State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
July 23, 1980
State Building
Auditorium
107 South Broadway
Los Angeles, CA
July 23, 1980
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
80-13-1 Report on the Status of Stage II Vapor Recovery.
80-13-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Rules 001
and Regulations of Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District, Los Angeles County Air Pollution
Control District and San Bernardino County Air
Pollution Control District.
80-13-3 CONTINUATION OF Public Hearing to Consider 211
Motorcycle Manufacturers' Petition Requesting the
Board to re-evaluate the 1.0 Gram per Kilometer
Hydrocarbon Exhaust Emission Standard for 1982 and
Subsequent Model Year Motorcycles.
80-13-4 Other Business
a. Executive Session
Personnel
Litigation
b. Research Proposals
c. Delegations to Executive Officer
(1) California New Motorcycle Compliance Test
Procedures.
(2) Revision to 1981 Vehicle Certification
Procedures.
(3) Kern County Rule 424, and Revision to SIP.
ITEM NO.: 80-13-2
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 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.: 80-13-3
Response to the Motorcycle Manufacturers' Petition Requesting the
Board Reevaluate the 1.0 Gram Per Kilometer Exhaust Emission
Standard for 1982 and Subsequent Model Year Motorcycles.
SUMMARY
The May 8, 1980, release of staff report 80-12-2 contains the
following statement on page two of the Summary: "In the absence
of relevant supporting data in the various petitions, the staff,
at this time, does not believe it can provide a thorough
evaluation of the manufacturers' ability to comply with the 1.0
g/km HC standard". Consequently, a staff recommendation was
withheld pending a request for additional data and workshop
interaction with the manufacturers' representatives. Industry
workshops were scheduled for the week of May 12-16.
Subsequently, seven individual confidential workshops were held
with the manufacturers to discuss the items which are shown in
Appendix II of the initial staff report. These items included
research goals and milestones, development and testing programs,
emission control system capabilities, and costs.
After a thorough analysis of the manufacturers petitions, the
workshop submissions, and the confidential discussions held with
each of the manufacturers' representatives, the staff has
concluded that the 1.0 g/km HC standard is technologically
feasible; that it is cost effective; and that it will not create
any economic hardship upon the state's economy. A minor fuel
economy penalty will result from the hydrocarbon standard for
Class III motorcycles which should average approximately five
percent for the industry. Class I and II motorcycles should get
better fuel economy due to conversions from 2-stroke engines to
4-stroke engines. Several manufacturers, however, indicated that
the lead time needed to meet the 1982 1.0 g/km HC standard is not
sufficient to allow for the introduction of new control
technologies. These manufacturers stated that the 1982 standards
would result in late model introductions that would put them and
their dealers at a competitive disadvantage. One manufacturer is
uncertain of its catalyst supply, since commitments from the
vendor have only been verbal. Several manufacturers hope to
revise their engine designs and additional lead time would
facilitate these efforts. The final deadline for the decision to
certify and produce 1982 1.0 gm/km engines was June 1, 1980 for
most manufacturers which has already passed.
Because of these conflicts, the staff is recommending that the
Board delay the 1.0 g/km HC standard for one additional year
until 1983. This action will prevent possible market disruptions
and economic hardships for the motorcycle industry. The industry
has made a significant effort toward meeting the 1.0 g/km HC
standard, and all the manufacturers, except possibly for very
small manufacturers, have the necessary technology for compliance
available to them. The additional year will ensure that
compliance is achieved with durable systems which minimize
performance, fuel economy, and driveability penalties. It will
also provide additional system development time for the small
manufacturers, and it will allow those manufacturers which have
new systems under development to introduce them.
In addition to the proposal for a one year delay of the 1.0 gm/km
hydrocarbon standard, the staff believes that additional studies
should be performed in order to develop a proposal for the 1985
and 1986 model year. One area of concern is that NOx emissions
from 1980 model year motorcycles are significantly higher than
pre-control models due to the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
control strategies currently being used. Also, the catalyst
control technologies which will be used in 1983 by some
manufacturers should be capable of further HC and CO reductions
without any significant increase in cost with additional
development time and production experience. Emissions of HC and
CO are related to both engine size and engine configuration, so
standards could be designed which require the use of only the
cleanest engines, or corporate average emission standards could
be adopted which require low average emissions but which provide
the manufacturers with some latitude in choosing their model
designs.
In order to investigate these concerns, the staff proposes to
hold additional workshops with the manufacturers to discuss
emission controls for the mid to late 1980's. The staff would
then give the Board a report on its findings and provide a
recommendation.