State of California
                             AIR RESOURCES BOARD
                          Redding County Courthouse
                             1500 Court Street
                                Redding, CA
                               March 7, 1973
                                 9:30 a.m.

73-5-1    Approval of Minutes of February 21, 1973 Meeting.

73-5-2    Consideration of Local Rules and Regulations for
          Agricultural Processing Plants.

73-5-3    Report on the Status of the Programs to Regulate
          Agricultural Burning.

73-5-4    Report on Environmental Protection Agency Hearings on
          Transportation Control for the South Coast Air Basin.

73-5-5    Consideration of Transportation Controls for San
          Francisco and San Diego Air Basins, and Sacramento and
          Fresno Areas.

73-5-6    Report on Air Basin Boundaries.

          A.   Report of Emission and Control Committee on
               Proposed Mountain Counties Air Basin.

          B.   Staff Report on Request for Changes in other

73-5-7    Other Business.

73-5-8    Remarks from the Audience.

                        ITEM NO.:  73-5-2

Consideration of local rules and regulations for agricultural
processing plants.


Glenn County's Rules and Regulations should be revised to conform
with the requirements specified in the Sacramento Valley Air
Basin Implementation Plan.  If necessary, the Board should hold a
public hearing to consider revising Glenn County's definition of
"Agricultural Operations."  The Board may with to adopt
Resolution 73-9, thereby declaring its intention to hold a public

                       FACTS AND DISCUSSION

1.   Application of local regulations to agricultural operations.

     a.   In most air pollution control districts, agricultural
          operations are not exempted from grain loading and
          process weight rules.

     b.   Some of the districts in Sacramento Valley exempt
          agricultural operations in the growing of crops and
          raising of fowls and animals from grain loading and
          process weight rules.  These operations, however, are
          not amenable to control by these regulations.

     c.   Smoke from fires for the growing of crops and raising
          of fowls and animals is exempted from Health and Safety
          Code Section 39077 (nuisance) and Section 39077.1

2.   Requirements of the Implementation Plan of the Sacramento
     Valley Air Basin Coordinating Council.

     a.   The Sacramento Valley Air Basin Coordinating Council
          Implementation Plan defines "agricultural operations"
          as: "The growing and harvesting of crops, including
          timber, or the raising of fowls, animals or bees, for
          the primary purpose of earning a living.

     b.   The Sacramento Valley Air Basin Coordinating Council
          Implementation Plan also calls for process weight and
          grain loading regulations to control particulate
          emissions and a permit system which requires permits
          for construction, modification, or operation of any
          potential new source of air pollution.  For existing
          sources, the plan requires either registration or a
          permit system.  Agricultural implements used in
          agricultural operations on the farm, however, are
          generally exempted from the permit system. 
          Agricultural operations as defined in the
          implementation plan are not subject to process weight
          and grain loading regulation or the permit to operate

     c.   All counties except Glenn County in the Sacramento
          Valley Air Basin have adopted a definition for
          agricultural operations consistent with the
          implementation plan.  Glenn County's definition of
          "agricultural operations" is:

               "The growing and harvesting of crops, including
               timber, or the raising of fowls, animals, fish, or
               bees, for the primary purpose of earning a living,
               and any support or processing operation that is
               seasonal in nature and necessary to the successful
               starting, growing, harvesting and preserving of
               such crops."

     d.   All air pollution control districts in the Sacramento
          Valley Air Basin have adopted process weight and grain
          loading regulations to control particulate matter.

3.   Problems.

     a.   Because of the way "agricultural operations" is
          defined, some existing agricultural processing plants
          are not subject to the nuisance, Ringelmann, grain
          loading and process weight rules in Glenn County.  New
          dryers in Glenn County will be required to meet grain
          loading and process weight rules and to obtain
          authority to construct but not permit to operate.

     b.   This exception provided by Glenn County has cause
          enforcement problems in other counties in the air

     c.   The Colusa County Air Pollution Control District has
          asked the Board to consider a similar exemption for
          Colusa County.  (See attached letter.)

     d.   The enforcement problem encountered in other districts
          was brought to the attention of the Board's Emissions
          and Control Committee at the Sacramento Valley Air
          Basin Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, January 19,

     e.   The major agricultural processing operation in Glenn
          County is rice drying.  Most dryers are in sparsely
          populated areas.  One is in the City of Willows.

     f.   The dryer in Willows has been a source of complaint.


The dryers in Glenn County, particularly the one in Willows,
should be controlled as are dryers in other districts.  The Glenn
County rules and regulations should be amended to require control
of emissions from the dryers and other agricultural processing
plants that are currently exempted.

                         ITEM NO.: 73-5-3

Status Report on State and Local Programs to Regulate
Agricultural Burning.


This report was prepared in response to a request by the Board
for information on the quantities of materials burned on
"permissive-burn" and "no-burn" days and information on actions
taken to enforce agricultural burning Implementation Plans by
local districts.


1.   The program to regulate Agricultural Burning was initiated
     with the promulgation of the Board's Agricultural Burning
     Guidelines on March 17, 1971, as required under Section
     39298.2 of the California Health and Safety Code.  These
     Guidelines provided the basis for local control districts to
     regulate the burning of agricultural waste in the following
     six air basins: Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Bay
     Area, South Coast, North Central Coast, and South Central
     Coast.  Guidelines for regulating range improvement and
     forest management burning and the burning of agricultural
     waste in the entire state where promulgated on June 21,

2.   The Air Pollution Control Districts in the original 6 air
     basins were required to adopt implementation plans for
     regulation of the burning of agricultural waste by September
     20, 1971.  The plans were required to include provisions
     regarding preparation of the waste as well as enforcement
     procedures, which included issuance of permits by fire
     protection agencies.  The Bay Area, orange and San
     Bernardino Air Pollution Control Districts and a portion of
     Los Angeles County were not required to submit their plans
     because these districts had established regulations to
     control agricultural burning before September 20, 1965.  

3.   The guidelines allow the burning of agricultural waste on
     days designated by the Board as "permissive-burn" days.  The
     issuance of burning notices began on September 27, 1971. 
     The districts are permitted to authorize burning on days
     designated as "no-burn" days if the denial of such burning
     permits would threaten imminent and substantial economic
     loss to the farmer.

4.   The Guidelines adopted on March 17, 1971 required quarterly
     reports of permits issued for burning on "no-burn" days.  A
     report of burning on "permissive-burn" days was not required
     by the Guidelines.  The districts were asked to provide
     information on the amount of wastes burned on
     permissive-burn days.  The information is being used to evaluate
     the effect of the program.

     Guidelines adopted on June 21, 1972 expanded this reporting
     program to required reports of agricultural burning on
     "permissive-burn" days as well as on "no-burn" days.  The
     first reports under the new reporting program are due from
     the districts in late April 1973.

5.   The primary responsibility for the regulation of
     Agricultural Burning rests with the local district.  This
     includes enforcement of the burning ban on "no-burn" days
     and requiring that all burning be done in accordance with
     conditions specified in the permit.  The district has the
     additional responsibility to insure that authority to burn
     on a "no-burn" day is given only if there is a threat of
     imminent and substantial economic loss.

     The legal avenues available to the districts to prevent
     burning on "no-burn" days and burning without a permit
     include warnings, citations, and court prosecution.  A
     violation of the Agricultural Burning Regulations is a
     misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail
     not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding five
     hundred dollars ($500), or both, and the cost of putting out
     the fire.  District enforcement actions taken during 1972 by
     air basin as reported informally by the districts are
     summarized in Table 1.

     Of the 31 districts required to regulate agricultural
     burning in 1972, 15 did not report that enforcement actions
     were necessary.

     One problem in district enforcement is the lack of specific
     criteria for determining "threat of imminent and substantial
     economic loss' prior to issuance of a permit to burn on
     "no-burn" days.  Some districts do not issue any such permits;
     others do so only on the advice of the Agricultural
     Commissioner's office.  Other districts issue such permits
     only to destroy a disease or pest which cannot be controlled
     by any other means.

     Permits to allow burning on a "no-burn" day must be reported
     to the Board.  The report must include a summary of reasons
     why denial of such permit would threaten imminent and
     substantial economic loss.

     There have been 574 permits reported in 1972 (the reports
     for the period October 1 to December 31 have not all been
     submitted).  The reports for 25 of the permits did not
     contain sufficient detail to determine a threat of imminent
     and substantial economic loss.  Further information was
     requested from the district for these permits.  In most of
     the 25 cases the districts could not substantiate the
     issuing of a permit to burn on a "no-burn" day.  The
     districts reported that their records did not show the
     reasons, and could not recall the reasons because the
     permits were issued several months ago.  Of the remaining
     549 permits, 31 were issued for reasons clearly indicating
     imminent and substantial economic loss.  These permits were
     issued to control disease and pests.  The other 518 permits
     were issued for the following reasons: (1) burn before
     spraying or fertilizing, (2) burn for double cropping, (3)
     burn for orchard conversion, (4) to meet equipment schedules
     or utilize contracted labor, and (5) burn before rain.

     Enforcement is a problem in many districts that have small
     staffs and large amounts of agricultural burning.  Few
     districts have the resources to inspect each proposed burn
     site prior to the burn, although several do inspect each
     proposed burn site prior to allowing burning on a "no-burn"
     day.  Few districts reported having field patrols on
     "no-burn" days.  In many districts, however, the public and the
     agricultural operators take an active interest in the
     program and assist the district in enforcement.

6.   The Board staff has been working with the districts in
     establishing active enforcement programs.  We have been
     reviewing the district reports on permits issued on
     "no-burn" days.  We have not, however, gone into the field to
     check possible violations.  It is not clear at this time
     what level of enforcement by the Board staff would be
     necessary.  Routine field visits would require personnel not
     included in the present budget.  Randomly scheduled aircraft
     surveillance on a few days during the burn season is being
     explored as a means for enforcement.

7.   The districts are required by the guidelines to report data
     regarding permits issued to burn on "no-burn" days.  The
     daily tonnage of material burned was estimated for each
     permit in addition to verifying the validity of the seasons
     for issuing the permit.  Reports for the period January 1 to
     September 30 of 1972 have been received from all but one
     district.  Reports for the period October 1 to December 31,
     1972 are not complete.  Figure I shows the number of permits
     issued for burning and the estimated tonnage of material
     burned on "no-burn" days.  Figure II shows the amounts and
     percentage of waste reported burned on "permissive-burn" and
     "no-burn" days.  The amount of material burned on "no-burn"
     days in some cases is a high percentage of the total waste
     burned.  In others, the percentage may be small, but the
     total amount of waste is large (over 114,000 tons for a
     three month period in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin).

     The districts were asked to report the daily amount of
     material burned on "permissive-burn" days.  Some districts
     submitted incomplete information; others did not submit any. 
     Many districts submitted copies of the burning permits
     issued (approximately 35,000 were reviewed by the board's
     staff for the period January 1 to September 30, 1972).  Most
     of the information presented in figure II regarding the
     waste burned on "permissive-burn" days was estimated from
     the information stated in the burning permits.  The accuracy
     or completeness of the information is not known.  Figure III
     shows the amount of waste reported burned for the period
     January 1 to September 30, 1972.

8.   Hand tabulation of the information from burning permits is
     time consuming and results produced from manual manipulation
     of the information are inaccurate.  A computer system for
     reporting the daily amount of waste burned is being
     developed.  This system requires that the amount of waste
     burned by each agricultural operator be logged daily by the
     district or fire control agency.  This information will be
     forwarded to the Board staff and transferred to a computer
     data bank.

     Daily totals for each crop type in each district will then
     be made available to the district.  This system is
     anticipated to be in use by May 1, 1973.  The information to
     be provided by the computer should enable comparison of
     daily amounts of waste burned with air quality measurements.

                         ITEM NO.: 73-5-4

EPA hearings on transportation controls for the South Coast Air


None.  This is an information report.


Vice Chairman H. Sullivan presented testimony at the
Environmental Protection Agency hearing on transportation
controls on March 6, 1973 in Los Angeles, California.  This is
the first of series of nine hearings to be held in the South
Coast Air Basin.  A copy of EPA's hearing notice is attached.

                         ITEM NO.: 73-5-5

Consideration of Transportation Controls for San Francisco Bay
Area, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Valley Air


Develop transportation control plans for the San Francisco Bay
Area, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Valley Air
Basins; hold public hearings on these proposed plans and submit
the plans to EPA after adoption.

                       FACTS AND DISCUSSION

1.   When EPA issued its approval/disapproval of the State
     Implementation Plan on May 31, 1972 ("Approval and
     Promulgation of Implementation Plans"), it included the
     requirement that the State submit a transportation control
     plan to EPA before February 15, 1973 for the South Coast,
     San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento Valley, and
     San Joaquin Valley Air Basins.

2.   On September 6, 1972, a court order from the U.S. District
     Court for the Central district of California (City of
     Riverside, V. Ruckelshaus) directed EPA to propose
     before January 15, 1973, a transportation plan that would be
     capable of achieving the oxidant standard in the South Coast
     Air Basin.

3.   The EPA has proposed a plan for the South Coast Air Basin. 
     Hearings on the proposed plan are being conducted during the
     month of March in several areas in the Air Basin, a schedule
     of the hearings is included under agenda item 4.  The
     Board's comments were presented by Mr. Harold Sullivan at
     the March 5, 1973 hearing.

4.   On January 31, 1973, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
     District of Columbia Circuit (National Resources Defense
     Council, Inc. V. EPA) extended the February 15, 1973
     deadline for submittal of transportation plans to April 15,

5.   The staff is developing plans for submission to EPA.  The
     plans are expected to include:

     a.   An emission inventory which includes data acquired
          after the original Implementation Plan was completed.

     b.   A revision of control strategy, taking into account the
          information developed by the staff and obtained by the
          Board at public meetings on gaseous fuel conversion, on
          short-term motor vehicle emission control and on NOx
          control from stationary sources.

     c.   Specific proposals on a program of inspection and
          maintenance; conversion of vehicles to use gaseous
          fuels; program of control emissions from used cars,
          including installation of catalytic devices; and
          control of evaporative emissions from petroleum

     d.   Report on the status of proposal on evaporative control
          of emissions from used cars.

     e.   Discussion of the feasibility of reducing traffic in
          San Diego, Bay Area and South Coast Air Basins.

     f.   Incorporation of the effects of Federal proposals for
          control of aircraft.

6.   The new emission inventory is being developed; a copy should
     be available at the board meeting on March 7.  The
     preliminary data indicate that implementation of the
     technical measures listed in 5c above would enable the San
     Joaquin and Sacramento Valley Air Basins to come close to
     the oxidant standard.  Additional measures of traffic
     reduction are needed, however, for the South Coast, Bay Area
     and San Diego Air Basins.

7.   The staff proposes to include in the plans the following

     a.   ARB has contacted, and will work with local authorities
          on transportation plans that consider air quality.

     b.   The State has recognized the need for transportation
          planning that takes into account air quality.

     c.   A Department of Transportation will be established on
          July 1, 1973.  A State Transportation Plan which
          includes consideration of air pollutants will be
          developed by January 1, 1976.

8.   The staff has scheduled a meeting with representatives of
     the BAAPCD and of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
     to discuss specific items to be included in the
     transportation plan for the Bay Area.  A meeting with San
     Diego County representatives although not yet arranged, is
     expected to take place late in March.

9.   Considering the time required to develop the plans, the time
     for scheduling and for advance notices of public hearings
     and for modifying the proposed plans after the hearings it
     will be June of this year at the earliest before the plans
     are ready for delivery to EPA.

10.  The plan for the South Coast Air Basin would not include
     specific methods for VMT reduction because of the EPA
     hearings which are considering these strategies.

                        ITEM NO.: 73-5-6A

Proposed Mountain Counties Air Basin.


None, this is information related to agenda item 73-5-6B
concerning the status of all present requests for air basin
boundary changes.


The Emissions and Control Committee held a public hearing on
February 9, 1973 in Placerville, California to consider the
request of several mountain counties in the Sacramento Valley and
San Joaquin Valley Air Basins that the Air Resources Board
establish a new Mountain Counties Air Basin.  Attached is a draft
summary of the testimony presented.

                        ITEM NO.: 73-5-7B

Status Report on Requests For Change in Air Basin Boundaries.


This is an informational report.


1.   Subsequent to the establishment of the boundaries for air
     basins on November 20, 1968, four changes in basin
     boundaries were made.  The boundaries in Kern, Siskiyou,
     Solano and Sonoma Counties were changed in response to
     requests from the various counties.  The Environmental
     Protection Agency administration have not made corresponding
     changes in Federal Air Quality Control Regions.  (See
     attached map).

2.   Recently, several requests have been submitted to the Board
     concerning air basin boundary changes.  San Diego County has
     requested to be removed from the Southeast Desert Air Basin
     making the entire county a single air basin.  Lake County
     has made a similar request.  Several mountain counties in
     the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins have
     requested the formation of a Mountain Counties Air Basin.

3.   A public hearing was held, February 9, 1973, on the creation
     of a Mountain Counties Air Basin.

4.   On February 7, the Board directed its Emissions and Control
     Committee to review the overall air basin concept and report
     back with its recommendations.

5.   The staff has forwarded to the Emissions and Control
     Committee for study, copies of the original TAC report, the
     Bureau of Air Sanitation report, the recently revised report
     on air basins and various Board agenda materials for
     consideration of boundary changes.

6.   The staff is assisting the Board's Emissions and Control
     Committee in the review of criteria for setting basin

7.   The Counties requesting the changes have been informed that
     their requests are being evaluated by the Board's Committee
     on Emissions and Control.

                        ITEM NO.: 73-5-7A

EPA hearing on aircraft emission standards.


None.  This is an information report.


The staff presented testimony at the Environmental Protection
Agency's hearing in Los Angeles urging the EPA to consider using
the Ringelmann Rule for the control of visible emissions and
tightening of the proposed exhaust emission standards in order
that aircraft emissions control program be consistent with the
goal of achieving the air quality standards by 1977.  Copies of
the proposed EPA regulations and staff testimony are attached.

                        ITEM NO.: 73-5-7B

Accreditations of the Carter Carburetor Device.


Adoption of Resolution 73-11.


At the February 21 meeting, the Board adopted a motion
accrediting the Carter Carburetor retrofit exhaust device for
1966070 vehicles.  The adoption of attached Resolution 73-11 will
confirm the Board's action for record purposes.

                        ITEM NO.: 73-5-7C

Tentative Schedule of Meeting Places and Dates.


Confirm schedule.


Attached is a tentative schedule for Board meeting dates through
December 1973.  Adoption of this list will delete the meeting
presently scheduled for Tahoe, California on June 7, 1973.