SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

A brief summary of each of the items listed on the ARB Draft Regulatory Rulemaking Calendar was presented to the Board and the public.

The Board had questions pertaining to the status of other items, which were not listed on the Calendar. It was reported that the items in question would most likely be scheduled on the 1996 Regulatory Calendar.

ORAL TESTIMONY:  None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:  None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  EO/Legal

STAFF REPORT:  No

The staff reported on the progress that has been made in obtaining U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) approval of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the current status of the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).

U.S. EPA has acknowledged that the California SIP is the best in the nation and has taken the first steps to begin the approval process. These steps include a finding of completeness for many of the measures in the SIP, which must be made prior to approval of the SIP. Staff expects that U.S. EPA will find the remaining SIP measures complete by May 1995. This will allow U.S. EPA to move ahead with its formal process for approving the SIP. U.S. EPA has indicated that its goal is replacement of the FIP with an approved California SIP.

The FIP was signed on February 14, 1995 with a two-year delay in implementation of FIP measures. However, California's request to delay promulgation of the FIP was denied by the U.S. District Court. As a result, the principal recourse for eliminating the FIP, prior to SIP approval, is Congressional action.

Concurrent with promulgating the FIP, U.S. EPA also approved several key components of the SIP, including previously adopted ARB regulations for consumer products, reformulated gasoline, and off-road recreational vehicles. It is anticipated that U.S. EPA will ultimately approve the SIP in its entirety.

ORAL TESTIMONY:  None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 95-11 by a vote of 11-0, supporting the enactment of federal legislation to eliminate the FIP obligation for the South Coast, Sacramento, and Ventura nonattainment areas.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  EO/OAQTP

STAFF REPORT:  None

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

Staff presented an overview of smoking vehicle programs implemented by air pollution control districts. The presentation was based upon district responses to an information survey request and included aspects of each program's budget, complaint volume, complaint response procedures, contributions of other supporting agencies, ARB involvement, and reception of the program by California residents. General findings indicate broad public support for such programs, the first of which was initiated in 1975. Five districts currently have dedicated programs and the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD is implementing one in 1995. Over 1 million complaints have been received statewide since the program's inception.

ORAL TESTIMONY:  None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:  None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  EO/OEA

STAFF REPORT:  None

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

The staff presented a proposed report to the Legislature on the Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Program. The ARB is required to report once to the Legislature on the programs funded by the vehicle registration surcharge fees that are authorized by AB 2766 (Sher, 1990) and AB 434 (Sher, 1991). The authorizing statutes require the ARB to assess how the fees were used to support air pollution control and to provide any conclusions and recommendations that the analysis suggests.

Funds must be used solely to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles and for related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies necessary for the implementation of the California Clean Air Act. Information reported by the districts and included in the report indicated that the expenditure of the fees generally complies with the requirements of State law.

Based on the need for continued formal oversight of the program, several recommendations for administrative and legislative changes were proposed by staff. These included biennial reporting by the ARB to the Legislature, to be based on information submitted annually by the districts, including the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, and the preparation by the ARB of a guidance document. Other recommendations were preparation of eligibility criteria for programs or projects funded by local jurisdictions in the South Coast Air Basin and the San Francisco Bay Area and annual, instead of biennial, audits of those programs. The ARB staff did not recommend any major changes in the existing program or eligibility criteria.

After the staff presentation and testimony, the Board directed the staff to do the following:

- Develop criteria for judging project and program effectiveness as
   guidance for districts and other agencies, and include that information
   in an expanded proposed report, and

- Submit the expanded proposed report to the Board for its consideration in
   approximately 90 days.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

James Ortner, Ph.D.                 Orange County Private Sector

Ed Romano                              Glenn County Air Pollution Control District

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:  None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  EO/OAQTP

STAFF REPORT:  Yes (106 pages)

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

This is the second biannual report to the Board on the status of efforts to implement the Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) regulations. The initial report was provided to the Board in June, 1994.

On November 22, 1991, the Air Resources Board approved the California Phase 2 RFG regulations. The Phase 2 RFG regulations define a comprehensive set of specifications (eight) for commercial gasoline. The specifications are designed to achieve the maximum reductions in emissions of criteria and toxic air contaminants from gasoline-powered vehicles.

To assist in the transition to Phase 2 RFG, all gasoline produced for sale in California must meet the specifications beginning March 1, 1996. Fuel distributors are required to have complying fuel by April 15, 1996 and service stations are required to provide the complying fuel to the public by June 1, 1996. The intent of the phased-in requirements is to allow adequate implementation lead-time to avoid potential supply and distribution problems.

On June 22, 1994, an Advisory Committee was formed to advise the Air Resources Board on the implementation of the Phase 2 RFG regulations. The Phase 2 RFG Advisory Committee is comprised of policy-level representatives from auto manufacturers, the petroleum industry, business associations, environmental groups, and federal, state, and local governments. The Committee has approximately 75 members and generally meets quarterly.

Three subcommittees grew out of the Advisory Committee, to provide technical expertise on specific Phase 2 RFG implementation issues. Subcommittees were formed to address issues on performance and compatibility, transition, and public education. Each subcommittee has from 30 to 50 members and the subcommittees generally meet bimonthly.

Dean Simeroth, Chief of the Air Resources Board's Criteria Pollutants Branch, informed the Board that the Performance Subcommittee approved: the on-road and off-road test program protocols; the test fuel specifications; the criteria for selecting a refiner to produce the test fuel; and the selection of the test fleets. The on-road test program is scheduled to begin at the end of February, 1995.

Susan Brown, California Energy Commission (CEC) and Transition Subcommittee discussion leader, informed the Board that beginning January 1, 1995, Federal RFG was smoothly implemented in California, with little or no price increase. Ms. Brown also indicated that CEC and ARB staff currently forecast that refiners have the capacity to meet a maximum demand scenario for ARB Phase 2 RFG. Maximum demand for ARB Phase 2 is based on the assumption of a two percent growth rate from 1995 through the year 2000. This subcommittee is also working on regional supply, distribution and compliance issues.

Ron Friesen, Assistant Chief, Stationary Source Division, informed the Board that the Public Education Subcommittee has been working to develop a public outreach strategy to inform the public in the most effective and coherent ways of the benefits and impacts of Phase 2 RFG. The Public Education Subcommittee is in the process of contracting with a public relations firm to provide advice and guidance on the development of this strategy. The Public Education Subcommittee has begun its outreach efforts by preparing two fact sheets on Phase 2 RFG and two issues of an RFG newsletter, "California RFG Forum."

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Carolyn Green                                    Ultramar

Dr. Gerald Barnes                              General Motors

Janet Hathaway                                  Natural Resources Defense Council

Mary Morgan                                     Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines

Janet Speelman                                   AuTO-CA

Donald Bea                                        Chevron

Mike Kulakowski                               Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:  None

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION:  SSD

STAFF REPORT:  None