State of California
                            AIR RESOURCES BOARD
                                
                           State Office Building
                              107 S. Broadway
                                Auditorium
                             Los Angeles, CA
                                
                              June 30, 1977
                               10:00 a.m.
                                 AGENDA
                                                                        Page

77-15-1

77-15-2   Public Hearing Regarding Title 13, California                 1
          Administrative Code, Proposed Motor Vehicle Inspection 
          Procedures and New Motorcycles Compliance Test Procedures.

77-15-3   Public Hearing to Amend Local Rules and Regulations           26
          Pertaining to the State Emergency Plan.

77-15-4   Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to South Coast          343
          Air Quality Management District's Rule 463 Pertaining 
          to Floating Roof Tank Seal Requirements.

77-15-5   Other Business -
          a.   Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
          b.   Research Proposals

                        ITEM NO.:  77-15-2

Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Motor Vehicle Inspection
Procedures and New Motorcycles Compliance Test Procedures.

                          RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 77-33.

                             SUMMARY

The staff has developed proposed regulations on motor vehicle
inspection procedures to further clarify Section 2101(d) of Title
13, California Administrative Code.  Section 2101(d) currently
enables the Board to take enforcement action "... If any vehicle
selected for inspection fails to conform to any applicable law in
... the Health and Safety Code, or any regulation adopted by the
Board pursuant thereto, other than an emissions standard applied
to new vehicles... and an assembly line test procedure ..."  The
new language proposed by the staff specifies that all motor
vehicles must be constructed in conformance with the
manufacturer's application for certification.  This requires the
use of only those components, calibrations and adjustments which
are specified in the certification documents.

The staff also proposes to amend Sections 2101(b) and 2101  to
incorporate specific changes to ARB's new vehicle compliance test
procedures to include motorcycles.  Motorcycle compliance testing
is not covered by current ARB procedures because only engine
families which are "... evaluated according to quality audit test
procedure(s)... during assembly-line testing" are subject to
compliance testing.  No assembly-line testing requirements have
been established for motorcycles.

Motorcycle compliance testing also requires special regulations
because motorcycles are not fully assembled when shipped into
California.  Regulations governing the assembly procedures to be
used are necessary to insure that the bikes tested are
representative of bikes delivered to California customers.  To
assure representativeness, the staff has proposed that
motorcycles selected for testing be assembled at the Board's
Haagen-Smit laboratory.  It is proposed that manufacturers be
allowed to choose between the same "90% compliance without
deterioration factors" and "average emissions with deterioration
factors" options which are used for compliance testing of
passenger cards and light-duty trucks.

Under the proposed motorcycle compliance test procedures,
motorcycle engine families of subgroups which fail to comply with
the applicable standards are subject to the same enforcement
actions which could be taken against a passenger car
manufacturer.  This would allow the Board to take disciplinary
action and/or require the manufacturer to take corrective action
to bring all failing motorcycles into compliance.

The staff believes that the proposed inspection and compliance
test procedures are the most effective way of monitoring the
motorcycle manufacturers' production without a formal assembly-line procedure.  
However, the staff may propose motorcycle
assembly-line inspection and test requirements in the future if
it determines from the inspection and compliance test program
that production motorcycles frequently exceed the applicable
emission standards.

                        ITEM NO.:  77-15-3

Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Local Districts'
Emergency Regulations.

                          RECOMMENDATION

The staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution 77-32,
thereby amending the emergency regulations for the APCDs of
Fresno, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Santa
Barbara, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Ventura Counties, the Yolo-Solano APCD, 
and the Monterey Bay Unified APCD, all as shown in
Attachments I through XVII of the staff report.

                             SUMMARY

On December 15, 1976, the staff reported to the ARB on the
progress being made by the State's APCDs to implement the
California Air Pollution Emergency Plan.  The staff reported that
none of the affected districts had adequate regulations.  At its
December meeting, the Board directed the staff to write the
affected districts to inform them of the deficiencies in their
regulations.  The staff report evaluates the actions that have
been taken by the districts since December 1976 to make their
emergency programs more consistent with the requirements of the
State Plan.  The staff proposes amendments to the emergency
regulations of 17 districts.  Only 2 districts, the South Coast
Air Quality Management District and the Bay Area Air Pollution
Control District, have adopted emergency regulations which the
staff judged sufficiently consistent with the State Plan. 
Several other districts have proposed amendments to their
emergency regulations but have not yet adopted the amendments. 
The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control district and the
Sacramento County Air Pollution Control District have set public
hearing dates prior to June 30, 1977 to adopt proposed amendments
to their emergency regulations.  If adequate amendments are
adopted by these districts, the staff will delete its
recommendations for ARB action prior to the Board meeting.

                        ITEM NO.:  77-15-4

Public Hearing to Consider Hearing Officer's Report and to adopt
Hearing Officer's Recommendation Regarding Proposed Amendments to
the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 463
(Storage of Organic Liquids).

                          RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution 77-13, thereby amending Rule 463 (Storage of
Organic Liquids) of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District as shown in Appendix I of Dr. Alvin S. Gordon's Hearing
Officer's Report, but with such modifications as the Board deems
appropriate, based on testimony at the public hearing.

                             SUMMARY

At the Board's March 25, 1977, public hearing on proposed
amendments to Rule 463 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (Storage of Organic Liquids), the Board changed the
effective date of the no-gap criterion in the Rule to July 1,
1977, with corresponding changes in the compliance schedule.  It
did not act on the proposed amendments because it was concerned
that the public had not been given sufficient time to evaluate
the revisions proposed at the hearing.  Instead, the Board
requested that another public hearing/workshop be held so that
interested persons could discuss the present their views on the
proposed amendments to Rule 463.  The public hearing/workshop was
held on May 10, 1977, by Dr. Alvin S. Gordon.

The proposed rule, which Dr. Gordon recommends, would:  1)
require an accurate record of the true vapor pressure ranges of
the organic liquids stored in tanks subject to the rule; 2)
clarify the terms "primary seal" and "secondary seal"; 3) limit
gaps on primary metallic shoe seals to 1 inch for 5% of the
tank's circumference, -inch for 45%, and 1/8-inch for the
remaining 50%; 4) limit gaps on primary resilient toroidal seals
to -inch for 5% of the tank's circumference and to 1/8-inch for
the remaining 95%; 5) limit gaps on secondary seals to -inch for
5% of the tank's circumference and to 1/8-inch for the remaining
95%; 6) require that provisions be made for easy inspection of
the primary seal beneath the secondary seal; 7) clarify
requirements for primary shoe seal geometry; 8) require secondary
seals to extend from the floating roof to the tank shell; 9)
provide for alternative technology with equivalent emissions
control; 10) exempt pressure-vacuum valves from the requirement
for extension of roof openings below the liquid surface and
specify the p-v valve settings; 11) require 95% efficiency for
new vapor recovery installations; 12) require 95% efficiency for
control devices other than those specified in the rule; 13)
redefine efficiency; and 14) change the compliance schedule to 18
months from the date of adoption for floating roof tanks which
require modifications to comply with the rule and for oil field
storage tanks which first became subject to the rule on June 25,
1976.

The gap criteria in the proposed rule are technologically
feasible.  Field inspections are ARB staff show that a
substantial proportion of tanks equipped with floating roofs
could comply with the proposed gap criteria.  Stringent gap
criteria would have the effect of forcing owners to ensure that
seals are properly maintained and functional.  The requirement
that provisions be made to allow for easy inspection of primary
seals would alleviate a problem the staff has had in measuring
primary-seal gaps on tanks equipped with secondary seals.