State of California

Summary of Board Meeting
September 28, 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.
                                                 Jack C. Parnell
                                                 Barbara Riordan
                                                 Ron Roberts
                                                 James W. Silva
                                                 Doug Vagim



Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Certification Requirements and Procedures for Low-Emission Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles


When the Low-Emission Vehicle program was approved by the Board in 1990, staff was directed to conduct periodic reviews of both the regulations and the status of technology development. The purpose of this hearing was to conduct a regulatory review of the general certification requirements and procedures for light- and medium-duty vehicles and to establish interim reactivity adjustment factors for the fuels and emission categories not previously established by the Board. Many of the proposed regulatory modifications are detailed technical amendments intended to clarify the regulations and facilitate the introduction of low-emission vehicles in California. The scope of these amendments is broad -- from clarification of the laboratory testing methods for exhaust measurements to updating the assembly-line and new vehicle test procedures to utilize new on-board diagnostic systems.

In addition, staff proposed the first mobile source element of the State Implementation Plan (adopted by the Board in 1994) concerning the accelerated introduction of medium-duty ultra low-emission vehicles. The proposed regulatory modifications are necessary to facilitate implementation of the Low-Emission Vehicle program and to meet the emission reduction requirements of the State Implementation Plan.


Richard L. Klimisch, Ph.D.                      American Automobile Mfrs. Assoc.

Michael Berube                                       Chrysler Corporation

Al Weverstad                                          GM

Michael Schwarz                                     Ford

Tim Carmichael                                       Coalition for Clean Air

Bill Van Amburg                                      Calstart

Paul Wuebben                                         South Coast AQMD

Kent Hoekman                                        Chevron (WSPA)

Melissa Sherlock                                     Unocal (76)

Glenn Keller                                            Engine Mfrs. Assoc.


Approved Resolution 95-40 by a 11-0 vote.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (123 pages)

95-9 -2 Public Meeting to Consider an Update on Implementation of California Reformulated Gasoline


On November 22, 1991 the California Air Resources Board (Board or ARB) approved the California Phase 2 RFG regulations which are now referred to as the CaRFG regulations. These regulations define a comprehensive set of specifications (eight) for commercial gasoline and are designed to achieve the maximum reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from gasoline-powered vehicles, non-road engines, and equipment.

The CaRFG regulations require refiners to comply with the specifications by March 1, 1996. To ease the transition to CaRFG, fuel distributors have until April 15, 1996 to comply, and retail service stations have until June 1, 1996. The intent of this phase-in period is to minimize disruptions that may cause potential supply and distribution problems.

CaRFG is a major component of California's State Implementation Plan and provides approximately one-fourth of the needed emission reductions of ozone precursors. This fuel will also help automobile manufacturers meet the ARB's more stringent future vehicle emission standards. CaRFG will reduce on-road mobile source ozone precursor emissions by approximately 15 percent and potential cancer risk by 30-40 percent.

ARB staff now estimates that refiners will invest approximately four billion dollars to make the necessary refinery modifications to produce CaRFG. Based on the new capital investment costs, ARB estimates that annualized costs will be approximately 1.5 billion dollars per year, and possibly lower in the future. In 1991, ARB staff estimated that capital costs would range from four to seven billion dollars and annualized costs would be approximately two billion dollars per year. Based on the original estimates, ARB staff projected that production costs would range between 12 and 17 cents per gallon. With the recently revised production cost estimates, ARB staff now estimates that CaRFG production costs will range from approximately 5 to 15 cents per gallon for individual refiners and ten cents per gallon on average for all California refiners.

To help ensure a smooth transition to CaRFG, the ARB formed the CaRFG Advisory Committee which is comprised of approximately 70 organizations from the oil industry, automobile manufacturers, business and environmental organizations, and federal, state, and local governments. The ARB also formed three subcommittees to work directly with ARB staff on performance and compatibility testing, supply and demand analysis and forecasting, and development and implementation of a public outreach program.

The Performance Subcommittee has worked closely with ARB staff to develop and implement the performance and compatibility test programs. Specifically, this subcommittee advised and assisted ARB staff in developing: 1) test program protocols; 2) test fuel specifications; 3) criteria for contracting for the production of the test fuel; and 4) criteria for the identification and selection of the test fleets. The Performance Subcommittee, along with a Technical Review Panel, has also played a vital role in the development of the findings for the test programs.

These efforts established the necessary foundation for the ARB on-road test program to proceed with implementation in February and conclude in August 1995. Off-road test programs were also implemented for the following categories: utility, lawn and garden, agricultural, industrial and construction, and personal watercraft and snowmobiles. In addition, members of the subcommittee worked with their own companies to develop individual company test programs that complemented the ARB test programs. Individual company test programs used CaRFG in bench testing of elastomers (General Motors) and of lubricity characteristics of the fuel (Ford), in-use testing of fleets (Chevron and Texaco) and high vehicle mileage accumulation (Department of Energy), and other road and laboratory testing (Nissan).

To date, no problems have been found that can be directly linked to the use of CaRFG. However, ARB staff and the subcommittee are analyzing all of the test data and their preliminary findings were reported at this meeting. A final report will be made to the Board for approval in December 1995. These findings will also address the issue of fuel economy for CaRFG.

The Transition Subcommittee has also been working closely with the California Energy Commission (CEC) and ARB staff to monitor CaRFG supply and demand, refiners' efforts to comply with the CaRFG regulation, and to develop a CaRFG variance process.

Currently, all major refiners are on schedule to meet the March 1, 1996 compliance date. The CEC also forecasts that supply will demand. Variance guidelines are being developed to present to the Board in a few months for approval as regulations, pursuant to legislation (SB 709) recently passed by the Legislature.

The Public Education Subcommittee (PES) has been working with ARB staff to develop and implement a CaRFG public outreach program. Based on a recommendation by the PES, the ARB hired a consultant (David Novak, Novak Communications) last March to advise on the development and implementation of the CaRFG public outreach plan.

Public opinion research was conducted to provide a basis for recommendations in the outreach plan. Applied Management Planning Group (AMPG) conducted five focus groups in different major urban areas of the State, and also conducted a telephone survey of 1,100 individuals statewide. Ms. Susan Johnson of AMPG presented to the Board the public opinion research findings that formed the basis for the recommendations in the outreach plan.

The public outreach plan comprises four phases. In the first phase (through September 1995) the campaign foundation was established by hiring a consultant, conducting public opinion research, planning for a rapid response team, and developing the campaign messages. Three fact sheets and issues of the CaRFG Forum newsletter were also completed and an outreach calendar, speakers bureau, and technical resources binder were initiated.

In Phase Two (September - December 1995) coordination of public outreach efforts has begun with the private sector. In addition, preparations are being made for media outreach, brochures and videos are being developed for key audiences, and an "800" information number is being established for CaRFG questions.

Phase Three (January - March 1996) will focus on aggressively expanding and implementing the external outreach efforts initiated in Phase Two. After the March 1, 1996 compliance date, the public outreach program will continue with its proactive approach but will be prepared to react quickly to any situations which may arise. For example, a rapid response team will be activated to monitor and respond to key events, issues, and the media as they arise.

An update on CaRFG health benefits was presented, as requested by the Board. ARB staff also provided background on gasoline oxygenates (e.g., MTBE, ETBE, Ethanol, TAME) which have been used to meet federal requirements in California since 1992. Those requirements include the wintertime oxygenates program (winter months only) and Federal Phase 1 RFG in Southern California that became effective January 1, 1995 and applies year-round. The ARB does not require a particular oxygenate to be used (i.e., oxygenate neutral) by refiners to meet the federal oxygenate requirements. However, MTBE is used in more than 90 percent of the gasoline sold in California to meet oxygenate requirements.

ARB staff specifically addressed health concerns raised in other states regarding the use of MTBE in Federal Phase 1 RFG. In Wisconsin, a federal/state study was completed which concluded there was no association found between health complaints and MTBE exposure. Several other studies are underway and ARB staff has been following their progress. In addition, ARB staff has been following studies concerning the presence of MTBE in groundwater. Staff will continue to monitor and periodically update the Board on these studies.

In December, ARB staff will present to the Board suggested amendments to the CaRFG regulations which clarify several implementation requirements. An interim status report on the CaRFG implementation efforts will be presented as well.


Dr. Gerald Barnes                                   General Motors




95-9-3 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Amendments to the California Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products

To meet the mandates of the California Clean Air Act of 1988, in 1989 the Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted regulations limiting the medium volatility organic compound (MVOC) and high volatility organic compound (HVOC) content in antiperspirants and deodorants. The ARB also adopted regulations limiting the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in 26 consumer product categories in 1990 and 1992 and in March, 1995, the Board adopted regulations limiting the VOC content in aerosol coatings products. These three regulations are referred to as the "antiperspirant and deodorant regulation," the "consumer products regulation," and the "aerosol coatings regulation" and are often referred to generically as the "consumer products regulations."

Staff proposed amendments to the antiperspirant and deodorant regulation which addressed potential fairness issues, including that brought to the Board's attention by Helene Curtis, Incorporated in their petition dated January 27, 1995. Additional amendments were proposed to the definitions, administrative requirements and test methods, to improve consistency with the consumer products regulation, and aid in obtaining the necessary information to determine compliance. Staff also proposed removing the provision limiting the variance period to one year, also to improve consistency with the consumer products regulation. Staff proposed an amendment committing the Board to holding a hearing by July 1, 1997 to review and consider any necessary amendments to the January 1, 1999 HVOC standards. This amendment will provide greater certainty for manufacturers during their reformulation efforts to meet the January 1, 1999 standards.

Staff also proposed amendments to the VOC definition in the antiperspirant and deodorant regulation, the consumer products regulation and the aerosol coatings regulation. These amendments were proposed because, until recently, the VOC definition in California's consumer products regulations was consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) VOC definition, with the exception of ethane. However, U.S. EPA recently modified their VOC definition to exempt volatile methyl siloxanes (VMS), parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), and acetone. Staff's proposed amendments included the exemption of PCBTF and VMS from the VOC definition in the three consumer regulations.

At the Board hearing, the ARB staff proposed that acetone and ethane also be exempted from the VOC definition in the consumer products regulations, to improve consistency with U.S. EPA's VOC definition. These amendments will be Text for an additional 15-day review and comment period.


James Mattesich, Esq.                    Livingston and Mattesich, representing the
                                                      Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association

Theoddore Wernick                       The Gillette Company

Bruce Varner                                 Helene Curtis, Inc.


Approved Resolution 95-41, with modifications, by an 8-0 vote.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (56 pages)