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.