State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Biltmore Hotel
Gold Room
515 South Olive
Los Angeles, CA
June 25, 1980
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
80-11-1 Status Report on Misfueling of Vehicles Requiring 001
Unleaded Gasoline Only.
80-11-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Rules 054
and Regulations of Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District, Los Angeles County Air Pollution
Control District and San Bernardino County Air
Pollution Control District. (postponed to July 23,
1980 LA State Bldg., Auditorium)
80-11-3 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Title 13, 262
California Administrative Code, Regarding the
Revision of the Reid Vapor Pressure of Gasoline
Regulation and the Adoption of Sampling Procedures
for the Enforcement of Reid Vapor Pressure Limits
of Gasoline.
80-11-4 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Title 17, 401
California Administrative Code, Sections 60000-
60023, regarding the Administrative Procedures of
the Air Resources Board.
80-11-5 Other Business 439
a. Research Proposals
b. Delegations to Executive Officer
c. Executive Session
Personnel
Litigation
ITEM NO.: 80-11-2
Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Rules and Regulations of
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District and San Bernardino County
Air Pollution Control District.
SUMMARY
Pursuant to Section 41500 of the Health and Safety Code, the
Board is responsible for ensuring that state air quality
standards are achieved. The staff has reviewed the Imperial, Los
Angeles, and San Bernardino County Air Pollution control
Districts' rules and regulations and found that certain rules are
not as stringent as reasonably available control measures. Such
reasonably available control measures are necessary to aid in the
attainment of the state ambient air quality standards in these
districts.
In addition, Sections 41650 through 41652 of the Health and
Safety Code require the ARB to adopt the nonattainment area plan
approved by a designated air quality planning agency as part of
the State Implementation Plan, unless the ARB finds after a
public hearing that the nonattainment plan will not meet Clean
Air Act requirements. These sections further provide that the
primary responsibility for determining whether a control measure
is reasonably available shall be vested in the public agency
responsible for implementation of that measure. However, the ARB
can override this determination after finding at a public hearing
that such determination will not meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act.
In response to the requirements of Part D of the federal Clean
Air Act, relating to nonattainment areas, the Air Resources Board
held public hearings on February 21, 1979, and November 29, 1979,
to consider amendments to the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB)
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
Board found that Imperial County and the SEDAB portions of Los
Angeles and San Bernardino Counties are rural nonattainment
areas, and that emissions of organic gases, which are ozone
precursor pollutants, had to be further controlled. The Board
also found that, with certain exceptions relating to the control
of organic gases and the review of new and modified sources, the
plans prepared for these areas substantially fulfill the
requirements for the development of a 1979 nonattainment area
plan (NAP) for inclusion as part of the SIP pursuant to the Clean
Air Act. The Board directed the staff to prepare amendments to
correct deficiencies in the plans by May 30, 1979, for the
Imperial County Plan and by March 30, 1980 for the San Bernardino
and Los Angeles County Plans, if the districts had not adopted
such amendments by that date.
At the February 21, 1979, and November 29, 1979, hearings, the
ARB determined that Imperial and San Bernardino Counties' plans
must include reasonably available control measures for Stage I
gasoline vapor recovery (recovery of gasoline vapor from storage
and delivery tanks so such vapors will not escape into the
atmosphere). The ARB also determined that the SEDAB portions of
the plans for San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties must
include reasonably available control measures for degreasing
operations and must contain adequate new source review rules.
The ARB further determined that the plan for Los Angeles County
must have a reasonably available control measure for
architectural coatings. Without the inclusion of these measures
in the form of adopted, enforceable rules, the plans do not meet
Clean Air Act requirements requiring the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as
practicable, including a reduction in emissions from existing
sources in order to assure reasonable further progress towards
attaining the national ambient air quality standards.
To bring the plans into conformance with Clean Air Act
requirements, the ARB staff has prepared proposed amendments to
the applicable air pollution control districts' rules and
regulations. If adopted by the Board, the proposed amendments to
the Stage I vapor recovery, degreasing operations, and
architectural coatings rules will reduce emissions by
approximately 900 tons per year. The cost per pound of volatile
organic compounds controlled will range from negligible to $1.90.
These measures are considered by staff to be very cost effective
when compared to the almost $10.00 per pound for some proposed
transportation control measures, and will have no adverse effects
on the environment.
ITEM NO.: 80-11-3
Proposed Adoption of Sampling Procedures for the Enforcement of
Reid Vapor Pressure Limits of Gasoline.
SUMMARY AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Section 43830 of the California Health and Safety Code requires
the Air Resources Board (ARB) to establish a Reid vapor pressure
(RVP) limit of nine pounds per square inch as determined by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test Method D
323-58 or by an appropriate test determined by the ARB, as a
maximum volatility standard for gasoline. The ASTM test Method D
323-58 specifies that samples for vapor pressure determinations
are to be collected in accordance with another ASTM Method, D
270.
Section 2251 was subsequently adopted into Title 13 of the
California Administrative Code, prohibiting the selling or
supplying as a fuel for motor vehicles gasoline having an RVP
greater than nine pounds per square inch as determined by ASTM
Method D 323-58.
During August 1977, ARB Enforcement Branch employees collected
gasoline samples from the pump nozzles at numerous service
stations in the South Coast Air Basin. These samples were
analyzed for RVP by ARB Haagen-Smit Laboratory employees. Sales
were subsequently documented at service stations from which
gasoline samples had been obtained which had been determined to
have RVP values greater than 9.0 pounds per square inch.
After an analysis of all the data obtained during the August 1977
investigation and after several office conferences with
representatives of companies which had manufactured the gasoline,
complains were brought on behalf of the State by the Attorney
General's office against five gasoline manufacturers: Atlantic
Richfield Corporation (ARCO), Gulf Oil Company, Mobil Oil
Corporation, Powerine Oil Company, and Shell Oil Company.
Settlements have been reached in two of the actions (Powerine and
Shell). The Mobil actions was tried, commencing January 17,
1980. Litigation, as of this writing, is pending on the two
remaining manufacturers (ARCO and Gulf).
In a decision issued on April 9, 1980 Judge Max Wisot of the Los
Angeles Superior Court, ruled in favor of Mobil. The reasons for
this ruling, were that: 1) the ARB had not collected the gasoline
samples in strict accordance with ASTM Method D 270, and 2) the
ARB had not analyzed the samples in strict accordance with ASTM
Method D 323-58. As of this writing, the ARB intends to appeal
the court's ruling, because the staff believes that the
appropriate methods were, in fact, complied with.
Subsequent to the court's tentative decision in the Mobil case,
the ARB staff wrote to Mobil, as well as to other manufacturers
of gasoline, requesting that these manufacturers either: 1) equip
the underground storage tanks at service stations at which their
gasoline is sold with sampling ports or taps to enable the
Enforcement Branch to collect samples in a fashion which will not
give rise to any questions under ASTM Method D 270, or 2)
stipulate to nozzle sampling for enforcement purposes (Shell had
previously so stipulated).
As of this writing, the only responses the staff has received to
these letters indicate an unwillingness to install the sampling
ports or taps, and an interest by two companies in stipulating to
the nozzle sampling procedure.
Because of the questions raised by Mobil during its defense and
by the court in its ruling regarding the enforceability of the
RVP statute through the use of the referenced ASTM sampling
method, the staff believes that a specific detailed sampling
method needs to be adopted by the Board to assure the continued
enforceability of the volatility limitation on gasoline. The
staff further believes that the existing ASTM method for sampling
(Method D 270) provides an adequate foundation from which a
sampling procedure should be developed.
One of the most important differences between ASTM Method D 270
and the sampling method proposed for adoption by the Board
involves the specific instructions for sampling at the nozzles of
service station pumps. Because enforcement of the volatility
standard is based on a per vehicle sale of gasoline, it is
imperative that sampling take place at the nozzle. In its
reading of ASTM method D 270 prior to the August 1977 inspection,
the Enforcement Branch considered nozzle sampling to be a form of
tap sampling as provided in Method D 270. However, the court's
ruling in the Mobil case has suggested that a clarification of
this matter is necessary.
In its preparation of a proposed sampling method, the staff has
preserved as much of the language of the ASTM method as
practicable and has added only language to permit implementation
of the provisions of Section 43830 of the Health and Safety Code.
Language has been deleted from the ASTM method which relates to
sampling petroleum products other than gasoline.
The staff recommends the adoption of a method for sampling
gasoline for RVP determinations into Subchapter 5, Chapter 3,
Title 13 of the California Administrative Code. Suggested
language for such a method is included in Attachment IV-1 of this
report.
ITEM NO.:
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, CALIFORNIA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTIONS 6000-60023 REGARDING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES OF THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD
SUMMARY AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING
The Air Resources Board (Board), in Title 17, California
Administrative Code, maintains regulations governing its meeting
and hearing procedures. The Board must follow the rulemaking
requirements of the California Administrative procedure Act
("APA"), government code Sections 11371 through 11445, in
adopting, amending or repealing its administrative regulations.
New legislation effective July 1, 1980, AB 1111 (Chapter 810,
Stats. 1979) and AB 939 (Chapter 1203, Stats. 1979), has changed
in several fundamental respects these APA rulemaking procedures.
This legislation has stimulated the need for the Board to adopt
new regulations and amend existing regulations in order to meet
the new statutory requirements and clarify its procedures and
policies. The proposed regulations and amendments consist of the
following elements.
1. Under existing law and regulations, notice of public
hearings for adoption of Board regulations is given pursuant
to Chapter 4.5 of the APA, which is repealed by the new
legislation. The proposed regulations will provide that
such notice is governed by new Chapter 3.5 of the APA. The
most important effect is that 45 day, rather than 30 day,
notice will be required.
2. Under existing regulations staff reports for hearings
considering Board regulations must be published 30 days
prior to the hearing. The proposed regulations will require
such publication 45 days prior to the hearing, and clarify
publication dates for staff reports for emergency actions.
3. Existing regulations require preparation of a staff report
regarding the proposed adoption, amendment or repeal of a
regulation by the Board. The proposed regulations would
additionally require preparation by staff of a statement of
reasons for the proposed rulemaking, and adoption by the
Board of an update including a summary of opposing
considerations and agency response prior to adoption of any
Board regulation.
4. There is no provision in existing statutory law or
regulations for maintenance of any specific record of a
rulemaking, other than a transcript or other record of the
hearing. The proposed regulations require the secretary of
the Board to maintain a rulemaking file containing specified
records for every adoption, amendment or repeal of a Board
regulation.
5. There is no provision in existing regulations specifically
authorizing the Board to establish a deadline for submission
of written comments in public hearing procedures. The
proposed regulations will clarify the authority of the Board
to set such deadlines provided that the deadline is referred
to in the hearing notice.
6. Other minor technical amendments.
The purpose of the proposed regulations and amendments is two-fold.
First, elements 1,3,4 and 6 are intended to conform Board
regulations to the new legislation. Second, two of the elements
will clarify board procedures and enhance compliance with the new
legislation. Element number 2 is intended to make staff reports
available as soon as the notice of hearing is published,
enhancing public participation, and to assure workable
regulations on publication of staff reports in emergency
situations. Element number 5 is intended to ensure orderly Board
procedures and maximize Board consideration of public comments.
As Board rulemaking procedures regarding adoption of regulations
of statewide application are governed by the new legislation, it
is necessary that the Board's administrative regulations be
consistent with the APA rulemaking procedures as amended. The
new legislation will require an updated statement containing
opposing considerations and agency response prior to Board
action. Element number 5 will clarify the authority of the Board
to provide itself with adequate time to review and evaluate all
written comments and adopt its response prior to final action on
the proposed regulation at the hearing.