State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
State Office Building
350 McAllister, Room 1194
San Francisco, CA
September 27, 1979
79-22-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to State
Regulations Which Limit the Lead Content of Gasoline Sold
79-22-2 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Chapter 27
as a Revision to the State of California Implementation
Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead
79-22-3 Status Report on Proposed Model Rule for the Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Gravure, Flexography and
Wallpaper Screen Printing Operations
79-22-4 Other Business
a. Research Proposals
b. Delegations to the Executive Officer
c. Executive Session
ITEM NO.: 79-22-1
Public Hearing to Consider Amendment of the State Regulation
Which Limits the Lead Content of Gasoline Sold in California
Adopt Resolution 79-75 thereby adopting amendments to Section
2253 into Title 13 of the California Administrative Code adding
subsections (h) and (I).
In order to be responsive to the gasoline shortage and make more
gasoline available to consumers, the Board held public hearings
on May 10 and 17, 1979, and received testimony from oil companies
and others on lead concentrations, gasoline supplies, the effect
of lead-content controls on gasoline supplies, and other related
matters. The hearing concluded with the Board adopting
Resolution 79-52 which directed the Executive Officer to adopt
emergency regulations for the granting of waivers to the lead
phase-down regulation until October 1, 1979. Pursuant to
Resolution 79-52, the Executive Officer adopted new subsections
(h) through (n) in Section 2253 of Title 13 of the California
Administrative Code, thereby providing for the granting of
temporary waivers to the state lead phase-down regulation.
Subsequent to the Executive Officer's initial actions, and after
consultation with a majority of the members of the Board,
additional amendments were adopted by the Executive Officer to
clarify the regulations and to make them more flexible. In the
absence of a Board H\hearing confirming these amendments, within
120 days of the date of the Executive Officer's action these
regulations will cease to be of effect pursuant to Section
11422.1 of the Government Code.
The Staff has developed proposed amendments to Section 2253 of
Title 13 of the California Administrative Code which would
continue to allow the Executive Officer to waive the lead phase-
down requirements under specified conditions. New subsection (h)
in Section 2253 would allow the Executive Officer to grant a
temporary waiver to the lead phase-down regulation if: 1. The
Governor has declared a state of emergency in gasoline supply for
the area covered by the waiver, and 2. The Executive Officer
determines that even if all eligible refiners in the area are
granted waivers the additional lead emissions will not interfere
with the attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standard for lead. In addition, the proposed regulation
requires that the Executive Officer consult with the State
Department of Health regarding the adverse health impacts that
may result if the ambient concentration of lead reaches the
levels predicted by the Executive Officer. New subsection (I) of
the proposed regulations would allow the Executive Officer to
impose conditions on the waiver to determine the air quality
impact of the waiver and to minimize the adverse effects of
higher lead content gasoline.
The staff also recommends that the amended regulation be
considered by the Board as a part of the California lead control
strategy when the Board considers the lead portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
ITEM NO.: 79-22-2
Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Chapter 27 as a
Revision to the State of California Implementation Plan for the
Attainment and Maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Lead.
Adopt Resolution 79-67.
On October 5, 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
adopted a national ambient air quality standard for lead. The
standard is 1.5 ug/m3 averaged over a calendar quarter. Chapter
27 has been prepared as a SIP revision in response to the new EPA
standard and the requirement that states prepare revisions to
their State Implementation Plans demonstrating that the standard
will be attained by 1982. Under certain circumstances, this
deadline can be delayed to no later than 1984.
Because no regulatory action is proposed in the adoption of this
chapter, there is no potential environmental impact.
Copies of this proposed chapter were distributed to all air
pollution control districts and to interested members of the
ITEM NO.: 78-17-3
Status Report on Sulfur Dioxide Regulations for the South Coast
Air Quality Management District.
None; this is a status report only.
The California Health and Safety Code requires air pollution
control districts, including the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, to adopt rules and regulations which assure
that reasonable provision is made to achieve and maintain all
applicable ambient air quality standards. Such standards are in
effect for sulfur dioxide (SO2) sulfate, suspended particulate
matter, and visibility reducing particles.
In response to this requirement, the District Board has approved
a strategy for the control of emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx).
This strategy is known as Control Strategy II. This strategy is
designed to achieve the state and national standards for SO2,
however, it will not achieve the state ambient air quality
standard for sulfate.
Implementation of the SCAQMD's Control Strategy II requires an
80% reduction in emissions of SOx from use of diesel motor fuel,
petroleum coke calcining, and fluid catalytic cracking, and 50%
reduction in emissions from industrial and commercial fuel
burning sources. To date, however, rules have been adopted to
implement only the measure affecting fluid catalytic cracking
units, and these rules are less stringent than required by
Control Strategy II. Reduction of the sulfur content of diesel
motor fuel, which would require Air Resources Board action, has
not yet been proven to be cost-effective. Hearings on other
proposed rules have been postponed or continued until dates
between October 20, 1978 and January 5, 1979.
State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Hotel San Franciscan
1231 Market Street
San Francisco, CA
September 28, 1978
78-18-1 Approval of Minutes of August 23 & 24, 1978 001
78-18-2 Consideration of Model Rule Regarding In-Stack 006
78-18-3 Continuation of a Public Hearing Regarding Proposed 056
Extension Exemption of Diesel Vehicles from Certificate of
Compliance Requirements through 1982
78-18-4 Report from the Board's Ad Hoc Panel on Atmospheric
78-18-5 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel and Litigation
b. Research Proposals
ITEM NO.: 78-18-2
Consideration of Model Rule Regarding In-Stack Monitors.
The Board should (1) approve the proposed in-stack monitoring
model rule and direct the Executive Officer to forward it to the
districts for adoption, and (2) direct its staff to request the
air pollution control officers of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District to delete wording in Rule 218 (South Coast) and 110
(Imperial) that requires the Air Resources Board to specify the
type of in-stack monitoring system to be installed at affected
sources, and to determine the acceptability of in-stack
monitoring systems to be installed at affected sources in
accordance with their general permitting regulations and the
In December 1976, the Executive Officer of the Air Resources
Board sent to each air pollution control district and basin
control council, for adoption, copies of suggested guideline
regulations developed jointly by the Environmental Protection
Agency and air Resources Board, regarding the use of in-stack
Either through their own initiative or by action of the Board,
local districts adopted in-stack monitoring rules. Since that
time the staff has been monitoring the effectiveness and
enforceability of these districts' rules.
By "enforceability" the staff means (1) the results obtained from
in-stack monitoring may be used for determining if a source is in
compliance with applicable emission standards and (2) if a source
is out of compliance with the emission standard as determined by
the in-stack monitor, the evidence obtained is capable of proving
the violation in court.
Two districts having most of the sources requiring in-stack
monitors, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, choose to prosecute in-
stack monitoring violations in different ways. Until recently,
the South Coast Air Quality Management District has chosen to
prosecute violations as criminal cases, whereas the Bay Area Air
Pollution Control district has chosen to enforce violations by
use of civil proceedings. Because of the burden of proof
required for criminal cases, and other problems, the South coast
Air Quality Management District has not been successful in its
enforcement litigation. The Bay Area Air Pollution Control
district has never prosecuted an in-stack monitoring case in
civil court. In either event, prosecution would be strengthened
if the enforceability of present in-stack monitoring rules in the
State is improved.
Our review of the enforceability of the local districts' in-stack
monitoring rules and the staff's suggested in-stack monitoring
model rule has revealed certain improvements that can be made.
These improvements can be implemented by Board adoption of the
following changes to the existing guideline regulation:
Rule 1, concerning monitoring of sources and pollutants,
needs to be changed so that it refers to CO furnaces as well
as CO boilers.
Rule 2, concerning installation and startup of monitoring
systems, needs to be altered to require (1) field accuracy
tests for all sources having in-stack monitoring systems,
(2) follow-up spot checks, and (3) the proper placement of
CO2 and O2 monitors.
Rule 3, concerning reporting requirements by sources with
in-stack monitoring systems, needs to be amended to require
sources to supply records of emission levels in excess of 95
percent of the emission limit.
Rule 5, concerning the standard of performance of monitoring
systems, needs to be altered to provide for (1) calibration
checks every eight hours (2) prohibiting tampering with an
in-stack monitoring system between the time of an indicated
emission violation and the next scheduled calibration check,
and (3) monitoring systems having an accuracy + 20 percent
of the approved parallel-test-method value.
Rule 6, concerning violations and breakdowns, needs to be
added to assure that each time period for which an emission
excess is indicated by a monitoring system constitutes a
separate violation, and to assure that malfunction of
monitoring systems constitutes a violation, unless the
condition is a valid, unavoidable breakdown as determined
under the board s model breakdown rule.
Rule 7 (formerly Rule 6), concerning definition of terms
related to in-stack monitoring, needs to be changed to add a
general definition of a monitoring system.
Furthermore, the South Coast Air Quality Management District
and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District have in-
stack monitoring rules (Rules 218 and 110, respectively)
that misconstrue the authority of the Air Resources Board by
stating that the Air Resources Board will specify the type
of in-stack monitoring system required to be installed.
These rules need to be amended to require the air pollution
control officer to determine the acceptability of in-stack
monitoring systems, in accordance with the proposed model
rule and the regular permit requirements of the district.
ITEM NO.: 78-16-2
Public Hearing to Consider the Exemption of Diesel-Powered
Vehicles From Certificate of Compliance Requirements.
Adopt Resolution 78-44.
The present exemption of heavy-duty diesel vehicles from
Certificate of Compliance requirements will expire on December
31, 1978 unless the Board takes action to extend it. In
addition, 1980 and later diesel passenger cars and 1978 and later
light-duty diesel trucks will be required to meet Certificate of
Compliance requirements unless the Board exempts them. The ARB
staff has found that, at the present time, the small size of the
diesel population would not provide sufficient economic
incentives to induce the mechanics or service stations to
participate in such a program. Moreover, at the present time, no
reliable short emissions test exists for diesels. Expensive
equipment would have to be purchased to perform loaded mode tests
and mechanics would have to be extensively trained. As a result,
a diesel C of C program would not be cost effective. The staff
therefore recommends that the Board exempt diesel vehicles from
Certificate of Compliance requirements through 1982. At that
time, the staff will investigate the feasibility of either
including diesels in the MVIP or of creating a separate
inspection and maintenance or anti-tampering program for them.