Previous Actions of the California Environmental Policy Council
The California Environmental Policy Council (CEPC) was originally established by the Environmental Protection Permit Reform Act of 1993 to designate a consolidated permit agency for applicants for environmental permits from multiple environmental agencies. This page contains previous action items.
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel and Proposed Alternative Diesel Fuel Regulation (2015)
A public meeting to consider the CARB evaluation entitled, “Multimedia Evaluations of Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel and the Air Resources Board’s Proposed Alternative Diesel Fuel Regulation” was held on June 23, 2015 at 9 a.m. in Sacramento, CA.
- According to HSC 43830.8, the CARB may not adopt any regulation that establishes a specification for motor vehicle fuel unless that regulation, and a multimedia evaluation conducted by affected agencies and coordinated by the state board, are reviewed by the California Environmental Policy Council established in Public Resources Code Section 71017. The multimedia evaluation for any rule proposed for adoption by the Council must go through an external scientific peer review. (HSC. 57004) The CEPC shall determine whether the proposed regulation will cause significant adverse impact on public health or environment, whether less adverse alternatives exist.
- Notice of Hearing and Agenda (PDF, 644 KB)
- June 23, 2015: Staff presentation to the CEPC (PDF)
- Staff Report: Multimedia Evaluation of Biodiesel (PDF, 11.4 MB)
- Staff Report: Multimedia Evaluation of Renewable Diesel (PDF, 4.2 MB)
- More information on Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel
- Briefing presentation given to Council members (PDF, 1.0 MB)
- Environmental Policy Council Final Resolution (PDF)
- Public Comments regarding Multimedia Evaluations of Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel and the Air Resources Board’s Proposed Alternative Diesel Fuel Regulation.
- Catherine H. Reheis-Boyd, Western States Petroleum Association (PDF)
- John P. Kinsey, Wanger Jones Helsey PC, on behalf of Growth Energy (PDF) І Errata to the June 19, 2015 comments to CARB on the proposed re-adoption of the LCFS (PDF)
- James Parsegian, Office of the State Fire Marshal (PDF)
- Chris Reardon, Department of Pesticide Regulation (Text Message)
- Ken DaRosa, Calrecycle (Text Message)
Safer Consumer Products Regulations (2013)
A public meeting to consider the DTSC report, entitled “Recommendation on Need for a Multimedia Evaluation of the Safer Consumer Products Regulations” is scheduled for February 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM in Sacramento, CA.
Assembly Bill 1879 (Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008), established regulatory authority for DTSC to adopt regulations to establish a process for identifying and prioritizing chemicals of concern in consumer products and for evaluating safer alternatives to toxic chemicals through a science-based approach. AB 1879 (HSC § 25252 and 25253) required DTSC to adopt regulations no later than January 1, 2011. Additionally, the law (HSC § 25252.5) required DTSC to prepare, and submit to the CEPC for review, a multimedia evaluation prior to adopting these regulations. However, the law provided an exception to this process. Specifically, DTSC was allowed to adopt the regulations without being subject to a multimedia evaluation if the CEPC conclusively determined that the regulations will not have any significant adverse impact on public health or the environment. DTSC has prepared a report on the need for a multimedia evaluation of the Safer Consumer Products Regulations and has determined that the regulations would not result in any significant adverse impact on public health or the environment.
- Notice of Public Meeting (PDF)
- Agenda (PDF)
- Recommendation on Need for a Multimedia Evaluation of the Safer Consumer Products Regulation (PDF)
- Resolution (PDF)
- DTSC Safer Consumer Products Regulations Website
- Public Comments regarding Multimedia Evaluation of Safer Consumer Products Regulation
- Ann G. Grimaldi, McKenna Long & Aldridge (PDF)
- Lucy Dunn, Orange County Business Council (PDF)
- Michael J. Rogge, California Manufacturers & Technology Association (PDF)
- Gary Toebben, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce (PDF)
- Filipa Rio, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (PDF) | Letter 1 (PDF) | Attachment A (PDF) | Attachment B (PDF) | Attachment C (PDF) | Attachment D (PDF) | Attachment E (PDF) | Attachment F (PDF) | Attachment G (PDF)
- Marisa Blackshire, Alston & Bird LLP | Letter 1 Maureen Gorsen (PDF) | Letter 2 Maureen Gorsen (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 1 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 2 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 3 (PDF) |Appendix A Ex 4 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 5 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 6 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 7 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 8 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 9 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 10 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 11 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 12 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 13 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 14 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 15 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 16 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 17 (PDF) | Appendix A Ex 18 (PDF)
Multimedia Evaluation of Viscon-Treated Diesel Fuel (2011)
A public hearing to consider a multimedia evaluation of Viscon-Treated Diesel Fuel is scheduled for August 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM in Sacramento, CA.
In 2003 Viscon California, LLC applied for verification of its proprietary fuel additive, Viscon®, in accordance with the Air Resources Board Diesel Emission Control Strategy Verification Procedure (Verification Procedure) pursuant to title 13, California Code of Regulations, sections 2700 to 2710. According to the Verification Procedure, a diesel emission control strategy may not be verified unless a multimedia evaluation of the fuel has been conducted, pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code section 43830.8, and the California Environmental Policy Council (CEPC) has determined that there will not be a significant adverse impact on public health or the environment in comparison to diesel fuel meeting ARB motor vehicle diesel fuel specifications.
- Notice: Multimedia Evaluation of Viscon-Treated Diesel Fuel (PDF, 75 KB)
- Agenda (PDF, 110 KB)
- Staff Report: Multimedia Evaluation of Viscon-Treated Diesel Fuel (PDF, 6 MB)
- Viscon Multi Media Evaluation (Tier III) Summary (PDF, 973 KB)
- Guidance Document and Recommendations on the Types of Scientific Information Submitted by Applicants for California Fuels Environmental Multimedia Evaluations (PDF, 712 KB)
- Public comments regarding Multimedia Evaluation of Viscon-Treated Diesel Fuel
- Multimedia Working Group Presentation
- Resolution (PDF)
- Air Resources Board Verification Procedure Website
Green Chemistry: Safer Consumer Product Alternatives (2010)
Assembly Bill 1879 (Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008), established regulatory authority for DTSC to adopt regulations for identifying and prioritizing chemicals of concern in consumer products and for evaluating safer alternatives to toxic chemicals through a science-based approach. AB 1879 (HSC § 25252 and 25253) required DTSC to adopt regulations no later than January 1, 2011. Additionally, the law (HSC § 25252.5) required DTSC to prepare, and submit to the CEPC for review, a multimedia evaluation prior to adopting these regulations. However, the law provided an exception to this process. Specifically, DTSC was allowed to adopt the regulations without being subject to a multimedia evaluation if the CEPC conclusively determined that the regulations will not have any significant adverse impact on public health or the environment. The DTSC prepared a report on the need for a multimedia evaluation of the Safer Consumer Product Alternatives regulations and determined that the regulations would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. On October 27, 2010, a CEPC public hearing was held and the CEPC determined that the Safer Consumer Product Alternatives regulations will not have any significant adverse impact on public health or the environment
- Notice: Need for a Multimedia Evaluation for the Green Chemistry: Safer Consumer Product Alternatives Regulations (PDF)
- Agenda (PDF)
- Conduct of Meeting and Hearing Procedures (See Agenda)
- Recommendation on Need for a Multimedia Evaluation of the Safer Consumer Product Alternatives Regulations (PDF)
- Public comments regarding Recommendation on Need for a Multimedia Evaluation of the Safer Consumer Product Alternatives Regulations
- JDMT, Inc Michael Theroux, V.P. (PDF)
- Life Technologies Janet Martinez (PDF)
- American Cleaning Institute Paul DeLeo (PDF)
- Green Chemistry Alliance John Ulrich | Dawn Sander Koepke (PDF)
- Consumer Specialty Products Association Kristin Power (MS Word)
- California Chamber of Commerce Robert Callahan (PDF)
- ALSTON & BIRD LLP Marisa Blackshire (PDF) | Attachment A (PDF) | Attachment B (PDF) | Attachment C (PDF) | Attachment D (PDF) | Attachment E (PDF) | Attachment F (PDF) | AppAEx1 (PDF) | AppAEx2 (PDF) | AppAEx3 (PDF) | AppAEx4 (PDF) | AppAEx5 (PDF) | AppAEx6 (PDF) | AppAEx7 (PDF) | AppAEx8 (PDF) | AppAEx9 (PDF) | AppAEx10 (PDF) | AppAEx11 (PDF) | AppAEx12 (PDF) | AppAEx13 (PDF) | AppAEx14 (PDF) | AppAEx15 (PDF) | AppAEx16 (PDF)
- Resolution (PDF)
- Department of Toxic Substances Control: Green Chemistry Initiative Website
Environmental Fate and Transport and Potential Health Effects of Using PuriNoX In California Diesel (2004)
In 2004 Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol) submitted an application for PuriNOX as an emission control strategy pursuant to the Diesel Emission Control Strategy Verification Procedure. Lubrizol developed PuriNOx as a water-emulsified diesel fuel that is designed to reduce emissions such as particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen from diesel fueled engines. As a requirement for verification, PuriNOx underwent a multi-media assessment to determine if the use of PuriNOx results in a significant adverse impact on public health or the environment in comparison to diesel fuel that already met the ARB motor vehicle diesel fuel specifications. An interagency multi-media working group conducted a multimedia evaluation of the production, use, and disposal of PuriNOx. An CEPC public hearing was held on April 30, 2004 in which the CEPC determined that there will not be a significant adverse impact on public health or the environment that is likely to result from the limited use of PuriNOx in California diesel fuel.
- Notice (PDF) – Multimedia Evaluation of Lubrizol’s Application for Verifying Purinox Alternative Diesel Fuel
- Agenda (PDF)
- Presentations about Multimedia Evaluation of Lubrizol’s Application
- ARB Staff Presentation Part A (PDF) – Part B (PDF)
- OEHHA Staff Presentation (PDF)
- Lubrizol Presentation (PDF)
- Lubrizol’s Application for Verifying PuriNox Resolution (PDF)
Multimedia Evaluation of Amendments to the California Diesel Fuel Regulations (2004)
On July 24, 2003 the ARB approved regulations establishing California motor vehicle diesel fuel specifications. The regulations reduced the maximum sulfur content of vehicular diesel, established standards for vehicular diesel fuel lubricity, set new specifications for aromatic hydrocarbon limits, and made other changes. The ARB determined that the distribution, use and dispersal of the diesel fuel expected to be produced in compliance with the diesel fuel regulation amendments would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. On April 30, 2004 a CEPC public hearing was held and the CEPC determined that the regulatory actions of the ARB will not have any significant adverse impact on public health or the environment.
- Notice (PDF) – Multimedia Evaluation of Amendments to California Diesel Fuel Regulations
- Agenda (PDF)
- Presentations about Multimedia Evaluation of Amendments to California Diesel Fuel Regulation
- ARB Staff Presentation (PDF)
- OEHHA Staff Presentation (PDF)
- Amendments to the Diesel Fuel Regulations Resolution (PDF)
The Environmental Fate and Transport and Potential Health Effects of Using Ethanol in California’s Reformulated Gasoline (1999)
On March 25, 1999, Governor Davis issued an Executive Order calling for the removal of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) from gasoline no later than December 31, 2002. The ARB was directed to adopt California Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline regulations (RFG) that maintain or improve upon emissions and air quality benefits achieved by California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline in California. On December 9, 1999, the ARB approved the California RFG regulations that included a prohibition of the use of MTBE in gasoline by December 31, 2002. With the phase-out of MTBE, ethanol was the likely substitute oxygenate that refiners would choose to meet this requirement. The ARB, SWRCB, and OEHHA conducted a multimedia environmental assessment on the use of ethanol in gasoline. On January 18, 2000 an CEPC public hearing was held and the CEPC determined that there will not be a significant adverse environmental impact on public or the environment that is likely to result from the use of ethanol in gasoline.
- Notice (PDF) – The Environmental Fate and Transport of Ethanol in Air and Water (surface and ground) and Health Effects of Using Ethanol in Gasoline.
- Air Quality Impacts of the Use of Ethanol in California Reformulated Gasoline Presentation (PDF).
- Effects of CaRFG3 on Public Health and the Environment Presentation (PDF).
- Meeting Transcripts (PDF)