BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 9: 00 A. M. JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Alan Lloyd, Chairperson Mr. Joseph Calhoun Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Professor Hugh Friedman Dr. William Friedman Supervisor Barbara Patrick Mrs. Barbara Riordan BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED Dr. William Burke Mr. Matthew McKinnon Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. Gerhard Achtelik, Air Pollution Specialist, MSCD Ms. Analisa Bevan, Manager, ZEV Implementation Section Ms. Crystal Reul Chen, Air Resources Engineer, Retrofit Implementation Section, MSCD Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, MSCD Ms. Cynthia Garcia, Population Studies Section, Research Division Ms. Annette Hebert, Chief, Heavy Duty Diesel In Use Strategies Branch, MSCD Mr. Jack Kitowski, Chief, On Road Controls Branch Mr. Bob Loscutoff, Chief, Monitoring and Laboratory Division Ms. Alexa Malik, Board Secretary Mr. George Poppic, Staff Counsel Mr. David Salardino, Mobile Source Control Division Ms. Nancy Steele, Manager, Retrofit Implementation Section, MSCD Mr. Jim Watson, Monitoring and Laboratory Division ALSO PRESENT Mr. Tom Addison, Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts Ms. Yvette Agredano, California Chapters of SWANA Mr. David Achiro, Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal Co., Inc. Mr. Don Anair, Union of Concerned Scientists Mr. Jeff Arnold, Association of Rotation Molders PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Kelly Astor, CA Refuse Removal Council Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC Mr. Rick Bell, Dupont Ms. Emily Brown, Inform Mr. Doug Button, South San Francisco Scavenger Co., Inc. Mr. Todd Campbell, City of Burbank & Coalition for Clean Air Mr. Frank Caponi, L. A. County of Sanitation Mr. Richard Caglia II, Industrial Waste and Salvage Mr. Bill Dobert, Specialty Solid Waste, CRRC Mr. Sean Edgar, California Refuse Removal Council Ms. Shiela Edwards, Marine Sanitary Service Mr. Mark Figone, East Bay Sanitary Company, Inc. Mr. Jack Fiori, California Waste Recovery Systems Mr. Tom Fulks, Green Car Institute Ms. Sheryl Granzella, Richmond Sanitary Service Mr. Bill Guerry, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute Mr. Chuck Helget, Allied Waste Industries Mr. David Huerta, City of Fremont Ms. Bonnie Holmes Gen, American Lung Association Ms. Yvonne Hunter, League of California Cities Mr. Robert Kittell, Electricab Energy Dr. Joseph Kubsh, Manufacturer's Emission Control Association PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ v APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Mark Leary, California Integrated Waste Mr. Jed Mandel, Engine Manufacturers Association Mr. Alan Marchant, Turlock Scavenger Company Mr. Ruben Martinez, Diesel Air Fleet Service Mr. John McNamara, California Refuse Removal Council Mr. Jim Medich, City of West Sacramento Mr. Sam Mendoza, City of San Diego Mr. Daniel Meyers, City of Los Angeles Mr. Harry Miller, Tracy Delta Solid Waste Management Co. Mr. David Modisette, Public Policy Advocates Mr. Michael Mohajer, L. A. County Solid Waste Management Committee Ms. Patricia Monahan, Union of Concerned Scientists Mr. Kevin Mullins, Mill Valley Refuse Service Mr. Graham Noyes, World Energy Mr. Louie Pellegrini, Peninsula Sanitary Service Ms. Kathryn Phillips, Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies Ms. Mary Pitto, Regional Council of Rural Counties Mr. Ronald Proto, CCRC Member Consulting Group Mr. David Raney, Honda Mr. Andy Rose Mr. Greg Sanders, Varner Brothers, Inc. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ vi APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Harry Schrauth, City of Oakland Mr. Dennis Shuler, Gilton Solid Waste Management Mr. Wendel Smith, Global Fuel Mr. Scott Smithline, Californians Against Waste Mr. Kent Stoddard, Waste Management Mr. Timothy Vail, General Motors Mr. Tim Ward, CA Independent Oil Marketing Association Mr. Paul Wuebben, South Coast AQMD Ms. Stephanie Williams, CA Trucking Association Mr. David Wilson, City of Los Angeles Ms. Karen Wilson, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ vii INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Item 03 7 1 Chairman Lloyd 16 Executive Officer Witherspoon 17 Staff Presentation 17 Q& A 21 Item 03 7 2 Chairperson Lloyd 22 Executive Officer Witherspoon 23 Staff Presentation 25 Ombudsman Tschogl 42 Q& A 44 Mr. Mark Leary 54 Ms. Yvonne Hunter 58 Mr. Daniel Meyers 60 Ms. Mary Pitto 61 Mr. Harry Schrauth 62 Mr. Michael Mohajer 62 Ms. Yvette Agredano 65 Mr. Sam Mendoza 68 Mr. Frank Caponi 75 Mr. Jed Mandel 77 Ms. Emily Brown 89 Mr. David Huerta 92 Mr. Graham Noyes 93 Ms. Stephanie Williams 100 Mr. Tim Ward 116 Mr. Kelly Astor 118 Mr. Bill Dobert 132 Mr. Greg Sanders 135 Mr. Jack Fiori 138 Mr. Andy Rose 141 Mr. Mark Figone 143 Mr. Dennis Shuler 147 Ms. Sheila Edwards 149 Mr. Kevin Mullins 151 Mr. Louie Pellegrini 154 Ms. Sheryl Granzella 157 Mr. Ronald Proto 158 Mr. Doug Button 159 Mr. David Archiro 161 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ viii INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Item 03 7 2 continued Mr. Henry Miller 162 Mr. Alan Marchant 165 Mr. John McNamara 166 Mr. Richard Caglia 171 Mr. Sean Edgar 172 Mr. Chuck Helget 176 Mr. Kent Stoddard 179 Mr. David Wilson 184 Mr. Paul Wuebben 187 Mr. Ruben Martinez 188 Dr. Joseph Kubsh 191 Mr. Scott Smithline 193 Ms. Karen Wilson 195 Mr. Todd Campbell 197 Ms. Bonnie Holmes Gen 203 Mr. Todd Addison 206 Ms. Patricia Monahan 208 Ms. Diane Bailey 212 Mr. Wendel Smith 214 Q& A 215 Motion 230 Vote 234 Item 03 7 3 235 Chairperson Lloyd 235 Executive Officer Witherspoon 237 Staff Presentation 239 Q& A 266 Ombudsman Tschogl 284 Mr. David Raney 287 Mr. Bill Guerry 297 Mr. Joseph Kubsh 310 Mr. Don Anair 314 Mr. Rick Bell 316 Mr. Jeff Arnold 321 Mr. Jeff Medich 326 Mr. Dave Modisette 328 Mr. Jed Mandel 337 Discussion 354 Motion 355 Vote 359 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ ix INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Item 03 7 4 360 Chairperson Lloyd 360 Executive Officer Witherspoon 361 Staff Presentation 362 Q& A 371 Mr. Timothy Vail 378 Mr. Tom Fulks 384 Mr. Robert Kittell 395 Ms. Kathryn Phillips 399 Discussion 405 Adjournment 410 Reporters' Certificates 412 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The September 3 25th, 2003, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will 4 now please come to order. 5 Dr. Friedman, will you please lead us in the 6 pledge of allegiance. 7 ( Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 8 Recited in Unison.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 10 Will the Clerk of the Board please call the roll? 11 BOARD CLERK MALIK: Dr. Burke? 12 Mr. Calhoun? 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 14 BOARD CLERK MALIK: Ms. D'Adamo? 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 16 BOARD CLERK MALIK: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 17 Professor Friedman? 18 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Here. 19 BOARD CLERK MALIK: Dr. Friedman? 20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Here. 21 BOARD CLERK MALIK: Mr. McKinnon? 22 Supervisor Patrick? 23 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 24 BOARD CLERK MALIK: Ms. Riordan? 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 2 1 BOARD CLERK MALIK: Supervisor Roberts? 2 Chairman Lloyd? 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 4 Thank you very much. 5 Before we start this morning, I'd just like to 6 highlight a couple of my activities in the last week, and 7 one of those is Mike Scheible and myself had a chance to 8 go down to the port of Los Angeles last week to see 9 firsthand some of the issues being faced by the port and 10 also understand what can be done in terms of mitigating 11 air quality and emission issues there. So again, we had a 12 great hosting of the visit, and I think it was very, very 13 educational. Everybody has the opportunity to do that  14 it was really impressive. And to see it's the third 15 largest port in the world behind Singapore and Hong Kong, 16 although that's traded sometime with the Port of Long 17 Beach. 18 A few interesting pieces, looking at the truck 19 traffic coming in there as well as now the increasing 20 train and rail traffic, so I think there's nothing like 21 going in firsthand and seeing what's going on. 22 Another week a delegation of us had gone down 23 including Ms. D'Adamo to visit three dairies down in 24 Modesto area, and again, that was very educational to see 25 what was going on and to understand the complexity. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 3 1 I'd just like to indicate the first slide 2 indicates the opportunity that Mike and I had to go out in 3 the early morning and to actually go up on one of these 4 rope ladders and we climbed up on the container ship. You 5 can see the containers right at the top. It's about 200 6 feet going up there. So we had to make sure when you got 7 on board, if it was rising and falling, make sure you got 8 out on the up. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, is that  10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That's me going up. Mike  we 11 have another picture of Mike also. Mike was there. We 12 had a great time. 13 That's the real story. We were disappointed that 14 we didn't have to travel further. But the person who did 15 the photography, his wife is a professional photographer 16 so he said he could embellish that for us. But it was 17 very  it's like the fishtail. But on the serious side, 18 it was very educational. A lot can be done. But also you 19 look at this when you have 70,000 hour power diesel 20 engines coming in. You can understand the magnitude and 21 also understand what can and cannot be done when we talk 22 about electrification and whatnot. It's easier for new 23 engines than older engines. But also the port  I was 24 impressed by the staff and the management there of trying 25 to do things and I think again we learned a lot. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 235 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any against? 2 Thank you very much. 3 And again, thank you, staff, for a great job in 4 bringing this together. Unfortunately, the work isn't 5 finished. But thank you very much indeed. 6 With that, we will take a break until 3: 00 when 7 we'll start the item on the small off road engines. 8 ( Thereupon a recess was taken.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. After that 10 10 minute break we move on to the next agenda item, 11 03 7 3, proposed exhaust and evaporative standards for 12 small off road engines. 13 Staff has been working on this regulatory 14 proposal for several years and is now ready for our 15 consideration. I've witnessed firsthand the incredible 16 number of staff hours devoted to this task; the extensive 17 negotiations that have gone on with the affected industry 18 groups; and, most recently, the strenuous efforts 19 undertaken by staff, California's two senators, the 20 Governor's Washington DC office, environmental groups, and 21 our air quality colleagues throughout the nation to defend 22 states' rights to proceed with these essential emission 23 control measures. 24 I wish I could report that the latter issue was 25 resolved at this time. Unfortunately, it is not. And, in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 236 1 fact, that's why we had the slight delay because we're 2 still getting communications coming in on this issue. 3 But what is absolutely clear in my mind is that 4 the small off road engine regulation is one of the most 5 thoroughly analyzed and most carefully constructed rules 6 our staff has worked on for some time. It is not 7 half baked, it is not premature, and my colleagues on the 8 Board should be confident that staff understands this 9 source category quite well. 10 And I remember several months ago I was asked to 11 take a look at what staff was doing on this issue to make 12 sure that there was communication between the industry and 13 staff. And, again, I can attest that maybe there was some 14 lack of interest on industry, or at least maybe not taking 15 this too seriously, but since that time I feel that staff 16 has been fully engaged. We've had many proposals. We've 17 worked  the staff was worked especially with many pieces 18 of the industry. And, again, today while we clearly don't 19 have everybody on board, I'm convinced that those people 20 who are interested in really cleaning up the air have 21 worked with us very carefully and that we are ready to 22 hear this item. 23 Next month the Board will consider a revision to 24 the State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air 25 basin. That plan contains several regulatory commitments PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 237 1 for this Board's consideration. And we already are 2 receiving letters that should contain even more. Two of 3 the commitments in the proposed South Coast plan relate to 4 reducing emissions from small off road engines. If the 5 Board approves the proposed SORE rule today, we would be 6 fulfilling both of those SIP commitments. 7 And so this is an important rule, it's an 8 important challenge as we look ahead, as I mentioned, to 9 next month the challenge we have in the South Coast basin. 10 We need every pound of pollution that we can get from 11 every category that we can get. 12 And, again, I continue in the tradition of 13 looking at making sure we can get the technology that's 14 proven elsewhere into various categories is very, very 15 important. 16 So, Ms. Witherspoon, would you please begin the 17 staff presentation on this important item. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 19 Chairman Lloyd, and members of the Board. 20 Small off road engines are a major source of 21 emissions in California. Exhaust standards previously 22 adopted by the Board have stopped the growth of tailpipe 23 emissions in this category. However, there are no 24 evaporative emission controls in place today. The 25 proposal you are considering would tighten exhaust PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 238 1 emission standards by one third and would establish 2 evaporative standards for the first time. 3 As you will hear in the staff presentation, we 4 have continued to work with the major stakeholders right 5 up to the eve of this hearing. As a result of these 6 discussions, staff will be proposing revised exhaust 7 emission standards and two new options to comply with the 8 evaporative emission requirements. 9 The revised proposal reduces costs, addresses 10 engineering challenges related to using a catalytic 11 converter on these small engines, and provides additional 12 compliance flexibility. We believe the staff's revised 13 proposal addresses all the major technical issues raised 14 by industry representatives, while achieving nearly the 15 same emission reductions as the original staff proposal. 16 I'd like to emphasize these changes are fully 17 within the scope of our original notice and can be acted 18 upon by the Board today even though staff is still working 19 on the specific regulatory language to accomplish them, 20 which would be circulated for comment during the routine 21 15 day change process. 22 At this time I'd like to turn the presentation 23 over to David Salardino of our Mobile Source Control 24 Division, who will present staff's recommendation on the 25 exhaust side. Following David's presentation Jim Watson PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 239 1 of our Monitoring and Laboratory Division will discuss the 2 evaporative emission portion of the proposal. 3 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation was 4 Presented as follows.) 5 MR. SALARDINO: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. 6 Greetings, Chairman Lloyd, members of the 7 Board  8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Microphone please. It's not 9 on. 10 MR. SALARDINO: Sorry. Thank you. 11 Greetings, Chairman Lloyd, members of the Board, 12 ladies and gentlemen. 13 Today staff is proposing for the Board's approval 14 amendments to the current small off road engine exhaust 15 emissions regulations as well as new regulations to reduce 16 evaporative emissions from small off road engines and 17 equipment. This item is a joint effort between staff and 18 the Mobile Source Control Division and the Monitoring and 19 Laboratory Division. 20  o0o 21 MR. SALARDINO: In this presentation I'll begin 22 by viewing some of the background information regarding 23 the small off road engine category. I'll then summarize 24 our proposal to reduce exhaust emissions from small 25 engines, after which I will turn the presentation over to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 240 1 Mr. Jim Watson of the Monitoring and Laboratory Division 2 to summarize the evaporative emission reduction proposal, 3 the environmental benefits of staff's proposal, as well as 4 the economic impacts. 5 Mr. Watson will then conclude the presentation 6 with a brief summary and a recommendation to the Board. 7  o0o 8 MR. SALARDINO: The small off road engine 9 category consists of engines at or below 19 kilowatts. It 10 includes and consists of both two and four stroke engines, 11 which are used primarily in lawn and garden and small 12 industrial and commercial equipment. By definition, this 13 category does not include equipment that qualifies under 14 the farm and construction equipment preemption that was 15 contained in the 1990 federal  16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Excuse me. We're 17 having trouble hearing you. If you wouldn't mind putting 18 that microphone real close to your chin, I'd really 19 appreciate it. 20 MR. SALARDINO: Sorry about that. 21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 22 MR. SALARDINO: California cannot regulate 23 emissions from new farm and construction equipment less 24 than 175 horsepower that would otherwise be in this 25 category. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 241 1  o0o 2 MR. SALARDINO: This shows examples of some the 3 equipment in the small engine powered category. Small 4 engines are typically categorized as handheld and 5 non handheld. 6 Handheld engines have small engine displacements 7 and are typically used in applications in which the 8 operator supports the equipment, such as a leaf blower or 9 a string trimmer. 10 Nonhandheld engines are larger. A majority of 11 the non handheld category consists of walk behind mowers. 12 Please note that for the remainder of this 13 presentation you will see a drawing of a string trimmer in 14 the lower lefthand corner and/ or a drawing of a lawnmower 15 in the lower righthand corner denoting slides specifically 16 pertaining to this equipment. 17  o0o 18 MR. SALARDINO: Small off road engines were 19 California's first off road category subject to emission 20 control regulations. In 1990 the Board adopted exhaust 21 emission standards for small engines with implementation 22 dates starting in 1995. 23 Manufacturers were able to meet these standards 24 for the most part by modifying engines to run at a leaner 25 air/ fuel ratio and improving engine cooling. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 242 1 In 1998 the Board amended the small engine 2 regulations to incorporate more stringent exhaust 3 standards and included a requirement that manufacturers 4 show emission compliance over the useful life of the 5 engine. These new durability based standards were 6 implemented started in 2000. 7  o0o 8 MR. SALARDINO: During this time period the U. S. 9 EPA finalized its own exhaust emission reduction 10 requirements for small engines, which are similar to 11 California's program. There currently are no federal or 12 State requirements to control evaporative emissions from 13 small engines. Staff is now returning to the Board to 14 propose requirements to further reduce small engine 15 emissions. 16  o0o 17 MR. SALARDINO: The combined exhaust and 18 evaporative emission contribution from small off road 19 engines is significant, at 152 tons per day in 2000, with 20 evaporative emissions making up about 30 percent of the 21 total. 22 The adopted emission standards will continue to 23 reduce exhaust emissions as older diurnal units get 24 replaced with new cleaner units. However, after 2010 the 25 small engine emissions are expected to increase as the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 243 1 addition of cleaner engines is offset by population 2 growth. 3 In addition, with no regulatory requirements 4 evaporative emissions will continue to increase with 5 growth and will make up about 40 percent of the total by 6 2020. 7  o0o 8 MR. SALARDINO: Next month staff is scheduled to 9 present a new State Implementation Plan that measures  10 that includes measures to reduce air pollution throughout 11 the state. Today's proposal is designed to meet the 12 emission reduction commitments outlined in two of the 13 measures. Those two measures, Small Off Road 1 and Small 14 Off Road 2, count on exhaust and evaporative emission 15 reductions from handheld engines and non handheld engines 16 respectively. 17  o0o 18 MR. SALARDINO: I will now discuss staff's 19 proposal to reduce exhaust emissions from small engines. 20 As I mentioned earlier, the U. S. EPA has 21 promulgated federal emission standards for small engines. 22 EPA's HC+ NOx standard for handheld engines gets 23 increasingly more stringent through 2005, reaching a level 24 of 50 grams per kilowatt hour for engines less than 50 cc, 25 which is more stringent than California's current standard PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 244 1 of 72 grams per kilowatt hour. 2 Therefore, staff proposes a third tier standard 3 equivalent to the federal HC+ NOx standard for engines less 4 than 50 cc. Implementation would begin with the 2005 5 model year. This would be a 30 percent decrease from the 6 current Tier 2 standards. 7  o0o 8 MR. SALARDINO: Technologies already exist which 9 enable manufacturers to meet the proposed Tier 3 10 standards. There are currently 25 engine families 11 certified in California that already meet the Tier 3 12 levels. These certified engine families include all types 13 of handheld equipment. 14 Manufacturers have used a variety of technologies 15 to comply with the handheld standards, such as replacing 16 two stroke engines with four stroke engines, addition of a 17 catalyst to a two stroke engine, advanced stratified 18 scavaging, and two stroke/ four stroke hybrids. 19 In addition, zero emission electric equipment is 20 also available. 21 These technologies have allowed manufacturers to 22 comply with the current emission requirements as well as 23 confirm the feasibility of the proposed emission 24 requirements. 25  o0o PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 245 1 MR. SALARDINO: Non handheld engines are 2 separated in to two classes: Engines between 80 and 225 3 cc are classified as Class 1 engines; and engines 225 cc 4 are Class 2 engines. 5 Staff proposes emission standards for these 6 engines that are consistent with reductions achievable 7 with the addition of a catalytic converter. Staff has 8 taken part in meetings within the last few weeks in which 9 manufacturers and manufacturer associations have made 10 counterproposals to staff's original proposal as outlined 11 in the staff report. 12 The industry counterproposals suggest additional 13 flexibility to use compliance and/ or reduce the cost of 14 compliance. In response to these discussions, staff is 15 proposing alternative Tier 3 standards for HC+ NOx of 10 16 grams per kilowatt hour or engines between 80 and 225 cc 17 and 8 grams per kilowatt hour for engines 225 cc and 18 above. These standards are an alternative to staff's 19 originally proposed standards of 8 and 6 grams per 20 kilowatt hour. 21 Staff's alternative standards will reduce the 22 amount of heat generated from the catalytic converter that 23 must be managed, reduce costs, and eliminate the chance 24 that major engine redesign may be needed for some older 25 engine designs. Tailpipe emissions from these engines PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 246 1 would be reduced by about one third with the alternative 2 proposed standards. 3 In addition, staff proposes to stagger the 4 implementation date of these standards to allow 5 manufacturers appropriate lead time for engineering and 6 development, while providing the earliest start to 7 achieving the desired emission reductions. Thus for 8 engines between 80 and 225 cc's staff proposes an 9 implementation date of 2007, and 2008 for engines 225 cc 10 and above. 11 As shown in the next few slides these proposed 12 standards were based on test results in which several 13 engines were equipped with catalytic converters. 14  o0o 15 MR. SALARDINO: ARB funded a catalyst test 16 program designed to show the technical feasibility of new 17 emission standards based on the use of catalysts on 18 non handheld engines. Small engine and equipment 19 manufacturers participated with ARB in the test program 20 through monthly meetings and technical assistance. 21 ARB contracted with the Southwest Research 22 Institute to conduct exhaust emission durability testing 23 on six small engines over 80 cc. The objective of the 24 program was to develop six non handheld engines and 25 low emission configurations and then age and test the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 247 1 engines throughout their useful life. The six engines 2 chosen for the program are shown here. 3 These engines all meet the current California 4 Tier 2 emission standards. Four engines are using 5 walk behind mower applications. One is for a riding 6 mower. And one is used in constant speed generator 7 applications. 8 These engines were tested when new, i. e., at zero 9 hour, and then tested again after running for hundreds of 10 hours over a service accumulation cycle. 11 Each engine was equipped with a three way 12 catalytic converter and a relatively simple air induction 13 system to enhance the catalytic reaction. 14 In addition, for the Briggs & Stratton engine No. 15 1 and for the Kawasaki engine, Southwest adjusted the 16 carburetor to lean out the air/ fuel mixture. 17  o0o 18 MR. SALARDINO: Here we see three of the engines 19 that Southwest equipped with catalysts. The mufflers 20 shown installed on the engines are the developed mufflers 21 with the catalyst. The original mufflers are shown next 22 to the engines on the left for comparison. 23 As you can see, in some cases the muffler was 24 increased slightly or modified to accommodate the 25 catalyst, as in the case with the Honda No. 2 engine. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 248 1 However, in many cases, such as the Briggs engine shown, 2 the catalyst was fit into the existing muffler housing. 3  o0o 4 MR. SALARDINO: The objective of the test program 5 was to develop small engines in low emissions 6 configurations, with the ultimate goal of reducing 7 tailpipe HC+ NOx emissions by 50 percent or more at the end 8 of the useful life. 9 As shown in this table, each developed engine 10 except for the Briggs & Stratton No. 2 met or exceeded the 11 50 percent target level at each of the test points. 12  o0o 13 MR. SALARDINO: This slide shows the emission 14 levels achieved by engines in the Southwest test program 15 as compared to the revised proposed alternative standards. 16 The testing of Southwest was designed to be a 17 proof concept project which ultimately demonstrated that 18 small engines can be designed to meet the proposed 19 standards over the useful life of the engine. While the 20 proposed emission standards are certainly feasible, some 21 engines may require additional development beyond the work 22 completed at Southwest as evidenced by two of the engines 23 in this program. 24 Manufacturers have raised safety concerns related 25 to increased temperatures resulting from the incorporation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 249 1 of a catalyst on small engines. Oxidation of HC and CO 2 creates heat, and along with any enleanment of the 3 air/ fuel mixture could lead to increased exhaust gas 4 temperatures and catalyst muffler skin temperatures. 5 This temperature slide shows that in some cases 6 the addition of a catalyst resulted in increased muffler 7 skin temperatures. While we believe that in some cases 8 the increase of temperature will be small, on the order of 9 less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit, in other cases it might 10 be significantly higher. 11 Manufacturers will need to address surface 12 temperature issues when developing a catalyst system to 13 meet the proposed standards. But as has been done with 14 many two stroke engines currently equipped with catalysts, 15 these issues can be adequately addressed in the design of 16 the system by, for instance, improving cooling flow and 17 providing additional shielding of the catalyst. 18 As shown in this slide by the purple bar, the 19 catalyst shield temperature on the Honda engine was almost 20 500 degrees lower than the catalyst surface temperature. 21 Staff is certain that the lawn and garden 22 manufacturers will be able to address temperature concerns 23 by using approaches similar to those developed by other 24 manufacturers who have successfully and safely implemented 25 catalyst technology over the last 28 years. The staff's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 250 1 proposal was designed to provide manufacturers with the 2 lead time necessary to address such design changes. 3  o0o 4 MR. SALARDINO: So to summarize: 5 Staff is proposing a Tier 3 HC+ NOx exhaust 6 emission standard of 50 grams per kilowatt hour for 7 engines less than 50 cc, equivalent to the most stringent 8 federal standard for these engines. 9 For engines 50 to 80 cc the HC+ NOx standard will 10 remain at the current level of 72 grams per kilowatt hour, 11 as it is already equivalent to the most stringent federal 12 standard for these engines. 13  o0o 14 MR. SALARDINO: The Tier 3 standards for engines 15 above 80 cc will be based on the addition of a catalytic 16 converter and will begin implementation with the 2007 17 model year. 18  o0o 19 MR. SALARDINO: To encourage the manufacture and 20 use of engines that go beyond mandatory emission 21 standards, the staff proposes voluntary optional low 22 exhaust emission standards for small engines in connection 23 with the proposed Tier 3 standards. 24 An engine found to be certified to the voluntary 25 standards will be classified as a California Blue Sky PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 251 1 engine. The Blue Sky standards represent a reduction of 2 50 percent below the proposed Tier 3 levels for HC+ NOx. 3 The Blue Sky Engine Program provides an 4 opportunity for these engines to participate in clean 5 labeling and incentive programs. The manufacturer must 6 declare at the time of certification whether it is 7 certifying an engine family to a Blue Sky series standard. 8 In order to guarantee that emission credits associated 9 with the Blue Sky engine are real, engines certified to 10 these voluntary standards would not be eligible to 11 participate in the corporate averaging programs allowed in 12 the small engine exhaust emission regulations. 13 At this time staff is also suggesting amending 14 the Blue Sky Engine Program to include zero emission 15 equipment. 16  o0o 17 MR. SALARDINO: In addition to new standards, 18 staff also proposes a few other modifications to the 19 existing exhaust emission regulations and test procedures. 20 To more closely align with the federal 21 regulation, staff proposes to adopt the use of kilowatt as 22 the unit of power for small off road engines. 23 Staff also proposes to include the federal 1,000 24 hour durability option for engines certified at or about 25 225 cc. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 252 1 In addition, staff proposes to incorporate the 2 federal small engine test procedures subparts A, B, D, and 3 E of CFR Part 90 in to California's test procedures for 4 2005 and later model year engines. 5 These changes will further ease the burden on 6 manufacturers certifying an engine family. 7 In 1998, the Board adopted a 65 cc displacement 8 limit on engines subject to the handheld emission 9 standards. However, since that time manufacturers have 10 noted increased consumer demand for more power from 11 handheld engines, requiring engine size above the 65 cc 12 limit. 13 Manufacturers requested a higher limit for 14 handheld engines and promised the continued introduction 15 of clean technologies. Staff, therefore, proposes to 16 increase the handheld category to include engines up to 80 17 cc beginning with the 2005 model year. 18  o0o 19 MR. SALARDINO: Staff also proposes a requirement 20 that a manufacturer report emission related defects 21 affecting a given engine family  a given family of 22 engines. A manufacturer will be required to file the 23 report with ARB whenever the manufacturer determines that 24 either a safety related or performance related defect 25 exists in 25 or more engines of a given family. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 253 1 ARB will then require the manufacturer to submit 2 a plan to resolve the nonconformity of the engines. A 3 resolution could be in the form of a recall of those 4 engines or alternative measures that offset the 5 noncompliance. 6 This requirement for defect reporting and recall 7 is similar to the current federal program and is also 8 included in staff's proposed evaporative emission 9 reduction program. 10 Staff also proposes to include additional text in 11 the test procedures that clarify engine clearing 12 requirements for certification emissions testing. This 13 clarification is necessary in order to ensure that the 14 test conditions are representative of real world 15 conditions. 16 This concludes staff's proposal for amendments to 17 California's small engine exhaust emission programs. 18 At this point the presentation will show a slide 19 representing evaporative emission sources from small 20 engines. And I would like to turn the presentation over 21 to Mr. Jim Watson to discuss staff's evaporative emission 22 proposal. 23 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation was 24 Presented as follows.) 25 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: For those of us who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 254 1 need visuals. 2 MR. WATSON: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and 3 members of the Board. 4 The animated slide David shared with us depicts 5 the major sources of evaporative emissions from small 6 off road engines. The proposal I will present today 7 covers staff's proposal  the proposal I will present 8 today covers staff's proposal and two alternatives 9 suggested as 15 day changes that control emissions from 10 these sources. The addition of these alternatives provide 11 manufacturers some needed flexibility in implementing the 12 proposed standards. 13 The first topic of the presentation will 14 highlight three elements of staff's proposal: 15 The discussion will briefly cover the proposed 16 standards, controlled technologies, test data, and 17 industry issues. 18 The presentation will then focus on ARB 19 alternative options developed as a result of our working 20 with industry after the release of the staff report. 21 These alternatives are proposed as 15 day modifications. 22 I will close the presentation with a discussion 23 of the proposal's overall cost effectiveness, cost, 24 overall controlled emissions comparison, and finally 25 staff's conclusions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 255 1  o0o 2 MR. WATSON: The primary elements of the 3 evaporative proposal are a fuel tank permeation standard 4 for handheld equipment, three diurnal standards for 5 non handheld equipment, and certification. 6  o0o 7 MR. WATSON: This chart summarizes the proposed 8 permeation standard and implementation date for handheld 9 equipment. 10 Permeation occurs when a gas or liquid 11 saturates a permeable material and is released on the 12 other side. 13 An example of permeation would be the old 14 helium filled rubber balloons. After several hours the 15 helium would permeate through the balloon's walls and the 16 balloon would go flat. That is why we now have mylar 17 party balloon, to control permeation. 18 For small gasoline engines permeation emissions 19 occur when gasoline saturates permeable materials like 20 high density polyethylene and rubber and evaporates on 21 their outside surfaces. 22 This proposal sets a 23 two gram per square meter per day fuel tank permeation 24 standard. Since most handheld equipment use sealed 25 systems to control tank and carbon vapors, staff's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 256 1 proposal does not include a diurnal evaporative emission 2 standard for this category. 3 The next slide discusses the diurnal standards as 4 they apply to non handheld equipment. 5  o0o 6 MR. WATSON: This slide summarizes the proposed 7 diurnal standards and implementation data for non handheld 8 equipment. 9 Diurnal emissions occur as a result of daily 10 temperature variations and include vented and permeation 11 emissions. This proposal does not include separate 12 permeation standards for non handheld equipment tanks 13 because permeation is addressed by the proposed diurnal 14 standards and test procedures. 15 The three diurnal standards that apply to 16 non handheld Class 1 and Class 2 equipment include a 17 one gram per day diurnal standard for Class 1 walk behind 18 mowers, a diurnal standard based on tank volume for other 19 Class 1 equipment, and a two gram per day diurnal standard 20 for Class 2 equipment. 21  o0o 22 MR. WATSON: The final element of the evaporative 23 proposal is certification. Staff's proposal requires all 24 equipment to be certified. Manufacturers must test at 25 least one worst case engine or fuel tank for non handheld PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 257 1 equipment within each evaporative family with the highest 2 emissions potential. 3 Handheld tanks and non handheld equipment are 4 tested and certified per applicable test procedures as 5 listed in the slide. The certification and test 6 procedures are an integral part of the evaporative 7 proposal. 8  o0o 9 MR. WATSON: I would now like to discuss 10 technologies for controlling permeation emissions. 11 Controlling permeation emissions is meeting the 12 proposed standards. There are a number of proven 13 technologies that can be used to control fuel tank 14 permeation emissions, which include metal tanks, nylon 15 tanks, and barrier treatments. 16 Options for controlling permeation emissions from 17 other fuel system components include the use of thermal 18 plastic materials and teflon. 19  o0o 20 MR. WATSON: Based on experience from the 21 portable fuel container rule, barrier treatments are an 22 option that can be used to control fuel tank permeation 23 emissions when optimized resins and additives are used. 24 Staff validated the effectiveness of applying a 25 barrier treatment by performing permeation testing on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 258 1 three untreated and three fluorinated fuel tanks. The 2 average test results show that fluorination is quite 3 effective and to reduce permeation emissions by more than 4 98 percent when optimized. 5 I will now go on to a discussion of technology 6 that controls the portion of the diurnal emission that 7 arises from vented tanks. 8  o0o 9 MR. WATSON: There are three basic technologies 10 that control vented diurnal emissions. The technology 11 consists of sealed systems, carbon cannisters, and hybrid 12 systems. 13 Sealed systems are the most effective in reducing 14 emissions, but require fuel tanks designed to withstand 15 pressure. 16 Cannister technology has a proven track record in 17 onroad applications. 18 And the hybrid systems are basically sealed 19 systems that vent to a cannister above a fixed pressure 20 limit. 21  o0o 22 MR. WATSON: Staff evaluated prototype equipment 23 configured with technology to control permeation and 24 vented emissions in an effort to develop appropriate 25 diurnal standards. Staff tested six walk behind mowers PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 259 1 configured with sealed systems, fluorinated tanks, and 2 low permeation fuel lines. We also tested a generator and 3 a commercial mower configured with carbon cannisters, 4 metal fuel tanks, and low permeation fuel lines. 5  o0o 6 MR. WATSON: In regard to the sealed system 7 testing, this chart showed the uncontrolled and controlled 8 test results for six mowers tested by ARB. The blue and 9 green columns represent uncontrolled results from mowers 10 tested with fuel containing MTBE and fuel containing 11 ethanol, respectively. The purple and gray columns 12 represent controlled emissions. 13 The controlled columns clearly show that the 14 proposed standards are feasible when tested with fuel 15 containing ethanol. However, staff is proposing that all 16 equipment be certification tested only with certification 17 fuel. 18  o0o 19 MR. WATSON: In regard to the cannister testing, 20 this chart shows the uncontrolled and controlled tests for 21 the generator and commercial mower when tested with 22 certification fuel. Staff were able to reduce average 23 emissions by 95 and 87 percent for the generator and 24 mower, respectively. The test results support staff's 25 finding that large non handheld equipment can meet the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 260 1 proposed two gram per day diurnal evaporative emission 2 standard. 3 In the last few slides I presented technical data 4 that supports staff's proposed permeation and diurnal 5 standards. 6 I would now like to discuss two additional 7 changes to the proposal that will be included as 15 day 8 changes. 9  o0o 10 MR. WATSON: Staff suggests lowering the 11 cannister design requirements in Test Procedure 902 from 12 two grams per liter of fuel tank volume to 1.4 grams per 13 liter of fuel tank volume for tanks one gallon and 14 greater, and one gram per liter for tanks less than one 15 gallon. The change will help solve packaging issues on 16 equipment configured with carbon canisters. 17 Another suggested 15 day change concerns small 18 volume manufacturers. Staff proposes to require small 19 volume manufacturers to submit a letter of conformance. 20 The change will allow certification staff to track small 21 volume equipment being sold in California. 22 There were many issues raised by industry. Most 23 of these issues had been resolved by staff's proposal. 24 However, several major issues were not resolved such as 25 stringency of the exhaust and evaporative standards, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 261 1 compliance flexibility, and costs. We invited industry to 2 come up with alternative proposals that would address 3 these issues while still achieving equivalent emission 4 reductions compared to staff's proposal. 5  o0o 6 MR. WATSON: Over the last several weeks Briggs 7 and Stratton, EMA and OPEI and Honda responded to staff's 8 invitation by proposing three alternative proposals. 9 Staff evaluated each proposal with respect to emissions 10 equivalency and enforceability. Subsequently staff 11 developed two alternatives from industry proposals which I 12 will identify as Alternative No. 1 and Alternative No. 2. 13  o0o 14 MR. WATSON: Key benefits of the alternatives is 15 that they provide industry with greater flexibility and 16 compliance, while providing additional evaporative 17 emission benefits at a lower cost. 18 The alternatives achieved essentially the same 19 level of benefits of the base proposal and still enables 20 the ARB to meet its SIP commitments. 21  o0o 22 MR. WATSON: Shown on the graph are the overall 23 exhaust and evaporative emission reductions of staff's 24 proposal in the Alternatives 1 and 2. 25 The alternatives achieve between 91 and 97 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 262 1 percent of the emission reductions contained in staff's 2 proposal in 2010. 3 In 2020 the alternatives achieve between 98 and 4 99 percent of the reductions in staff's proposal. 5  o0o 6 MR. WATSON: I will now discuss the major 7 elements of the first alternative. 8 This alternative provides additional evaporative 9 emission reductions while equipment is operating, which 10 are defined as running loss emissions. It also contains a 11 requirement for testing complete engines, implements low 12 permeation fuel hoses one year earlier than staff's 13 proposal, and allows fleet averaging. 14  o0o 15 MR. WATSON: The first alternative sets a 2006 16 fuel hose standard and less stringent interim diurnal 17 standards based on tank volume for all Class 1 engines. 18 Setting interim standards will allow manufacturers time to 19 control production variability as evaporative technology 20 is adapted to off road equipment. 21 In 2009, the diurnal standards for Class 1 22 engines are lowered. Standards that apply to Class 2 23 engines under the first alternative include a 2006 24 implementation of a fuel hose permeation standard and a 25 less stringent diurnal standard based on tank volume PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 263 1 implemented in 2008. 2  o0o 3 MR. WATSON: I will now discuss the second 4 alternative. It also achieves additional running loss 5 emission reductions. Other major elements of the second 6 alternative include a requirement to test Class 1 7 walk behind mowers, implementation of a low permeation 8 fuel hose is two years earlier than staff's proposal, and 9 reduces compliance testing for equipment certified by 10 design. 11  o0o 12 MR. WATSON: The second alternative requires 13 diurnal testing of walk behind mower engines as part of 14 certification. This requirement ensures that the majority 15 of Class 1 engines meet specific emission targets. 16 Design based standards apply to non walk behind mowers. 17 Beginning in 2005 all Class 1 equipment must meet a 18 post permeation standard. For model years 2007 through 19 2011 interim performance and design standards apply to all 20 equipment. In 2012 the interim standards are lowered to 21 be equal to staff's proposal. 22  o0o 23 MR. WATSON: In this second alternative, 24 design based also applies to Class 2 engines. In 2005, 25 they must meet a fuel hose permeation standard. In 2008, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 264 1 90 percent of a manufacturer's production volume must 2 comply with the additional interim design standards. The 3 following year, 100 percent of a manufacturer's production 4 volume must be compliant. In 2010, design standards for 5 fuel hoses in catalysts apply to small volume 6 manufacturers. In 2013, the interim design standards are 7 lowered by setting a more stringent tank permeation 8 standard for 90 percent of a manufacturer's volume. In 9 2014, 100 percent of the manufacturer's volume must meet 10 the lower requirements. 11 This concludes staff's discussion of the 12 alternative options. The remaining portions of the 13 presentation will include both exhaust and evaporative 14 aspects of the proposal. 15  o0o 16 MR. WATSON: Staff's proposal for exhaust and 17 evaporative emissions is cost effective for both handheld 18 and non handheld equipment. 19 Staff determined that the cost effectiveness for 20 handheld equipment will range from $ 1.71 to $ 6.21 per 21 pound of hydrocarbon reduced. 22 The cost effectiveness for non handheld equipment 23 will range from a low of 20 cents to a high of $ 4.30 per 24 pound of hydrocarbon and NOx reduced. 25 For the alternatives under consideration staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 265 1 expects the cost effectiveness will improve. 2  o0o 3 MR. WATSON: The estimated increase in the retail 4 price of handheld equipment will range from $ 2.16 to 5 $ 4.84, depending on the type of equipment purchased. The 6 estimated increase in the retail price of non handheld 7 equipment will range from $ 37 for a walk behind mower to 8 $ 179 for a commercial mower. 9 As the cost effectiveness improvement for the 10 alternatives under consideration staff expects retail 11 increases to be lower. 12  o0o 13 MR. WATSON: This chart compares the cost 14 effectiveness of major regulations adopted by the Board. 15 The $ 4 per pound average cost effectiveness of the 16 proposed handheld standards is lower than recently 17 approved control measures for some consumer products, 18 on road motorcycles and enhanced vapor recovery. The 19 average $ 2.25 per pound cost effectiveness for 20 non handheld equipment compares favorably with other 21 regulations. 22  o0o 23 MR. WATSON: The green columns of this chart show 24 the controlled emissions should the Board adopt the 25 proposal, which are significantly lower than the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 266 1 uncontrolled columns shown in light blue. 2 This shows a 22 ton per day reduction in 2010 and 3 a 50 ton per day reduction in 2020. Also shown in this 4 chart is a maximum change in controlled emissions for the 5 alternatives, which are represented by small purple 6 segments above the controlled emissions column. 7 As you can see, in 2010 the maximum shortfall of 8 the alternatives is .8 tons per day. In 2020, the maximum 9 shortfall is .9 tons per day. 10  o0o 11 MR. WATSON: In conclusion, staff has determined 12 that the proposal and alternative provide significant 13 emission reductions and will help to achieve attainment of 14 air quality standards that will benefit the health of all 15 Californians. Staff has determined that the proposed 16 standards are cost effective and attainable with existing 17 technologies. 18 Staff recommends Board adoption of the staff's 19 proposal including the alternatives. Adopting staff's 20 proposal and the alternatives will provide industry with a 21 great flexibility while retaining our emission reduction 22 goals. 23 This completes my presentation. At this time I 24 would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 267 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 2 On your penultimate slide there, when you talk 3 about emissions reductions, what emissions reductions are 4 you talking about? 5 MR. WATSON: These are the exhaust and 6 evaporative emission reductions. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Hydrocarbon plus NOx? 8 MR. WATSON: Hydrocarbon plus NOx or non handheld 9 and handheld equipment. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And what's the breakdown? 11 MR. WATSON: In 2020 there are about 6 tons per 12 day for handheld equipment and 43.5 tons per day for 13 non handheld equipment. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's more ROG 15 than NOx because they're new evaporative standards and 16 strengthened exhaust standards. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So what was that again? 18 MR. WATSON: In 2020 there are about  19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: In 2010 what was the 20 breakdown for hydrocarbon? X hydrocarbon plus Y NOx, what 21 was that? And the same for 2020. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: He was providing 23 it in handheld and non handheld, which is why I jumped in 24 and gave it  told you that the thrust of it is ROG. 25 But they'll get that answer. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 268 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You see you're talking to a 2 chemist. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It should mostly 4 be ROG. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: While you're working that 6 out, again, just for clarification, that the way it was 7 described, staff came up with their proposal and then 8 worked with the industry after shipping an earlier 9 version, tried to get some of the ideas from industry and 10 then tried to incorporate those. And as a result we've 11 come up with a proposal which incorporates several of the 12 ideas that the industry has. Is that a fair  13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 14 And they came very, very close to our original staff 15 proposal, within less than a ton of what our regulation 16 would provide. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 18 Professor Friedman. 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I didn't hear you 20 address the safety concern that's been raised in the 21 correspondence we received, the fire specifically. I 22 guess that has to do with the exhaust controls and the 23 catalytic conversion. 24 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 25 We did address it partially in the charts that showed the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 269 1 testing we did down in Texas where we measured the 2 increase in exhaust temperatures. And you saw mixed 3 results. The catalyst actually resulted in a slightly 4 cooler muffler lower and some engines and up to 200 5 degrees higher in other engines. 6 One of the points that we've considered is the 7 fact these are hot exhaust without a catalyst, and they 8 could catch fire to things. And for that reason the 9 engines provide shielding and other protection to protect 10 against fires and to protect against you putting your hand 11 on it. 12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Tom, I want to be 13 sure I understand this. I think it's very important. 14 Would you mind repeating what you're saying. And I want 15 to  I want to be sure I'm hearing it. 16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: And 17 I've got about a three part answer unfortunately here. So 18 bear with me on  if the first part doesn't answer all 19 the questions. 20 We were aware of the  very aware of the safety 21 issue. We equipped engines  six different engines with 22 catalytic converters in a test facility down in Texas. 23 And we measured the temperatures of the surface of the 24 catalyst, the temperatures of the exhaust, and so forth. 25 What we found was on some of the mowers the temperature PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 270 1 didn't go up and some of them it did go up. And the 2 temperature of the exhaust and the muffler is very hot 3 either way. Adding a catalyst on several engines raised 4 it by up to 200 degrees. So it got hotter. 5 We then looked at, can that be shielded? Here's 6 the data here. Can it be shielded and protected? The 7 manufacturers already do that because at, you know 500 to 8 600 degrees, which is a current muffler temperature, they 9 don't want you to put your hand on it and they don't want 10 grass to go on it because it could catch on fire. 11 So these are  there's additional heat. But we 12 believe that they could manage that heat by shielding and 13 proper design of the exhaust system. 14 Subsequent to that testing and in publishing and 15 in our staff report the industry came back and said, " You 16 know, this does cause a lot of problems for us." The 17 catalyst, because it's burning up a lot of pollution from 18 these engines, which are fairly high polluting engines  19 burning them up creates heat. That's what the process is. 20 And they came back and said, " Look, it still causes us a 21 lot of problems. When the temperature goes up, there's 22 plastic next to it, we might have to change the plastic. 23 It creates the need for more shielding. More shielding 24 might catch the grass more and cause a fire hazard." All 25 these different things. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 271 1 We were personally convinced that there were 2 engineering solutions to that. The purple bar shows you 3 one of them. It shows you how much the temperature can be 4 dropped by a good heat shield on that Honda. But, you 5 know, we were sensitive to the arguments. So when, as in 6 the previous discussion, we invited the industries to come 7 back with alternative proposals, they came back with an 8 alternative proposal  two different alternative 9 proposals that had a less stringent exhaust emissions 10 standard. And instead of getting a 50 percent reduction 11 in tailpipe emissions, it was about 35 percent. 12 And what they have told us, a number of them, and 13 you'll hear it in testimony I believe today, is that 14 because less pollution is being converted by the catalytic 15 converter, there will be less heat and that the heat that 16 will be there is manageable and does not create a safety 17 hazard. So we believe that the alternatives that we're 18 offering for your consideration today remove any safety 19 issues that were there at all. We don't think they were 20 there in the first place. They could be solved. But they 21 removed them from the table. And we hope that you will 22 hear that in testimony today. 23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Sufficiently reduces 24 the emission reduction resulting in greater heat by 25 reducing the  and, therefore, reduces the heat? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 272 1 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah. 2 If there's less  if the catalyst is less efficient  3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And, therefore, 4 reduces the risk of fire. 5 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 6 So the tradeoff is the heat comes down, we get less 7 emission reduction. But in the proposals we challenged  8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But you get more 9 evap? 10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 11 We challenged the industry to come and take that  12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Which doesn't reduce 13 NOx so much, but it does reduce  14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 15 it loses  the exhaust side loses both NOx and 16 hydrocarbons. And it's made up with hydrocarbon evap 17 control that goes beyond what we had proposed. 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Has there been any 19 additional communication with any of the fire fighting 20 groups? 21 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes, we 22 have talked to a number of them today. I can't  you'll 23 have to wait until they testify, but I believe that there 24 will be evidence that they believe this addresses the 25 associations  PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 273 1 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So that's why it's 2 really not listed as an ongoing issue of any  3 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 4 We think it has been solved by this. 5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Okay. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Go back to the previous 7 slide, the previous one to this. 8 Just to clarify there, that  because black and 9 white doesn't come through so well. So what we're saying, 10 if I look at the different engines, that there are a 11 certain number at zero hours and then after 125 hours, 12 depending on the engine, there's a significant 13 degradation. Am I reading that correctly? 14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 15 The ones labeled Briggs and Stratton, we had problems with 16 both of those engines. It's not related, we don't 17 believe, to the catalyst. It was related to changes in 18 the engine that resulted in higher emissions. And as you 19 can see from the other manufacturers, the deterioration 20 was quite minimal. The purpose of doing this testing in 21 part was to determine if these very inexpensive catalysts 22 would wear out real fast. And the data suggests that they 23 will not. 24 The conversion efficiency in those tall blue 25 bars, the first two under Briggs and Stratton was still PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 274 1 very high. It's just that the engine was putting out a 2 whole, whole bunch more emissions due to some problem with 3 the engine. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So was this typical of Briggs 5 and Stratton? 6 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I don't 7 know. It's a sample of two, so I don't  I couldn't tell 8 you that. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So two out of two? 10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think 11 the staff could comment on whether they figured out what 12 the problem was and resolved it. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, one of the  and what 14 I'm driving at here, if we got some inherently high 15 emitters in this category and if certain varieties are 16 more prone to that, how do we follow up? I mean we can 17 have these engines, which maybe meet our certification 18 numbers, but they get out in the field and then they 19 become gross polluters. 20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 21 until  22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So what mechanism is there to 23 prevent that? 24 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 25 until  well, first of all, the regulation is structured PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 275 1 so that there could be testing of these when they're new. 2 And if there's a problem, there can be a recall. We know, 3 however, that a recall in the traditional sense is not 4 going to work very well because we're not going to  you 5 know, who's going to turn their lawnmower in? With cars, 6 you know, we can tie it to registration. But in this 7 case, it's harder to do with lawnmowers. But despite 8 that, that is a regulatory lever that we have  or 9 enforcement lever. 10 Second of all, we are in the stages of completing 11 construction of a test facility down in El Monte where we 12 could test these engines ourselves. And based on that we 13 can take appropriate action if we find that the emissions 14 are high. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How many lawnmowers have we 16 recalled because of emissions problems? 17 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 18 we've never   until now we've never been able to test 19 them ourselves. We've only been able to go to their 20 assembly line and look at an assembly line. We have had, 21 quote, recalls on the assembly line of several models that 22 were not meeting emissions standards. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But do we have a plan for 24 looking at in use testing? 25 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 276 1 We will test them when they're new or, you know, picked up 2 from the dealership. And we can also test them in use. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So maybe we could work with 4 the districts on that and looking at a mechanism where we 5 can pull these in and test them. 6 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Unless you're thinking of OBD 8 for lawnmowers. 9 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Not 10 yet. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, but that's  again, 12 that's a real cause for concern as we look at that because 13 it can be in doing our best efforts here to get it. And 14 particularly as we look at the variation in the quality of 15 the different manufacturers. 16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 17 And this is  unfortunately this is symptomatic of all of 18 the off road engine equipment. It's not registered; 19 therefore, it's harder to enforce through license plates 20 and annual registration. And, you know, we also don't 21 have the capability of testing much of this stuff. So we 22 are  we have a weaker ability on the off road to enforce 23 it. But we're trying to address it with the best tools 24 we've got, given  25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But if we buy the cleanest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 277 1 cars possible and we get in to the P ZEVs and AT P ZEVs, 2 one trip around our lawn  finish our lawn, we've undone 3 a lot of the good we've done. 4 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes, 5 that is absolutely true. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman? 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Along those lines, I think 9 one way to address this issue is with a zero emission 10 requirement. And I'm a little disappointed that we 11 weren't able to accomplish that in this proposal. But I'm 12 interested in seeing what this Board can do on that issue 13 perhaps at a future date. 14 So I'd just like to put that out there to other 15 Board members. And when we wrap things up, I'd be 16 interested in including a component in the resolution that 17 we come back on that issue. 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman? 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Mrs. Riordan. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'm just wondering if 21 staff has completed their work on your original question. 22 MR. WATSON: Yes, we have. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks for reminding them. 24 MR. WATSON: Well  25 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 278 1 stalled for a long time there so they could get to it. 2 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: Okay. 3 The emission reductions in 2010 are roughly 22 tons a day. 4 And that's split between about 6 tons per day for the 5 non handheld, 16 for the  excuse me. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Repeat that. 7 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: Six 8 tons a day for the handheld. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Six. What's the total there? 10 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: 11 Twenty two. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Twenty two. 13 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: Six 14 for handheld, 16 for nonhandheld That's roughly 22/ 78 15 percent split. 16 Then in 2020, we're talking about a 17 50 ton per day reduction, which is approximately 43 tons a 18 day for the non handheld and 7 tons a day for the 19 handheld, which is about a  I did that in reverse. 20 The NOx/ hydrocarbon split. Okay. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That was the question. 22 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Just of 23 the 22  24 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: The 25 NOx/ hydrocarbon split for the 22 tons in 2010, 4 tons of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 279 1 that are NOx. The rest of it is hydrocarbon. 2 In 2020, the NOx is reduced by roughly 8 tons per 3 day of the 50 tons a day total. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And those 5 calculations are for the base staff proposal where if we 6 did any of the alternatives, the NOx reduction would be 7 less, correct? 8 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: Yes. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It would go up in 10 hydrocarbons and down in NOx? 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 12 Mr. Calhoun. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes. I want to get back 14 to the question that you asked, Mr. Chairman. And at 15 least I thought I heard you ask the question about these 16 lawnmowers in use and testing them. Are you talking about 17 testing my lawnmower or are you  18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, random sample of how do 19 we find out what the, if you like, the emissions from this 20 category is in use. 21 Well, I know you got an electric lawnmower, so 22 you don't have a problem. 23 ( Laughter.) 24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Well, I have to talk to 25 Jerry about that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 280 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman said  2 maybe I misunderstood you  you were offering yours to be 3 tested at El Monte? 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: No. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No. Okay. 6 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'm just  there are a 7 lot of lawnmowers out there, an awful lot of them. And 8 there are a lot of hydrocarbon emissions from these 9 lawnmowers. But I question whether or not it's practical 10 to get in use lawnmowers and retrofitting them or just new 11 ones. 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, 13 there's no talk about retrofitting them. It's just  the 14 question was, if the lawnmower emits 1 gram per hour, 15 whatever the number is, when we certify it, is it going to 16 be one in use or is it going to be two in use. And so we 17 can find that out reasonably well with a sample of, I 18 don't know, 50 lawnmowers. With our new facility we can 19 test those pretty quickly. 20 So, you know, over time we would get an audit of 21 whether or not these engines are complying. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Well, what happens if you 23 do test it and find that it's exceeding the standard? It 24 may be exceeding because Bob Cross tampered with it. 25 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 281 1 we'll have to  we'll find that out from those mowers, 2 yeah. I mean that's what we could do. 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: And then what do you do? 4 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: It's no 5 different than what we've done on cars. I mean we sort of 6 found the same thing on the earlier cars. They were clean 7 when they were produced. They were dirty six months 8 later. And we had to come up with anti tampering programs 9 and various other things to assure that their emissions 10 are low. And we were successful. 11 We just want to do the same due diligence on 12 lawnmowers. I don't know the answer, and so I don't know 13 what the solution would be if there is a problem. But we 14 have to figure it out. But at least we have the tool now 15 to be able to do it. We can do it in southern California 16 and  17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Bob  18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  give 19 you feedback. 20 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: 21 Jack, you reminded me that the current proposal stops with 22 new. In other words, it is defects reporting and assembly 23 line testing type of measures. So the activity that we're 24 doing with the in use would be data gathering as opposed 25 to real enforcement at this point. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 282 1 We have done some in the past. And I think we'll 2 just  and that's really kind of helped us understand 3 some inuse  not in use test, but at least durability 4 testing. That's helped us understand what the mowers do 5 in the first place. An we'll just continue that. 6 So I don't think you have to worry about 7 lawnmower smog check for a few years. And I'll probably 8 still be able to tamper. 9 That was a joke at the end. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: One other question. 12 It's I guess related, but broader. 13 Is it true that to the extent that these rules 14 would only apply to small engines, under 175 horsepower, 15 or small motors, that they only account for 1 percent of 16 our smog forming emissions in California overall? Is that 17 a true statement? 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think 19 the numbers that have been floating around all the press 20 releases get a little mixed up. 21 As I recall, the lawnmowers, which are the ones 22 under 25 horsepower, are on the order of a few percent of 23 our emissions. The ones that  24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So it's the little 25 lawnmower's 2 percent? But  PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 283 1 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, 2 lawnmowers and other lawn and garden. And that's under 3 25, which is the subject of the proposal. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yeah. But under 5 175? 6 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: It was 7 13 percent of  the non preempted engines were 13 percent 8 of all the mobile source emissions, which is  for HC and 9 NOx is probably 60 or some percent of all of the 10 emissions. So we're probably talking about 7 percent or 11 something, on that order, for the under 175 off road 12 equipment. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Seven percent? 14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, 15 and of the  that had a lot of diesels in it. And they 16 represent the off road. Diesels represent about 44 17 percent of the toxic particulate emissions overall. 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Okay. Thank you. I 19 just wanted to get the record straight, at least. 20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: My 13 21 was 17 percent. So it's probably 17 times .6. So maybe 22 like 10 percent for all of  of the smog forming 23 emissions for all of  all of the under 175, which is 24 gasoline, diesel, way more than this proposal deals with. 25 And this is a few percent. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 284 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 2 Seeing no other questions, I guess we go to 3 our  well, first of all, ask Madam Ombudsman  pleased 4 to see you had your wake up call. 5 Would you please describe the public 6 participation process that occurred while this item was 7 being developed, and share any concerns or other comments 8 that you may have with the Board at this time. 9 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: I was going to apologize for 10 the misbehavior of my device. But, anyway, I'll just get 11 on with this. 12 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, this 13 control measure has been developed with input from the 14 Engine Manufacturers Association, Outdoor Power Equipment 15 Institute, Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers 16 Association, Manufacturers of Emission Controls, and 17 several private companies. 18 In 2000, staff began its effort to draft a 19 regulation to control evaporative emissions from small 20 off road engines. And on November 9th of that year they 21 held their first public workshop. 22 Subsequent workshops were held in 2002 and 2003. 23 In 2002, staff introduced its exhaust emission reduction 24 proposal for small off road engines. During this nearly 25 three year period, four public workshops were held. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 285 1 Staff also had approximately 40 meetings with 2 trade associations and a significant number of one on one 3 meetings with several companies. 4 That concludes my comments. Thank you. 5 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: They're trying to 6 figure out, is it Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or was it Howdy 7 Doody? 8 ( Laughter.) 9 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: I have no idea. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: May I ask the staff one 11 question. 12 About how many workshops? I counted four or 13 five. 14 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: There were four public 15 workshops. 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Okay. And the industry, I 17 assume, had adequate time to express its views regarding 18 the feasibility of the technology? 19 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: I believe so. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: They had years. 21 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: I believe everyone was quite 22 involved. 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Okay. Thank you. 24 That's all. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 286 1 I'd like to call up our first three witnesses. 2 Bonnie Holmes Gen, Jed Mandel, and David Raney. 3 Bonnie? 4 I saw her earlier, but maybe she has left. So I 5 guess  we have Bonnie's testimony on behalf of the Lung 6 Association, the California Electric Transportation 7 Coalition, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 8 Technologies, Coalition for Clean Air, Natural Resources 9 Defense Council, Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation, 10 Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists. And this is 11 in support of our regulation. 12 Jed Mandel. 13 MR. MODISETTE: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. That 14 was  I'm going to be presenting the letter that you just 15 read. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Later on? 17 MR. MODISETTE: Yes. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Thanks, Dave. 19 Jed Mandel, David Raney, Bill Guerry. 20 MR. MANDEL: I know you're excited and pleased to 21 see me so soon again from this morning. I was actually 22 hoping not to see you so soon again. I'd asked to testify 23 at the end of this item because there's a lot of new 24 information that has been shared just in the staff report. 25 And it's possible there will be some new information PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 287 1 shared by subsequent testifiers. 2 I'm pleased to go now, but if I might be able to 3 have a couple moments afterwards. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, if you'd like to go at 5 the end, and I respect your desire to do that, if staff 6 has no problem. 7 MR. MANDEL: It would save time in case there's 8 something else that I need to respond to. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: As long as  you know, as 10 long as we can assume you're going to move across from 11 left. As long as you go left. 12 MR. MANDEL: I promise to cut my hour testimony 13 down to at least 45 minutes. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks. 15 So then we have David Raney and Bill Guerry. 16 MR. RANEY: Gosh, I wanted to go last. 17 ( Laughter.) 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 19 MR. RANEY: I believe everybody has a written 20 copy of our statement. 21 There's a major change I need to ask you to make, 22 and that's to change " good morning" to " good afternoon." 23 That's the most major change. 24 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the Board 25 and Chairman Lloyd and Executive Officer Witherspoon and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 288 1 staff. 2 My name is David Raney. I'm the Senior Manager 3 of Environmental and Energy Affairs at American Honda 4 Motor Company headquartered here in California. 5 I'm pleased to be hear on behalf of my company, 6 our Power Equipment Division, which is based in 7 Alpharetta, Georgia, just north of Atlanta, and our Honda 8 R& D teams both here and in Japan. 9 I also have with me here Tom Bingham from 10 American Honda, whose desk is actually at our Power 11 Equipment Division office in Georgia, so he has a vested 12 interest in this as well. 13 I'm going to spend a few minutes with you just 14 explaining a little bit about Honda's product line so you 15 can kind of see where we have an interest in this. 16 We do design and produce in the United States a 17 significant portion of small engine products that we sell 18 here. We have a significant employment presence at our 19 factories and research and development facilities in North 20 Carolina, as well as a broad nationwide dealer network. 21 Our associates in North Carolina produce a 22 diverse product line of walk behind mowers and engines for 23 countless OEM products. And we manufacture engines and 24 complete products in all displacement categories covered 25 by the staff proposal. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 289 1 In the small engine category we've got engine 2 models ranging from a four stroke 1 horsepower 25 cc 3 handheld engine for string trimmers to a 25 horsepower 4 V twin engine that is primarily used on construction 5 equipment. 6 Honda supplies engines to thousands of equipment 7 manufacturers nationwide, both directly and through 28 8 engine distributors. The three engine distributors in 9 California supply engines directly to a 200 plus equipment 10 manufacturer network. The distributors have their own 11 dealer network that supplies engines and service for the 12 California market. And these folks are very important to 13 our business as well. Many of the Honda engines sold here 14 in California are used in rental and construction 15 equipment, and they are supported by 600 plus servicing 16 dealers. 17 We also supply engines for walk behind mowers and 18 other products to several large volume equipment 19 manufacturers that produce product for sale in California. 20 And, finally, we manufacture complete products under the 21 Honda brand such as walk behind lawnmowers, tillers, 22 generators, trimmers, and water pumps that are retailed 23 directly through a Honda dealer network, with some 24 lawnmowers and a tiller model also available at Home 25 Depot. There are 400 plus Honda sales and service dealers PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 290 1 in this state. 2 Our primary interest is in protecting and growing 3 our business for these products and supporting our dealers 4 and customers by providing highly efficient, long lasting, 5 and quality products branded with the Honda name. And I 6 can assure you that we have no intention of reducing 7 employment or manufacturing capacity as a result of this 8 regulation. 9 As a corporation, Honda's philosophy of advancing 10 and applying cost effective low emissions control 11 technology to our products doesn't stop with our 12 light duty vehicles and light duty trucks. It also 13 applies to the small engines and products under 14 consideration before you today. 15 We have a significant vested interest in the 16 outcome of this regulatory proposal, both for increased 17 environmental protection as well as in protecting the 18 availability and affordability of our products for our OEM 19 business partners, our dealers, and our retail customers. 20 With that said, I'll say that there are many 21 remaining concerns with the proposal before you today. 22 But that Honda can support the proposal if the Board can 23 direct the staff to resolve these concerns that we'll 24 discuss briefly in a satisfactory manner. 25 We have come a long way with staff during the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 291 1 past few months. And my company believes we have reached 2 a point today where we're almost there. I don't want to 3 give you or our customers or our colleagues in this 4 industry the idea that we wholeheartedly support the 5 proposal in its present modified form. There are several 6 concerns that must be resolved before we can fully support 7 the proposal. But we do not believe these are 8 insurmountable. Honda is prepared and very willing to 9 continue to work with staff on this under whatever the 10 decision the Board makes today. 11 It is important that you understand our remaining 12 concerns though and I want to outline those to you and 13 staff. 14 Before I begin, I would like to especially thank 15 the staff and its management for the open channels of 16 communication that have been maintained with industry 17 while we've deliberated this process. They have listened 18 and learned and so have we. I believe we have all 19 benefited from this. And we look forward to continuing 20 the open communication as we head to a final rule. 21 Now, several months ago, as the content of this 22 regulation and staff's original direction came clearer, we 23 began to express significant concerns about the following 24 issues: 25 We were concerned about the potential performance PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 292 1 and cost differential between California and 49 state 2 product that might exist under the original proposal and 3 absent any new federal regulation that actually harmonized 4 CARB and EPA regulations. We expressed concern that our 5 customers and dealers in California could be penalized if 6 the products sold here had a significantly higher price 7 tag caused by the stringency of standards relative to 8 products sold outside of the state. 9 And, secondly, we expressed significant concern 10 about the potential impact on safety that the exhaust 11 portion of the original proposal and its level of 12 stringency might pose to our products and customers. 13 Finally, we clearly stated to staff the need for 14 an equitable and fair playing field in the certification 15 process, specifically on test procedure issues and the 16 means by which certain performance aspects could be 17 demonstrated under design based standards. 18 While it is generally understood that increased 19 cost is usually associated with regulation, we believe 20 that staff has thoroughly addressed in its latest 21 revisions or will and can try to resolve these issues 22 before finalizing the rule, therein mitigating their 23 significant effects that were originally raised on the 24 market. The modifications to the exhaust and evaporative 25 emissions proposals put forth today have given us PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 293 1 increased possibility to greatly lessen cross border cost 2 differentials. And we believe staff is listening to our 3 concerns expressed about the need for a level playing 4 field in the certification process. 5 I want to say a few things specific to the issue 6 of safety. We have continued throughout this process to 7 bring this concern to the staff. It was a significant 8 concern. The proposal originally put forth by staff was 9 not acceptable to Honda because of the potential for 10 exhaust flames resulting from the high conversion rate 11 that you discussed earlier necessary to meet the 12 originally proposed exhaust standards. We think that the 13 modified exhaust emissions proposal presented today of 10 14 and 8 grams will make it possible to have an exhaust 15 system with a lower risk of being a fire safety hazard. 16 It's manageable today on our current products. And with 17 this revised proposal it will be manageable on the future 18 engines. 19 The revised proposal will also be significantly 20 more cost effective air quality improvement for 21 California. 22 This modification has been a positive and very 23 helpful change. While there is always risk, even on 24 today's products, due to their diversity of use or even 25 misuse in their application, we don't believe that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 294 1 staff proposal presented here today for future exhaust 2 emission standards will have any significant impact on the 3 safety of our future engines in comparison to current 4 engines or products. 5 Now there are several issues that do remain as 6 concerns to Honda, as I stated earlier. I have attached a 7 list of these concerns to our testimony for the record. 8 And for the sake of preserving time, Chairman Lloyd, I 9 won't go through them specifically. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We have copies here. 11 MR. RANEY: Okay. Again, happy to meet with 12 staff at any time to discuss our concerns there. 13 These are all important issues and we do believe 14 they must be addressed. But as I said earlier, they are 15 not insurmountable. We hope that the Board will guide the 16 staff today to work with our industry on these issues. 17 And we look forward to working with staff to address them 18 in the complex regulatory text that will no doubt 19 accompany them as soon as possible. 20 Our engineers need to have some certainty about 21 the timing of the regulation and clarity in the regulatory 22 language in order to continue the development of new 23 products in an efficient and timely manner. And as you 24 know and have seen this morning, some of the provisions in 25 the current proposal take effect even in the 2005 model PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 295 1 year. For our development teams, that's today. 2 In closing, Chairman Lloyd, we hope that the 3 Board and staff view these comments as helpful and 4 constructive. And I thank you very much for your 5 attention and for your serious attention that you will 6 give to them. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr. 8 Raney. 9 Just a couple of questions there. Can I read 10 into your comments here that you would support us adopting 11 the regulation today provided that staff worked with you 12 to address those concerns in the 15 day period? 13 MR. RANEY: Yes. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And the other one which you 15 had raised. And I think I read your statement correctly 16 there that this would be unacceptable because of safety 17 concerns early on. But given staff's modifications here, 18 you don't feel now that safety will be  safety would be 19 a concern as a result of this regulation? 20 MR. RANEY: That's true. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Fire hazard. Okay. 22 Well, that's very helpful. And, again, we really 23 appreciate your ability to work with staff on this issue 24 and staff worked with you. And clearly your pioneering 25 work on the automobile is a  we're delighted to see that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 296 1 you're now turning that to helping us on some of the 2 smaller sources as well. 3 Professor Friedman. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: To me this is 5 really, if not optimal, it's as close as it can get to the 6 way this should work, this process. Staff puts out a 7 proposal after a dialogue with the sources to be 8 regulated. And the regulators  those to be regulated 9 respond. They give their concerns. Staff responds. They 10 have more conversation at workshops. And at least from 11 what I've just heard from Honda, there has been a 12 collaborative resolution, with a number of items yet to be 13 considered and addressed. But they're not so major in 14 principle that they prevent support from those to be 15 regulated, at least from Honda. 16 So to me, I congratulate you both at this point. 17 I hope we'll hear more of that. And I hope that  I mean 18 it's always wonderful when you're presented with a 19 proposal that those who are going to have to bear the 20 cost, and hopefully pass it on to the consuming public, 21 have engaged in the process of working out the solution, 22 creatively and constructively, as you put it. 23 So I thank you, for one. And, again, I thank the 24 staff for being able to work this way. 25 MR. RANEY: I'd like to say that you've got a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 297 1 good staff and a tough staff as well. This was not an 2 easy thing to convince them of. But we kept bringing 3 bigger hammers. 4 ( Laughter.) 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, of course one of your 6 biggest assets is one of your biggest problems. And, that 7 is, that your ability to meet the toughest standards 8 possible obviously helps us enormously, but also we 9 realize that it's a challenge for you. But you've always 10 come through. 11 Any other questions from the Board? 12 Thank you very much indeed. 13 Thank you, colleagues. 14 MR. RANEY: Chairman Lloyd, I will do that. And 15 if I could violate protocol a bit as well and ask for 15 16 more seconds. I'd like to do the same thing that Jed 17 Mandel said on behalf of our executive team at Honda. 18 You're going to miss Kathleen Walsh. We really 19 do appreciate the access that she's given to us in the 20 industry, clarifying questions and so forth. And I really 21 don't envy the person at the California Air Resources 22 Board that's got to make the decision to fill her shoes. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 24 MR. RANEY: So thank you, Kathleen. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's very nice. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 298 1 Bill Guerry, Joe Kubsh, and Rick Bell. 2 MR. GUERRY: Good afternoon. My name's Bill 3 Guerry. I serve as counsel for the Outdoor Power 4 Equipment Institute. 5 OPEI has a broad membership. We have 78 members. 6 American Honda is one of our important members. And we 7 are very diverse in our membership. We have sophisticated 8 world leaders like Honda that produce integrated products. 9 For the most part though the OPEI membership is comprised 10 of smaller and midsized companies who are non integrated, 11 meaning that the large group of OPEI members are equipment 12 manufacturers that receive engines from separate 13 independent suppliers. And it's important to recognize 14 that those non integrated equipment manufacturers, 15 particularly the small ones, are in a very, very different 16 place in terms of companies such as Honda. 17 And in that regard, it's the small members of 18 OPEI, many who are mom and pop operations with less than 19 50 employees, that critically rely on the association to 20 represent their interests. And they critically rely on 21 the CARB Board to ensure their procedural due process 22 rights are adequately represented. 23 In this regard, over the last 15 years OPEI takes 24 great pride in working proactively with CARB staff in the 25 development of numerous regulatory proceedings that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 299 1 resulted in success in providing cost effective and 2 practical emission reductions. 3 In this vein, OPEI has succeeded resolving the 4 most significant compliance issues for our separate and 5 distinct handheld members. And there is a separate 6 statement in the record for the OPEI handheld membership 7 that have come very close to working out to an acceptable 8 solution in this proceeding. 9 OPEI also recently submitted earlier this month 10 an industry counterproposal along with the Engine 11 Manufacturers Association. And as the staff presentation 12 showed, the industry counterproposal will achieve 13 California's air quality goals in a much more cost 14 effective and practical manner. 15 During the last few months OPEI has expressed and 16 shared its concerns  and you heard Honda raise some of 17 the concerns  on safety and cost effectiveness with CARB 18 staff. And we share the safety problems that have been 19 raised  and I know that Mr. Friedman raised  from 20 various safety organizations, particularly with regard to 21 pressurization of fuel systems and with regard to very 22 large, very hot catalyst systems; which given the 23 nonintegrated nature of our industry and the fact that we 24 have many small equipment manufacturers who are relatively 25 unsophisticated, those safety issues take on added and, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 300 1 think, unique dimensions that perhaps California and CARB 2 have not dealt with in other scenarios. 3 OPEI very much appreciates CARB staff's recent 4 recognition to basically  you know, fundamentally 5 restructure the August 8th proposal and to work to develop 6 a framework for more cost effective regulations. 7 Unfortunately, we did not receive, in the OPEI 8 the framework on the evap program until late Monday night 9 of this week. It will take additional time for OPEI to 10 receive meaningful input and questions back from its 78 11 members who are located around the world. 12 At this time, we strongly feel that neither the 13 Board nor the public nor all these small OEMs have had 14 enough information about the new fundamentally different 15 approach that's been set forth in the three or four page 16 concept piece to determine how that document would be 17 implemented. For this reason, to ensure a meaningful 18 notice and comment process and to ensure a meaningful 19 Board review, OPEI urges the CARB Board to reschedule this 20 matter for final adoption at a future public board 21 hearing. 22 We also ask that the Board specifically instruct 23 CARB staff to work very closely with the independent 24 safety and fire stakeholders who have submitted 25 correspondence in this matter in drafting a new regulatory PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 301 1 package that would be subject to the required 45 day 2 notice and comment period. 3 Finally  and this is set forth in Section 6 of 4 the written comments that OPEI has submitted  because of 5 the inherent production, distribution, and cost 6 limitations associated with relatively inexpensive lawn 7 garden products, most lawn and garden manufacturers simply 8 could not produce for the national market the very 9 expensive CARB compliant products with catalysts and 10 carbon canisters. 11 I think you saw staff numbers that are exceeding 12 a hundred dollars a unit. And we've submitted a cost 13 study from that indicates much higher numbers, even 14 associated with the  with basically all the alternatives 15 before the Board. 16 Consequently, OPEI requests the Board to limit 17 the Tier 3 new program at a final Board hearing to 18 products sold in California. CARB has effectively done 19 this and structured several other programs to focus on the 20 California market and not to create the likelihood of de 21 facto national standards. In fact, the current Tier 2 22 exhaust standards for lawn and garden industry products 23 are on the wheel product side limited to the California 24 market. 25 In summary, OPEI remains committed to working PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 302 1 with the CARB staff to expeditiously bring back to this 2 Board a comprehensive cost effective, safe, and practical 3 regulatory package. 4 I'm happy to answer any questions. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 6 Professor Friedman. 7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I don't know so 8 much, Mr. Guerry, whether my question is to you or to 9 staff or both. But I understood that staff was in large 10 measure responding to or adopting the industry proposals 11 in modifying the original proposal of the staff and giving 12 us what we have before us today, whatever the time line. 13 And is that correct? Was  is OPEI part of 14 the  15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes, 16 that's correct. We received two different alternatives in 17 the process here. And the  or two different proposals. 18 And the two alternatives that you saw on our proposal to 19 you today reflect those  in large sense reflect those 20 two industry proposals. 21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And is OPEI part of 22 the industry? 23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 24 One of them was EMA, OPEI, Briggs and Stratton proposal. 25 MR. GUERRY: If you look at Exhibit 8 to my  PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 303 1 the OPEI written statement, that is the OPEI/ EMA 2 counterproposal that was submitted on September 9th. If 3 you look on the first page of that, the bottom bullet says 4 that a core element of the counterproposal, quote, " limit 5 the scope of the program to California only." 6 So we've been very clear throughout this process 7 of one of the fundamental core elements because of the 8 problems with infrastructure, production, distribution has 9 been a California program. I know the Board, at least 10 looking at the public staff report, that information and 11 that  and the importance of that program of course we 12 don't believe has been adequately fleshed out for you guys 13 to make a decision today. And that's one of the critical 14 reasons we feel this is an important Board decision with 15 significant policy implications, and that  that you need 16 more time and you need clear options presented to evaluate 17 how to structure and how it could be structured in various 18 ways. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: If I might 20 respond to the travel issue head on, because Mr. Cackette 21 responded to the technical aspects of the 22 counterproposals. Travel is a fundamental policy issue. 23 Whether or not this Board wishes to deny other 24 states the benefits of our work  we do collaborate with 25 other states, most notably Texas and New York, and other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 304 1 states on the eastern seaboard, who join with us on motor 2 vehicle regulations, for heavy duty  for example, the 3 NTE issue we worked on together. We've had states adopt 4 our low emission vehicle regulations. And so as a policy 5 matter, we try not to draw a moat  or create a moat 6 around California and say, " Well, we're figuring out our 7 problem, but you're stuck alone with yours." We like to 8 export our knowledge around the world. 9 But since the time that the question was first 10 raised to us and rebuffed it at a policy level, of course 11 to ultimately your decision, we have been engaged in a 12 fight in Congress with  brought by one of the members of 13 OPEI, Briggs and Stratton, through an amendment introduced 14 by Senator Kit Bond to the VA HUD appropriation, which 15 would take away all states' ability to regulate this 16 category and other categories of off road engines. And 17 states throughout the nation have rallied to our side to 18 defend the importance of these regulations. 19 And so at this time, given all that has gone on, 20 it would be most improper in our view to turn our back on 21 our allies in that fight and say, " We're going to 22 construct a measure that California and California alone 23 can implement," even if in return for doing that, Briggs 24 and Stratton agreed to drop the Kit Bond amendment. It's 25 just simply not a possibility anymore because of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 305 1 battle that's been joined and the way that the lines were 2 drawn. 3 So it's correct to say we've made that 4 distinction before. We've created optional compliance 5 paths that don't export. We've done memorandas of 6 understanding that don't export. But generally we wish to 7 work with our colleagues in air pollution control around 8 the world and share our expertise and experience rather 9 than only look out for our own interest. 10 MR. GUERRY: Can I address that? Because my 11 client, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, has not 12 been a sponsor of the rider she mentioned. 13 However, having said that  and I've had this 14 conversation with Tom and others  it seems to me that 15 the objective and purpose of the CARB Board should be to 16 focus on the air quality for the breathers in California. 17 And to the extent that you create the likelihood of a de 18 facto national standard, you raise the bar significantly 19 in terms of scrutiny of national interest groups, 20 including national safety interest groups and other 21 stakeholders. 22 And it makes it a much harder pill for industry 23 to swallow because you're  I think a lot of my members 24 would be willing to provide extremely clean, extremely 25 expensive  the testing ground in California have serious PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 306 1 reservations if you multiply that by a national market for 2 a product such as this. And, therefore, you create a much 3 greater burden and much greater difficulty for industry 4 and staff to reach a solution that would be in the best 5 interests of the public of California. 6 So by  7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is Briggs and Stratton a 8 member of your  9 MR. GUERRY: Briggs and Stratton is a member of 10 ours, as is  11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, let me also add to what 12 Ms. Witherspoon said, because I was also approached. 13 Because, as she said, this is a policy issue on travel. 14 And the feedback I gave was that I'm not high on travel. 15 But I don't know where my colleagues stand, and I would 16 entertain what was going on. 17 Before anything proceeded, then in fact one of 18 your members went to Washington. And the whole complexity 19 of the game changed. And I stand 100 percent behind staff 20 on this issue. Because talking about good faith, we were 21 operating in good faith. The rules were changed, not by 22 us. Staff continued to work in spite of that, continued 23 to work to bring a proposal before us. 24 And to say that we  our obligation here is  25 that we are somehow doing something wrong, I think it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 307 1 really relates to the facts and it skews the facts. When 2 I see one of the members, as you saw earlier, providing 3 products to us, and when I see another member coming 4 forward and saying they can live with this, and that their 5 products clearly are cleaner, our obligation to clean air 6 in California is very clear. 7 We didn't start the game in California  in 8 Washington. We would not wish to do that. We would like 9 to work with you. We've demonstrated we have by a hundred 10 percent. We cannot turn our backs on our allies and the 11 rest of this country and our representatives in 12 Washington. We cannot do that. 13 So then let's make it clear. Our obligation is 14 to the citizens of California, to protect air quality. 15 We've done that throughout the years, no matter what the 16 administration. 17 And in fact we can go out and drive cars today  18 we've seen the results of that. And we have a very proud 19 record. And we're not going to go down and play the game 20 that's being played. 21 So it's very clear to us the message you're 22 getting. We may lose, but we will lose with honor. And 23 we will lose trying to protect the rights of the citizens 24 of California and every other state. 25 That's all to be said on this issue. I would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 308 1 like to move on. 2 And I sympathize with you, by the way, because 3 all of us would not like to be in this place. 4 Professor Friedman. 5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So I guess except 6 for the travel issue, which you've raised, the proposals 7 that are in  you also said you needed more time  8 MR. GUERRY: Well, I  9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN:  to evaluate the 10 cost elements. 11 MR. GUERRY: No, no. Let me be very clear. 12 Travel was one of the core elements in the 13 counterproposal that I wanted  I was responding to your 14 question that has not been addressed. 15 There are, we believe, numerous Board policy type 16 issues that have also not been addressed in the four page 17 outline that we got for the first time shortly before this 18 meeting and that we saw in, I guess, a two page outline 19 late Monday night. And we believe that there are major 20 significant issues  21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: What are they, 22 please, besides travel and cost? 23 MR. GUERRY: I mean some of it has to do with the 24 framework of the new alternatives that have been added 25 that have not been part of any discussion with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 309 1 associations and CARB staff, including there appears  2 there apparently is now an entirely new alternative with 3 an averaging program that I'm not in a position to even be 4 able to get approval from my membership as to what that 5 even means and how that will come unfold. 6 There are also significant issues in terms of 7 executive office approval of some sort of equivalent 8 running loss controls. And that's something that's a 9 promising option, but it's something that needs to have 10 greater clarity and Board review. And I guess we see  11 and I think talking to some of the CARB staff, I think 12 every  I think CARB staff is in an untenable position 13 that in the time that we've made this progress, they're 14 put with having to not get the ultimate Board approval 15 that I would certainly want if I was in their shoes. 16 And I think you guys need to stay involved in 17 overseeing the process. And I don't see a downside in 18 doing that. And all we're asking for is to have  let us 19 continue to work this out, get it to a more refined clear 20 notion, fill in some of the big holes, and have greater 21 comfort that at the Board level there's been a review and 22 approval, as I think it was intended for the CARB to 23 operate in a meaningful review role. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I think we can do this. 25 We have the 15 day comment period. We could do this. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 310 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We do believe 2 except for travel that the issues are mostly ministerial. 3 If we're wrong about that and something major were to 4 arise, we would of course return to the Board. But we 5 don't think you need to make a presumption today that 6 that's going to occur. You can trust us to bring it back 7 and seek your policy direction if in fact a major policy 8 issues erupts. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And we have checked with our 10 legal staff. And we feel confident about going ahead. 11 But, again, I wish we were not in this position. 12 But that's where we find ourselves. 13 MR. GUERRY: Thank you very much. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 15 Joe, Rick Bell, Don Anair. 16 MR. KUBSH: Good afternoon again, Chairman Lloyd 17 and members of the Board. Joe Kubsh, Deputy Director of 18 the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. 19 I'm proud to stand here to strongly support the 20 proposal as put forward, even with the modifications as 21 presented by staff this afternoon. 22 We commend the Board for its continuing efforts 23 to develop and implement effective control programs for 24 major sources of air pollution, including small off road 25 engines. We believe that the proposed amendments are an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 311 1 important step forward in further reducing emissions from 2 small off road engines. 3 We also commend the ARB staff for its technical 4 report that reflects a comprehensive and balanced analysis 5 of the issues presented by this proposed rulemaking and 6 for staff's willingness to work cooperatively with all 7 interested stakeholders. 8 I'd like to specifically talk about the issue of 9 applying catalysts to non handheld applications as covered 10 by the staff presentation. 11 MECA strongly concurs with the staff analysis and 12 conclusion that the proposed hydrocarbon and NOx emission 13 standards for these engines are technologically feasible. 14 In fact, we were ready to stand here and say that they 15 were technologically feasible even with the proposal that 16 was contained in the original staff report at the 8 and 6 17 grams. 18 And I think the test results that were generated 19 at Southwest Research Institute also indicate that even 20 those lower levels are technologically feasible and can be 21 reached with the application of catalyst technology to 22 non handheld engines. 23 I'd also like to take a minute to talk about the 24 issue of thermal management or the safety issues around 25 dealing with high exhaust temperatures. This issue of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 312 1 heat management that has been raised by the industry is, 2 as Mr. Cackette indicated in his remarks, a 3 straightforward engineering challenge that is well 4 understood and can be readily addressed. These types of 5 issues have been raised virtually every time the use of a 6 catalyst technology has been proposed for use on a 7 spark ignited engine, whether it be 30 years ago when 8 catalysts were first talked about on cars or more recently 9 with catalysts on applications such as motor cycles or 10 mopeds or forklift trucks or small handheld engines. 11 In each case, all of these issues were 12 successfully addressed for each application. The 13 situation we feel is no different here for these 14 non handheld engines. 15 Indeed, 30 years of catalyst experience in 16 general and over 10 years experience with applying 17 catalysts to small engines provide an experience base that 18 has enabled catalyst technology to continue to be improved 19 and has provided an increasing understanding of how to 20 optimize the engine catalyst exhaust system to work 21 effectively in these situations. 22 Two striking examples of this type of success in 23 dealing with thermal issues can be gleaned from the fact 24 that more than 15 million two stroke motorcycles and 25 mopeds worldwide have been successfully equipped with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 313 1 catalysts and dealt with thermal management issues. As 2 well as more than a million small handheld pieces of 3 equipment using two stroke engines, that again have been 4 successfully integrated with catalysts without causing any 5 safety related issues. 6 So, again, I'd just like to commend the staff for 7 the fine work they've done here. I'd also like to commend 8 the engineers at Southwest Research Institute for the fine 9 job that they did in completing this test program. 10 And in closing, again I would like to commend the 11 Board for its leadership in reducing emissions from these 12 small engines. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks very much. 14 No questions? 15 Thank you. 16 Rick Bell, Don Anair, Jeff Arnold. 17 MR. BELL: If it's acceptable for the Board, I 18 have approximately six slides I'd like to present to help 19 substantiate some of the information I'll be discussing. 20 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation was 21 Presented as follows.) 22 MR. BELL: My name is Rick Bell. I'm a 23 development manager with the Dupont Company. 24 Dupont is a polymer and elastomer supplier. We 25 supply a lot of the  excuse me just a second. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 314 1 ( Thereupon a discussion was held off 2 the record.) 3 MR. BELL: Should I take a  should I let the 4 next person go ahead of me, and then I'll  5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How long, Victoria, is this 6 going to be? 7 Does anybody not have overheads here? What about 8 Don? 9 Yeah, maybe Don can fill in while  10 MR. BELL: I was considering it more for the 11 audience rather than the staff, because some of these 12 technologies  13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Then let's hold on then. 14 Maybe Don can come up and  yeah. And when we 15 get this fixed, we'll  16 MR. ANAIR: Good afternoon. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good afternoon. 18 MR. ANAIR: My name is Don Anair and I'm with the 19 Union of Concerned Scientists. And I'd like to express 20 our support of the rule proposed by the staff. 21 Off road engines in California are becoming a 22 significant source of air pollution, as on road cars and 23 trucks are required to meet tighter emission standards. 24 With existing regulations, off road hydrocarbon and 25 nitrogen oxide emissions in California are expected to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 315 1 become 60 percent of total California mobile source 2 emissions by 2020, compared to 37 percent in the year 3 2000. 4 Cleaning up smaller engines that have high 5 emissions is critical to meeting California clean air 6 goals and SIP commitments. The potential savings from 7 this rule are quite significant. According to the staff's 8 estimates  original estimates, the reductions of 9 hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide achieved by 2020 would be 10 equivalent to removing 1.8 million cars from California's 11 roads. These are the pollutants that are directly 12 responsible for producing urban ozone. Nine out of ten 13 Californians live in areas that do not obtain the national 14 ambient air quality standards for ozone. 15 California has the authority to clean up small 16 off road engines and should do so for the health of all 17 Californians. 18 While we support this rule as proposed by the ARB 19 staff and agree that it will achieve significant emissions 20 reductions, zero emissions equipment should be more 21 strongly encouraged. Electrical equipment in this 22 category can be and is used in many applications and 23 offers clear emissions benefits over combustion engine 24 equipment. A strong zero emission component will achieve 25 emissions benefits above and beyond the proposed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 316 1 regulation. 2 We urge the Board to adopt the proposed 3 strengthened emissions requirements proposed today by the 4 staff for small off road engines to benefit the health of 5 all Californians. We also urge the Board to direct ARB 6 staff to investigate and propose a future amendment to the 7 regulation that strongly promotes the manufacture and use 8 of zero emissions equipment. 9 I'd like to thank the Board for the great job 10 they've done in proposing the original and the amended 11 proposal. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks very much. 14 We're still out of action, I guess. 15 We're not. Okay. 16 So maybe, Rick, you could come back. 17 And then we'll have Jeff Arnold and Tom Addison. 18 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation was 19 Presented as follows.) 20 MR. BELL: I guess sometimes new technology 21 doesn't always work well. 22 But, again, I'm Rick Bell. I'm a development 23 manager with Dupont. And Dupont is a polymer and 24 elastomer supplier for this supply chain, small off road 25 engines. We supply materials that are commercially used PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 317 1 today. We also supply materials and technology that could 2 be part of a solution to meet the new proposed 3 recommendations. 4 Really my testimony here today is to help 5 validate a lot of the information that Jim Watson 6 presented. But what I'd like to do is to add a few more 7 comments to some of that, addressing some of the concerns 8 that have come up in past workshops around some of these 9 new materials or ways of meeting lower evap limits. 10  o0o 11 MR. BELL: The area where Dupont has expertise is 12 in fuel tanks  plastic fuel tanks, excluding the 13 diurnal. Although when you look at the diurnal, Dupont 14 does also supply nylon for the canisters, fuel lines, and 15 engine seals. So I'm specifically going to discuss these 16 components. I am not going to talk about exhaust 17 emissions. 18  o0o 19 MR. BELL: One of the potential solutions we see 20 for blow molded polyethylene fuel tanks is a technology 21 called Selar RB. It's a very simple solution to make a 22 low permeable polyethylene fuel tank. 23 Basically Selar is an additive which is added to 24 polyethylene. It's used extensively today in the 25 automotive industry and for packaging industry, for things PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 318 1 like hazardous chemicals. It's approved also by CARB as a 2 low perm technology barrier resin for portable or jerry 3 can plastic fuel tanks. 4  o0o 5 MR. BELL: Again, this is  it's patented 6 technology. But basically it involves just adding 7 7 percent of a barrier resin to your polyethylene and you 8 would blend it in line. And it can reduce permeation over 9 the straight polyethylene by a factor of 95 percent. It 10 requires very little capital investment. Basically a new 11 screw is required in your blow molding machine, but that's 12 all the investment requires. 13 We're looking at the upcharge for this type of 14 technology as being less than 75 cents per tank for a tank 15 on the size of approximately one and a half liters, which 16 is roughly one and a half quartz. So this is very easy 17 technology to implement. 18 Some of the concerns raised at past workshops 19 have been that this technology will reduce the impact 20 strength of a polyethylene fuel tank. And while, in fact, 21 that is true, when you look at the other applications 22 where this is used, such as automotive fuel tanks and 23 hazardous chemicals, these applications require an impact 24 test where you drop a tank from six meters at minus 40 25 degrees C filled with water and glycol, and these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 319 1 polyethylene tanks will bounce off concrete at those 2 conditions. So while there is a small reduction in impact 3 strength, that reduction can be managed by a modification 4 of the pinch off. Again, these are relatively simple 5 things that can be done to be in compliance. 6  o0o 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's it? 8 MR. BELL: No. 9 And this just shows here a comparison of Selar 10 versus other alternatives to reduce permeation. Again, 11 what this is highlighting is Selar is one solution. You 12 also have a solution using fluorination or sulfonation or 13 core extrusion. These are all viable technologies. 14 We believe though that one area we don't directly 15 address here is rotomolded polyethylene fuel tanks. For 16 that specific application we believe a fluorination or a 17 sulfonation process would be a very practical solution. 18  o0o 19 MR. BELL: And I don't think I'm pointing the 20 clicker at the right machine to get it to  just point up 21 here? 22 Okay. The other solution for plastic fuel tanks 23 is to simply look at a different base resin. CARB has 24 done a lot of testing with nylon. And that's because 25 nylon plastic fuel tanks for small off road engines are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 320 1 used today. So, again, this is commercial technology that 2 already is in compliance with low evap requirements. 3 In addition to nylon, you could also look at 4 acetone as an alternative material. 5 Again, these products will tend to have lower 6 impact strength versus polyethylene. But they will also 7 tend to strengthen and stiffen the tank. So if you're 8 looking at situations where you might have slight 9 pressurization, a change of material will help in 10 preventing too much ballooning of the tank. 11 There could be some questions with shrinkages. 12 You may need some new tooling. But, again, we look at 13 this for a one and a half liter tank as the upcharge being 14 less than $ 2.25 to have a low perm solution. 15  o0o  16 MR. BELL: Another area I'd like to address is 17 low perm plastic fuel lines. We  18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How long are you going to go 19 on? 20 MR. BELL: Five minutes. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You mean  you've already 22 had ten. 23 MR. BELL: Okay. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think  let's cut it. 25 MR. BELL: Okay. Again, I don't think there's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 321 1 any question around low perm plastic fuel lines. One 2 point I would like to add is the new proposal looked at a 3 15 gram per square meter limit. There are technologies 4 out there such as F 200 from Moldex which can actually 5 reduce that below 5. So there are even lower perm 6 alternatives commercially used today. 7  o0o 8 MR. BELL: Again, engine seals, there are 9 low cost solutions. This is commercial technology which 10 is used in other applications today, easily appliable to 11 this market. 12  o0o 13 MR. BELL: So that is in brief I guess all we 14 wanted to present. Again, just substantiating the numbers 15 we see that CARB has presented, we do believe those are 16 valid numbers and this is technology easily implemented. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Oh, that's the measure. 18 That's excellent. Again, thank you very much. 19 Any questions from the Board? 20 Thank you very much. 21 We're going to take a five minute break for the 22 court reporter before we get to the home stretch here. 23 So let's get back at 5: 15 by that clock there. 24 ( Thereupon a recess was taken.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We commence with Jeff Arnold, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 322 1 Tom Addison, Todd Campbell. 2 MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. 3 Chairman Lloyd and Board members, thank you for 4 giving me the opportunity to speak to this group. My name 5 is  6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, we've got a couple of 7 Board members listening in the back, by the way. There 8 are  you can hear them back there  they can hear you. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: There's speakers back there. 11 MR. ARNOLD: So I don't have to talk real loud 12 then, right? 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, you still have to talk 14 loud. No, not loud though. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Just don't have your 16 cell phone go off. 17 ( Laughter.) 18 MR. ARNOLD: No, it plays a different tune, I 19 play, than hers, so we're okay. 20 ( Laughter.) 21 MR. ARNOLD: My name is Jeff Arnold, and I am the 22 Executive Director and CEO of the Association of 23 Rotational Molders International, which is based in Oak 24 Brook, Illinois, outside suburban Chicago. Our 25 association represents over 350 rotomolders and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 323 1 rotomolding material and equipment suppliers in 60 2 countries around the world, with 15 rotomolders in 3 California alone. 4 The vast majority, around 90 percent, of U. S. 5 rotomolders are small, privately held companies with a 6 single plant and four to five rotational molding machines. 7 Most of our members fall in to the Category 2 or 225 cc 8 greater category. 9 I'd like to address my comments briefly to two 10 issues that arise in connection with CARB's proposed 11 regulation, keeping them specifically to limiting 12 evaporative emissions from small off road equipment fuel 13 tanks. 14 The exhaust issue is not applicable to our 15 industry. We are in the plastics field. 16 One is CARB's contention that rotomolded fuel 17 tanks on SORE can be cost effectively and safely replaced 18 with units made from metal or alternative plastic 19 processing methods. And, two, the damage to the U. S. 20 rotomolding industry on their material and equipment 21 suppliers if this important market were to be limited or 22 lost due to these proposed regulations. 23 The study, conversion from steel to plastic fuel 24 tanks over the recent past, satisfies a number of economic 25 mandates from the marketplace as well as the environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 324 1 mandates coming from federal and state agencies, to wit: 2 Longer life expectancy, enhanced safety, enhanced 3 flammability resistance, parts consolidation, greater 4 design freedom, weight savings, corrosion resistance, and 5 sound dampening. 6 The reason why rotomolding is preferred in small 7 scale SORE fuel tanks relates to rotomoldable plastic 8 material options, the nature of the process, and the total 9 cost burden of the process. 10 Rotomolders can utilize cross linked 11 polyethylene, which as a thermal setting plastic, is quite 12 rigid and its mechanical properties are not heat 13 sensitive. 14 Second, rotomolding yields a part with uniform 15 thickness. Third, machine and cast rotomolds and 16 rotomolding machines are lower in cost. And, fourth, 17 rotomolding is the ideal process for low volume hollow 18 part production, and has a significant presence in SORE 19 fuel tank businesses. 20 In closing, since 2000 the U. S. economy has 21 suffered through economic conditions. Here in 2003 there 22 are signs of economic recovery, yet it is turning out to 23 be a jobless recovery. It would be both untimely and 24 unfortunate if these proposed regulations impact adversely 25 on a sector of the plastics industry that provides jobs PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 325 1 and plants here in California, especially southern 2 California. 3 Rather than contemplating the replacement of 4 rotomolded SORE fuel tanks, we feel that CARB should 5 consider providing incentives to regional rotomolders to 6 explore technological changes in material, machinery, and 7 processing methods, would make a highly cost effective 8 product even better. 9 And I'd like to add just at the very end of the 10 comments that historically  our association is 28 years 11 old this year. And historically we have been  our main 12 mission is to promote the industry in the process. So we 13 are not typically involved in this type of process. And 14 we would be happy to work, you know, with the CARB Board. 15 This came to our attention from a couple of our members 16 just within the last 30 days. And that is why we have not 17 been here previously. 18 So thank you very much. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you for coming. And 20 I'm sure staff will work with you on these issues. 21 MR. ARNOLD: All right. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 23 Tom Addison. 24 I didn't see Tom. That's okay. 25 Todd Campbell. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 326 1 No Todd. 2 Jim Medich. 3 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: For Tom Addison. After 4 five Bay Area Air Districts, the employees don't work. 5 So  6 ( Laughter.) 7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:  he'll be happy to 8 hear that. They're out watching the sunset in the hot tub 9 or something. 10 ( Laughter.) 11 MR. MEDICH: Chairman Lloyd, members of the 12 Board. I'm Jim Medich. I'm a fire division chief with 13 the West Sac