CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
McCandless Auditorium
9150 Flair Drive
El Monte, CA
November 18, 1988
8:30 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
88-15-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to 001
Regulations Regarding Emission-Related Failure
Reporting; In-Use Vehicle Recall; In-Use Vehicle
Enforcement Testing; and Certification Test
Procedures Applicable to Passenger Cars, Light-
Duty Trucks, Medium-Duty Vehicles, Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Motorcycles and Modifier-Certified New
Motor Vehicles (Continued from September 8, 1988).
88-15-2 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of 297
Adjudicatory Hearing Procedures.
88-15-3 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of 328
Regulations Regarding Test Methods for Determining
Emissions from Non-Vehicular Sources and to Consider
Amendment of the Test Method for Determining
Emissions from Vapor Recovery Systems Installed at
Gasoline Terminals.
88-15-4 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of 530
Amendments to the Recall Bond and Insurance
Requirement of the New Direct Import Vehicle
Certification Regulations in Response to the K&E
Petition.
ITEM #88-15-1
Continuation of a Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to
Regulations Regarding Emission-Related Failure Reporting; In-Use
Vehicle Recall; In-Use Vehicle Enforcement Testing; and
Certification Test Procedures Applicable to Passenger Cars,
Light-Duty Trucks, Medium-Duty Vehicles, Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
Motorcycles and Modifier-Certified New Motor Vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board adopt the amended language
which governs procedures for emission-related failure reporting,
in-use vehicle recall, in-use enforcement testing and new vehicle
certification.
DISCUSSION
At the September 8, 1988 Board hearing, the staff proposed
amendments to the in-use recall regulations. The amendments are
necessary to improve the effectiveness of the in-use recall
program, thereby resulting in reduced emissions from motor
vehicles. The Board approved in concept the regulatory
amendments, with modifications to the originally proposed
language. The Board directed the staff to finalize the modified
proposal and bring it back for consideration at the November
Board hearing.
In response to the Board directive, the staff developed modified
language and held a workshop with the vehicle manufacturers. The
resulting language will be presented for Board approval. It
contains the following amendments:
1. Phase-in the warranty-based recall program. Starting with
1990 model-year vehicles or engines, a failure rate of 4
percent or 50 of an engine family's vehicles or engines,
whichever is less, would require the manufacturer to file an
emissions information report unless the manufacturer
voluntarily recalls the vehicles. A recall may be ordered
based on the information in the report. In 1992, the
failure rate which triggers the report drops to 3 percent or
50, and in 1994 it drops to 2 percent or 50.
2. Withdraw all amendments which tied the new-vehicle
certification procedures to in-use component failures.
3. Link recall based on component failures to the exceedance of
emission standards. Manufacturers would test properly
maintained in-use vehicles with the failure to demonstrate
that the standards are not exceeded. No recall is required
if the individual vehicles' projected emissions based on an
in-use deterioration factor meet the standards within the
useful life. When appropriate, and engineering analysis or
test on laboratory vehicles or engines may be used to
demonstrate compliance, but only if in-use deterioration
factors are applied.
4. Provide criteria for acceptance of an alternative system for
detecting component failures that are equivalent to the
warranty system.
5. Provide criteria for the Executive Officer to consider when
evaluating if a recall is necessary based on an emissions
information report.
6. Allow the use of nationwide dat for monitoring warranty
claims for heavy-duty, 50-state engine families.
7. Clarify the definition of capture rate to mean repaired
vehicles as a percentage of vehicles on the road rather than
of original sales.
8. Amend timing of individual requirements to ensure that
deadlines could reasonably be met.
9. Change the emission tolerance on repair-demonstration test
vehicles from 25 percent of all pollutants to 25 percent of
failing pollutant(s) and "typical" for the other pollutants.
The Executive Officer can allow other vehicles to be used if
none could be found that meet these limits.
10. Other amendments to clarify language.
ITEM #88-15-2
Proposed Adjudicatory Hearing Procedures (Regulatory).
RECOMMENDATION
The ARB staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed
adjudicatory hearing procedures.
DISCUSSION
The ARB executive officer is authorized by statutes and
regulations to issue various licenses and certificates and to
order recalls. When the executive officer revokes such
entitlements or orders a recall, the party against whom the
action is taken has a right to contest the executive officer's
decision at a hearing. The board does not currently have any
generally applicable regulations specifying the procedures it
will use when hearing these contested issues. ARB staff is
recommending the adoption of regulations which would specify the
Board's procedures.
The proposed regulations specify a time by which the aggrieved
party would have to submit a petition for Board review and would
specify what the petition must include. The regulations also
include provisions on the following: effect of the executive
officer's decision pending the Board's decision; executive
officer's response to the petition; hearing schedule; notice
requirements; appointment of presiding and hearing officers;
participation of interested parties; subpoenas; witness lists and
prehearing statements; conduct of the hearing; issuance of the
Board's decision; and process for requesting reconsideration by
the Board.
IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BOARD ACTION
The proposed regulations are procedural regulations and thus the
regulations would have no impact on air quality, or other
environmental or economic impacts.
ITEM #88-14-3
Public Meeting to Discuss a Report on Air Toxics Monitoring in
the State of California.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board approve the report.
DISCUSSION
This report discusses the status of air toxics monitoring in the
State of California. This report was prepared in accordance with
the requirements of Senate Bill 1223 (Roberti, 1987).
SB 1223 (Health and Safety Code Sections 39668 and 40715)
requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to prepare a written
report by January 1, 1989 on the availability and effectiveness
of toxic air contaminant (TAC) monitoring options in California.
Specifically, SB 1223 requires the ARB to address the following
four areas: an evaluation of existing toxic air contaminant
monitoring capacity and assessment capabilities in the State; an
analysis of available options for monitoring and assessing
current exposure to identified and potential toxic air
contaminants in urban areas; a list and evaluation of all
substances being considered for monitoring; and an analysis of
the feasibility and costs of establishing an indoor toxic air
contaminant monitoring program to facilitate the identification
of toxic air contaminants. SB 1223 also requires the ARB to
analyze options for supplementing the Board's toxic air
contaminant monitoring network.
This report has been prepared by the ARB staff in consultation
with representatives of the air pollution control districts, the
general public, the Scientific Review Panel, the Department of
Health Services, and the Department of Food and Agriculture.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
This report concludes: 1) the current toxics monitoring network
provides an effective means for obtaining air toxics monitoring
data; 2) the use of "rover" toxics monitoring vehicles should be
considered to evaluate the need for further permanent toxics
network monitoring sites; 3) two additional monitoring sites
should be established in San Diego County; 4) the establishment
of long-term pesticide monitoring sites in the State should be
considered to determine chronic exposure to pesticides; 5) the
establishment of any district-operated supplemental toxics
monitoring networks is not recommended; 6) to obtain comparable
data from many private field and laboratory operators conducting
air toxics monitoring, a toxics measurement assurance program
establishing performance standards for air toxics monitoring
should be considered; and 7) indoor air monitoring data for toxic
air contaminants should continue to be obtained through carefully
designed studies of limited duration, conducted on an as-needed
basis.
Approval of this report will not in itself result in any
environmental or regulatory impacts.
ITEM #88-15-4
Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Amendments to the
Certification Regulations for New Direct Import Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has developed amendments to the recall bond and insurance
requirements of the certification procedures for new direct
import vehicles. The amendments were drafted at the direction of
the Board as the result of its consideration of a petition from
K&E International Auto Consultants requesting modification of
these requirements. Adoption of the amendments would be
appropriate if the Board determines the existing recall bond and
insurance requirements should be expanded to provide modifiers
with alternate means of demonstrating their ability to carry out
an in-use vehicle recall.
DISCUSSION
At its May 1988 public meeting, the Board considered a petition
from K&E International Auto Consultants requesting that the Board
amend the certification procedures for new direct import
vehicles. The existing procedures require the application for
certification to demonstrate its ability to recall and repair
in-use vehicles throughout the applicable recall period by
posting a surety bond or deposit in lieu of bond in the amount of $1000 per
vehicles, or by obtaining recall liability insurance to cover the
full cost of a recall campaign, up to $3000 per vehicle. The
petitioner contended that neither the surety bond or the recall
liability insurance in commercially available and that the $1000
per vehicle deposit was economically infeasible. Therefore,
petitioner requested that the certification procedures be amended
to allow a modifier to demonstrate its ability to carry out a
recall by obtaining a recall warranty insurance policy with a
maximum per vehicle liability of $1000, rather than the $3000
liability limit required under the existing regulations. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Board directed staff to review the
situation and to develop alternatives to the recall bond and
insurance provisions of the procedures for consideration by the
Board at a future meeting.
Staff has reviewed the available alternatives and has determined
that no one specific alternative would provide the relief
requested by the petitioner in all cases and provide the
assurance that a modifier will have the ability to carry out a
recall, which is a critical element of the certification program
for new direct import vehicles. However, staff has determined
that a financially stable modifier may have assets other than
those acceptable under the existing procedures which could be
pledged for recall purposes, thereby obviating the need for
surety bonds, deposits in lieu of bond or recall liability
insurance.
Staff has, therefore, drafted proposed amendments to the recall
bond and insurance requirements which would allow the modifier to
certify direct import vehicles without posting a surety bond or
deposit in lieu of bond and without obtaining recall liability
insurance, if the modifier demonstrates that it is a financially
stable business with the ability and resources necessary to
recall vehicles at any time during the applicable recall period.
The modifier would be required to develop an acceptable recall
plan, including identification of assets which will be available
and adequate to insure that the modifier could carry out a "worst
case" recall.
If a modifier elects to certify vehicles using the proposed
alternative, there will be minor increases in the cost of
certification for the ARB as the result of the additional
documentation which will have to be submitted by the modifier and
reviewed by ARB.
ITEM #88-15-3
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulations Regarding Test
Methods for Determining Emissions from Nonvehicular Sources and
to Consider Amendments of a Test Method for Determining Emissions
from Vapor Recovery Systems Installed at Gasoline Terminals.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board adopt the revision of an
existing test method and the five new test methods discussed
below and incorporate them by reference in Section 94003 and in
new Sections 94141-94145, Title 17, California Code of
Regulations.
DISCUSSION
Determinations of gaseous and particulate matter emissions from
stationary sources ("source tests") are conducted to determine
where a source is complying with air pollution control laws and
regulations. The ARB is authorized by California Health and
Safety Code Section 39607(d) to adopt procedures ("test methods")
by which source tests are conducted. Since 1972, the ARB staff
has developed and the Board has adopted five test methods for the
gasoline vapor recovery program and forty test methods for a wide
variety of stationary sources.
The ARB staff is now proposing the adoption of five new ARB test
methods, listed below.
a. Proposed ARB Test Method 429 - Determination of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Emissions from Stationary
Sources.
b. Proposed ARB Test Method 430 - Determination of Formaldehyde
Emissions from Stationary Sources.
c. Proposed ARB Test Method 431 - Determination of Ethylene
Oxide Emissions from Stationary sources.
d. Proposed ARB Test Method 432 - Determination of
Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in Paints and
Coatings.
e. Proposed ARB Test Method 433 - Determination of Total Nickel
Emissions from Stationary Sources.
These methods have been adapted from existing methods developed
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or American Society
for Testing Materials.
The ARB staff is also proposing the amendment of ARB Method 2-4,
"Certification and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems at
Gasoline Terminals," which the Board adopted on April 18, 1977,
to correct an equation.
All of the proposed ARB test methods in this item were subject to
public comment at workshops on July 25 and October 14, 1988, and
were presented at the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association's Subcommittee on Source Test Methods for Toxic Air
Contaminants.
Adoption of standardized test methods promotes uniformity and
quality assurance in source testing activities by establishing a
consistent data base on air pollution information to which all
source testing participants would be contributing. The broadened
data base afforded by the standardized test methods would support
and enhance such activities as emission inventory, control method
development, and air quality modeling.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BOARD ACTION
Significant issues and public comments existing by the time of
the workshops have been addressed by subsequent revisions in the
test methods. The staff believes that adoption of the proposed
methods would not result in any significant adverse air quality,
environmental, or economic impacts.
ITEM #88-14-2
Examination of the Need for Carbon Tetrachloride Control.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that control measures not be developed for
carbon tetrachloride at this time. This recommendation is based
on the fact that the greatest risk to the general population in
California is from the global background concentration.
Emissions from the largest individual sources, which formerly
caused "hot spot" exposures, have already been reduced to the
lowest achievable level through the application of best available
control technology.
INTRODUCTION
The Board identified carbon tetrachloride as a toxic air
contaminant in September 1987. State law requires that once a
substance is identified as a toxic air contaminant, the Board
staff must prepare a report on the need for and appropriate
degree of control for the substance. The staff report now under
consideration by the Board fulfills the statutory requirement.
The report was developed in consultation with air quality
management district staff and with industry representatives.
DISCUSSION
Exposure and Risk Estimates
All Californians are exposed to a global background carbon
tetrachloride concentration of approximately 0.11 parts per
billion (ppb). The background concentration is the result of a
worldwide accumulation of carbon tetrachloride from anthropogenic
emission sources. Exposure to the global background is estimated
to cause from 7 to 29 potential excess lifetime cancer cases per
million persons, or from 190 to 770 cases among California's 26.6
million residents. Emissions of carbon tetrachloride from
California sources contribute from 0.01 to 0.02 percent annually
to the global background.
When carbon tetrachloride was identified as a toxic air
contaminant, emissions from the largest source constituted a "hot
spot" exposure for persons living in the vicinity of the source.
However, the source is now controlled, and the estimated risk is
between 4 and 16 potential excess lifetime cancer cases per
million persons exposed. For the 550 people living closest to
the source, it is estimated that this exposure will result in
less than 0.1 excess lifetime cancer cases.
Emissions and Emission Trends
Statewide emissions of carbon tetrachloride have been reduced
considerably since the compound was identified as a toxic air
contaminant. Based on the 1984 inventory, the staff estimated
emissions from four major sources in California (carbon
tetrachloride production, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production,
grain fumigation, and chlorinated paraffin wax production) to be
approximately 85 tons per year. Emissions from these source
categories are now approximately 6 tons per year, about 90
percent below their 1984 levels. Emissions from carbon
tetrachloride and CFC production have been reduced by 90 percent
through the use of controls installed at the facilities. The use
of grain fumigants containing carbon tetrachloride has been
banned by the Environmental Protection Agency. Chlorinated
paraffin wax is no longer produced in California.
In addition to its major use in the production of CFCs, carbon
tetrachloride is used in a variety of manufacturing and
industrial processes. Approximately 3 tons per year are emitted
from carbon tetrachloride's use in petroleum refining. Emissions
from the remaining sources, which are largely uncontrolled, are
estimated to be approximately 13 tons per year. However, the
individual sources are very small, numerous, and widely
distributed. Information available to the staff indicates that
the miscellaneous uses of carbon tetrachloride are declining,
primarily because of concerns about its toxicity.
Currently, over 90 percent of the carbon tetrachloride produced
in California is used to produce CFCs. If carbon tetrachloride
is not used in the production of CFC substitutes, any future
regulation of CFCs will likely result in significant decreases in
the production of carbon tetrachloride.
CONCLUSION
The global background concentration poses the greatest risk to
the general population in California. Because California sources
contribute very little to the global background, we cannot
significantly reduce the background risk to the general
population. Sources which formerly caused "hot spot" exposures
have already applied best available control technology to reduce
emissions. Overall, emissions of carbon tetrachloride from
California sources have been reduced considerably since the
compound was identified as a toxic air contamiant.
The ARB staff does not anticipate that emissions of carbon
tetrachloride will increase in the future. However, if we
determine that public exposures are increasing, or if further
evaluation indicates that exposures are greater than currently
estimated, we will develop and bring to the Board a proposed
control measure.