._... _. ...... 

. -' (i 

n. 

1 

BOARD MEETING 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING 

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BYRON SHER AUDIfiORIUM, SECOND FLOOR 

1001 I STREET 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

~ _ ,f 

THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008 

9:00 A.M. 

ORIGINAL . . 

TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 

LICENSE NUMBER 12277 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
APPEARANCES 

BOARD MEMBERS 

„ Ms. Mary D. Nichols, Chairperson 

Dr. John R. Balmes 

Ms. Sandra Berg 

Ms. Lydia Kennard 

Mr. Jerry Hill 

Mrs. Barbara Riordan 

Mr. Daniel Sperling 

Mr: John Telles 

STAFF 

Mr. James Goldstene, Executive Officer 

Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer 

Ms. Ellen Peter, Chief Counsel 

Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer 

Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer 

Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudsman 

Ms. Susan Fischer, Ph.:D., Research Planning and Climate 

Change Outreach Section, Research Division, RD 

Ms. Susan Gilbreath, Ph.D., Health and Exposure Assessment 

Branch, Research Division 

Mr. Margret Kim, Senior Advisor for International Climate 

Chan.ge, Chair's Office 

Mr. Iain Morrow, on loan from UK government, RD 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
Mr. Chuck Shulock, Assistant Executive Officer,, OCC 

Ms. Linda Smith, Ph.D., Chief, Health and Exposure 

Assessment Branch, RD 

Ms. Bonnie Soriano, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, 

Technical Analysis Section, Stationary Source Divisiori 

Ms. Monica Vejar; Board Clerk 

Mr. Sam Wade; Air Pollution Specialist, Program Evaluation 

Branch, Office of Climate Change 

ALSO PRESENT 

Mr. Joe Angelo, Intertanko 

Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC 

Mr. Rasto Brazney, MECA 

Mr. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean'Air. 

Mr: Randal Fr,iedman, US Navy 

Mr. T.L. Garrett, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Mr. Henry Hogo, South Coast AQMD 

Mr. John . Kaltenstein, Friends of the Earth 

Ms. Candice Kim, Coalition for Clean Air 

Mr. John McKnight, National Marine Manufacturings 

Association 

Ms. Patrick Moran, Aaron Read & Associates, LLC 

Mr. Dan Ostrosky, Yamaha. 

-Mr. Don Owen, DTSC 

Mr. Christopher Patton, Port of Los Angeles 

Mr. Paul Ray, Ilmor Marine Engineering, Inc. 

Mr. Mark Riechers, Mercury Marine 

Ms. Heather Tomley, Port of Long Beach 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORT,ING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
INDEX 

PAGE 

Item 08-7-1 

Chairperson Nichols 

Executive Officer GoTdstene 

Staff Presentation 

Q&A 

Item 08-7-3 

Chairperson Nichols 

Executive Officer Goldstene 

Staff Presentation 

Q &A 

Motion 

Vote 

Item 08-7-4 

Chairperson Nichols 

Executive Officer Goldstene 

Staff Presentation 

Q&A 

Ombudsman Quetin 

Q&A 

Ms. Tomley 

Mr. Garrett 

Mr. Kaltenstein 

Ms. Kim 

Ms. Bailey 

Mr. Patton 

Mr. Angelo 

Mr. Friedman 

Mr. Hogo 

Motion 

Ex Partes 

Vote 

Item.08-7-5 

Chairperson Nichols 

Executive Officer Goldstene 

Staff P.resentation 

Ombudsman Quetin 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Brezny 

Mr. McKnight 

Mr. Ray 

4 

5 

6 

12 

21 

22 

23 

35 

36 

36 

37 

37 

40 

63 

65 

66 

73 

76 

78 

, 

82 

84 

86 

88 

91 , 

98 

101 

105 

107 

107 

107 

110 

124 

126 

127 

129 

132 

PETERS SH.ORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
INDEX CONTINUED 

PAGE 

Mr. Whelan 134 

Mr. Riechers - 135 

Mr. Ostrosky 137 

Mr. Carm_ichael 139 

Motion 141 

Vote 141 

Item 08-7-8 

Executive Officer Goldstene 141 

Staff Presentation 143 

Q&A 153 

Ms. Kim 158 

Chairperson Nichols 166 

Item 8-7-9 

Chairperson Nichols 167 

Executive Officer Goldstene 168 

Staff Presentation 169 

Q&A 181 

Item 8-7-10 

Chairperson Nichols 188 

Executive Officer Goldstene 189 

Staff Presentation 190 

Q&A 201 

Public-Comment 205 

Adjournment 208 

Reporter's Certificate 209 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
1 

_ l PROCEEDINGS 

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good morning, ladies and 

3 gentlemeh. Welcome to the July 24 . th public meeting of the 

4 air resources Board. The meeting wi11 come to order. 

5 We"begin the meeting with the Pledge of 

6 Allegiance. I'll ask you all to please rise. 

7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 

8 Recited in unison.) 

9

. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

10 The Clerk will please call the roll. 

1 1 . SECRETARY VEJARc Dr. Balmes? 

12 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Here. 

13 SECRETARY VEJAR: Ms. D'Adamo? 

14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 

15 SECRETARY VEJAR: Supervisor Hill? 

16 Ms. Kennard? 

17 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 

18 SECRETARY VEJAR: Mayor Loveridge? 

19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Here. 

20 SECRETARY VEJAR: Ms: Riordan? 

21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDANt Here. 

22 SECRETARY VEJAR: Supervisor Roberts? 

23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 

24 SECRETARY VEJAR: Professor Sperling? 

25 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here. 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
2 

1 SECRETARY VEJAR; Dr. Telles? 

2 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: Here. 

3 SECRETARY VEJAR: Chairman Nichols? 

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here. - 

5 I believe Supervisor Hill is on his way, but'is a 

6 little bit d'elayed this morning. 

7 We have on the agenda, if there's anybody who's 

8 planning their day,' a time set aside for a standing 

9 meeting, a closed session, to receive reports on the_cases 

10 in which we'rs litigants. We are not having a closed' 

11 session.today,. That has been canceled. _ 

12 We will take a lunch break: And the Board is 

13 going to be hosting a visiting delegation of Eusopeans,:who 

14 are here studying climate change,who are all active in 

15 this field in Europe. S.o that should be interesting. 

16 We will be imposing a three-minute time limit on 

17 all speakers on all items, unless we have so many speakers 

18 on any item that we have to shorten it. But I hope that 

19 won't happen. 

20 And I'm also supposed to advise you that there 

21 are emergency exists at the rear of the room. And that in 

22 the event that an alarm goes off, we have to evacuate the 

23 room, go downstairs and go outside the building until we 

24 get the all-clear signal. I think that's it for 

25 logistical comments. 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1-07 

1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: No ex partes. 

2 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: None. 

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: In that case,'we have a 

4 motioh and a second. All in favor please say aye. 

5 (Aye s) 

6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any opposed? 

7 Good. Thank you very much. 

8 We have another major regulatory action on the 

9 agenda item. But I think it woul'd be good to give 

10 ourselves a ten-minute break. 

11 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOL'S: Let's get started with ther 

13 staff presentation. Those who. aren't at the'table are in 

14 the back room where there is audio from this room. 

15 So let's begin then with Item 08-7-5, public 

16 hearing to consider proposed amendments to the current 

~ 17 spark-ignition marine engines and boat regulations. 

18 Mr. Goldstene. 

19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman 

20 Nichols. 

21 Today staff is proposing to amend California's 

22 existing spark-ignition marine regulations to provide'an 

23 alternative path to compliance for small volume I , 

24 manufacturers of high performance engines with maximum 

25 power greater than 373 kilowatts; which approximately is 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-23.45 
l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

 19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

i 108 - 

about 500 horsepower. 

The existing regulations- require a11 high 

performance engines to comply with the five:grams per ' 

kilowatt hour tailpipe standard for combined hydrocarbons 

and oxides,of nitrogen beginning in 2009. Compliance will 

reguire use of an automotive type catalytic converter. 

Unfortunately, these engines routinely operate at'near 

full power'and these conditions have prevented smal'1 

volume engine manufacturers from finding a converter that 

would be effective and durable. 

As a result, staff is proposing to relax the 

exhaust:standard for small volume manufacturers of high 

performance engines to 16 grains per kilowatt hour,,an 

emission level that can be met without a.catalyst. 

To partially offset the higher,tailpipe 

emissioris, small volume engine manufacturers wo.uld be , 

required to incorporate canister-based evaporative control 

systems on all boats in which high performance engines are 

installed beginning in 2009. 

Staff.proposes that large volume manufacturers of 

high performance engines that also produce standard 

performance engines continue to be required to comply with 

the five grams per kilowatt hour taiIpipe standard 

beginning in 2009. 

Although compliance with the five gram standard 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
109 

Ie 

1 for higher performance engines remains out of reach, the 

2 larger manufacturers can average the higher emissions of 

3 the performance boats engines by slightly lowering 

4 emissions of some of the standard engines below the,five 

5 gram level. 

6 Like the small manufacturers,,they would also be 

7 required to equip high performance engines with 

8. evaporative controls. These requirements will result in 

9 no lose of emission reductions of hydrocarbons and.NOx 

10, compared to the existing regulatlon. 

11 The-proposal would also adapt carbon monoxide 

12 standards and not-to-exceed tailpipe requirements 

13 currently being considesed for adoption by the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. These. 

15 requirements will help protectiboaters from carbon 

16 monoxide poisoning and help ensure that engines continue 

17 to run clean throughout their useful lives. 

18 In addition, staff is proposing to establish a 

19 voluntary standard with appropriate labeling.that is 

20 50 percent more stringent than the cleanest required 

21 standard currently available. 

22. I'11 now turn the presentation over to Jeff Lowry 

23 of . the Off-Road Control Section who will provide you with 

24 the detailed description of the staff's proposal. 

25 Mr. Lowry. 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
110 

(Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

p: resented as follows.) 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: Thank vou, 

Mr. Goldstene. . 

Good morning, Madam Chair and.members of the 

.'Board. 

Today's presentation will summarize the staff's 

proposal to amend California's existing regulations for 

new spark-ignition marine engines and boats.: Although my 

presentation will concentrate heavily on'the requirements 

for high performance sterndrive and in-board_en.gines, as. 

timing is most critical'for these applications, there are 

component's of the proposa,l that apply -to -outboard engines 

and personal watercraft as well. The rulemaking is 

specific to gasoline-fueled vessels, however, and does not 

apply to diesel-fueled commercial marine applications. 

--000-- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: This slide 

illustrates an historical perspective of the various 

components.'of the spark-ignition marine regulations that 

have been adopted and modified by the Board over the 

years. 

Most noteworthy regarding staff's proposal is the 

2009 commencement date for high perforrnance engines to 

begin complying with the catalyst-based standard. Little 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

~ 10~ 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

i 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
111 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

' 19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

time remains before these engines go irito production,for 

the 2009 model year. 

--000--' 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRYc The 

primary objective of staff"s proposal is to provide relief 

to the small volume manufacturers bf high performance 

engines in California by relaxirig the existing exhaust 

standard for combined hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen 

from,five grams per kilowatt hour to 16 grams per kilowatt 

hours on most engines. 

.Without relief., the::small volume manufacturers... 

will be unable to comply with the existing catalyst-b.ased 

requireme.nts scheduled to begin in 2009, because.durable 

catalysts for these high performance engines have not.be .en 

successfully developed. However, as I'll explain late.r, 

the proposal will include new requirements to ensure that 

the relief will not be adversely affected from the 

existing regulation. 

Staff is also proposing to adopt carbon monoxide 

standard for outboard engines, personal watercraft, 

sterndrive engines, and inboard engines to reduce the risk 

of poisoning and death from direct exposure. While these" 

standards are numerically identical to those proposed by 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency fo.r 

adoption nationally, the proposed California standards do 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
l 

2 

3 

4. 

5 

6 

, 7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

not allow ave.raging outboard and personal watercraft 

emission levels in order to ensure that no individual boat 

poses a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning to its users. 

Neither California, nor US EPA currently regulates carbon 

monoxide'emissions for gasoline-fueled marine engines. 

Finally, staff is proposing to streamline the 

regulations by harmonizing requirements with U.S. EPA''s 

proposed requirements whenever possible. 

With this brief introduction, ,I'11 now focus on 

the specific elements of.the proposal. First up, high 

performance. engines. 

--000-- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST L'OWRY: Boats with 

sterndrive or inboard engines are primarily used f.or 

recreational activities. And the engines that propel them 

are most commonly derived from V-8 or V-6 gasoline truck 

engines. 

High performance engines are defined as 

sterndrive or inboard engines with a maximum power rating 

greater than 373 kilowatts. Whereas, standard performance 

engines are designed to operate for at least ten years, 

high performance engines typically require rebuilding or a 

major overhaul every one to three years. 

The boat shown in this slide measures 41 feet in 

length and is powered by two 700 horsepower high 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
: 1 

2 

3 

I 4 

i 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1-0 

11 

12 

i 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

, 

113 

performance engines: 

--000-- , 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: Staff- L 

estimates that approximately 150 to 250 high performance 

engines are sold in California each year and that small, 

volume manufacturers comprise about 30 percent of the high 

performance market. Furthermore, it should be recognized 

that approximately 40 percent_of these manufacturers, are 

small California businesses. 

While relatively few in number, high performance 

engin,es represent a signifioant source of emissions due..to :. 

their large power cap,acities and high load operating 

characteristics. 

The uncontrolled emissions inventory for these 

engines would be 4.22 tons.per day of hydrocarbon and NOx 

in 2020. The combined hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen 

emissions from high performance engiries are expected to be 

reduced by two tons per day in 2020 under the existing 

regulation, which would require these engines to comply 

with_the catalyst-based five gram per kilowatt hour 

hydrocarbon plus NOx exhaust standard. 

While.this may seem like a small and 

insignificant amount of reduction, staff generally looks 

for measures that reduce emissions by as little as one ton . 

per day to achieve attainment with ambient air quality 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
114 

1 standards and California's goals for air.quality. 

2 --000-- 

3 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: As noted, 

4 the use.of catalytic converters on these engines was the 

5 expected means of reducing emissions. However, catalytic 

6 converters-for high performance engines not have developed 

7 as had been expected in part due to the extremely 1ow 

8 production volumes irivolved, but also in part due to the 

9 challenges resulting from the extreme operating 

10 chara.cteristics of these engines. 

11 By design, high performance engi.nes operate at 

12 wide open or full throttle for extended periods. Catalyst 

13 technology as its exists today has been shown to be: 

14 incompatible with this type of sustained operation. 

15 Because catalysts are not available for these engines, 

16 staff is proposing to relax the hydrocarbon plus NOx 

17 exhaust standards for small volume manufacturers from five 

18 grams per kilowatt hour to 16 grams per kilowatt hour dn 

19 most engines, a level that would no longer require the use 

20 of catalytic converters. 

21 Large volume manufacturers with a preponderance 

22 of standard performance engines.'for which catalysts are 

23 readily available would still be subject to the existing 

24 five grams per kilowatt hour standard, but could meet it 

25 through averaging higher emitting high performance engines 

PETERS.SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

_ 14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

i 

i 22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

with standard performance engines that emit less than the 

standard. 

There's currently only one manufacturer in the 

California market that produces both standard and high 

performance engines in sufficient quantities to average' 

successfully. That-manufacture is Mercury Marine: 

--000-- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: Shown here 

are the revised exhaust standards proposed for 

manufacturers of high performance sterndive and inboar'd 

engines. .,2009 will'mark the.first year that.high 

performance engines must be certified. 

Small volume manufacturers of high perf.ormance 

engines that produce a combined total of 75 or fewer high 

performance and standard performance engines would be 

required to comply with a relaxed exhaust standard.of 16 

grams per kilowatt hour or 25 grams per kilowatt hour, 

depending on engine size in 2009: 

Although not catalyst forcing, compliance with 

this standard is expected to require manufacturers still 

using carburation to transition to electronic fuel 

injection. Any manufacturer that produces a combination 

of between 75 and 500 standard performance engines and 

high performance engines at a ratio of 12-to-1 or greater 

would be required to.comply with the five grams per 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
116 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

i 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

,- 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

kilowatt hour st.andard using averaging or through other 

alternative means. 

The large volume manufacturers would still.be 

required to certify their engines to the existing.five 

grams per kilowatt hour standard also through averaging or 

other means. 

--oOo- - 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: In order 

to fully offset the loss in emission reductions resulting 

from relaximg the exhaust standard for small volume, high 

performance engines, a11'high p.er.formance engine .., 

manufacturers, large, intermediate, and small,wo.uld be 

required to equip their high performance engines with an 

advanced evaporative control system consisting of carbon 

canisters, low permeation hoses, and non-permeable fuel 

tanks. , 

Although this proposal means a large volume 

manufacturer would have the evaporative requirement in 

addition to the existing exhaust requirement, staff 

believes this is necessary to fully recover the emission 

benefits lost by relaxing the tailpipe standard for the 

small volume manufacturers. 

The greater resources available to the large 

volume manufacturers and the relatively minor costs of 

complying with the evaporative control requirement on less 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11_ 

12 

13 

_ 14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

, 25 

117 

than 200 boats annually makes this a cost effective and 

emission,neutral means of providing relief to small volume 

manufacturers that only produce high performance engines. 

The carbon canister shown here.isan actual 

prototype suitable 'for use in'marine applications: 

--000-- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: Shown here 

~ - 

is how staff's proposal would achieve an emissi.ons neutral 

solution. By not relaxing the five grams per kilowatt per 

hour exhaust standard for large volume manufacturers,:the 

existin.g requirement would continue t.o reduce.emissions..b..y 

an incremental benefit of 1.42 tons per day_ 

The proposed relaxed exhaust standard for small, 

volume.manufacturers only still provides two-tenths of a 

ton per day reduction over uncontrolled levels. 

Lastly, imposing evaporative controls or botli 

small and large volume manufacturers high performance 

engines balances the remaining ledger by providing_another 

.41 tons per day for a completely emissions neutral 

solution in 2020. 

--000-- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: Staff's 

proposal also provides an alternative means for, complying 

for large volume manufacturers that do not want to 

average. In lieu of certifying high performance engines 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
118 

1 to the five grams per kilowatt hour standard, large volume 

2 manufacturers`may instead comply with the same exhaust 

3 standards as small volume manufacturers, but must make up 

4 the emissions in other equi.valent ways. 

5 One way.toachieve this would be by equipping 

6 some of their boats,that use their standard performance 

7 engines with carbon canisters, low permeation hoses, and 

8 non-permeable fuel tanks. 

9 The staff!s proposal would also get manufacturers 

10 to use other manufactures specific alternatives not 

11 s.p.e.ci.fically autlined in the regulations. ..These woul.d be 

12 evaluated by the Executive Officer to ensure emissions ° 

13 neutrality. 

14 This wraps up my discussion of the high 

15 performance engines. I'11 now turn to the issues 

16 surrounding staff's proposed carbon monoxide standards. 

17 --000-- 

18 STAFF AIR'POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRYc Carbon 

19 monoxide emissions ar'e an issue,of concern not only for 

20 sterndrive and inboard engines, but for outboard engines 

21 and personal watercraft as well. 

22 In recent years, the dangers of carbon monoxide 

23 in the boating environment have become well known. The 

24 tragic deaths listed as statistics on this slide have 

25 mostly occurred as a result of direct exposure to exhaust 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
119 

1 emissions from auxiliary power engines used on house 

2 boats. 

3 However, deaths have also occurred on sterndrive 

4 and inboard ski boats primarily from activities.known as 

5 teak'susfing and wa'ke boarding. 

6 To a lesser extent but nonetheless just as 

7 deadly; deaths have also'occurred on boats equipped with 

8 outboard engines. 

9 California Assembly Bill 2222 requires that 

10 carbon monoxide warning stickers be placed on the transom 

11 and helm of a.la new and used motorized vessels sol.d in.: 

12 California to alert boaters of . the dangers of ca:rbon 

13 monoxide. However, „ neither California, nor U.S.- E.PA: 

14 currently requires boat engines to meet carbon mo_noxide 

15 standards. 

16 --000-- 

17 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: Staff is 

18 proposing to harmonize with U.S. EPA's proposal regarding 

19 the numeric values.of the carbon monoxide standards for 

20 outboard engines, personal watercraft, sterndrive engines, 

21 and inboard engines as shown in the table. However, while 

22 U.S. EPA has proposed to allow averaging for the outboard 

23 and personal watercraft engines, staff is proposing that 

24 the carbon monoxide standards for all engine types be met 

25 without averaging. We do not believe that an average 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

I 12 

~ 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

i

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

carbon monoxide standard protects boaters from the risks 

of direct exposure. Some engines may be certified to 

emission levels higher than others which potentially puts 

boaters using those engines at gr.eater risk. 

--00o=- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: The final 

element of staf£'s proposal concerns jet: boats. Jet boats 

such as the 23 foot model pictured here are medium-sized 

vessels typically equipped with one or more personal 

watercraft engines which have a combined power ranging 

from 220..to 380 horsepower.; ._ 

--000-- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: Although_ 

the means of propulsion for jet boats is different-from 

that of more traditional sterndrive propeller-driven.- 

engines, the activities for which both jet boats and 

vessels with sterndrive engines are similar. 

Jet boats typically have transoms like sterndrive 

vessels and pose the same risks fsom carbon monoxi,de' 

~ 

poisoning. 

Currently, only two manufacturers are known.to 

certify jet boats in California. And the numbers of 

engines sold are relatively few compared to sterndrive and 

inboard sales. Unlike sterndrive engines, however, jet 

boats engines are currently.certified to the less 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

I 8 i. 9 

I 

~ 10 

i 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

i 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

_ 

121 

stringent exhaust standard for personal watercraft such as 

for jet skis. 

U.S. EPA is in the process of finalizing a, 

rulemaking re-defining sterndrive and,inboard engines to 

include ,jet boat 'engihes and to a'ccordingly require jet': 

boats to comply with more stringent catalyst-based 

standards. 

--000-- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIBT LOWRY: Staff 

proposes to.align with the proposed U.S : . EPA definition 

for inboard sterndrive engines. 

Under the revised definition, jet boats would be 

treated th.e same as sterndrive inboard boats in.that their 

engines would need to comply with the catalyst-based five 

gram per kilowatt hour standard for combined hydrocarbons 

and oxides of nitrogen, instead of the cnrrent 16 gram p.er 

kilowatt hour standard. They would also be subject to the 

catalyst based 75 gram per kilowatt hour carbon monoxide 

standard. 

Staff is proposing that.the more stringent 

exhaust standard for`jet boats go into effect with the 

2012 models in order to provide time to develop and 

certify these engines. 

Staff is also proposing to allow.replacement 

engines to meet the personal watercraft standard prior to 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
122 

1 2012. This lead time is consistent with U.S. EPA's 

2 proposed action and should help provide a smooth 

3 transition for industry. 

4 --000-- 

5 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPEC'IALIST LOWRY: To ' 

6 incentivize the introduction of even cleaner engines in 

7 California, staff proposes the issuance of a new five star 

8 emissions rating to engine families that certify engines 

9 to emission levels even cleaner'than the most stringent 

10 four star certification standard required by the 

11 regulations. 

12 Compliance with the new five star level would` 

13 entail meeting the levels:shown here throughout the 

14. engine's useful life. These levels represent a reduction 

15 of 50 percent from current standards based on catalytic 

16 converters. 

17 --000-- 

18 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: Staff is 

19 also proposing additional modifications to address 

20 comments from sta.keholders, to align with U.S. EPA, and to 

21 improve the regulations overall. These remaining 

22 components of the proposal are explained in greater detail 

23 in our staff report. 

24 --00o-- 

25 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALI.ST LOWRY: Recent 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

discussions,with the marine industry have raised the need ~ to clarify or modify several of st;aff's proposed 

amendments, so several aspects of today's presentation 

differ with the.initial 45 day proposal. These proposed 

changes were incorporated in the applicable sections of' 

the presentation, and the regulatory text is available 

outside. 

If the Board approves staff's proposal, a 

detailed description of all changes and the rationale 

inspiring them will be made available for a 15-day comment 

period. 

--000-- 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: In 

summary, the.lack of the effective catalyst for .. high 

performance marine engines necessitates a relaxation of 

the five gram tailpipe standard for small volume 

-manufacturers of high performance engines scheduled to go 

into effect in January. 

To recoup the lost emission benefits, large 

volume manufacturers would still be requir.ed to comply 

with the existing tailpipe standard, most likely by 

averaging higher emissions of high performance engines 

with standard engines that , emit at lower levels. 

In addition, both large and small volume 

manufacturers will be required to equip their high 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17

. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 4 

performance boats with evaporative controls. These new 

xequirements will provide the two tons,,per day emission 

reduction that would otherwise be lost from relaxing.the-= 

tailpipe standard'for high performance engines. 

=Staff's proposal also'reduces the risk of carbo'n 

monoxide poisoning by limiting the amount of carbon 

monoxide that can be emitted from outboard engines, 

personal watercraft, sterndrive, and inboard engines. 

This concludes staff's presentation: Staff is 

ready to'answer any questions the Board might have. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: This is a complicated 

series of changes yo,u're proposing to make here. 

Are there questions you before we hear from.the 

public? If not, let's hear from the public testimony. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Madam Chair, I 

think the Ombudsm-an has a quick report. 

~ 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sorry. i keep 

forgetting because we haven't always done this. 

OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Chaisman Nichols and members . 

of the Board, this proposed regulation has been developed 

for input from National Marine Manufacturers Association, 

the Man.ufactures of Emission Control Association, Southern 

'California Marine Association, Delphi Powertrain systems, 

Attwood Marine, the California Department of Boating and 

Waterways, and U.S. EPA. 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
125 

1 S,taff began their efforts to develop this rule on 

2 November 15th, 2005. Between January 16th; 2007, and 

3 

 April 22nd, 2008, they met individually and collectively' 

4 with representatives:f.rom the majority of the 

5 spark-ignition marine engine manufacturers in California. 

6 On March 14th, 200.7, December 17th and 18, 2007,_ 

7 

 .and again on July 9th, 2008,. staff inet'with the Marine 

8 Manufacturers Association and again several individual 

9 marine engine and boat manufacturers. 

10 Staff also'held a public/video workshop on March 

11 18th., 200-8, and a certification_outreach meetin.g on Apr,i1 

12 22nd, 2008. 

13 The-staff report-was-.released along with the 

14 proposed regulatory amendments on June 6th, 2008. The 

15 public notice'was physically mailed to stakeholders which 

16 occurred on May 28th,, 2008. Th.e staff report was.made 

17 available as a web document only, and the required number' 

18 of hard,copies were made available to both El Monte and 

19 Sacramento offices. It was 'also sent to the 2,900 people 

20 on the mobile sonrce and recreational marine list.serves. 

21 Thank you.. 

'22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

23 I see from the list we don't have any witnesses 

24 from the environmental community. Did they participate in 

25 the rulemaking at all? I didn't hear you say it. 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
— 

126 

1 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Staff would-have to respond to. 

2 that. This is the information I. received from them. . 

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS; I-see. 

4 EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT 

5 BRANCH"CHIEF CARTER: Madam Chair, no, there was no direct 

6; corre-spondence -- 

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I assumes that means they 

8 are satisfied.. But interesting. Okay. 

9 Then we'll go to our public testimony. Beginning 

10 with Patrick Moran followed by Rasto Brezny. 

11 _ MR. MORAN: Thank you, Madam Chair and members..' 

12 My name is Patrick Moran with,Aaron Read and Associates 

.13 r.epresenting Southern California-Marine Association. 

14 We're the largest regional marine trade association in the 

15 country with over 600 member companies. 

16 First, we've submitted a written statement for 

17 your reflection, so I' S11 try to summarize and be brief. 

18 First, SCMA wanted to thank the staff for all the hard 

19 work they put in on this issue and trying to resolve the 

20. differences and concerns we had with the proposed 

21 regulations. 

22 SCMA has been actively involved in the process of 

23 helping to create new standards of exhaust emissions for 

24 recreational marine engines. And to summarize our 

25 concerns, the consistent standard for all concept that was 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
- 127 

1 discussed at,the March 18th, 2008, meeting in E1 Monte now 

2 appears to have been abandoned for a more complicated 

3 multi-level approach segregating coinpanies into different 

4 categories based on the number of engines produced and the 

5 horsepower mix o'f their product lines.' 

'6 That's not the direction or the impression we had7 that we'd-be,going in, but that's wYiere we are today. And 

8 those are our concerns with the proposed regulations. And 

9 we would just ask the.Board members carefully consider and10 evaluate the impact of the new emissions standards and" 

.:11 what they might have on the alrea,dy very fragile economy. 

12 in California. Thank-you for your time. 

13 CHASRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.' Ap.preciate:your ' 

14 involvement in this. 

15 Rasto Brezny and John McKnight. 

16 MR. BREZNY: Thank you, Chairman Nichols and 

17 members of the Board. Thank you for giving me this 

18 opportunity to speak today in support of this proposal. 

19 My.name is Dr. Rasto Brezny. S'm the Deputy 

20 Director for the Manufacturers of Emission Controls 

21 Association. We're the nonprofit association made up of 

22 the world's leading manufactures of emission control 

23 technologies for motor vehicles. Our members have over 35 

24 years of experience in developing and manufacturing 

25 emission control technology, both evaporative and catalyst 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
128 I 

1 control technologies, for on-road and off-road vehicles of 

2 all shapes and sizes, including supplying three-way 

3 catalysts for some of the spark-ignited *_narine engines 

4 that are sold in California< 

S We agree with staff"s assessment that the high 

6 performance category of engines poses'specific challenges 

7 for the appl,ication of catalysts for emission coiitrol, 

8 primarily because of the way these engines are operated 

9 today: 

10 We also agree with the appr'oach of using ` 

11 ev.ap.orative controls as a means to make"up some of'the' 

12 lose in exhaust controls: 

13 Evap.orative controls have been used on 

14 automobiles for over 30 years and they've been.appl.ied to. 

15 a wide variety of on-road and off-road spark-ignite 

16 vehicles as well as. 

17 I g.uess we've submitt,ed written testimony, so I'd 

18 like to focus my oral comments on some additional measures 

19 that could be taken looking beyond'today's proposed 

20 amendments. We believe that a number of important 

21 opportunities still remain in order to apply proven 

22 a.utomotive emission control technologies t.o marine engines 

23 in order to achieve further reductions in the future. 

24 The Passive purge evaporative control 

25 technologies that would be used on these vessels as 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
i 1 ~ , 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

.9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

~ 14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

outlined in the proposal are a good first step to capture 

on the order of 50 to 60 percent of evaporative emissions 

that are coming from these types of engines. However; we 

would ) suggest that in:the.future, future amendments look 

at,the possibility of applying active purge-'control' 

technologies that are on the order of 90 percent effective 

in capturing evaporative emissions and have been 

,successfully used on automobiles for over 25 years. 

Furthermore, we encourage staff to continue to 

explore the possibility'of applying evaporative as`well as 

exha.ust controls to the outboard and personal wate.r:cra.ft 

engines as well'. These technologies have been 

successfully applied on both two stroke and four.stroke. 

engines in.both on-road and off-road applications.. 

.And finally, wish to thank ARB staff for its hard 

work'in putting forth this proposal. And our . industry'is 

committed to work with all stakeholders in order to ensure 

that the technologies are.available to achieve the 

emissions that are outlined in the proposal. Thank you 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 

John McKnight and then Pau1 Ray. 

MR. MC KNIGHT: Thank you. And that clock is 

right, good afternoon. My name is John McKnight, Director 

of Environmental Safety Compliance for National Marine 

Manufacturers Association. 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

, 9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

First,. to begin with, I really would'like to 

thank the CARB staff for working with marine engine 

manufacturess to identity the amendments that are really 

necessary to improve the existing California ru.le and, 

bring it into align 'with many of the changes'"that have 

happened and will be happening on a federal level. : 

NMA urges the Board to consider and approve the 

staff recommended amendments to the spark-ignition marine 

engine and boat regulations with the following exception 

or revisions I'd like to talk about. 

But. b.e.fore I start talking about that,.the Board . 

is going to hear the testimony of Mark Riechers from 

Mercury Marine,-Sean Whelan from Att'wood Corporation, from 

Dan Ostrosky from Yamaha, and Paul Ray from I1mor. We'.ve... 

all burnt a lot of jet fuel to get over here today. We 

appreciate the opportunity and appeal to the Board to 

consider these amendments which us and the staff have 

worked really hard on. 

The staff .has recommended that the Board approve 

a-limit for carbon monoxide emissions from outboard and 

personal watercraft engine, rather than allow averaging 

these emissions as the EPA plans to finalize. I want to 

talk a little bit about that. Because we do support the 

plan to reduce CO emissions. There's no doubt about that 

it. When it comes to sterndrive inboards where we have 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
131 

1 seen accidents and fatalities, we'certainly approve that. 

.2 When it comes to outboards and personal'watercraft, we 

3 definitely support the,2010 implementation date: But we 

4 think for these engines, we need to see it harmonizes with 

5 the EPA`plan which allows for the averaging o,f CO 

6 emissions. 

7 And I'11 tell you the reason why. And it is that 

8 the California -- only reason they need the regulate C0 

9 emissions is because they need to protect human health and 

10 safety. And there's been enormous'amount of study in this 

11 area on the effects of C0 poisoning from boats and NIOSH 

12 and the EPA and the U5 Coast Guard and industry have all 

13 worked together to seview the accident fatality data from 

14 CO poisoning and recreational boats. And NIOSH has 

15 'conducted numerous studies looking at emissions that come 

16 from different vessels and the way.to resolve it with our 

17 existing fleet and with new marine engines. 

18 Pretty much what we see is that the Coast Guard 

19 statistics when you look at them for fatalities and 

2•0 accidents, they do not support the need to have a limit 

21 for CO when it comes to outboards and PWCs. What the EPA 

22 is allowing'is a numerical value with an average. 

23 And when we talked to staff, what you're going to 

24 hear is we want to err on the side of safety. But from 

25 our perspective, we'd like to harmonize with the EPA 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8

. 

9 

10 

_ 11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

standard. There's been an enormous amount of study on 

this. And for us to have to meet a California-only 

xegulation that we don't see has any real health and 

safety benefit to it is just going to incur an economic , 

cost and economic burden on'the citizens of California. ` 

Be real quick with the second issue. And this isone we fully support. This has to do with the request 

that the Execut.ive Officer have the'discretion to make 

technical changes to the regulation. It just says this in 

my testimony: With the latest EPA rule; there will be 

virtually no difference between the ARB ma.rine regulations 

and the EPA marine regulations. The EPA regulation has 

not been finalized yet: We're-hoping it wo'uld be' 

finalized by now. It looks like Yt might go into August. 

When that does get finalized, there may be some minor 

changes that need to be made to harmonize. A11 that will 

do is really allow to rule to be a lot less burdensome to 

the manufacturers. 

So again NMA appreciates the opportunity to 

testify on this and appreciate the work that staff has 

done. And thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS; I'm tempted to average your. 

time with Mr. Ray, but I'm not going to do that. 

MR. RAY: Good morning. My name is Paul Ray., 

And I promise I'11 be brief to make up for John. 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
133 

l I'm the President of Ilmor Engineering and also 

2 the general manager of Ilmor Marine Engines, And Ilmor 

3 Engineering is fairly new to the marine business. We've 

4 been a leader in auto racing engine manufacturing over the 

5 years, the past 25 years, but only in the marine industry' 

6 since 2002. Our product line consists,purely of high 

7 performance engines. 

8 Our reason for testifying today is to be,fully in 

9 support of ARB staff's recommendations'. Essentially the 

10 recommendations would:allow a small businesses 1.ike ours, 

11 partieularly°one like ours..that's brand-new,ta t,his 

12 market, to grow with some flexibility. 

13 The challenge for us is actually growing to a 

14 reasonable size before we are burdened with severe 

15 emissions- restrictions which are incredibly expensive to 

16 .implement. 

17 We didn't exist back -- as a marine company, we 

18 dida't exist back when the rules were first written in 

19 2001. And although we're late comers to this.program, 

20 we've been fast learners and have spent a great deal of 

21 time with staff to understand and work the rules into our 

22 systems so we can implement them efficiently. And we are 

23 an engineering company.atheart and we're fu11y committed 

24 to providing durable emissions efficient engines into the 

25 California market or in fact nationwide. 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
134 

1 Since entering this rulemaking process, we've 

2 attended many meetings with staff, and we've had a lot of 

3 opportunity -- myself personally, a lot of opportunity to 

4 discuss.the regulatory rules and regulations that work for 

5 small business. And'their willingness"to work with us to 

6 allow our business to grow while still meeting our burden 

7 of responsibility when it comes to emissions we think has 

8 been very good. 

9 Again I just want to thank'everyone, particularly 

10 the staff here, for allowing us to work so closely with 

11 them_and-appreciate the time. 

~12~ CHAIRPERSON NICHOLSt Thank you. 

13'. A11 right. Sean Whelan arid then Mark Riechers. 

14 MR. WHELAN: Good afternoon, Chairman Nichols and 

15 Air Resources Board and staff. My name is Sean Whelan. 

16 I'm representing Attwood Marine. 

17 We are fully in support of the staff's proposal 

18, here and would like to say Attwood is a major marine parts 

19 and accessory supplier to the industry and have been for 

20 over 100 years., 

21 Attwood and our manufacturing partner have 

22 developed, tested, and validated carbon canisters for the 

23 marine industry. We're fully committed to being ready for 

24 this low volume early introduction of canisters, including 

25 working with the builders through any technical 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
135 

1 installation issues_ 

2 We look at this as an opportiinity to further 

3 develop the guidelines and pYocedures such that the final 

4 roll out'of the U.S. EPA carbon'canister systems'can be' 

5 accomplished with greater reliability and emissions 

6 control performance.: 

7: Thank yo'u for your time and opportunity to 

8 present our comments. 

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for your.time and 

10 appreciate. your support. 

11 Mark RiecheYs and then Dan Ostrosky. 

12 MR. RIECHERS: Hello. My name is"Mark.Riechers. 

13 I'm the Regulatory Development Manager for:Mercury Marine. 

14 And I've been working with staff here for the.last couple 

15 of years on these changes. And while you have a written 

16 copy of my comments, I'm going to skip a big part of this 

17 because it's already been explained and I don't we need to 

18 go over it again. 

19 The one place that we got'somewhat surprised on 

20 this was when the proposed rule changes came out, we were 

21 expecting to see a rule that applied the same to all the 

22 high performance engine manufacturers. And in fact, 

23 suddenly there was this,completely different large volume 

24 dual category manufacturer of which there is one, us. And 

25 we are being required to meet a much more stringent 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
136 

1 standard. 

~ 

2 And in fact, what it really comes down to is that 

3 

we are being ask_ed to make up t.he lost emissions benefits 

4 for our competit'ors: And we find that to be just 

5 basically unfair. 

6 However, we also do understand staff's 

7 requirements that they needed to make this.whole change 

8 emissions neutral. And we've had subsequent meetings and 

9 discussions with staff, and they have put into the 15-day 

10 notice some additional offsets that we can use to reduce 

11 the effect of us having to average iri. 

12 And while I still fundamentally disagree with 

13 being treated different than everyone els.e; it's something 

14 w,e can w.ork with. And therefore, as long as.the Board . 

15 approvss both the original plan changes and the items in 

16 the 15-day notice, we will support the rule change. 

17 As I said, I don't like it. But in the interest. 

18 of preserving this segment of the market -- it's a very 

19 small segment. It's less than 200 engines a year in 

20 California. And we've run the numbers. We can make it 

21 work. 

22 One thing that I would like .to say is that this 

23 rule has -- the emission reductions that you a.re getting 

24 right now are considerably greater than this rule actually 

25 creates. And the reason for that is that boat sales in 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
137 

, 

1 California at the retail level are,down 40 percent. 

2 Builders and.dealers are struggling to stay in business. 

3 And in fact, the largest west coast dealership chain, 

4 'wliicti is Olympic Bo'at Centers, with 19 locations filed 

5 

Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week. Sea Ray and Brunswick 

6 boat companies have laid off 1700 employees. Brunswick is . 

7 in the process of going from 29.boat plants t'o lb boat 

8 plants. So it's a really tough time for us, and we 

9 appreciate getting through,this issue. And we look for 

10 you to support'the changes in the rule plus what's in the 

11 15-day notice. 

12 CHAIRPERSON-NICHOLS: Thanks, Mr. Rieche.rs. 

13 I think you know; but I'11 say it anyway." We - 

14 never like to reduce emissions by reducing the econ.omy. 

15 We are hopeful that these rules will work with an up 

16 economy and you'll.sell lots of boats.. 

17 I've also been reading about people not using 

18 boats that they already own because cf the high price of 

19 fuel at the moment. So it is a tough time and hope we can 

20 all get through it: 

21 Mr. Ostrosky followed by Tim'Carmichael. 

22 MR. OSTROSKY: I know you haven't heard this, but 

23 good afternoon, Madam Chairman and Board and staff. Thank 

24. you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. 

25 First off, I have -- maybe it's a little out of 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
138 

1 step. But in re'ading some of the amendments', we found 

2 possibly an oversight or an error. And I don't know how 

3' to proceed it until it's clarified. 

4 On the table for C0 start date, it has one start 

5 date and in the text it has another date. And we prefer ' 

6 to have obviously the date that's in the table. If we say? 

7 we approve this or .except it, what gets p'rint-or changed? 

8 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LOWRY: The date 

9 we're proposing is 2010. 

10 MR. OSTROSKY: :So there's two different dates. 

11 So it's probably just a typo. So I can go over with y.ou 

12 and show you where it's at later.. 

13 Anyways; I work for Yamaha Motor Corporation. I. 

14 work in.:Gover-nment Relations Division and Certific.ation 

15 Department and also represent about 68 dealers and 2,000 

16 employees at those dealerships that will be effected by 

17 the reclassification of jet boats as SDI in these 

18 amendments. 

19 Going forward with that, Yamaha accepts and 

20 approves the,amendments and hope the Board does the .same. 

21 But on a more personal note, this is my first go 

22 round doing this. And I want to thank the El Monte staff 

23 for my incessant phone calls and putting up with me. I 

24 greatly appreciate it. They were very professional and 

25 did return phone calls. I greatly appreciate it. 

i 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

, 16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139. 

And we hope the Board accepts and approves the 

amendments presented here today. Thank you: 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

Tim Carmichael: 

MR. CARMICHAEL: Tim Carmichael, Coalition for 

Clean Air. 

First to the Chairman's comment about the lack of 

environmental participation, it's not a lack of interest. 

There's a lot of other things going on in the air world. 

I want to touch on a couple things. We support 

the evap p.ortion. We support the CO portion: :They.mak.e-a , 

lot of sense. 

The one thing that caught my eye in the staff ._ 

presentation.and struck me as unusual -- and ma.ybe I _ 

I misunderstood.or it wasn't fully explained -- is the Air 

Board and several other examples .I can think of has 

delayed implementation and relax the implementation of the 

standard on the front end. And that is understandable for 

all the reasons that have been sited today. 

But in the table they showed about the longer 

term implementation, it says 2011 and beyond. And that is 

unusual I think for it appears to be no sunset to this 

relaxed version of the regulation. I grant that we're 

talking about a relatively small number of engines and 

we're talking about small or medium size businesses, But 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

.9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

I 25 

140 

I would encourage, you know, at a minimum there be some 

technical review not too far after 2010 to review whether 

that open,ended relaxation is really warranted. 

This also gives me.anopportunity t .o raise the 

bigger picture for pleasure craft. A number of 

environmental clean air applicants met with your staff in 

June-and flagged this.issue among a short list of sources 

that are really surprisingly big contributors to pollution 

in the state of California and expected to sti11 be big 

sources in 2020. 

And if.:we are look:ing at strategies to eliminate 

the black box and the SIP and close the gap between.where 

we are and clean air, this is a categosy that we need 

to -- let me clarify.. The broader category, pleasure. 

craft, is the category that we need to keep working on. 

And we raised with staff, and the.conversation is going to 

continue, about the potential need for use.limitations and 

restrictions depending on the emissions coming from some 

of the older craft and where we are with pollution levels 

in the future. 

That's it: Thank you very much for your 

attention. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I wasn't really 

being critical. I thought it was just interesting that I 

think the staff worked really hard to do something that 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345 
1 

2 

3 

, 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

ends up making a rule more flexible than it was to begin 

with, and yet at the same time getting more emissions 

reductions out of it. I think it was a heroic effort, and 

I really appreciate the cooperation of the industry in 

getting,us to that result.' 

Are there any questions that Board members have 

about this item? 

If not, could I have a motion? .Do we have any ex 

partes? 

Do you have a.ny:closing comments, Mr. Goldstene? 

EXECUTIVE..OFFICER'GOLDSTENEc No. :Hope the Board 

approves the rule. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 

BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So moved. 

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'11 second the motion. 

A11 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All in favor please say 

Aye. 

(A yeS ) 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. We will adjourn 

for our lunch break and we'11 try to returri at 1:45 is 

realistic. Thanks. 

(Thereupon a recess was taken.) 

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: The Chair has asked us to 

start. We have the next item which is the update on the 

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345