State of California

Summary of Board Meeting
June 9, 1994

Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
Sacramento, California

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Hons. Jacqueline E. Schafer, Chairwoman
                                                 Brian Bilbray
                                                 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
                                                 Doug Vagim
                                                 Harriett Wieder



Public Meeting to Consider an Update on the Status of the Implementation of California's Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline Regulations


The staff provided an update to the Board on the progress towards implementing the Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG) requirements. The staff also provided an overview of the Phase 2 RFG regulations, the impacts of the regulations, and the staff's efforts to help ensure a smooth implementation of the regulations.

The Phase 2 RFG regulations are a comprehensive set of specifications for eight gasoline properties which include: Reid vapor pressure, sulfur, oxygen, aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, olefins, T90, and T50. The specifications are designed to achieve the maximum reductions in emissions of criteria and toxic air contaminants from gasoline-powered vehicles. All gasoline produced for sale in California will have to meet the specifications beginning March 1, 1996. Small refiners may qualify for a two-year extension for four of the eight specifications.

The Phase 2 RFG regulations are an essential component of the Air Resources Board's (ARB) overall strategy to reduce motor vehicle emissions in California. On the average, Phase 2 RFG will reduce ozone precursors over the first four years (1996 to 2000) by approximately 12% (310 tons/day) and toxic air contaminants by approximately 30%.

To meet the regulations' requirements, refiners who produce gasoline for sale in California will be required to make substantial modifications to their facilities. Approximately five billion dollars will be invested in refinery modifications. The capital investment should result in approximately 20,000 construction jobs.

Since June 1992, the ARB staff and other state and local agencies have assisted the refiners in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and permitting process. To date, ten of the large refiners have completed the CEQA process and the remaining are expected to complete the process by the end of 1994. Also, nine refiners have received partial or full air permits for their Phase 2 RFG projects.

The regulations also require gasoline producers to submit compliance plans to the ARB annually beginning March 1, 1993 through March 1, 1995. To date, all large refiners except one (Pacific), have indicated in their compliance plans that they expect to produce Phase 2 RFG by the March 1996 compliance date. Pacific projects compliance by the end of 1997.

Based on the estimated production volumes included in the compliance plans, the refiners' aggregate volume of Phase 2 RFG exceeds the projected demand of gasoline for the State. Currently, the estimate for the maximum production of Phase 2 RFG is 1,000,000 barrels/day, while the maximum demand is projected to be about 920,000 barrels/day. Staff expects to receive more reliable estimates of production in the next compliance plan update. Staff is also working with the California Energy Commission to evaluate Phase 2 RFG supply and demand issues.

To assess the compatibility and performance of Phase RFG in the existing vehicle fleet, a cooperative effort is ongoing with the refiners and auto manufacturers to investigate any potential performance issues. ARB will initiate a fleet testing program this year.

The public is kept informed on the refiners' progress towards Phase 2 RFG implementation through quarterly status reports. These reports include CEQA and permitting status and have more recently included the estimated production volume data. In the future, information on benefits, supply, and estimated production cost will be provided to the public.

Staff will be providing the Board with periodic updates approximately every six months on the Phase 2 RFG implementation issues.


Doug Youngblood                                 Texaco Inc.




94-6-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, Including Amendments Providing for the Use of a Predictive Model


The amendments to the California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG) regulations would allow the use of a predictive model to evaluate and approve alternative Phase 2 RFG formulations and modify several sections of the Phase 2 RFG regulations to facilitate implementation. Overall, the amendments are designed to provide additional flexibility to gasoline producers without sacrificing either the emission benefits or the enforceability of the Phase 2 RFG regulations.

The amendments define the California predictive model and establish the protocol for its use. The California predictive model is a set of equations that allows one to estimate the change in exhaust emissions from motor vehicles that will occur when the value of one or more selected fuel properties is changed. It is used to compare the emissions associated with a gasoline meeting alternative Phase 2 RFG specifications to a gasoline meeting the Phase 2 RFG specifications.

The amendments also improve the implementation of the regulation by allowing gasoline distribution facilities downstream of the refineries more time to comply with the regulations. The amendments allow producers to select flat or averaging limits more frequently and allow producers to report estimated volumes of final blends of gasoline subject to designated alternative limits. The amendments also relieve the burden of compliance for small-volume importers of gasoline produced in California.

The staff also proposed modifications to the original proposal. These included the simplification of the hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen equations through the use of a linearization technique and the simplification of the toxics equations through the elimination of insignificant terms. The staff also proposed modifications to allow producers more flexibility in complying with the averaging limit option during the first two years of the regulation and to allow producers to enter into enforcement protocols concerning the notification requirements of the predictive model.

The additional flexibility provided gasoline producers by these amendments and modifications will allow producers to make more gasoline at a lower cost. allow producers to make more gasoline at a and minimize the potential for disruptions in the supply of gasoline.


Mike Kulakowski                  Western States Petroleum Association

Nancy Holmeister                  American Automobile Manufacturers Association

Jerry Horn                             Chevron

Alan Lippincott                      Arco

Dennis Lamb                         Unocal

Doug Youngblood                 Texaco

Chuck Morgan                      Mobil

Tom Eizember                       Exxon

Mike Bird, Ph.D.                   Exxon

Duane Bordvick                     Tosco


Adopted Resolution 94-38 by a vote of 10-0.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (55 pages)

94-6-3 Public Meeting to Consider a Draft Report: Planned Air Pollution Research: 1994 Update and Joint Meeting of the Research Screening Committee and the Air Resources Board


Chairwoman Schafer thanked the members of the Research Screening Committee for their support and review of the last year's research proposals and reports.

Staff described the research planning process, and highlighted the new projects for Fiscal Year 1994-95 featured in the Planned Air Pollution Research: 1994 Update. Only ten new projects are proposed for next year. This is primarily because a significant fraction of Fiscal Year 1994-95 funds will be needed to fund previously approved multi-year projects. The new projects include:

     Motor Vehicle Emissions Controls - performance testing of vehicles using
     Phase 2 reformulated gasoline, and demonstration of the feasibility of a
     field-functional sensor for nitrogen oxide emissions.

     Toxic Air Contaminants - evaluation of factors that affect diesel exhaust

     California Clean Air Act - determination of factors affecting gasoline service
     station emissions, comparison of weekend and weekday emissions inventories
     for stationary sources, characterization of spatial variability in pollutant levels
     for airshed modeling, characterization of sources and composition of volatile
     oxygenated organic compounds, investigation of ozone-alkene reaction
     mechanisms, and development of a hydroxyl radical measurement technique.

     Air Quality Standards - evaluation of long-term effects of pollutants on forests
     in California.

In response to questions raised by the Board, staff elaborated on the following points:

(1) The research budget is effectively larger due to cost sharing provided by
      other sources.

(2) Decisions regarding which areas to fund are determined by combining the
      Board's goals and objectives with the research needs established by staff.

(3) Legislation provides funding for some specific research programs that are
      not in the extramural research budget, such as indoor air pollution.

(4) Different methods may be used to consider research proposals; each
      method deals with costs in a different way.

(5) Staff also seriously consider funding unsolicited proposals that are received.

(6) Results of research are disseminated to potential users.

(7) Economic studies are considered for funding by one of the staff's research

(8) Staff agrees that relevant research findings need to be made available for
      use by transportation commissions.

(9) ARB's potential liability in health research studies is considered to be
      relatively limited.



Adopted Resolution 94-39 approving the Planned Air Pollution Research: 1994 Update by a vote of 10-1.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (134 pages)

94-6-4 Consideration of Research Proposals

Research Proposals 94-40, 94-41, 94-42, 94-43, 94-44, 94-45, 94-46, 94-47, 94-48 were approved unanimously.

94-6-5 Public Meeting to Consider the Approval of Definitions Recommended by the ARB Advisory Committee on Ridesharing


Staff presented a brief history of ridesharing and current efforts at reform, including AB 1336, Gotch(1993). Staff then presented the work of the Advisory Committee (Committee) on Ridesharing and discussed twenty-one definitions developed by the Committee.

In response to public testimony, the Board chose to modify the definition of "vehicle trip" to treat electric vehicle trips as zero trips. The Board also modified the definition of "seasonal employee" to include agricultural workers who work less than 16 weeks. Consistent with staff's recommendation, the Board took no action on the definition of "disabled employee." All other definitions were approved as proposed by the Advisory Committee.


James Lantry                              California Retail Air Quality Coalition

William Nack                             Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building
                                                  and Construction Trades Council

Catherine Wasikowski                South Coast AQMD

Lois Wright                                 California Electric Transportation Coalition

Lynn Osborne                             Transpac


Adopted Resolution 94-49, with modifications, by a vote of 5-3.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (28 pages)