State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD Resources Building Auditorium 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA April 21, 1971 9:30 a.m. AGENDA 1. Opening Statement . . . . . .Dr. A.J. Haagen-Smit, Chairman. 2. Minutes of March 17-18, 1971 Meeting. 3. Report of Technical Advisory Committee - R. Robert Brattain, Chairman 4. Public Hearing: Affidavit on Unsaturation and Reid Vapor Pressure of Gasoline. 5. Public Hearing: Request for Change in Air Basin Boundaries in Solano and Sonoma Counties. 6. Attorney General's Opinion on ARB Authority to Regulate Lead in Gasoline Assembly-Line Test Data. 7. Assembly-Line Test Data. 8. Approvals. a. LPG and NG Conversion for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. b. Approvals of Control Systems. c. Experimental Permits. d. Approvals Under Section 27156, VC. 9. Other Business. 10 Committee Reports. 11. Remarks from the Audience. ITEM Staff Report on Proposed Affidavit on Unsaturation and Reid Vapor Pressure of Gasoline. At its January meeting, the Board adopted regulations regulating Reid vapor pressure and unsaturation of gasoline. this action was taken pursuant to Assembly Bills 80 and 81 enacted last year. ITEM Staff Report on Proposed Boundary Changes of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area air Pollution Control District was created in 1955 (Chapter 1797 of the California Statutes of 1955). It includes the area within the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma. Prior to the passage of Chapter 1235 of the 1970 California Statutes, Solano, Napa and Sonoma Counties had the option to remain inactive members of the District. Under the provisions of Chapter 1235, these counties will become active members of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, effective July 1, 1971. The law also provides that the Board of Supervisors of any of the three counties may adopt resolution declaring that a portion of their respective counties is in an air basin other than San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Such resolutions must be presented to the Air Resources board for approval. The law further provides that any portion of these counties determined to lie outside the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin will be excluded from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District; and will be required to be within an effective air pollution control district. ITEM Staff Report on ARB Authority to Regulate Lead in Gasoline. Attached is the Attorney General's opinion advising that the ARB does not have the authority to regulate lead in gasoline unless it is done by the Board adopting regulations for or acting on behalf of a county or regional air pollution control district pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 39052(f) and 39054 (investigation, report, public hearing, etc). this opinion has been sent to the attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. EDF has requested time to make a statement with respect to the opinion. The ARB need take no further action with respect to regulating lead in gasoline. The Board in November refused to hold public hearings with respect to the regulation of lead in gasoline. The Attorney General's opinion supports that action. With respect to the other points in the EDF petition, a definition of lead is not needed at this time - no action needed; an ambient air quality standard has been set for lead; and the staff is still working on a practical test procedure for lead emissions. ITEM Assembly-Line Motor Vehicles Emission Testing. Assembly-line or pre-delivery testing of new motor vehicles is required by legislation. This report presents the current status of the Board's assembly-line testing program and summarizes the results of test data submitted by the vehicle manufacturers from their own assembly-line tests. ITEM Tax Exemptions for Heavy-Duty Vehicle Conversions to Natural and Liquefied Petroleum Gas. Prior to the February Board meeting, the Attorney General's office had orally advised the staff that there was sufficient authority in AB's 9 and 321 (1970) to permit the Board to approve devices for heavy-duty vehicles. Accordingly, a procedure was selected and resolutions 70-9-C, 70-16-C, 70-34-C, and 70-68-B were adopted by mail ballot, approving systems of four manufacturers. By letter dated March 5, 1971 the Attorney General's office advised that exemptions for heavy-duty vehicles could not be permitted, even if an equivalent emission standard were adopted. The Attorney General gave little weight to the intent of the author, but looked to the specific wording of the statute. Unfortunately the Revenue and Safety Code sections involved refer to sections of the Health and Safety Code which specify emissions for light-duty vehicles; they make no reference to sections specifying emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles. At its March 17-18, 1971 meeting, the Board decided not to confirm these resolutions pending a further review of the question by the Attorney General. He has yet to submit his comments. The staff recommends that resolutions 70-9-C, 70-16-C, 70-34-C, and 70-68-B not be confirmed and forwarded to the Board of Equalization until the Attorney General has indicated the ARB has the authority to approve exemptions for heavy-duty vehicles.