1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON CARB AUTHORIZATION 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1201 Constitution Avenue, N. W. 10 Washington, D. C. 11 Thursday, June 29, 2006 12 10: 00 a. m. 13 14 15 16 17 18 REPORTED BY: 19 DONALD R. THACKER 20 21 22 2 A P P E A R A N C E S 1 PANEL MEMBERS: 2 Margo Oge, Director 3 Michael Wolfe 4 Karl Simon 5 David Dickinson 6 Michael Horowitz 7 Robert Doyle 8 PRESENTERS: 9 Robert Sawyer, California Air Resources Board 10 Thomas Jennings, California Air Resources Board 11 Michael Carter, California Air Resources Board 12 William Guerry, OPEI 13 David Raney, American Honda Motor Company 14 Todd Gerhardt, Kohler Company 15 Joseph Kubsh, MECA 16 Eric Skelton, NESCAUM 17 Blake Early, American Lung Association 18 Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch 19 Bill Becker, STAPPA ALAPCO 20 21 22 3 ATTENDEES: 1 Catherine Witherspoon, CARB 2 James Watson, CARB 3 Susan Bathalon, US CPSC 4 Mark Kumagai, US CPSC 5 David Wetmore, Office of Governor Schwarzenegger 6 Karen Suhr, National Association of State 7 Fire Marshals 8 Peter Sparber, National Association of State 9 Fire Marshals 10 Brenda Northcutt, CAYEPA 11 Bill Charmley, US EPA 12 Khesha Jennings, US EPA 13 Justin Cohen, US EPA 14 Rasto Brezny, MECA 15 Zachary Coile, SF Chronicle 16 Erica Werner, AP 17 Pat Phibbs, BNA 18 19 20 21 22 4 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Good morning. My 2 name is Margo Oge, Director of the Office of 3 Transportation and Air Quality of the Environmental 4 Protection Agency. I will be the presiding officer 5 for this hearing. 6 On behalf of EPA we would like to welcome 7 you to the public hearing this morning. And as I 8 said, we had the rain and we are glad you didn't 9 have to take a boat to the hearing this morning. 10 The hearing we are holding this morning, 11 it is to evaluate small off road spark ignition 12 engine exhaust emission regulations and for a full 13 waiver of its small off road engine evaporative 14 emission regulations. We are also providing a 15 separate opportunity to submit written comment by 16 August 1st, 2006. 17 On the panel today with me on my right is 18 Karl Simon who is director of the Compliance and 19 Innovative Strategies Division. 20 On my left is  who is  on my right is 21 Mike Wolfe who is an engineer with the Compliance 22 5 and Innovative Strategies Division. 1 On the left is David Dickinson and Robert 2 Doyle, both attorney advisors. 3 Next to them is Mike Horowitz, who is an 4 attorney from the Office of General Counsel. 5 And finally, CARB has requested EPA to 6 confirm that amendments to its exhaust emission 7 standards for the small off road engine category are 8 within the scope of previously granted 9 authorizations. In addition, CARB requested a full 10 authorization for the exhaust emission stands if EPA 11 finds that the amendments do not fall within the 12 scope of previous authorizations. 13 And finally, CARB has requested EPA grant 14 a full authorization for its new evaporative 15 emission standards applicable to this category. EPA 16 is seeking comment on these issues. 17 EPA is guided primarily by the Clean Air 18 Act in its review of CARB's request. Under Section 19 209( e) of the Clean Air Act, EPA review of the CARB 20 request is limited solely to the specific criteria 21 identified with this section of the act. 22 6 EPA has issued regulations implementing 1 Section 209( e). In addition, Section 428 of Public 2 Law 108 199, dated January 23, 2004, that was 3 introduced into Congress by Senator Bond and often 4 referred to as the Senator Bond Amendment, further 5 specifics what EOA must consider before authorizing 6 certain California requirements. We encourage 7 interested parties here today to focus their 8 comments on California's request for context of the 9 two authorities. 10 The first issue is whether EPA should 11 consider such exhaust emission standards under the 12 criteria for a within the scope determination or 13 under the criteria for a full authorization. 14 As part of the scope of review there are 15 three criteria that we must determine. First 16 whether the standards undermine California's 17 previous determination that its standards, in the 18 aggregate, are at least as protective of public 19 health and welfare as comparable federal standards. 20 Second criteria, whether the standards 21 affect the consistency of California's requirements 22 7 with Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. 1 And the third criteria, whether the 2 standards raise new issues affecting EPA's previous 3 authorization. 4 The second issue is whether the exhaust 5 emission standards should be considered along with 6 the evaporative emission standards under the full 7 waiver criteria. We request comments on the 8 criteria that also applies to the California 9 evaporative emission standards. 10 Again there are three criteria in response 11 to the California request. 12 First, whether CARB's determination that 13 its standards, in the aggregate, are protective of 14 the public health and welfare as applicable federal 15 standards is arbitrary and capricious. 16 Second, whether California needs these 17 standards to meet the compelling and extraordinary 18 circumstances in the State. 19 And third, whether the California 20 standards and accompanying enforcement procedures 21 are consistent with Section 209 of the Clean Air 22 8 Act. 1 EPA has interpreted the requirement of 2 California standards and accompanying enforcement 3 procedures are consistent with Section 209 to mean 4 that California standards and accompanying 5 enforcement procedures must be consistent with 6 Subsection 209( a), 209( e)( 1), and 209( b)( 1)( c). 7 Under Subsection 209( b)( 1)( c) the administrator 8 shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if 9 he finds that California standards and accompanying 10 enforcement procedures are not consistent with 11 Section 202( a) of the Act. Previous decisions 12 granting waivers of federal preemption for motor 13 vehicles have stated that state standards are 14 inconsistent with Section 202( a) if there is 15 inadequate lead time to permit the development of 16 the necessary technology giving appropriate 17 consideration to the cost of compliance within that 18 time period or if the federal and state test 19 procedures impose inconsistent certification 20 requirements. 21 Finally, we ask for comment as how the 22 9 Senator Bond amendment, specifying safety factors, 1 should be considered by EPA in reviewing the 2 California small off road engine standards. 3 The hearing will be conducted informally 4 and it will be for the record and formal rules of 5 evidence will not apply. However, as the presiding 6 officer, I am authorized to strike from the record 7 statements which are deemed irrelevant or 8 unreasonable in connection with the statements of 9 any witness. 10 Witnesses are requested to state their 11 name and affiliation. Members of this panel may ask 12 the witness questions concerning the issues raised 13 in the testimony. Today we are not going to allow 14 questions from the audience of the witness. 15 We are having the hearing recorded and the 16 transcript will be available for public inspection 17 and copying in EPA Air Docket at docket number 18 OAR 2005 0133. The transcript will also be 19 available for Internet access on the new federal 20 government web site at www. regulations. gov. 21 Anyone requesting to purchase a transcript 22 10 may do so directly from the court reporter. 1 We will begin today with a presentation by 2 the California Air Resources Board. Additionally, 3 we have received requests to present oral testimony 4 from the following organizations and companies: 5 The Outdoor Power  and I believe they 6 are here  Dick. 7 Okay. 8 Second, several manufacturers, including 9 American Honda Motor Company and Kohler. 10 Third, the manufacturers of the Emission 11 Controls Association. 12 Fourth, the American Lung Association. 13 Fifth, the Clean Air Watch. 14 Sixth, NESCAUM. 15 And finally but not least, representing 16 state and local officials. If any other party in 17 attendance today wishes to present oral testimony at 18 this hearing, please inform us now and we will be 19 glad to accommodate the testimony. At the 20 conclusion of all oral presentations, by CARB  21 from the others testifying today, so we will give 22 11 those the same time to respond. 1 With that I would like to invite Dr. Bob 2 Sawyer from the California Air Resources Board to 3 present his testimony. 4 Thank you. 5 Anybody testifying, Peter? 6 MR. SAWYER: Good morning. I am Robert 7 Sawyer, chair of the Air Resources Board. Thank you 8 for holding this hearing. 9 I have come across the country for one 10 reason, to convince you to grant California a waiver 11 of federal preemption for small off road engines 12 emission regulations adopted by the Air Resources 13 Board in the fall of 2003. These regulations go 14 into effect January 1, 2007, so timely action on 15 your part is necessary. 16 We have a three part presentation today. 17 I will begin by making our case why you should grant 18 us the waiver. I will establish the need for 19 achieving the emission reductions from small 20 engines. Although this regulation was adopted 21 before I became chair of the Air Resources Board, I 22 12 have personally reviewed the regulations supporting 1 documentation and will share with you why I have 2 concluded it is technically sound and economically 3 reasonable. I will also address the safety issues 4 that have been raised and confirm what you and most 5 involved in producing engines already know, 6 catalytic converters can be used safely on these 7 types of engines. 8 Then Tom Jennings, our general counsel, 9 will demonstrate why we meet the legal criteria for 10 granting the waiver. There is a long history of EPA 11 granting California waivers for its regulations. 12 There is no doubt we meet all of the waiver criteria 13 and timely issuance of waiver is appropriate. 14 Mike Carter, who developed the exhaust 15 regulations for these engines, will provide more 16 detail on the feasibility of this regulation and its 17 implementation. 18 In the audience is Jim Watson who 19 developed the evaporative requirements for these 20 engines. He is available to answer any questions 21 you may have on evaporative emissions. 22 13 For context I will provide a quick summary 1 of the regulation for which we are requesting a 2 waiver. 3 It establishes exhaust and evaporative 4 emission standards for new off road engines under 19 5 kilowatts. 6 These engines are typically used in lawn 7 and garden equipment. 8 For the smallest engines typically used in 9 hand held equipment we established more stringent 10 exhaust standards that match those recently adopted 11 by the EPA. A permeation standard also applies to 12 fuel tanks. Mike Carter will address these engines 13 later in our presentation. 14 For larger engines typically used in lawn 15 mowers and portable generators, new standards for 16 exhaust and evaporative emissions are established. 17 The exhaust standards are based on the use of the 18 catalytic converter, and the evaporative standards 19 will control running loss emissions through use of 20 the canister as well as permeation. 21 Next I will address the need for and 22 14 feasibility and safety of the regulation. 1 Protecting public health is why we need to 2 reduce emissions of small engines and many other 3 sources. Although air quality is improving, much of 4 urbanized California still exceeds the national 5 ambient air quality standards. Those areas include 6 the highly urbanized South Coast Air Basin and the 7 agricultural, but rapidly urbanizing, San Joaquin 8 Valley. In 2005 more than 19 million people in 9 those areas were exposed to adverse health effects 10 of ozone air pollution often for up to a quarter of 11 the year. To put this into perspective, the number 12 of Californians exposed to unhealthy air is roughly 13 equivalent to three and a half times the total 14 population of the state of Missouri. 15 This map of the United States emphasizes 16 the excessive ozone levels which are faced by the 17 citizens of California. 18 Our existing control program will not be 19 enough to meet federal clean air standards. Air 20 quality modeling for the South Coast and San Joaquin 21 Valley indicates that we will need to reduce both 22 15 reactive organic acids and oxides of nitrogen by 1 more than 50 percent to meet the federal ozone and 2 PM2.5 air quality standards. We must achieve 3 emission reductions from small engines, and many 4 other sources. 5 The small off road engine category is 6 currently the third largest source of reactive 7 organic gas emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. 8 It is dwarfed only by passenger cars and consumer 9 products. At almost 44 tons a day, it exceeds such 10 sources as architectural paints and recreational 11 boats. This is why we have focused considerable 12 effort on reducing small engine emissions. 13 Shown here are the emissions reductions 14 which we will achieve in the South Coast Air Basin 15 as the result of implementing this regulation. To 16 give you a context, many regulations we consider, 17 and adopt, achieve less than 10 tons per day 18 statewide. The small engine regulation will reduce 19 emissions by more than 20 tons per day in the South 20 Coast Air Basin in 2020, and by 50 tons per day 21 statewide. I consider this a regulation of major 22 16 importance to our effort to achieve clean air. 1 Catalysts are used on millions of small 2 engines worldwide. They are: Used on some 3 hand held engines to meet current emission 4 standards; used on millions of scooters; used on 5 hundreds of thousands of lawn mowers sold in Europe 6 for green recognition; used on some small generators 7 to meet current emission standards; experience is 8 catalysts can be used safely and do reduce 9 emissions. 10 Air Resources Board's demonstration of 11 catalyst use on lawn mowers completed in 2003 showed 12 catalysts were effective and durable. EPA's recent 13 study confirms the efficacy of the catalysts. In 14 fact, both studies showed catalysts used on lawn 15 mowers could reduce smog forming emission by at 16 least 50 percent, and as much as 70 percent. 17 It is noteworthy that the standards 18 adopted by the Air Resources Board require 33 to 19 38 percent exhaust emission reduction depending on 20 the engine size. It is my conclusion that without 21 question small catalysts can reduce emissions 22 17 effectively, and will do so when engines using them 1 to meet California standards are introduced next 2 year. 3 Catalysts are safe. 4 While many of you know me as a combustion 5 specialist, I am also registered as a fire 6 protection engineer in the state of California so I 7 have experience and insight regarding safety issues 8 that have been raised. I have reviewed both the Air 9 Resources Board and EPA studies of catalyst equipped 10 lawn mowers based on my knowledge of combustion and 11 safety. 12 The studies confirm that the exhaust 13 systems of current noncatalyzed engines get very 14 hot, hot enough to burn skin and cause debris fires. 15 So the question related to safety is will the 16 properly designed catalyst muffler increase 17 temperatures and increase the risk of fires and 18 burns? 19 Both studies show that engines with 20 properly designed catalytic mufflers do not increase 21 surface temperatures. The EPA study goes on to 22 18 demonstrate this with multiple engine applications, 1 field testing and failure mode analysis and 2 demonstration. 3 In my professional opinion, the results 4 are compelling. Catalytic converters can be safely 5 applied to small engines. 6 My final point is the cost increase of 7 equipping small engines with exhaust and evaporative 8 control equipment is reasonable and cost effective, 9 as shown in this chart. 10 Now Mr. Tom Jennings, the Air Resource 11 counsel, will discuss the legal issues that must be 12 addressed when considering our request. 13 Tom. 14 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 15 MR. JENNINGS: Thank you. 16 Good morning. At a September 2003 17 hearing, CARB's governors board approved the new 18 source standards that are before you today. Since 19 they differ somewhat from the staff proposal there 20 was opportunity for comment on the modification 21 before our executive officer formally adopted the 22 19 board approved standards in July 2004. 1 CARB submitted its observation request in 2 April 11th, 2005. Since the evaporative standards 3 were altogether new, we requested that EPA issue a 4 new authorization for them. On the exhaust side, 5 since we were amending previously authorized 6 standards, we requested confirmation that the 7 regulation was within the scope of previous 8 authorization. In the alternative, we requested a 9 new authorization if EPA deemed that necessary. EPA 10 noted its comments on both options. 11 On June 20th we submitted a letter 12 confirming that our request provided for all their 13 documentation to support a new authorization. And 14 our demonstration today focuses on the issues 15 pertinent to a new authorization. However, we will 16 still urge EPA to consider confirming its amendment 17 on the language it documented for engines it grouped 18 as hand held equipment with the EPA standards 19 starting in 2005, are within the scope of previous 20 waivers. 21 This slide shows the two elements of 22 20 off road engine standards already discussed in the 1 opening remarks. Under Section 209( e)( 2) EPA is 2 directed to issue a requested authorization unless 3 it makes one of three specified findings. 4 The first issue for EPA is whether CARB's 5 protectiveness issue is arbitrary and capricious. 6 The board made its protecting determination in 7 Resolution 03 24, which is in the record. 8 California stored evaporative standards 9 are clearly more effective than the federal 10 standards because there are no comparable federal 11 emissions standards. On the exhaust side, in all 12 displacement categories, the California standards 13 are either as stringent as or more stringent than 14 the federal standards. We did not expect any 15 authorization opponent to challenge CARB's 16 protective determination. 17 Secondly, the administrator may deny 18 authorization if she finds or he finds that 19 California does not meet state emissions standards 20 to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. 21 Since 1984, EPA has indicated that compelling and 22 21 extraordinary conditions does not incur a level of 1 pollution directly but primarily the factors that 2 tend to produce them, geographical and climatic 3 conditions that when combined with the large number 4 of vehicles and the high population in Southern 5 California creates serious air pollution problems. 6 California continues to meet this criterion. 7 Moreover, Dr. Sawyer has noted that California 8 continues to have the worst ozone air quality in the 9 nation. 10 Finally, the administrator may deny 11 authorization if the California standards and 12 accompanying enforcement procedures are inconsistent 13 with Section 209. In this proceeding, the only 14 significant consistency issue is whether the 15 regulation is consistent with Section 209( a) under 16 the two prong test that California has long applied. 17 Under the first prong of EPA test, the 18 regulation under review must provide sufficient lead 19 time to present relevant application of the 20 requisite technology giving appropriate 21 consideration to the cost of compliance. A good 22 22 deal of our remaining presentation will address this 1 criterion. 2 In the seminal 1973 International 3 Harvester case, the U. S. Court of Appeals agreed 4 with the administrator's conclusion that the 5 technological capability does not require that all 6 vehicle models and engines be able to meet the 7 standards as long as basic market demand is 8 satisfied. That same principle applies in the 9 nonroad engine concept. 10 When EPA calculated the years of lead time 11 provided for California standards for heavy duty 12 engines, it is measured from the date CARB adopted 13 the regulation. At the September 2003 hearing our 14 board put the public on notice of the standards 15 being adopted, and final action followed in 16 July 2004. This was 2 1/ 2 to over three years 17 before the beginning of 2007, and 3 1/ 2 to over four 18 years before the beginning of 2008. 19 The second prong of the consistency test 20 requires that federal and state test procedures may 21 not be so inconsistent that a manufacturer cannot 22 23 conduct one set of tests to determine compliance 1 with the federal and state standards. This is not 2 an issue for the evaporative emissions standards 3 because EPA has not adopted those evaporative 4 emissions standards. We do not believe there are 5 any test procedures consistency issues on the 6 exhaust emission side as well. 7 When it enacted the fiscal year 2004 8 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress included a 9 provision on regulation of small engines that had 10 been sponsored by Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. The 11 pertinent part for purposes of this proceeding is 12 Section 428( a) which is shown on the slide. It 13 directs the administrator to, quote, to give 14 appropriate consideration to the safety factors, 15 including the potential increased risk of burn or 16 fire, associated with compliance with the California 17 standard. 18 We believe that this provision does not 19 materially change the factors that EPA is evaluating 20 in this authorization proceeding. Safety has always 21 been an element of EPA would where relevant take 22 24 into account when evaluating technology, feasibility 1 and lead time. 2 CARB fully considers its safety issues to 3 be  and CARB will continue to follow safety 4 developments. Most importantly, in the technical 5 study released by EPA this past March. The 6 remainder of our presentation will include an 7 examination of the data requests. 8 Finally, I would like to highlight three 9 key principles in authorization of waiver 10 proceedings. First as we mentioned, EPA may only 11 consider the three statutory criteria, here 12 expressly including consideration of safety factors. 13 For instance, although CARB carefully considers the 14 cost of compliance with control measures and will be 15 describing the cost effectiveness of the regulation 16 for you today, relative cost effectiveness cannot be 17 used to support denial of the authorization. 18 Second, EPA is to give substantial 19 deference to California's policy judgment. This 20 applies with respect to CARB's findings on safety as 21 well as other items. 22 25 The third key principle is that the burden 1 is on those who oppose the authorization to show why 2 it should not be granted. 3 Michael Carter will now describe the 4 technical aspects of the program, the history behind 5 the rule making activity, and CARB's determinations 6 regarding lead time, capability and safety. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. CARTER: My name is Michael Carter, I 9 am chief of CARB's Emission Research and Regulatory 10 Development Branch. My staff and I have been 11 involved in study and regulating of small off road 12 engines since 1989. 13 The small off road engine regulation for 14 which we are seeking a waiver was developed with 15 extensive public input. We demonstrated that 16 available technologies could significantly reduce 17 emissions. The regulation provides sufficient lead 18 time for product development. It is cost effective, 19 and we showed compliant products will be safe. This 20 latter point has been verified by EPA's recent study 21 and by statements of manufacturers. 22 26 I will begin with a summary of the element 1 of the regulation and then address each of the above 2 points. 3 The specifics of the regulation were 4 developed over a more than three year period. This 5 control measure was developed with input from the 6 individual engine manufacturers, the Engine 7 Manufacturers Association, the Outdoor Power 8 Equipment Institute, or OPEI, the Portable Power 9 Equipment Manufacturer Association, the 10 Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association and 11 safety officials. 12 Four public workshops were held. Staff 13 also had approximately 40 meetings with the trade 14 associations and nearly 20 one on one meetings with 15 individual companies. 16 First, the exhaust emission standards. 17 For the smallest engines, of the type used in 18 hand held equipment such as string trimmers, the 19 regulation aligns with the EPA exhaust standards as 20 of the 2005 model year. 21 For the engines typically used in lawn 22 27 mowers, the regulation set emissions standards for 1 the 2007 and later model years that are based on use 2 of catalytic converters. These standards are more 3 stringent than EPA standards for these engines. 4 For the largest engine categories, those 5 used in riding mowers and similar equipment, the 6 regulation provides an additional year to comply. 7 Our regulation also establishes 8 evaporative standards for this equipment for the 9 first time. 10 Again, the requirements vary by engine 11 size and application. For hand held equipment, the 12 standard consists of a fuel tank permeation standard 13 only. For the other engines, both a permeation and 14 diurnal requirement applies, with fuel hose 15 permeation control required first, followed by 16 diurnal controls a year or two later. 17 These next few slides show the evaporative 18 emissions standards in greater detail. Note there 19 is no diurnal standard for hand held equipment 20 because sealed gas tanks are typically used. 21 For Class I engines used in walk behind 22 28 mowers, compliance with a diurnal standard based on 1 emission testing is required. The diurnal standard 2 begins in 2007 and becomes more stringent in 2009. 3 In addition to use of low permeation hoses, 4 evaporative canisters are expected to be used to 5 capture diurnal and running loss emissions. These 6 control techniques are well established, and 7 emission control requirements are available. 8 The standards shown here are for Class I 9 engines using equipment other than walk behind 10 mowers. This equipment, such as tiller and pressure 11 washers, is often produced in low volume and thus 12 emission testing for evaporation emissions can be a 13 burden. To address this we have provided an option 14 to demonstrate compliance using components that have 15 been precertified to meet design standards. Carbon 16 canisters that can collect and store gasoline vapors 17 will typically be used. 18 A similar approach is provided for Class 19 II engines, such as those used in riding mowers and 20 generators. The diurnal standard design, or its 21 design equivalent, is implemented a year later than 22 29 for Class I equipment. 1 2006 engines are using low permeation 2 hoses, resulting in lower emissions and improved 3 safety. 4 We have issued over 30 executive orders to 5 companies providing design compliant hardware that 6 can be used to demonstrate evaporative compliance 7 for nonwalk behind mower Class I equipment, and 8 Class II equipment. There are no significant issues 9 remaining, and so this aspect of our program has not 10 ignited controversy. 11 Next I will address the exhaust emission 12 standards. For engines used in hand held equipment, 13 we have aligned with EPA standards, that went into 14 effect in 2005. Complying engines are being 15 produced. So no controversy here. 16 This chart illustrates exhaust emission 17 standards for nonhand held equipment, such as lawn 18 mowers. The larger Class II engines standards are 19 implemented a year after the Class I standards. The 20 new standards represent 30 to 40 percent reduction 21 from current hydrocarbon plus emissions standards. 22 30 We expect a compliance with the exhaust 1 standards will result in use of a small, inexpensive 2 catalytic converter. However, the standard is based 3 on emissions, and is not prescriptive, thus any 4 method of compliance may be used. 5 As part of our development and evaluation 6 of the standards, we investigated catalysts 7 thoroughly, including the potential safety issues. 8 Included in our report to the board in 2003 was a 9 summary of a test program conducted by the Southwest 10 Research Institute that was designed to show proof 11 of the concept. The study was conducted with 12 participation by, among others, Briggs & Stratton, 13 Tecumseh, Honda, Kawasaki, OPEI, and the 14 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. The 15 study included both emissions and durability, with 16 temperatures monitored during the tests to ensure 17 safety. At the end, four out of five engines tested 18 were successfully modified to meet the emissions 19 targets. Those targets, by the way, were more 20 stringent than the standards ultimately adopted and 21 presented here today. 22 31 This slide shows emission levels achieved 1 by engines in the Southwest test program. As 2 previously mentioned, the testing at Southwest was 3 designed to be a proof of concept project which 4 ultimately demonstrated that small engines can be 5 designed to meet the Tier 3 standards over the 6 useful life of the engine. One engine, Briggs & 7 Stratton Number 1, on the left side, was removed 8 from the program due to extreme engine deterioration 9 unrelated to the catalyst installation. Of the five 10 remaining engines, four were successfully brought 11 into compliance. 12 Although the focus of the Southwest study 13 was not to optimize temperatures, they found that in 14 some cases, the muffler surface temperatures were 15 actually reduced slightly with the addition of a 16 catalyst, as shown here by the two engines on the 17 left side of the chart. In other cases, 18 temperatures increased with addition of a catalyst, 19 as shown by the three right engines. However, the 20 addition of the heat shield brought the exposed 21 surface temperature well below the temperature of 22 32 the uncatalyzed system, as shown on the far right. 1 Thus, even in those cases where temperatures do 2 increase, a simple solution existed to actually 3 improve the situation beyond the status quo. 4 At the time our regulations were being 5 considered by the board, several organizations fully 6 supported our efforts, including Honda, the 7 California State Fire Marshal and the California 8 Fire Chiefs' Association. 9 Since that time, industry continues to 10 support the standards. A strong indication of the 11 confidence held by much of industry regarding the 12 technical feasibility and safety of the ARB 13 standards can be found in EPA's own small engine 14 docket. Several manufacturers submitted letters 15 asking for national implementation of the California 16 standards even before EPA's own safety study was 17 finalized. 18 Following the completion of the Southwest 19 research study and adoption of our small 20 off road engine regulations in 2003, EPA conducted 21 its own study, as required by congressional mandate. 22 33 As you know, EPA's study focused on safety 1 and was much more comprehensive than ARB's Southwest 2 Research Study in that it optimized catalyst 3 performance for low temperature, evaluated abnormal 4 conditions, and included field evaluation. EPA's 5 study also included input from a number of groups, 6 including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 7 OPEI, the National Association of State Fire 8 Marshals, and the National Institute of Standards 9 and Testing. 10 EPA staff reviewed all the submitted 11 information from these groups, including data on 12 emergency room visits from the Consumer Product 13 Safety Commission National Electronic Injury 14 Surveillance System and data from the National Fire 15 Incident Reporting System, based on firefighter and 16 first responder reports. They then determined seven 17 scenarios that needed to be investigated, covering 18 everything from contact burns to debris fire, 19 to storage related fire. 20 They then proceeded to conduct emissions 21 testing, temperature testing in both the laboratory 22 34 and in the field. And asked an independent 1 contractor to conduct failure mode and effects 2 analyses to determine how the addition of catalysts 3 may affect risk. 4 The study was then reviewed by experts in 5 safety, small engines, and catalysts, and by the 6 staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who 7 indicated agreement with EPA's conclusions. 8 Several specific issues related to 9 catalyst safety on lawn mowers have generated the 10 greatest concern, before and since the adoption of 11 the SORE regulation. The concerns are presented in 12 this slide as questions, with the answer derived 13 from the numerous safety studies and reviews. 14 Will exposed surface temperatures increase 15 and cause an increased risk to operators of fire or 16 burns? 17 No. Properly designed catalysts do not 18 increase surface temperatures exposed to debris or 19 the operator. 20 Is fire likely to occur during refueling 21 or a fuel leak, or due to collection of debris or 22 35 nearby storage of combustible material? 1 No, as shown in EPA's safety study, with 2 properly designed equipment, temperatures can 3 actually be reduced, so it reduces the likelihood of 4 a fire occurring. The EPA safety study also 5 concluded that the surface cool down time of a 6 properly designed catalyst muffler is comparable to 7 existing uncatalytic mufflers. 8 Are failure modes, such as ignition 9 misfire, a problem? 10 No. The risk of misfire can be easily 11 addressed with properly designed catalysts. The EPA 12 study showed other abnormal conditions can be 13 managed. 14 Will failure modes, such as ignition 15 misfire, damage the catalyst? 16 No. Again, EPA safety study also showed 17 that with relatively simple baffling and internal 18 catalyst passages, ignition misfire was not an 19 issue. 20 Anecdotally it should also be noted that 21 it is difficult to believe that misfire is a common, 22 36 unresolvable issue, since catalytic lawn mowers 1 already exist in Europe. 2 The EPA study also showed other abnormal 3 conditions that can be managed with relatively 4 simple conclusion, for instance, a properly designed 5 catalyst incorporating a flame arrester, relatively 6 simple baffling and internal passages as well as 7 limiting the return of air readily addressed the 8 issues of operation. 9 So what were the conclusions of EPA's 10 safety study? To quote, " New emission standards 11 would not cause an incremental increase in risk of 12 fire or burn to consumers in use. Instead, 13 compliance with the new standards should reduce 14 certain safety concerns presented by current 15 technologies." 16 And if I can put it in plain English, 17 catalysts are safe. 18 Which is no surprise, as catalysts have 19 been used successfully to safety and inexpensively 20 reduce emissions for years and even decades on 21 automobiles, forklifts, motorcycles, string 22 37 trimmers, chain saws, and actually, even lawn 1 mowers. 2 Yes, as previously mentioned, lawn mowers 3 are offered with catalytic converts already, at 4 least in other countries like Germany and the UK. 5 The one pictured here is equipped with a catalyst. 6 While it may not fully meet our emissions standards, 7 it is reasonable to assume that any safety issues 8 related to so called off nominal conditions such as 9 loose spark plug wire, air/ fuel variations, improper 10 fuel, and excess air were addressed before the 11 manufacturer offered this product for sale to the 12 public. Obviously, the manufacturer of this mower 13 engine, which, by the way, is Briggs & Stratton, 14 wouldn't sell a product it considers unsafe. 15 Despite the overwhelming evidence clearly 16 demonstrating that there is no incremental risk 17 associated with catalysts, some still argue that 18 there should be additional safety studies before the 19 standards should be authorized. ARB does not oppose 20 these recommendations for further study. Safety can 21 always be improved. However, the possibility of 22 38 other studies should not be used as an excuse to 1 delay this waiver. 2 The international Consortium for Fire 3 Safety, Health and the Environment is sponsoring one 4 such safety study. On the face of it, that sounds 5 like a good idea. Unfortunately, that study would 6 not add any useful information to the record. 7 The study would be redundant with regard 8 to most of its testing. The bulk of the plan is to 9 look at off nominal conditions, just like the EPA 10 study  just as the EPA study did. 11 One of the off nominal conditions 12 identified would require that air be pumped into the 13 exhaust stream at a location upstream of the 14 catalyst. As mentioned at the May meeting in 15 Ann Arbor, in the real world air cannot enter the 16 system unless it is artificially pumped in. So what 17 is there to gain from such an experiment? The 18 answer, nothing. 19 The study also proposes to compare how 20 readily a catalyst and noncatalyst equipped 21 engine would ignite debris, spilled fuel, and stored 22 39 material near a lawn mower. But this kind of 1 experiment is fundamentally flawed in that the 2 researchers are assuming a conclusion that the 3 catalyst equipped engines would necessarily have 4 higher surface temperatures. This is a bad 5 assumption, since EPA's study showed just the 6 opposite, that a catalyst equipped engine can 7 be easily designed such that surface temperatures 8 are equal to or lower than today's 9 noncatalyst equipped engines. 10 Again, the possibility of other studies 11 purporting to evaluate safety should not be used as 12 an excuse to delay this waiver. 13 Waiting for voluntary safety standards, 14 such as might be considered by ANSI, would also be a 15 mistake, as there would be no deadline for 16 completion and no teeth for enforcement. If 17 industry wants voluntary safety standards, there was 18 nothing preventing their development years ago. In 19 discussions with the EPA, all engine and equipment 20 manufacturers indicated that they have various 21 proprietary safety tests. Obviously, the 22 40 manufacturers could have instituted voluntary 1 industry standards many years ago, but saw no need, 2 even when offering products with catalysts. 3 If safety standards specific to these 4 products are necessary, the EPA is the logical party 5 to set them, not industry. EPA's study shows that 6 they have the expertise, and more importantly, the 7 will, to ensure that safety would be looked at in a 8 logical and scientific manner. Furthermore, we 9 believe that any safety standards developed for 10 small off road engines should apply to all the 11 products regardless of whether they have catalysts 12 or not, and should carry strict penalties to prevent 13 unsafe products from entering commerce or remaining 14 in service. These penalties should also apply to 15 any violation of the emissions standards, for 16 heavily polluting engines are also unsafe. 17 Having addressed technical feasibility and 18 safety issues, let me review the lead time given to 19 the regulation. As mentioned before, the smaller 20 engines used in hand held equipment are already 21 meeting the standards in this regulation, because 22 41 they are the same standards EPA has implemented. 1 For the nonhand held engines, the regulation sets 2 implementation at approximately four years after the 3 board's decision. The lead time period is 4 considered typical for a mobile source regulation, 5 giving engine and equipment manufacturers time to 6 adjust their product mix and production lines as 7 needed. 8 Looking at the history more closely, 9 however, one notices that we and EPA have been 10 talking with industry for several years about the 11 need to clean up engines to catalyst based emission 12 levels. In fact, in 1990 the ARB adopted 13 catalyst based standards to go into effect in 1999. 14 EPA granted authorization for those standards in 15 1995. In 1998, after approximately eight years of 16 advance notice, industry asked for more time. Our 17 board was responsive, and modified the regulations 18 to allow more time, in return for getting more 19 durable engines. It has now been an additional 20 eight years, and we now have standards that are less 21 stringent than those for which we have already been 22 42 granted a waiver. 1 The lead time, in terms of this particular 2 regulation, and in terms of notice given to industry 3 that catalyst based standards were on their way, has 4 been more than sufficient. 5 The remaining issue is whether the 6 standards are cost effective in reducing emissions. 7 The figures here show the average cost for hand held 8 and nonhand held engines in dollars per pound. 9 Although higher than for some regulations that were 10 adopted years ago, the cost effectiveness compares 11 favorably to other emissions control regulations 12 adopted by our board, including reformulated 13 gasoline, personal watercraft and outboard engines, 14 and on board  I am sorry, on road motorcycles. 15 The ultimate proof of feasibility, lead 16 time cost effectiveness is that engines meeting 17 those standards have already been certified. 18 For engines in the size class typically 19 used for walk behind lawn mowers, 11 engine families 20 meet the 10 gram per kilowatt hour hydrocarbon 21 exhaust standard already. 22 43 For the larger engines, of the type used 1 in riding mowers and generators, 60 engine families 2 comply with the 8 gram per kilowatt hour hydrocarbon 3 exhaust standard. 4 It is worth noting that not all of these 5 engine families needed catalysts to reach those 6 levels. 7 To summarize, the regulation, which was 8 developed with abundant opportunity for public 9 comment and feedback, is both technologically 10 feasible and safe, has sufficient lead time, and is 11 a cost effective means to reduce ozone precursors. 12 And these conclusions are not just of the 13 ARB staff. Several manufacturers have gone on 14 record with what they think, that they think the 15 standards should be applied nationwide. And, in 16 fact, a number of manufacturers support our 17 regulations and have stated so repeatedly. 18 With that I would like to turn the 19 presentation over, back over to Dr. Sawyer. 20 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 21 MR. SAWYER: This is Mr. Sawyer again. 22 44 In summary, we believe we meet all the 1 requirements for the waiver and request that you 2 give us the waiver and are available to answer any 3 questions that you have at this time. 4 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 5 For the zone emission standards for later, 6 was to be considered within the scope of previous 7 granted waivers from EPA. At the same time when the 8 standards for the request CARB stated that should we 9 find the amendment, and not within the scope, you 10 felt that there was sufficient information to 11 consider it. 12 And so when California sent us the initial 13 authorization request for the exhaust emissions 14 standards for moderately and later, you asked us to 15 consider that within the scope of the previous 16 granted waivers. At the same time, the answer to 17 the request California stated that you felt 18 confident that the information in the request is 19 such that if it is decided to proceed we could 20 address this request as a full waiver. 21 On June 20th of this year we received a 22 45 letter from your staff clarifying that the initial 1 request provided adequate basis to grant a full 2 waiver, was an additional clarification from CARB. 3 Could you explain California's position or 4 within the scope issue before the public hearing, 5 please. 6 MR. SAWYER: I may need some help on this 7 but we would like to go ahead with a full waiver. 8 We feel that that would give us the authority we 9 need to implement our  10 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Anybody else from the 11 CARB team? 12 MR. JENNINGS: I want to second what 13 Dr. Sawyer said. I will mention that we suggested 14 that in one limited area it could be appropriate for 15 EPA to act on within the scope request and that was 16 the hand held engine standards that are aligned with 17 EPA starting in 2005. We think that obviously that 18 doesn't undermine the protectiveness decision, it 19 doesn't present consistency issues, it is simply 20 aligning with EPA, there are no new issues. 21 Any questions for the CARB team? 22 46 MR. SIMON: Yes. Your presentation today 1 showed that the feasibility question and that you 2 supported the lead time, I am wondering what other 3 regulations or mechanisms exist for California to 4 help us to transition, particularly the 2008 5 standards. 6 MR. JENNINGS: Well, one issue that has 7 been presented by some manufacturers is what do we 8 do with engines that are manufactured in 2007 but 9 may not be able to be put on equipment until 2008? 10 And it is our position that in cases like that as 11 long as the engine is manufactured in 2007 and meets 12 the 2007 standards then it is, the equipment 13 manufacturer, with a certified 2008 for instance 14 could use the 2007 engine on the 2008 equipment and 15 that would be consistent with our regulation. 16 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Okay. 17 MR. HOROWITZ: Is that also true for the 18 2007 exhaust standards? 19 MR. JENNINGS: Yes, it is. 20 MR. DOYLE: Bob Doyle. Tom, the 21 manufacturers supporting regulations seem to be 22 47 very  is there any sort of special need or any 1 sort of small manufacturers? 2 MR. JENNINGS: I am not  I don't believe 3 there is, I could be corrected. 4 Jim? This is Jim Watkins, the person who 5 wrote the evap element of the regulation. 6 MR. WATKINS: Yes, there is some relief 7 for small production volume manufacturers that 8 produce less  for evap standards, the focus was 9 not on rotation modes, but not having a cost 10 effective alternative available. So basically they 11 get a bye for the regulations until 2010 and then 12 after that they have to use low permeation fuel 13 loads and carbon canisters. So those applied to 14 manufacturers that produced, that sell less than 15 400 units within an X time span in California. 16 MR. DOYLE: I guess in the final statement 17 recently submitted to us there was some question 18 about catalyst efficiency which would effect, might 19 have some effect on the heat and safety. Is this 20 still an issue and was this addressed in the EPA 21 setting? 22 48 MR. CARTER: Mike Carter again. In our 1 study that we had Southwest do for us, our target at 2 that time was a 50 percent, and there was concern 3 that at that level 50 percent there would or could 4 be some excessive heat problems. So we ultimately 5 adopted by our board  did not adopt or propose a 6 50 percent, we got about 33 percent of it. So with 7 that, with the less efficient catalyst there was 8 less of a concern of heat and the manufacturers of, 9 most of the manufacturers. 10 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Any more questions 11 from the board? 12 Well, I would like to thank Mr. Sawyer and 13 his team, and  as stated earlier, after everybody 14 testifies we would like to hear back from you to the 15 extent you have any response. 16 With that I would like to ask the 17 representative from the power equipment interview. 18 You are next, please. State your full name. 19 MR. GUERRY: Thank you very much. My name 20 is Bill Guerry. I am counsel for the Outdoor Power 21 Equipment Institute. 22 49 I like to see so many familiar faces this 1 morning. I guess I should just start by noting I 2 was impressed with CARB's slides, I was impressed 3 with the questions from the panel. OPEI thinks that 4 questions like this are critical and offer 5 opportunities to sincerely improve the operations of 6 the federal and state governments on board, so in 7 that spirit of constructive improvement, I just want 8 to applaud two things I heard. CARB indicating this 9 would be a full waiver across the board, we 10 generally think that the Section 209 provisions of 11 the Clean Air Act were submitted to provide a 12 meaningful level of reviewing, and we think that 13 everybody is best served by having a full, 14 meaningful EPA review, including the input that we 15 think is brought by having the independent fire 16 experts involved in the process. 17 I also was pleased to hear the 18 confirmation of some of the flexibilities that Tom 19 referred to and I will get to that in my remarks. 20 If I could start to the next slide, OPEI's 21 representation includes manufacturers of catalysts, 22 50 includes manufacturers of exhaust that rely on 1 catalysts. So in no way is OPEI  we have catalyst 2 manufacturers, our primary focus is on equipment 3 manufacturers. We also represent all of the major 4 engine manufacturers, and we are proud to support 5 hand held products. 6 OPEI's principal mission  and 7 independent safety organizations are part of the 8 input into the process. There is a broad input and 9 the principal goal there is to make sure that our 10 products are as safe as possible and particularly 11 the smaller items have some assistance guiding as 12 they develop nonintegrated equipment. 13 Next slide shows a circle of the different 14 types of power equipment, and they include again 15 hand held ground support and riding mowers, 16 walk behind mowers, generators, products like that. 17 Next slide I will just quickly hit. One 18 of the things I wanted to highlight that we would 19 be  different from a lot of other factors, you 20 have got a core group of 50 engine suppliers. There 21 you can see roughly a thousand basic engine models, 22 51 those things go out to 50 and 100, at least OEMs, 1 that 1,500 OEMs, which this is the order of over 2 1,400 are small, very small, and most of those, or 3 many of them display products at the OPEI expo. But 4 it is clearly a  when you go beyond the OEMs you 5 are getting over 2,000 different applications. And 6 in those applications you typically, particularly 7 from the riding mower segment, have the need for 8 customized exhaust systems meaning that there is not 9 a stock exhaust system supplied by the engine 10 manufacturer. The OEM has to design and customize 11 separate exhaust system. As you can see from this, 12 those applications are very complicated distribution 13 process. 14 One of the points that I think Bob Doyle 15 made earlier that I wanted to highlight in this 16 system here you have got a wide continuum of premium 17 products that are going typically for the commercial 18 sector and I think you have already seen and we have 19 noted this morning that there are premium engines in 20 those commercial applications that are less than ten 21 percent of the overall market segment but the high 22 52 volume products that dominate the mass merchants, 1 that is where 90 percent or 80 90  in those big 2 box stores you see 150 to 200 dollars range and the 3 riders are selling as low now as in the 700s. So 4 there is a lot of diversity and it is certainly not 5 a one sided result. 6 The next slide is to highlight once again, 7 there are over we think 1500 small OEMs. They 8 typically lack experience and they don't have the 9 engineering expertise to deal with some of the 10 heat related challenges. And in a stewardship role 11 OPEI is trying to work with all the stakeholders to 12 make sure that they are as knowledgeable and as 13 prepared as possible. 14 The next group of slides I would like to 15 talk about OPEI's history and it is proposed  is 16 to be a leadership in safety. 17 And I would like to comment on a remark I 18 think I heard my friend Mike Carter say regarding 19 development process for heat related standards. 20 Roughly commensurate with the development of the 21 CARB Tier II standards, OPEI initiated a process 22 53 under which Dr. Sahu, who is a Ph. D. in combustion 1 engineering from Cal Tech, initiated dialogue with 2 all the major engine and equipment manufacturers and 3 exhaust system suppliers to start preparing the 4 infrastructural knowledge for the CARB Tier II 5 regulations. As part of Dr. Sahu's analysis, which 6 has been submitted to and is part of the Phase I 7 report by the International Consortium for Fire 8 Safety, Health and Environment, that process 9 identifies the industry's principal off nominal or 10 real world conditions that we believe, or that the 11 experts that developed these products believe that 12 catalyzed products are likely to behave 13 fundamentally differently in certain areas than our 14 current noncatalyzed engines and in certain areas 15 that there may be increased risk that we want to 16 understand better and we want to develop the test 17 procedures needed to best predict what could occur 18 under off nominal or consumer misuse or other 19 problematic scenarios. 20 OPEI has commenced developing ANSI 21 standards for heat related hazard mitigation from 22 54 catalytic exhaust systems. We are going to rely on 1 the work that Dr. Sahu has done in the last two 2 years. We are going to rely on some helpful 3 information that came out of the EPA safety study. 4 We are going to rely on the ongoing work that is 5 being done through the International Consortium and 6 well rely on any other helpful input. We believe 7 that more knowledge is a good thing and you can't 8 have too much when it comes to development of safe 9 products. 10 Now I should also note the importance of 11 lead time, as crucial in design and in testing in 12 the field about the power equipment, and I should 13 note that just in the last few months we have 14 already seen a problem that has led to a recall with 15 permeation, with the low permeation fuel lines on 16 one of our members product lines and I want to 17 highlight that within weeks of finding that problem 18 the OPEI, through the ANSI process, modified and 19 expanded its current ANSI standards for fuel tanks 20 and fuel lines to include a fuel line pull off test 21 which should predict this problem and prevent it in 22 55 the future. 1 Unfortunately, though, we didn't have that 2 procedure in place, we didn't anticipate that the 3 new permeation fuel line would be somewhat more 4 stiff and brittle, would possibly require a 5 different evaluation to predict the hook link with 6 the engine. And I think that is an important lesson 7 for us to see that new emission control technology 8 can raise different risks and it is best to predict 9 and have the time to understand that. 10 Now in the next slide I would like to just 11 briefly highlight that OPEI profoundly values its 12 long standing and close working relationship with 13 all the government regulatory agencies including 14 EPA, CARB and EPSE. 15 OPEI worked constructively with the CARB 16 team to develop the framework for the technology 17 force Tier III evaporative and exhaust regulations. 18 We actually came up with some creative solutions to 19 provide greater evap emissions than CARB's original 20 proposals. OPEI members continue to make 21 extraordinary investments to develop existing 22 56 Tier II compliance products and Phase II compliance 1 products as well as the new Tier III compliance 2 exhaust and evaporative systems. And today I think 3 following my remarks you will hear from two of 4 OPEI's most sophisticated engine manufacturers about 5 their technological achievements. OPEI is very 6 proud of the achievements of its members. In fact, 7 since 1990 the small engine equipment industry has 8 reduced small emissions by over 74 percent. 9 The next slide shows a breakdown based on 10 2006 EPA emission data, looking at both hydrocarbons 11 and nitrogen oxides, and you can see that the entire 12 sector of four cycle small gasoline engines on a 13 national basis is around three percent for AC and 14 NOx, and somewhat lower than three percent in 15 California inventories that our experts have been 16 looking at. 17 All right, next slide I am going to 18 discuss briefly some of the suggested improvements 19 to the EPA waiver process. And again, I want to 20 highlight, I think that there are great public 21 policy issues before us this morning, I think this 22 57 is the very sort of thing that materials and issues 1 that the federal government and CARB and others 2 should be constructively evaluating and we should 3 always be trying to improve the system. I was 4 honored to be asked several years ago to testify 5 before the National Academy of Sciences on similar 6 issues and I encourage all those to review and I am 7 going to cite later some of the study's conclusions. 8 But one of those points that I think all 9 of us are in agreement and I think the national 10 academy also recognizes that currently the latest in 11 the waiver review and approval process has the 12 potential to create significant unfairness in the 13 process. My members in OPEI are the good guys. We 14 produce and supply products. Every day there is 15 dramatic increase in noncompliant products that are 16 coming in often from China and other Asian companies 17 that are knock offs. And our members are troubled 18 that in this model year they are building low 19 permeation fuel lines and products for CARB. And of 20 course CARB does not have waiver authority, and I 21 think as we go forward there is a greater risk of 22 58 the knock offs and noncompliant products coming in. 1 It is ever more important that there be clear, 2 absolute certainty before CARB starts acquiring 3 manufacturers to certify products and to spend money 4 on new technology that they know for sure that 5 everyone will be held to the same standard and there 6 is a fairness in the competitive markets. 7 And I should note that OPEI has had recent 8 meetings with EPA and with CARB's leading 9 enforcement officials over air and we want to work 10 with those organizations to enforce problems with 11 knock offs. 12 Another area that OPEI has suggested 13 improvement  and that is the next slide, if you 14 could  deals with trying to as much as practical 15 where CARB and EPA have similar programs in place, 16 that require similar designs and features, it would 17 sure be helpful for all parties to have and allow 18 consistent, harmonious test procedures. And I know 19 Tom Jennings remarked this morning that he didn't 20 know of any disconnects, and maybe that is because 21 EPA's Phase III evap rules are not yet proposed but 22 59 we know that EPA's basis of Phase III evap 1 requirements on its current recreational vehicle 2 rules and the rec vehicle rules has a different fuel 3 and a different temperature for all the evaporative 4 components supplying of fuel tanks. And we are very 5 hopeful that through this process we can talk 6 candidly about let's make sure that either the 7 harmonized test procedures  and we don't have to 8 retest exact same product with exact same features 9 for the same programming standards, and yet go 10 through like we have had historically duplicative 11 process where we have to retest everything. And 12 what we would really like to have is some reciprocal 13 agreement when you have got the same essential 14 programs and materials and designs to have a 15 reciprocal agreement that CARB and EPA accept each 16 other's certifications so manufacturers don't have 17 to and CARB don't have to spend the additional 18 resources to looking at the same test for the same 19 product. 20 I want to very briefly talk about safety. 21 I think it has been teed up pretty thoroughly in 22 60 this morning's presentation. OPEI's main 1 constructive suggestions to EPA and CARB is we 2 understand that other industries' programs simply 3 look at a bare engine, operating under ideal 4 conditions in a laboratory. 5 But in this industry that doesn't work. 6 We have extreme unpredictable environmental 7 operational conditions with swirling dry grass, with 8 unsophisticated consumers that refuel products 9 shortly after they are operated. Those relatively 10 hot products after operating go into people's 11 garages, the nonintegrated nature, the small OEMs, 12 unsophisticated users all add up to we believe a 13 different calculus than what has been historically 14 applied, and all we are asking is please evaluate 15 the impact of these regulations, not just on the 16 engine manufacturer but on the nonintegrated OEMs, 17 the small businesses that build and operate our 18 equipment, and consumers. And we think that that is 19 a laudable goal that we should all embrace, and it 20 comes down to, you need to look at the real world's 21 operating conditions in which the equipment is used. 22 61 And that promotes sound public policy. 1 Okay. Now the next slide, OPEI 2 conditional support for the Tier III program. I 3 would like to commend, we had a meeting with Mr. Tom 4 Cackette and his staff last Monday, and based on 5 that dialogue OPEI is conceding many, many of its 6 prior positions in the spirit of cooperation to move 7 ahead. And I have been authorized to support the 8 expedited EPA approval of all the Tier III 9 requirements and those apply across the board, all 10 classes of engines, hand held, in ground support in 11 classes I through V. We also support the Tier III 12 exhaust standards from the last one  I appreciate 13 the comments from Tom this morning that those will 14 have the same phase in flexibility with 15 grandfathered engine dates that I will get into in a 16 little more detail. 17 I would like to state I am pleased to 18 report that OPEI plans to conditionally support 19 Class II exhaust standards for riding mowers based 20 on the flexibility that Tom Jennings spoke of. 21 Now I want you to appreciate the pains and 22 62 the challenges that OPEI's members are stepping up 1 to in making this statement. OEMs will need to rely 2 on 2007 model year Tier II certified engines in 3 their 2008 eight equipment model year, and I  I am 4 going to quickly explain here, in the next slide, 5 the basis of the flexibility that we appreciate CARB 6 working with us, but I want to highlight, I had 7 clear direction from my client that it was essential 8 that we get another year effective date and without 9 that there would be a dramatic reduced products over 10 in California. And I am concerned that may still be 11 the case, but I have also  OPEI is trying to get 12 this issue behind us. In the spirit of cooperation 13 we are making major concession here today. 14 If you could go to the next  15 There are roughly a thousand different 16 exhaust systems for Class II engines, which may be 17 substantially redesigned to accommodate catalysts. 18 What is remarkable right now is that, and 19 I am hoping you are going to hear some further 20 explanation from the OEMs, I am sorry, the engine 21 manufacturers comments today, but despite the fact 22 63 that we have world class leaders that are making 1 tremendous investments and doing everything they 2 possibly can to develop the cleanest engines 3 including catalyst engines, the bottom line is that 4 the nonintegrated OEMs, the  even the largest 5 ones, not the 1400 small OEMs, I am talking about 6 the ten largest OEMs. They still have not received 7 the first catalyzed engines to start their very 8 complicated engineering redesign of the exhaust 9 system. 10 We have submitted to CARB, and I am going 11 to put it in copies of papers to Margo and to others 12 today, a schematic that shows under essentially a 13 best case condition, once the OEMs starts to receive 14 catalyzed exhaust systems from their engine 15 suppliers, they will need a minimum of 600 days to 16 start building the very first, the very first 17 prototype and go to production with the very first 18 catalyzed equipment for a rider. 19 Now as you can imagine, many of our OEMs 20 support  they have more than 34 exhaust systems. 21 There is no way that they can do all the work that 22 64 needs to be done both in terms of emissions, in 1 terms of durability, in terms of heat related 2 challenges on 34 products at the same time. So I 3 appreciate, I think it was Bob Doyle's comments 4 earlier that the schematic really only addresses the 5 tip of the iceberg. We are hoping we will get a few 6 to the larger volumes done in time with the 7 flexibility we have been discussing with CARB, but 8 it doesn't get to your point that the small 9 businesses and the small volumes do not quite fit 10 within the time lines that we are accepting with or 11 working with CARB. We are recognizing there is 12 going to be dramatically reduced market offerings 13 and there probably won't be products from the small 14 OEMs. They are relatively at the end of the list, 15 the engine guys only have so many resources, larger 16 volume OEMs first. 17 The next line, I just want to  I am not 18 going to go through this in great detail, but the 19 difficulty of catalyst on Class II engines is rooted 20 in the fact that you have got multiple players, you 21 have got separate and distinct engine suppliers, 22 65 equipment manufacturers, catalyst suppliers and 1 exhaust system suppliers. They go through the 2 process, and the top schematic, those bullets are 3 basically dealing just with the prototype 4 development and you can see there is a sequence of 5 events where everyone is having to interface and 6 they are trying to pull together a system that then 7 meets all the requirements. And anytime that there 8 is a problem and you can see, if the OEM rejects 9 samples then the process restarts. And you get the 10 propensity for lots of recircled to do loops to go 11 back and every time that happens, and if it doesn't 12 happen until late in the durability testing, you 13 really are, it drives the lead time process out 14 further. 15 And I have a schematic and for the record 16 it shows the basis of our 600 days and that is 17 assuming everything goes right. 18 If you could go to the next slide. 19 What I would really like to promote now is 20 the most cogent explanation of why a full 21 understanding of heat related hazards is critical 22 66 for this industry, and what OPEI is doing to promote 1 this understanding. I first want to highlight that 2 OPEI looks forwards to working with EPA in this 3 Phase III regulation like we have in other process 4 to make sure that the heat hazards and fuel leak 5 risks are best understood by all parties. And 6 meet  we believe that the EPA safety study does 7 add a lot of value to the existing  the relatively 8 limited understanding that existed back in 2002 when 9 CARB was developing it is regulations. We think 10 there is a lot more information and that information 11 has been helpful and we still think there is more 12 information that would be helpful, there are 13 additional data gaps to fill, and I think one of the 14 things I want to highlight here is that programs 15 that might be appropriate for California we believe 16 that there are dramatically additional issues that 17 rise on a national basis both in terms of cost, in 18 terms of small business impact, and in terms of lead 19 time. Because again there is a lot of manufacturers 20 who will not make products or don't now for the 21 California market but they are dependent on markets 22 67 in the United States. 1 If I could now go into the safety studies, 2 and I agree with a lot of what I heard from my 3 well respected colleagues at CARB this morning, but 4 I have to say that the, my friend Mike Carter, who I 5 respect, indicated that the additional catalyst 6 studies that is being done with the Consortium was 7 redundant. And I guess my first reply to that is 8 you can't have too much information to help small 9 manufacturers in particular design and test safe 10 products. 11 I mean the bottom line is I don't know who 12 can disagree that improved understanding through 13 multiple studies can only improve industry's ability 14 to produce the very safest products. And I also 15 would like to highlight that what OPEI is doing 16 right now, we had a constructive meeting with Margo 17 and her staff in the last month. We are trying to 18 get as much information as we can on exactly 19 everything EPA did to better inform what we need as 20 the foundation as to develop our ANSI standards and 21 our first goal we had, we had a meeting on 22 68 July 11th, is to best understand where we should be 1 focusing the next phase of the International 2 Consortium studies to make sure that we are 3 prioritizing and building on the blocks that exist 4 and going to the next level. 5 There is a letter that we have a 6 compilation of issues listed and we appreciate EPA 7 responded to most of our questions. I know we have 8 maybe six or seven questions that are outstanding 9 that we look forward to getting EPA's response from, 10 and Margo has committed to give to OPEI all the 20 11 questions that were submitted in the May 24th 12 letter, get a response to all those issues. And we 13 need that before our July 11th ANSI meeting so we 14 can start focusing, and some of the issues we are 15 going to be focusing on are problematic designs like 16 V twin engines during misfires. And I am happy to 17 make that part of the record, but these issues are 18 explained more in our compilation of issues 19 following up on the EPA May 15th safety study. 20 The bottom line is there are certain 21 problematic engineering designs like a V twin engine 22 69 and there are certain problematic operating 1 conditions like spark ignited misfires that EPA 2 studies did not fully evaluate. And the EPA study 3 principally focused on the external surfaces of the 4 outermost guards rather than the internal exhaust 5 gas or muffler skin temperatures. 6 The International Consortium study will 7 focus on those areas where we believe and where our 8 members believe, including the members that make 9 sophisticated equipment models and exhaust systems, 10 we are going to focus on expanding the knowledge 11 base, looking at the temperatures of exhaust gases 12 and muffler surfaces, through thermocouplers as well 13 as the studies EPA focused on, and we are going to 14 look at the worst case or reasonable worst case 15 design features like a twin engine where we know you 16 can get one spark plug in the twin starting to 17 misfire while the other, the engine keeps running on 18 the other cylinder. And that has the propensity to 19 have raw fuel dumped into a catalyst which can, and 20 we have documented, result in over 2,000 degrees 21 Fahrenheit temperatures. 22 70 OPEI appreciates EPA's recent indication 1 that they will technically participate and help 2 educate us as we move to the second phase of that 3 study. I should note that that study, we are on 4 track, we have, and we are proud of this, we have 5 three of the major engine manufacturers, three of 6 the major equipment manufacturers, a major catalyst 7 supplier and a major exhaust system supplier all 8 working together to develop three different 9 catalyzed riding mowers that reflect mid grade and 10 premium product lines to be developed by this August 11 and to be tested through the International 12 Consortium by the end of this year. 13 Again, the next test, the next testing 14 evaluation will focus on how the catalyzed V twins 15 and other challenging designs respond under all the 16 expected real world and off nominal conditions, 17 number one. 18 Number two, what practical safeguards and 19 devices can most effectively mitigate and address 20 the increased heat without creating additional new 21 hazards? 22 71 In this regards I, in my written 1 materials, I have a one pager which includes circled 2 quotes from the very thorough job done by the 3 National Academy of Science, and based on the input 4 from OPEI and CARB and other leading experts, I 5 would just like to quote the challenge, the 6 conundrum of OEMs addressing the different exposures 7 of how do you protect the operator to keep the outer 8 surface cool but at the same time not create a 9 system that contains and holds the heat inside the 10 muffler system longer is clearly one that I think 11 the National Academy was concerned about. And I 12 will quote, this is on page 252 of their report, 13 Debris build up from grass clippings, leaves, and 14 other vegetative materials can become dry and 15 combustible during equipment storage posing a danger 16 when the equipment is next used. Some equipment," 17 and I should note here, this is not a quote, but it 18 is principally what EPA said in its safety study, 19 might include shielding devices or insulation to 20 protect against high surface temperatures. However, 21 insulation can prolong cool down time resulting in 22 72 the equipment being at higher temperatures when 1 placed in storage. 2 The point is the more heat you contain to 3 protect the operator it has got to go somewhere and 4 our concern is how do you make sure that there is 5 not going to be a risk of, increased risk of debris 6 emission or gasoline fumes being sucked into a hot 7 chamber where you can have a muffler ignition. I am 8 going to enter into the record  other things that 9 surprises me about CARB's suggestion today in this 10 study there is a quote from page 255 that says CARB 11 participates in a preimplementation cooperative 12 safety study with manufacturers and fire officials, 13 and that is really what we are doing with the 14 Consortium is exactly what we had proposed back 15 three years ago to CARB and EPA and others and that 16 is to let us develop the best engineered products 17 and test them under real world conditions. 18 Finally, page 3, moving forward, we want 19 to work with all the stakeholders from CARB and EPA 20 through the Consortium process and any other 21 information to develop performance standards and 22 73 procedures that OEMs can apply to test and evaluate 1 the heat related exhaust. 2 Final slide. 3 My final slide is focusing on OPEI 4 continuing to work constructively with all the 5 stakeholders. First and foremost we look forward to 6 working with CARB at all levels to improve the OEMs. 7 We appreciate CARB's allowing that recognition that 8 there is an inner and model year disalignment with 9 engines and OEMs. We are also looking forward to 10 working with CARB to ensure certification process 11 given the fact that we don't believe without 12 streamlined and efficient certification process 13 including catalyzation mechanisms that the different 14 exhaust systems in Class II will get certified on 15 time just given the administrative log jam that will 16 occur. 17 Second, OPEI looks forward to working with 18 stakeholders to improve the understanding across the 19 board particularly for our small OEMs of all the 20 heat related risks through the very valuable 21 International Consortium study. 22 74 Third, based on that study and based on 1 the EPA safety study, we look forward to developing 2 an ANSI process and look forward to having EPA's 3 suggestions to develop the needed heat related 4 documents and procedures. 5 Finally, like all other rules, OPEI looks 6 forward to working with EPA, OMB and all the other 7 related governmental entities that will be involved 8 in the Phase III regulation also. 9 Thank you. 10 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you very much 11 for your willingness to slow down. 12 I have a question for you. 13 You obviously are stating here that you 14 support the CARB waiver request for the Class I, and 15 OPEI plans to conditionally support that. Could you 16 explain a little bit more what you mean by condition 17 numbers being tied specifically very closely with 18 your discussions with CARB. 19 MR. GUERRY: I just want you to know I 20 spoke with Tom Cackette, whom I admire, and we both 21 have a good faith commitment to get a short 22 75 clarification on capturing, he told me he talked to 1 Tom, to capture the compliance flexibilities in a 2 simple document that confirms that the equipment 3 manufacturers, their model year production typically 4 starts in September, and engine manufacturers model 5 year typically don't start until four months later, 6 January. That there will be a clear written 7 statement that says CARB understands that in the 8 market it will be a normal for OEMs, especially in 9 the phasing years, to use for one model year of 10 their equipment the prior model year engine. 11 That confirmation, all I am suggesting, is 12 that we get that done and we agree to it before the 13 August 1st deadline. And then OPEI plans on submit 14 comments August 1st. And I envision, and I am 15 planning, sticking my neck out a little bit, I trust 16 Tom, both Toms, and I am confident we will be able 17 to do that and then we will be able to make comments 18 by August 1 and say we can move forward. 19 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. You have 20 raised a couple issues about the EPA's fire safety 21 study. I am not the expert but I clearly believe 22 76 that we have addressed what you are calling 1 problematic designs like V twin engines during 2 misfire. I would suggest we continue the dialogue 3 with your group on the remaining issues with the 4 agency and I will ask Mr. Bill Charmley here to 5 follow up and make sure we discuss those issues. 6 MR. GUERRY: Yes, I should also commend 7 Margo, we appreciate Margo and Bill and Chet, and I 8 think we have been having, I think, a very 9 constructive technical dialogue in the wake of the 10 meetings and we have been getting helpful responses 11 and I look forward to continuing that process. 12 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 13 Any questions for Bill? 14 MR. DICKINSON: Thank you for the 15 conditional support that you have provided. I am 16 not sure  you mentioned the consistency issue and 17 I just want to be on the record that there are no 18 current consistent procedures, any inconsistent test 19 procedures between California and EPA. I think 20 California's current regulations, you are talking 21 prospectively or future, you are hoping that we 22 77 harmonize. 1 MR. GUERRY: I know, David, the main point 2 here  and we have been working with the issue and 3 quite frankly we actually get, on a principal 4 matter, support from the technical folks at CARB and 5 EPA and they've recently said you should have a hard 6 copy procedure for facts on the report and then they 7 usually say, yes, other governmental agency should 8 modify their procedures and make it consistent with 9 ours. 10 And, you know, in some cases our guys, 11 they don't care which procedure, they just want to 12 have the ability, and I am looking down the road, in 13 the Phase III evap rule principally, to be able to 14 make 150, state line, and where it is standards 15 basically more or less harmonious, can't we get to a 16 place that it is reciprocal? 17 There may be, David, and I am not the guy 18 who does the engines, I hear grumblings at times 19 that there are times that, you know, the useful life 20 period for example, CARB has different useful life 21 periods than EPA. So I think there are some things 22 78 there that have to go through a different 1 reliability. Sometimes the folks are saying, and 2 the label  there is states, there are different 3 designations on the labels ABC, versus  there are 4 small distinctions and when you try to work around 5 them on the current programs, but it just seems like 6 a lot of times the differences do not justify the 7 substantial expense of having to not only build 49 8 state and 50 state products, even where they are the 9 same you go through different  10 MR. DICKINSON: I think we understand, we 11 welcome your comments. 12 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 13 I would like to take a ten minute break. 14 We will be back in ten minutes. 15 ( A recess was taken.) 16 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Our next person to 17 testify from Honda Motor Company. 18 MR. RANEY: Good morning. My name is 19 David Raney. I am the senior manager of 20 Environmental and Energy Affairs with American Honda 21 Motor Company, Incorporated. I am based at our 22 79 headquarters in Torrance, California. 1 I would like to thank you for the 2 opportunity to comment today and your consideration 3 of the CARB request for authorization to adopt and 4 enforce revised small off road engine emissions 5 regulations in California. 6 Initially, three points that I will talk 7 about today. We believe that CARB's request is 8 within all the scopes of its requirement, we 9 strongly support EPA's granting the request. And as 10 I will explain, we also view that EPA has met all 11 the requirements that have been thrown at it during 12 the past couple of years and that nothing should 13 stand in the way of EPA's moving forward with its 14 own regulations for all over the country. 15 I know you are aware that Honda testified 16 at the California Air Resources board hearing on 17 September 25, 2003, that we supported its proposed 18 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. We 19 publicly stated our support and also said at that 20 time we did not believe those standards would have 21 any significant impact on the safety of our 22 80 future engines in comparison to Honda's current 1 engines or products. 2 We made that statement with confidence 3 following our input to CARB staff in the 2002 and 4 2003 time frame leading up to the board hearing. 5 For we had expressed our concerns regarding the 6 level of exhaust emission reduction originally 7 considered. 8 CARB's staff recognized and responded to 9 those concerns, which were not frankly much 10 different than those expressed by other industry 11 members, and they subsequently reduced the 12 stringency of the exhaust standards to a level under 13 consideration by you today. 14 We have a similar statement of support in 15 the docket on similar emissions standards being 16 considered federally by EPA. I have also forwarded 17 to the EPA docket a copy of Honda's statement at the 18 California board hearing on September 25, 2003. 19 A lot has transpired since that date. We 20 have all undoubtedly learned, through our individual 21 development programs, a lot more about what is 22 81 required to meet the CARB proposed exhaust 1 standards. With our research and development, Honda 2 is convinced even more today that the CARB standards 3 for exhaust are technically feasible. We still 4 believe no significant risks will be introduced to 5 Honda products directly associated with these 6 standards, relative to today's products. 7 Additionally, we believe that compliance with the 8 proposed standards can be met, and any risk managed 9 effectively by all of our OEM customers in 10 partnership with us through proper engine 11 application guidance, technical evaluation, and good 12 engineering judgment. 13 Associated with our interest in reasonable 14 and feasible standards similar to those being 15 requested for authorization today, is a primary 16 interest at Honda in having identical unified 17 standards established nationwide for these products. 18 This industry, and Honda, sells products and engines 19 through a multiple step distribution process that 20 includes domestic and foreign OEM 21 equipment manufacturers, distributors and both 22 82 national and regional retailers. 1 It is challenging but not impossible to 2 control commerce so that only California receives 3 the cleanest products. Managing the production and 4 distribution of engines and products with proper 5 labeling and emission control application are 6 challenging considering the complex nature of this 7 industry. With significant differences between 49 8 state and California emission regulations this 9 complexity is increased, in turn increasing the 10 likelihood of possible mistakes in the marketplace. 11 Accordingly, we strongly urge EPA and 12 California to work cooperatively toward a completely 13 harmonized standard for the small spark ignited 14 engine and equipment category for the Tier III and 15 Phase III programs and to work together on any 16 future changes. Honda also recognizes that 17 California is not the only state or city in 18 the nation where air quality would be improved by 19 cleaner small spark ignited engines and products. 20 Honda will, whenever economically feasible, sell 21 engines meeting the lower California exhaust and 22 83 evaporative emission standards to all 50 states 1 before there are even more stringent EPA federal 2 requirements. As soon as CPA can finalize and 3 implement the federal standard harmonized with CARB 4 there will be a fair and equitable playing field for 5 all manufacturers and cleaner air in the rest of 6 this country. 7 With this said, Honda supports EPA's 8 authorization of California adopting and enforcing 9 the new standards for these engines and products, 10 and we encourage EPA to move forward quickly with 11 this authorization. As stated earlier, we believe 12 that identical nationwide standards are important 13 for these products and for all states that need air 14 quality improvements. So we encourage EPA to move 15 forward as quickly as possible with the adoption of 16 its own standards. 17 We sincerely hope that EPA and CARB will 18 work together on these new standards being 19 considered for authorization today and any further 20 standards to ensure that unified 50 state standards 21 will be the norm for the future. 22 84 That concludes my remarks and I will be 1 happy to answer any questions. 2 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. Any 3 questions? 4 MR. DICKINSON: Thank you, David. 5 Appreciate you coming all the way out 6 here. I know it has been a tough week for all of us 7 but thank you for traveling out today. 8 I just wanted to make sure that EPA 9 understood the position, there are 2007 and 2008 10 implemented dates, responsibly suggest that EPA look 11 at March harmonizing our standards with California 12 and we just want to make sure that you are still 13 comfortable with the adoption of the dates and 14 concur with EPA to authorize those standards. 15 MR. RANEY: As far as the dates, yes, I 16 think we read between the lines. Do we think there 17 is a need for delay, and the answer is no. 18 MR. DICKINSON: Okay. 19 MR. RANEY: I think we would echo what 20 Bill Guerry said earlier, that the flexibility is 21 being clarified by the ARB management staff and 22 85 board is sending a strong signal to us that 1 flexibility for complying, there is no need for 2 delay in our minds. 3 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you, Dave. 4 MR. RANEY: Thank you. 5 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Next is the 6 representative from Kohler, good morning. 7 MR. GERHARDT: Good morning, I am Todd 8 Gerhardt, director of current product engineering 9 for the Kohler Company Engine business located in 10 Kohler, Wisconsin. On behalf of Kohler Engines I 11 appreciate this opportunity to comment on the EPA's 12 request for input as they consider the California 13 Air Resources Board request for authorization to 14 enforce the new Tier III exhaust and evaporative 15 regulations. 16 As Michael Carter mentioned earlier in a 17 letter to EPA dated August 25th of 2005, Kohler 18 Company stated that it believes that harmonizing 19 with CARB Tier III standards, resulting in a 20 50 state regulation, is in the best interests of the 21 small engine industry and the environment. This 22 86 harmonization would also provide a reasonable 1 balance among the cost increases, environmental 2 benefits and technical issues that may arise due to 3 the new technologies being introduced to the 4 engines. We further stated that Kohler Company is 5 confident that the resulting compliant products will 6 perform safely and satisfactorily in the 7 marketplace. 8 Based on Kohler Company's development and 9 engineering work completed since August of 2005, we 10 can confirm with confidence that our position 11 remains the same. And therefore, Kohler Company 12 supports the EPA granting the waiver for CARB for 13 Tier III emission regulations. 14 We recognize that Class II engines are 15 primarily used in nonintegrated applications in 16 which there are numerous exhaust systems provided by 17 the original equipment manufacturers. 18 Implementation issues can arise if after treatment 19 is used as the technology to comply with the Tier 20 III regulation. As a member of the Outdoor Power 21 Equipment Institute, Kohler supports the ongoing 22 87 dialogue between OPEI and CARB on achieving 1 compliance flexibility for Class II engines and 2 equipment under the existing Tier III regulations, 3 as long as the level playing field is maintained. 4 This, along with solid OEM relationships and 5 cooperative engineering, will provide the best 6 platform to manage and implement the required 7 changes. 8 Although it is not directly relevant to 9 the waiver hearing, I would like to request EPA's 10 Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 11 require, as part of the waiver approval, the EPA and 12 CARB staff work together to harmonize, to the 13 fullest extent possible, standards and test 14 procedures in the CARB Tier III and future EPA Phase 15 III regulations. It is in the best interest of the 16 environment and the industry to have 50 state 17 standards and test procedures. Harmonized standards 18 and test procedures will allow all small engine 19 manufacturers and OEMs to focus their respective 20 engineering resources on technology to meet 21 regulations, rather than spend resources on 22 88 redundant testing. 1 Kohler Company is committed to 2 participating with the government and regulatory 3 agencies in the development of responsible 4 environmental laws and regulations. As a 5 responsible steward of the environment, Kohler 6 Company will continue to be creative and innovative 7 in our design, engineering and manufacturing 8 efforts. 9 Thank you for the opportunity to comment 10 at this time. 11 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 12 Any questions? 13 Thank you, and Dave, for your ongoing 14 support for the last three years and your productive 15 dialogue and support you have given to our efforts. 16 MR. GERHARDT: Thank you, it has been a 17 pleasure working with the EPA and the ARB. 18 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Next the 19 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. 20 MR. KUBSH: Good morning. My name is Joe 21 Kubsh, K u b s h, executive director of the 22 89 Manufacturers of Emission Control Association, and I 1 am also pleased to be here this morning to provide 2 testimony in support of ARB's waiver request. 3 Our association represents the world's 4 leading manufacturers of emissions control 5 technology for mobile sources, including catalyst 6 manufacturers, substrate manufacturers, exhaust 7 component manufacturers, and exhaust system 8 integrators. And our members have extensive 9 technical and manufacturing experience with the safe 10 application of catalysts to a wide variety of both 11 on road and off road small displacement 12 spark ignited engines including the kind of engines 13 we are speaking about here this morning, or I guess 14 this afternoon. 15 MECA believes that the standards that ARB 16 has put in place are technically feasible. One of 17 the reasons that we can make that statement is based 18 on the large experience base that exists with the 19 application of catalysts for small spark ignited 20 engines. Literally tens of millions of small 21 two stroke and four stroke spark ignited engines 22 90 have been engineered, manufactured and produced with 1 catalysts for a wide variety of world markets since 2 the early 1990s. These catalysts have proven to be 3 effective and durable, and all of these small engine 4 applications that employ catalysts, safe operation 5 has been an important design feature. 6 Next slide. 7 This slide actually speaks in some 8 specific numbers about that experience with 9 catalysts on small engines. There is extensive 10 experience with hand held equipment. In fact, by 11 our estimates, four to five million pieces of 12 catalyst equipment, hand held equipment was sold in 13 the U. S. just in the year 2005. 14 As Dr. Sawyer and his ARB team mentioned 15 this morning, there is also experience on 16 nonhand held equipment, including four stroke lawn 17 mowers that have been sold in Europe and by our 18 estimates more than half a million of these 19 catalyst equipped lawn mowers have been sold in 20 Europe since the late 1990s. 21 In addition, there have been tens of 22 91 millions of small displacement motor scooters, 1 mopeds and other small engine motorcycles that have 2 been produced in catalysts in many world markets in 3 the last ten years. 4 There are a wide variety of catalyst 5 technologies to control emissions from these small 6 off road engines. In the next two slides show a 7 couple pictures of these kinds of catalyst 8 suggestions. They include catalyzed metal 9 substrates, they include catalyzed ceramic 10 substrates and they include catalyzed exhaust 11 components, putting catalysts on nine inner surface 12 of end cones or applying catalysts to wire meshes or 13 perforated plates that are incorporated into 14 catalyzed mufflers. 15 The application of the catalyst in Class I 16 and Class II engines we believe is technically 17 feasible as demonstrated by test programs conducted 18 by ARB and EPA, and based on the extensive 19 commercial experience I spoke of, but by the results 20 that were produced in both the ARB and EPA test 21 programs that address the application of catalyst on 22 92 these engines. 1 Both of these test programs ARB and EPA 2 showed evidence that these catalysts can be applied 3 without increasing safety risks associated with 4 exhaust component surface temperatures. And as I 5 stated at the May 15th ARB, or excuse me, EPA 6 workshop in Ann Arbor, we believe that EPA's test 7 program in particular is the most comprehensive 8 safety study associated with the catalyst 9 applications on small spark ignited engines that has 10 been ever completed to date. And we believe that 11 they correctly focus on incremental risks produced 12 with the application of catalysts to these small 13 engines. 14 We also believe that EPA's and ARB's 15 assessment of the various exhaust catalyst design 16 elements that are available to control catalyst heat 17 release and surface temperatures are consistent with 18 our members experience with the application of 19 catalysts to these kinds of engines. There are a 20 variety of these design parameters, include the 21 size, substrate type, precious metal loading of the 22 93 catalyst, muffler design, use of heat shielding, use 1 of passive air injection and convection cooling. 2 All of these tools are available to deal with not 3 only the emission performance but the temperature 4 profile of the exhaust systems associated with these 5 small engines. 6 ARB and EPA's test program confirms that 7 known and proven exhaust catalyst design principles 8 for small engines can be used to manage exhaust 9 temperatures under both nominal and off nominal 10 conditions without any incremental increase in risk 11 of fire or burns compared to uncatalyzed systems. 12 Integration of catalysts into small engine 13 mufflers utilized uncomplicated manufacturing 14 techniques that should allow for the design and 15 validation of compliant engines within the lead time 16 provided by the ARB regulations. 17 We also believe that the catalyst 18 applications are cost effective, and we provided 19 information to ARB back in April of 2003, with our 20 own estimate of what catalysts for both Class I and 21 Class II engines would cost to comply with 22 94 California's Tier III requirement, and our estimates 1 were at that time that for Class I engines the cost 2 of catalyst would be in the range of $ 1.50 to $ 2.50 3 per horsepower, and for Class II engines in the 4 range of $ 2.00 to $ 3.50 per horsepower. 5 Finally, I would like to conclude by 6 saying Mecca supports the current request by ARB for 7 this waiver, we believe these standards are 8 technically feasible, and that catalysts can be 9 applied to these engines in a safe manner. 10 Thank you for your attention. I would be 11 happy to answer any questions. 12 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 13 Any questions? 14 Thank you very much. 15 I would like to suggest that we hear 16 from  back to the airport? 17 MR. KUBSH: Actually back to Amtrak but I 18 appreciate the opportunity. 19 MR. SKELTON: My name is Eric Skelton. I 20 am a senior policy analyst with NESCAUM, which is 21 the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 22 95 management. NESCAUM is the Clean Air Association 1 that serves the eight northeast states in developing 2 policies and providing information and technical 3 support for states efforts to provide clean air for 4 their citizens. 5 I am here today to support California's 6 request for authorization to enforce its state 7 emissions standards for small off road engines. And 8 my testimony was going to be brief anyway, and now 9 it is going to be even more brief because a lot of 10 what I was going to say has already been covered 11 today. 12 So I was going to talk about the Clean Air 13 Act a little bit and narrow the focus in the act, 14 that EPA must look at in considering a waiver, but 15 that has already been talked about by Ms. Oge and 16 Mr. Jennings and others so I won't go into that. 17 We believe that California meets all of 18 the prescribed tests and should receive expeditious 19 authorization from EPA to enforce these standards. 20 California has gone through its own 21 rule making procedures which you have already heard 22 96 about today from Mr. Carter and from others, so I 1 won't elaborate on that. 2 California is once again leading the 3 nation, setting stringent limits for a significant 4 emissions category, and clearly these standards will 5 be more health protective than current federal 6 standards and will serve as a model for subsequent 7 federal efforts to address emissions nationally in 8 the same category. 9 And I was also going to make the point 10 about this is not new technology, it is out there 11 and in use, but others have made that point already. 12 I did want to offer one quote, though, and 13 this was from ARB's August 2004 revised final 14 statement of reasons as part of the rule making 15 process that I thought was very compelling. They 16 say in their report, " External heat management 17 issues are not new. Every engine that has been 18 equipped with a catalytic converter starting in 1975 19 when the device was first applied to passengers cars 20 had to address the issue of increased exhaust system 21 temperatures and concerns of potential burns and 22 97 fires. The engineering techniques to deal with 1 these hot surfaces also continue to progress but 2 they are straight forward, reduce the heat load, 3 insulate the heat source, isolate the heat source, 4 and actively cool." 5 We are confident that the engine equipment 6 manufacturers will be able to address the challenge 7 of hot surfaces using similar approaches as others 8 who have faced the same challenges three decades 9 ago. 10 And then of course EPA has done its own 11 study as well, and frankly, I was a bit surprised 12 that as part of this process that the safety issues 13 were going to be heard once again, it is kind of 14 like the third bite at the apple. I think ARB has 15 done a very effective job of addressing the safety 16 issues, I think the EPA study, and incidentally I 17 attended the hearing in Ann Arbor in May, was very 18 comprehensive. And so I think those issues have 19 been addressed and it is time to move on. 20 So, some of you may be wondering, though, 21 why the northeast states care whether California is 22 98 authorized to enforce its state standards especially 1 considering that the opportunity for other states to 2 operate into these standards was taken away by 3 recent federal legislation. 4 But I would like to point out just a 5 couple of reasons as to why this is important to the 6 northeast states. And first of all, federal 7 regulations that will reduce emissions nationally in 8 the same engine categories are long overdue. We 9 expect that if there were to be a finding against 10 California's regulations that that would have a 11 negative effect on EPA moving forward with Phase III 12 federal regulations, thus further postponing the 13 emissions benefits that can be realized through the 14 regulations. So it is important to us that that 15 federal process be completed expeditiously. 16 And then I was going to quote a statement 17 that Todd Gerhardt from Kohler made at the May 18 hearing but Mr. Gerhardt and Mr. Raney from Honda 19 have really kind of made the same point again today 20 and that is they are calling for a harmonization of 21 standards between EPA and California. 22 99 Therefore, I would expect the federal 1 standards ultimately to mirror the California 2 standards, and if there were to be a finding by the 3 EPA against the California standards, the adverse 4 impact that that may have on the stringency of those 5 standards would also affect the ultimate stringency 6 of the federal standards, and so for those reasons I 7 think it is important to all states that EPA grant 8 California its authorization to enforce state 9 standards. 10 I would like to close with just a few 11 statistics. EPA estimates there are over 52,000,000 12 residential and commercial walk behind lawn mowers 13 and ride on garden and turf equipment in use in the 14 U. S. today. In New Jersey, which is one of the 15 NESCAUM states, small spark ignition engines 16 collectively emit 136 tons of hydrocarbon on a 17 summer day. This accounts for just over ten percent 18 of the statewide summer day hydrocarbon emissions 19 contributing to smog formation. 20 The NESCAUM states need emission 21 reductions from this very large source category as 22 100 part of the regional ozone attainment strategy. We 1 urge EPA to take the important first step of 2 authorizing California to enforce its state 3 standards and then move expeditiously to adopt 4 similar federal standards. 5 Thank you, and I would be happy to answer 6 any questions. 7 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 8 Any questions? 9 MR. DICKINSON: Thank you. 10 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you very much. 11 Now we will hear from the American Lung 12 Association. 13 MR. EARLY: Good afternoon, I am Blakeman 14 Early. I am here on behalf of the American Lung 15 Association. 16 American Lung Association supports the 17 request of the California Air Resources Board. 18 These regulations follow in a long series of 19 regulations of motor vehicles and their fuels that 20 have been adopted by CARB over the past two decades 21 that have consistently exceeded federal requirement, 22 101 the resulting additional emissions reductions have 1 contributed significantly to reducing ozone and 2 particulate levels in California, but just as 3 importantly many of these regulations have promoted 4 changes in emissions control technology, engine 5 design, and fuel formulation that have been adopted 6 by regulation in other states and by EPA to help 7 reduce air pollution and protect public health 8 nationwide. 9 The authorizing of the small off road 10 exhaust and evaporative emissions regulations under 11 Section 209( e) will allow this highly successful 12 process to be extended to a relatively unregulated 13 sector of emissions compared to motor vehicles. For 14 instance, running a lawnmower for an hour without 15 the subject regulations generates approximately the 16 same amount of hydrocarbons and NOx emissions as 17 driving 13 motor vehicles with California Air 18 Resources Board equipment required in 2006 model 19 year. According to CARB, the application of the 20 subject regulations will achieve an estimated 21 reduction in hydrocarbon emissions of 18.5 tons per 22 102 day statewide in 2010 and a reduction of NOx of 1 approximately 3.2 tons per day. And that level of 2 emission reductions doubles by the year 2020, as 3 Dr. Sawyer presented in his presentation. 4 We believe these reductions are sorely 5 needed to meet compelling and extraordinary 6 circumstances that threaten public health in 7 California. The American Lung Association recently 8 released its annual State of the Air: 2006 report 9 assessing air pollution levels nationwide. Once 10 again California contained more areas with high 11 levels of air pollution than any other state. 12 Indeed, six of ten most ozone polluted cities are 13 found in California. In addition eight of ten 14 counties most polluted by long term particle 15 pollution in our study were found in California. 16 It is well known that air pollution 17 affects children and adults with lung disease and 18 other vulnerable people first and most 19 significantly. It is estimated that these top ten 20 polluted areas in California are home to over 21 500,000 children with asthma, over 750,000 adults 22 103 with asthma, and 500,000 adults with chronic 1 bronchitis and emphysema. In addition, an estimated 2 3,000,000 with cardiovascular disease and 500,000 3 with diabetes live in these areas. And there are of 4 course many other areas in California with high 5 levels of air pollution. California has 28 counties 6 with monitors that measured many days of unhealthy 7 levels of ozone or particle pollution or both. 8 It is clear that while California has made 9 important progress in reducing air pollution, much 10 more needs to be done to protect the public health. 11 The small off road exhaust and evaporative emissions 12 standards adopted by CARB will make a significant 13 additional contribution to an ongoing effort to 14 obtain more emission reductions from more sources. 15 It is also clear that these regulations are 16 consistent with the regulations previously 17 authorized under Section 209( e) of the Clean Air Act 18 and we urge EPA to confirm the authorization of 19 these regulations. 20 That concludes my remarks, I will be happy 21 to answer any questions. 22 104 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 1 Any questions? 2 Thank you very much. 3 MR. EARLY: Thank you. 4 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Now I will ask Clean 5 Air, would you come forward? 6 MR. O'DONNELL: Thank you very much. My 7 name is Frank O'Donnell, and I am president of Clean 8 Air Watch, which is a nonpartisan, nonprofit clean 9 air watchdog group. And I thank you very much for 10 the opportunity to speak today. Thank you for your 11 persistence in proceeding with this despite all the 12 bad weather and other things we have had this week. 13 Aside from the fact that California has 14 met all the appropriate legal requirements to obtain 15 this waiver, there are two very big simple reasons 16 why EPA should grant this waiver. One is the small 17 engines are big sources of pollution and they can 18 harm people's health. California kids would have 19 fewer asthma attacks and fewer emergency room visits 20 with these standards take effect. 21 Second, this is the a state's right issue. 22 105 By law California has the right to protect its 1 citizens from dirty air. And it should be permitted 2 to exercise that right. 3 On the first point, as you know smog is a 4 serious public health problem. It can cause asthma 5 attacks among children and adults, send people to 6 emergency rooms, reduce a person's lung capacity and 7 it has even been linked to premature death. 8 And as you have heard earlier today, small 9 engines are an increasingly large part of the smog 10 problem. 11 I was struck by the statistics that 12 California officials came up with that on a 13 106 gallon for gallon basis small engines pump out 93 1 times more smog forming emissions than new cars do 2 today. That is a shocking statistic. And as we 3 know as cars get cleaner and cleaner small engines 4 are becoming a bigger part of the remaining 5 pollution problem. 6 I believe these standards are absolutely 7 necessary for California to make needed progress 8 towards meeting national health standards for ozone. 9 These standards are needed to meet compelling and 10 extraordinary conditions, and I think that is one of 11 the legal tests at stake here. 12 And on my second point where about the 13 state's rights things, in the past EPA has granted 14 waivers to permit California to set better standards 15 for motor vehicles including cars, SUVs and trucks, 16 and the same thing should happen here. 17 Now in the course of EPA's review of 18 issues related to this issue, questions have been 19 raised about safety and indeed EPA was given the 20 direction to give, quote, appropriate consideration 21 to safety factors. We have long believed this is a 22 107 total red herring, a phony argument concocted by a 1 politically wired, special interest polluter that 2 apparently would rather spend money on lobbyists and 3 lawyers than on pollution controls that would 4 improve people's health. Perhaps that polluter is 5 just afraid to compete with other engine companies 6 such as Kohler and Honda who have reiterated today 7 that they can meet these standards without 8 compromising safety. 9 We believe that EPA has indeed given 10 appropriate consideration to this issue and put that 11 red herring to rest in its March 2006 report on 12 safety which concluded that compliance with the 13 anticipated emission standards could somewhat reduce 14 the risk to consumers, so cleaner air and safer 15 engines is a win win. 16 So let me conclude with just one simple 17 thought. Please grant this waiver so that 18 California can do the responsible thing that its 19 governor and its air pollution control officials are 20 trying to do, and that is to protect its citizens 21 from dirty air. In the words of the immortal Larry 22 108 the Cable Guy, " Git ' er done." 1 Thank you very much. 2 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 3 Any questions? No, thank you. 4 I believe the last one to testify is  5 MR. BECKER: STAPPA/ ALAPCO. First my name 6 is Bill Becker. I am the executive director of 7 S T A P P A and ALAPCO, A L A P C O, which are two 8 national associations of clean air agencies around 9 the country. We represent 54 states and territories 10 and over 165 major metropolitan areas around the 11 country. 12 Now I am prepared to speak for probably 13 50 minutes, but I hear some stomachs rumbling so I 14 will speak for about two minutes then. 15 MR. DICKINSON: You are welcome to submit 16 anything you like for the written record. 17 MR. BECKER: And I think I have submitted 18 a statement. 19 I first want to echo what many have said 20 this morning, what the California Air Resources 21 Board has said, eloquently, and has said with 22 109 complete significance backing up legal and technical 1 information. And I want to applaud the industry who 2 have shown leadership and have come forward and have 3 supported the approval of the California waiver 4 because I think that is, that shows real leadership, 5 not just by California but by the industry who 6 thinks that they can live with this and we really 7 appreciate that. 8 I was prepared in my written statement to 9 get into why EPA should grant this waiver for 10 California, but I can't improve upon what Dr. Sawyer 11 and his staff have said so I won't even try. 12 But I do want to underscore why granting 13 this waiver is so important because that is the 14 first step of what states and localities around the 15 country believe is an equally important second step, 16 and that is to expeditiously propose and finalize a 17 national regulation that will help the rest of the 18 country reduce emissions of smog forming emissions 19 and fog forming particulates. And as has been 20 mentioned earlier by Frank O'Donnell and Blake 21 Early, these conditions are contributing to 22 110 respiratory illness and even premature mortality. 1 Oftentimes we who are technicians talk 2 about nonattainment areas and talk about all of 3 these technical issues and we need to step back and 4 understand what this means in terms of public 5 health. What this means in terms of people's 6 quality of life. And that is enormously important. 7 Now, the reason that it is important to 8 grant California its waiver is as a first step, is 9 because as has been mentioned, and I can't not 10 reinforce this issue, the state was stripped of 11 their authority to opt into California standards two 12 years ago and there are still some very 13 disappointing agencies who have borne the brunt of 14 that amendment that stripped them of their 15 authority. The only thing the state had left was 16 hope that EPA would issue a national rule, a quid 17 pro quo for stripping states authority in a timely 18 manner. And as has been mentioned, EPA's 19 requirement to propose those regulations was 20 18 months ago and counting. And while California 21 hopefully will get its waiver authority quickly, the 22 111 states are still waiting for the Environmental 1 Protection Agency to act and to provide them with 2 the regulatory tools that they need to reduce these 3 emissions. 4 And, I want to put this into some more 5 national perspective. Eric Skelton did for NESCAUM 6 but let me put this into more stark terms. These 7 emissions from the sources we are talking about 8 today represent 50 percent in the year 2020, five oh 9 percent of the total emissions inventory from 10 nonroad engines. These are huge, that is a huge 11 impact. And 15 percent of the total motor vehicle 12 inventory in 2020. And that is significant. 13 You ask why is it so high? And that is 14 because to the EPA's credit, Margo, to your agency's 15 credit, particularly to you, you have been 16 tremendously successful all of you in helping bring 17 down emissions from fuels and other important air 18 pollution problems and I think you deserve a lot of 19 credit for that. 20 So what we are asking is that you take 21 quick action to adopt California's waiver, and that 22 112 you immediately thereafter develop a role 1 commensurate with the successful emissions reduction 2 strategies you have been successful for in all of 3 the other motor vehicle standards, at least as 4 stringent as what California is doing. We feel you 5 have answered ever safety issue, we feel you have  6 California has answered every technical and legal 7 issue. And thank you for your attention. 8 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 9 Now, I should ask  are there any closing 10 remarks, any rebuttal? Any statements, Mr. Sawyer? 11 MR. SAWYER: Let me say that I am just 12 delighted to be here and I certainly appreciate the 13 support we have received from our sister agencies 14 and from the industry which is effective. It is not 15 usual that we get such strong support from the 16 industry and I think that is a credit to my staff 17 who has been working with them, and once again I ask 18 you to approve our waiver request. 19 If there are questions I can answer them 20 at this time. 21 DIRECTOR MARGO OGE: Thank you. 22 113 We are closing this public hearing, I want 1 to thank everybody for attending. I would remind 2 everybody that the comments will be remain open 3 until August 1st. 4 The agency intends to move forward 5 reviewing the comments presented today in evaluating 6 the California waiver, and also in response to 7 comments made by EPA's federal standard agency it 8 believes we are committed to have the, have it 9 finished at the federal level. With that, thank you 10 very much. 11 ( Whereupon, at 12: 37 p. m. the public 12 meeting was concluded.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 114 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER. 1 2 I, DONALD R. THACKER, the officer before whom the 3 foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify 4 that the witness whose testimony appears in the 5 foregoing deposition was duly sworn; that the 6 testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand and 7 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my 8 direction; that said deposition is a true record of 9 the testimony given by said witness; that I am 10 neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any 11 of the parties to the action in which this 12 deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a 13 relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 14 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or 15 otherwise interested in the outcome of this action. 16 17  18 Notary Public in and for the 19 District of Columbia 20 21 My Commission Expires: MAY 14, 2011 22