evaluate the long-term applicability and effectiveness of a fluidized bed and dynamic recirculation system for reducing solvent emissions from industrial coating operations. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Board voted to provide an additional $50,000 for this ICAT project. This increase in funding will allow enhancement of the control system and increased public outreach by the contractor. The ARB will contract with SCAQMD and provide the additional funds to the contractor.





Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Proposed Revisions to the Regulation for the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program


The ARB staff presented a proposal to amend sections 2450 through 2465, Regulations to Establish a Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (regulations), to title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. The proposed amendments were drafted in response to Board direction, upon adoption of the regulations on March 27, 1997, to evaluate the applicability of the Statewide Registration Program to portable equipment in California coastal waters and resolve any implementation issues. Staff was to report back to the Board within one year of implementation of the regulations with recommended amendments.

Amendments were proposed in the areas of portable equipment eligibility, emissions standards, portable engine requirements, portable equipment unit requirements, incentives to use cleaner technologies, recordkeeping and reporting, administrative requirements, and fees. Modifications to the proposed amendments to the regulations for 15-day notification were also presented.

The Board heard testimony from Jeb Stuart and Terry Ellis, which supported the staff's proposal. Larry Bowen gave testimony in support of the staff's proposal, with a suggested change to spark-ignition engine emission limit requirements. The Board motioned to adopt the South Coast Air Quality Management District's suggestion presented by Larry Bowen and include it as a 15-day modification. Paul Buchanan presented testimony in support of selected provisions of the proposed amendments to the regulations; however, he also suggested more flexibility in the eligibility requirements for non-resident engines and mechanisms for expedited application processing for rental equipment.


Larry Bowen, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Jeb Stuart, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition

Paul Buchanan, Prime Equipment Service

Terry Ellis, Gary Drilling/Coalition of Petroleum Services


Approved Resolution 98-77 by a unanimous vote.


STAFF REPORT: Yes (184 pages)


Public Meeting to Consider Request for a Public Hearing to Review the Decision of the Executive Officer to Order the Recall of Motor Vehicles


On September 2, 1998, the ARB Executive Officer issued a Recall Order under Health and Safety Code section 43105 for a number of 1996-1998 model year engine families produced by Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota). Toyota submitted a Petition for Public Hearing under the Board's adjudicatory hearing regulations (title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 60040 et seq.). These regulations provide for adjudicatory review by the Board of an Executive Officer decision to order a vehicle recall. The regulations provide that the hearing may be conducted by the full Board, by a committee of no fewer than two members of the Board, or by an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). If a committee of the Board or an administrative law judge conducts the hearing, the committee or administrative law judge would prepare a recommended decision for consideration by the full Board, which retains the final authority to decide the matter.

In its Petition for Public Hearing, Toyota requested that the hearing be referred to an administrative law judge from OAH. The Executive Officer did not oppose Toyota's request. At the December 11, 1998 hearing, the Board decided that an administrative law judge would conduct the hearing and prepare a recommended decision for consideration by the Board. The Board also designated an attorney in the ARB Office of Legal Affairs to contact OAH and arrange for the retention of an administrative law judge.


Ned M. Isokawa, Representing Toyota Motor Corporation

Charles H. Lockwood, II, Representing the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers


Approved Resolution 98-81 by a unanimous vote.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: Office of Legal Affairs



Public Meeting to Consider a Proposed Determination Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 43830(g) of the Comparative Ozone Forming Potential of Elevated RVP Gasoline Containing 10 Volume Percent Ethanol


The staff proposed that the Air Resources Board (Board) find, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 43830(g), that elevated RVP gasoline that contains 10 percent ethanol and is exempt from the RVP standard in the CaRFG regulations results in increased emissions and increased ozone forming potential, not considering NOx, compared to gasoline fully complying with the California reformulated gasoline (CaRFG) standards.

The staff's recommended finding would satisfy the requirements of HSC section 43830(g), enacted in 1991, which exempts gasoline blends containing 10 volume percent ethanol from the RVP standard unless the Board determines on the basis of independently verifiable automobile exhaust and evaporative emission tests performed on a representative fleet of automobiles, that the ethanol blend would result in a net increase in the ozone forming potential of the total emissions, excluding emissions of oxides of nitrogen, when compared to the total emissions, excluding emissions of oxides of nitrogen, from the same automobile fleet using gasoline that meets all applicable specifications for CaRFG established by the state board.

The staff's recommended finding is based on the results of a recently completed ARB test program evaluating the emission impacts of elevated RVP gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol as well as on a variety of other emission test programs and analyses. The staff's analyses excluded the impact of NOx but included the effect of carbon monoxide (CO) on ozone forming potential. On a per-gallon basis, this increase is about equal to the entire percent hydrocarbon emissions reduction attributed to CaRFG compared to the Phase 1 RFG that was previously sold in California.

The ARB test program used a fleet of vehicles to represent the types of vehicles most operated in California. Additionally, the results of the test program are independently verifiable and have been reviewed by an ethanol workgroup consisting of representatives from the ethanol industry, the automotive industry, the oil refining industry, the U.S. EPA, ARB staff, and other interested parties. Staff concluded that, given the careful documentation of the test program and the confirmation from other test programs, the assessment of ozone forming potential meets the criteria of the HSC section 43830(g).

The staff's assessment of the ozone forming potential of the elevated RVP gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol and the complying gasoline showed that the ozone forming potential of the ethanol blend is higher. When the ozone forming potential from CO is included along with estimates of the running loss evaporative emissions, the ozone forming potential from the elevated RVP gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol is 17 percent higher than the complying fuel. The difference in ozone forming potential is largely due to the higher RVP of the ethanol blend, which results in significantly greater evaporative hydrocarbon emissions.

Based upon this evidence, the staff recommended the Board make a finding to remove the conditional RVP exemption currently provided by HSC section 43830(g) to gasoline containing 10 volume percent ethanol. The proposed finding preserves the emission benefits from the CaRFG program. The recommended finding would not cause any adverse impact on the Board's efforts to attain the State and federal ambient air quality standards.

The Board heard testimony from 14 individuals at the hearing. Individuals representing the ethanol industry and others disagreed with staff's recommendation and requested that the Board delay action. Other individuals representing the oil industry, automobile industry and the American Lung Association testified or submitted comments supporting staff's recommendation. An independent peer review conducted by the University of California, Berkeley/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory concurred with staff's assumptions and methodology in developing their recommendation.


Dr. Don Lucas, University of California Berkeley/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Bob Dinneen, Renewable Fuels Association

Dr. Gary Witten, Systems Application International

Bob Herkert, California Rice Industry Association

Dr. Al Jessel, Chevron & Western States Petroleum Assoc.

Paul Donohue, Californians Against Waste for Rick Best

Megan S. Smith, American Bioenergy Association

Dawn Forsythe, South Tahoe Public Utility District

V. John White, Sierra Club California

Necy Sumait, Arkenol/CFDC

Thomas Toy, Children

Paul Knepprath, American Lung Association

Neil Koehler, Parallel Products

Loyd Forrest, TSS Consultants


Approved Resolution 98-78 by a unanimous vote.


STAFF REPORT: Yes (152 pages)


Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline Regulations Increasing the CAP Limit for Oxygen from 2.7 to 3.5 percent by Weight


The Board resumed its consideration of raising the "cap" limit on the oxygen content of gasoline to 3.5 weight- percent (wt.%), which it first considered at its meeting on August 27, 1998. At the August meeting, the Board postponed a decision on the oxygen cap until it had made a finding on whether gasoline with ten percent ethanol was eligible for a waiver from the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit under the Health and Safety Code, and if so, what would be the emissions impact.

The Board made the finding that gasoline with ten percent ethanol is not eligible for a waiver from volatility requirements. This allowed the Board to consider raising the oxygen cap to allow gasoline with 10 percent ethanol under the predictive model.


Neil Koehler, Parallel Products Company for Ethanol Industry

FORMAL BOARD ACTION: Approved Resolution 98-79 by a unanimous vote.


STAFF REPORT: Yes (published for the August 27, 1998, meeting)


Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the Specifications for Liquefied Petroleum Gas Intended for Use in Motor Vehicles


Staff recommended that the Board permanently set the maximum limit on the propene content of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) used in motor vehicles to 10 percent by volume instead of allowing the propene limit to decrease to 5 percent as required by existing regulations. Staff also proposed to lower the sulfur limit to 80 ppm and to make minor clarifications based on comments received at the workshop held in November 1998.

The proposed changes would maintain the status quo. There is essentially no economic impact from staff's proposal, and the LPG specifications are not part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Thus setting the maximum propene limit to 10 percent rather than 5 percent will require no change to the SIP. However, we may forgo a maximum potential emissions decrease of about one tenth of a ton per day of NOx and reactivity adjusted hydrocarbons.

The WPGA and NPGA representatives supported staff's recommendations, but further stated that they would prefer no ARB motor vehicle fuel specifications for LPG. The WPGA representative suggested that the regulations be reviewed in less than five years. The EMA generally did support staff's recommendation, and stated that the performance and durability testing needed to be done before making a final decision. They also expressed an interest in reviewing the regulations if new information became available to suggest that a 5 percent propene limit was needed. The Adept Group representative suggested that the review period be less than three years. Finally, the Equilon representative supported staff's recommendations.


Kate Dracos, Engine Manufacturers Association

Bruce Irion, Equilon Enterprises, Inc.

Baron Glassgow, National Propane Gas Association

Alina Kulakowski-Tan, The Adept Group

William Platz, W