Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0217-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-03-18T05:00Z

CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
OVERVIEW
OF
CALIFORNIA
PHASE
3
RFG
RULEMAKINGS
The
first
CaRFG3
rulemaking
consisted
of
the
adoption
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
and
requirements,
which
included
the
ban
on
MTBE
(
the
"
Phase
3
CaRFG"
rulemaking).
The
second
rulemaking
made
a
substantial
number
of
changes
to
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
requirements,
particularly
to
the
complex
provisions
relating
to
California
reformulated
blendstock
for
oxygenate
blending,
or
"
CARBOB"
 
the
blendstock
that
refiners
supply
from
their
refineries
when
they
plan
to
add
the
oxygenate
ethanol
after
the
product
is
no
longer
to
be
shipped
through
a
pipeline
(
the
"
Phase
3
CaRFG
follow­
up"
rulemaking).
The
third
rulemaking
revised
some
of
the
test
methods
for
determining
compliance
with
some
of
the
CaRFG
standards
(
the
"
2000­
2001
CaRFG
test
methods
rulemaking").
The
fourth
rulemaking
postponed
implementation
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
and
the
ban
on
MTBE
from
December
31,
2002
to
December
31,
2003
(
the
"
Phase
3
CaRFG
postponement"
rulemaking).
Finally,
the
recently
concluded
fifth
rulemaking
made
a
number
of
additional
refinements
to
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
requirements,
including
amendments
to
the
provisions
on
allowable
residual
levels
of
MTBE
(
the
"
residual
MTBE"
rulemaking).

CARB's
multi­
member
Board
approved
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
at
a
December
9,
1999
public
hearing.
At
the
direction
of
the
Board,
the
amendments
were
formally
adopted
by
the
Executive
Officer
on
June
16,
2000.
They
were
submitted
on
June
26,
2000
to
the
California
Office
of
Administrative
Law
(
OAL).
OAL
approved
the
amendments
and
filed
them
with
the
California
Secretary
of
State
on
August
3,
2000.
Pursuant
to
California
Government
Code
section
11343.4(
d),
they
became
operative
September
2,
2000.

The
Board
approved
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
follow­
up
amendments
at
a
November
16,
2000
public
hearing.
At
the
direction
of
the
Board,
the
amendments
were
formally
adopted
by
the
Executive
Officer
on
April
25,
2001.
They
were
submitted
to
OAL
on
July
9,
2001.
OAL
approved
the
amendments
and
filed
them
with
the
California
Secretary
of
State
on
August
20,
2001.
Pursuant
to
California
Government
Code
section
11343.4(
d),
they
became
operative
on
the
same
date.

The
Board
approved
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
test
method
amendments
at
a
November
16,
2000
public
hearing.
At
the
direction
of
the
Board,
the
amendments
were
formally
adopted
by
the
Executive
Officer
on
July
11,
2001
(
corrections
were
made
August
28,
2001).
They
were
submitted
to
OAL
on
July
18,
2001.
OAL
approved
the
amendments
and
filed
them
with
the
California
Secretary
of
State
on
August
29,
2001.
Pursuant
to
California
Government
Code
section
11343.4(
d),
they
became
operative
on
September
27,
2001.

The
Board
approved
the
amendments
postponing
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
at
a
July
25,
2002
public
hearing.
At
the
direction
of
the
Board,
the
amendments
were
formally
adopted
by
the
Executive
Officer
on
November
8,
2002,
and
were
submitted
to
OAL
on
the
same
date.
OAL
approved
the
amendments
and
filed
them
with
the
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
2
California
Secretary
of
State
on
December
24,
2002.
Pursuant
to
California
Government
Code
section
11343.4(
d),
they
also
became
operative
December
24,
2002.

Finally,
the
Board
approved
the
residual
MTBE
amendments
standards
at
a
December
12,
2002
public
hearing.
At
the
direction
of
the
Board,
the
amendments
were
formally
adopted
by
the
Executive
Officer
on
March
14,
2003.
They
were
submitted
to
OAL
on
March
20,
2003.
OAL
approved
the
amendments
and
filed
them
with
the
California
Secretary
of
State
on
May
1,
2003.
Pursuant
to
California
Government
Code
section
11343.4(
d),
they
also
became
operative
May
1,
2003.

Background:
Description
of
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
Regulations
Immediately
Prior
to
the
Phase
Three
CaRFG
Rulemaking
The
Phase
2
CaRFG
regulations
were
adopted
by
the
ARB
following
a
hearing
in
November
1991,
and
became
applicable
in
the
spring
of
1996.
As
of
submittal
of
the
last
SIP
revision
on
August
19,
1999,
the
regulations
established
a
comprehensive
set
of
standards
for
gasoline
designed
to
achieve
the
maximum
feasible
reductions
in
emissions
of
criteria
pollutants
and
toxic
air
contaminants
from
gasoline­
powered
motor
vehicles.
The
standards
cover
sulfur,
benzene,
olefin,
oxygen,
and
aromatic
hydrocarbon
contents,
the
50­
percent
and
90­
percent
distillation
temperatures
(
T50
and
T90),
and
summertime
Reid
vapor
pressure
(
RVP).
Table
1
in
the
next
part
of
this
letter
shows
the
preexisting
Phase
2
CaRFG
standards
and
compares
them
to
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards.

The
primary
element
of
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
standards
is
a
set
of
limits
that
apply
to
gasoline
when
it
is
first
supplied
from
the
production
facility
(
typically
a
refinery)
or
import
facility.
These
will
be
referred
to
as
the
"
refiner"
limits.
The
Phase
2
CaRFG
standards
also
include
a
set
of
"
cap
limits"
that
apply
throughout
the
gasoline
distribution
system
and
for
all
properties
but
RVP
are
less
stringent
than
the
refiner
limits.
This
approach
allows
the
imposition
of
very
stringent
standards
at
the
refinery
while
allowing
refiners
to
vary
the
composition
of
individual
batches
in
a
cost­
effective
way
up
to
the
cap
limits
as
long
as
overall
equivalent
emissions
performance
is
achieved.
The
cap
limits
allow
for
effective
enforcement
for
gasoline
in
transit
to,
and
being
sold
at,
service
stations
and
other
fueling
facilities.

With
the
exception
of
RVP
and
oxygen
content,
the
CaRFG
regulations
have
provided
three
compliance
options
for
meeting
the
refiner
limits.
One
option
is
to
have
the
gasoline
subject
to
either
a

flat
limit,"
which
is
set
forth
in
the
regulations
which
must
be
met
by
every
gallon
of
gasoline
leaving
the
refinery,
or
a
specified

averaging
limit."
The
averaging
limits
for
each
of
the
six
properties
are
numerically
more
stringent
than
the
comparable
flat
limits.
Under
the
averaging
option,
the
producer
may
assign
differing

designated
alternative
limits"
(
DALs)
to
different
batches
of
gasoline
being
supplied
from
the
refinery.
Each
batch
of
gasoline
must
meet
the
DAL
for
the
batch.
A
producer
or
importer
supplying
a
batch
of
gasoline
with
a
DAL
above
the
averaging
limit
must,
within
90
days
before
or
after,
supply
sufficient
quantities
of
gasoline
subject
to
more
stringent
DALs
to
fully
offset
the
excess
over
the
averaging
limit.
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
3
The
CaRFG
regulations
also
contain
a
second
compliance
mechanism
under
which
a
refiner
may
use
the

Phase
2
CaRFG
Predictive
Model"
to
identify
alternative
flat
and
averaging
limits
applicable
when
gasoline
is
supplied
from
the
refinery.
The
Predictive
Model
consists
of
mathematical
equations
which
predict
the
changes
in
exhaust
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx),
and
potency
weighted
toxics
for
four
toxic
air
contaminants
that
result
from
different
gasoline
formulations.
The
four
toxic
air
contaminants
are
benzene,
1,3­
butadiene,
acetaldehyde,
and
formaldehyde.
The
Predictive
Model
is
based
on
data
from
18
vehicle
emission
test
programs
analyzing
the
relationship
of
gasoline
properties
and
emissions.
An
alternative
gasoline
formulation
is
acceptable
if
there
will
be
essentially
no
increase
in
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,
NOx,
and
potency­
weighted
toxics
under
the
Predictive
Model.
Since
1996,
most
California
gasoline
has
been
supplied
by
refiners
using
the
Predictive
Model
compliance
option.

The
third
compliance
option
provided
by
the
CaRFG
regulations
allows
for
certification
of
alternative
gasoline
formulations
based
on
the
results
of
vehicle
emission
testing.
Under
this
option,
producers
must
perform
a
comparative
vehicle
emissions
test
program
to
show
that
their
gasoline
formulation
achieves
equivalent
emissions
as
compared
to
a
Phase
2
CaRFG
reference
test
fuel.
To
date,
this
option
has
not
been
used
by
any
refiner.

Gasoline
oxygen
content
is
regulated
somewhat
differently
from
the
other
properties
in
that
there
are
both
minimum
and
maximum
oxygen
content
standards.
Oxygen
is
added
to
gasoline
by
blending
in
an

oxygenate."
The
oxygenate
most
used
by
far
in
California
has
been
MTBE.
Much
smaller
amounts
of
ethanol
have
been
used.
While
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
oxygen
standard
is
1.8
to
2.2
percent
by
weight
(
wt.
percent),
producers
and
importers
may
use
the
Predictive
Model
to
vary
the
applicable
limit.
The
oxygen
content
may
be
as
low
as
zero
percent
or
as
high
as
3.5
wt.
percent
when
the
Predictive
Model
is
used.
Since
adding
oxygen
to
gasoline
will
reduce
emissions
of
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
from
most
vehicles
now
on
the
road,
the
CaRFG
regulations
originally
required
a
minimum
oxygen
content
of
1.8
wt.
percent
statewide
in
the
winter
months
when
CO
concentrations
are
the
highest.
In
1998
the
ARB
eliminated
the
wintertime
minimum
oxygen
requirement
in
those
areas
where
the
requirement
was
not
necessary
to
meet
the
national
and
state
ambient
CO
standards.
Since
March
2000,
the
wintertime
1.8
wt.
percent
minimum
oxygen
requirement
has
applied
only
in
Los
Angeles,
Orange,
Ventura,
San
Bernardino,
Riverside
and
Imperial
Counties.
The
state
is
conditionally
mandated
by
section
211(
m)
of
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act
(
FCAA)
to
maintain
a
wintertime
oxygen
requirement
in
all
of
these
counties
except
Imperial.

Compliance
with
the
CaRFG
standards
has
been
affected
by
federal
gasoline
requirements
administered
by
U.
S.
EPA.
Pursuant
to
the
1990
amendments
to
FCAA
section
211,
U.
S.
EPA
has
adopted
federal
RFG
regulations
(
40
CFR
§
§
80.40
et
seq.)
that
now
apply
in
San
Diego
County,
the
greater
Los
Angeles
area
(
Los
Angeles,
Orange
and
Ventura
counties,
and
parts
of
Riverside
and
San
Bernardino
counties),
greater
Sacramento
area
(
Sacramento
county
and
parts
of
Yolo,
Solano,
Sutter,
Placer,
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
4
and
El
Dorado
counties),
and,
since
December
10,
2002,
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
ozone
nonattainment
area.
Together,
these
areas
make
up
about
80
percent
of
the
state's
gasoline
market.
Both
the
federal
and
state
RFG
regulations
apply
in
those
areas.
To
avoid
unnecessary
duplication
of
the
enforcement
requirements,
in
40
CFR

80.81,
the
U.
S.
EPA
exempted
California
producers
marketers
of
Phase
2
CaRFG
from
many
of
the
federal
enforcement
requirements.

The
oxygen
requirements
in
the
federal
RFG
and
CaRFG
programs
differ
considerably.
The
FCAA
requires
a
minimum
2.0
wt.
percent
oxygen
requirement
year­
round,
even
when
it
is
not
needed
to
avoid
exceedances
of
the
ambient
CO
standards
and
formulations
with
less
or
no
oxygen
will
achieve
equivalent
reductions
in
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,
NOx
and
toxics.
Thus
because
of
federal
law,
California
refiners
must
comply
with
the
federal
minimum
oxygenate
requirement
in
80
percent
of
California's
gasoline.
For
the
remaining
20
percent
of
the
state's
gasoline,
refiners
have
the
flexibility
to
produce
gasoline
without
oxygen
if
they
choose,
as
long
as
minimum
emissions
performance
required
by
the
CaRFG
regulations
are
met.
Using
this
flexibility,
California
refiners
have
been
providing
substantial
quantities
of
oxygen­
free
gasoline
where
permitted
in
Northern
California
with
no
loss
in
emission
benefits.

Genesis
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
Regulations
During
the
initial
implementation
of
the
federal
RFG
regulations
in
1995,
concerns
were
raised
regarding
exposure
to
MTBE
during
vehicle
fueling
and
associated
potential
adverse
health
effects.
These
concerns
were
initially
raised
in
other
states.
In
addition,
concerns
were
raised
regarding
the
detection
of
MTBE
in
surface
and
ground
water,
including
a
number
of
drinking
water
supplies
in
California
and
other
states.
Legislation
enacted
in
1997
required
the
University
of
California
(
U.
C.)
to
conduct
a
study
of
the
health
and
other
environmental
risks
and
benefits
of
MTBE
in
gasoline
compared
to
other
oxygenates.
This
same
legislation
also
required
the
Governor
to
take
appropriate
action
based
on
the
findings
and
information
from
public
hearings
conducted
on
the
U.
C.
Report.
The
U.
C.
Report
was
released
in
late
1998,
and
concluded
that
there
were
significant
risks
to
the
environment,
as
well
as
costs
associated
with
water
contamination
due
to
the
use
of
MTBE.
This
was
because
MTBE
is
highly
soluble
in
water
and
will
transfer
more
readily
than
most
other
gasoline
components
to
groundwater
from
gasoline
leaking
from
underground
storage
tanks,
pipelines
and
other
parts
of
the
gasoline
distribution
system.
MTBE
was
also
shown
to
pose
an
odor
and
taste
problem
in
water
at
very
low
concentrations.

As
a
result,
on
March
25,
1999,
Governor
Davis
signed
Executive
Order
D­
5­
99,
in
which
he
found
that,
on
balance,
there
is
a
significant
risk
to
the
environment
from
using
MTBE
in
gasoline
in
California.
Governor
Davis
directed
the
California
Energy
Commission
(
CEC)
to
issue
a
timetable
for
the
removal
of
MTBE
from
gasoline
at
the
earliest
possible
date
but
not
later
than
December
31,
2002.
The
CEC
subsequently
determined
that
December
31,
2002
was
in
fact
the
earliest
feasible
time.
The
Executive
Order
also
directed
the
ARB
by
December
1999
to
adopt
Phase
3
CaRFG
regulations
that
will
provide
additional
flexibility
in
lowering
or
removing
the
oxygen
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
5
content
requirement
while
maintaining
current
emissions
and
air
quality
benefits
and
ensuring
compliance
with
the
SIP.

Senate
Bill
989
(
Sher)
was
signed
by
the
Governor
on
October
10,
1999,
enacting
section
43013.1
of
the
Health
and
Safety
Code.
This
statute
required
the
CEC
to
develop
a
timetable
for
the
removal
of
MTBE
from
gasoline
at
the
earliest
possible
date,
and
required
the
ARB
to
ensure
that
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
regulations
maintain
or
improve
upon
emissions
and
air
quality
benefits
achieved
by
Phase
2
CaRFG
as
of
January
1,
1999
and
provide
additional
flexibility
to
reduce
or
remove
oxygen
from
motor
vehicle
fuel.

Removal
of
MTBE
from
California
gasoline
would
be
considerably
easier
and
less
expensive
if
federal
law
did
not
mandate
that
it
be
replaced
by
another
oxygenate
in
80
percent
of
the
state's
gasoline.
In
1999
Governor
Davis
asked
U.
S.
EPA
to
exercise
its
authority
under
FCAA
section
211(
k)(
2)(
B)
to
waive
the
minimum
oxygen
requirement
in
the
federal
RFG
areas
in
the
state,
but
in
June
2001
the
agency
denied
the
state's
request.
On
August
10,
2001,
California
filed
a
petition
in
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Ninth
Circuit
challenging
the
denial.
Oral
argument
was
conducted
on
February
12,
2003,
and
we
are
currently
awaiting
the
court's
decision.

Adoption
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
Standards
Following
a
December
9,
1999
hearing,
on
June
16,
2000,
the
ARB
formally
adopted
amendments
to
the
CaRFG
regulations
consistent
with
the
Governor's
Executive
Order
D­
5­
99,
SB
989,
and
the
timetable
for
removing
MTBE
approved
by
the
CEC.
The
key
elements
of
the
amendments
are
described
below.

Prohibition
on
MTBE
in
California
gasoline
produced
after
December
31,
2002.
The
amendments
include
a
ban
on
California
gasoline
produced
with
the
use
of
MTBE,
which
would
apply
to
all
gasoline
supplied
from
production
and
import
facilities
starting
December
31,
2002.
This
was
consistent
with
the
Governor's
Executive
Order
D­
5­
99
and
the
schedule
approved
by
the
CEC.
The
prohibition
on
production
of
gasoline
with
MTBE
would
quickly
result
in
its
phase­
out
throughout
the
storage
and
marketing
system.
For
enforcement
purposes,
the
prohibition
was
to
apply
45
days
later
to
all
downstream
facilities
except
bulk
plants,
retail
outlets,
and
bulk
purchaser­
consumer
facilities.
After
another
45
days,
the
ban
on
dispensing
of
California
gasoline
produced
with
the
use
of
MTBE
was
to
apply
throughout
the
distribution
system.
This
phase­
in
was
similar
to
the
schedule
used
in
the
phase­
in
of
Phase
2
CaRFG
in
1996,
and
was
necessary
to
avoid
disruptions
in
the
gasoline
distribution
system.

Along
with
the
prohibition
on
the
use
of
MTBE
in
gasoline,
the
amendments
included
a
three­
phase
reduction
of
limits
on
the
small
residual
levels
of
MTBE
in
produced
and
imported
California
gasoline.
As
the
ban
on
the
dispensing
of
MTBE
in
gasoline
is
implemented,
it
is
expected
that
very
low
levels
of
MTBE
may
continue
to
exist
in
parts
of
the
gasoline
distribution
system.
During
the
first
year,
starting
December
31,
2002,
there
was
a
prohibition
of
gasoline
containing
0.3
vol.
percent
or
more
MTBE.
This
limit
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
6
had
the
same
90­
day
phase­
in
period
for
downstream
facilities
as
the
prohibition
of
gasoline
made
with
the
use
of
MTBE.
Starting
in
December
31,
2003,
California
gasoline
was
prohibited
from
containing
0.15
vol.
percent
or
more
MTBE,
and
a
permanent
prohibition
of
0.05
percent
or
more
MTBE
was
to
apply
starting
December
31,
2004.
A
90­
day
downstream
phase
in
period
would
apply
for
each
change
in
allowable
MTBE.

In
recognition
that
other
ethers
(
such
as
ethyl
tertiary­
butyl
ether
(
ETBE)
and
tertiaryamyl
methyl
ether
(
TAME))
have
similar
characteristics
as
MTBE
and
could
likely
pose
similar
risks
to
the
environment
if
used
in
significant
volume,
the
amendments
required
a
comprehensive
evaluation
prior
to
the
use
of
any
oxygenate
other
than
ethanol
as
replacements
for
MTBE.
Under
this
requirement,
any
oxygenate
other
than
ethanol
must
undergo
a
multimedia
evaluation
regarding
the
use
of
the
oxygenate.
Furthermore,
the
California
Environmental
Policy
Council,
which
is
established
by
Public
Resources
Code
section
71017,
would
also
have
to
determine
that
the
oxygenate
will
not
cause
a
significant
adverse
impact
on
the
public
health
or
the
environment
before
its
use
would
be
allowed
in
California
gasoline.

The
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards.
In
addition
to
the
required
phase­
out
of
MTBE
use,
The
Board
adopted
a
number
of
changes
to
the
specifications
for
Phase
2
CaRFG
gasoline.
Collectively,
these
are
referred
to
as
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards.
Table
1
shows
the
preexisting
Phase
2
CaRFG
standards
and
the
new
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards,
which
were
to
become
applicable
starting
December
31,
2002,
with
a
90­
day
phase­
in
period
downstream
of
production
and
import
facilities.
Refiners
were
generally
expected
to
continue
to
use
a
predictive
model
in
producing
California
gasoline.
Thus
for
any
particular
batch
of
gasoline
the
refiner
could
vary
the
limits
for
the
regulated
properties
from
those
in
the
table,
as
long
as
the
predictive
model
showed
that
the
alternative
limits
applicable
to
the
batch
will
not
increase
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,
NOx,
and
potency­
weighted
toxics
compared
to
the
limits
in
the
regulations.

Small
refiners
that
had
been
producing
Phase
2
CaRFG
were
allowed
to
elect
to
be
subject
to
adjusted
flat
limits
for
aromatics
of
35
vol.
percent,
benzene
of
1.0
vol.
percent,
T50
of
220
°
F,
and
T90
of
312
°
F,
as
long
as
any
increased
hydrocarbon,
NOx,
and
potency­
weighted
toxic
emissions
associated
with
these
alternative
specifications
were
fully
mitigated
through
a
mechanism
to
be
added
to
the
small
refiner
diesel
regulations.
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
7
Table
1
Flat
Limits
Averaging
Limits
Cap
Limits
Property
Phase
2
CaRFG
Phase
3
CaRFG
Phase
2
CaRFG
Phase
3
CaRFG
Phase
2
CaRFG
Phase
3
CaRFG
Reid
Vapor
Pressure
(
pounds
per
square
inch;
warmer
months
only)
7.00
7.00
or
6.90
w/
evap
PM
Not
Available
Not
Available
7.00
6.40
 
7.20
60
Sulfur
Content
(
parts
per
million
by
weight)
40
20
30
15
80
30
(
12/
31/
04)

Benzene
Content
(
percent
by
volume)
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.1
Aromatics
Content
(
percent
by
volume)
25.0
25.0
22.0
22.0
30.0
35.0
Olefins
Content
(
percent
by
volume)
6.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
10.0
10.0
T50
(
degrees
Fahrenheit)
210
213
200
203
220
220
T90
(
degrees
Fahrenheit)
300
305
290
(
max.
310)
295
330
330
1.8
­
3.5
winter
areas
1.8
­
3.7
winter
areas
Oxygen
Content
(
percent
by
weight)
1.8
­
2.2
1.8
­
2.2
Not
Available
Not
Available
0
­
3.5
0
 
3.7
MTBE
and
oxygenates
other
than
ethanol
Not
Applicable
Prohibited
as
provided
in

2262.6
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Prohibited
as
provided
in

2262.6
The
Phase
3
CaRFG
Predictive
Model.
The
amendments
included
a
new
Phase
3
CaRFG
Predictive
Model
that
is
applicable
along
with
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards.
The
revised
model
was
based
on
the
existing
Predictive
Model
with
three
basic
changes.
First,
the
ARB
added
an
evaporative
hydrocarbon
emissions
element
that
allows
a
refiner
to
vary
RVP
and
use
the
hydrocarbon
impacts
in
conjunction
with
the
exhaust
emissions
Predictive
Model.
This
was
expected
to
facilitate
ethanol
usage
by
permitting
refiners
that
use
ethanol
to
produce
a
fuel
with
higher
RVP
provided
that
the
increase
in
evaporative
emissions
were
offset
by
reductions
in
exhaust
emissions.
It
also
allows
refiners
to
use
lower
RVP
gasolines
as
part
of
their
compliance
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
8
demonstration
under
the
Predictive
Model.
When
using
the
evaporative
model,
the
RVP
flat
limit
will
be
6.9
psi.

A
second
change
in
the
Predictive
Model
allows
a
hydrocarbon
credit
for
gasoline
that
provides
CO
emissions
reductions
associated
with
an
oxygen
content
greater
than
2.0
wt.
percent.
The
credit
reflects
the
fact
that
CO
contributes
to
ozone
formation,
and
is
based
on
the
relative
reactivity
of
CO
compared
to
the
various
hydrocarbon
species.
This
credit
is
expected
to
facilitate
the
use
of
ethanol
in
California
gasoline.

Third,
the
Predictive
Model
was
updated
to
reflect
recent
vehicle
test
data
and
changes
in
the
current
vehicle
fleet
and
to
account
for
changes
in
newer
vehicles'
response
to
changes
in
fuel
properties.

Refiners
and
importers
were
allowed
to
trigger
a
mechanism
under
which
they
could
comply
with
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
and
use
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
Predictive
Model
prior
to
December
31,
2002.
This
was
designed
to
facilitate
the
early
removal
of
MTBE
from
California
gasoline.

Other
changes
to
the
provisions
on
CARBOB.
When
gasoline
is
oxygenated
with
ethanol,
certain
characteristics
of
the
resulting
blend
make
it
generally
infeasible
to
be
transported
through
pipeline
systems.
Because
of
this,
ethanol
is
typically
added
to
gasoline
at
the
terminal
or
in
the
delivery
truck.
The
CaRFG
regulations
allow
a
refiner
to
ship
nonoxygenated
gasoline
from
the
refinery
without
complying
with
the
CaRFG
standards
if
it
is
specially
formulated
to
be
combined
with
oxygenate
"
downstream"
from
the
refinery
and
the
resulting
blend
will
meet
all
of
the
CaRFG
standards.
This
allows
entities
adding
oxygen
downstream
from
the
refinery
to
take
advantage
of
the
contribution
the
oxygenate
can
make
to
complying
with
the
CaRFG
standards,
particularly
by
diluting
the
concentration
of
compounds
like
benzene.
The
nonoxygenated
blend
is
called
"
California
reformulated
gasoline
blendstock
for
oxygenate
blending,"
or
"
CARBOB."
(
the
federal
RFG
regulations
have
a
corresponding
mechanism
for
what
is
called
"
RBOB.")
The
amendments
made
a
number
of
changes
to
the
CARBOB
provisions,
which
in
most
cases
made
it
easier
for
refiners
and
oxygenate
blenders
to
comply.
These
changes
included
elimination
of
quality
audit
requirements,
allowing
up
to
3.7
wt.
percent
oxygen
for
10
vol.
percent
ethanol
blends,
and
facilitating
use
of
the
Predictive
Model
for
gasoline
containing
2.7
wt.
percent
oxygen
from
ethanol.

The
2000­
2001
Phase
3
CaRFG
Follow­
Up
Amendments
Specifications
for
denatured
ethanol.
With
the
elimination
of
MTBE
in
California
gasoline,
the
use
of
ethanol
will
become
much
more
widespread,
particularly
if
the
federal
government
maintains
the
mandate
that
80
percent
of
California's
gasoline
contain
at
least
2.0
wt.
percent
oxygen.
However,
even
with
relief
from
the
federal
requirement,
refiners
are
expected
to
use
substantial
amounts
of
ethanol
both
to
meet
the
state
requirement
for
oxygen
in
wintertime
gasoline
in
much
of
Southern
California
and
to
increase
octane.
In
the
original
Phase
3
CaRFG
rulemaking,
staff
proposed
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
9
specifications
for
denatured
ethanol
intended
for
use
in
California
gasoline.
The
specifications
were
designed
to
assure
a
more
uniform
product
with
blending
characteristics
that
would
assist
refiners
in
the
challenging
task
of
meeting
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
and
to
help
enable
the
ethanol
blending
requirements
be
streamlined.
Since
ethanol
producers
commented
that
some
of
the
proposed
specifications
were
too
stringent
in
light
of
ethanol
production
processes
and
the
characteristics
of
denaturants
being
used,
the
Board
directed
staff
to
work
with
interested
parties
and
come
back
with
a
proposal
for
consideration
at
a
later
date.

In
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
follow­
up
rulemaking,
the
Board
adopted
the
following
limits
for
denatured
ethanol
intended
for
use
in
California
gasoline
starting
December
31,
2002:
a
sulfur
content
not
exceeding
10
parts
per
million,
benzene
content
not
exceeding
0.06
vol.
percent,
olefin
content
not
exceeding
0.5
vol.
percent,
and
aromatic
hydrocarbon
content
not
exceeding
1.7
vol.
percent.
Sulfur
content
was
to
be
determined
by
ASTM
D
5453­
93.
The
benzene,
olefin,
and
aromatic
hydrocarbon
content
were
be
determined
by
analyzing
the
concentration
of
those
compounds
in
the
denaturant
and
then
multiplying
the
result
by
0.0476.
The
Board
also
adopted
benzene,
olefin
and
aromatic
hydrocarbon
limits
for
denaturants
equal
to
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
cap
limits.
Starting
December
31,
2002,
persons
transferring
denatured
ethanol
intended
for
use
in
California
gasoline
were
to
be
required
to
provide
documentation
stating
that
it
complies
with
the
applicable
standards,
and
providing
the
name
of
the
transferor,
the
facility
where
the
ethanol
was
produced,
and
the
person
who
produced
the
ethanol
and
added
the
denaturant.

Provisions
pertaining
to
CARBOB.
Under
the
preexisting
regulations,
compliance
of
CARBOB
with
the
CaRFG
standards
was
determined
by
adding
the
appropriate
level
of
oxygenate
to
a
sample
of
CARBOB
and
comparing
the
results
to
the
applicable
CaRFG
limits.
A
producer
was
required
to
conduct
such
tests
and
notify
the
ARB
prior
to
supplying
a
final
blend
of
CARBOB
from
the
refinery.
Whenever
the
CARBOB
was
transferred,
it
had
to
be
accompanied
by
a
document
identifying
the
oxygenate
type
or
types
and
amount
or
range
of
amounts
that
must
be
added
before
the
CARBOB
is
supplied
from
the
final
distribution
facility.

The
follow­
up
amendments
established
a
new
"
CARBOB
Model"
which
can
be
used
in
connection
with
limits
directly
applicable
to
the
CARBOB.
The
CARBOB
model
serves
as
a
preprocessor
for
the
Predictive
Model.
The
properties
of
the
CARBOB
are
used
to
calculate
the
expected
properties
of
the
finished
blend.
These
finished
blend
properties
are
then
entered
into
the
Predictive
Model
to
see
if
the
CARBOB
properties
result
in
a
qualifying
fuel.
A
refiner
has
the
option
to
use
the
CARBOB
Model
mechanism,
in
which
case
the
refiner
would
be
able
to
simply
sample
and
analyze
the
CARBOB
before
it
is
supplied
from
the
refinery,
without
having
to
hand­
blend
the
ethanol
into
the
CARBOB
before
analyzing
the
properties.

n
determining
compliance,
the
properties
of
the
denatured
ethanol
will
normally
be
assumed
to
be
in
the
expected
range
reflecting
the
proposed
specifications
for
denatured
ethanol.
But
producers
and
imports
were
given
the
option
of
specifying
a
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
10
different
range
of
ethanol
properties,
in
which
case
the
range
would
have
to
be
included
in
product
transfer
documentation,
and
the
ultimate
oxygen
blender
would
be
responsible
to
use
denatured
ethanol
with
the
specified
properties.

The
amendments
also
added
cap
limits
for
downstream
CARBOB
that
has
been
supplied
from
its
production
or
import
facility.
These
cap
limits
can
be
enforced
by
sampling
and
testing
the
CARBOB
without
the
need
for
hand­
blending
ethanol
into
the
CARBOB.

The
amendments
also
changed
the
preexisting
prohibition
of
combining
CARBOB
that
has
been
shipped
from
the
refinery
with
any
other
CARBOB,
gasoline,
blendstock
or
oxygenate,
except
for
the
oxygenate
for
which
the
CARBOB
was
designed,
or
other
CARBOB
for
which
the
refiner
has
designated
the
same
type
and
amount
or
range
of
oxygenate.
First,
the
prohibition
will
apply
to
blending
CARBOBs
with
different
oxygen
ranges
rather
than
different
amounts
of
oxygenate
to
be
added;
this
should
allow
increased
fungibility.
Second,
combining
CARBOBs
designed
for
different
ethanol
levels
in
a
storage
tank
at
a
terminal
or
bulk
plant
will
be
permitted
if
it
is
part
of
a
transition
to
a
new
type
of
CARBOB
and
certain
criteria
are
met,
including
a
requirement
that
the
batch
of
the
new
CARBOB
being
added
has
a
reduced
sulfur
content.
Combining
CARBOB
with
California
gasoline
in
a
storage
tank
at
a
terminal
or
bulk
plant
will
also
be
permitted
if
specified
conditions
are
met.
One
condition
is
that
the
resulting
blend
of
product
in
the
tank
could
only
be
supplied
from
the
terminal
or
bulk
plant
when
it
was
not
subject
to
the
RVP
standards.

Providing
offsets
for
excess
emissions
from
small
refiner
Phase
3
CaRFG.
In
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
rulemaking,
the
Board
included
small
refiner
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
with
less
stringent
flat
limits
for
benzene
and
aromatics
content,
T50,
and
T90.
A
small
refiner
may
only
use
the
small
refiner
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards,
however,
if
it
offsets
the
excess
emissions
with
changes
to
its
diesel
fuel
produced
pursuant
the
ARB's
regulation
limiting
the
aromatic
hydrocarbon
content.
The
original
Phase
3
CaRFG
regulations
identified
the
excess
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,
NOx,
and
potency­
weighted
toxics
on
a
per­
barrel
basis
that
must
be
offset,
but
the
Board
deferred
establishment
of
the
diesel
fuel
offset
provisions
until
the
follow­
up
rulemaking.
A
small
refiner
may
only
use
the
small
refiner
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
if
it
produced
gasoline
meeting
Phase
2
CaRFG
standards
in
1998
and
1999;
Kern
Oil
and
Refining
Co.
(
Kern
Oil)
is
the
only
refiner
to
meet
this
criterion.

The
ARB's
diesel
aromatics
regulation
 
section
2282
 
has
included
a
basic
aromatic
hydrocarbon
standard
of
10
vol.
percent,
with
a
20
vol.
percent
standard
for
small
refiners,
applicable
to
the
small
refiner's
annual
"
exempt
volume."
Additional
diesel
fuel
produced
by
the
small
refiner
in
the
year
is
subject
to
the
10
percent
aromatics
standard.
The
regulation
also
includes
a
mechanism
under
which
a
refiner
may
certify
an
"
alternative
formulation"
shown
by
an
engine
test
program
to
achieve
emissions
reductions
equivalent
to
a
10
percent
aromatics
diesel
fuel
(
20
percent
for
small
refiners).
The
ARB's
diesel
fuel
regulations
were
approved
by
U.
S.
EPA
as
part
of
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
11
California's
SIP
at
the
same
time
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
regulations
were
approved
(
60
FR
43379
(
August
21,
1995)).

The
Phase
3
CaRFG
follow­
up
amendments
provide
a
small
refiner
with
three
options
in
producing
diesel
fuel
in
a
manner
that
offsets
the
excess
emissions
from
gasoline
subject
to
the
small
refiner
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
in
a
particular
year.
First,
the
small
refiner
can
accept
a
smaller
annual
exempt
volume
of
diesel
fuel
subject
to
the
20
percent
aromatics
standard
 
in
the
case
of
Kern
Oil,
the
equivalent
of
2,263
barrels
per
day
in
place
of
6,405
barrels
per
day.
Second,
the
refiner
can
produce
up
to
its
annual
exempt
volume
of
diesel
fuel,
but
subject
to
standards
more
stringent
than
a
20
percent
aromatics
standard.
Third,
the
small
refiner
could
opt
for
an
exempt
volume
augmented
by
25
percent,
if
emissions
are
reduced
enough
to
offset
emissions
from
the
small
refiner's
gasoline
and
the
augmentation
of
the
volume.
The
small
refiner
also
had
the
option
to
use
these
mechanisms
prior
to
December
31,
2002.

The
2000­
2001
CaRFG
Test
Methods
Amendments
For
each
CaRFG
property
specification,
our
regulations
identify
the
method
to
be
used
in
determining
compliance.
In
most
cases
the
methods
are
based
on
test
methods
approved
by
the
American
Society
of
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM).
The
last
two
digits
of
an
ASTM
designation
represent
the
year
of
adoption
or
last
revision.
In
the
2000­
2001
CaRFG
test
methods
rulemaking,
the
ARB
amended
the
designations
of
the
test
methods
for
measuring
olefin
content
from
ASTM
Method
D
1319­
95a
to
ASTM
D
6550­
00
with
three
modifications:
(
1)
identifying
repeatability
and
reproducibility
as
0.13X0.5
and
0.32X0.5
respectively
when
x
=
mass
percent
olefins,
(
2)
providing
that
volume
percent
olefins
equals
0.857
x
mass
percent
olefins,
and
(
3)
expanding
the
scope
statement
from
0.3
to
25
mass
percent
olefins.
This
change
became
applicable
January
1,
2002.
The
Board
also
amended
the
method
for
measuring
the
T50
and
T90
of
gasoline
from
ASTM
D
86­
90
to
ASTM
D
86­
99a 1.

The
Phase
3
CaRFG
Postponement
Amendments
On
March
14,
2002,
Governor
Davis
issued
Executive
Order
D­
52­
02,
which
directed
the
ARB
to
take
the
necessary
actions,
by
July
31,
2002,
to
postpone
for
one
year
the
prohibitions
of
the
use
of
MTBE
and
other
specified
oxygenates
in
California
gasoline,
and
the
related
requirements
for
California
Phase
3
CaRFG.
The
Governor
found
that
it
is
not
possible
to
eliminate
use
of
MTBE
on
January
1,
2003
without
significantly
risking
disruption
of
the
availability
of
gasoline
in
California.
This
would
substantially
increase
prices,
harm
California's
economy
and
impose
an
unjustified
burden
upon
our
motorists.
In
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
postponement
rulemaking,
the
ARB
adopted
regulatory
amendments
consistent
with
the
Governor's
Executive
Order
D­
52­
02,
along
with
a
few
other
amendments
designed
to
ensure
that
the
regulations
work
effectively.

Prohibitions
regarding
MTBE
and
other
oxygenates
other
than
ethanol.
The
amendments
postponed
the
prohibition
of
the
use
of
MTBE
and
other
oxygenates
other
than
ethanol
in
California
gasoline
supplied
by
refiners
and
importers
from
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
12
December
31,
2002
to
December
31,
2003,
with
the
downstream
phase­
in
requirements
also
postponed
by
one
year.
Similarly,
the
schedule
for
reducing
residual
levels
of
MTBE
in
Phase
3
CaRFG
was
postponed
one
year.

Delaying
imposition
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards.
The
amendments
also
postponed
the
imposition
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
for
gasoline
properties
for
one
year,
from
December
31,
2002
to
December
31,
2003.
With
the
delay
in
the
prohibition
of
the
MTBE
prohibition,
it
was
appropriate
to
allow
refiners
to
meet
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
standards
for
an
additional
year
for
producing
gasoline
oxygenated
with
MTBE.
However,
individual
refiners
importers
have
retained
the
ability
to
elect
to
have
batches
of
gasoline
subject
to
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
 
including
the
prohibition
of
MTBE
 
prior
to
December
31,
2003.
The
amendments
also
delay
for
one
year
(
from
December
31,
2004
to
December
31,
2005)
the
reduction
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
sulfur
content
cap
limit
from
60
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
to
30
ppm.

The
amendments
also
provided
a
gasoline
producer
or
importer
the
option
of
electing
to
have
the
March
1
start
of
the
RVP
season
delayed
until
April
1
in
either
2003
or
2004
(
but
not
both)
at
each
production
and
import
facility.
If
the
delay
occurs
in
2003,
it
would
only
apply
to
gasoline
designated
as
subject
to
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards,
and
to
Phase
2
CaRFG
that
is
produced
without
the
use
of
MTBE
or
other
oxygenates
other
than
ethanol.
These
amendments
were
designed
to
facilitate
the
transition
to
ethanol,
which
increases
the
RVP
of
gasoline.

Other
amendments.
Additional
amendments
were
designed
to
ensure
that
the
CaRFG
regulations
work
effectively,
provide
additional
flexibility
where
feasible,
and
correct
errors.
One
set
of
amendments
simplified
the
testing
provisions
for
determining
whether
gasoline
blendstock
designed
for
blending
with
ethanol
will
comply
with
the
CaRFG
standards
after
it
is
oxygenated.
Another
amendment
corrected
errors
in
the
assignment
of
RVP
regulatory
control
periods
for
the
North
Coast
Air
Basin
and
the
North
Central
Coast
Air
Basin.

The
Residual
MTBE
Amendments
Revisions
to
the
schedule
for
implementation
of
allowable
residual
levels
of
MTBE.
The
amendments
require
that
MTBE
residual
levels
be
reduced
in
four
steps
instead
of
the
three
steps
previously
required
by
the
regulations.
During
the
first
six
months
after
the
MTBE
phase­
out
 
starting
December
31,
2003
 
California
gasoline
may
not
contain
more
than
0.60
vol.
percent
MTBE.
Starting
July
1,
2004,
gasoline
is
prohibited
from
containing
more
than
0.30
vol.
percent
MTBE
and
eighteen
months
later,
starting
December
31,
2005,
gasoline
is
prohibited
from
containing
more
than
0.15
vol.
percent.
The
residual
MTBE
limit
is
further
reduced
to
0.05
vol.
percent
starting
July
1,
2007.
Staff
will
continue
to
evaluate
the
practicality
of
the
later
limits.

Revising
the
prohibitions
of
gasoline
"
produced
with
the
use
of"
MTBE
or
other
oxygenates
other
than
ethanol.
The
residual
MTBE
amendments
refine
the
prohibitions
regarding
gasoline
"
produced
with
the
use
of"
MTBE
and
other
oxygenates.
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
13
They
remove
ambiguities
that
make
the
prohibitions
difficult
to
administer,
and
that
could
under
some
circumstances
exclude
imported
blendstocks
that
contain
MTBE
and
other
prohibited
oxygenates
that
are
incidentally
acquired
through
the
production
process
or
during
transport.

A
California
refiner
will
be
prohibited
at
the
refinery
from
adding
MTBE
in
neat
form
either
to
gasoline
or
blendstocks
used
to
produce
gasoline
at
the
refinery.
The
refiner
will
also
be
prohibited
from
using
any
gasoline
blendstock
that
contains
more
than
0.6
vol.
percent
MTBE
when
it
is
supplied
to
the
refinery.
Imported
California
gasoline
will
only
be
subject
to
the
allowable
residual
MTBE
levels
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
regulations.
Application
of
the
allowable
residual
levels
on
MTBE
in
imported
gasoline
should
be
sufficient
to
prohibit
unacceptable
MTBE
levels
while
avoiding
undue
constraints
in
gasoline
imports
during
potential
supply
shortages.

The
amendments
to
the
prohibitions
on
gasoline
"
produced
with
the
use
of"
any
oxygenate
other
than
ethanol
or
MTBE
parallel
those
applicable
to
MTBE.
They
prohibit
the
addition
of
any
oxygenate,
other
than
ethanol
or
MTBE,
in
neat
form
to
California
gasoline
or
to
a
blending
component
used
to
produce
gasoline
at
the
refinery.
They
also
prohibit
the
use
of
a
blending
component
that
contains
greater
than
0.1
wt.
percent
total
oxygen
from
oxygenates
other
than
ethanol
or
MTBE
when
it
was
supplied
to
the
California
production
facility.
Imported
California
gasoline
will
only
be
subject
to
the
new
total
oxygen
weight
percent
limits,
because
of
the
difficulties
in
monitoring
the
way
imported
gasoline
has
been
produced
at
some
out­
of­
state
location.

Establishment
of
allowable
residual
levels
for
oxygenates
other
than
MTBE
and
ethanol.
The
amendments
add
a
schedule
for
specifications
for
total
oxygen
content
in
gasoline
from
oxygenates
other
than
MTBE
and
ethanol.
During
the
first
six
months
after
the
MTBE
phase­
out,
starting
December
31,
2003,
the
combined
oxygen
concentration
due
to
these
prohibited
oxygenates
may
not
exceed
0.10
wt.
percent.
This
limit
of
0.10
wt.
percent
is
the
oxygen
level
equivalent
to
the
new
residual
limit
of
0.60
vol.
percent
for
MTBE
during
that
period.
The
final
prohibition
level
of
0.06
wt.
percent
will
apply
starting
July
1,
2004.
ASTM
D
4815­
99
is
identified
as
the
test
method
to
be
used
in
determining
the
concentration
of
other
oxygenates
in
California
gasoline.
These
amendments
are
expected
to
significantly
improve
the
enforceability
of
the
restrictions
on
oxygenates
both
in
gasoline
produced
in
the
state
and
imported
gasoline.
The
prohibitions
will
apply
unless
a
multimedia
evaluation
of
the
use
of
the
oxygenate
in
California
gasoline
has
been
conducted,
and
the
CEPC
has
determined
that
such
use
will
not
cause
a
significant
adverse
impact
on
public
health
or
the
environment.

Documentation
of
the
presence
or
absence
of
ethanol
in
CaRFG
delivered
to
retail
outlets.
The
new
amendments
require
any
person
delivering
gasoline
to
a
retail
outlet
to
provide
to
the
outlet
operator
or
responsible
employee,
at
the
time
of
delivery
of
the
fuel,
an
invoice,
bill
of
lading,
shipping
paper,
or
other
documentation
which
states
whether
the
gasoline
does
or
does
not
contain
ethanol,
and
which
may
identify
the
volumetric
amount
of
ethanol.
If
neither
the
operator
nor
a
responsible
employee
is
at
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
14
the
outlet
at
the
time
of
delivery,
the
documentation
my
be
left
at
a
reasonably
secure
location
at
the
outlet.

Other
amendments.
Additional
amendments
are
designed
to
ensure
that
the
regulations
work
effectively.
One
amendment
sunsets
the
requirement
for
documentation
of
the
presence
of
MTBE
in
the
gasoline
delivered
to
retail
outlets
after
December
30,
2003.
Another
amendment
replaces
the
recently
added
provision
regarding
oxygenates
in
early
opt­
in
Phase
3
CaRFG
with
a
requirement
that
early
optin
Phase
3
CaRFG
meet
limits
of
0.60
vol.
percent
for
MTBE
and
0.10
wt.
percent
oxygen
collectively
from
the
specified
oxygenates
other
than
MTBE
or
ethanol
when
it
is
supplied
from
the
production
or
import
facility.
This
will
provide
specific
standards
that
can
be
monitored
by
refiners
and
importers
and
be
readily
enforced
by
ARB
inspectors.

Impact
of
Phase
3
CaRFG
rulemakings
on
Emissions
of
Ozone
Precursors
and
Toxics
Initial
adoption
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
and
requirements.
As
noted
above,
Health
and
Safety
Code
section
43013.1
has
expressly
required
that
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
regulations
must
"
Maintain
and
improve
upon
emissions
and
air
quality
benefits
achieved
by
California
Phase
2
Reformulated
Gasoline
in
California
as
of
January
1,
1999,
including
emission
reductions
of
all
pollutants,
including
precursors,
identified
in
the
State
Implementation
Plan
for
ozone,
and
emission
reductions
in
potency­
weighted
air
toxics
compounds."

Section
IV.
A.
of
the
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
(
this
and
the
other
referenced
documents
from
this
rulemaking
are
available
at
www.
arb.
ca.
gov/
regact/
carfg3/
carfg3.
htm)
presented
the
basis
of
our
comparison
of
the
emissions
impact
of
gasoline
expected
to
be
produced
to
comply
with
the
final
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
to
the
emissions
impact
of
typical
1998
in­
use
California
gasoline.
Based
on
that
approach,
the
Board
found
in
Resolution
99­
39
that
the
adopted
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
are
expected
to
preserve
the
1998
emission
benefits
of
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
regulations,
by
reducing
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,
NOx,
and
potencyweighted
toxics
by
0.1
percent,
1.2
percent,
and
1.8
percent
respectively.

Chapter
5
of
the
Staff
Report:
Initial
Statement
of
Reasons
also
provides
an
extensive
analysis
of
the
expected
emissions
impact
of
the
staff's
initial
Phase
3
CaRFG
proposal.
The
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
additionally
addresses
the
emissions
impact
of
the
final
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
in
the
responses
to
comments
in
Section
V.
A.(
1)
and
V.
A.(
5).

The
Phase
3
CaRFG
follow­
up
amendments.
The
Staff
Report
for
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
follow­
up
amendments
(
this
and
the
other
referenced
documents
from
this
rulemaking
are
available
at
www.
arb.
ca.
gov/
regact/
CARFG300/
CARFG300.
htm)
did
not
identify
any
adverse
emissions
impacts
from
the
proposal.
During
the
comment
period
leading
up
to
the
November
16,
2000
hearing,
Communities
for
a
Better
Environment
(
CBE)
commented
that
modifications
approved
by
the
Board
that
would
allow
a
CARB
Legal
Office
6/
24/
03
15
particular
small
refiner
to
meet
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
standards
during
the
first
two
years
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
program
would
result
in
a
significant
adverse
environmental
impact.
These
provisions
were
not
part
of
the
ARB's
ultimately
adopted
amendments.
The
only
other
environmental
issues
that
were
raised
were
made
during
supplemental
15­
day
comment
period
by
the
Oxygenated
Fuels
Association,
which
represents
companies
engaged
in
the
production
and
marketing
of
MTBE.
Those
issues
were
addressed
in
the
responses
to
comments
29­
33
of
the
Final
Statement
of
Reasons.
The
Board
and
Executive
Officer
ultimately
determined
that
the
amendments
would
not
have
an
adverse
emissions
or
air
quality
impact
(
Resolution
00­
40)
and
Executive
Order
G­
01­
012
(
Attachment
F.
5.).

The
CaRFG
test
method
amendments.
These
amendments
simply
established
improved
test
methods
for
determining
compliance
with
the
olefin
content
and
distillation
temperature
standards,
and
had
no
adverse
emissions
impact.

The
Phase
3
CaRFG
postponement
amendments.
The
basic
thrust
of
the
fourth
rulemaking
was
simply
to
postpone
implementation
of
the
Phase
3
CaRFG
standards
for
one
year
 
during
which
time
refiners
would
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
standards.
As
such,
the
amendments
do
not
increase
emissions
compared
to
the
Phase
2
CaRFG
regulations.
The
amendments
do
eliminate
April
from
the
RVP
season
in
South
Coast,
San
Diego,
Mojave
Desert
and
Salton
Sea
Air
Basins
and
Ventura
County
in
2004
in
order
to
facilitate
transitions
from
oxygenated
with
MTBE
to
oxygenating
with
ethanol.
(
§
2262.4(
b)(
2)(
A).)
They
also
eliminate
the
RVP
requirement
for
March
1994
for
refineries
and
import
facilities
in
those
areas,
where
the
refiner
or
importer
did
not
elect
this
treatment
for
March
2003.
There
are
comparatively
few
ozone
exceedances
in
April
in
these
areas,
and
U.
S.
EPA
has
chosen
in
the
federal
RFG
program
to
not
have
its
VOC
control
periods
(
i.
e.
RVP
seasons)
start
until
May
1
upstream
from
retail
outlets
and
until
June
1
at
retail
outlets.
(
40
CFR
§
80.78(
a)(
1)(
v).)
Under
these
time­
limited
circumstances,
we
do
not
believe
the
amendments
to
the
RVP
control
periods
will
prevent
or
interfere
with
attainment
of
the
federal
ozone
standard.

The
Residual
MTBE
amendments.
The
residual
MTBE
amendments
pertain
only
to
the
prohibitions
of
MTBE
and
other
oxygenates
other
than
ethanol
starting
December
31,
2003.
As
such,
we
do
not
expect
them
to
have
any
impact
on
emissions
of
ozone
precursors
or
CO.