0001
 1                   PUBLIC HEARING
       CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION
 2                 ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT
                NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
 3
 4          PANEL MEMBERS:  Bryan Wood-Thomas
 5                          Glenn Passavant
 6                          Susan Stahle
 7                          Amber Aranda
 8
 9
10                                     Reston, Virginia
11                                Tuesday, June 5, 2007
12
13
14   called for oral testimony at the Sheraton Hotel,
15   11810 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia
16   before Mary E. Warner of Capital Reporting, a
17   Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of
18   Virginia, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
19
20
21
22
0002
 1                   PRESENTERS
 2   Bill Guerry - Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
 3   Ron Lloyd - Toro
 4   Rob Stegall - Echo
 5   Frank O'Donnell - Clean Air Watch
 6   Nancy Kruger - National Association of Clean Air
 7                  Agencies
 8   Elizabeth deLone Paranhos - Environmental Defense
 9   Joe Kubsh - Manufacturers of Emission Controls
10               Association
11   Wayne Richter - Heraeus
12   Todd Rodgers - Arkema
13   Todd Rodgers (for Gary Eden) - Solar Plastics
14   Robert Porter - Inca Molded Products
15   Tony Riviezzo - Promens, Inc.
16   Dan Grimes - Centro
17   Mike Freeman - Global Safety
18   Rich Waggoner - Indmar Marine Products
19   Dan Ostrosky - Yamaha Motor Corporation
20   Roger Gault - Engine Manufacturers Association
21   Nickolaus Leggett - Private Citizen
22
0003
 1   John McKnight - National Marine Manufacturers
 2                   Association
 3   Mark Riechers - Mercury Marine
 4   Paul Ray - Ilmor
 5   Paul Dierksen - Volvo Penta of the Americas
 6   Chuck Thurman - Pleasurecraft Marine Engines &
 7                   Crusader Marine Engines
 8   Eddie Allbright - Marine Power
 9   Dave Marlow - Brunswick Boat Group
10   Fernando Garcia - Bombardier Recreational Products
11   Masakazu Kikuchi - Tohatsu
12   John Adey - American Boat & Yacht Council
13   Jim Hardin - Grady White Boats
14   Steve Burkholder - Envirofill
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0004
 1                  P R O C E E D I N G S
 2          MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Let's begin today.  Good
 3   morning to all of you.  I'd like to welcome you
 4   today to our public hearing on the small
 5   spark-ignition rule.  I'm Bryan Wood-Thomas.  The
 6   Associate Director of EPA's Office of
 7   Transportation and Air Quality.  I'll be serving
 8   as the presiding officer for this hearing.
 9            We will be hearing testimony today on the
10   notice of proposed rule making for emissions from
11   non-road spark-ignition engines and equipment
12   which was signed by the administrator on April
13   17th and published in Federal Register on May 18th
14   of this year.
15            Today more than half our population in
16   the United States, 160 million Americans live in
17   485 counties that are not meeting air quality
18   standards for PM or ozone or both.  As part of
19   EPA's effort to reduce these emissions, we have
20   set emission standards for over the last decade
21   for nearly all types of highway and non-road
22   engines, vehicles and equipment.
0005
 1            Also over the past ten years we've made
 2   important steps towards reducing pollution from
 3   small gasoline powered engines and recreational
 4   marine engines.
 5            The proposed rule which is the subject of
 6   today's hearing will dramatically cut emissions
 7   from gasoline powered recreational marine engines
 8   and small land based engines.  The proposal
 9   applies to all types of recreational marine
10   engines, including outboard, personal watercraft,
11   stern drive and inboard engines.
12            The proposal also applies to both
13   handheld and non-handheld small engines and
14   includes evaporative emission requirements that
15   apply to the vessels and land based equipment that
16   use these engines.
17            I'd like to briefly outline what we've
18   proposed.  The proposal consists of a three part
19   program.
20            First for small engines, we're proposing
21   hydrocarbon and NOx emission standards which would
22   result in a 35 reduction in HC and NOx exhaust
0006
 1   emission from new engines.  For class I engines,
 2   the new standard would start in 2012 model year.
 3   And for class II engines, they would start in
 4   2011 model year.
 5            These standards are consistent with the
 6   requirements recently adopted by the California
 7   Air Resources Board.  Second we're proposing new
 8   emission standards for marine propulsion engines
 9   starting in the 2009 model year.  And for outboard
10   and personal watercraft engines above 40 KW the
11   proposed standards are 16 grams per kilowatt hour
12   for HC and NOx and 300 grams per kilowatt hour for
13   CO.
14            For engines below 40 KW, the standards
15   increase gradually based on the engine's maximum
16   power.  And these standards again are consistent
17   with the requirements recently adopted by
18   California Air Resources Board with the addition
19   of the CO standard.
20            We're also proposing the first ever
21   Federal emission standards for sterndrive and
22   inboard marine engines.  The proposed standards
0007
 1   would result in an estimated 70 percent reduction
 2   in HC and NOx emissions and a 20 percent reduction
 3   in CO in the new engines.
 4            Third, we're proposing new evaporative
 5   emission standards for both engine categories.
 6   The new standards include requirements to control
 7   fuel tank, fuel line permeation emissions.
 8            In addition small engine fuel systems
 9   used with non-handheld equipment must control
10   diffusion and running loss emissions.
11            Recreational marine engine fuel systems
12   must also control diurnal emissions.  And the
13   proposed standards would result in a 45 percent
14   reduction in evaporative emissions for small
15   engine equipment fuel systems and approximately 70
16   percent for recreational marine engine vessel fuel
17   systems.
18            As with our other recent rule makings
19   we've worked collaborative with diverse
20   stakeholders, many of you have worked with Glenn,
21   Mike Samulski, Alan Stout, others involved in
22   this effort.  And many of those stakeholders
0008
 1   including engine and equipment manufacturers,
 2   technology companies, environmental groups and
 3   states are present today for this hearing.
 4            Let me say that we look forward to
 5   continuing to work together collaboratively as we
 6   move forward to finalizing this important rule.
 7            Today's hearing allows for any interested
 8   party to provide comments on the proposal in
 9   person.  However, I want to note there's also
10   opportunity for anyone to send us written
11   comments.  The written period comment period will
12   close on August 3rd.  And instructions for how to
13   submit those comments are provided in the notice
14   of proposed rule making in the Federal Register
15   publication noted before.
16            Representing EPA here today with me is
17   Glenn Passavant, who is on my left and is
18   responsible for managing the project overall.
19   Susan Stahle to Glenn's left is with the Office of
20   General Counsel.  And also with us here today is
21   Alan Stout and also Mike Samulski.  We expect
22   also another member of our general counsel to join
0009
 1   us later this morning.
 2            Before we start testimony this morning,
 3   I'd like to take a few minutes to outline how
 4   we're going proceed.  We're conducting the hearing
 5   in accordance with section 307 of the Amended
 6   Clean Air Act which requires EPA to provide
 7   interested persons an opportunity for oral
 8   presentation of data, views, arguments in addition
 9   to the ability to make written comments.  The
10   official record of the hearing will be kept open
11   for 30 days after this hearing.  And the hearing
12   will be conducted informally and formal Rules of
13   Evidence will not apply.  However, as the
14   presiding officer, I'm authorized to strike
15   statements from the record which are deemed
16   irrelevant or needlessly repetitious and to
17   enforce reasonable limits on the duration and
18   statement of any witness.  Hopefully that's not an
19   issue.  We do have quite a few witnesses today.
20   And we'd like to keep a reasonable time frame for
21   your statements between five to ten minutes and to
22   help move things along efficiently.  As many of
0010
 1   you are aware, we've organized the testimony into
 2   panels.  And given people's arrival we're going to
 3   make some adjustments to that as well.
 4            Witnesses must state their name and
 5   affiliation prior to making their statement.
 6   Please do so.  If not, I will remind you.  When a
 7   witness has finished his or her presentation, we on
 8   the panel will avail ourselves of the
 9   opportunity to ask questions related to the
10   testimony.  Those will be principally be issues of
11   clarifications, if we have any questions about
12   points being made.  And any false statements or
13   false responses are a violation of law.
14            If any member of the audience here today
15   has not already signed up, please submit your name
16   at the reception table.  We'll -- we will indeed
17   accommodate everyone who wants to testify and
18   we'll stay here as late as necessary to do that.
19            And to everyone attending we'd also ask
20   to please sign the register whether or not you're
21   testifying.
22            Finally, a court reporter is recording
0011
 1   these proceedings.  If you'd like a transcript of
 2   today's public hearing, you should make
 3   arrangements, directly with the court reporter
 4   during one of the breaks.  We'll place a copy of
 5   the transcript from today's hearing in the docket
 6   for rule making within the next few weeks. And
 7   before we begin our panels and all testimony
 8   I want to ask if there are any clarifying
 9   questions from anyone here?
10            Okay.  If not what we'll do is proceed to
11   begin with our testimony.  And one of the
12   adjustments due to availability and arrival of
13   people is we're going to begin with panel 2, with
14   Bill Guerry, Ron Lloyd, Rob Stegall.  If you could
15   come forward.
16            MR. GUERRY:  Good morning, my name is
17   Bill Guerry.  I am counsel to the Outdoor Power
18   Equipment Institute.  I'm joined on this panel
19   this morning with Ron Lloyd, who is chair of the
20   OPEI Clean Air Act Committee, which is the lead
21   organization that interfaces with EPA on behalf of
22   the ground supported engine and equipment
0012
 1   manufacturing group under OPEI.  To his right is
 2   Rob Stegall, who is chair of the OPEI handheld
 3   committee.
 4            Today I'm going to provide an overview of
 5   the emission contributions from ground supported
 6   and handheld lawn garden equipment and speak to
 7   some of the tremendous benefits that we working
 8   with EPA have accomplished over the last 11 years
 9   on three phases of emission regulations.
10            Ron Lloyd is going to discuss some of the
11   challenges in the ground supported world, in
12   particular related to the non-integrated nature of
13   that industry sector where we have separate and
14   distinct engine manufacturers, equipment
15   manufacturers, muffler manufacturers and catalysts
16   manufacturers.
17            Rob Stegall is then going to provide an
18   overview of some of the specific challenges that
19   are unique to certain handheld products, like
20   chain saws and then I'm going to provide a brief
21   summary that's going to outline some of the themes
22   that OPEI will be submitting comments on by the
0013
 1   August 3rd deadline.
 2            Who is OPEI?  OPEI is an International
 3   trade association.  It has three major missions.
 4   The first is developing and promoting clean and
 5   cost-effective technologies.  The second is
 6   developing and ensuring safe products.  We do that
 7   through our leadership under both the ANSI and ISO
 8   standard process to help safely implement the EPA
 9   phase three program.  OPEI is already way underway
10   in developing new ANSI standards that will apply
11   to essentially all the new components that are
12   part of this regulatory program.  Those include
13   fuel tanks, fuel lines and catalysts all which
14   have separate and distinct challenges that we're
15   working on.
16            We also do a lot of work with education
17   of users and regulatory agencies and a stewardship
18   role to make sure many of the small members are
19   well prepared for challenges such as of the ones
20   in the phase three rule.
21            Who we represent:  Quickly we cover
22   basically all of the major green spaces that you
0014
 1   see be it lawn and garden, golf courses,
 2   commercial turf care.  All that green space is
 3   maintained by our products.  Our manufactures
 4   include not only the engines and equipment but
 5   also important components that are also part of
 6   this rule such as catalysts manufacturers.  I know
 7   you're going to hear from Wayne Richter, Heraeus
 8   which is an OPEI member, of a muffler
 9   manufacturers, fuel tanks, lower permeation
10   barrier technologies.  We represent the solutions
11   that are part of the process.
12            As I mentioned, this is an industry
13   dominated by hundreds of small manufacturers and
14   component suppliers and they depend on OPEI in
15   their interface regulatory agencies in preparing
16   them to produce safe product.
17            Harmonization, I know my colleague, Roger
18   Gault, from EMA will be highlighting some of the
19   needs for harmonization from the engine
20   manufacturer's standpoint but as I believe EPA well
21   understands, manufacturers must build and
22   distribute through national retailers 50 State EPA
0015
 1   CARB compliant products.  When you're dealings
 2   with millions of products and you're selling them
 3   through five major national retailers for the most
 4   part, you can't segregate products for 50 states.
 5            We appreciate the fact that the phase
 6   three program is largely based on the CARB tier
 7   three exhaust and evaporative programs and should
 8   allow us to build 50 state products for the most
 9   part.
10            However, there are problematic
11   inconsistencies in CARB and EPA's certification,
12   labelling and test procedural requirements.  Those
13   requirements mean that instead of being able to
14   certify and test one time, particularly under the
15   evap program, we have to redo duplicative
16   unnecessary tests to certify under the evap fuel
17   tank and fuel lines essentially the same product.
18   So there's no benefit to significant cost.  Rob
19   Stegall is going to be discussing that in his
20   remarks.
21            We look forward to work with EPA and with
22   our colleagues at CARB to achieve improved
0016
 1   harmonization.
 2            The time lines, I have enjoyed over the
 3   last 15 years working closely on the three phases
 4   of emission regulations that the folks in Ann
 5   Arbor have developed with a lot of constructive
 6   solutions from OPEI and other stakeholders.
 7            The point of this slide is just to
 8   highlight that there has been a remarkable amount
 9   of regulatory activity in our industry.  This is
10   the third regulation in 11 years.  We support the
11   development again of this regulation.
12            However, I just wanted to highlight that
13   our manufacturers produce very cost sensitive
14   products.  We need stability after regulation is
15   adopted.  There are concerns that if manufacturers
16   have to rebuild and redesign new models for each
17   new model year, the system won't work.  We can't
18   produce products like that.  We need to have
19   stability.  We need to have targets and we need to
20   have lead time.
21            Quickly I just want to go through a
22   couple slides that highlights the tremendous
0017
 1   emission benefits that have resulted from the
 2   first two phases of exhaust regulations.
 3            And I want to thank EPA Ann Arbor staff
 4   for helping in the development of these slides in
 5   providing us with background documents from the
 6   EPA non-road model.
 7            This first slide is focusing on a class
 8   one engine.  That's the high volume engines used
 9   to power walk behind mowers.  You can see the
10   reductions occurring from the phase one, phase two
11   and proposed phase three.  The phase three level
12   is basically confirming a 90 percent reduction
13   from the precontrol baseline, engines that were
14   around in 1996.  That's an incredible
15   accomplishment to achieve in roughly 11 years a 90
16   percent reduction in CARB emissions.
17            A similar story for handheld exhaust,
18   where the phase two, three exhaust standards have
19   achieved an 85 percent reduction, compared to
20   baseline engines.  That's a tremendous
21   accomplishment.  We take great pride in that.
22            The next slide total contributions to
0018
 1   man-made smog.  This again I want to thank a lot
 2   of input from the Ann Arbor staff in pulling this
 3   together.  As you can see in the relative
 4   categories, the predominant emissions of smog are
 5   from stationary sources about 50 percent.  Cars
 6   and trucks are about a third.  The entire off road
 7   sector of all engines and vehicles are about 19
 8   percent.  And the small gasoline engines and
 9   that's handheld and ground supported are 3.4
10   percent of the off road -- I'm sorry, 3.4 percent
11   of the total or about less than a fifth of the off
12   road.
13            The next slide is a lawn mower versus
14   auto comparison.  I put you this in here because
15   there has been associated in the press a lot of
16   misleading exaggerated comparisons on the relative
17   emissions of lawnmowers compared to autos.
18            So we spent time and I submitted into the
19   record, this morning an analysis that our
20   consultant, Dr. Sawho has documented that in
21   actuality when you look at mass emissions, one car
22   emits more on an annual basis than four
0019
 1   lawnmowers.  Those are phase two current
 2   lawnmowers.  And over the lifetime over its full
 3   lifetime, one car will emit more mass emissions
 4   than five lawnmowers.
 5            We would appreciate in press releases a
 6   more accurate objective characterization of these
 7   relative emissions.  And again I will submit into
 8   the record analysis to support those comparisons.
 9            While we're talking about emission
10   reductions, I'd also like to highlight that above
11   and beyond as we move through the phase three
12   process the exhaust emissions will achieve another
13   35 percent reductions in ground supported
14   emissions.  Permeation emissions will be reduced
15   by 45 percent below the total evaporative
16   emissions.  That's looking at handheld and ground
17   supported.  One component of that 45 percent is
18   fuel lines for ground supported, the industry, is
19   supporting EPA's proposal to pull up the fuel line
20   requirement to the 2008 engine model year which
21   essentially means no lead time.  We're doing that
22   to help support and achieve expeditiously
0020
 1   substantial air quality gains.  It's an important
 2   part, however, of -- in pulling up those fuel
 3   lines, which achieves a 90 percent below current,
 4   that's one of the reasons that we feel EPA can and
 5   should support us in the flexibilities that are
 6   proposed in the rule.
 7            All right.  With that overview, I'll now
 8   turn it to our CAAC chairman, Ron Lloyd.
 9            MR. LLOYD:  Good morning.  Can you hear
10   me?  Is the mic on?  There you go.  Good morning
11   my name is Ron Lloyd.  I'm senior principal design
12   engineer with the Toro Company.  And I'm here
13   representing the Clean Air Act Committee, which is
14   part of the Outdoor Power Equipment Group.
15            Today I'm speaking to you on behalf of
16   the Clean Air Act Committee working group of OPI.
17   Our group is made up of representatives from both
18   the equipment manufacturers, engine manufacturers,
19   muffler manufacturers and catalysts manufacturers.
20   We represent a significant volume of the product
21   that is sold in our industry in the US.
22            Here's an example of the variety of
0021
 1   equipment types that our committee represents,
 2   ride on commercial turf, carried equipment,
 3   generators, power washers, sprayers, commercial
 4   consumer walk behind mowers, ride on mowers,
 5   garden tractors, utility vehicles.
 6            This represents the basic equipment types
 7   represented directly by OPEI but as stated before,
 8   the small utility engines are used in thousands of
 9   equipment applications that go beyond outdoor
10   power equipment universe.
11            EPA phase three rule flexibility, the
12   proposed lead time and flexibilities are needed
13   for both safety and durability evaluations to
14   build confidence in the emissions reductions from
15   the engine manufacturer's side, flexibility and
16   implementation strategy to fit the complex and
17   non-integrated business structures in our
18   industry.
19            Product design complexities:  Product
20   design complexities are created by the fact that a
21   single engine design is used in multiple product
22   applications.  A small spark-ignited utility
0022
 1   engine may be used to power a walk behind mower in
 2   variable load dirty environment.  And it also may
 3   power a steady load generator in a fairly clean
 4   environment.  And there are hundreds of
 5   applications in between.
 6            Sometimes the exhaust system is added to
 7   the final application by the equipment
 8   manufacturer.  And sometimes the engine supplier
 9   provides the complete system with the engine.
10   There could be thousands of verifications of
11   exhaust systems, as each system is designed to
12   provide the exhaust dispersion, heat mitigation
13   and sound intonation necessary for every
14   application.  The end requirement for the exhaust
15   system is dependent upon the application and the
16   equipment design and the performance
17   specifications.
18            Different applications are used in
19   different environments.  And in some sheltered and
20   some without the detrimental effects of dust and
21   debris.  And others in very difficult environments
22   with dust and debris being the normal expectation.
0023
 1   This leads to variations in users, attention to
 2   maintenance and patterns.
 3            This is an iterative development process
 4   between the OEM and muffler supplier and the
 5   engine manufactures.  The slide shows many loops
 6   in there.
 7            Toro, for example, and I'm speaking for
 8   myself in this case, not CAAC, but Toro, for
 9   example, does not have its first OEM class two
10   supplied catalytic muffler approved for 2008 use
11   in California.  And all I can say is that we are
12   way behind but it's not for lack of trying.
13            This process so far has not been very
14   pleasant.  An engine manufacturer catalyst that
15   they may develop for a specific engine family does
16   not necessarily work with different muffler sizes
17   and placements requiring very unique product
18   constructions.
19            This process can also be very expensive
20   with some manufactures requiring the OEM to
21   provide certifiable test data to the engine
22   manufacturer of engines to full useful life at our
0024
 1   approximate cost of $70,000 per application.
 2            Toro alone has approximately 45 different
 3   mufflers that might require this type of effort
 4   and cost.  The iterative nature of this process is
 5   why the lead times agreed to are required by our
 6   industry.
 7            The engine manufacturer, has to review
 8   all the applications for all the different
 9   mufflers.  And he has to review, for instance for
10   a single muffler, a single engine family, he may
11   have to review over 100 pieces of equipment or 100
12   different potential mufflers to be approved for
13   that engine family.  So he has a lot of work to do
14   in this application.
15            Lead times for national market.  Limited
16   CARB tier three compliant products will be offered
17   in the California market.  For the national market
18   over 1,500 equipment models with different
19   mufflers and fuel tanks will be required.  Some
20   individual OEMs have over 80 unique mufflers on
21   riding mowers.
22            Thank you for your time.  And also I want
0025
 1   to thank the EPA Ann Arbor crew for working
 2   closely with our group to develop a comprehensive
 3   phase three rule for an industry as complex and
 4   non-integrated as ours.
 5            I would now like to introduce to my
 6   right, Mr. Rob Stegall for some comments from the
 7   handheld product group.
 8            MR. STEGALL:  Thank you, Ron.  And good
 9   morning.  We did have a demonstration scheduled
10   outside here, we didn't realize you were going to
11   cover the windows.  We had some of our green
12   technology available today but they were five
13   minutes early.  We'll try to do better in the future.
14            Good morning my name is Robert Stegall.
15            MR. GUERRY:  OPEI's other mission along
16   with environmental protection is promoting the use
17   of quiet product and building quiet products.
18            MR. STEGALL:  I'm the Director of
19   Emission Compliance with Echo, Incorporated a
20   manufacturer of outdoor lawn and garden equipment.
21            Today I'm speaking to you as a chairman
22   of the handheld product committee of OPEI.  Our
0026
 1   members are listed in the slide in front of you.
 2   We represent a majority of the handheld products
 3   manufactured for sale in the US today.
 4            The products we market including amongst
 5   other chain saws, hedge clippers, trimmers and
 6   brush cutters which are intended for use by home
 7   owners, farmers, professionals and commercial
 8   operators.
 9            We have and will continue to work with
10   EPA to finalize the Rule under discussion today in
11   a cost effectively and environmentally friendly
12   manner.  I have only a few points to make at this
13   time.
14            First of all, we fully support EPA's
15   proposed flexibility for products using
16   structurally integrated fuel tanks as well as
17   those provided for products that must be used in
18   all weather conditions including very cold and
19   ambient temperatures.
20            Portability and maneuverability are the
21   key to safe and efficient use of our products.  As
22   such we design and manufacture the engine, the
0027
 1   fuel system and the equipment as an integrated
 2   assembly.  For example, a chain saw must
 3   incorporate the fuel tank as part of the product
 4   support structure.  These tanks must be strong
 5   enough to support both the operating engine, as
 6   well as the forces placed upon the product during
 7   use.  Common blow molding is not an option.  The
 8   materials used must have high strength and impact
 9   resistance as well as high temperature resistance.
10            We often use vibration isolation systems
11   between the handles and engine to reduce vibration
12   exposure to the operator, as such, fuel line
13   flexibility is much more critical than those of
14   other products we typically use in everyday life.
15            Fuel line materials must with stand high
16   movements and vibrations at extreme temperatures
17   without breaking or cracking.  The flexibilities
18   EPA has provided for while challenging in terms of
19   permeation reduction should allow us to engineer
20   safe, practical and cost-effective solutions.
21            EPA has proposed to migrate the exhaust
22   test procedures from part 90 to 40 CFR part
0028
 1   1065.  While we do not disagree with the intent
 2   our preliminary review of 1065 indicates that our
 3   equipment and facilities must be replaced and
 4   updated.
 5            We spent millions of dollars building
 6   laboratories and purchasing unnecessary equipment
 7   to run today's tests.  According to the guidelines
 8   in part 90s.  Most companies have two facilities
 9   to handle development work as well as production
10   line testing.  The different equipment
11   requirements in part 1065 would require retooling,
12   a major expense with no additional environmental
13   benefit.
14            We propose to work with EPA to keep the
15   essence of the current test procedure and
16   equipment in part 90 intact at some level.
17            OPEI recognizes and appreciates EPA's
18   efforts to reduce certification burden on
19   manufacturers in the early years of the proposed
20   rule by allowing for the acceptance of CARB
21   certifications as proof of compliance with the
22   phase three fuel tank evaporative requirements.
0029
 1   We remain concerned, though, that the test
 2   procedures between EPA and CARB remain different
 3   in many aspects including temperature, fuel type
 4   and reconditioning.  We need a long term solution
 5   between CARB and EPA for acceptance of each
 6   other's test procedures with equivalent or
 7   correlated standards.  This should include
 8   language in a rule that would avoid necessity to
 9   request for and received approval to use each
10   other tests.  Since EPA has approved the California
11   rule and principle, we assume the test procedures
12   are also accepted as good engineering practice.
13            Without a solution, we're forced to
14   conduct dual certification testing which can take
15   up to six months for each test for the same
16   products sold in California and the other 49
17   states.  We offer any and all assistance to EPA
18   and California in resolving this concern.
19            While we're still interpreting the
20   language of the preamble and the NPRM, we feel
21   more flexibility relative to engine and equipment
22   labelling and certification may be required,
0030
 1   especially for integrated equipment.  Our products
 2   are often so small that even today's exhaust
 3   labels are difficult to locate.  It is possible
 4   with today's rule that four separate
 5   certifications, that's four different families
 6   would be required on a product such as $159 chain
 7   saw.  This would require up to four labels.  We're
 8   aware of EPA's willingness to work this sort of
 9   detail out.  This would help reduce unnecessary
10   burdens which may occur as part of such a broad
11   and comprehensive package that's spelled out in
12   this rule.
13            Once again I thank you for your time and
14   also compliment EPA for its tireless work for
15   trying to develop a rule for an industry as
16   complicated and as diverse as we are.
17            I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Bill Guerry
18   for some wrap up comments.
19            MR. GUERRY:  Thanks, Rob.  In summary,
20   I'd just like to reiterate some of the points,
21   first in terms of lead time flexibilities and this
22   applies both to ground supported and handheld, I
0031
 1   just want to underscore that in our industry we
 2   literally have hundreds of different equipment
 3   manufacturers and separate and distinct suppliers
 4   that needed adequate time to go through three
 5   different processes as Ron Lloyd highlighted with
 6   catalyst.  And this also applies to fuel tanks and
 7   fuel lines and everything else.
 8            First there's a substantial lead time
 9   needed to integrate new materials and technologies
10   that frequently will behave differently in the
11   extreme operating conditions our equipment is used
12   than traditional or conventional materials.  And
13   that's true both with regard to the evap side as
14   well as the exhaust.
15            Second, we need, as we develop the
16   prototypes which is done through an iterative
17   process with a lot of different players, we need
18   to, once the prototypes are pulled together,
19   evaluate those prototypes for both safety,
20   emissions and durability under real world
21   conditions.  And running that equipment in the
22   field under real world conditions takes time.  As
0032
 1   I mentioned OPEI is developing the infrastructure
 2   and the support, the ANSI process to help members,
 3   particularly small members appreciate the best
 4   ways to quantify risk and avoid problems.
 5            Finally we need to build diverse
 6   equipment models for the national market.  As we
 7   indicated earlier, we believe EPA will be
 8   certifying the range of 1,500 different models.
 9   There are 1,000 different exhaust muffler
10   combinations that will have catalysts.  And
11   there's another 500 different fuel tanks that need
12   to be certified as separate families.
13            Fair and balanced competition, OPEI
14   appreciates EPA's efforts to increase enforcement
15   scrutiny with customs at the border.  We have a
16   tremendous problem and challenge in terms of
17   increased risk of low price point, non-compliant
18   products from offshore and the suppliers of those
19   products seem to be getting more brazen and
20   sophisticated.
21            In that regard OPEI supports EPA's
22   proposal to require bonds from offshore producers
0033
 1   with no US assets.  We feel those bonding
 2   requirements are the only mechanism that EPA has
 3   to hold accountable a bad actor that works through
 4   a shell importer to bring in non-compliant
 5   products.  We also urge EPA to put strong language
 6   in the final rule that prohibits anyone from
 7   selling noncompliant uncertified product.
 8            Mid level ethanol fuels, as you know,
 9   there's a lot of discussion right now on Capitol
10   Hill and certain states to go beyond the current
11   ten percent limitation on ethanol and to seek
12   approval, which is required in 211 (F)(4) of the
13   Clean Air Act for EPA to approve a mid level ethanol
14   blend which is 20 percent ethanol.  We want to
15   make sure there's no loss of emission benefits
16   from this and other rule making.  We are very
17   concerned that the benefits that I discussed
18   earlier, like the 45 percent in reductions in
19   evaporative emissions could be dramatically
20   undermined by a proliferation of mid level ethanol
21   fuels and that would in effect snatch defeat from
22   the jaws of victory that we and EPA have worked so
0034
 1   hard with other stakeholders in the environmental
 2   community to provide these benefits to the
 3   American public.
 4            We strongly need leadership from EPA on
 5   accurately evaluating the impacts of all new
 6   fuels, first and foremost on commerce, on their
 7   existing and new products.  We believe that in the
 8   market right now there are over 500 million legacy
 9   products that are worth several trillion dollars
10   that could be damaged by an unwise policy
11   introducing new fuels before data gaps are filled.
12            I'll be submitting into the record an
13   extensive technical analysis that Dr. Sahu
14   prepared looking at the data gaps that need to be
15   filled relative to mid ethanol fuels that explains
16   some of the engineering principles, particularly
17   with regard to heat that are at the core of some
18   of the concerns.
19            I'd also like to note in terms of the
20   other bullets, EPA needs to take a strong
21   leadership role.  We look forward working with
22   EPA and the other stakeholders in terms of the
0035
 1   environmental impacts and impacts on manufactures.
 2   We thought it was very helpful that as part of the
 3   database of this process, EPA with Mike Samulski's
 4   help has issued an SAE paper that conclude just
 5   the hydrocarbon emissions alone with the current
 6   E-10 levels, which we support E-10 but you can see
 7   there's a delta in the 40 to 60, 70 percent range
 8   of increased emissions of E-10 from nylon tanks.
 9   And certainly makes you wonder what happens if you
10   go up to E-20 in terms of permeation emissions.
11            Now winding down, in terms of the
12   environmental emissions and goals, I would like to
13   underscore again that the equipment that outdoor
14   power equipment manufacturers supply is
15   indispensable in terms of maintaining green space.
16   We are a proud sponsors and our customers of the
17   stewardship of the land and the environment.  We
18   keep the green even greener.  We're part of the
19   solution.  We hope that there's a better
20   recognition in the public policy debates going on
21   right now that, for example, with carbon dioxide
22   gases that maintain preserving grass and forest
0036
 1   are a critical part of the solution, that's
 2   accomplished through our products.  Similarly with
 3   regard to if our products aren't in use, you have
 4   green space returning to brown space when that
 5   happens.  You have to turn the dust balls at
 6   dramatic increase of particulate emissions.  The
 7   broader views need to be included in the
 8   environmental assessments that are being made
 9   relative to outdoor power equipment.
10            In conclusion I first would like to thank
11   again the folks in Ann Arbor, the OPEI members are
12   committed to environmental stewardship and clean
13   products and to having a continued strong working
14   relationship with both EPA and CARB and the
15   States.  OPEI generally supports the EPA proposal
16   and will be submitting extensive constructive
17   comments.  We believe there are numerous technical
18   improvements that should be made so that the rule
19   can be effectively and practically implemented.
20   Thank you.
21            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you, gentlemen.
22   We don't have any questions at this juncture of
0037
 1   the panel so we'd like to proceed to our next
 2   panel.
 3            Panel No. 3, Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air
 4   Watch, Nancy Kruger, National Association of Clean
 5   Air Agencies, Elizabeth deLone Paranhos,
 6   Environmental Defense, Joe Kubsh, Manufacturers of
 7   Emission Controls Association, Wayne Richter from
 8   Heraeus.
 9            Mr. O'Donnell, if you would like to
10   proceed, whenever you're ready.
11            MR. O'DONNEL:  Yes, sir, I'm ready to go.
12   Thank you very much.  My name is Frank O'Donnell
13   and I'm president of Clean Air Watch.  And I do
14   want to thank you sincerely for the opportunity to
15   speak today in support of EPA's proposed small
16   engine standards.  And I hope to be very brief.
17            Let me say I do want to appreciate also
18   the very constructive attitude of OPEI and
19   commend them for it.  And I won't digress at this
20   point at anything lengthy on the topic that Bill
21   Guerry mentioned about mid level blends of ethanol
22   but I do agree with him that this is an area a
0038
 1   that needs both EPA leadership and scrutiny about
 2   what the effects will be on the -- not only
 3   products but consumers and the environment.
 4   Particularly the latter of course is what we're
 5   concerned about.  I'd just like to point that out.
 6            To the bottom line here, you know smog is
 7   a serious public health problem.  Technically
 8   known as ozone, smog can cause asthma attacks
 9   among children and adults, send people to hospital
10   emergency rooms and reduce a person's lung
11   capacity.  It's even been linked in more recent
12   research to premature death.
13            The evidence is quite clear that even
14   though we have reduced air pollution through other
15   clean air act standards, such as those for motor
16   vehicles, we still need to make further progress
17   to protect breathers until we can say that we
18   truly breath healthful air.
19            Just last Saturday, you probably saw
20   this, the Washington Post reported on continued
21   air pollution problems in the Washington, DC area.
22            Our clean air watch surveys verify that
0039
 1   similar problems persist in many states throughout
 2   the nation.  And as you know, EPA's independent
 3   science advisors and the agency's own scientists
 4   have concluded that existing air quality standards
 5   for smog must be made stricter to protect kids
 6   with asthma and others.
 7            Of course as we clean up cars and trucks,
 8   small engines is an increasingly large part of the
 9   pollution problem.  Cleaning them up further
10   absolutely must be part of the solution.
11            We think that EPA's proposed standards
12   are a good step in the right direction.  We all
13   know it would be better for air quality if they
14   could take effect sooner but we do hope you will
15   resist any effort to delay or weaken the standards
16   and that applies to both the lawn and garden
17   equipment and the marine aspect of this because
18   they are all part of the pollution that affects
19   breathers.
20            I look forward to seeing the new analysis
21   by Dr. Sahu.  We do know the EPA's public
22   analysis so far is that today a push mower emits
0040
 1   as much hourly pollution as 11 cars and a rider
 2   mower emits as much as 24 cars and that
 3   recreational watercraft can emits as much as 348
 4   cars an hour.  That's a heck of a number.
 5   According to EPA the estimated public health
 6   benefits from these standards would be enormous,
 7   almost three and a half billion dollars a year by
 8   2030, the total of course would dwarf any
 9   associated costs.  In addition, some of the costs
10   would be offset by fuel savings.  In this area,
11   anything that saves fuel is probably something we
12   ought to be thankful for.  By reducing the
13   emissions of smog forming nitrogen oxides, hydro
14   carbons and particle soot, EPA has calculated that
15   the standards would prevent 450 premature death,
16   500 hospitalizations and 52,000 work days lost
17   annually.  So the benefits are absolutely
18   substantial.
19            We believe EPA's careful and detailed
20   studies that put to rest earlier concerns that
21   have been raised about safety.
22            So let me conclude by thanking you for
0041
 1   spending as much time as you have in developing
 2   these standards, encouraging EPA to move forward
 3   and issue these standards in final form as soon as
 4   possible and hopefully this year.  Thanks very
 5   much.
 6            MR. PASSAVANT:  Thank you, Ms. Kruger.
 7            MS. KRUGER:  Good morning.  I'm Nancy
 8   Kruger, Deputy Director of NACAA, the National
 9   Association of Clean Air Agencies, which
10   represents air pollution control agencies in the
11   54 States and territories and more than 155
12   metropolitan areas across the country.
13            I'm pleased to have this opportunities to
14   present our views on EPA's proposed rule to
15   control emissions from non-road spark-ignition and
16   emitting equipment.
17            NACAA strongly supports prompt EPA action
18   to reduce emissions from these sources and
19   believes this long awaited proposal is critically
20   important.  State and local clean air agencies
21   across the country are facing the enormous
22   challenge of development strategies to achieve and
0042
 1   maintain the health based national ambient air
 2   quality standards for ozone fine particulate
 3   matter.
 4            In addition, EPA has already taken action
 5   to tighten the PM 2.5 NAAQS and is considering
 6   similar action on the ozone standards which will
 7   only increase the challenges facing state
 8   localities.
 9            Further many areas of the country are
10   plagued by unacceptable high levels of toxic air
11   pollution.  Emissions from the non-road
12   spark-ignition engines covered by this rule,
13   contribute to all of these problems.
14            In the Clean Air Act Congress vets state
15   and local clean air agencies with primary
16   responsibility for the control of air pollution.
17   This is a responsibility we take very seriously.
18   As we seek to achieve and sustained clean
19   healthful air throughout the country we must
20   consider full measure of emission reduction
21   feasible from every source of pollution as quickly
22   as possible.
0043
 1            With respect to the non-road
 2   spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horse
 3   powers, however, state and local air agencies,
 4   very unfortunately, other than California are
 5   preempted from adopting standards or other
 6   requirements.  Therefore it's incumbent upon EPA
 7   to ensure that this rule achieves the greatest
 8   degree of reduction as soon as possible.
 9            And toward that end NACAA offers these
10   recommendations and comments for EPA's
11   consideration.
12            First, we support the Federal adoption of
13   exhaust emission standards for small
14   spark-ignition engines consistent with those
15   adopted by California.  However, with respect to
16   the implementation dates, we question the need for
17   the substantial additional lead time that EPA has
18   proposed beyond the expectation date by
19   California; five years until 2012 for class I
20   engines and three years until 2011 for class II
21   engines.
22            We believe an accelerated Federal
0044
 1   schedule is technically feasible and recommended
 2   that EPA consider more rapid implementation.
 3            Second, based on the agency's March 2006
 4   safety study and regulatory impact analysis for
 5   this proposal as well as public statements by
 6   engine makers, it is evident that additional more
 7   stringent emission standards are feasible for
 8   small spark-ignition engines, especially
 9   commercial equipment which operates hundreds, if
10   not thousands of hours a year.
11            Therefore we recommend that EPA consider
12   adding another tier of more rigorous standards for
13   class I and class II engines.
14            Third, data available in the EPA docket
15   indicates new compliance failures by various
16   models of lawn and garden equipment.  This has
17   been a continuing concern of NACAA's that is now
18   heightened by the fact that EPA has not proposed a
19   mandatory testing programs for these engines.  We
20   urge EPA to consider adding this program to ensure
21   in use performance at the levels envisioned by the
22   regulation.
0045
 1            With respect to marine spark-ignitions
 2   NACAA supports EPA's proposal to set CO standards
 3   for all sectors.  We also support the agency's
 4   proposal to establish the first ever Federal
 5   standards for vessels powered by sterndrive or
 6   inboard engines.  However, we note that stern
 7   drive and inboard engines with catalysts are
 8   already in production and engine makers are
 9   already tooled to produce catalyzed engines for
10   California for 2008.
11            Therefore, we believe that the proposed
12   Federal implementation schedule beginning in 2009
13   is appropriate and should not be delayed but we
14   recommend EPA also require that once a certified
15   engine is available in California it be sold
16   nationwide.
17            With respect to personal watercraft and
18   outboard engines we support the proposed standards
19   for implementation in 2009.  We note that EPA
20   anticipates manufacturers will meet these
21   standards with readily available and therefore why
22   the agency did not access the suitable catalysts
0046
 1   for these engines for the purpose of pursuing
 2   future more rigorous catalyst based standards.
 3            We recommend the agency conduct such an
 4   analysis and proceed with additional standards
 5   accordingly.
 6            We also support the inclusion of
 7   evaporative emission standards for all non-road
 8   spark ignition equipment and watercraft covered by
 9   this rule.  We are pleased that EPA proposed two
10   line controls in 2008 for class I and II small
11   spark-ignition engines as well as other
12   evaporative standards.  But we question the
13   absence of diurnal emission controls for these
14   engines and urge the agency to reconsider
15   this omission, from marine spark-ignition engines
16   to support the evaporative standards and encourage
17   the agency to implement them on the schedule
18   identified.
19            Finally, through this proposal EPA has
20   solicited comments on a July 2002 petition by the
21   American Road and Transportation Builders
22   Association to amend the Agency's rule on the
0047
 1   preemptive scope of section 209 of the Clean Air
 2   Act to preempt state and local requirements that
 3   impose in use and operational control or fleet
 4   wide purchase, sale or use standard on non-road
 5   vehicles.  Any preemption of state or local
 6   authority on non-road engines would
 7   inappropriately intrude on the ability of state
 8   and local governments to appropriately mitigate
 9   the impact of construction, not only for air quality
10   reasons but also for noise and other environmental
11   impacts.  NACAA vigorously opposes any such
12   preemption and strongly urges that EPA deny the
13   petition.
14            In conclusion NACAA is pleased that after
15   considerable delay, EPA proposes regulations for
16   nonroad spark ignition to engines.  We are further
17   pleased that this proposal was based on the
18   expectation that manufacturers will use catalytic
19   converters for the first time ever on many types of
20   watercraft and lawn and garden equipment.
21            After vigorous analysis and extensive
22   work with diverse stakeholders EPA determined that
0048
 1   such a strategy is feasible and safe and NACAA
 2   supports that determination.
 3            We urge timely action by EPA the final
 4   rule at the end of this year and look forward to
 5   working in partnership with EPA in according to
 6   the rule.  Thank you.
 7            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.  Elizabeth.
 8            MS. PARANHOS:  Good morning.  My name is
 9   Elizabeth Paranhos.  And I'm testifying today on
10   behalf of Environmental Defense.  Environmental
11   Defense is a nonprofit, non-governmental and
12   non-partisan environmental organization with more
13   than 500,000 members nationwide.  Since 1967, our
14   organization has linked science, economic and law
15   in solving today's most pressing environmental
16   issues.
17            Environmental Defense strongly supports
18   the immediate issuance of a final rule to control
19   emissions from spark-ignition marine and small
20   engines.  We believe the final rule that reflects
21   the timing and level of reductions currently
22   required by the California Air Resources Board is
0049
 1   achievable, cost-effective and necessary to
 2   protect human health and the environment.
 3   Accordingly, Environmental Defense strongly
 4   opposes any further delay in finalizing this rule.
 5            First, I'd like to begin by painting a
 6   picture as to why the publication of a final rule
 7   for the control of spark-ignition engines is of
 8   such vital importance.  Despite their size, the
 9   engines affected by this proposed rule are
10   significant polluters.  Marine and small
11   spark-ignition engines emit hydrocarbons, nitrogen
12   oxide, particulate matter and carbon monoxide into
13   the air we breath, thereby contributing to
14   unhealthy air concentration in numerous areas
15   nationwide.  These small engines also contribute
16   significant amounts of hazardous air pollutants or
17   air toxics, that have been linked to an array of
18   serious public health effects including various
19   forms of cancer.  EPA estimates that absent the
20   implementation of these proposed rules, the
21   emissions from these engines will account for 27
22   percent of volatile organic hydrocarbon compounds,
0050
 1   31 percent of carbon monoxide, four percent of
 2   oxides of nitrogen and 16 percent of particulate
 3   matter from the mobile source sector by 2020.
 4            The specific health and environmental
 5   problems associated with these air pollutants are
 6   staggering.  Ground level ozone, the primary
 7   ingredient in smog, causes acute respiratory
 8   problems, asthma, increased hospital admissions
 9   and emergency room visits and aggravation of
10   cardiovascular disease.  Day to day increases in
11   ozone concentrations during the summer have been
12   linked to an increase in premature death.  Ozone
13   causes acute and chronic injury in sensitive
14   species, as well as damage to plant leaves and a
15   reduction in food production which can lead to
16   reduced crop yields.
17            Particulate matter has been shown to
18   cause premature mortality, aggravation of
19   respiratory and cardiovascular disease, aggravated
20   asthma, acute respiratory symptoms and decreased
21   lung function.  Fine particle and sulfate and
22   concentrations have been linked to lung cancer
0051
 1   mortality and exposure to ambient fine particles
 2   is associated with cardiorespiratory mortality.
 3   Particulate matter also causes adverse
 4   environmental effects including reduced
 5   visibility.  Reduced visibility not only
 6   interferes with the ability of many individuals to
 7   enjoy the ares in which we live and work but also
 8   significantly impairs our use and enjoyment of
 9   valuable national treasures such as wilderness
10   areas and national parks.
11            The evaporative emissions from
12   spark-ignition marine and small engines also
13   produce harmful effects.  Air toxics, such as
14   Benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde
15   and Naphthealene, are known or probable
16   carcinogens.  According to the EPA, Benzene is one
17   of the most significant contributors to cancer
18   risk of all air toxics in the ambient air.
19   Assuming continuous exposure to 1999 levels of all
20   air toxics, the nationwide lifetime population
21   cancer risk was 42 per million.  EPA calculates
22   that Benzene was responsible for 24 percent of
0052
 1   this cancer risk and was responsible for 45
 2   percent of the total inhalation cancer risk from
 3   mobile source air toxics.
 4            EPA also estimates by 2030 the proposed
 5   spark-ignition engine standards will result in the
 6   reduction of 631,000 tons of volatile organic
 7   hydrocarbon, 982,000 tons of oxides of nitrogen,
 8   6,300 tons of direct particulate matter, and
 9   2,690,000 tons of carbon monoxide emissions.
10   According to EPA, these reductions will likely
11   prevent 450 particulate matter related premature
12   deaths, 500 hospitalizations, and 52,000 work days
13   lost.  EPA estimates the total benefits of this
14   proposed rule equal 3.4 billion dollars whereas
15   the costs less than $240 billion.  At the same time,
16   EPA has woefully underestimated the robust health
17   benefits of this proposal by declining to assign
18   any positive value to the considerable ozone
19   health effects that would be prevented.  We
20   vigorously oppose EPA's failure to account for the
21   considerable ozone health benefits association
22   with the pollution reductions from these
0053
 1   high-emitting engines.  Even under EPA's meager
 2   valuation methodologies, it is manifest that
 3   pollution cuts from these engines will deliver
 4   extensive health benefits, and comparatively small
 5   costs.  To protect human health and the
 6   environment from the deleterious pollution
 7   released by these engines, we urge EPA to issue a
 8   final rule immediately utilizing as an essential
 9   benchmark the standards currently adopted by
10   California.
11            Turning now to the elements of the
12   proposed rule, we applaud EPA's proposal to
13   regulate, for the first time, exhaust emissions
14   from sterndrive and inboard marine engines.  We
15   support EPA's proposal to establish oxide of
16   nitrogen and hydrocarbon exhaust emission
17   standards that are comparable to those adopted by
18   California.  The proposed standards will result in
19   significant hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen
20   reductions, on average, 70 percent.  We also
21   commend EPA's initiative in setting a federal
22   carbon monoxide exhaust emission standard with an
0054
 1   expected reduction of 80 percent.
 2            We agree with EPA, that it is appropriate
 3   to set standards for sterndrive and inboard marine
 4   engines now.  Namely, the catalyst technology
 5   required to achieve the proposed emissions
 6   reduction is readily available.  Secondly, the
 7   costs imposed on manufacturers will be low, since
 8   many manufacturers are already redesigning engines
 9   to meet the California standards, and third, much
10   of the costs involved in meeting the standards
11   will be offset by the increased prices such
12   engines will command based on enhanced, higher
13   performance.  Indeed, as EPA has noted, one
14   manufacturer is already selling sterndrive and
15   inboard engines equipped with catalysts and others
16   have indicated they will do so by the end of the
17   year.  Given the current state of technology, we
18   believe EPA's proposed implementation date of 2009
19   provides more than adequate lead time to
20   manufacturers.
21            We also strongly support EPA's proposed
22   oxide of nitrogen, hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
0055
 1   standards for outboard and personal watercraft
 2   engines.  Again, we are pleased that EPA has
 3   chosen to adopt standards that are similar in
 4   stringency to those adopted in California, and, to
 5   improve upon the California standards by providing
 6   for a carbon monoxide emission standard.  We
 7   strongly support EPA's near term 2009
 8   implementation date for these standards and agree
 9   with EPA that such a date provides sufficient lead
10   time for manufacturers to comply with these new
11   federal standards.  As EPA recognizes, the
12   technology required to meet the proposed oxides of
13   nitrogen and carbon monoxide emissions has been in
14   place for some years.  Indeed, manufacturers are
15   already producing several models of the cleaner
16   four stroke and direction injection engines
17   necessary to meet the proposed standards.
18            We are also pleased that EPA has chosen
19   to propose more stringent oxides of nitrogen and
20   hydrocarbon standards for class I and II
21   non-handheld small spark-ignition engines
22   consistent with the California standards.
0056
 1   However, we vigorously object to the much delayed
 2   implementation periods for these standards.  As
 3   EPA has indicated, some manufacturers are
 4   currently producing engines that employ the
 5   catalyst technology required to meet the proposed
 6   standards.  Therefore, a number of engine families
 7   currently are able to meet the proposed standards
 8   without an engine redesign.  Accordingly, we
 9   disagree that a multi-year lead time is necessary
10   to implement these standards.  Moreover, in light
11   of the length delay EPA has undertaken in
12   proposing these rules, we vigorously object to
13   implementation dates that are some four to five
14   years out.
15            We strongly support EPA's proposal to
16   implement evaporative emission standards for
17   spark-ignition marine and small engines.  In light
18   of the serious health effects caused by the
19   gaseous air toxics emitted from these engines, it
20   is imperative that EPA's final rules include
21   evaporative emission standards that are at least
22   as protective of human health as those adopted in
0057
 1   California.  We commend EPA for proposing fuel
 2   line and fuel tank permeation, running loss and
 3   diurnal standards.
 4            In conclusion, Environmental Defense
 5   strongly supports the immediate publications of a
 6   final rule implementing rigorous spark-ignition
 7   marine and small engine exhaust and evaporative
 8   emission standards.  In doing so, however, we
 9   emphasize the need for EPA to act swiftly.
10   Congress directed EPA to proposed rules for these
11   spark-ignition engines by December 2004 and final
12   rules by the end of 2005.  It is now mid 2007.
13   Environmental Defense respectfully believes EPA
14   has already acted contrary to law and in violation
15   of its legal duties by failing to issue final
16   standards.  We reserve all of our legal rights
17   under the Clean Air Act and other laws to compel
18   final EPA action.  Accordingly, we urge EPA not to
19   allow the current proposed rule to languish in the
20   halls of administrative inaction as have numerous
21   previous air pollution rules proposed before.  For
22   example, it took six years for EPA to finalize
0058
 1   proposed rules to control light vehicle refueling
 2   vapors.
 3            In sum, these small engines are big
 4   polluters.  The extensive pollution from these
 5   engines contributes to a suite of adverse human
 6   health and environmental effects nationwide.
 7   Environmental Defense respectfully urges EPA to
 8   immediately adopt protective emission standards.
 9   Doing so will help millions of Americans breath
10   easier.  Thank you very much for your time.
11            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.  Mr. Kubsh.
12            MR. KUBSH:  Good morning.  My name is
13   Dr. Joe Kubsh.  I'm the Executive Director of the
14   Manufacturers Emission Controls Association or
15   MECA.  And I'm pleased to provide testimony and
16   support of the EPA's emission standards for new
17   non-road spark-ignited engines, equipment and
18   vessels.  We believe that EPA's proposed
19   regulations are an important step forward from
20   small non-road engines and marine engines.
21            MECA is a nonprofit association of the
22   world's leading manufacturers of emission control
0059
 1   technology for mobile sources.  Our members have
 2   over 30 years of experience and a proven track
 3   record in developing and manufacturing emission
 4   control technology for a wide variety of on road
 5   and non-road vehicles and equipment including
 6   small engines used in lawn and garden equipment as
 7   well as other small spark-ignited engines used on
 8   mopeds and motorcycles.  Our members have invested
 9   millions of dollars in developing catalyst
10   technology for these small SI engines.
11            My comments today are specific to the
12   application of catalyst to class I and class II
13   and marine inboard and sterndrive spark-ignited
14   engines to comply with EPA proposed exhaust
15   emission standards for each of the these non-road
16   categories.
17            Firstly MECA supports EPA harmonizing
18   hydrocarbon and NOx exhaust emission standards for
19   class I and class II engines used chiefly on
20   non-handheld equipment with the California Air
21   Resources Board standards that were adopted in
22   2003 and began their implementation in 2007.  MECA
0060
 1   also concurs with the EPA staff analysis and
 2   conclusion that the proposed phase three HC and
 3   NOx exhaust emission standard for class I and
 4   class II engines are technologically feasible and
 5   that catalyst technology can be fully optimized as
 6   a part of a complete engine/emission
 7   control/exhaust system to help achieve these
 8   proposed limits.  MECA also supports EPA's
 9   proposal to establish a phase three CO standard of
10   five grams per kilowatt hour for marine
11   generators.
12            Secondly, MECA concurs with the
13   conclusions reached by EPA staff that the
14   application of catalysts to non-road equipment or
15   marine generators with either class I or class
16   II spark-ignited engines can be accomplished
17   using available engineering exhaust system design
18   principles in a manner that does not increase the
19   safety risk relative to today's uncontrolled
20   equipment.  In particular, the EPA safety study on
21   non-handheld equipment equipped with catalyzed
22   mufflers represents the most thorough safe study
0061
 1   completed to date on this class of spark-ignited
 2   engines.  The results of this EPA study showed
 3   that properly designed catalyzed mufflers pose no
 4   incremental increase in safety risk (and in many
 5   cases even lower muffler surface temperatures)
 6   relative to currently available non-handheld
 7   equipment sold without catalysts
 8            And thirdly, MECA supports EPA's proposed
 9   standards for HC and NOx and CO standards for
10   sterndrive and inboard marine engines, starting
11   with the 2009 model year.  MECA concurs that these
12   standards can be met with three way catalyst close
13   loop technology.
14            Below are a few additional comments on
15   the application of catalysts to class I, class
16   II and inboard/sterndrive marine spark-ignited
17   engines.
18            Based on over 30 years of experience in
19   designing and applying catalyst technology to a
20   variety of mobile sources, including small
21   non-road engines, MECA is convinced that
22   application of catalysts to class I and class
0062
 1   II engines is technically feasible as
 2   demonstrated by the extensive test programs
 3   conducted by EPA and ARB, and based on the
 4   extensive commercial experience base for the safe
 5   application of tens of millions of catalysts to
 6   wide range of small SI engines.  The EPA and ARB
 7   test programs conducted on class I and class II
 8   engines, in particular, demonstrated that
 9   catalysts can be safely designed to achieve the
10   useful life emission requirements required by
11   EPA's proposed phase three standards.  Early
12   commercial introduction of catalyst equipped
13   marine generators also provides strong evidence
14   that EPA proposed low CO standard for marine
15   generators is technically feasible.
16            Issues raised by small off road engine
17   and equipment manufacturers, such as heat
18   management, packaging, poisoning, and durability,
19   are straightforward engineering challenges that
20   are well understood and can be readily addressed.
21   These types of issues have been raised virtually
22   every time the use of catalyst technology has been
0063
 1   proposed for use on a spark-ignition engine, be it
 2   an automobile, heavy truck, off road engine over
 3   25 HP, such as a forklift, a motorcycle or moped
 4   or a small engine used on handheld or non-handheld
 5   equipment.  In each case, all of these issues were
 6   successfully addressed for each application.  The
 7   situation is no different in the case of class I
 8   and class II non-road engines.
 9            Both EPA and ARB test programs have shown
10   that catalysts can be applied to class I and
11   class II engines without increasing safety risks
12   associated with exhaust component surface
13   temperatures.  Integration of catalyst into small
14   engine mufflers utilizes uncomplicated
15   manufacturing techniques that should allow for the
16   design and validation of compliant engines within
17   the lead time provided by the EPA regulations.
18   The 30 years of catalyst experience in general and
19   the over ten years of experience with applying
20   catalyst to smaller SI on road and non-road
21   engines provide an experience base that has
22   enabled catalyst technology to continue to be
0064
 1   improved.  This small engine experience has
 2   provided an increased understanding of how to
 3   optimize the engine/catalyst/exhaust system to
 4   work effectively, and will facilitate application
 5   of catalyst technology on class I and class II
 6   engines to help meet the proposed standards.
 7            The technology to reduce emission from
 8   spark-ignited inboard and sterndrive marine
 9   engines will be based on automotive type three way
10   catalyst with closed loop control technology.
11   This technology has been used on well over
12   300,000,000 automobiles with outstanding results
13   and the same technologies can be adapted to marine
14   inboard and sterndrive engines.  Here again,
15   results from EPA and ARB respondered test programs
16   detailed in the EPA draft regulatory impact
17   analysis confirm that three way catalysts (TWCs)
18   can be effectively integrated into marine inboard
19   and sterndrive engines, and TWCs have the
20   necessary mechanical integrity and catalytic
21   durability to perform with high emission
22   conversion efficiencies throughout the entire 480
0065
 1   hour useful life emissions requirement for these
 2   marine engines, regardless of operation in fresh
 3   or salt water environments.  Important results
 4   from this demonstration program included the
 5   design and integration of exhaust manifolds with
 6   TWCs that provided relatively low exhaust manifold
 7   surface temperatures (through the use of
 8   water-jacketed exhaust system) and minimized the
 9   potential for water ingestion into the region of
10   the manifolds that contained the TWCs.  Both
11   ceramic and metallic based substrates were used to
12   display a range of three way catalyst formulations
13   as a part of in this durability test program all
14   with good results.  Thus, a variety of TWC
15   technology options used successful in automotive
16   applications were shown to be effective in these
17   marine engine applications.  The early commercial
18   introduction of catalyst equipped marine inboard
19   engine is further proof that catalyst can be used
20   to achieve EPA's proposed HC plus NOx and CO
21   standards for this category of marine SI engines.
22            In closing, MECA sports EPA's proposed
0066
 1   emission standards for new non-road spark-ignited
 2   engines, equipment and vessels.  MECA believes
 3   that the application of catalysts to the small
 4   non-road SI engines and marine inboard and
 5   sterndrive SI engines is a cost-effective solution
 6   for reducing exhaust emissions from these engines
 7   and we are committed to do our part to ensure that
 8   emission control technology is available to help
 9   meet EPA's proposed standards.  We urge EPA to
10   finalize their regulatory proposals for these
11   categories of engines as soon as possible.
12            Thank you very much for your time.
13            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.
14   Mr. Richter.
15            MR. RICHTER:  Good morning.  I'm Wayne
16   Richter manager of marketing development for WC
17   Heraeus, maker of engine exhaust catalyst.  I'd
18   like to give you a snapshot of Heraeus today and
19   convey all our support for the EPA phase three
20   emission regulation.
21            Heraeus at a glance, Heraeus is a market
22   and technology leader in precious metals, dental
0067
 1   health, sensors, quartz glass and specialty
 2   lighting sources.
 3            Our revenues for Heraeus in 2006 were
 4   just over 12 billion dollars with precious metals
 5   trading in the major markets.  In 2006 we employed
 6   over 11,000 employees.  We now employee 1,400 in
 7   China, for example.  We have a worldwide
 8   presence with 76 production facilities and 25
 9   development centers worldwide.  Heraeus is 156
10   year old company in the precious metals business,
11   and they share the distinction with Porsche being
12   a privately owned major sized German company.
13            Just pay attention to the top line of
14   groups of Heraeus first is WC Heraeus and precious
15   metals that the catalyst group is a part of and
16   then Heraeus sensors, Heraeus closer, which is a
17   dental and medical products, quarts glass,
18   specialty lighting sources.
19            Next I will have a very brief video with
20   the corporate overview to help explain our
21   commitment to this industry.
22            The catalyst in group four, Heraeus is
0068
 1   part of the chemical division.  I'll draw your
 2   attention to point three, Heraeus is a world
 3   leader in the refining of all platinum group
 4   metals.
 5            And just to mention the precious metal
 6   cycle, Heraeus does a refining of primary precious
 7   metals and secondary precious metals.  About 78
 8   percent of precious metals are recycled.  Of
 9   course, through our trading group, new precious
10   metals are added to make the cycle.
11            The four major markets that Heraeus
12   participates in for catalyst are the automotive
13   aftermarket.  Catalyst for diesel particulate
14   reduction, motorcycle and motor sports catalyst.
15   And then while we're here today to talk about
16   primarily a small engine exhaust gas treatment.
17            Our small engine solutions provide a
18   variety of different catalyst solutions.  We
19   provide effective conversion of the bad stuff
20   coming out of the engine.  We have catalyst which
21   match the durable needed, in other words,
22   addressing the DF factor for the engine
0069
 1   application.  And an engine exhaust catalyst is
 2   really quite a cost-effective approach.
 3            Our experience with small engines, our
 4   experience really started in 1991, now 16 years
 5   ago.  Today we supply millions of catalysts each
 6   year to the outdoor power equipment industry.  We
 7   provide continuous coordination for this market,
 8   coordinating with equipment, engine and muffler
 9   makers.  And Ron Lloyd discussed before the need
10   for this and our industry.
11            Next is extensive technical experience
12   with a wide variety of small displacement
13   spark-ignition engines.
14            Heraeus is very supportive and a member
15   of OPEI fuel and exhaust Clean Air Act Committee
16   contributions as you heard about earlier.  We are
17   a member of MECA, with our membership and workshop
18   participation.
19            We support the proposed EPA tier three
20   emissions regulations for class I and class II
21   off road spark-ignition engines.
22            Heraeus is ready and believes this rule
0070
 1   should be finalized as soon as possible.  Thank
 2   you.
 3            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Yes, we have a few
 4   questions.
 5            MR. PASSAVANT:  Wayne, I wanted to ask a
 6   clarification question on your second to last
 7   slide, the one before this where you said you sold
 8   many -- I think the words was millions.
 9            MR. RICHTER:  We sell millions annually.
10            MR. PASSAVANT:  Yes, into this market,
11   can you clarify is that the handheld side of the
12   market or what we call the non-handheld side of
13   the market and if so, where?
14            MR. RICHTER:  Since 2002 for handheld
15   products.  So we're talking about line trimmers,
16   brush cutters, backpack and handheld blowers.
17            MR. PASSAVANT:  I don't want to put you
18   on the spot on this.  I do want a clarification.
19   You're being a German company, it's my
20   understanding that in Europe there are certain of
21   European states have requirements for catalysts
22   based systems and some of their walk behind
0071
 1   equipment.  Have you been involved in that market
 2   at all?
 3            MR. RICHTER:  We have supplied catalysts
 4   for European green products, if you will.  We've
 5   supplied nearly a million, there's been nearly a
 6   million walk behind motors produced with catalyst
 7   in Europe for that product.
 8            MR. PASSAVANT:  Are you aware of any
 9   problems, performance issues or anything related
10   to that?
11            MR. RICHTER:  None whatsoever.
12            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.  If we can
13   proceed with panel four, Todd Rogers, Arkema, on
14   behalf of Solar Plastics; Robert Porter, INCA
15   Modeled Products, Tony Riviezzo, Promens, Inc. and
16   Dan Grimes, Centro and also Mike Freeman.
17            MR. ROGERS:  I will be doing a
18   presentation but there are copies of the
19   presentation outside on the table if you would
20   like to get that.
21            Good morning, I'm Todd Rogers.  I'm the
22   Industrial Market Development Manager for Arkema,
0072
 1   Inc.  I represent the PetroSeal low permeation
 2   bi-layer rotomolding tank technology that is
 3   currently CARB approved for the executive order
 4   through a manufacturer of small off road and
 5   recreational equipment tanks.  And we believe that
 6   same technology could be used to manufacture both
 7   the lawn and garden tanks as well as applicable to
 8   that rotomolding tank market.
 9            Let me briefly describe what exactly is
10   PetroSeal.
11            PetroSeal is, we're really focused on
12   helping tank manufacturers meet the evaporative
13   emission standards that EPA promotes and consists
14   of two layers.  PetroSeal is a bilayer of system
15   used for rotation molding of fuel permeation
16   resistant tanks.
17            The inside layer consists of a Rilsan
18   Polyamide 11.  This specialty nylon gives
19   excellent resistance to fuel permeation.  It's
20   currently used in a number of automotive fuel
21   lines.  We sell into that market quite a lot.  It
22   is a tough impact resistant polymer, engineering
0073
 1   polymer with a melting point of 185.  It's
 2   dimensionally stable and molds very easily.  It's
 3   manufactured from a renewable resource.  It's 100
 4   percent bio based from a vegetable oil.
 5            The outer side of the layer is PetroSeal
 6   metallized polyethylene.  It has an excellent
 7   resistance to alcohol permeation.  It molds very
 8   easily.  We partner and join these two materials
 9   to synergy so you get hydrocarbon as well as
10   alcohol resistance.  It's also very tough but one
11   of the important features is that these two
12   materials are specially developed to adhere to one
13   another.  That way when you drill through a tank
14   or add several fittings, you don't worry about
15   fuel permeation between the layers.  So the layer
16   adhesion in our system is very, very important.
17   It ensures the structural integrity of the tank
18   and ensures minimal permeation.  As a result tanks
19   manufactured with PetroSeal are very low
20   permeation, very tough and cost-effective.
21            If I didn't specify at the beginning,
22   Arekma manufacturers the resins and we'd be
0074
 1   willing and eager to help any tank manufacturer,
 2   manufacture tanks with our technology and thus
 3   meet the regulations.
 4            Just a quick history of PetroSeal
 5   achievements.  Currently the PetroSeal technology
 6   meets current EPA permeation regulations as tested
 7   by EPA laboratories, testing in 2005 confirmed that
 8   permeation rates of 0.76 grams per meter squared
 9   per day were validated by EPA.
10            We have a California Air Resources Board
11   exemption for the small off road and recreational
12   vehicle tanks.  We received that in 2005.  That
13   was the minimum average thickness Rilsan PA11 at
14   one millimeter and PE at three millimeters.
15            PetroSeal was granted the first
16   technology exemption under CARB.  The tanks for
17   those that are manufactured and interested in the
18   marine side, meet US Coast Guard requirements for
19   mechanical strength, fire resistance for
20   permanently installed marine fueled tanks.  We
21   have a ten gallon and 40 gallon manufactured and
22   tested by Imanna labs.
0075
 1            The lawn and garden fuel tank -- excuse
 2   me, we had tanks manufactured for the lawn and
 3   garden industry that do passes the SAE J288
 4   snowmobile impact test.  You see the physical
 5   requirements there.
 6            Tanks that were made that were tested here
 7   were manufactured by Solar Plastics.  We have made
 8   several very successful trials in a number of
 9   roto molders.
10            Finally, I want to comment on commercial
11   viability.  PetroSeal is a commercially active
12   technology today.  We do have many applications
13   which are qualified.  And we do have commercial
14   sales.  It's very important to note that obviously
15   we all may be familiar that the EPA has also
16   enacted motorcycle regulations.  And we are
17   selling motorcycle tanks or the technology into
18   the motorcycle industry today with tanks that meet
19   those regulations.
20            In conclusion I have some data.  I was
21   told to keep it very brief.  Essentially Arkema's
22   position is we generally don't like to take sides,
0076
 1   per se, to vote for or against the regulation.
 2   What we are here to do is develop specialty
 3   materials to help those that will be affected by
 4   those regulations meet the impending regulations.
 5            We look forward to working with any
 6   molders or any OEMs to better understand our
 7   technology and find out how we can help you comply
 8   with the regulations that are due to be imposed.
 9   Thank you.
10            In addition to I've been asked to read a
11   some commentary from Solar Plastics.
12            Good morning, my name is Gary Engen.  And
13   I am Vice President of Engineering for Solar
14   Plastics, Inc., headquartered in Delano,
15   Minnesota.  Solar Plastics has been a technology
16   leader in rotational molding for over 40 years.
17            I thank you for the opportunity today to
18   provide testimony about the feasibility of
19   manufacturing low permeation plastic fuel tanks
20   using the rotational molding process.  I also
21   thank our valued supplier and development
22   partners, Arkema, Inc. for presenting this
0077
 1   testimony on our behalf.
 2            Solar Plastics has conducted an active
 3   research and development effort for many years.
 4   Numerous tooling, material, and processing
 5   concepts have been invested, evaluated or
 6   optimized in our test facility.  One of the
 7   outcomes has been to gain expertise in molding
 8   multi-layer rotational molded parts.  This
 9   expertise, along with a corporate directive to
10   explore emerging technologies, has enabled Solar
11   Plastics to become a natural development partner
12   with Arkema in the area of permeation resistant
13   material systems.
14            At Arkema's request, Solar Plastics
15   readily agreed to provide access to equipment,
16   technicians, and engineering resources in an
17   effort to rotationally mold fuel tanks meeting
18   California Air Resources Board standards for small
19   off road equipment.  This activity resulted in the
20   award of SORE Evaporative Component Innovative
21   Product Executive Order for Arkema's PetroSeal
22   Material System.
0078
 1            Solar Plastics has established safe,
 2   reliable and consistent processes to mold the two
 3   layer PetroSeal Material System.  Molded tanks
 4   exhibit excellent adhesion between layers, impact
 5   strength that meets various industry standards and
 6   permeation resistance well within proposed
 7   standards.  Molding methods are cost efficient,
 8   and utilize the same tooling and machinery that
 9   produce single layer tanks.  PetroSeal fuel tanks
10   molded by Solar Plastics satisfy durability
11   requirements adopted by the marine, and lawn and
12   garden equipment industries.  These include
13   ambient and cold temperature impacts and burn
14   tests.
15            In conclusion, Solar Plastics clearly
16   states that technology is available today to
17   rotationally mold fuel tanks that meet the
18   proposed evaporative emissions standards.
19            Respectfully, Gary Engen, VP of
20   Engineering for Solar Plastics, Inc.
21            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.  Mr. Porter.
22            MR. PORTER:  Good morning, my name is
0079
 1   Robert Porter.  I am the president and owner of
 2   Inca Molded Products.  Inca Molded Products was
 3   founded in 1979 by my father, James Porter, who
 4   developed the first successful plastic fuel tank
 5   for the marine industry.  Rotationally molded
 6   marine fuel tanks represent 90 percent of our
 7   company's product mix.  We have over 1,000 marine
 8   molds, 150 customers and we have manufactured
 9   millions of tanks whereby their design and
10   materials have stood the test of time, nearly 30
11   years.  Inca does support the need for control of
12   evaporative emissions through low perm fuel tanks,
13   diurnal emission controls and low perm hose.
14   However, due to the direct correlation our
15   products have with boating safety, we want to be
16   sure that the requirements of this standard do not
17   create a low emission product that is inferior in
18   quality to the current product that has been
19   successful in the marine industry for years.
20            Low permeation fuel tanks, Inca agrees
21   with EPA that the most favorable approach to low
22   perm fuel tanks, at this point, is multi layer
0080
 1   construction.  We have run multiple trials with
 2   front-running technologies and we have more trials
 3   scheduled for July 2007.  These are the kinds of
 4   things we have encountered:  Inconsistent impact
 5   strength, too narrow of a processing window,
 6   causing 90 percent scrap rates, fitting leaks,
 7   difficulty to repeat in production in process
 8   operations needed to be provide adequate and
 9   uniform second layer coverage.
10            This is what we need:
11            The suppliers of these products need to
12   continue refining their materials.  None of them
13   are commercially available or readily processable,
14   although some have passed CARB requirements.
15            We need more time for internal testing.
16   As a marine fuel tank rotomolder, and all the risk
17   associated with that, we are testing to see that
18   the multi-layer materials hold up to the demanding
19   areas of the process variables, mold variables and
20   design variables that Inca works with day in and
21   day out.
22            We need more external testing data on
0081
 1   multi-layer tank models from outside labs on
 2   mechanical strength tests that are required by
 3   H-24.  Inca has tested and passed thousands of
 4   tanks over the years to H-24.  It takes time and
 5   cumulative experience and knowledge to get it
 6   right.  A few tanks sent out to test for H-24 is
 7   not an adequate representative of the market.
 8            We need and support permeation testing
 9   certification program that would require a design
10   based approach.  This would enable us to qualify
11   families of tanks that are grouped by size or
12   shape similarities.
13            Finally, we need marine field testing
14   data.  We need special measures or a tank phase in
15   period.  This would limit the number of new tanks
16   going into the field in order to contain our risks
17   of unexpected performance issues that may arise
18   from uncharted waters of rotationally molded
19   multi-layer fuel containment.
20            Carbon canisters, Inca supports carbon
21   canisters to lower diurnal emissions.  Inca has
22   had multiple meetings with Mead Westvaco and
0082
 1   Delphi to understood the carbon canister and its
 2   requirements as we best know them in the marine
 3   environment.  Although this has been done in the
 4   automotive industry, we have been carefully
 5   evaluating the adaptability to the marine fuel
 6   system.  Inca has reached and determined that it
 7   will not be possible to install just a carbon
 8   canister without other changes.  We have concerns
 9   about applying the canister technology without
10   making these changes, clogged canisters would
11   result in safety hazard.  The changes that we are
12   most familiar with involve multi purpose fittings
13   that create new attachment methods to the tanks.
14            We need the new fitting systems require
15   new methods of attachment.  There are options but
16   we need time to make hold fitting insertion
17   changes and perform comprehensive testing.  The
18   fitting is very critical part of the tank that
19   must not leak.
20            The purpose of the fittings are to keep
21   the canister dry, prevent spit back or well back,
22   and provide ullage.  The industry needs fill
0083
 1   nozzles that will provide automatic shut off at
 2   marinas, and we will need time to verify the
 3   durability of these fittings as installed in boats
 4   that are constantly in and around water and salt
 5   water.
 6            The first cross link polyethylene fuel
 7   tank was invented by another manufacturer in the
 8   early '70s.  Within two years the fuel tanks began
 9   failing in the field and resulted in a national
10   recall and all the tanks had to be removed out of
11   the boats.  Inca pioneered the first successful
12   plastic fuel tank by researching, redeveloping,
13   and building on the mistakes the first
14   manufacturer made.  Even though all the tests were
15   run, the tanks didn't hold up to the conditions in
16   the field.  Inca tested, tested and tested more.
17   We ran many tests which were not required that
18   went over and above the requirements.  Then the
19   plastic tanks were phased in slowly.  Inca sold
20   small tanks in limited models.  This would give
21   cross link poly fuel tanks the time they would
22   need in the field to gain confidence and make any
0084
 1   necessary adjustments.  We at Inca Molded Products
 2   have spent our entire existence building a
 3   reputation through demonstrated performance that
 4   is based on making tanks that do not fail.  The
 5   containment of fuel and vapors on a boat is
 6   critical and something that we take very
 7   seriously, thus, Inca's dedication to developing
 8   the best solution for the marine industry.  Thank
 9   you.
10            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.
11   Mr. Riviezzo.
12            MR. RIVIEZZO:  Good morning, my name is
13   Tony Riviezzo.  I am the Technical Director for
14   Promens North America.  I have over 18 years of
15   experience in design, engineering, and sales of
16   marine fuel tanks.  Promens is primarily a
17   rotational molding company, who is just getting
18   its feet wet in the marine fuel tank market.
19            Prior to summarizing a few concerns I
20   have with this rule, I would personally like to
21   thank the many people at EPA whom have worked
22   conscientiously with the marine industry to
0085
 1   formulate a rule that addresses the issues related
 2   to our recreational business.  Despite our
 3   difference of opinion in the beginning, both Glenn
 4   Passavant and Mike Samulski have worked to make
 5   this new rule something that works to not only
 6   benefit the environment but also the recreational
 7   boating industry.
 8            The first area of the rule I am providing
 9   comment on is:  Section 1045.145(d) and 1054.145
10   (g), useful life for evaporative emissions
11   standards.
12            Under these two sections an interim
13   provision is being offered for a limited time of
14   two years for marine SI and small SI fuel tanks
15   through 2013 to allow manufacturers to gain in use
16   experience.  This offer is greeted with open arms
17   but does not give the fuel tank manufacturers
18   enough in field use experience as you might
19   believe.  A typical marine fuel tank may be
20   manufactured in March, is shipped and stored at
21   the boat manufacturer for up to three months, then
22   installed into the vessel.  The vessel is stored
0086
 1   as a finished product at the boat manufacturer for
 2   one to two months, it is shipped to a dealership
 3   and then sits in storage for as long as six months
 4   until it is sold at a retail level.  A typical
 5   scenario may place the tank from date of
 6   manufacture to end user in four to 11 months.
 7   This lowers our field experience level down to
 8   only a little over one year.  Many boat owners
 9   only use their boats on weekends and only for
10   three to five months of the year.  As you can see,
11   true in field use could be reduced to as little as
12   three to six month time frame in the two years
13   provided by this provision.  I would request that
14   this provision be extended to three years to give
15   us a true measure of at least two working seasons.
16            The second area of the rule I am
17   providing comment on is section 1060.520, how do I
18   test fuel tanks for permeation emissions?
19            Under this section I have three comments:
20   Paragraph (a), preconditioning durability testing.
21   One segment of durability testing that should be
22   included is an integrity test of the tank shell
0087
 1   itself.  My experience is that some of the barrier
 2   layer materials may increase the brittleness, thus
 3   lowering the impact engineer needed to create a
 4   ductile failure of the tank shell.  The
 5   photographs attached show the effects of dart
 6   impacting as defined in the test parameters of the
 7   association of rotational molders.  This test was
 8   developed to insure the integrity of the molded
 9   plastic material even in cold weather
10   environments.  This standardized test is used by
11   most rotational molders as a means for quality
12   control.
13            The US Coast Guard in Boat Safety
14   Circular 79 makes the following statements:  "The
15   biggest advantage with the use of non-metallic
16   fuel tanks is that they do not corrode.  And if
17   they are properly manufactured and installed, they
18   should last for the expected service life of the
19   boat.  As a result, any owner of a boat with
20   metallic tank which has failed should consider a
21   replacement tank constructed of PE."  The key
22   words in this statement are properly manufactured.
0088
 1   Use of the dart impact test, also known as the
 2   Bruceton Staircase Method, has proven to ensure a
 3   safe and reliable product.  With more than three
 4   million rotationally molded cross link
 5   polyethylene fuel tanks produced in over 27 years,
 6   ductile failures are nearly non-existent.  Dart
 7   impact testing has contributed to this success
 8   rate when used as a measure of material and
 9   manufacturing performance.
10            As you can see from the photographs, the
11   effect of the peculiar barrier layer causes
12   significant flexibility changes in the cross link
13   polyethylene shell, lowering its impact
14   resistance.  One area we should not degrade for
15   environmental benefits is personal safety.
16   Impacts to the tank such as mishandled, poor
17   transportation, manufacturing accidents or in
18   field use should not result in a lower expectation
19   of performance.
20            One example of the resilience and safety
21   of current of rotationally molded fuel tanks, is
22   an accident where a boater hit a pier piling
0089
 1   splitting the boat in nearly half.  The boat came
 2   to rest with the piling halfway through the length
 3   of the boat with the rotationally molded fuel tank
 4   wrapped around the piling.  As the testament to
 5   the safety of the fuel tank, there was no fuel
 6   loss in the accident.
 7            Crash impacts testing such as described
 8   in SAE J 288, snowmobile fuel tank impact test or
 9   SAE J 1241 motorcycle fuel tank lateral impact test
10   do not directly test the integrity of the
11   material.  These tests only verify the integrity
12   of the mounting of the tanks within structures.
13   Both SAE tests described have the tanks mounted to
14   structures which are impacted, the tanks are not
15   directly impacted.  Bob White of Imanna
16   Laboratory, Inc. feels that neither of these tests
17   would provide the same level of comfort or
18   security as would the dart impact test I have been
19   describing.  No part of either SAE test described,
20   verifies that an inner barrier layer is bonded or
21   is mechanically attached to the outer shell.  Dart
22   impact testing would make this determination.
0090
 1            I believe we would be reluctant in our
 2   duties if we fail to include dart impact testing
 3   as a part of the requirements and not let this
 4   type of integrity test be at the discretion of the
 5   fuel tank manufacturer.
 6            Paragraph (b), preconditioning fuel soak.
 7   As I read this section of the proposed rule my
 8   attention was drawn to the requirements concerning
 9   caps after refueling during a preconditioning
10   testing.
11            Item (5)(i) under this paragraph states,
12   "You may seal the fuel inlet with a non-permeable
13   covering if the fuel tank is designed to have a
14   separate filter neck between the fuel cap and the
15   tank, and the filler neck is at least 12 inches
16   long and has an opening at least six inches above
17   the top of the tank."  This statement confuses me
18   as nearly all permanently installed marine fuel
19   tanks have fill necks molded to the tank that are
20   less than four to five inches long, and are
21   attached to the cap via a flexible hose.  The fuel
22   tank has neither a filler neck of 12 inches long
0091
 1   or has an opening higher than six inches above the
 2   fuel tank.  The way I read this is that nearly all
 3   permanently installed fuel tanks would have to be
 4   tested with a fill cap.  As a tank manufacturer,
 5   we do not sell or specify fill caps, nor do we
 6   know what the boat manufacturer's intention or
 7   specification is to that cap.
 8            Item (5)(ii) states,  "For filler necks
 9   not meeting the specifications described in
10   paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, take one of
11   the following approaches:  Approach A requires me
12   to test with a cap that will emit the highest
13   level expected to be used with fuel tanks.
14   Approach B allows me to seal the opening if I
15   measure the permeation from the worst case fuel
16   cap.
17            It appears to me that unless I make a
18   filler neck directly part of the fuel tank that is
19   12 inches long or has been opening higher than six
20   inches above the tank, I must test with a cap or
21   accept the higher potential permeation values from
22   the worst case fuel cap.  This cap permeation
0092
 1   burden could turn a fuel tank compliant to the 1.5
 2   g/m2/day requirement into noncompliant fuel tank.
 3   Fuel caps unless directly part of the tank either
 4   by threads or mechanically attached should be
 5   tested on their own.
 6            Paragraph (c), reference tank -- I am
 7   unclear if a reference tank for the test of a
 8   medium to large sized permanently installed marine
 9   fuel tank is capable of defining weight change at
10   such low comparisons of loss when compared to the
11   total sample weight.  Details concerning a 50
12   gallon and 100 gallon marine fuel tank are defined
13   in the graphs.
14            In the case of the 50 gallon tank we are
15   looking at 3/100 of a percent change in weight and
16   in the case of the 100 gallon tank, we are looking
17   at just over 25/1000 of a percent change.  I am
18   just looking for clarification on whether the
19   slight differences are measurable.
20            I would like to thank the EPA and all of
21   those present for this opportunity to speak.  I
22   would appreciate any consideration on the issues I
0093
 1   have made comment on.
 2            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.  Mr. Grimes.
 3            MR. GRIMES:  My name is Dan Grimes.  I'm
 4   representing Centro, Incorporated.
 5            A brief description of the company.
 6   Centro has been in rotational molding since 1970.
 7   We are the largest custom of rotational molder
 8   in the United States.  We've been manufacturing
 9   fuel tanks for 35 years.  The headquarters is in
10   Iowa.  And we also have other major locations in
11   North Carolina and Wisconsin.  Approximately 670
12   employees and 29 molding machines.
13            I don't have this on the slide but we are
14   one of the few rotational molding companies with
15   national dedicated research and development
16   department.
17            Currently there are four California Air
18   Resource Air Board rotomolding solutions with
19   executive orders.  The web link is above there.
20   Number one is C-U-06-028, Centro's roto low perm
21   technology.  Number two is Centro's RAL
22   technology, that's standards for rotationally --
0094
 1   I'm sorry, rotational anionic linearization.
 2   Number three, Centro's proprietary technology.
 3   And number four, Todd Rogers addressed Arkema's
 4   PetroSeal technology.
 5            Centro has access to these four executive
 6   ordered CARB solutions.  And we choose the right
 7   solution based on requirements such as cost, UV
 8   exposure, mechanical properties, et cetera.
 9            Just a little more detail about the roto
10   low perm.  This was developed by Centro by a
11   molder.  It is a multi-layer solution that
12   utilizes cross link polyethylene.  Cross link
13   polyethylene has been discussed already.  It is
14   the material chose for most rotomolded fuel tanks
15   today.  Cross link is used because of its
16   excellent mechanical properties and its ability to
17   mold to complex parts.  This material has a very
18   high melt flow index before it cross links
19   allowing easy fill thread profile and such.  Retro
20   low perm is trademark and patent pending.
21            Our testing has shown, that it exceeds
22   CARB and EPA emission standards using CE10 fuel at
0095
 1   40C.  Our executive order states that we must be
 2   below 0.75 grams per meter square per day for
 3   the -- that's for the three Centro CARB solutions.
 4            Briefly, about the implement dates, EPA
 5   preamble page 134 states that the installed
 6   rotational molded marine fuel tanks receive an
 7   additional year of lead time, 2012, because of
 8   greater design challenges.
 9            We believe that the additional lead time
10   is not necessary as the rotational molding
11   solutions presented in these slides are capable of
12   producing complex standards that meet emission
13   standards as well as marine standards.
14            In addition Centro and Arkema have
15   invested significant time and resources to prepare
16   for the forthcoming CARB and EPA evaporative
17   emission regulations.
18            Between the two companies there are
19   multiple low emission solutions offered that will
20   meet CARB and EPA emission standards while
21   maintain the mechanical performance.
22            Concerning the fuel cap certification,
0096
 1   currently fuel cap suppliers or manufacturers have
 2   minimal regulations concerning the materials they
 3   use, whether it's nylon or polyethylene.
 4            Fuel tank molders have no control over
 5   the cap design, the materials used or the
 6   manufacturing, specifically the quality control.
 7   Combining the tank and cap certification creates
 8   conflict of liability.
 9            If a tank is tested and does not meet the
10   EPA requirements or CARB requirements, who is
11   responsible for that, the fuel tank manufacturer
12   or the fuel cap manufacturer, if the source of
13   higher emissions is determined to be at the cap
14   seal?
15            Centro requests EPA to require cap
16   manufacturers to certify permeation performance of
17   fuel cap gasket assemblies separately as suggested
18   in EPA section 1060.521.
19            In summary, there are currently four
20   rotomolded low permeation solutions offered today.
21            Significant resources have been invested
22   in developing these technologies.
0097
 1            Additional lead time for marine
 2   regulations is not necessary based on rotational
 3   molding tanks not being prepared.
 4            And the request has been made to require
 5   cap manufacturers to certify fuel cap gasket
 6   assemblies.
 7            Contact information for Centro, the basic
 8   web page.  For sales and inquires and technical
 9   questions.  WWW.CentroInc.com.
10            I want to thank you all for allowing me
11   to present today.
12            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.
13   Mr. Freeman.
14            MR. FREEMAN:  Thank you very much.  We're
15   pleased to be here today.  Harold Haskew, actually
16   advised us of this meeting just recently.  And as
17   Global Safety Labs, which I'm the CEO of has just
18   recently acquired the rights to a vaporless fuel
19   cell which is a double bladder system that's
20   mentioned in the EPA draft report at section
21   5.1.8 and as found on page 5-24.
22            Global Safety Labs calls those double
0098
 1   bladder vaporless fuel system the zero cell
 2   vaporless.  And it is a fuel tank insert system.
 3   We're here with the fuel tank manufacturers.
 4   Actually we have a double wall bladder that goes
 5   inside the hard shell fuel tanks.
 6            Global Safety Labs strongly agrees with
 7   the EPA's assessment that the zero cell is
 8   probably the most effective technology for
 9   reducing evaporative emissions.
10            We've made some changes in the vaporless
11   fuel cell.  And recently we have gone into
12   production in the vaporless fuel cell or zero cell
13   for HumVees that are scheduled for the war theater.
14            We have just a short clip of the changes
15   and showing the demonstration of the double
16   bladder system.
17            (Showing video.)
18            Global Safety Labs presents the
19   revolutionary new products.
20            Hello, my name is Bill Peterson.  I was
21   formerly the engineering group manager for fuel
22   systems and advanced fuel systems at General
0099
 1   Motors.  At that position at General Motors was
 2   where I was first introduced to the vaporless fuel
 3   cell.
 4            In theory the vaporless fuel cell is a
 5   double bladder system.  The outside bladder
 6   contains arctic/fire freeze while the inside
 7   bladder contains the liquid fuel.  The outside
 8   bladder continually depresses the fuel bladder
 9   which prevents vapor from forming and accumulating
10   inside the vapor fuel cell.
11            To gain credibility for future testing we
12   retrofitted the vaporless fuel cell into a GM
13   passenger vehicle.  We then tested the vehicle,
14   equipped with the vaporless fuel cell and we
15   targeted several key areas of emission compliance.
16            Probably the most key area that we
17   targeted is a test known as the three day diurnal
18   SHED emission test.  This is a test where you take
19   a vehicle, enclose it into a controlled
20   environmental chamber for three days, cycle the
21   temperature up and down, which induces vapor
22   generation and then capture and measure the
0100
 1   escaping vapors into the chamber which normally
 2   would be escaping vapors into the environment.
 3            We found that the test results were
 4   remarkable.  The test vehicle equipped with the
 5   vaporless fuel cell exceeded the standards by huge
 6   factors.
 7            We also tested the vaporless fuel cell on
 8   what's called an on board refueling vapor recovery
 9   test which essentially captures the vapors on a
10   fueling refueling operation.  Once again, since
11   the vapors were minimized, the results showed
12   remarkable test results, exceeding standards by a
13   huge margin.  These test results convinced me that
14   the vaporless fuel cell needs to plain and simply
15   get to market, whether it's in military vehicles
16   race cars, boats, airplanes, storage tanks or
17   passenger cars.  The applications are endless.  We
18   need to get them to market, for two reasons,
19   really, one, the environment agreement issue,
20   which I just discussed where there's no vapor
21   generation, therefore no vapor emissions, but also
22   two, from a safety stand point.  With no vapors,
0101
 1   you have no dramatic explosions.
 2            MR. FREEMAN:  Next we have just a few
 3   seconds of an accelerated evacuation of a
 4   vaporless fuel cell.  This is actually in the fuel
 5   tank.  And it is cut away for the purposes of
 6   viewing.  This is military HumVee N998, a fuel tank
 7   that has been retrofitted with the vaporless,
 8   double bladder fuel cell.  As you see as the fuel
 9   is expended, the double bladder system because of
10   the hydrostatic pressure on the outside bladder
11   which is 10 percent of the volume and the liquid,
12   is on the inner bladder which is 90 percent of the
13   volume because the specific gravity of the liquid
14   or arctic fire freeze which is a fire suppression
15   liquid and permeation barrier liquid, is the
16   specific gravity is heavier than the specific
17   gravity of the gasoline and because the
18   hydrostatic pressure of both bladders working
19   together.  As the fuels expend into the fuel rail
20   the bladders both compress and there is no
21   generation of fuel vapors.
22            This is actually the HumVee that we were
0102
 1   equipping for later on today working with the
 2   military to finalize there the configuration they
 3   want accepts the same fuel rail configuration.  We
 4   use a different gauging mechanism that has a
 5   different sensor but our sensor can be calibrated
 6   to work with any existing gauge.  We would
 7   respectfully request that the EPA consider we know
 8   this product was around with the previous owner
 9   for a previous years.  We have taken it and having
10   had made changes and additional developments to
11   it.  It is on order through the United States
12   military at this time.
13            And we would ask that the EPA consider a
14   system, continue the system where there would be
15   credits given for the manufacturers who wanted to
16   use a more advanced technology which works on the
17   evaporative side of the diurnal run time vapor
18   emissions to get this product into the market
19   which will either more dramatically more than the
20   charcoal canister reduce vapor emissions.  We
21   would like to see the credits for that.  We do
22   have some concerns about the canister in the
0103
 1   passive configuration that was set up, whether
 2   that will succeed in a real life environment.
 3            Our primary recommendation is that all
 4   incentives, the due consideration and same is
 5   given for manufacturers to begin using the double
 6   bladder systems which will prevent evaporative
 7   emissions from diurnal and the run time.  Thank
 8   you.
 9            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.  No
10   questions for this panel.
11            MR. PASSAVANT:  I have a few.
12            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Glenn, go ahead.
13            MR. PASSAVANT:  On your bond testing, I
14   want to ask, Mr. Porter, how would you propose
15   that be pursued within the structure of this
16   regulation?
17            MR. PORTER:  I didn't comment on that.
18            MR. PASSAVANT:  I'm sorry, Tony, how
19   would you propose that be pursued within the realm
20   of this regulation?
21            MR. RIVIEZZO:  Either as part of the
22   preconditioning test that there be an arm impact
0104
 1   test done on materials at both, you know, a low
 2   and ambient temperature range or actually
 3   including it as part of the ABYC on MASA's side
 4   of the regulation that it becomes part of the
 5   durability test there.
 6            MR. PASSAVANT:  Normally speaking, when
 7   there's an industry standard like you have here,
 8   we wouldn't pursue putting that in regulation for
 9   the reasons you guys are all over it.  You know
10   what you seem to be doing.  Maybe the ABYC
11   approach would be the right way to think about
12   that.  We'll take that under further
13   consideration.
14            I also wanted to ask, Mr. Porter, you
15   mentioned in passing, I don't want to focus on a
16   small point you made, but I want to understand
17   especially what Mike said in passing again, about
18   concerns about canister performance.  You used the
19   term clogging.  And I wasn't quite sure where you
20   were going with that expression there.
21            MR. PORTER:  If you don't use new
22   fittings and additional multi purpose fittings and
0105
 1   fuel, I mean, the canister clogs with carbon.
 2            MR. PASSAVANT:  So this would be if
 3   liquid got into the carbon bed?
 4            MR. PORTER:  Yeah.
 5            MR. PASSAVANT:  And is there not -- in
 6   the affirmative sense, almost all the history of
 7   this type of technology used shows in some form or
 8   another, there is some form of a little valve of
 9   fitting or some type used normally called a liquid
10   vapor separator, or the equivalent thereof.  I'm
11   assuming what you're referring to when you say a
12   fitting that's necessary to be sure that happens.
13            MR. PORTER:  Yes.
14            MR. PASSAVANT:  That is a pretty well
15   understood thing.  Mike, do you have anything you
16   want to add to that?
17            MR. FREEMAN:  Well, the concern was that
18   on the charcoal canister, if the hydrocarbons are
19   fully attached to the charcoal, that the passage
20   system you're suggesting whether or not that will
21   work.  It might work an hour or two but it
22   wouldn't really work long time.
0106
 1            I was -- I have my expert here, I was
 2   mentioning to him that in Oklahoma, you're not
 3   going to get the cooling temperatures that is
 4   considered to make the canister actually work
 5   unless you tell everybody to put the canister in
 6   the ice chest, then you might get the cooling you
 7   need.  We don't get 60 degree temperatures
 8   generally in Oklahoma to do the -- in the
 9   summertime at least where everybody is using their
10   boats to actually go through your passage where
11   the hydrocarbons would leach off of the carbon and
12   reabsorbed as a liquid down into the fuel system.
13            MR. PASSAVANT:  In our rule we did some
14   testing work to assess the effect the air of the
15   temperature swing on this loading and cooling
16   cycle.  If you have any comments for the record or
17   maybe even later on about how to better get a
18   handle on it, that what would have be helpful to
19   us.  Now it's our sense you live and die by the
20   same physical cycle.  If you're using passive
21   purge, it requires a general temperature swing.
22   And what we have seen in some of the stuff that
0107
 1   Mr. Haskew generated a number of years ago, that
 2   was vessels sitting in the water, the temperature
 3   swing was substantially subdued compared to the
 4   ambient atmosphere.  That was one of the things we
 5   went to in the test cycle to try to accommodate
 6   that.  Anything you can add to our understanding,
 7   that would be helpful.
 8            MR. FREEMAN:  Thank you.  Before the end
 9   of the comment session, we'll add comments to the
10   record.
11            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  At this juncture we're
12   going to deviate from our planned set of speakers
13   really as a courtesy to some of the logistic
14   complaints people are facing.  What I'd like to do
15   is ask Mr. Rich Waggoner from Indmar Marine Products
16   and Mr. Dan Ostrosky of Yamaha Motor Corporation
17   to come forward for their testimony.  At the
18   conclusion of their testimony we'll evaluate where
19   we are timing wise and move forward.
20   Mr. Waggoner.
21            MR. WAGGONER:  Good morning, my name is
22   Richard Waggoner.  And I am the Director of
0108
 1   Environmental Activity for Indmar Products.  We
 2   are a small manufacturer of gasoline spark-ignited
 3   marine inboard engines located in Millington,
 4   Tennessee.  We employ approximately 100 people and
 5   produce 10,000 marine engines per year.  We are a
 6   small player in an industry that manufactures over
 7   100,000 gasoline marine sterndrive inboard engines
 8   per year.
 9            Indmar has been actively involved with
10   the United States Environmental Protection Agency
11   and the California Air Resources Board for the
12   past 20 years.  We have worked closely with both
13   agencies to ensure any engine exhaust emission
14   standards were both fair and equitable and allow
15   more than reasonable development time.  Indmar was
16   also actively involved in the test program to
17   prove the technical feasibility of catalytic
18   converters on sterndrive inboard engines for their
19   useful life (480 hours) in both fresh and salt
20   water.  We supplied two boats as well as technical
21   support to Southwest Research Institute to conduct
22   the test program.
0109
 1            We support the proposed Federal Emission
 2   Regulations for new marine spark-ignited
 3   sterndrive inboard engines that will substantially
 4   reduce emissions from these engines.  There are a
 5   few areas that we would suggest alternative
 6   language or changes.  Some of these changes are
 7   alternatives discussed in the preamble and some
 8   are proposed to remain common with CARB emission
 9   regulations.
10            The first item Indmar Products would like
11   to see clarified is the definition of small
12   business for the proposed sterndrive inboard
13   engines.  Section III.F.1 of the preamble
14   discusses the small business advocacy involvement
15   with the rulemaking.  It also includes their
16   definition of a small business.  Section III.F.2
17   goes on to define small volume engine manufacturer
18   as 5,000 sterndrive/inboard engines per year but
19   will also consider any manufacturer that
20   meets the SBA definition in section III.F.1.  The
21   5,000 unit small volume engine manufacturer should
22   be removed and use the SBA definition of small
0110
 1   business.  The use of one common definition by SBA
 2   should result in less confusion down the road.
 3            The second item is the test procedure for
 4   the not to exceed zone, NTE zone.  NMMA members
 5   are involved in generating the data to define the
 6   NTE zone and support the concept.  Indmar would
 7   like to see the weighted average method used
 8   instead of the limit per sub zone as discussed in
 9   section IV.C(2) of the preamble.  The use of the
10   weighted average would result in a common
11   procedure for all gasoline marine engines and
12   comprehend the open loop operation of catalyst
13   equipped engines.
14            The third item we would like to comment
15   on is repower.  The replacement of engines in old
16   boats is defined in 1068.20 is supported by
17   Indmar.  This allows us to keep customers who have
18   engine problems with old boats satisfied and still
19   meet the intent of the clean air.
20            We would like to see end of line testing
21   not required for all sterndrive/inboard engines.
22   The OBD-M system implemented for
0111
 1   sterndrive/inboard engines will catch and identify
 2   any engine operating problem that might result in
 3   non-emission compliant engines.  All emission
 4   components as well as the operation of the
 5   catalytic converter are monitored.  Any engine
 6   with a problem will be caught at the end of line
 7   run check and corrected before the engine is sold
 8   to commerce.  This procedure would be common with
 9   CARB.
10            The final item we want to comment on is
11   the grouping of engines into a common engine
12   family.  In section 1045.230(b)2 the cooling
13   system (raw-water versus separate-circuit cooling)
14   could be a family discriminator.  This would
15   double the number of engine families for us with
16   no value added.  We offer most of our engines with
17   raw-water or fresh-water cooling.  The emissions
18   of the engine will not change with either cooling
19   system.
20            I want to thank EPA for their efforts
21   over many years and the opportunity to speak
22   today.  Indmar products supports the enactment of
0112
 1   the proposed Federal sterndrive/inboard exhaust
 2   emissions standards with the above noted changes.
 3            We will offer further explanation of
 4   these items in our written comments.  Thank you.
 5            MR. WOOD-THOMAS:  Thank you.
 6   Mr. Ostrosky.
 7            MR. OSTROSKY:  Thank you.  Good morning.
 8   Actually my morning started about 10:00 last night
 9   getting here, so I'm still going.
10            Good morning.  My name is Dan Ostrosky,
11   Manager Government Relationships Yamaha Motor
12   Corporation USA.  I want to thank the EPA for the
13   opportunity to speak here today.
14            Yamaha Marine USA represents over 2900
15   outboard PWC and jet boat dealers and have engine
16   supply agreements with over 100 independent boat
17   builders here in the US.  For 2007 Yamaha's
18   outboard lineup alone has up to 200 different
19   model variations to choose from to fit all boating
20   life-styles.
21            Yamaha's committed to achieving quality,
22   fuel efficient and clean engines is paramount to
0113
 1   our corporate philosophy.  This is why we are here
 2   today.
 3            As you may have heard by other stake
 4   holders, Yamaha also endorses the NMMA comments
 5   presented today in regards to the proposed Marine
 6   SI Rule however; even the NMMA whose member bodies
 7   encompasses the majority of manufacturers cannot
 8   cover all needs to each individual company.
 9   Yamaha feels that is necessary to impart to you
10   the extensive requirements, man power and
11   production strains that this proposal will place
12   on Yamaha over and above what is discussed by the
13   NMMA member bodies.
14            Exhaust emissions:  In the preamble, EPA
15   has proposed to implement a start date of outboard
16   and PWC exhaust emission levels in model year
17   2009.  To Yamaha, model year 2009 would mean
18   compliance as of April, 2008 production which may
19   come and go without signage of this very
20   rule.  Due to the protracted direction and ever
21   dynamic time frames experienced with this NPRM,
22   our engineering and product planning staff are
0114
 1   respectfully requesting that in order for Yamaha
 2   to reevaluate our current model lineup readjust
 3   the mapping and fuel calculation of current four
 4   stroke technology required to achieve a lower
 5   emission level across our product line and to be
 6   allowed to utilize our emission credits earned in
 7   2006, 2007 and 2008 Tier one, an additional one
 8   year model year lead time will be needed.
 9            This would be model year 2010 which for
10   Yamaha would be production starting April of 2009.
11   At this point all elements of the emission levels
12   including the FEL cap within this proposal would
13   go into effect.  This in essence would disallow
14   the sale of all carbureted two stroke engines from
15   this point on, achieving one of EPA's objective
16   goals.
17            Jet boat:  With the EPA electing to
18   reclassify a PWC engine when it is placed in a jet
19   boat to be certified as a totally different engine
20   and at a more stringent level is confusing to us
21   even though the EPA is aware that compliant
22   technology does not exist for outboard and PWC,
0115
 1   has proven to be quite an engineering challenge
 2   and there appears to be no basis for this
 3   requirement.
 4            After considering discussions with our
 5   engineers to reach a feasibility consensus we
 6   request that if the EPA were to agree on a model
 7   year start date of 2011 (which again, for Yamaha
 8   is April of 2010) for compliance at the inboard
 9   level of 5 GM/KW/HR, this would afford additional
10   time to an already taxed staff to design and build
11   a ground up engine required to meet the target
12   levels presented in the proposal.  As the EPA may
13   be aware, PWC engines utilized in jet boats is a
14   very small quantity, and short runs of catalyst
15   based engines would be cost prohibitive.
16   Therefore, by giving this short additional lead
17   time will have the positive effect of bringing
18   into a lower compliance level a greater amount of
19   PWC engine families to help off set production
20   costs.  Again, by allowing this lead time, the EPA
21   will have championed even further emission
22   reductions over the broad engine spectrum.  A
0116
 1   model year 2011 compliance date (although
 2   aggressive) in Yamaha's view, was agreed upon
 3   internally as this appears to parallel what
 4   the EPA has considered acceptable lead time for
 5   the SD/I members affected by this rule as a result
 6   of new engine block design and feasibility issues.
 7   If the industry is in fact subject to classify PWC
 8   engines used in jet boats as a different engine
 9   then we need the additional lead time.
10            Permeation issues:  Yamaha would like to
11   offer comments on the EPA proposed compliance
12   dates of model year 2008 for outside the cowl hose
13   and under cowl hose.  We are not seeking exemption
14   relief from this however we are requesting
15   additional lead time to comply.
16            Under cowl hose:  Industry discussed at
17   length with the EPA the intricacies of under cowl
18   hoses from the variability of lengths (very short)
19   less than one inch to the more elaborate mandrel
20   shaped extruded hose styles among many other
21   details.  Middle ground was discussed in prior
22   meetings as to, "Phase in approach" to allow for a
0117
 1   30-60-90 percent phase in over a multi year time
 2   frame.  However, since the rule will not be signed
 3   in time for industry to implement the costly
 4   changes, a proposed compliance time frame of one
 5   year after the effective exhaust emission start
 6   date is requested to be confident qualified
 7   material, and hose producers are available.
 8            Outside the cowl hoses ( from installed
 9   boat fuel tank to engine):  Understand that this
10   will in most cases be the responsibility of the
11   boat builder ( except those assemblies supplied by
12   the engine manufacturer) in order to achieve the
13   necessary amount of lead time for the boat
14   building industry to come into compliance,