MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD HEARING ROOM CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1995 9:30 A.M. Nadine J. Parks Shorthand Reporter ii MEMBERS PRESENT John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman Eugene A. Boston, M.D. Joseph C. Calhoun Lynne T. Edgerton M. Patricia Hilligoss John S. Lagarias Jack C. Parnell Ron Roberts Doug Vagim Staff: Jim Boyd, Executive Officer Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Mike Kenny, Chief Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Bob Cross, Assistant Chief, Mobile Source Division Susan Huscroft, Chief, On-Road Controls Branch, MSD Bill Lovelace, Manager, Regulatory Strategy Section MSD Steve Church, Staff, Regulatory Strategy Section, MSD Diane Glazer, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Bill Loscutoff, Chief, Monitoring & Laboratory Division George Lew, Chief, Engineering & Laboratory Branch, MLD James Loop, Staff, MLD Jim Morgester, Chief, Compliance Division Laura McKinney, Manager, Investigations & Certifications Section, Compliance Division Cindy Castronovo, Manager, Evaluation Section, MLD Jim Ryden, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Michael Carter, Chief, Off-Road Control Regulations Branch, MSD Jack Kitowski, Manager, Toxics & Fuels Section, MSD Annette Hebert, Staff, Toxics Fuels Section, MSD Vicky Davis, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs James Shikiya, Chief, Southern Laboratory Branch, MLD Dean Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, SSD Paul Rieger, Staff, Inorganic Analysis Section, MLD Tom Jennings, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs iii APPEARANCES, continued. . . Lynn Terry, Acting Chief, Office of Air Quality and Transportation Planning Elizabeth Miller, Staff, Transportation Strategies Group, OAQTP Leslie Krinsk, Staff Counsel Patricia Hutchens, Board Secretary Wendy Grandchamp, Secretary Wayne Rodgers, Chief, Administrative Services Division Bill Valdez, Staff, Administrative Services Division iv I N D E X PAGE Proceedings 1 Call to Order and Roll Call 1 Opening Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 2 AGENDA ITEMS: 95-6-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Regulations Regarding California Exhaust Emission Standards & Test Procedures for 1985 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, to Specify Mandatory Standards for 1998 and Subsequent Heavy-Duty Engines and Optional Standards for 1995 and Subsequent Heavy- Duty Engines Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 5 Staff Presentation: Jim Boyd Executive Officer 6 Steve Church Staff, Regulatory Strategy Section Mobile Source Division 9 Questions/Comments 22 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Glenn Keller Engine Manufacturers Association 28 Questions/Comments 34 (Direction to Staff by Chairman) 38, 39 Questions/Comments 39 Written Comments Entered into Record by Bill Lovelace 43 v INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 95-6-1 Record Officially Closed by Chair 44 Motion to Approve Resolution 95-26 by Boston 45 Roll Call Vote 45, 46 95-6-2 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption, Amendment, and Repeal of Regulations Regarding Certification Procedures and Test Procedures for Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 46 Staff Presentation: Jim Boyd Executive Officer 47 Cindy Castronovo Manager Evaluation Section, MLD 50 Questions/Comments 61 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Donald Gilson, P.E. WSPA 62 Questions/Comments 64 Written Comments Entered Into Record by Ms. Castronovo 68 Official Closing of Record, awaiting 15-day notice of public availability 69, 70 Motion by Lagarias to Approve Resolution 95-27 70 Roll Call Vote 71, 72 vi INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 95-6-3 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards and Test Procedures, and Modifications to Evaporative Test Procedures Applicable to 1998 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 72 Staff Presentation: Jim Boyd Executive Officer 73 Annette Hebert Staff Toxics Fuels Section, MSD 74 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Barbara Wendling/Gregory Dana American Automobile Manufacturers Assn. Association of International Automobile Manufacturers 87 Questions/Comments 92 Written Comments Entered into Record by Ms. Hebert 98 Questions/Comments 100 Record Officially Closed to Await Notice of 15-day comment period 110 Motion by Lagarias to Approve Resolution 95-28, with amendment 111 Roll Call Vote 112, 113 Luncheon Recess 113 Afternoon Session 114 vii INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 95-6-4 Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Test Method Designated for Determining Oxygen Content of Gasoline Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 114 Staff Presentation: Jim Boyd Executive Officer 114 Paul Rieger Staff Inorganic Analysis Section, MLD 115 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Donald Bea WSPA 121 Questions/Comments 122 Written Comments Entered into Record by Mr. Rieger 124 Record Officially Closed by Chairman 125 Motion by Parnell to Approve Resolution 95-29 125 Roll Call Vote 126, 127 95-6-5 and Public Hearing to Consider Adoption 95-6-6 of Emissions Formula for Employer- Based Trip Reductions & Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Guidance on Data Reporting re Ridesharing Required by AB 1336 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 127 viii INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 95-6-5 Staff Presentation: and 95-6-6 Jim Boyd Executive Officer 128 Elizabeth Miller Staff Transportation Strategies Group 130 OAQTP PUBLIC COMMENTS: Deborah Kurilchyk Southern California Edison 137 Questions/Comments 139 Written Comments Entered Into Record by Ms. Miller 142 Record Officially Closed on Item 95-6-5 to Await Notice of 15 day comment period 142 Questions/Comments 144 Motion by Boston to Approve Resolution 95-30 145 Roll Call Vote 145, 146 Motion by Roberts to Approve Resolution 95-31 146 Roll Call Vote 146, 147 Adjournment 148 Certificate of Reporter 149 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'd like to call the June 4 meeting of the California Air Resources Board to order, and 5 ask the Board Secretary to please call the roll. 6 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston? 7 DR. BOSTON: Here. 8 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 9 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 11 MS. EDGERTON: Here. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 13 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Here. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 15 MR. LAGARIAS: Here. 16 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 17 MR. PARNELL: Here. 18 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan? 19 Roberts? 20 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva? 22 Vagim? 23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Here. 24 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. Thank you. 2 1 Before we begin the meeting, I'd like to take a 2 moment and recognize one of our colleagues on the Board, 3 Jack Lagarias, who was presented with the Air and Waste 4 Management Association's Richard Beatty Mellon Award at the 5 88th Annual Meeting on June 22nd in San Antonio, Texas, 6 during a luncheon ceremony in the presence of nearly 800 7 AWMA members and fellow colleagues. 8 He was accompanied by his wife Virginia. And the 9 Mellon Award is presented to one individual annually, and 10 honors whose contributions of a civic nature, whether 11 administrative, legislative, or judicial, have aided 12 substantially in the missions and objectives of the Air and 13 Waste Management Association. 14 Jack was recognized primarily for his leadership 15 in developing and promoting flexible regulations in an 16 environmental career that spans nearly 50 years. Each of 17 you on the Board have been provided with additional details 18 about this outstanding recognition of Jack as it was 19 included in the honors and awards luncheon brochure. 20 I'd also like to mention that Jim Boyd, our 21 Executive Officer, who's serving in his second year of a 22 three-year term as an elected member of the AWMA Board of 23 Directors, was elected at that meeting to assume the 24 position of vice-president of the Association. 25 Congratulations to you, Jim. 3 1 AWMA was founded, as many of you know, in 1907; 2 has more than 15,000 members representing 57 countries, and 3 is considered the premier environmental association for 4 professionals in the field of air and waste. 5 More than 7,000 individuals attended the week-long 6 conference this year to hear or present technical papers. 7 So, I wanted to point that out. 8 Jack, we're proud of you. Congratulations. 9 (Applause) 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And, Jim, good luck. 11 MR. BOYD: Thank you, I'll need it. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. We'll begin. 13 I'd like to take a few moments to comment on the 14 series of zero-emission vehicle forums that the staff is 15 currently holding. 16 These forums are the result of the Board's 17 direction at the May, '94 biennial review that the staff 18 commit to a routine, continuous assessment of the 19 implementation issues related to the zero-emission vehicle 20 requirements. 21 Information collected at these forums will help 22 the staff provide an update to the Board at the next 23 biennial review scheduled for the spring of '96. The staff 24 has completed two forums already. The first forum held in 25 May dealt with issues related to hybrid electric vehicles. 4 1 The second, which was held just yesterday, dealt with the 2 consumer marketability of electric vehicles. 3 Both forums have been a perfect vehicle -- pardon 4 the pun -- for providing an opportunity for information 5 exchange, and have been successful in achieving our goal of 6 taking a hard look at the issues related to the zero- 7 emission vehicle requirement. 8 The forums have given the staff and the Board an 9 opportunity to identify new issues and to better understand 10 the barriers that must be overcome for the successful 11 introduction of this program. 12 I was pleased yesterday, while I attended the 13 session, to see such an enthusiastic interest in the 14 program. We had, I think, nearly 200 people in attendance. 15 About 160 people attended the hybrid forum in May. And for 16 those of you that are interested in participating in the 17 ongoing series of forums, I'd point out that the next forum 18 will discuss issues related to infrastructure and will also 19 specifically address the environmental impact of lead acid 20 batteries. 21 This forum will be held on July 12 in our El Monte 22 office. Copies of the schedule for these forums are on, I 23 think, the back table outside. 24 So, I encourage you to participate and track 25 what's going on. There's some press clips also being 5 1 circulated. There was some press coverage yesterday. 2 I'd like to remind those of you in the audience 3 who would like to present testimony to the Board on any of 4 today's items to please sign up with the Board Secretary to 5 my left. If you have a written statement, please give 20 6 copies to her. 7 The first item on the agenda today is 95-6-1, a 8 public hearing to consider amendments to regulations 9 regarding California exhaust emission standards and test 10 procedures for 1985 and subsequent model heavy-duty engines 11 and vehicles, to specify mandatory standards for '98 and 12 subsequent heavy-duty engines and optional standards for '95 13 and subsequent heavy-duty engines. 14 The California Health & Safety Code directs the 15 Board to seek the maximum degree of emission reductions 16 possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to 17 attain State ambient air quality standards at the earliest 18 practicable date. 19 With the Board's adoption of the State 20 Implementation Plan last year in November, we have set forth 21 the blueprint that will lead California to its clean air 22 goals in the next decade. 23 But first, we must implement initial measures that 24 will lay the groundwork for the advanced technology and 25 innovative control programs yet to come. So, presented for 6 1 our consideration today are amendments to revise the 2 California exhaust emission standards and test procedures to 3 certify 1998 and later model year heavy-duty engines. 4 The proposed amendments also include optional 5 standards for '95 and later model year heavy-duty engines, 6 which will help pave the way to increased use of market 7 incentives. 8 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Boyd to 9 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation. 10 Jim? 11 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap and good 12 morning to you and to members of the Board, and to members 13 of the our audience. Welcome to this meeting. 14 As a postscript, Mr. Chairman, I would say being 15 vice-president of a 15,000 member organization's a piece of 16 cake after the training here at the Air Resources Board of a 17 thousand-member staff. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We believe that. 19 MR. BOYD: And congratulations from the staff to 20 Mr. Lagarias. 21 Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, as you all 22 know, make a very significant contribution to California air 23 quality problems. Certainly, you heard that during the 24 discussions of the SIP last November. 25 Although heavy-duty vehicles represent a small 7 1 portion of the total annual vehicle miles traveled here in 2 the State of California, they contribute nearly 40 percent 3 of the oxides of nitrogen, or NOx emissions attributable to 4 on-road motor vehicles. 5 Your Board has already implemented far-reaching 6 regulatory programs such as the low-emission vehicles and 7 the clean fuels programs that, as you know, are the most 8 stringent programs anywhere in terms of reduced emissions 9 from passenger cars, and from light-duty trucks, and from 10 medium-duty vehicles. 11 But, as you've heard before, we must now turn our 12 attention towards achieving significant emission reductions 13 from the heavy-duty vehicle population of California. 14 In June of 1993, your board adopted new emission 15 standards and test procedures for urban transit buses. 16 These standards are identical to the federal NOx emission 17 standards that apply to all heavy-duty vehicles, although 18 California's urban bus standards become effective two years 19 before the federal requirement. 20 At that time, you also created optional low-NOx 21 standards that allow lower polluting urban buses to be 22 certified and purchased for the generation of mobile source 23 emission reduction credits. 24 The proposed amendments being presented today are 25 similar to the previously adopted urban bus standards. 8 1 However, they're applicable to the remaining classes of 2 heavy-duty vehicles. 3 Now, your staff has developed a proposal that 4 would align California's NOx emission standards with the 5 current federal standards by requiring a 4 gram per brake 6 horsepower hour standard for 1998 and later model year new 7 heavy-duty vehicles. 8 Without this regulatory action, the 1998 9 California standards for heavy-duty vehicles, except for 10 urban buses, would be less stringent than the corresponding 11 federal standards. 12 The proposed amendments also include optional low- 13 emission standards that would allow vehicle operators to 14 generate mobile source emission reduction credits under a 15 heavy-duty vehicle credits program, or allow them to 16 participate in other incentive program as provided for in 17 the recently approved State Implementation Plan. 18 Finally, we are proposing an amendment to the 19 California motor vehicle emission control label 20 specifications to help to identify those heavy-duty engines 21 that are certified to the proposed optional NOx emission 22 standards. 23 In addition, we're proposing an amendment to the 24 useful life definition in order to allow us to make that 25 determination for heavy-duty engines and vehicles that will 9 1 align the current useful life requirements with the federal 2 requirements. 3 That's a mouthful, and it's a very complicated 4 transaction. So, I'll call upon Mr. Steve Church of the 5 Mobile Source Division to make the detailed staff 6 presentation of what it is we're proposing here. 7 Mr. Church? 8 MR. CHURCH: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 9 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, today I 10 will be addressing several topics concerning new NOx 11 certification standards for new heavy-duty engines and 12 vehicles sold in California. 13 My presentation will cover two objectives today. 14 The first is the need to adopt a new NOx certification 15 standard and an extension of the NOx emission useful life 16 period for heavy-duty engines and vehicles. 17 These changes are necessary to align the related 18 California regulations with the corresponding U.S. EPA 19 values scheduled to take effect in 1998. 20 The second objective is to ask the Board to adopt 21 optional reduced emission standards for heavy-duty engines 22 and vehicles that could be used for the early introduction 23 measure contained in the recently adopted State 24 implementation plan or for mobile source emission reduction 25 credit programs. 10 1 In this presentation, references to mandatory and 2 option NOx standards for the heavy-duty vehicles or engines 3 are not intended to include urban transit buses. Except for 4 the useful life provisions, similar regulations and 5 standards for urban bus engines have already been enacted by 6 the Board. 7 This presentation will consist of discussions of 8 the mandatory NOx certification standards, the NOx useful 9 life extension, the optional NOx certification standards, 10 the major issues raised by the public, and finally, a 11 summary. 12 First, I'll talk about the proposed mandatory 13 heavy-duty NOx certification standards. By way of 14 background, this chart indicates the need for NOx emission 15 controls on heavy-duty vehicles in the State. 16 The upper two diagrams show that on-road heavy- 17 duty vehicles constitute only a small fraction of the number 18 of all on-road vehicles in California, and account for a 19 similarly small proportion of the total vehicle miles 20 traveled. 21 But the bottom pie chart shows that this vehicle 22 category accounts for nearly one-half of all the on-road NOx 23 emissions in the State. Clearly, this indicates that 24 enhanced control of on-road heavy-duty vehicles represents a 25 straightforward opportunity to significantly improve 11 1 California's air quality. 2 Certification in the heavy-duty category is 3 conducted differently from the way it is done for light- and 4 medium-duty vehicles. For the light- and medium-duty 5 categories, the vehicle and engine are certified as a 6 complete unit with testing conducted on a chassis 7 dynamometer. 8 This is convenient, since engines from most light- 9 and medium-duty vehicles are provided by the vehicle 10 manufacturer itself. This testing approach gives emission 11 results in terms of the number of grams of pollutant emitted 12 for each mile the vehicle runs over the test procedure. 13 It follows that the certification standards also 14 are established in terms of grams per mile. Such integrated 15 engine and vehicle testing includes the effect of 16 transmission, tires, wind resistance, and so forth on 17 vehicle certification emission levels. 18 However, heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers 19 generally do not make their own engines but, instead, buy 20 engines from a separate engine manufacturer. Since it is 21 the engine manufacturer who is ultimately responsible for 22 engine emissions, and since the engine manufacturer has very 23 little control over the configuration of the vehicle into 24 which the engine is installed, engine certification and 25 standards are based on engine-only emissions. 12 1 Therefore, heavy-duty emissions are measured in 2 terms of mass of pollutant emitted per unit of engine work 3 performed, usually grams per brake horsepower hour. The 4 standards are also set in these units. This approach 5 essentially eliminates variations in transmission and other 6 vehicle characteristics as having a direct effect on 7 certification testing. 8 The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 required the 9 U.S. EPA to implement new heavy-duty diesel and gasoline 10 engine certification standards for NOx emissions at a level 11 not to exceed 4 grams per brake horsepower hour. 12 These new standards were required to be effective 13 beginning with the 1998 model year. The U.S. EPA issued a 14 final rule in March of 1993 to implement this requirement. 15 The current standard in California for new heavy- 16 duty vehicles, other than urban buses, is 5 grams per brake 17 horsepower hour. If a new California standard is not 18 adopted, this will be the heavy-duty standard in effect in 19 the State in 1998, when the lower federal 4 gram standard 20 goes into effect for the rest of the nation. 21 This clearly is not in keeping with the spirit of 22 California's efforts to have a motor vehicle emission 23 control program that is at least as stringent as that 24 covering the rest of the country. 25 As noted previously, today's proposal addresses 13 1 the issue of aligning the California standard for heavy-duty 2 vehicles with the corresponding federal standard. This 3 slide shows a tabular comparison of recent changes to the 4 federal and California heavy-duty NOx certification 5 standards. 6 Adoption of today's proposal will continue the 7 history of keeping California NOx standards at least equal 8 to the corresponding federal standards. Note that urban 9 buses area covered as a separate category, and that a 10 California 4 gram standard for buses previously has been 11 adopted by the Board. 12 The U.S. EPA also changed the statutory useful 13 life for NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. At the 14 same time that the U.S. EPA established the 4 gram NOx 15 standard, they also extended the heavy-duty useful life 16 period from eight years to ten years. This affects the 17 length of time that an engine manufacturer is responsible 18 for NOx emission durability performance. 19 This change was also required by the 1990 Clean 20 Air Act amendments, and applies to all new heavy-duty 21 vehicles beginning with the 1998 model year. 22 The mileage portion of the useful life requirement 23 remains unchanged. 24 Today's proposal, if adopted, would raise 25 California's useful life requirement from eight years to ten 14 1 years to align it with the federal requirement. This would 2 become effective with the 1998 model year. 3 Like the federal rule, the mileage portion of the 4 California useful life requirement would remain unchanged. 5 This slide shows the current status and the 6 proposed future status of heavy-duty vehicle useful life 7 requirements for NOx emissions. Note that the post-1998 8 California useful life period will only equal the federal 9 value if steps are taken to align California regulations 10 with the federal regulations. 11 Adoption of today's proposal will continue the 12 history of keeping California useful life requirements 13 aligned with the corresponding federal standards. This NOx 14 useful life extension also applies to urban bus engines. 15 Next, I'll discuss the proposed optional heavy- 16 duty certification standards. 17 The proposed optional certification standards 18 provide for engine certification to standards lower than 19 those required by regulation. They would be used to 20 quantify emission reductions for reduced emission vehicle 21 early introduction programs, an important component of the 22 State Implementation Plan, or SIP. 23 Such quantification is also important for mobile 24 source credit programs. The optional standards approach 25 proposed here is identical to that previously approved by 15 1 the Board for use with urban bus engines. It is important 2 to note that these optional standards are strictly voluntary 3 and that no one is required to use them unless participating 4 in one of these voluntary programs. 5 Incentive-based programs for the early 6 introduction of reduced emission heavy-duty vehicles ahead 7 of mandatory requirements would be made possible by the use 8 of the optional certification standards. 9 One such early introduction program is called for 10 in Measure M4 of the SIP. The optional standards are 11 necessary to implement this SIP measure. 12 Use of these optional standards to identify which 13 engines or vehicles are valid participants is necessary to 14 quantify the reductions to be achieved and to ensure that 15 there will be no attempts to exaggerate the low-emission 16 claims for a particular engine. 17 A word about credits if appropriate here. 18 Emission reduction credits are a way of transferring the 19 effect of emission reductions from one source to another. 20 If a source's emissions are reduced below the levels it is 21 otherwise required to meet, that extra reduction could be 22 credited to another emission source, such that this second 23 source may exceed its required level by the amount of the 24 credit. 25 The main idea is that there is no net increase in 16 1 emissions from the two sources. 2 Mobile source emission reduction credits are 3 simply credits generated by reducing the emissions from 4 mobile sources. Note that credit programs provide no direct 5 air quality benefit unless part of the credit is 6 deliberately set aside for that purpose. 7 Accurate credit quantification is important to 8 ensure the viability of any credit program. From this 9 follow the three necessary criteria that must be met for an 10 emission reduction to be usable as a credit. 11 First, the reduction must be surplus; that is, it 12 must in excess of any federal, state, or local requirements, 13 or to emission levels already occurring. 14 Second, the reduction must be real and 15 significant, not the result of creative bookkeeping -- 16 creative bookkeeping or of just recalibrating an engine, 17 such that some small minor reduction takes place. 18 Finally, the reduction must be readily 19 quantifiable so that planning and regulatory agencies can 20 accurately account for the emissions trading and protect the 21 overall air quality. 22 The use of optional standards for credit 23 calculation allows credit programs to readily meet these 24 requirements. As an example, consider the case of a heavy- 25 duty truck operator who purchases a reduced emission truck 17 1 with an engine certified to, say, a 2.0 gram per brake 2 horsepower hour optional NOx standard. 3 Assuming the operator otherwise would have bought 4 a truck certified only to the current mandatory NOx standard 5 of 5 grams per brake horsepower hour, the operator is then 6 eligible to generate a NOx credit based on a reduction for 7 the difference of 3 grams per brake horsepower hour. 8 Making reasonable assumptions about the lifetime 9 vehicle mileage accumulation and the conversion factor 10 relating engine work to miles traveled, the total credit 11 amount is calculated to be more than 5 tons over the life of 12 the truck. 13 This table presents the specific values proposed 14 for the optional standards for heavy-duty diesel engines. 15 For the vehicles of model years 1995 through 1997, the 16 standards range from 3.5 grams down to 0.5 grams per brake 17 horsepower hour, inclusive, in 0.5 gram increments. 18 For 1998 and later model years, they range from 19 2.5 grams down to 0.5 grams in 0.5 gram increments. 20 The maximum optional credit level is reduced in 21 1998 to correspond with the proposed reduction in the 22 mandatory standard in that year. 23 These levels are identical to those previously 24 adopted for urban bus use. They were chosen to provide the 25 manufacturers with the maximum flexibility possible, while 18 1 still meeting the U.S. EPA requirements that the subsequent 2 emission reductions are indeed surplus, real, and 3 quantifiable. 4 It is of interest to note that there is no zero 5 emission optional standard included in this table. The 6 conventional certification procedures would not be 7 applicable for use on a zero emission heavy-duty vehicle due 8 to the nature of such a vehicle. 9 However, zero emission heavy-duty vehicle designs 10 would be certified through other procedures, primarily based 11 on engineering evaluations of the basic design as opposed to 12 measurements made during engine dynamometer runs. 13 Zero emission heavy-duty vehicles are eligible to 14 participate in the same credit and incentive programs as 15 other reduced emission heavy-duty vehicles. 16 Some existing gasoline heavy-duty engines already 17 have NOx emission levels that are significantly lower than 18 the current mandatory standard, although there is a large 19 amount of variability between engine families. 20 Since the engines providing such reductions are 21 already commonly in use, the reductions would not be 22 eligible for use as credits, because they clearly are not 23 surplus. This concern dictates that lower maximum optional 24 standards be used for gasoline engines relative to diesel 25 engines to ensure the surplus nature of emission reductions 19 1 to be used for credits. 2 This also has the added effect of eliminating 3 incentives for simply switching from existing diesel engines 4 to existing gasoline engines, which would also violate the 5 surplus criterion. 6 This table presents the specific values proposed 7 for the optional standards for heavy-duty gasoline engines. 8 As done for the diesel optional standards, the gasoline 9 standards were chosen to provide the manufacturers with the 10 maximum flexibility possible, while meeting the requirements 11 of surplus, real, and quantifiable emission reductions. 12 This table clearly shows that the highest optional 13 credit levels are reduced in 1998 to correspond with the 14 proposed reduction in the mandatory standard that would go 15 into effect in that year, if adopted today. 16 The two major issues related to today's proposal 17 concern the structure of the optional standard values. 18 Engine manufacturer representatives have requested 19 that the increment between the optional standard values be 20 reduced to provide more closely spaced values. They point 21 out that this would provide easier certification of engines 22 and a closer match between actual emissions and the 23 certification standard. 24 However, staff is concerned that smaller 25 increments would encourage shaving of compliance margins, 20 1 resulting in reduced protection against measurement 2 uncertainty and engine-to-engine variability in emissions 3 performance. 4 Staff believes that the proposed structure 5 utilizing half-gram increments adequately addresses this 6 concern and also is consistent with the urban bus optional 7 standards previously adopted by the Board. 8 Similar requests have been made during previous 9 presentations to the Board on optional standards. The Board 10 responded by directing the staff to reevaluate the increment 11 size once sufficient related experience and data have been 12 obtained. The staff remains committed to doing so at such 13 time. 14 The manufacturer representatives have also 15 requested that the maximum optional standards be raised to 16 bring them closer to the mandatory standards. They claim 17 that this would also allow more engines to be certified to 18 optional standards. 19 Again, staff is concerned about the incentive to 20 shave compliance margins and the resulting impact on the 21 surplus, real, and quantifiable credit requirements 22 previously described. 23 Since compliance margins already exist, they do 24 not meet the surplus criterion for use as mobile source 25 emission reduction credits. 21 1 The maximum optional standards proposed here are 2 consistent with those previously adopted by the Board. 3 Staff will also reexamine this issue when adequate data are 4 available. 5 I will now summarize today's presentation. The 6 federal 4 gram NOx standard is already in place and is 7 scheduled to become effective in 1998. It includes an 8 extension to the heavy-duty NOx standard useful life from 8 9 years to 10 years. 10 Staff believes that alignment of the certification 11 standard and useful life are necessary to maintain 12 California's heavy-duty motor vehicle emissions program to 13 be at least as stringent as the federal program. 14 The proposed optional standards would provide 15 certification means and assurances which could be utilized 16 by programs already in place or anticipated, such as the 17 early introduction program of SIP Measure M4 and the mobile 18 source emission reduction credit programs. 19 It is expected that these standards and their uses 20 would also encourage the development of reduced emission 21 engines on a strictly voluntary basis. The issues of 22 increment size and maximum standard value will continue to 23 be evaluated as experienced is gained with optional 24 certification. 25 That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Staff 22 1 would be happy to address any questions you may have at this 2 time. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any of the Board members have 4 any questions of staff? 5 Mr. Calhoun. 6 MR. CALHOUN: In the past, it has been a tradition 7 to sort of align the gasoline standards for heavy-duty 8 vehicles, that gasoline and diesel would be the same. But 9 the optional standards that you're proposing, there's a 10 different standard for gasoline and diesel. 11 What's the rationale for that? 12 MR. CHURCH: The rationale is that for heavy-duty 13 diesel engines, the measured levels of NOx emissions during 14 their certification testing are very close to what the 15 mandatory standard is. But for gasoline engines, especially 16 those utilizing three-way catalyst systems and closed loop 17 systems, some of them measure emissions significantly below 18 the mandatory standard; some of them even below what the 19 optional 3.5 gram standard would be. 20 And since those engines are already in existence 21 and are already in use at those emission levels, that 22 emission reduction, therefore, would not be a surplus 23 emission reduction. And it doesn't meet the definition of 24 the requirement for credit use. 25 MR. CALHOUN: Well -- 23 1 MR. LOVELACE: Mr. Calhoun, if I might, I'd like 2 to add a little bit more to what Steve just said. 3 For the record, I'm Bill Lovelace with the Mobile 4 Source Division. 5 I'm looking at some certification data for some 6 various heavy-duty engines, both gasoline and diesel, and I 7 see one particular engine family that the certification 8 value for NOx is 2.8. So, as you can see, that engine is in 9 use. It's out there driving around, hopefully maintaining 10 that level throughout its life. That is a reduction that's 11 already been achieved by driving that as opposed to another 12 vehicle. 13 So, if we had the maximum credit standard set to, 14 say, 3.5 or even 3.0 in this case, this vehicle would be, 15 quote, "eligible for credit" when really there was no 16 emission reduction occurring. 17 The control system that this particular engine 18 manufacturer uses naturally brings it down to this 19 relatively low level. 20 So, as Steve mentioned, in this case, this would 21 not be a surplus emission reduction. So, we believe it is 22 inappropriate to have a credit level that is above what is 23 actually occurring right now. 24 MR. CALHOUN: I assume that you believe, also, 25 that it's not possible to have a diesel engine meet a 24 1 comparable standard; is that also true? 2 MR. LOVELACE: Well, again, looking at some 3 certification data, there are a number of them that are in 4 the low fours -- 4.2, 4.3 grams. So, yes, it's very 5 possible that -- especially in the next few years -- these 6 diesel engines might be able to get down to, say, a level of 7 3.5 grams. But that would be a real -- a real emission 8 reduction. 9 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I'm sure -- I'm going to ask 10 the engine manufacturers the same question when they come up 11 here. 12 But let me just assume one other thing. What 13 incentive is there for the manufacturers to certify to the 14 optional standards? What are they getting out of this? 15 MR. LOVELACE: Okay. There are two parts, as 16 Steve mentioned. One is the SIP measure for early 17 introduction of lower emitting engines. This is a program 18 to introduce these vehicles by incentives. We are working 19 on an incentive program. 20 The other part is for credits, such that if the -- 21 an entity purchases a vehicle -- a truck for example -- that 22 could emit at these lower levels, these credits would be 23 earned, and they are a marketable commodity. 24 So, in that sense, a manufacturer could make a 25 profit by selling a vehicle to someone who's going to have a 25 1 marketable commodity as a result of purchasing this low- 2 emission vehicle, the manufacturer can charge a higher price 3 for that -- that particular vehicle, because there is a 4 benefit to the end user. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Lagarias, and then 6 Dr. Boston. 7 MR. LAGARIAS: When you talk about the useful life 8 of a vehicle, and you're referring to 750,000 miles, are you 9 saying that that's what you expect would occur over a ten- 10 year period? 11 What does the 750,000 miles represent in years? 12 MR. CHURCH: Well, the useful life is the life 13 that -- the period of time for which the manufacturer is 14 responsible for or subject to recall and so on for repairing 15 any problems with the emissions control system on an engine. 16 Generally, the engines last much longer than that 17 useful life period. So, while the useful life for -- the 18 statutory useful life for heavy heavy-duty covers 290,000 19 miles, they last much longer. And that's why I used the 20 750,000 miles in that example. 21 MR. LAGARIAS: All right. When you use 750,000 22 miles for credit purposes, over what period of time do you 23 expect a vehicle to run to get 750,000 miles? 24 MR. LOVELACE: Well, one thing you have to 25 consider is that that probably would not be -- let's say 26 1 that that engine lasted for, let's say 12 years. The annual 2 mileage would not be 750,000 divided by 12. It would likely 3 be front-end loaded, and then taper off as that vehicle was 4 used. And that is likely the way the credits would be 5 apportioned -- perhaps 80,000 miles the first year, first 6 several years, and so on, all depending on the service of 7 the vehicle. 8 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, you've cited 750,000 miles as 9 an example. How many years would that credit be taken over? 10 MR. CHURCH: It depends on the vehicle. What I 11 had in mind with that particular example was probably 8 to 12 10 years. That would be a road vehicle that covers a lot of 13 miles in one year. It varies significantly, depending on 14 the vehicle, the use -- 15 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, I know it will vary. I want 16 to get a feel over what period of time we're talking about. 17 Most of the NOx emissions that you cited are from 18 the existing fleet. Now, these new vehicles presumably will 19 replace the existing fleet over a period of time. How 20 rapidly do you expect that turnover to occur? 21 MR. LOVELACE: The turnover, I believe, is 22 approximately 90 percent over a period of about 12 years. 23 MR. LAGARIAS: 12 years. Okay. So, that's what 24 we have to look at in terms of turnover. 25 If an existing vehicle were to be upgraded when 27 1 it's reworked, could it get credit if its emissions are now 2 reduced below the standard? 3 MR. LOVELACE: The Board approved guidelines about 4 a year and a half ago or retrofitting heavy-duty engines. 5 And, yes, the same kind of method is followed in terms of 6 crediting emission reductions. 7 MR. LAGARIAS: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Dr. Boston. 9 DR. BOSTON: Mr. Lovelace, on the optional 10 standards, grams per brake horsepower, I notice they're set 11 at half a gram increments. 12 I was thinking that was awfully close. Could we 13 really get a true emission benefit by setting it that close, 14 considering the wear and tear on the engines after a few 15 thousand miles? 16 I see there's opposition claiming that they should 17 be set even closer. But I was considering these were too 18 close at half-gram limits. 19 What's your thinking on that? 20 MR. LOVELACE: We believe that 0.5 grams is a 21 reasonable value and it is truly, truly measurable. One 22 other thing that's related to -- and I think you'll hear 23 from the engine manufacturers later on that there is a 24 compliance margin that a manufacturer would attempt to 25 achieve. That is, let's say I had an engine and I wanted to 28 1 certify it to a level of 3 grams, a 3 gram low-emission 2 engine. 3 I would not -- I would not put an engine out on 4 the street if my testing showed 3.0 grams. I'd be a little 5 bit worried that Engine A might be there but Engine B, as it 6 comes off the assembly line, might be at 3.2. And I could 7 be subject to a recall. 8 So, when there is that half-gram increment, we 9 believe that that is something that truly can be met and it 10 is real, but the manufacturers will provide a compliance 11 margin, also. 12 DR. BOSTON: Okay. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions by the Board 14 members? 15 Okay. Then, why don't we call the one and only 16 witness, Mr. Keller, from the Engine Manufacturers 17 Association, EMA. We'll have you come forward. 18 Good morning. 19 MR. KELLER: Good morning. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And we have copies of your 21 testimony as well. I think we've had a chance to look at 22 them, look at the comments. 23 MR. KELLER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members 24 of the Board. It's my pleasure to be here. 25 My name is Glenn Keller, and I'm the Executive 29 1 Director of the Engine Manufacturers Association, EMA. 2 EMA is a worldwide association of manufacturers of 3 engines for all applications except passenger cars and 4 aircraft. 5 EMA's membership includes the major manufacturers 6 of heavy-duty engines used in on-highway truck applications. 7 EMA strongly support the Board's adoption of 8 exhaust emission standards in California which will result 9 in alignment with EPA's national exhaust emission standards 10 for heavy-duty engines. 11 Heavy-duty engine manufacturers are diligently 12 working to achieve the 4 gram per brake horsepower hour NOx 13 standard by the 1998 model year. While there is much yet to 14 be done in order to meet the 1998 model year implementation 15 date and, at the same time, maintain the durability, 16 reliability, and performance characteristics of heavy-duty 17 engines, harmonization between the California and federal 18 standards will significantly reduce engine manufacturers' 19 costs by eliminating the need for separate California and 20 49-State product lines. 21 As to the optional credit-allowing standards for 22 1995 and subsequent model years, EMA previously has 23 submitted comments to the ARB staff and to the Board on its 24 approach to such credit programs. 25 In general, EMA supports the concept of voluntary 30 1 incentive-based programs for reducing emissions like that 2 set forth in the ARB document entitled, "Mobile Source 3 Emission Reduction Credits - Guidelines for the Generation 4 and Use of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits." 5 At the same time, however, EMA and its members 6 believe that the specific proposal will not fully achieve 7 ARB's own stated objectives; namely, that is, to provide 8 sufficient incentives to encourage the early introduction of 9 low emission heavy-duty vehicles in advance of regulatory 10 mandates; and, secondly, to provide adequate means for 11 vehicle operators to generate mobile source emission 12 reduction credits. 13 As a result, we ask that the Board direct staff to 14 return with a report on the level of participation in the 15 credit program approximately one year after its 16 implementation. Based on that report's assessment, along 17 with any additional data that may be available by that time, 18 the Board should consider whether modifications to the 19 optional credit program may be necessary and appropriate. 20 Briefly, our specific concerns about the credit 21 program are the following: The staff has proposed that the 22 emission credits associated with purchasing a low-emission 23 heavy-duty vehicle be calculated and generated based on the 24 difference between the current heavy-duty engine standard, 25 the ceiling standard, and various low-emission standards -- 31 1 the credit standards. 2 In order to assure that a real emission reduction 3 is achieved, staff has proposed that the maximum credit 4 standard for triggering emission reduction credits for NOx 5 in the years 1995 through '97, should be set at 30 percent 6 below the ceiling standard for diesel cycle engines and 50 7 percent below the ceiling standard for Otto-cycle engines. 8 For 1998 and subsequent model years, staff has 9 proposed a maximum credit standard, or the "trigger" level, 10 at almost 40 percent below the ceiling standard for diesels 11 and at more than 60 percent below the ceiling standard for 12 Otto-cycle engines. 13 EMA believes the proposed trigger levels are too 14 stringent, and that a less stringent trigger level should be 15 established. We recognize, of course, that the level of 16 reduction required for the trigger must represent a real 17 emission reduction. But establishing such a trigger will 18 encourage more engine manufacturers to undertake the work 19 necessary to develop and provide the incentive for more 20 owners and operators to purchase these new, lower-emitting 21 engines and vehicles. 22 An emissions reduction credit program with a 23 meaningful, but realistic, trigger encourages the 24 development and purchase of cleaner engines and vehicles 25 earlier than otherwise would occur. 32 1 By establishing a more reasonable trigger level, 2 more low-emission technology is pulled ahead and introduced 3 into commerce, and that's everyone's objective. 4 In addition, the optional NOx standards should be 5 identical for diesel cycle and Otto-cycle engines. Inasmuch 6 as the 1994 and 1998 NOx standards themselves are equally 7 applicable to diesel- and Otto-cycle engines, there is 8 really not a logical justification for having the separate 9 credit generation of standards. 10 And I'd like to address more of that with Mr. 11 Calhoun later. He had mentioned that he wanted to have some 12 talking on that. 13 But I want to go further on this. The credits for 14 NOx emission reductions should be generated at a tenth of a 15 gram increments below the maximum credit standard rather 16 than at the .5 or five-tenths gram increments as has been 17 proposed in this -- what we're deliberating today. 18 EMA has encouraged the ARB staff to allow credits 19 to be generated at such narrower increments since the very 20 first discussions regarding the credit program. 21 Whatever the trigger level for NOx emissions, 22 further NOx reductions will require substantial work and 23 investment by the manufacturers. 24 At the low emission levels involved, half-gram 25 incremental reductions are very substantial, and they fail 33 1 to reward and provide credit for work actually done to 2 reduce emissions. 3 In contrast, the tenth-gram reductions that we are 4 advocating would provide many engine manufacturers and their 5 customers with sufficient incentive to participate in the 6 voluntary program. At the same time, engine manufacturers 7 will act responsibly in their declaration of the optional 8 emissions level for credit generation, taking into account 9 that they will provide design margins to assure that 10 production variation will not cause their engines to be out 11 of compliance. We would not shave the standards 12 purposefully just to gain credits. There are too many 13 enforcement measures that you must account for variability 14 from your product and, so, there is an increment that has 15 been stated as being typically among the member 16 manufacturers one and a half to two standard deviations from 17 their normal average emissions numbers. 18 That comes out to being in the neighborhood of 19 two-tenths of a gram, which is what their design margin is 20 typically that they add on top of their cert values. 21 Summing up, EMA supports today's proposal and 22 ARB's continued efforts to harmonize with EPA. In addition, 23 EMA urges the Board to confirm its previous direction to 24 staff to continue examining this issue and reconsider the 25 possibility of establishing more reasonable trigger levels 34 1 and reducing increment size once practical experience has 2 been gained with optional standards certification. 3 EMA and its members believe it is important that 4 the staff have an affirmative obligation to return to the 5 Board with a report of its findings. 6 We would be happy to work with the staff in this 7 reevaluation process. EMA and its members appreciate the 8 opportunity to appear before the Board this morning, and 9 this concludes my formal remarks. And I'd be happy to 10 answer any questions. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Dr. Boston, did you 12 want to follow up on that point you made earlier? 13 DR. BOSTON: Yeah, I find it really hard to 14 believe that you could certify to .1 gram standards and have 15 a meaningful followup on those engines when they get out in 16 the field. 17 I know that the engine manufacturer makes most of 18 those engines and they're put out in the field, and 19 different companies have different chassis, different 20 transmissions, different tires, different wheels. How do 21 you really know that you're going to be within that .1 gram 22 standard once it's out in the field? 23 MR. KELLER: Dr. Boston, one of your earlier 24 concerns stated was that of the durability of the engine as 25 it was going through its useful life. 35 1 In this area of the NOx emissions, NOx emissions 2 have not been shown to degradate over the time period of the 3 engine's use. In fact, directionally, the NOx emissions, as 4 an engine gets older, actually, they decrease. That's the 5 tendency for heavy-duty diesels. 6 And a remark to your specific question, you had 7 said, you know, are we getting too close in estimating this. 8 Well, that was why I mentioned to you that the manufacturers 9 add on a design margin of 1.5 to 2 standard deviations. And 10 that's to account for the product variability that could 11 occur from engine to engine as it's produced on the assembly 12 line. 13 So, they do not select an emission standard right 14 at the cert level that they test to. They actually add 15 another two-tenths of a gram of compliance margin to make 16 assurances that they don't ever have an enforcement or an 17 in-use problem with those engine families. 18 To date, to my knowledge, the history of the 19 experience with heavy-duty engines has been very good in 20 terms of the in-use compliance over their useful lives. 21 DR. BOSTON: Could you explain to me how the NOx 22 reductions go down over a period of time as the engine wears 23 out? 24 MR. KELLER: Sure. I'll make a good attempt at 25 that. 36 1 Over time, the engine would tend to wear a little 2 bit. Its piston rings, its compression ratio would 3 degradate to some degree. And because of that, NOx is a 4 production of -- high pressure, high temperature produces 5 NOx out of the heavy-duty combustion chamber. 6 By losing some of that edge off of the compression 7 over the useful life of the engine as it wears, the NOx is 8 going to have a tendency to fall off. 9 DR. BOSTON: In my experience, they seem to look 10 dirtier and dirtier as they get older. But maybe that's not 11 NOx coming out of the tailpipe. 12 MR. KELLER: Yeah, we're talking about two 13 different things. In the case where it would be burning 14 more lubricating oil, you might see a little bit more soot 15 coming out on the accels. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Cackette would like to add a 17 point or two. 18 MR. CACKETTE: Dr. Boston, what Mr. Keller says is 19 true about current engines. But, you know, these credit 20 standards are focused around the future typically 1998 and 21 later engines. 22 Those are engines that'll have increasingly -- 23 increasingly will use emission controls. 24 Staff believes that that trend of NOx going down 25 with age and wear is probably likely to reverse, possibly 37 1 with 4 gram diesel engines, certainly with gasoline engines 2 it's the opposite way, and with natural gas engines, it's 3 been not at all proven that they have that negative slope. 4 But, in fact, it's probably a positive slope. 5 So, our concern is more around some of the future 6 engines than it is with the ones that are in production 7 today. 8 DR. BOSTON: Say that again. Do you believe that 9 to be true for both diesel and gasoline engines? 10 MR. CACKETTE: Well, it's certainly true for 11 gasoline engines, gasoline heavy-duty engines now like it is 12 for gasoline cars. And we believe it's probably true for 13 diesel engines that use natural gas, which are some of the 14 engines that would be certifying to credit standards. For 15 example, they're currently way below -- they're typically a 16 2 gram engine right now, and would be the kind of engines 17 that would take advantage of the credit standards that are 18 in place and we're trying to incentivize. 19 And we think that with -- as diesel engines on 20 diesel fuel use more emission controls to control NOx, that 21 there's a greater risk that emissions will deteriorate in 22 use. 23 So, what you see in certification will be -- 24 you'll have less confidence that that's what you see in use. 25 And that's one of the reasons for keeping the increments 38 1 fairly large and not assign too much reality to a difference 2 of one-tenth of one gram. 3 DR. BOSTON: Thanks. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Calhoun, did you have 5 anything? 6 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Mr. Keller, your suggestion 7 that the Board ask the staff to come back periodically and 8 report on the participance, or the progress in getting 9 people to participate in the credit program, I think that's 10 probably a good idea. But I assume that in making that 11 statement, that you're concerned that maybe there won't be 12 as many people taking advantage of it as the staff expected. 13 Is that correct? 14 MR. KELLER; That's correct. Our feeling is that 15 it will close the opportunity for a great number of some of 16 these engine families to qualify as being credit generating 17 engines. 18 And I think we could very simply see over the 19 course of a year -- one type of evaluation could simply be a 20 comparison between the certified values and looking at how 21 many engines did get to qualify as credit generating 22 engines, and how many more could have been there if we had 23 looked at a rearrangement of the trigger levels. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'm fully prepared, and I'll ask 25 Mr. Boyd and the staff to provide regular reports. I think 39 1 that's doable. We have an obligation to assess how it's 2 going. I think we need to worry about it. Good point. 3 MR. KELLER: Okay. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good point. We need to examine 5 what's actually going on. 6 Mr. Calhoun, do you have anything? 7 MR. CALHOUN: I'm fine. Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Edgerton? 9 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Keller, is your association's 10 primary problem with the first trigger in each case? 11 MR. KELLER: Yes, both items. We feel that the 12 first trigger level is overly stringent. And one of the 13 particular points I made I'd like to expand upon. There 14 should be equality between those for the Otto-cycle engines, 15 which are gasoline spark-ignited, and the heavy-duty ones. 16 Right now, the proposal has them being one full 17 gram lower before the trigger becomes effective. And based 18 on the assessment I made of my members, who are -- two of 19 them are major suppliers of heavy-duty gasoline engines. We 20 did not find that they were substantially below the 21 statutory standard right now of 5 grams. In fact, in that 22 analysis, these engines are 1995 CARB cert data for engines 23 qualified to run greater than 14,000 gross vehicle weight. 24 And they ran 4.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. 25 That is not substantially lower than what diesel 40 1 engine are certified at. So, the point meaning, if -- in 2 this particular case, the trigger that would be effective 3 from this proposal would be 3.5. But for gasoline engines, 4 it would be 2.5. And I've just recounted here that a great 5 portion of the engine families -- there may be one or two of 6 them that might be lower, but most of them -- especially for 7 those for the heavier duty, greater than 14,000 -- are in 8 the 4.2 to 4.4 range. Clearly, more in the diesel category 9 and, therefore, 3.5 to those heavy-duty gas engines would be 10 a challenge. And that's why we are remarking that there 11 should be equality for the trigger levels for gasoline and 12 diesel engines. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any other questions? 14 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I guess I'd like to pursue 15 that a little bit. I'm aware of what's happened over the 16 years, and they have been equal. And I think that the staff 17 ought to take another look at that. 18 Now, maybe there's some real good justification 19 for it, but I think we ought to take a real good look at it. 20 MR. CROSS: I guess the difference in deterioration 21 that Tom noted between gas and diesel historically is kind 22 of what's driving this issue, too, in that the gasoline 23 engines are controlled and the heavy-duty are controlled 24 very much like car engines, where they use catalytic 25 converters and have emission control systems which are known 41 1 to deteriorate as the vehicles age and, therefore, require 2 the manufacturers to design in compliance margins. 3 Historically, diesel engines have not 4 deteriorated. We think they will in the future, but they 5 haven't. So, historically, diesel engines were designed 6 within a few tenths of a standard as Glenn said; whereas, 7 gas engines -- if you ask a car manufacturer, they design 8 for half, two-thirds of the standard, just recognizing that 9 the catalyst system is going to deteriorate during the life 10 of the vehicle. 11 And our concern in this is that, when you set the 12 ceiling level for the credit standards, really what you're 13 saying is, anything below that can qualify for a credit 14 which can be sold to somebody else to let them increase 15 emissions. 16 And so, we're saying that we're trying to set the 17 ceilings where you can start getting credits at the point 18 where we're sure that the emission reductions which are 19 claimed for credits are real and are not just a consequence 20 of how engines are already designed and sold, if you will. 21 So, that's why the conservatism and the 22 difference. We're trying to protect the system a little 23 bit. And I think that directing the staff to look at the 24 data a little more, see who qualifies, see what happens 25 during the first year is a good directive. But I'd be 42 1 concerned about opening the system up, because what we're 2 doing is potentially giving emissions away if we foul up 3 during our initial run at this. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And I think it was a point -- 5 Mr. Church made the point quite clearly earlier about the 6 hoops that need to be jumped through in order to be able to 7 secure credits. And how important they have to be 8 verifiable and real. And they, of course, would need to be. 9 And I, for one, am comfortable with that cushion. 10 MR. CALHOUN: If the staff is going to take a look 11 at this program and come back and report to the Board in the 12 future on the number of participants, maybe they can also 13 take another look at the NOx -- 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. 15 MR. CALHOUN: -- standards you suggested. 16 MR. CROSS: We'll be happy to. 17 MR. CALHOUN: And see if there's some rationale 18 for trying to make them the same. 19 MR. CROSS: And also with EPA's work on the next 20 round of emission standards, a lot of data are coming to the 21 fore from the gas manufacturers, too, which would be -- 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. 23 MR. CALHOUN: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. If there are no further 25 questions, I'll thank you. 43 1 We'll ask staff -- Mr. Lovelace, Mr. Church -- you 2 want to summarize any other written testimony that we may 3 have? Any other testimony? 4 MR. LOVELACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We received one 5 comment letter from MECA, the Manufacturers of Emission 6 Controls Association. 7 First of all, they supported the staff's proposal. 8 Secondly, they recommended that the Board direct the staff 9 to evaluate optional standards for these vehicles and 10 engines other than NOx. 11 One of the things here regarding pollutants other 12 than NOx -- CO, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter for 13 diesel engines -- the engine manufacturers have done such a 14 good job on engineering their current generation of engines 15 to meet the 0.1 gram per brake horsepower hour particulate 16 matter standard, that just as a matter of course, the carbon 17 monoxide and hydrocarbon levels have dropped significantly, 18 also. 19 So, we're talking about a situation where both 20 carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons have come way down. They 21 are well below the standards. So, the staff believes that 22 there's really not that large a basis for providing lower 23 emission standards such that credits can be earned or 24 whatever for -- for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide. 25 So, like I say, MECA -- MECA believes that the 44 1 Board should direct the Board (sic) to evaluate these 2 optional standards. And, overall, they support our 3 proposal. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Mr. Boyd, do 5 you have anything else to add? 6 MR. BOYD: No, Mr. Chair. I would just like to 7 ask the Board to approve the package, and to just reiterate 8 that we'd be glad to report back -- 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 10 MR. BOYD: -- as requested. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And I think that could be done 12 administratively. We'd ask for a regular report. 13 Okay. Since all testimony, and written 14 submissions, and staff comments for this item have been 15 entered into the record, and the Board has not granted an 16 extension of the comment period, I'm officially closing the 17 record for this item, 95-6-1. 18 Written or oral comments received after today, 19 after this comment period is closed, will not be an official 20 part of the record on this agenda item. 21 Just a reminder to my colleagues on the Board of 22 our policy concerning ex parte communications. While we may 23 communicate off the record with outside persons regarding 24 Board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of our contacts 25 and the nature of the contents on the record. 45 1 This requirement applies specifically to 2 communications which take place after notice of the Board 3 hearing is published. 4 Are there any communications which need to be 5 disclosed? 6 (Thereupon, there was no response.) 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 8 DR. BOSTON: I'd like to move adoption of Agenda 9 Item No. 95-6-1, Resolution 95-26. 10 MS. EDGERTON: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. We have a motion and 12 a second. 13 Are there any further points that need to be 14 covered or discussed? 15 Okay. I'll ask the Board Secretary to please call 16 the roll for this item, Resolution 95-26. 17 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston? 18 DR. BOSTON: Yes. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 20 MR. CALHOUN: Aye. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 22 MS. EDGERTON: Aye. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 24 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Aye. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 46 1 MR. LAGARIAS: Aye. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 3 MR. PARNELL: Aye. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 5 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Aye. 6 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim? 7 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Aye. 8 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap? 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Aye. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: Passes 9-0. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you. I'd like 12 to thank staff for a fine presentation. Mr. Lovelace, Mr. 13 Church, appreciate it very much. 14 All right. That takes us to the second item on 15 the agenda, 95-6-2, public hearing to consider the adoption, 16 amendment, and repeal of regulations regarding certification 17 procedures and test procedures for gasoline vapor recovery 18 systems. 19 Most of us are familiar with vapor recovery 20 nozzles that we use to fill our vehicles with gasoline. 21 This is only one example of a gasoline vapor recovery 22 system. Gasoline vapor recovery systems reduce hydrocarbon 23 emissions by an estimated 150,000 tons and save 49 million 24 gallons of fuel annually in our State. 25 The ARB has been a leader in this area in 47 1 implementing vapor recovery systems for over 20 years. A 2 major part of the success of this program has been based on 3 the systematic approach taken to test and certify vapor 4 recovery equipment. 5 In recent years, new innovative system designs 6 have been developed. These user-friendly designs or 7 components like "bootless" nozzles are often incompatible 8 with existing certification and test procedures. 9 In order to ensure that all designs, systems, and 10 components are certified and tested in an equitable manner, 11 staff is proposing revisions of the certification and test 12 procedures for vapor recovery systems. 13 Updated procedures are being proposed for systems 14 associated with all aspects of the gasoline marketing chain, 15 including large terminals, intermediate transfer facilities 16 known as bulk plants, cargo tanks, and, of course, service 17 stations. 18 Supervisor Roberts and I had a chance in San Diego 19 to see a new vapor recovery system to learn first-hand about 20 the certification process. And we welcome any changes 21 that'll make it more efficient. 22 So, with that, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to 23 introduce this item and begin the staff's presentation. 24 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap. 25 Let me begin with a very brief overview of how the 48 1 California vapor recovery program operates. Under 2 California law, the Air Resources Board is directed to 3 certify vapor recovery systems which meet certain 4 performance standards. 5 The certification process is carried out by the 6 Air Resources Board's Compliance Division. Our Monitoring 7 and Laboratory Division is responsible for preparing the 8 certification and the testing procedures. And, as many of 9 you know, California's local air pollution control 10 districts, which have primary responsibility for stationary 11 sources of emissions, have adopted regulations requiring ARB 12 certified vapor recovery systems for the control of both 13 hydrocarbon emissions for ozone control and benzene 14 emissions -- benzene being a toxic air contaminant -- thus, 15 for control of that emission source. 16 The districts have compliance programs to ensure 17 that installed vapor recovery systems are indeed operating 18 correctly. In preparing these updated procedures, 19 considerable input has been provided by others, including 20 the businesses which manufacture these systems, that sell 21 them, buy them, and use such systems and, of course, from 22 the local air pollution control districts. 23 Before the staff's presentation for this agenda 24 item, I'd like to mention two items that surfaced during the 25 development of the proposed procedures. 49 1 First, as another part of today's agenda, the 2 Board will consider whether or not to implement the federal 3 on-board vapor recovery program, which is intended to 4 control gasoline transfer emissions at gasoline dispensing 5 facilities. 6 Our Research Division has issued a request for 7 proposals to investigate the interaction of the on-board 8 vapor recovery systems with the existing vapor recovery 9 systems at service stations. 10 The second issue is related to possible seasonal 11 effects on the certification testing and characterization of 12 fugitive emissions. This issue was raised in the course of 13 developing the revised procedures that are before you today. 14 Frankly, there is insufficient technical 15 information available at this time to deal with this issue. 16 Accordingly, the subject will also be the subject of a 17 proposed research contract. 18 Your staff will continue to work on improvements 19 to the procedures even beyond today's Board item. However, 20 we feel it's necessary to adopt the proposed procedures to 21 allow certification of new technologies that have been 22 mentioned before. 23 With that, I'd like to turn the presentation over 24 to Ms. Cindy Castronovo of our Monitoring and Laboratory 25 Division, who will present to you today the staff's 50 1 recommendation. 2 Cindy? 3 MS. CASTRONOVO: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Good 4 morning, Chairman Dunlap, members of the Board. 5 My presentation today will describe the vapor 6 recovery program, the vapor recovery system certification 7 process, and summarize our rationale for the proposed 8 revisions to the vapor recovery certification and test 9 procedures. 10 Vapor recovery is a control strategy for reducing 11 hydrocarbon emissions during gasoline refueling and transfer 12 operations. 13 The vapor recovery program was initiated in the 14 early 1970s to reduce the formation of ozone in 15 nonattainment areas. 16 In 1987, the use of vapor recovery systems was 17 expanded statewide as part of ARB's air toxic control 18 measure for benzene emissions. 19 In California, uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions 20 from gasoline marketing operations are estimated at 450 tons 21 per day. Vapor recovery systems reduce hydrocarbon 22 emissions by an estimated 410 tons per day or 150,000 tons 23 per year, and save 49 million gallons of gasoline annually. 24 Gasoline vapor control systems also reduce 25 exposure to benzene, reducing benzene cancer incidence 51 1 attributable to gasoline vapor exposure by an estimated 83 2 percent. 3 Vapor recovery systems are used at various 4 facilities inn the gasoline marketing chain. Each facility 5 type has a separate certification procedure. I'll describe 6 each type of facility in the next few slides. 7 As you know, gasoline is produced at refineries 8 then loaded onto ships or trains or dispensed through 9 pipelines to large storage tanks at terminal facilities. 10 The terminals have loading racks for dispensing gasoline to 11 cargo trucks. The loading rack also recovers displaced 12 gasoline vapors from the cargo tank and directs the vapors 13 to a control device. 14 The control device is usually a condenser which 15 condenses the vapors back to liquid gasoline. 16 There are about 40 terminals in California, most 17 of them located at refineries or near a gasoline pipeline. 18 Each terminal facility vapor recovery system is individually 19 certified through testing by ARB's Compliance Division. 20 A bulk plant is similar to a terminal, in that it 21 consists of a loading rack and gasoline storage tanks, 22 although the gasoline tanks are normally smaller. 23 The main difference is that the bulk plant 24 receives gasoline from a cargo tank instead of a pipeline, 25 ship, or train. The approximately 200 bulk plants in 52 1 California are thus intermediate gasoline transfer 2 facilities which are often found in rural or remote areas. 3 While terminals are operated by gasoline producers 4 and distributors, bulk plants are mostly operated by small 5 businesses who sell to farmers, construction companies, and 6 fleet operators. 7 Each bulk plant vapor recovery system is 8 individually certified through testing by ARB's Compliance 9 Division. Each cargo tank is equipped with its own vapor 10 recovery system. A separate certification procedure is 11 provided for cargo tank systems. 12 Each cargo tank is tested annually to main its 13 certification. 14 The largest use of vapor recovery systems is at 15 the approximately 14,000 gasoline dispensing facilities, 16 commonly referred to as service stations or gas stations. 17 The vapor recovery systems at these facilities are 18 divided into two parts -- Phase I and Phase II. 19 Phase I, shown here, involved the transfer of 20 gasoline from the cargo truck to the service station 21 underground storage tank. The vapors displaced during 22 filling are routed back to the cargo tanks. That's why you 23 observe two separate lines when a cargo tank is making a 24 delivery -- one to dispense gasoline, the other to collect 25 vapor. 53 1 Phase II vapor recovery applies to the fueling of 2 vehicles at a dispensing facility. This is the type of 3 vapor recovery with which we are most familiar as the vapor 4 recovery system is operated by us, the customer filling our 5 vehicle. 6 The first Phase II systems were primarily the 7 booted balance systems. But in recent years, the trend has 8 been towards bootless nozzles. The display located behind 9 you has been provided to give a sense of how the nozzle 10 portion of the vapor recovery system has evolved over the 11 last 20 years to lighter, more useful friendly nozzles. 12 The continued improved design of the Phase II 13 systems is the primary reason we are here to update the 14 certification and test procedures. 15 Because it would not be cost-effective to certify 16 every service station, a prototype system seeking 17 certification is installed at a dispensing facility in the 18 Sacramento area and undergoes testing observed by the 19 Compliance Division. 20 As a summary, this slide shows the overall vapor 21 recovery process. The bottom of the slide illustrates the 22 liquid gasoline pack, and the top shows how vapor displaced 23 during vehicle fueling eventually makes its way back to the 24 terminals where the vapor is condensed and recovered. 25 Also, note that Phase I is the term used to 54 1 describe all transfer operations involved a cargo tank, and 2 Phase II is reserved for transfer of gasoline to vehicles. 3 The existing procedures cover certification of 4 terminals, bulk plants, cargo tanks, and gasoline dispensing 5 facilities. We have also been asked to consider 6 certification of nontraditional gasoline transfer 7 operations. 8 One example shown here is the direct fueling of 9 vehicles from a cargo tank. This means of fueling vehicles 10 might be desired by a fleet operator in order to fuel 11 vehicles while still parked in the lot. To accommodate this 12 and other nontraditional gasoline transfer operations, we 13 have included a new certification for novel facilities that 14 will allow the use of existing vapor recovery system 15 components to be applied to new situations and certified on 16 a case-by-case basis. 17 This concludes my overview of the gasoline 18 marketing facilities. Now I will focus on the certification 19 and test procedure revisions. 20 Staff proposes to revise the existing vapor 21 recovery certification and test procedures by adoption of 22 five certification procedures, one for each major facility 23 type and also a new certification procedure for novel 24 systems. 25 The 19 test procedures include updated versions of 55 1 existing procedures as well as new tests created for 2 determining the performance of vapor recovery systems. 3 Twelve of the 19 test procedures are applicable to 4 vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities. A 5 separate set of definitions has also been developed to 6 clarify terminology used throughout the certification and 7 test procedures. 8 The ARB is required by law to certify vapor 9 recovery systems which are sold, offered for sale, or 10 installed in California. The primary purpose of these 11 proposed procedures is to allow ARB to carry out this 12 mandate through the Compliance Division certification 13 program. 14 These procedures are also used by vapor recovery 15 system equipment manufacturers to design products which must 16 meet the certification standards. The procedures are also 17 of interest to the major purchasers of vapor recovery 18 systems, which are the gasoline producers and distributors. 19 Local districts do not conduct certification 20 tests, but use the test procedures for compliance assurance. 21 For example, the procedures are used to verify proper 22 installation of a service station vapor recovery system as 23 might required by a district authority to construct. 24 Certain procedures may also be referenced in 25 district rules as required tests to be conducted 56 1 periodically to assure the system is operating effectively. 2 Why are we proposing revisions to the existing 3 certification and test procedures? As mentioned previously, 4 the vapor recovery program is over 20 years old. Many of 5 the existing procedures date from the early days of the 6 program. 7 Vapor recovery systems have changed dramatically, 8 especially in the last few years. And for many new systems, 9 the existing procedures cannot be applied without 10 modification. 11 Since we expect continued innovation in vapor 12 recovery system design, the procedures should be flexible 13 enough to accommodate anticipated future systems. Finally, 14 there is increased demand from the districts for simple 15 tests which can be used to check vapor recovery system 16 performance on a periodic basis. 17 The revisions proposed address these needs. 18 As already mentioned, ARB uses the certification 19 procedures to certify vapor recovery systems. The 20 certification procedures contain minimum criteria which must 21 be met, which are expressed as performance standards. The 22 certification procedures also describe various performance 23 specifications and reference appropriate test procedures as 24 I'll describe later. 25 The staff report contains tables which detail the 57 1 various performance standards for each type of facility. 2 This slide emphasizes that we are not proposing changes to 3 the performance standards for service stations and bulk 4 plants. Vapor recovery systems at these facilities must 5 meet a minimum of 90 percent control efficiency. 6 I should note that almost all systems for 7 dispensing facilities have been certified at 95 percent 8 rather than 90 percent in order to meet more stringent 9 efficiency requirements imposed in most districts. 10 However, we are proposing revised performance 11 standards for terminals and cargo tanks. The primary 12 performance standard for terminals is proposed to be reduced 13 from 0.9 to 0.29 pounds of hydrocarbons per thousand gallons 14 to make California requirements consistent with U.S. EPA new 15 source performance standards. 16 The approximately 40 terminals in California have 17 already met this standard for many years. The primary 18 performance standard for cargo tanks is a vapor leak limit. 19 All cargo tanks must be leak tested annually and then may be 20 spot checked during the year. 21 Industry has opted for the last ten years to 22 voluntarily observe a more stringent annual leak limit in 23 order to ensure they will pass the compliance checks. This 24 is to avoid the costs of having to bring the cargo tank out 25 of service for repair and retesting. This revision does 58 1 incorporate current industry practice into the procedures 2 and allow sources to credit real and enforceable emission 3 reductions. 4 The performance specification is a new term for a 5 common certification practice already authorized by the 6 existing procedures. Currently, ARB first checks to make 7 sure the vapor recovery system meets the performance 8 standards. 9 If so, critical components of the system are 10 identified and ranges of acceptable values for these 11 parameters are derived from test data and documented as 12 acceptable operation parameters or performance 13 specifications. For example, a vapor return hose must be 14 able to operate even when some vapors condense to liquid 15 gasoline in the line. 16 The liquid blockage test is used to set this 17 performance specification. 18 The districts use the performance specification 19 and the associated test methods in checking the operation of 20 installed systems. The test procedures are used to measure 21 whether the performance standards are met and also to 22 determine appropriate performance specifications. 23 State law requires that existing systems be 24 decertified and must undergo recertification when the 25 performance standards are revised. No new certification 59 1 testing will be required for any existing facility. 2 Terminals and cargo tanks will undergo 3 administrative recertification as the existing systems 4 already are documented to meet the proposed new performance 5 standards. 6 As the performance standards for dispensing 7 facilities in bulk plants have not changed, no 8 recertification is required. The revised procedures will 9 apply to new systems seeking certification only. 10 The proposed revised procedures represent a 11 tremendous effort on the part of staff and numerous affected 12 groups, which include the districts, vapor recovery 13 manufacturers, and facility operators. 14 Five public workshops were held as well as 15 numerous meetings with affected parties. The staff would 16 like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the CAPCOA 17 Vapor Recovery Technical Committee -- in particular, Ken 18 Kenuniak (phonetic) of the Bay Area Air Quality Management 19 District, who was the original author of several of the 20 proposed procedures. 21 A survey was mailed to approximately 10,000 22 facilities, mostly service stations, to collect information 23 on possible economic impacts of the proposed revisions. No 24 significant impacts were found. 25 The staff finds no adverse economic impact, 60 1 primarily because existing certification holders will not be 2 required to retest if the revised procedures are adopted. 3 As performance standards are either not being changed or 4 being changed only to reflect current practice, no emission 5 reductions can be attributed to the procedure revisions. 6 However, some emission reductions may occur due to 7 improved monitoring of in-use systems using the proposed 8 test procedures. 9 In summary, we would like to reiterate that the 10 existing procedures are not adequate to meet the needs of 11 today's technology. We have worked with all interested 12 parties over the past few years to revise the procedures to 13 meet the needs of the vapor recovery system manufacturer, 14 the vapor recovery system customer, and the air pollution 15 agencies. 16 We believe the revised procedures can be used 17 successfully to accommodate future technologies. We 18 anticipate no significant adverse economic or environmental 19 impacts if the revised procedures are adopted. 20 Finally, I understand that in a recent visit to 21 San Diego, several Board members became aware of industry 22 concerns regarding the vapor recovery system certification 23 process. The adoption of the revised procedures will 24 facilitate the existing certification process and should 25 expedite future certifications as the new procedures address 61 1 many aspects of the newer technology which are not 2 considered in the existing procedures. 3 Before I close, I'd like to mention that we will 4 be preparing a package of 15-day changes based on comments 5 received during the 45-day comment period. 6 This concludes my presentation. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very well done. Thank you. 8 Any questions or comments by the Board members? 9 There was, if I might illuminate the comment, I 10 appreciate you making mention that several of us who were in 11 San Diego heard -- I don't want to call it a complaint; it 12 sounds too harsh -- but there was a manufacturer that made a 13 vapor recovery system, a nozzle, that wanted it certified 14 rapidly. 15 And they felt that, while the result came out just 16 fine -- they were certified -- they thought that, if they 17 could have got it quicker, they could have sold more units. 18 So, that was the nature of the concern. They didn't quibble 19 with the completeness of the analysis or any of that. 20 And I appreciate your following up. 21 We do have a letter, though, here from the County 22 of San Diego, the APCO there. And it's fairly 23 comprehensive. And so, during the course of our discussion 24 here, I'd like for you to address as many of those issues as 25 you can. 62 1 Supervisor, did you want to -- 2 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Well, I was going to wait 3 till after the public testimony -- 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: -- and request that maybe 6 staff could respond to the points that Mr. Sommerville 7 raised in that letter. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. That would be fine. 9 Why don't we go ahead then. I'll call the first, 10 or the only witness, Donald Gilson from WSPA. 11 It's my understanding that there has been no 12 written testimony. This will be oral remarks. 13 Good morning. 14 MR. GILSON: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members 15 of the Board, and staff members, my name is Don Gilson. And 16 I'm here representing the Western States Petroleum 17 Association, or WSPA. 18 WSPA is a trade association that represents more 19 than 30 companies in the Western U.S. Many of our companies 20 conduct business in California and are directly impacted by 21 ARB regulations regarding vapor recovery. 22 WSPA supports the adoption of the revised 23 regulations regarding certification and test procedures for 24 gasoline vapor recovery systems. Speaking as end users of 25 the entire range of vapor recovery systems covered by the 63 1 proposal before you today, we appreciate the opportunities 2 we have had to provide input on the new procedures. 3 Through the public workshop process and in 4 personal discussions, the staff of the Monitoring and 5 Laboratory Division have been attentive to our concerns and 6 responsive to our comments. 7 WSPA supports ARB certification and test 8 procedures, because they provide a common sense method for 9 standardizing vapor recovery performance and equipment 10 requirements, not only in California but in the numerous 11 States across the country that reference the certifications 12 in their regulations. 13 WSPA supports the use of innovative field test 14 methods that provide practical ways for operators to verify 15 compliance and effectively reduce emissions. 16 I'd like to mention just two examples. One test 17 procedure, TP-201.3, which is in that thick book we all 18 have: This is a two-inch water column static pressure decay 19 test for service stations. It provides a quick and 20 effective test of vapor tightness. It can be performed in 21 five minutes. It allows the pressure vacuum valve to be 22 left on the vent line at the station, and it reduces 23 emissions to one-fifth the level of the older 10-inch water 24 column test. 25 Another example of creativity is the test 64 1 procedure TP-204.2, the one-minute static pressure 2 performance test for cargo tanks. 3 As the name implies, the test only takes one 4 minute and replaces the old hit-or-miss sniffer test that 5 requires climbing on or under the truck while checking for 6 leaks. The one-minute test provides a true indication of 7 truck vapor tightness and significantly reduces the number 8 of false leak indications that are prevalent with the 9 sniffer test. 10 In closing, we have appreciated the chance to work 11 with Arb staff during the developments of these proposed 12 regulations, and we urge that you adopt them as submitted to 13 you by the staff. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you. 16 Supervisor? 17 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I don't know who it would be 18 appropriate to address the points that Mr. Sommerville 19 raised, but somebody can respond to them. 20 I presume you have a copy of his letter. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, we have no more oral 22 testimony. Would you like -- would you like then to start 23 with the San Diego letter? 24 MS. CASTRONOVO: I'll give a general response, and 25 then we can go on to point by point, if you wish to do that. 65 1 We received a letter from San Diego Air Pollution 2 Control District, which states the revised procedures 3 contain significant improvements, but do not meet all of 4 their concerns. 5 San Diego has asked us to evaluate these concerns 6 and propose additional changes within one year. Some of the 7 issues by San Diego will also be addressed in the proposed 8 research contracts which were previously described. 9 As to the others, we'll be happy to work with the 10 districts through the CAPCOA Vapor Recovery Committee to 11 address these concerns. As mentioned already, we do expect 12 to return to the Board if the research results or other 13 information warrant further modifications. 14 Are there any -- is there any -- the San Diego 15 letter had six points that they brought up. Is there any 16 one in particular that you want me to focus on? 17 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Would you just run through 18 them quickly, if you could? 19 MS. CASTRONOVO: Okay. 20 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: There was also a couple 21 things at the end that weren't enumerated. 22 MS. CASTRONOVO: Okay. Their first comment talks 23 about using the boot method or the sleeve method for 24 balance-type vapor recovery systems, they say, because it 25 interfered with the normal way customers handle the vapor 66 1 recovery nozzle. This is kind of a -- it's already covered 2 in our test procedures under the challenge mode testing 3 that's done. 4 What San Diego would like is to certification 5 tests to be done under all conditions that could possibly be 6 done by the customer. For example, some customers will pull 7 their hose over on the top of their truck, put it in on the 8 other side, and may hold the nozzle upside down while 9 they're trying to fuel. 10 And some people think, well, maybe this 11 certification procedure should have a more standardized-type 12 fueling. So, the balance between a real world situation and 13 a standardized certification test is what the issue is here. 14 And we would like to keep some of the real world 15 element in there, because this is how we find the problems, 16 because people do use the vapor recovery nozzles in 17 different ways, and we want to make sure our testing does 18 see the whole spectrum of use. 19 For San Diego, that's what the first comment 20 involves. We'll research it further with them. 21 Okay. The second one involves the pressure decay 22 test that Don Gilson just mentioned. And they're saying 23 that the test has some flaws, and that here's differences in 24 environmental factors that can affect the pressure, other 25 than just what's happening under the -- in the underground 67 1 storage tank. 2 This is one of the topics to be addressed in the 3 research contract that we mentioned about seasonal effects. 4 And so, we hope to take care of it in that arena. 5 The third comment is a similar item which San 6 Diego says, "Actual system efficiencies cannot be determined 7 without considering the influence of ambient conditions." 8 Again, that is the seasonal effects research 9 contract. We hopefully will take care of it there. 10 Number four goes back to the pressure decay leak 11 test, and talks about how different things that happened in 12 the service station can affect the measurement of that test. 13 And we do realize that. And if you read through the test 14 procedure, you do need to shut down the station to conduct 15 this test to minimize the complicating factors, and also you 16 have to wait a certain amount of time after a bulk delivery 17 of gasoline to minimize the complications. 18 So, we think that we have taken care of that issue 19 already, but we will discuss it further with San Diego. 20 Number five I have a good answer for, because we 21 have already made that change, and it will be in our 15-day 22 package. it talks about capping the liquid fill risers at 23 the point where the cargo tanks make their fill. And that 24 change has already been made. 25 Number six talks about the air to liquid test 68 1 which is done on the bootless nozzles. It says that the 2 test needs further evaluation, and alternatives should be 3 developed. We do agree with this statement. We are looking 4 at alternatives to this test; however, the test method is 5 needed now, because the bootless nozzles are being 6 certified, and we do have some ideas about how to improve 7 the test. 8 San Diego also talks about some safety concerns 9 about bringing air into the underground tank. We need to 10 talk to them about how they generated these numbers. We, in 11 our calculations, come up with a much lower number, and we 12 need to discuss with them and resolve this issue. 13 The last issue that's sort of outside the six 14 points that talks about MSD, I think maybe we've already 15 passed this comment on to MSD and they may address it during 16 their presentation on the on-board. 17 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Do you want to cover 19 any of the other written communications that we received on 20 this item? 21 MS. CASTRONOVO: We have two other letters from 22 Gilbarco, who's a vapor recovery system manufacturer. They 23 support the revised procedures, but they recommend minor 24 revisions to clarify certain technical points. And we 25 intend to incorporate most of Gilbarco's recommended 69 1 revisions as part of the 15-day package. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Mr. Boyd, 3 does staff have any further comments? 4 MR. BOYD: I just have one comment, Mr. Chairman. 5 I'm very happy that Ms. Castronovo was able to address Mr. 6 Sommerville's concerns, in that his letter was only dated 7 and received yesterday. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 9 MR. BOYD: So, a message will go back to Mr. 10 Sommerville asking him -- since this item has been around a 11 long time -- to try to give us a little more leadtime. 12 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I'd be glad to take that 13 message back to him. 14 (Laughter.) 15 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: He mentioned this to me a few 16 days ago, but I had presumed that you had it for some time. 17 I appreciate you being prepared with those answers. And I 18 will see that he's more timely in his future letters. 19 MR. BOYD: Thank you. Rich will understand. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, we think that the 21 Supervisor's quite capable of delivering that message. 22 Okay. If there's nothing else from staff, I will 23 now close the record on this agenda item; however, the 24 record will be reopened when the 15-day notice of public 25 availability is issued as mentioned. 70 1 Written or oral comments received after this 2 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not 3 be accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 4 item. 5 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 6 period, the public may submit written comments on the 7 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to 8 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 9 Again, just a reminder to Board members of our 10 policy regarding ex parte communications, while we may 11 communicate off the record with outside persons regarding 12 Board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of our contacts 13 and the nature of the contents on the record. 14 This requirement applies specifically to 15 communications which take place after notice of the Board 16 hearing has been published. 17 Are there any communications which you need to 18 disclose? 19 (There was no response.) 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 21 We'll now take up this item. We have a resolution 22 before us. Colleagues on the Board have had a moment to 23 review it. Is there a motion? 24 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of 25 Resolution 95-27. 71 1 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I'll second it. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. We have a second -- 3 a motion and a second. 4 Is there any further discussion by members of the 5 Board on the item? 6 Okay. Very good. I'll ask the Board Secretary to 7 please take the roll call for a vote on Resolution 95-27. 8 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston? 9 DR. BOSTON: Yes. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 11 MR. CALHOUN: Aye. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 13 MS. EDGERTON: Aye. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 15 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Aye. 16 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 17 MR. LAGARIAS: Aye. 18 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 19 MR. PARNELL: Yes. 20 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 21 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Aye. 22 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim? 23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Aye. 24 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap? 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Aye. 72 1 MS. HUTCHENS: Resolution passes 9-0. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. The third item on 3 the agenda today is 95-6-3, public hearing to consider the 4 adoption of on-board refueling vapor recovery standards and 5 test procedures and modifications to evaporative test 6 procedures applicable to 1998 and subsequent model year 7 passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles. 8 The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act amendments directed 9 the U.S. EPA to adopt standards and test procedures for on- 10 board refueling vapor recovery called ORVR. After several 11 years of workshops and research, the U.S. EPA has adopted 12 the ORVR regulations for new light-duty vehicles and trucks 13 beginning in the 1998 model year. 14 The new ORVR rule will apply to all light-duty 15 vehicles and trucks manufactured and sold in the 50 States, 16 unless an exemption by the U.S. EPA for a particular State. 17 The ARB has investigated the application of ORVR 18 in the State of California. Before us for consideration 19 today, staff has a proposal that includes adoption of the 20 U.S. EPA's ORVR standards and test procedures. 21 In addition to these regulations, we're also to 22 consider proposed amendments to the California evaporative 23 test procedures necessary to align the ORVR testing scheme 24 with the evaporative testing sequence. 25 Finally, for clarification purposes, and for 73 1 California and federal test procedure alignment, additional 2 evaporative test procedure changes will be proposed. 3 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Boyd to 4 introduce this item and begin the staff's presentation. 5 But, Jim, before you do that, our court reporter 6 has asked for a brief moment to change paper. 7 (Thereupon, there was a pause in the 8 proceedings to allow the court reporter 9 to replenish her stenograph paper.) 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Boyd. 11 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap. 12 One comment on the statement you made about U.S. 13 EPA, after several years of workshop and research on 14 on-board vapor recovery, makes me chuckle a little bit for 15 some of us who have been around a long, long time. On-board 16 vapor recovery is an issue that's been debated for more than 17 a decade. 18 So, it's interesting to see it evolved to this 19 point, and that EPA be directed finally by Congress in 1990 20 to do something about the issue. 21 Of course, California currently maintains an 22 effective control system for gasoline refueling emissions 23 through the Stage I and Stage II systems, and on-board 24 vehicle, the Stage II systems that you just heard about in 25 the previous item, California more or less pioneered that 74 1 program, and has reaped the benefit for almost 20 years, 2 while a huge national debate raged over which is the right 3 way to go -- on-board vapor recovery or the Stage II system. 4 And I think some of us are in a position now to 5 say, "We told you so." But, nonetheless, on-board vapor 6 recovery has arrived and your staff has found that so-called 7 ORVR, on-board refueling vapor recovery, on California 8 certified vehicles could potentially in the long run be an 9 effective complement to the Stage II control system that 10 you're familiar with. 11 The adoption of the U.S. EPA's ORVR standards and 12 test procedures will maintain a consistency with U.S. EPA's 13 procedures and reduce manufacturers' testing burden by not 14 having a separate California program. 15 And with that brief introduction, I'd now like to 16 turn the presentation over to Annette Hebert of our Mobile 17 Source Division, who will give you a more detailed 18 explanation of the staff's recommendation. 19 MS. HEBERT: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Good morning, 20 Chairman Dunlap and members of the Board. 21 I will be presenting staff's proposal on on-board 22 refueling vapor recovery on behalf of the Mobile Source 23 Division. 24 My presentation will begin by providing some 25 background information on what refueling emissions are and 75 1 what methods exist to reduce them. A review of the federal 2 and California requirements for the control of refueling 3 emissions will also be provided. 4 The staff's proposal, based on research and public 5 workshops held over the last two years, will then be 6 presented, followed by a brief discussion on the cost- 7 effectiveness and staff's recommendations. 8 Refueling emissions are evaporative hydrocarbon 9 emissions which occur at gasoline dispensing facilities 10 during the transfer of fuel from underground storage tanks 11 to motor vehicles. 12 The sources of these emissions include displaced 13 vapor from the vehicle fuel tank, vapor loss from the fuel, 14 fuel spitback, fuel spillage, and any losses from the 15 underground storage tank or leaks in their fueling system as 16 a result of the refueling process. 17 The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act amendments require 18 the implementation of two distinct vehicle refueling 19 emission control measures. First, Section 182(b)(3) 20 requires owners or operators of gasoline dispensing 21 facilities to incorporate gasoline vapor recovery systems in 22 ozone nonattainment areas to reduce the emissions generated 23 by the refueling of motor vehicles. 24 The Federal Clean Air Act refers to vapor recovery 25 control at the vehicle/nozzle interface as Stage II vapor 76 1 recovery; while in California, it has been referred to as 2 Phase II vapor recovery. 3 The basic control strategy of Phase II is to 4 capture the vapor expelled from the vehicle's fuel tank 5 during refueling and return it to the underground storage 6 tank. 7 Shown here graphically, vapor is returned to the 8 underground storage tank via a special nozzle and Phase II 9 piping. As mentioned in the previous item, vapor recovery 10 occurs when fuel is dispensed into the underground storage 11 tank while the displaced vapor is routed back to the cargo 12 truck. 13 Phase I vapor recovery allows a large portion of 14 the captured vapor to be eventually returned to the gasoline 15 blending facility and used in fuel reformulation. 16 The second control measure pursuant to Section 17 202(a)(6) of the Federal Clean Air Act requires the United 18 States Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. EPA, to 19 promulgate vehicle based or on-board refueling vapor 20 recovery standards for the control of the same refueling 21 emissions. 22 On-board refueling vapor recovery, or ORVR, 23 systems are similar to Phase II vapor recovery systems, in 24 that both capture the fuel tank vapors displaced during the 25 refueling of vehicles, except the mechanism for capturing 77 1 the vapors is on the vehicle rather than the underground 2 storage tank. 3 Shown here, the vapors from the fuel tank that are 4 displaced during refueling are routed to an on-board carbon 5 canister. During engine operation, these vapors are routed 6 to the engine and recycled as a fuel source by being purged 7 into the engine's air intake for use in combustion. 8 The carbon canister is thus regenerated in this 9 process and ready for use in the next refueling. 10 California currently maintains effective control 11 of vehicle refueling emissions with Phase II vapor recovery 12 systems. These systems were first required and used for 13 control of refueling emissions in 1974 within the San Diego 14 and Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts, and were in 15 widespread use in urban areas throughout California by the 16 late 1970s. 17 Statewide Phase II requirements were subsequently 18 adopted by the Board in 1987. Motor vehicles in California, 19 as well as in the rest of the country, are not currently 20 equipped with on-board refueling vapor recovery systems. 21 However, after years of research and public consultation, 22 the U.S. EPA released its final rule for on-board refueling 23 vapor recovery on April 6, 1994, requiring implementation to 24 begin with the 1998 model year. 25 A national 0.20 grams per gallon refueling 78 1 emission standard and associated test procedures apply 2 nationwide to all gasoline, diesel, and alcohol fueled 3 light-duty vehicles and trucks. 4 Heavy-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 5 rating greater than 8500 pounds are exempt from the 6 refueling standards. 7 The adoption of the on-board refueling vapor 8 recovery rule by the U.S. EPA will require the 9 implementation of ORVR systems in new California light-duty 10 vehicles and trucks without further action by the ARB. 11 Staff considered the consequences of the 12 prohibition and nonadoption of on-board refueling vapor 13 recovery systems in California vehicles, since we already 14 have effective refueling control with Phase II systems. 15 However, by not adopting the on-board refueling 16 vapor recovery regulation for California, the ARB could 17 inadvertently create a third vehicle design -- which, in the 18 past, has been fought vigorously by vehicle manufacturers. 19 The reason for this concern is related to several 20 Federal Clean Air Act mandated programs, including the 21 federal clean fuel fleet program and the California pilot 22 test program. 23 Vehicles designed for these programs, but not 24 equipped with on-board refueling vapor recovery, may not be 25 considered as clean for evaporative emissions by the U.S. 79 1 EPA as a version with on-board refueling vapor recovery, 2 since these vehicles could be required in other States which 3 do not have effective Phase II systems. 4 Consequently, legal concerns may arise in response 5 to the protectiveness of the vehicles without on-board 6 refueling vapor recovery systems. By requiring on-board 7 refueling vapor recovery systems on California vehicles, the 8 legal concerns are addressed. 9 California adoption of on-board refueling vapor 10 recovery systems would also result in a consistent vehicle 11 design for all 50 States and reduce the manufacturing burden 12 for vehicle manufacturers. In fact, most manufacturers that 13 have commented on the item requested that the ARB establish 14 the same or optional on-board refueling standards as the 15 U.S. EPA in order to reduce their manufacturing and design 16 requirements. 17 The ARB staff therefore proposes the adoption of 18 the U.S. EPA's on-board refueling vapor recovery standards 19 and test procedures. Minor regulatory language 20 modifications are proposed, however, to provide flexibility 21 to allow the vehicle manufacturers the choice of certifying 22 to the refueling standards as part of the either the U.S. 23 EPA's evaporative test procedures or the California specific 24 certification procedures, preconditioning procedures, 25 exhaust procedures, et cetera. 80 1 The modifications are not expected to produce any 2 difference between California and federal on-board refueling 3 vapor recovery equipped vehicles. 4 Because the on-board refueling vapor recovery test 5 procedure is linked to the evaporative test procedure 6 through carbon canister and vehicle preconditioning steps, a 7 few modifications to the evaporative test procedures are 8 also proposed to align both procedures. 9 The changes are mostly text additions allowing the 10 preconditioning of integrated and nonintegrated refueling 11 canisters. 12 The staff also proposes adopting the U.S. EPA's 13 phase-in schedule, again providing a uniform transition for 14 the vehicle manufacturers. The regulation requires that 40 15 percent of the 1998 model year passenger cars have on-board 16 refueling vapor recovery systems, 80 percent in 1999, and 17 100 percent in 2000. 18 Light-duty trucks less than 6,000 pounds gross 19 vehicle weight rating have the same implementation schedule 20 beginning with the 2001 model year. As stated earlier, 21 medium and heavy-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 22 rating greater than 8500 pounds are exempt from the 23 refueling standards. 24 A 0.20 grams per gallon refueling emission 25 standard is proposed for all gasoline, diesel, alcohol, 81 1 flexible fuel, and hybrid electric fuel vehicles with an 2 8500 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating per the 3 respective phase-in schedules. 4 Again, this is consistent with the U.S. EPA's 5 regulations. Small volume manufacturers are given an 6 extension for the phase-in of on-board refueling vapor 7 recovery in their passenger cars until the model year 2000. 8 The manufacturer would show compliance with the refueling 9 emission standards by conducting a refueling test as an 10 extension of the required evaporative test procedures. 11 The proposed test procedures would apply to both 12 integrated and nonintegrated on-board refueling vapor 13 recovery evaporative systems. 14 Integrated systems would use the same canister to 15 store refueling and evaporative emissions, while 16 nonintegrated on-board refueling vapor recovery systems 17 would use an independent vapor collection and storage 18 system. 19 Both types of on-board refueling vapor recovery 20 systems would be designed to capture the vapor that is 21 forced out of the fuel tank during refueling by establishing 22 a seal at the vehicle's fill pipe and directing the vapor to 23 the on-board system. 24 This slide provides an example of the test 25 procedure -- test sequence; in this case, for integrated 82 1 systems, which is expected to be the most widely used in the 2 industry. 3 The design of an integrated system must allow the 4 canister to store and purge both the evaporative and 5 refueling vapors during the many combinations of vehicle 6 parking and driving events. Therefore, the sequencing of 7 the integrated refueling tests allows sufficient time to 8 fully purge the evaporative canister, and therefore allows 9 the practical use of an integrated refueling evaporative 10 control system. 11 The canister purging and loading steps will be 12 consistent with the procedures described in the U.S. EPA and 13 California supplemental evaporative test procedures. 14 An analogous test sequence is required for 15 nonintegrated systems, again consistent with the U.S. EPA's 16 requirements. 17 The actual refueling test procedures are common to 18 both integrated and nonintegrated systems. The basic 19 sequence for measuring refueling emissions will consist of 20 rolling a vehicle into a sealed enclosure, dispensing fuel 21 into the vehicle at a temperature of 67 degrees Fahrenheit 22 at a rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute, and then 23 finally measuring the total emissions when at least 95 24 percent of the tank's capacity has been reached. 25 Separate from the on-board refueling vapor 83 1 recovery test sequencing changes, the ARB and the U.S. EPA's 2 staffs have worked cooperatively in aligning the California 3 and federal evaporative test procedures in order to ease the 4 manufacturers' testing burden and to resolve remaining 5 technical issues. 6 These changes improve the technical soundness of 7 the test. The modifications will not affect the stringency 8 of the evaporative procedure or increase the cost of 9 evaporative testing. 10 Owners/operators of gasoline facilities have 11 argued that as soon as on-board refueling vapor recovery 12 control is fully implemented, requirements for Phase II 13 control should be immediately phased out. However, the full 14 penetration of on-board refueling vapor recovery will be 15 delayed because of California's extended vehicle fleet 16 turnover rate. 17 For example, 70 percent of the fleet is turned 18 over after 16 years. But it will take more than 25 years 19 before all cars and light-duty trucks are equipped with on- 20 board refueling vapor recovery. Also, at the present time, 21 there are no plans to include on-board refueling vapor 22 recovery systems in the medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with 23 a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8500 pounds, 24 which represent nearly 12 percent of the statewide gasoline 25 consumption. 84 1 Thus, in addition to the immediate benefits 2 associated with Phase II systems compared to on-board 3 refueling vapor recovery, Phase II systems are currently the 4 only means to control refueling emissions from medium- and 5 heavy-duty vehicles. 6 Since the 45-day notice was mailed out, staff have 7 received various comments from industry on the on-board 8 refueling vapor recovery and evaporative test procedures. 9 Several vehicle manufacturers have requested that the 10 implementation schedule for on-board refueling vapor 11 recovery be based on a nationwide percentage basis versus a 12 statewide basis. This change will provide the vehicle 13 manufacturers more flexibility in choosing engine families 14 for on-board refueling vapor recovery changes and provide 15 uniform nationwide designs. 16 A hundred percent compliance would still be 17 required in the model year 2000 for passenger cars. 18 The American Automobile Manufacturers Association 19 and the Association of International Automobile 20 Manufacturers have asked ARB staff to streamline the on- 21 board refueling vapor recovery test procedures. 22 ARB staff has begun discussions with industry to 23 determine the changes necessary to accomplish this task. In 24 addition, they asked ARB staff to make a few technical 25 modifications to the evaporative test procedures to further 85 1 align the California procedure with the federal procedure. 2 The proposed regulatory changes are available at 3 the back of the room. The changes reflect the request of 4 the automobile associations. 5 California's adoption of the U.S. EPA's on-board 6 refueling vapor recovery standards and test procedures would 7 not impose additional cost to California consumers. Since 8 the U.S. EPA's on-board refueling vapor recovery rule would 9 apply to all 50 States, the vehicle manufacturers would have 10 to install on-board refueling vapor recovery systems even 11 without California on-board refueling vapor recovery rule 12 adoption. 13 California's adoption of the rule would simply 14 align the on-board refueling vapor recovery test procedure 15 with other California vehicle emission test procedures, and 16 provide the vehicle manufacturer more testing flexibility. 17 Thus, no additional costs would be associated with 18 the adoption of the proposed ORVR regulations or the amended 19 evaporative procedures. 20 However, to provide the Board with information on 21 the relative cost of on-board refueling vapor recovery, 22 staff has reviewed the U.S. EPA's cost estimates. The U.S. 23 EPA estimated the total costs of ORVR systems to be less 24 $5.00 per vehicle for light-duty vehicles and trucks with a 25 gross vehicle weight rating less than 8500 pounds. 86 1 The cost-effectiveness for the adoption of the 2 U.S. EPA on-board refueling vapor recovery rule was 3 estimated to be 40 cents per pound hydrocarbon without the 4 phase-out of Phase II systems. 5 Staff's analysis of the potential impacts of ORVR 6 in the case there will be no additional emission benefits 7 due to the adoption of ORVR, since the control of fill pipe 8 emissions will simply be transferred from the Phase II 9 system to the vehicle's ORVR system (sic). 10 In conclusion, the staff recommends that the Board 11 adopt the ORVR standards and test procedures along with the 12 evaporative procedure modifications necessary to align the 13 two test procedures. 14 The Board's adoption will lessen the vehicle 15 manufacturers' testing burden. 16 The staff also recommends that the Board adopt the 17 proposed amendments to California's evaporative test 18 procedures to align the California procedure with the U.S. 19 EPA evaporative procedure. 20 This concludes staff's presentation. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Do any of the Board members have 22 any questions or comments? 23 (There was no response.) 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Then, what I'd like to do 25 is call, again, the first and only witness to come forward. 87 1 Barbara Wendling from the American Automobile Manufacturers 2 Association. 3 And I believe we have copies of written testimony 4 as well. Good morning. Welcome. 5 MS. WENDLING: I'm Barbara Wendling with the 6 American Automobile Manufacturers Association. With me is 7 Gregory J. Dana of the Association of International 8 Automobile Manufacturers. 9 We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the 10 California Air Resources Board's proposed regulations to 11 adopt on-board refueling vapor recovery provisions and to 12 modify the enhanced evaporative emission test procedure. 13 We would like to express our appreciation of the 14 staff for making significant strikes towards reducing the 15 differences between the CARB and federal evap test 16 procedures. These proposed alignments will allow 17 manufacturers to perform testing for either CARB or the U.S. 18 Environmental Protection Agency with essentially the same 19 test equipment. 20 Nevertheless, the differences in fuel and 21 temperature specifications between the CARB and EPA evap 22 test procedures remain a major issue. Because of them, 23 manufacturers still have to run duplicate sets of tests for 24 CARB and EPA, in spite of the agencies' efforts to align the 25 two test procedures. 88 1 These differences are being investigated by 2 separate test programs being conducted by both agencies, 3 which are designed to evaluate the vapor generation 4 associated with the different fuel and temperature 5 combinations. 6 AAMA and AIAM believe that CARB and EPA test fuel 7 and temperature combinations are essentially equivalent in 8 stringency, and we are willing to accept either set of 9 specifications. 10 We hope that ultimately, as a result of these test 11 programs, a single set of fuel and temperature conditions 12 will be used for certification and in-use testing by both 13 agencies and that only one evap test procedure will exist. 14 In addition, although substantial progress has 15 been made in "commonizing" the CARB and EPA evap test 16 procedures, the testing process still remains overly 17 burdensome and resource intensive. 18 Current void rates for this test have been 19 reported by some manufacturers to be in the 30 to 50 percent 20 range, even though this testing has been performed for 21 certification purposes for nearly two years. 22 Portions of the test procedure are redundant and, 23 as the industry has gained experience with the systems and 24 test procedures, it is becoming apparent that portions of 25 the test essentially provide no valuable information nor 89 1 additional air quality benefit. We look forward to working 2 with CARB and EPA in the near future to develop a less 3 complicated testing cycle. 4 We respect to ORVR, AAMA and AIAM agree that 5 federal ORVR requirements should apply in California. 6 However, we oppose CARB's proposed creation of a new set of 7 test procedures. We have raised this issue with CARB staff, 8 and they have indicated a willingness to address our 9 concerns. 10 Adopting ORVR regulations will provide minimal air 11 quality benefit in California due to the use of Stage II. 12 Consequently, CARB should adopt the federal regulations by 13 reference in their entirety to avoid the need for 14 promulgating 100 pages of new regulations and test 15 procedures. 16 Although CARB is proposing to allow manufacturers 17 the option of certifying with either the federal or the 18 proposed California procedure, it is our experience that 19 unique regulations only add complexity and cost. 20 For example, manufacturers would have to become 21 experts on both procedures in order to understand the 22 implications of any differences, no matter how small, since 23 CARB will likely use their procedure for in-use compliance 24 testing. 25 Moreover, although CARB's proposed new test 90 1 procedure is very similar to EPA's today, its sheer 2 complexity and length make it likelier that divergence will 3 occur over time, adding further cost and complexity with no 4 environmental benefit. 5 In fact, it took several weeks to even read the 6 proposed regulations and compare the test procedure 7 requirements with those for EPA. There just isn't any 8 reason for this complexity. 9 Specifically, we propose that subpart B of 10 "California Refueling Emission Standards and Test Procedures 11 for 1998 and Subsequent Model Year Vehicles," as proposed, 12 be deleted in its entirety. 13 The following language, which adopts federal ORVR 14 test procedures by reference only, should be inserted in 15 place of the current subpart B: 16 "For 1998 and subsequent model year vehicles, 17 manufacturers shall use the federal on-board refueling vapor 18 recovery test procedures as set forth in Section 86.107-98 19 through Section 86.156-98, dated April 6, 1994." 20 We believe that these are nonsubstantive changes 21 and are working with CARb staff to achieve this objective, 22 recognizing that there may be one or two issues that require 23 separate treatment. The staff has mentioned the 24 preconditioning procedures for hybrid electric vehicles as 25 one example. 91 1 In addition, this language is very similar to that 2 currently used in the California evaporative emissions 3 standards and test procedures for 1978 and subsequent model 4 year vehicles in Section 4(j). Consequently, AAMA and AIAM 5 recommend that the Board adopt the above changes. 6 Finally, regarding phase-in requirements, CARB has 7 proposed that ORVR phase-in be based on California sales 8 volumes. AAMA and AIAM recommend that CARB allow the same 9 compliance phase-in options that are allowed by EPA. 10 Specifically, manufacturers should have the option too 11 demonstrate phase-in compliance using California-only 12 projected sales volumes or 50-State projected sales volumes. 13 As stated previously, the adoption of ORVR is not 14 expected to benefit air quality significantly due to 15 existing Stage II requirements; therefore, allowing this 16 option would provide additional flexibility without 17 compromising air quality. 18 I just want to add some emphasis on the projected 19 sales. That is fairly important, since it really simplifies 20 the compliance procedures. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Your colleague from AIAM, 22 would you like to add anything? 23 MR. DANA: I'm just here for moral support, John. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 25 MS. WENDLING: Thanks, Greg. 92 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I think you provided that. 2 Any questions or comments of the sole witnesses? 3 MR. CALHOUN: I guess I would like to ask the 4 staff a couple of questions. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure, Mr. Calhoun. 6 MR. CALHOUN: What about their recommendation to 7 adopt the federal procedures? As I recall, during the 8 development of these regulations, because California already 9 had Phase II, California wasn't all that excited about 10 adopting -- supporting on-board vapor recovery. 11 But now that you're getting in step with the EPA, 12 why not adopt their test procedure? 13 MR. CARTER: For the record, I'm Michael Carter. 14 Yes, Mr. Calhoun, we have looked at what industry 15 proposed, although we didn't get this information from 16 industry until a week ago, so it kind of caught us by the 17 last -- at the last hour here. 18 But from what we have looked at, we think we can 19 agree to what industry is proposing and that is, simply by 20 reference adopt the ORVR regs per the federal procedures. 21 MR. CALHOUN: So, is that something that you'd do 22 today, or will you do that in the subsequent -- are you 23 going to have a 15-day -- 24 MR. CARTER: Right. In the subsequent, yes. 25 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. All right. Thank you. 93 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Perhaps -- maybe it's because 2 I'm thinking more slowly today, but take a moment and go 3 through -- they suggested some specific language changes 4 here to the subpart B component. 5 What's the staff response to that specific 6 suggestion? 7 MR. CARTER: The problem centers on the fact that, 8 in order to do the ORVR procedure, there are preconditioning 9 steps that are part of the evaporative procedure. In our 10 original proposal, we use those preconditioning steps that 11 are part of the California evap procedure. 12 What industry is proposing, if we use the same 13 preconditioning steps as the federal procedure, then we 14 don't have to do all the cross-referencing, and it 15 eliminates an entire section of the document. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 17 MR. CARTER: And since we're only talking about 18 ORVR and since the ORVR test is the same for California and 19 federal, it really doesn't matter perhaps if you use the 20 same preconditioning steps, whether they be California or 21 federal. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 23 MR. CARTER: There area certain things that may be 24 different, as Barbara indicated, like the hybrid electric 25 vehicles. We may have to have some separate section that 94 1 would include them. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, we're willing to embrace 3 their language? 4 MR. CARTER: At this point, we want to go back and 5 look at it more to make sure we're not missing anything. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 7 MR. CARTER: But generally, conceptually, yes, it 8 sounds like it could work. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. How then does the 10 Board modify its action or recommended staff action to 11 incorporate their concerns or consideration as far as 12 language changes? 13 Maybe that's a question for -- 14 MR. CARTER: Well, I think -- well, legal should. 15 I'll pass the wand over here to legal, but I think it could 16 be a nonsubstantive change. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Kenny, I've been 18 waiting to be able to put you on the spot this morning. Now 19 I've gotten my chance. 20 MR. KENNY: Well, I'm going to take it away a 21 little bit, and defer to Vicky Davis, who's the staff 22 counsel that's been working on this issue. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 24 I guess -- let me put it this way. Industry comes 25 in, they made some suggestions. You're saying we can agree 95 1 conceptually, trust us, we'll deal with it later. 2 What I'm saying to you is, how do we pin that down 3 or can we? 4 MS. DAVIS: My view, legally speaking, is that 5 until the technical staff has looked at it in more detail, 6 it would be difficult -- 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 8 MS. DAVIS: -- for me to make a legal decision -- 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 10 MS. DAVIS: -- as to whether it's a substantive 11 change or not. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 13 MS. WENDLING: May I comment? 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Please. 15 MR. KENNY: If I could add one thing, though, one 16 thing the Board can do is it can approve the concept and 17 then, to the extent that the staff does determine that, in 18 fact, the incorporation by reference is an appropriate way 19 to go and is consistent with what the Board is directing it 20 to do, that could then be incorporated into a 15-day change 21 at some point later on. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. How does that appear to 23 you? 24 MS. WENDLING: Well, I think what we're looking 25 for is a wholesale adoption, such as we've suggested, 96 1 recognizing, you know, as we've said before, that there may 2 be one, or two, or three things that they find in there that 3 genuinely need unique addressing for California. 4 But the point would be that those would be a 5 separate, you know -- "We adopt the federal procedures with 6 the following exceptions." 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. Well, what troubles me is 8 that this is supposed to be a simplification, kind of 9 finding common ground between us and the feds. It appears 10 that it's not, that there's still some outstanding issues. 11 They're still doing some testing and it's costing them time 12 and money. 13 By the way, I won't commend you for the comment 14 that you had to spend a couple weeks to read the document. 15 Well, we have a hell of an air quality problem in this 16 State, and we want to deal with it aggressively. And we 17 apologize for the time it takes to review this material. 18 But it is essential for us to make the progress we need. 19 But we want to apologize for that. 20 But if our goal here is to simplify and align, it 21 seems to me we may be missing the mark here. And that's the 22 essence of what I want to get at. 23 MR. BOYD: Mr. Chairman, it's bigger than that. I 24 just briefly skipped across the pond with my comment of how 25 this issue of on-board versus Phase II is more than a decade 97 1 old. So, I spared the Board -- maybe some members here 2 remember the long, long history of the national debate about 3 the Stage II versus vapor recovery and finger pointing in 4 opposite directions to see which is the right way to do it. 5 So, having had a program for almost 20 years of 6 Phase II, and being quite concerned -- in spite of another 7 letter here that says people don't know the interface 8 problems, we've anticipated this program for years. We've 9 done testing. We've had concerns. We are concerned about 10 the interface issues. 11 We are concerned about other aspects of it. So, 12 it isn't just -- this isn't a simple matter of, oh, the 13 fed's put out a procedure. Let's just simply -- 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 15 MR. BOYD: -- adopt it and put it into play. 16 So, the spirit here is that it sounds like, in 17 essence, the staff says we think we can do it. And, as Mr. 18 Kenny indicated, we would continue to look at this material 19 and, hopefully, in the 15-day period of time, if we don't 20 have any problems and it isn't substantial and, thus, we 21 could adopt it. I mean, you could designate us if we do 22 adopt it. 23 But it is possible that there will be an exception 24 or two. And I appreciate the witness' desire that we en 25 blanc do it and then undo it later on if we come to one, or 98 1 two, or three exceptions. I think what we're saying is we'd 2 like to look at the whole package. Hopefully, we can 3 incorporate it. But it's possible we can't. And then we'd 4 have to -- then we'd come back and correct it later. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Lagarias. 6 MR. LAGARIAS: It seems to me the on-board 7 refueling vapor recovery system is a federal requirement, 8 and it will occur in all 50 States, and it would be quite 9 appropriate to adopt the federal test procedure for that 10 with, as you say, after reviewing the technical document. 11 If there are any exceptions to that or special cases, 12 they've already agreed that they would live with that. 13 Is that correct? 14 MS. WENDLING: That's correct. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Any other 16 questions for our witnesses? 17 Very good. Thank you. 18 MS. WENDLING: Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Why don't we take a minute, Mr. 20 Boyd, and have the staff summarize those written comments 21 that the Board has received by folks unable to testify 22 today. 23 MS. HEBERT: Okay. We received a comment letter 24 from Gilbarco, basically asking us to include a fill pipe 25 design change that would require the vent tube coming from 99 1 the vehicle's tank to be located below the restrictor plate. 2 Although ORVR will likely negate the need for this 3 change due to the fact of the ORVR design beginning in 1998 4 for the passenger cars, there was still a concern for the 5 delayed implementation of the heavier duty vehicle classes 6 if something -- a change could be made, or the vehicle 7 manufacturers may change the location of the vent tube or 8 the vent tube could be located above, and it could cause 9 some problems with Stage II efficiency. 10 So, they asked -- have asked us to work with the 11 Compliance Division in investigating the greater than 8500 12 vehicle fleet, in addition to the heavier light-duty trucks 13 and medium-duty vehicles, and see if there are some concerns 14 with interference with Stage II efficiency on regular 15 vehicles, not ORVR vehicles. 16 And MSD staff has agreed to work with the 17 Compliance Division and investigate the issue further. 18 MR. CROSS: I wanted to add just briefly to that. 19 I think we want to ensure that the vehicle industry is put 20 on notice; so, there may be some administrative publications 21 like advisory circulars or something released if there is -- 22 if we find that there's a problem which needs to be 23 corrected in terms of vent locations. 24 But we think it can be handled at the staff level 25 as opposed to a regulatory change. And it doesn't make 100 1 sense to change the regulations, given that ORVR is going to 2 affect everybody in '98 anyway, and when we get to 2000. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 4 MR. CROSS: There's one other. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Was there one other letter? 6 MS. HEBERT: There's one other letter from the 7 Western States Petroleum Association. They basically 8 support the ARB adoption of the ORVR rules. They made a 9 comment that the evaporative test procedure modifications 10 seemed appropriate to make them as protective as the 11 environmental systems developed under the federal ORVR and 12 evaporative test procedures. 13 They also made a comment on the possible 14 interactions between ORVR and Phase II systems. This is 15 something that was mentioned in the staff report. We're 16 wondering what's going to happen when the two systems come 17 in together, and this will probably be investigated further. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Sure. Ms. Edgerton. 19 MS. EDGERTON: Let me be sure I understand this. 20 In the staff's view, is there any difference in the 21 environmental quality, in the air quality effect of one 22 versus the other -- federal versus the State that you 23 proposed? 24 MR. CARTER: No. We've estimated that there 25 shouldn't be any impact whatsoever in terms of emissions. 101 1 MS. EDGERTON: So, there's no difference? 2 MR. CARTER: No. 3 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure, Dr. Boston. 5 DR. BOSTON: Can I take a minute to ask one of the 6 staff to kind of explain that to us a little bit? We've got 7 two systems that are going to be on board these cars now. 8 You have the canister that's going to be in the cars. And 9 when you stick the nozzle in through this restrictive plate, 10 vapors have to go either to the canister, I gather, or 11 they're going to be sucked back into the nozzle. 12 How does that work, and how do they fight each 13 other? Who wins this, this battle here? 14 MR. CARTER: Simply who wins, ORVR will probably 15 win, which will mean if you Stage II system facility, what 16 will be drawn back into the underground storage tank is 17 basically air, mostly air instead of just vapor. 18 So, initially, when we were thinking of going 19 ahead with this ORVR rule, there were concerns with, well, 20 what happens when that air does get ingested into the 21 underground storage tank? 22 And there were initially concerns that you would 23 have a net emissions increase, because of vapor generation 24 in the underground storage tank. 25 But, as it turns out, now what we're looking at 102 1 is, as long as the integrity of the Stage II system is in 2 place, that should not be a concern. 3 However, there are other concerns that are still 4 here that have to be resolved, and that's why the research 5 project is currently underway? (Speaking to colleague) It 6 will be initiated; that will address this very issue, the 7 interaction issue between ORVR and Stage II. 8 So, it's still not clear yet. There may still be 9 concern. But that's to be determined. 10 DR. BOSTON: Just, if I may, to carry it a step 11 further, when a car is started up then after it's been 12 refueled, and there's all these vapors in the canister, 13 allegedly these are sucked back into the intake system. The 14 car's going to run richer. That's going to create more 15 emissions in the tailpipe. No? 16 MR. CARTER: No. 17 DR. BOSTON: Why does that change? Does the 18 computer figure out that it's richer? 19 MR. CROSS: The fuel system adjusts for it and the 20 computer is already -- it knows what's going on. It knows 21 that these changes in air/fuel ratio are happening, and it 22 appropriately compensates. 23 MR. CARTER: In fact, if I could add one more 24 point. The system that the manufacturers will likely use 25 will be an integrated system, which means, basically, 103 1 they'll use the same evaporative canister that they'll use 2 for refueling. So, it will have the same purge strategy as 3 the evaporative canister would. 4 So, if they can meet the evap requirements, 5 they'll surely meet the ORVR requirements. 6 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman? 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. I've been ignoring Mr. 8 Cackette. He wanted to make a point, and then Mr. Lagarias. 9 MR. CACKETTE: Yes. I just wanted to comment. 10 Listening to the discussion, what I was taking away from it 11 is, gee, this seems kind of silly. Why did the staff bring 12 you a hundred pages of regulations when a witness could come 13 up and say, well, in one paragraph you could have taken care 14 of this and made life simpler for everybody around the 15 world. 16 And the answer to that -- there is a good reason 17 for that. This Board pioneered the development of the new 18 evaporative procedure four or five years ago. We adopted 19 those regulations. They were the first ones in the nation. 20 It was then copied in federal law during the Clean Air Act 21 amendments of 1990; that this new evaporative procedure 22 should be a national type of a program. 23 Evaporative emissions is not refueling, but it's 24 the stuff that your car generates sitting around during the 25 day while you're driving it or while it's parked in the 104 1 parking lot on a hot day. 2 The EPA adopted regulations to implement the 3 federal requirements, and they were not the same as we had 4 pioneered here in California. So, we had two different 5 procedures dealing with nonrefueling emissions, with the 6 typical evaporative emissions during the day. 7 The Board went through at least once, maybe twice 8 now, attempts to align our procedures with the ones that 9 were subsequently adopted by EPA. 10 There always remained in dispute as to the 11 effectiveness of EPA's procedures versus the effectiveness 12 of ours -- obviously, us thinking that our procedures were 13 more effective in controlling evaporative emissions. 14 Only recently -- I think in the spirit of more 15 deference to the States and more cooperation between our 16 mutual programs -- has the EPA come forward and said, "Look. 17 Let's end these, any differences." You know, they'll 18 concede on points; we'll concede on points, and bring the 19 procedures into complete alignment. 20 Once that happens, then there's no reason for 21 having this -- any separate regulations, because those 22 evaporative regulations are integrated or integral to 23 refueling emissions. 24 So, what you're seeing is a little bit of history 25 of where we have had this difference, believing that our 105 1 procedures were more protective, sort of forcing us to have 2 a whole and separate document that demonstrates how you do 3 it California's way. 4 And what the testimony's leading to is that when 5 we resolve all these final differences and make sure there 6 aren't some nuances that California has to still continue to 7 be different on -- like hybrid electric vehicles, for 8 example -- that then we can come together and have a nice 9 little one paragraph sentence that says, "Do it the federal 10 way." 11 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, my understanding is we were 12 separating the evaporative emissions from the on-board 13 refueling emissions in this discussion regarding -- 14 MR. CACKETTE: Well, we are. But, as pointed out, 15 there's -- the procedures are similar. They use the same 16 control systems. There's preconditioning issues. There's a 17 whole bunch of -- you saw part of that flow chart. It's, 18 you know, it looks like a mile long when you look at all of 19 the stuff. That's why there's a hundred pages of references 20 here. 21 And they do have relationships between the two. 22 And so, as long as they are different, there's going to be 23 some differences in the way that you characterize how the 24 on-board refueling procedure is done. 25 We want to get rid of that if we can, but when we 106 1 have similar procedures for both evap and on-board 2 refueling, we'll be in a position to clearly do that. And 3 we're right at that point now. We've basically reached 4 agreement with EPA. 5 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, we're going to need Stage II 6 for quite a few years because of all the vehicles we have on 7 the road now, and the on-board refueling canisters won't be 8 in effect until the new cars come through. But it certainly 9 seems that if we adopt the federal test procedures just for 10 the refueling emission standards, subject to your review of 11 the language and whatever caveats you feel are appropriate, 12 we can simplify some of the language. 13 MR. CACKETTE: Sure. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any other? Lynne? 15 MS. EDGERTON: Did I see you nod your head and 16 say, yes? 17 MR. CACKETTE: Yes. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Any further 19 questions from staff? 20 Mr. Boyd? 21 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman? 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Roberts. Excuse me, 23 Jim. 24 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I didn't know if somebody 25 wanted to do -- if this was the appropriate time that 107 1 somebody wanted to pick up that last point about the waivers 2 in Rich's letter. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Oh, on this. On the last item. 4 Yeah, there was an outstanding item there. 5 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: The last time referred it. I 6 thought it was the next group. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Your predecessors kicked it to 8 you on this issue. Since Mr. Boyd complimented how fast the 9 staff reacted, I'm sure you can pick this one up. 10 (Laughter.) 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Bob, are you tracking this? 12 MR. KITOWSKI: If I can summarize it real quick, 13 if this is the point that you're making. 14 San Diego commented that Health & Safety Code 15 makes a comment about the interaction, or the requirement 16 for a standardized fill pipe requirement, and that they 17 believe there are a number of vehicles out there where the 18 fill pipes are incompatible. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 20 MR. KITOWSKI: The major problem, as summarized by 21 the Gilbarco comments, is that the vent tube location in 22 regard to the leaded restrictor, or the high vent tube 23 location and the leaded restrictor will cause problems with 24 some of the Stage II systems, which are roughly five 25 percent, will have problems with -- 108 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Is that a function of the age of 2 the vehicle? 3 MR. KITOWSKI: It's not a function of the age; it 4 is purely a design choice of the manufacturers. We have 5 filler neck specifications. The vent tube location is not 6 part of that design specification. And the ORVR will make 7 that issue go away. We are working with Gilbarco in the 8 interim. Well, working with our Compliance Division and 9 Gilbarco in the interim to make sure that these vehicles 10 that are produced in the interim also don't have that 11 concern. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, the answer to San Diego 13 County is what? We're going to deal with it? 14 MR. KITOWSKI: The answer to San Diego County is 15 that it's -- quite frankly, they're a little bit confused, 16 because the vehicles do comply with the filler neck 17 specifications that are on the books. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: This is primarily Cadillac and 19 Mazda? 20 MR. KITOWSKI: Yeah. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 22 MR. KITOWSKI: But there are additional issues of 23 concern that we are addressing that may also cause 24 interaction problems. 25 MR. CROSS: This is the comment I made earlier 109 1 about the staff producing some sort of advisory circular for 2 the manufacturers to -- essentially request that they do 3 this during the interim period prior to ORVR. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 MR. CROSS: And we've talked to a number of the 6 manufacturers. They're aware of the problem, and they're 7 voluntarily doing what they can to resolve it. And the 8 staff felt that a reg change for the two or three years 9 between now and '98 wasn't -- didn't make sense to do 10 basically. 11 We think we can get all the compliance that we can 12 possibly get through just advising them and requesting that 13 they make the changes that they can. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. When you say changes, 15 indulge me there. Do you mean they would have a retrofit? 16 MR. CROSS: No, no, no. No, I'm not suggesting 17 retrofit. I'm suggesting that, to the extent that we are 18 identifying any design problems out there, most of them are 19 ones that were identified in the surveys and are ones that 20 have been since fixed. In other words, if you look at the 21 survey data, a lot of the cars are older cars. 22 There are a few models which are -- which have 23 been identified as problem models. We've already contacted 24 the manufacturers and -- 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And they have said they're going 110 1 to change? 2 MR. CROSS: They said, "Fine. We'll do it as soon 3 as we can." 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 MR. CROSS: And I guess we'll -- what we're going 6 to do is continue going down that path rather than introduce 7 a complexity of a reg change, given that it's a fairly 8 narrow issue. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Well, this obviously 10 needs to be communicated back to San Diego. 11 MR. CROSS: Okay. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Mr. Boyd, do you 13 have any final comments? 14 MR. BOYD: No, Mr. Chairman. No further comments. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Then, if there's 16 nothing else from my colleagues on the Board, I will now 17 close the record on this agenda item; however, the record 18 will be reopened when the 15-day notice of public 19 availability is issued. Written or oral comments received 20 after this hearing date, but before the 15-day notice is 21 issued, will not be accepted as part of the official record 22 on this agenda item. 23 When the record is reopened for the 15-day comment 24 period, the public may submit written comments on the 25 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to 111 1 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 2 Again, I need to bring up ex parte communications. 3 Again, while we may communicate off the record with outside 4 persons regarding Board rulemaking, we must disclose the 5 names of our contacts and the nature of the contents on the 6 record. 7 This requirement applies specifically to 8 communications which take place after notice of the Board 9 hearing has been published. 10 Are there any communications which need to be 11 disclosed at this time? 12 (There was no response.) 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 14 Mr. Lagarias. 15 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman, I propose we adopt 16 Resolution 95-28 with the following suggested modification; 17 that the proposed subpart B in the staff report on refueling 18 emission standards and test procedures be replaced by a 19 section adopting the federal on-board recovery test 20 procedures, but only after the staff has reviewed these and 21 identified any exceptions or modifications that are 22 appropriate and necessary for us to stay in conformance with 23 our other regulations. 24 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Second. 25 MR. PARNELL: Second. 112 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. We have a motion and 2 a second -- actually two seconds. Thank you. 3 Is there any further discussion by members of the 4 Board or Legal? 5 MR. KENNY: Yes. One clarifying question with 6 regard to the motion. And I presume the motion would be 7 such that the exceptions that were identified would then be 8 adopted by the Executive Officer pursuant to the normal 15- 9 day change procedures? 10 MR. LAGARIAS: That's correct. 11 MR. KENNY: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you, Mr. 13 Kenny. 14 Any other discussion? Discussion points by 15 members of the Board? All right. 16 I'll ask the Board Secretary to please call the 17 roll for a vote on Resolution 95-28 with Mr. Lagarias' 18 amendments. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston? 20 DR. BOSTON: Yes. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 22 MR. CALHOUN: Aye. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 24 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 113 1 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Aye. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 3 MR. LAGARIAS: Aye. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 5 MR. PARNELL: Aye. 6 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 7 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Aye. 8 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim? 9 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Aye. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap? 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Aye. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Passes 9-0. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Thank you. 14 At this point, I would like to call for a lunch 15 recess for about one hour, and we'll reconvene here in an 16 hour. Okay. 17 Thank you very much. 18 (Thereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.) 19 --o0o-- 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We'll reconvene. The fourth 4 item on the agenda today is 95-6-4, which is a public 5 hearing to consider amending the test method designated for 6 determining the oxygen content of gasoline. 7 This item for consideration is a proposal to amend 8 the test method, which will be used to determine compliance 9 with California's wintertime oxygenates in Phase 1 gasoline 10 regs. It will also be used to verify compliance with the 11 oxygenate standard of the Phase 2 gasoline regulations. 12 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to 13 introduce the item and begin the staff presentation. 14 Jim? 15 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 16 wintertime oxygenates program was implemented in November of 17 1992 here in California. The program requires that gasoline 18 sold in the State during the winter months contain a minimum 19 oxygen content of 1.8 percent by weight and a maximum of 2.2 20 percent by weight. 21 The objective of the wintertime oxygenates program 22 is to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide from motor 23 vehicles. In that regard, I'm happy to report that the 24 program has been successful. Based on California air 25 quality data collected during the first two years of the 115 1 program, the program has resulted in a reduction in the 2 ambient concentration of carbon monoxide of between 8 and 10 3 percent, which was the hoped for goal. 4 California's Phase 2 gasoline regulations will 5 extend the oxygenates requirement to year-round beginning in 6 March of 1996. Since the adoption of these regulations, 7 staff has been working cooperatively with industry to 8 improve the test methods designated for determining the 9 regulated components. 10 As a result of this effort, the Board adopted an 11 improved method for determining oxygen in gasoline at a 12 Board hearing in September of 1993. Further testing and 13 evaluation has resulted in an updated version of that 14 method, which is the proposed method you have before you. 15 Adoption of this proposed method will assure 16 better compliance with the regulations that specify oxygen 17 content in gasoline. 18 And with that, I'd like to call upon Mr. Paul 19 Rieger of our Southern Laboratory Branch of the Monitoring 20 and Laboratory Division to give you the full staff 21 presentation. 22 Mr. Rieger? 23 MR. RIEGER: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 24 Good afternoon, Chairman Dunlap and members of the 25 Board. As was stated earlier, we are here to consider 116 1 amending the test method designated for determining the 2 total oxygen content of gasoline. 3 The test method for determining total oxygen 4 content is designated in the wintertime oxygenates and Phase 5 2 gasoline regulations. It is also designated in the Reid 6 vapor pressure specification for gasoline. 7 The wintertime oxygenates regulation adopted in 8 late 1991, requires the addition of oxygenates to gasoline 9 to achieve a total oxygen content of no less than 1.8 and no 10 greater than 2.2 percent by weight. 11 The wintertime oxygenates requirement became 12 effective in November of 1992, and applies only to the 13 winter months of November to February. 14 The Phase 2 gasoline regulations adopted in 15 November of 1991, specify eight properties of gasoline to be 16 sold in California beginning in March of 1996. Among the 17 specifications is an oxygen content requirement identical to 18 the wintertime oxygenates regulation, except that it applies 19 year-round. 20 The designated test method is also used to measure 21 ethanol in gasoline, in conjunction with the RVP 22 specification. Gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by 23 volume is allowed a higher Reid vapor pressure. 24 At the time of adoption of the regulations, the 25 Board directed staff to work cooperatively with industry to 117 1 improve the test procedures designated for measuring the 2 regulated fuel components. Staff has worked cooperatively 3 with the American Society of Testing and Materials, or ASTM, 4 and the Western States Petroleum Association, as well as 5 other interested parties to evaluate, revise, and update the 6 test methods. 7 One result of this cooperation has been the 8 adoption of ASTM D 4815-93 in September of 1993. 9 ASTM D 4815 has again been revised and retested, 10 with the result that the revised method is more precise. 11 The last two digits of an ASTM test method represent the 12 last year of approval of the method. Staff proposes that 13 the designated test method for determining oxygen in 14 gasoline be changed from ASTM D 4815-93 to ASTM D 4815-94. 15 The principle of operation, instrumentation, and 16 operating parameters of the proposed method are identical to 17 the adopted method, with the exception that the calibration 18 procedures of the proposed method are more explicitly 19 defined. 20 ASTM D 4815-94 specifies that the instrument is to 21 be calibrated using different levels of the target compound 22 and that this calibration, known as a multipoint 23 calibration, pass certain tests for linearity. 24 As a result of this change, the precision of the 25 method has been significantly improved. 118 1 One measure of precision that is particularly 2 useful is known as reproducibility. Reproducibility is a 3 measure of the variability in results when the identical 4 test material is measured by different laboratories. This 5 table compares the reproducibilities of the proposed method 6 to the currently adopted method for the two oxygenates that 7 have been observed in California gasolines. 8 The first column shows three allowable levels of 9 gasoline oxygen content. The next two columns compare the 10 reproducibilities of ASTM D 4815-94 on the left to ASTM D 11 4815-93 on the right for MTBE. 12 The last two columns show the same comparisons for 13 ethanol. 14 It can be seen from the table that a determination 15 of oxygen content of 1.8 weight percent would have very 16 different uncertainties with it. Using the adopted method, 17 the uncertainty in the measurement would be .38 weight 18 percent; whereas, with the proposed method, the uncertainty 19 would be reduced to .10 weight percent. 20 Graphically, this table can be represented with 21 the following bar chart. The first two rectangles from the 22 left represent MTBE and the last two represent ethanol. 23 The solid white area on each rectangle represents 24 the level of oxygen targeted by Phase 2 and wintertime 25 oxygenate regulations. 119 1 The yellow area represents the uncertainty in the 2 determination of the upper target level, and the pink area 3 represents the uncertainty in the determination of the lower 4 target level. 5 It can be seen that the total uncertainty in the 6 measurement is considerably reduced when using the proposed 7 method. 8 In addition to the proposed method, staff 9 evaluated several alternative methods. Among the more 10 promising are methods based on gas chromatography coupled 11 with selective detectors, including gas chromatography with 12 Fourier transform infrared detection, or GC/FTIR, and gas 13 chromatography coupled with oxygen-selective flame 14 ionization detection, or GC/OFID. 15 Methods utilizing selective detectors are less 16 prone to potential interferences and can be more readily 17 modified to measure additional oxygenates. 18 Staff had several about these methods, and 19 therefore did not recommend either of these methods for 20 adoption. 21 The GC/FTIR instrumentation is relatively costly, 22 and there is uncertainty regarding the continued support of 23 this technology by instrument manufacturers. 24 The GC/OFID method is less reproducible than ASTM 25 D 4815-94 for the two oxygenates currently found in 120 1 California gasoline. 2 Industry users of this method have also expressed 3 concern about the reliability of the instrument. Staff will 4 continue to monitor the development of these methods. 5 Staff has not identified any air quality or 6 environmental impacts. The stringency of the regulation is 7 not affected by the proposed change. The economic impacts 8 of the proposed change are expected to be insignificant, 9 because the instrumentation and operating parameters of the 10 new method are identical to those of the old method. 11 The changes in calibration procedures associated 12 with the proposed method have already been adopted by many 13 laboratories as part of good laboratory practices. 14 In summary, staff is proposing the designation of 15 ASTM D 4815-94, because it is the most reproducible method, 16 has proven to be reliable, and is cost effective relative to 17 alternative methods. 18 This concludes our presentation. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very well. Thank you. Do any 20 of the Board members have any questions of staff? 21 All right. We have one witness. I'd like to ask 22 Donald Bea from Chevron, please come forward. 23 And these are all oral comments; we don't have 24 anything in writing. Okay. 25 Good afternoon. 121 1 MR. BEA: Good afternoon. I am the California 2 issues manager for Chevron, but I'm also the Chairman of the 3 WSPA Test Methods Working Group, and my remarks today will 4 be in behalf of WSPA. 5 As Paul had mentioned earlier, the California 6 regulations currently specify the ASTM Method D 4815-93 to 7 be used for determining oxygen content in gasoline. 8 To improve the precision of 4815-93, the ASTM 9 developed a tighter calibration procedure, then conducted a 10 round-robin. The tighter calibration procedure gave better 11 results than the current method. This revised method was 12 then approved by the ASTM and has been published by them as 13 ASTM D 4815-94. 14 Since Method 4815-94 is improved over the '93 15 version, WSPA petition CARB last October to amend the 16 regulations for the revised method for oxygenates and 17 gasoline. CARB's Executive Officer granted this last fall 18 as an equivalency status for -- in November, but then 19 delayed the actual change in the regulations till today. 20 Obviously, we fully support the adoption of 4815- 21 94 as the designated test method for determining the oxygen 22 content of gasoline in California. 23 Not only is the proposed method improved over the 24 '93 version, it is, we believe, superior to the EPA's 25 required test method for oxygenates -- the oxygenated flame 122 1 ionization detector method, which is commonly called OFID. 2 WSPA members and others in the regulated 3 community outside of California continue to experience 4 reliability and maintenance problems with the OFID method. 5 In addition, it's substantially more difficult for refinery 6 lab technicians to operate. 7 Unfortunately, the federal EPA still requires the 8 OFID method to be used on reformulated gasoline and 9 oxygenated gasolines outside of California. We're hopeful 10 that the EPA will eventually allow California test methods, 11 including D 4815-94, to be used for all gasolines produced 12 in California, not just for gasolines consumed in 13 California. 14 We understand you'll be considering other test 15 method updates and modifications this fall. We have an 16 excellent working relationship with CARB staff, and we'll 17 continue to work with them on the new test method updates 18 and modifications. 19 I'll be pleased to answer any questions. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very well. Thank you. 21 Mr. Calhoun. 22 MR. CALHOUN: Since you mentioned the fact that 23 EPA hasn't bought into this method yet, what's their hangup, 24 if there is one? 25 MR. BEA: I wish I knew. It's what I call the IH 123 1 factor. 2 MR. CALHOUN: Were they part of the discussion 3 when you were in the process of developing this method? 4 MR. BEA: We've been trying. When I say "we," I'm 5 talking about the industry as well as CARB. We've been 6 trying to get the EPA to adopt California methods for all 7 gasolines in California, because we think the methods being 8 developed here are superior. But we're having a very 9 difficult time to get the EPA to even give us the time of 10 day, let alone to consider the technical merits of our 11 issues. 12 MR. CALHOUN: Well, don't tell them they're 13 superior, and then maybe they'll buy it. 14 MR. BEA: Part of it's an IH factor. It's not 15 limited to oxygenates; it's also particularly the aromatics 16 test procedure is also a major problem. But there's also -- 17 it's just a major issue. And any support we can get from 18 you to help them to start listening to the issues instead of 19 just sort of ignoring them would be greatly appreciated. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 21 MR. BEA: Because this is a major problem. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We'll get the court reporter to 23 put that in bold type in our minutes. 24 Thank you. Any other comments or questions of our 25 witness? 124 1 Okay. Thank you. 2 Could I ask staff to run through the written 3 testimony or comments that we have? I think there are two, 4 AAMA and Unocal. 5 MR. RIEGER: Yes. We've had a letter from the 6 American Automobile Manufacturers Association basically 7 supporting our change for the reasons that we've already 8 stated in the staff report -- because it is an improved 9 method. 10 We've also had a letter from 76 Products Company, 11 also supporting our change, going from 93 to 94, in 12 particular because it's a more cost-effective solution for 13 them. They already have the 93 method set up. 14 They also mentioned, with regards to the future -- 15 future Board item, changing test methods, that they would 16 like to have a phase-in period for any new instrumentation 17 that would have to be required. 18 And they also asked us to try to work with the EPA 19 to align our two test methods. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Mr. Boyd, 21 does staff have any further comments? 22 MR. BOYD: Mr. Chairman, no further comments. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'd like to acknowledge Mr. 24 Shikiya, good to see you. It's a long trip. Is there 25 anything you want to say? 125 1 MR. CALHOUN: He must have something to say. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: He must have something to say. 3 MR. SHIKIYA: I haven't seen you for a long time. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, it's been a while. 5 Since all testimony, written submissions, and 6 staff comments for this item have been entered into the 7 record, and the Board has not granted an extension of the 8 comment period, I'm officially closing the record on this 9 portion of Agenda Item No. 95-6-4. Written or oral comments 10 received after the comment period has been closed will not 11 be accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 12 item. 13 Which brings us to ex parte communication? Is 14 there anything that any of the Board members need to 15 disclose at this point? 16 All right. Very good. We have a resolution 17 before us. I trust that we've had a few moments to review 18 it, if you'd like to take a few. 19 MR. PARNELL: I move Resolution 95-29. 20 MR. CALHOUN: Second. 21 DR. BOSTON: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. We have a motion and a 23 second to approve the resolution. Second was Mr. Calhoun by 24 the way. Did I get that right? Was it a tie? 25 MS. EDGERTON: Tie, yes. 126 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Boston and Calhoun. 2 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: And me. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: There's some competitiveness on 4 the right side over there. 5 MR. LAGARIAS: Patty said she was in there. 6 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: I was in there, too. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Patty was in there, too. Okay. 8 Now that we have confused all of us, I have a 9 motion and a second. Is there any further discussion by 10 members of the Board on this item? 11 All right. Will the Board Secretary please call 12 the roll for a vote on Resolution 95-26. 13 MS. HUTCHENS: 95-29? 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: 29, I'm sorry. There's a typo 15 here. 16 MS. HUTCHENS: For the record. 17 Boston? 18 DR. BOSTON: Yes. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 20 MR. CALHOUN: Aye. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 22 MS. EDGERTON: Aye. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 24 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Aye. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 127 1 MR. LAGARIAS: Aye. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 3 MR. PARNELL: Aye. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 5 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Aye. 6 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim? 7 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Aye. 8 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap? 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Aye. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: Passes 9-0. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very well. 12 The next items on the agenda today are 95-6-5 and 13 95-6-6, which are a public hearing to consider the adoption 14 of an emissions formula for employer-based trip reduction 15 and a public meeting to consider the approval of guidance on 16 data reporting related to ridesharing as required by AB 17 1336, which was a Gotch bill in the Statutes of 1993. 18 These last two items on today's agenda will be 19 presented together, since they're both related to district 20 ridesharing rules. Both are the result of responsibilities 21 assigned to the Board under State law. 22 The intent of the Legislature in requiring the 23 Board to address these items was to promote statewide 24 consistency in implementation of district ridesharing and 25 trip reduction programs. 128 1 This issue is a concern for employers with 2 worksites in multiple air districts, and I understand that 3 the proposals are technical in nature and limited in scope. 4 State law was very explicit in this regard and in what is 5 required of this Board. 6 The first item is a proposed regulation that will 7 assist employers by providing a simple, consistent emissions 8 formula. The formula translates trip reduction goals into 9 equivalent emissions targets. The formula would be used by 10 employers that choose to pursue alternative strategies in 11 lieu of meeting district ridesharing requirements. 12 The second item would complete guidance approved 13 by this Board last year. That guidance provided consistent 14 definitions for ridesharing programs statewide. One term, 15 however, was left undefined, and the Board directed staff to 16 return to the Board after a technical workgroup had 17 developed a recommendation. 18 The proposed addition to the guidance would result 19 in statewide consistency in the reporting of data related to 20 ridesharing. 21 So, at this juncture, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to 22 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentations. 23 MR. BOYD: Thank you again, Chairman Dunlap. 24 As just a bit of introduction, I'd say a few words 25 first about the first item. I think we all recognize that 129 1 meeting the goals of local district ridesharing rules has 2 proven to be a difficult challenge for many of California's 3 employers. For that reason, the concept of alternative 4 strategies and utilizing alternative strategies has been 5 available for some time now. 6 State law requires districts to allow employers 7 that same flexibility, and we have long urged the U.S. EPA 8 to do the same. 9 In response to the interest in pursuing 10 alternatives to ridesharing requirements, the Governor 11 signed Assembly Bill 2358 this past fall. That legislation 12 requires that this Board adopt a standardized methodology to 13 assist employers in calculating the emission reduction goals 14 that they are to meet. 15 So, your staff, working with representatives of 16 affected employers as well as our local districts, has 17 developed what we hope is a simple formula. The proposal 18 has been workshopped and has generally been well received. 19 However, in response to recent public comments, 20 staff is proposing a minor modification to the proposal. 21 This change would clarify that employers with worksites in 22 multiple districts can use a single formula statewide. 23 The staff presentation will provide further 24 details on the regulation and the proposed modification 25 thereto. 130 1 Regarding the second item, last year at this time, 2 the Board met to consider the recommendations of ARB's 3 Advisory Committee on Ridesharing. This committee, which 4 was formed pursuant to Assembly Bill 1336, developed 5 definitions for a number of terms used in air district 6 ridesharing rules. 7 They completed this work, with the exception of 8 one term, quote, "standardized data reporting requirements," 9 close quote. 10 The committee recommended at that time, and the 11 Board concurred, that a separate group of experts in the 12 field of data collection and processing be convened to 13 develop this definition. This group has completed its 14 assignment and its recommendation is before you. 15 With that, I'd like to call on Ms. Elizabeth 16 Miller of our Office of Air Quality and Transportation 17 Planning, who will give the presentation on both of these 18 items. 19 Ms. Miller, if you would, please. 20 MS. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 21 Good afternoon, Chairman Dunlap and members of the 22 Board. For the record, my name is Elizabeth Miller, and I 23 am an Associate Air Pollution Specialist in the Office of 24 Air Quality and Transportation Planning. 25 Today, I'll be discussing two items related to 131 1 ridesharing. The first is an emissions equivalency formula 2 as required by Assembly Bill 2358, enacted in 1994. 3 The second is data reporting guidance as required 4 by Assembly Bill 1336, enacted in 1993. 5 The first item -- the emissions equivalency 6 formula -- is a proposed regulation intended to meet the 7 requirements of AB 2358, authored by Assemblyman Sher. 8 Before we discuss the requirements of that law, I 9 will provide some background. Many air districts included 10 ridesharing in their 1991 ozone attainment plans developed 11 to meet the California Clean Air Act requirements. 12 Additionally, the Federal Clean Air Act amendments 13 of 1990 require severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas 14 to implement employer ridesharing programs. 15 The federal requirements apply to South Coast, 16 Ventura, Mojave Desert, and most recently to the Sacramento 17 Region, which has been bumped up in classification to 18 severe. 19 District rules now generally allow employers to 20 implement alternative programs in lieu of meeting 21 ridesharing targets. The alternative must provide 22 equivalent emission reductions. The intent of AB 2358 is to 23 provide a uniform method for calculating what that 24 equivalent level of emission reductions would be for a 25 particular employer. 132 1 State law requires that ARB adopt a formula for 2 calculating equivalent emission reductions for the purposes 3 of ridesharing alternatives. ARB is to consult with the 4 public and the regulated community in the development of 5 this formula. 6 This was done through a public workshop process 7 and additional consultation with districts and other 8 interested parties. 9 The formula must be adopted at a public hearing 10 and will become applicable when districts adopt or amend 11 ridesharing rules. 12 I should note that the South Coast adopted the 13 formula while amending its rule in April of this year. 14 Also, the Bay Area has used this formula for some time. 15 As mentioned earlier, the formula is used to 16 determine the emissions equivalency of alternative 17 strategies. The formula translates average vehicle 18 ridership goals to emission reductions. 19 ARB adoption of the formula will ensure a uniform 20 calculation method is used statewide. This will assist 21 multidistrict employers that must comply with different 22 ridesharing rules throughout the State. 23 The formula does not affect the requirements of 24 district rules, but will be used in conjunction with 25 district rules when employers choose alternative strategies. 133 1 The proposed emissions formula included four 2 variables. The first is the number of employees that arrive 3 each day during the peak commute period. A daily average 4 value is used in the formula. 5 Next are two average vehicle ridership, or AVR, 6 values. The first is the baseline and the second is the 7 goal established in the district rule. Mathematically, the 8 result of the middle calculation is the percent reduction in 9 employee trips that must be translated to an emissions 10 equivalent. 11 Finally, an annual commute emissions factor is 12 required. ARB provides this factor for each district. The 13 factor reflects district specific information on commute 14 period speeds, temperatures, and vehicle fleet 15 characteristics. 16 This slide shows how the factors are used in the 17 formula to calculate an emission reduction goal. In short, 18 three factors are multiplied -- the number of employees in 19 the peak period, which represents round trips per day; the 20 middle value, which represents the percent of employee trips 21 that must be reduced to meet a rule's AVR target; and the 22 annual commute emission factor. 23 For example, if the middle value were 20 percent, 24 the number of employees 100, and commute emission factor 20 25 pounds of ROG per year, the emission goal would be 400 134 1 pounds of ROG per year. 2 In addition to the formula itself, the proposed 3 regulation has a few supporting elements. First, consistent 4 with State law, it specifies that the regulation applies 5 when districts amend or adopt employer trip reduction rules. 6 The regulation requires that ARB provide the emission 7 factors needed for the calculation. This is nothing new. 8 We are already providing factors to the districts. 9 The regulation allows the use of equivalent 10 algebraic expressions of the formula that produce the same 11 mathematical result. However, the regulation does specify 12 that employers must be allowed to use the formula as 13 expressed in the regulation. 14 This ensures a single formula can be used by 15 employers statewide. 16 Next, I will discuss the proposed guidance on data 17 reporting beginning with some background. 18 As many of you may recall, Assembly 1336 required 19 that a ridesharing advisory committee be convened to develop 20 uniform ridesharing definitions for consideration by the 21 Board. That task was completed last year, with one 22 exception. 23 In June, 1994, the Board approved all but one 24 definition, a standard data reporting element. The Board 25 recommended that a separate committee be convened to develop 135 1 data reporting guidance. 2 The committee was created and has made 3 recommendations. Staff supports these recommendations as 4 reflected in the proposed guidance. 5 The Data Reporting Committee consisted of 6 representatives from a variety of interests. The committee 7 included representatives of affected business, labor 8 organizations, air districts, regional rideshare agencies, 9 and congestion management agencies. 10 The overall goal of the committee was to address 11 AVR reporting requirements in district rules. In order to 12 determine whether AVR goals are being met, the districts 13 require employers to provide information on employee travel. 14 The committee's task was to identify the employee commute 15 data necessary for this purpose. 16 The data are collected from employees by way of 17 surveys and then compiled by employers for submittal to 18 districts. One of the committee's goals was to make this 19 process as simple as possible by developing a uniform list 20 of data to be reported. 21 The proposed guidance consists of a list of key 22 data, the key data that's needed. What is reported is the 23 number of employees in different categories. For example, 24 the number of solo drivers, the number of employees arriving 25 in carpools and vanpools, the number who took public 136 1 transit, those who drove zero emission vehicles, bicycled, 2 or walked to work, and the number of employees who 3 telecommuted or did not travel to work due to an alternate 4 work schedule. 5 The committee also proposed that a form be 6 developed that would provide a uniform format for reporting 7 data. That form is included as part of the guidance, and is 8 intended to assist employers in their reporting efforts. It 9 is a one-page form that includes the list of proposed data 10 elements, with spaces to fill in the number of employees in 11 each category. 12 That concludes my description of the two 13 ridesharing items. 14 Staff recommends that the Board approve both the 15 emissions formula regulation and the data reporting 16 guidance. 17 Thank you. And I'll be happy to answer any 18 questions you may have. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Do any of the Board 20 members have any questions for staff? Okay. 21 Then we'll call the first and again the only 22 witness who signed up to testify before the Board on these 23 items. 24 Deborah Kurilchyk from Southern California Edison. 25 And it's my understanding that there's some written 137 1 testimony. It's probably in the file somewhere. Okay. 2 Very good. Good afternoon. 3 MS. KURILCHYK: Good afternoon. 4 Chairman Dunlap, members of the Air Resources 5 Board, I'm Deborah Kurilchyk with Southern California 6 Edison. And on behalf of the company, I wanted to take this 7 opportunity to support the adoption of your proposed rule to 8 establish an emissions formula for employer-based trip 9 reduction. 10 This Board item today is the culmination of 11 efforts by Edison and our colleagues at CCEEB -- the 12 California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. 13 We worked to enact AB 2358, authored by Assemblyman Sher 14 last year that you referenced. 15 The bill, as you also mentioned, calls on the ARB 16 to adopt a statewide methodology to translate trip reduction 17 requirements into equivalent emissions goals. 18 We felt it was important to ensure statewide 19 coordination, especially for multisite employers who deal 20 with multiple air districts. 21 While this proposed rule stops short of requiring 22 one statewide formula -- which was what we had originally 23 envisioned -- it does provide an option for multisite 24 employers to choose to use the ARB formula. We are hopeful 25 that this approach will work well. However, we would like 138 1 to reserve the opportunity to revisit the rule with your 2 staff and Board, which is consistent with what the 3 legislation provided. 4 On the broader topic of emissions equivalency for 5 AVR, I wanted to briefly mention two topics that we believe 6 are central to the evolution of the use of emission credits. 7 One is intersector trading between stationary and mobile 8 sources and the other is interpollutant trading that would 9 permit credit trades between pollutants. 10 Our intent today is only to introduce Edison's 11 belief that these trading mechanisms are needed to expand 12 the ERC and MSERC market to provide flexible and cost- 13 effective compliance options. 14 The regulated community in Southern California is 15 working with the South Coast AQMD -- closely, I might add -- 16 in the context of Rule 1501.1, the alternative rule for trip 17 reduction, to study these issues. 18 Edison encourages the ARB to support these 19 concepts, because we believe them to be environmentally 20 sound and offer least-cost opportunities for compliance. 21 Our special thanks to Anne Geraghty and Pam 22 Burmich for their work in developing this proposed rule 23 before you today. 24 And, in conclusion, Southern California Edison 25 would just encourage your adoption of this proposed rule. 139 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you. Any questions 2 for our witness? 3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Will you repeat what you said 4 about transferring credits between mobile sources? I didn't 5 get your point you were making. 6 MS. KURILCHYK: Well, these are concepts that 7 we're beginning to work on in the South Coast now that the 8 emissions equivalency rule is adopted. 9 It only goes so far to allow emissions 10 equivalency, and what Edison and others are encouraging is 11 that ERCs and MSERCs should be able to be used for -- in 12 order to retire trip reduction -- or apply to our compliance 13 responsibilities, our obligation for trip reduction. 14 And in the case of ERCs, they're generated from 15 stationary source emission reduction credits. They're 16 certified, real, quantifiable, enforceable. And we believe 17 that they should be able to be used for this purpose as 18 well, expand the market. 19 But it is intersector trading. We're using that 20 as the reference for trading between mobile and stationary 21 sources. 22 MR. CALHOUN: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Parnell. 24 MR. PARNELL: The PG & E letter that we have in 25 our file, which states that the formula assumes that every 140 1 commute vehicle emits at the same rate seems to have the 2 unintended consequence of precluding benefits from occurring 3 to an employer, who then may try to encourage employees to 4 ride to work in lower emitting vehicles. 5 Can you address that? 6 MS. TERRY: I'll answer that. We have been in 7 communication with Mr. Holcombe on this subject a couple of 8 times to clarify his concerns. 9 And it is an issue that we're in the works 10 resolving. He made some very specific recommendations for 11 altering the regulation. And in our follow-up conversations 12 with them, it became clear that that really wasn't -- he 13 wasn't wedded to that concept. He really just wants to find 14 a mechanism for ensuring credits for those kinds of 15 vehicles. 16 So, we have been working on pulling together those 17 kinds of factors for use by the districts. And we fully 18 intend to follow up with him and share those results with 19 him and the districts as well. 20 MR. PARNELL: Good. Thank you. The other 21 question, if I may, has to do with trip reduction plan, 22 standardized data reporting requirements. 23 I was contacted and will report ex parte 24 communication at the appropriate time by someone -- 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We've been waiting for that. 141 1 MR. PARNELL: -- someone who had a concern with 2 respect to how motorcycles and people -- evidently, the 3 regulation, as currently written, will not allow credit for 4 two people riding in on a motorcycle or appropriate. And I 5 directed him back to staff for a conversation. And what 6 were the results, I guess, is the thrust of my question. 7 MS. MILLER: Thank you. 8 I spoke with Mr. Ham (phonetic). First of all, 9 the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regulation 10 does allow, quote/unquote, "carpool credit" for motorcycles. 11 The issue was that none of the other districts did. 12 When I spoke with Mr. Ham the second time, he had 13 suggested that we issue some guidance alone with our data 14 reporting form that instructs employers, employees, and what 15 have you to count a single occupant motorcycle in the 16 motorcycle column and a two-occupant motorcycle in the two 17 person carpool. And that seemed to work. 18 MR. PARNELL: Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It looks like logic prevailed. 20 MR. LAGARIAS: That does include the sidecar, 21 doesn't it? 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, I think it would include a 23 sidecar, Mr. Parnell wanted to know. 24 (Laughter.) 25 MR. PARNELL: No, Mr. Lagarias. 142 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, it seems like we're out of 2 public comment or testimony. I'll ask staff then to cover 3 the written submissions that we have for the record, please. 4 MS. MILLER: Thank you. In addition to the letter 5 that we received from Mr. Holcombe, staff received two 6 letters regarding the emission equivalency formula. One was 7 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and one 8 from the Bay Area Air Quality District. 9 Both letters expressed support of the proposed 10 emissions formula. Both districts were particularly 11 supportive of the flexibility given in the regulation to use 12 an algebraic expression of the formula that gives the same 13 mathematical result. 14 And regarding the data reporting guidance, Mr. 15 Ham's was the only one that we received. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. I'll now close the 17 record, unless Mr. Boyd has anything to add. 18 MR. BOYD: No further comments, Mr. Chairman. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. The record on Agenda 20 Item 95-6-5, public hearing to consider the adoption of an 21 emissions formula for employer-based trip reductions is now 22 closed. However, the record will be reopened when the 15- 23 day notice of public availability is issued. 24 Written or oral comments received after this 25 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not 143 1 be accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 2 item. 3 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 4 period, the public may submit written comments on the 5 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to 6 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 7 Since Item 95-6-6 is not a regulatory item, it is 8 not necessary for me to close the record on that item, so I 9 won't. 10 Just a reminder to Board members again concerning 11 ex parte communications, we need at this point to disclose 12 any that we may have. I'm pleased to say that we have one 13 today for the first time in my tenure. 14 MR. PARNELL: But a point of clarification. Did 15 you say it's not an item of rulemaking? 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, this is actually a 17 bifurcated item. There's two parts to it. 18 MR. PARNELL: Then, does ex parte -- 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Does it apply to his item, I 20 guess, would be the -- 21 MR. PARNELL: Forget it. Let me just report that 22 I had ex parte communication with a caller who made a 23 request that I articulated to staff and -- 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: They followed up. 25 MR. PARNELL: -- they followed up. 144 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good. Thank 2 you. 3 MR. PARNELL: If Mr. Kenny was here, though, I 4 would have liked it pursued as to whether or not a 5 bifurcated rule -- 6 (Laughter.) 7 MS. KRINSK: I can address it. I can address it, 8 just give me a chance. 9 MR. PARNELL: I'm sure that you can. That was -- 10 MS. KRINSK: It's not required, because it's not a 11 rulemaking. 12 MR. PARNELL: Well, then, scrap the whole thing! 13 (Laughter.) 14 MS. KRINSK: We also received a public comment to 15 the same effect anyway. 16 MR. PARNELL: Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you. Well, we 18 actually have resolutions before us. 19 We'll need to take a vote on each resolution 20 separately. But the Board has before it Resolution Number 21 95-30, which contains the staff recommendations. 22 The first item is the emissions formula for 23 employer-based trip reductions as a reminder. 24 Do I have a motion and a second? 25 MR. PARNELL: So move 95-30. 145 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So moved by Mr. Parnell 2 Is there a second? 3 DR. BOSTON: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Second, Dr. Boston. 5 Very good. Is there any further discussion by 6 members of the Board? 7 All right. Will the Board Secretary please call 8 the roll for a vote on Resolution 95-30. 9 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston? 10 DR. BOSTON: Yes. 11 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 12 MR. CALHOUN: Aye. 13 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 14 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. 15 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 16 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Aye. 17 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 18 MR. LAGARIAS: aye. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 20 MR. PARNELL: Aye.. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 22 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Aye. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim? 24 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Aye. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap? 146 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Aye. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Passes 9-0. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. The Board has before 4 it Resolution No. 95-31, which contains the staff 5 recommendations, which is the guidance on data reporting 6 related to ridesharing as required by the Gotch legislation. 7 I believe 1336. 8 Do I have a motion and a second to adopt the staff 9 proposal? 10 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: So moved. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Roberts. Is there a 12 second? 13 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mayor Hilligoss, thank you. 15 I have a motion and a second. Is there any 16 further discussion by members of the Board? 17 All right. Will the Board Secretary again please 18 call the roll for a vote on Resolution 95-31. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston? 20 DR. BOSTON: Yes. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 22 MR. CALHOUN: Aye. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 24 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 147 1 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Aye. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 3 MR. LAGARIAS: Aye. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 5 MR. PARNELL: Aye. 6 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 7 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Aye. 8 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim? 9 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Aye. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Aye. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Passes 9-0, also. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I'd like to thank 14 staff. I would like also to make mention to my colleagues 15 on the Board that I have had the privilege of working with 16 this fine trip reduction, ridesharing, planning staff that 17 work for Mr. Scheible over the last decade. And they're 18 excellent. And I thank them for their fine work in sorting 19 through this, and for their commitment to work on a very 20 touchy issue, which right now seems to be trip reduction. 21 I thank you for your professionalism. 22 All right. With that, I think that concludes our 23 business. Mr. Boyd, is there anything else today? 24 MR. BOYD: No, Mr. Chairman, you've moved along 25 swiftly. We're done. 148 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I must apologize to the Board. 2 I thought we would run to about 4:30 or so today, but we 3 finished early. Tomorrow, we're scheduled to go for the 4 second half of the June meeting at 8:30. So, I've asked Mr. 5 Kenny if it's okay if we start at 9:00, because I anticipate 6 going along quickly as well. So, we'll start at 9:00 rather 7 than 8:30. He'll put a notice on the door. So, it'll give 8 you a few extra minutes to ready yourselves for the day. 9 I anticipate that we'll finish on schedule or 10 early so you'll be able to make your flights. 11 So, with that, is it necessary that I adjourn? I 12 guess adjourn till tomorrow. So, we'll recess until 13 tomorrow. 14 MR. BOYD: No, you adjourn today's meeting. 15 Tomorrow is a separately posted meeting. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. The first half of 17 the June Air Resources Board meeting will stand adjourned 18 until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. 19 Thank you. 20 (Thereupon, the meeting was adjourned 21 at 2:05 p.m.) 22 --o0o-- 23 24 25 149 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER I, Nadine J. Parks, a shorthand reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify that I am a disinterested person herein; that the foregoing meeting was reported by me in shorthand writing, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. I further certify that I am not counsel or attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, nor am I interested in the outcome of said meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of July, 1995. Nadine J. Parks Shorthand Reporter