### S

REQ U

Date o f Sched u TAFF R E

ADOP T U IREMEN

f Releas e

u led for C

Off-Road 

### E PORT: I N PR O

T ION OF E

TS FOR O

e : June 5, C onsidera t Motorcycl e 

### N ITIAL S T O POSE D

E VAPOR A O FF-HIG H

2013
t ion: July 2 e s Spe 

### T ATEME N D RULEM A

A TIVE E M H WAY R E

2 5, 2013 cialty Vehi c 

### N T OF R E A KING

M ISSION E CREAT

c les A 

### E ASONS

CONTR O IONAL V E

A ll-Terrain V 

### FOR

O L

E HICLE S

V

ehicles ( A TV)(Page intentionally left blank)State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD

STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CO NTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-HIGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

Date of Release: June 5, 2013 Scheduled for Consideration: July 25, 2013
Location: California Environment al Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) Headquarters Building Byron Sher Auditorium, Second Floor 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Re sources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.(Page intentionally left blank)ES-1 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In spite of a significant reduction in oz one precursors, California needs additional reductions of reactive organic gases (ROG) to achieve attainment of the ozone standard in all areas of the st ate. One of the la rgest sources of ROG is off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRV), which include all-terrain v ehicles (ATV), off-road motorcycles, and specialty off-highway vehi cles. Evaporative emissions produced by OHRVs operating in California account for 72 percent of the total ROG emissions from the category, with exhaust emissions accounting for the remaining 28 percent. Although evaporative emissions from these OHRVs are controlled by California OHRV permeation standards, this regulatory proposal will further reduce evaporative emissions from new OHRVs by more than 70 percent compared to existing OHRVs. Control of evaporative emissions from OH RVs will help to reduce ozone levels in non-attainment areas throughout California and especially in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This regulatory proposal to control evaporative emissions from OHRVs is a key element in the State Stra tegy for demonstrating attainment with the 8-hour ozone federal ai r quality standard.
BACKGROUND Mobile sources have historically been the largest source of ROG emissions in California. As vehicles have become progressively cleaner, the emissions contribution of off-road equipment and vehi cles has become more prominent. The 8-hour federal ambient air quality standar d (AAQS) for ozone is both more challenging and more protec tive of public health than the previous standard; therefore, evaporative emissi ons from all mobile sources, including OHRVs will need to be controlled. For the SJVAPCD and SCAQMD, the State Strategy for demonstrating attainment with the 8-hour ozone federal air quality standard includes the adoption of more stringent emissi on standards for OHRVs by 2013. In 2002, the United States Environm ental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgated the first evaporative emissi ons standards for OHRV s. These standards took effect in 2008 and control permeation from fuel tanks and hoses. The standards limit fuel tank permeation to 1.5 grams per square meter per day (g/m 2 /day) and fuel hose permeation to 15 g/m 2 /day starting with model y ear (MY) 2008 OHRVs. The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) harm onized California requirements with these standards in 2006. These existing permeat ion requirements only control a small fraction of evaporative emissions from ov er one million OHRVs operating statewide.
STAFF PROPOSAL More comprehensive evaporative emissions control is an essent ial piece of the enforceable commitments for ROG emissions reductions in the State Strategy. The proposed OHRV test procedure and evapor ative emissions standard of 1 gram per day (g/day) of Total Organic Gas (TOG) for a 3-day diurnal utilizes the available evaporative emissions technol ogy currently used in the on-road sector for OHRVES-2 applications. The standard represents a greater than 90 percent reduction per vehicle compared to baseline emissions levels. This regul atory proposal will control statewide summertime ROG by 3.4 tons per day (TPD) in 2023 and 12.5 TPD when fully implemented (90 percent) in 2042. The proposed regulation requires a carbon canister integrity tip test to verify canister protection from liquid fuel contamination when an OHRV is tipped. This test is especially important for off -road motorcycles, which are mo re likely to tip over than ATVs or specialty vehicles. The tip test is designed to ensure that evaporative emissions controls for OHRVs are proper ly designed for real-world operating conditions and last the life of the vehi cle. The tip test remains an outstanding concern for OHRV manufacturers because it may require fuel tank re-design. As an alternative to the proposed tip test, manuf acturers may submit an equivalent test procedure to ARB for an engineering review and approval by the Executive Officer.
It is critical that ARB achieves thes e additional ROG emissions reductions, particularly given the m agnitude of California’s oz one problem and the State Strategy’s reliance on yet-to-be develop ed technology. These future benefits will be especially valuable to California as a wa rming climate makes ozone attainment more difficult.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS The proposed regulation will del iver substantial ROG emissions reductions for the 2023 timeline set for attainment of t he federal 8-hour oz one standard and it will continue to deliver air quality benefits far in to the future because of the relatively long lifetime of OHRVs. Staff has determined that no significant adv erse environmental impacts would result from implementation of t he regulatory proposal. This is because the regulatory provisions merely propose emission st andards to reduce diurnal and spillage emissions from OHRVs, which would be easily accomplished by using already existing technologies. This regulatory proposal has an average co st-effectiveness of 6.93 dollars per pound ($/lb.) compared to the inflation adj usted cost of 8.01 $/lb. for the on-road motorcycle exhaust regulation adopted in 1998. The cost to control emissions per OHRV increases significantly for manufacturers of evaporative families with sales of less than 150 OHRVs per year in Californ ia. These manufacturers account for a small fraction (less than 13 per cent) of OHRV sales in t he State. The cost of the regulation includes cost savings to the end user from reduced fuel consumption due to lower evaporative emissions resulting fr om the proposed diurnal standard. A likely indirect effect of this regulatory proposal is that OHRV manufacturers will choose to use electronic fuel injection to meet t he stringent diurnal standard. Depending on the EFI engine control unit calibration, this coul d result in fuel cost savings from increased engine combustion efficiency.ES-3 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board adopt this regulatory proposal to greatly reduce evaporative ROG emissions from OHRVs. The standards were developed in close collaboration with stakeholders to minimize the cost to comply while still achieving the emissions reductions that California need s. In fact, the stringent diurnal standard in the proposed regulation was recommended by industry. The final form of the proposed emissions standard benef its from the input and knowledge of the OHRV manufacturers. In particular, the di urnal emissions test procedure has been designed to verify emissions control fo r running loss and hot soak events while minimizing the testing and co mpliance costs for industry.(Page intentionally left blank)i TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION A ND BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 1
A. I NTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
B. V EHICLES IN C ATEGORY S UBJECT TO P ROPOSED R EGULATIONS ........................... 1
C. R EGULATORY A UTHORITY AND L EGAL R EQUIREMENTS .......................................... 3

1. Authority to Control Mobile Sour ces under Federal Clean Air Act ....................................... 3

2. Legal Requirement to Submit a SIP ..................................................................................... 4

3. Regulatory Powers and Responsib ilities Conferred by State Law ....................................... 4

4. Commitments under 2007 Am endments to t he SIP ............................................................. 4
D. R EGULATORY H ISTORY OF OHRV E MISSIONS C ONTROL IN C ALIFORNIA ................. 5

1. First Emissions Standards fo r OHRV Set in 1994 ................................................................ 5

2. Limitations on Use of Uncontro lled OHRV in California ....................................................... 5

3. Federal Regulation of Evap orative (Permeation) Em issions from OHRV ............................ 6

4. Harmonizing with Federa l Evaporative Emissions Regulations ........................................... 6
E. N EED FOR EMISSIONS R EDUCTIONS ..................................................................... 6
F. R ATIONALE FOR C ONTROLLING OHRV E VAPORATIVE E MISSIONS .......................... 7
G. S TAKEHOLDER P ARTICIPATION ............................................................................ 7

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ............................... 9
A. M ECHANISMS OF E VAPORATIVE E MISSIONS FROM M OBILE S OURCES ..................... 9
B. C HARACTERIZING E VAPORATIVE E MISSIONS FROM OHRV S ................................ 10
C. T ECHNOLOGY TO C ONTROL E VAPORATIVE E MISSIONS FROM M OBILE S OURCES .... 12

1. Low-Permeation Materials .................................................................................................. 12

2. Activated Carbon Canisters ................................................................................................ 13

3. Pressure Reli ef Valves ....................................................................................................... 13

4. Strategic Placement or Insu lation of Fuel Tank .................................................................. 14

5. Connectors, Improved Carburet ors, and Fuel Injection ...................................................... 14
D. T EST R ESULTS FOR U NCONTROLLED AND C ONTROLLED OHRV E QUIPMENT ........ 14
E. R ATIONALE FOR P ROPOSED S TANDARDS ........................................................... 16
F. S AFETY P RECAUTIONS I NCORPORATED INTO P ROPOSED R EGULATION ................. 18

III. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION ................................................................................. 19
A. S UMMARY OF R ECOMMENDED B OARD A CTION ................................................... 19

1. Comprehensive Evaporative Emi ssions Standards for OHRVs ......................................... 19

2. Independent Emission Standar ds for Evaporative and Exhaust Emissions ....................... 19ii 3. Flexibility for Ce rtification ................................................................................................. ... 19

4. Incorporation of New Test Procedure ................................................................................. 20

5. Durability Requirements to En sure In-Use Control ............................................................ 20
B. S UMMARY OF A LTERNATIVES P RESENTED .......................................................... 20

1. No Action ..................................................................................................................... ....... 20

2. Removal of the Tip Test fr om the Current Proposal ........................................................... 21
3. Propose Separate Standards for Each Mode of Use ......................................................... 22
IV. AIR QUALITY BENEFITS ................................................................................................. 22
A. ROG E MISSIONS R EDUCTIONS IN S UPPORT OF O ZONE A BATEMENT .................... 23
B. C LIMATE C HANGE C ONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 24

1. Reduced Fuel Co nsumption ............................................................................................... 24

2. Indirect Warmi ng Impacts ................................................................................................... 25 C. R EDUCTION OF E XPOSURE TO T OXIC E MISSIONS ................................................ 25

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 26
A. I NTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 26
B. E NVIRONMENTAL R EVIEW P ROCESS .................................................................. 26
C. P RIOR E NVIRONMENTAL A NALYSIS .................................................................... 26
D. P ROPOSED R EGULATION .................................................................................. 27

1. Description ................................................................................................................... ....... 27

2. Methods of Co mpliance ...................................................................................................... 27
E. E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACTS ................................................................................ 28

1. Beneficial Impacts ............................................................................................................ ... 28

2. Resource Areas with No Impacts ....................................................................................... 28
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................................................ 29
VII. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 30
A. L EGAL R EQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................... 30
B. E STIMATED C OSTS OF THE P ROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION .............................. 31
C. P OTENTIAL I MPACT ON B USINESSES , B USINESS C OMPETITIVENESS , E MPLOYMENT , AND B USINESS C REATION , E LIMINATION , OR E XPANSION ............................................ 34

1. Potential Impact on Businesses ......................................................................................... 34

2. Potential Impact on Business Com petitiveness and Employment ..................................... 35

3. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination, or Expansion .................................... 35

4. Potential Impact on Consumers ......................................................................................... 36iii D. P OTENTIAL I MPACT TO C ALIFORNIA S TATE OR L OCAL A GENCIES .......................... 36
E. A LTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 37

1. Economic Impacts of Taking No Action .............................................................................. 37

2. Economic Impact of Eliminating the Car bon Canister Protecti on Tip Te st ......................... 37
3. Economic Impact of Separate Standar ds for Each M ode of Use ....................................... 37
VIII. SUMMARY AND RATIONALE FOR EACH REGULATORY PROVISION ....................... 39
IX. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 45iv LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A) Proposed Regulation Order to Adopt Evaporative Em ission Controls for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles B) Proposed Test Procedure for Determi ning Evaporative Em issions from Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles (TP-933) C) Emissions Estimation Methodology for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles D) Supporting Information for Economic Analysis E) Public Process for Development of Proposed Action Informationv LIST OF TABLES
Table I-1: Public Workshops ...................................................................................... 7
Table I-2: Pre-Hear ing Meetings and Te leconferences .............................................. 8 Table I-3: Issues Raised by Industry and St akeholder s ............................................. 8 Table II-1: Summary of Results from the OHRV SHED Te sts .................................. 16 Table IV-1: Summertime ROG Reductions Expec ted from the Regulatory Proposal in TPD, for Key Attainment Years and Regions in Ca lifornia. ...................................... 23vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure I-1: Off-R oad Motor cycle ................................................................................. 2 Figure I-2: All-Te rrain Vehicle ..................................................................................... 2 Figure I-3: Specialt y Vehicle (Off-Road Ut ility Vehi cle) .............................................. 2 Figure I-4: Specialty Vehi cle (Sand Car Shown) ........................................................ 2 Figure II-1: Carbon Ca nister Multi-Day Diu rnal Emissions ....................................... 11 Figure II-2: Co-Extruded Fuel Tank Barrier Layers .................................................. 13 Figure II-3: ATV SHED Te sting in El Monte ............................................................. 15 Figure II-4: Off-Road Motorcycle SHED Testing in El Monte .................................... 15 Figure II-5: Breakdown of California OHRV Emissi ons by Usage Mode .................. 17 Figure II-6: 7-Day Diurnal Emission Test Resu lts ..................................................... 17 Figure III-1: Fuel Tank Roll-Over Valve .................................................................... 22 Figure VII-1: Summary of OHRV Cost per Vehicle per Evapor ative Family ............. 32 Figure VII-2 Summary of Co st-Effectiveness per Vehicle ......................................... 32 Figure VII-3: OHRV Cost-Effectiveness Compared to Simila r Regulations .............. 34 Figure VIII-1: Example of Tamper-Resistant Screw Types ....................................... 43vii LIST OF ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard ARB [California] Air Resources Board
ATV All-Terrain Vehicle CAA [Federal] Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act DMV [California] Departm ent of Motor Vehicles EVOH Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol HSC [California] Health and Safety Code
ISOR Initial Statement of Reasons LSI Large Spark-Ignition [engine] MIC Motorcycle Industry Council
MY Model Year OHRV Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles
PY Person Year ROG Reactive Organic Gases SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SHED Sealed Housing fo r Evaporative Determination SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SIP State Impl ementation Plan SORE Small Off-Road Engine
TP Test Procedure TOG Total Organic Gases TPD Tons per Day (emissions rate)
U.S.C. United States Code
U.S. EPA United States Envi ronmental Protection Agencyviii (Page intentionally left blank)1 

### I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. INTRODUCTION This report presents the In itial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) in support of proposed adoption of comprehensive evapor ative emission control requirements for off-highway recreati onal vehicles (OHRV). Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff recommend adoption of regulatory provisions establishing evaporative emission standards for 2018 and subsequent model year (MY) OHRVs manufactured for us e in California. The following are key aspects of the regulatory proposal:

 Expands control of evaporative emissions from OHRVs to include a stringent diurnal standard as well as a “tip test” to address potential fuel spillage on all vehicle modes;

 Provisions for certificat ion, labeling requirements, enforcement, recall, and use restrictions;

 A flexible 4-year phase-in peri od (MY 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) where the manufacturer must show that 75 percent of their new sales are certified for those years; and

 A new test procedure to determine evaporative emissions from OHRVs.
The remainder of this section details t he regulatory context, legal requirements, and need for comprehensive evaporative emission control of OHRVs. The rationale for the regulatory pr oposal, as well as the public process by which it was developed, are then briefly summarized. Section II describes the problem as well as currently availabl e control measures; Section III summarizes the recommended Board Action and its alternatives; Section IV presents the air quality benefits of the regulatory proposal; Sections V and VI detail the environmental as well as environmental justice impacts of the proposed regulation; Section VII offers an analysis of economic and fiscal impacts; and Section VIII summarizes the rationale for each regulatory provision. The proposed regulation order (Article 3, C hapter 9, Division 3, Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR)) is present ed in Attachment A. The proposed Test Procedure for Determining Evaporative Em issions from Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles (TP-933) is in Attachment B. Supporting information detailing relevant emission inventories is included in Atta chment C. Supporting information relevant to economic and cost-benefit analysis is contained in Attachment D.
B. VEHICLES IN CATEGORY SUBJEC T TO PROPOSED REGULATIONS Proposed evaporative emission standards and test procedures apply to gasoline-fueled OHRVs. Specif ically, this regulatory pr oposal applies to off-road motorcycles (also known as dirt bikes) (F igure I-1), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) (Figure I-2), and specialty vehicles which includes off-road spor t vehicles (Figure 3), off-road utility vehicles, sand cars (F igure 4),as defined in Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, § 2411

.2 Figure I-1: Off-Road Motorcycle

Figure I-2: All-Terrain Vehicle

Figure I-3: Specialty Vehicl e (Off-Road Utility Vehicle)

Figure I-4: Specialty Ve hicle (Sand Car Shown)3 Gasoline-fueled golf carts and go-karts are not included in this regulatory proposal. Rather, they are subject to ARB’ s small off-road engine (SORE) or large spark ignition (LSI) engine regulati ons, depending on whether their engines are greater than 25 horsepower (see ARB’s OHRV website ). Snowmobiles are considered federal sources and are not s ubject to California’s OHRV regulations. Competition vehicles, also known as “race -only vehicles” or “racing vehicles” and defined as vehicles operat ed exclusively on closed courses in sanctioned racing events, are exempt from California’s OHRV em issions regulations (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 43001).
C. REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Authority to adopt and enforce the proposed regulation is granted to California’s Air Resources Board through a combinat ion of federal and State laws. ARB’s legal requirement to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is also articulated by federal and state legislation. In 2007, the Board adopted amendments to California’s SIP that commits AR B to comprehensively address OHRV evaporative emissions; current control is limited to permeation fr om fuel tanks and hoses (ARB, 2009). 1. Authority to Control Mobile Sources under Federal Clean Air Act Under Section 209(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the State of California has the singular distinction of being granted the power to adopt and enforce rules to control emissions from new mobile sources (CAA, 1990). California’s exemption from CAA provisi ons that otherwise pr event states from setting their own standards for motor vehi cle emissions recognizes California’s long-standing air pollution challenges and honors the State’s pioneering efforts to reduce motor vehicle emissions (NRC, 2006). Section 209(e)(2) of the CAA (42 U.S. C § 7543) requires California to receive authorization from the Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Administrator prior to enforcing regulat ions on mobile sources, including new off-road vehicles and engines. Authoriz ation to regulate exhaust emissions4 from OHRV was granted to California in December 1996 (Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, § 2411; 61 Fed. Reg. 69093 , December 31, 1996). 2. Legal Requirement to Submit a SIP The CAA also requires, as codified in 42 U.S.C § 7410, each State, including California, to submit a plan providing for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of primary as well as secondary air quality standards, which protect human health and welfare, respec tively, within each air quality region of the State. SIPs are required to be submitted wit hin three years of the promulgation or revision of a national ambient air quality standard (AAQS). 3. Regulatory Powers and Respons ibilities Conferred by State Law ARB is named as the agency responsible for control of emissions from motor vehicles in the HSC Section 39500 as well as the air pollution control agency “for all purposes set forth in federal law” in HSC Section 39602. Specifically named among ARB’s general duties and powers ( HSC Sections 39600- 39619.8 ) are the responsibilities to prepare California’s SIP and to coordinate all local air quality management district ac tivities necessary to comply with the CAA. Furthermore, ARB must achieve the maximum feasible, cost-effective reductions of emissions from all mobile source categories under its jurisdiction ( HSC Sections 43013, 43018 ).
4. Commitments under 2007 Amendments to the SIP In September 2007, the Board adopt ed Amendments to the SIP, which comprises State and local air qua lity planning showing how and when California will meet AAQSs. The 2007 St ate Strategy articulated by the 2007 SIP Amendments is the first to addr ess the federal 8-hour AAQS for ozone (0.08 parts per million, ppm) as we ll as the 24-hour and annual standards for fine particles (PM 2.5 ) (65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3) and 15 μg/m 3

, respectively). These federal AAQS were originated by U.S. EPA in 1997 in response to scientific evidence substantia ting adverse health effects at lower levels than had previously been resolved. D ue in part to litigation, as well as the extensive process required to est ablish area designations and boundaries, the 8-hour ozone standard wa s not finalized until 2004.
The 8-hour ozone standard is more st ringent than the previous 1-hour standard and calls for more extensive em issions control strategies. Although California has already significantly reduced ambient ozone concentrations, the challenges posed by the more stringent standard provoked the reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) nonattainment designations as “extreme” with regard to the 8- hour standard. “Extreme” nonattainment areas rely on the development of new tec hnologies or improvement of existing technologies, in addition to other enforceable commitments, to reduce emissions of ozone precursors, na mely oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) and reactive organic gases (ROG) (Section 182(e)(5) of the CAA; 42 U.S.C § 7511(e)(5)).5 Proposed new SIP measures in the 2007 State Strategy include expanded evaporative emissions standards from OHRVs. These expanded OHRV evaporative emissions standards are pr ojected to deliver necessary ROG emissions reductions statewide by 2023, including in California’s most challenging regions with regard to ozone control, namely the SCAQMD and the SJVACPD. When the Board origina lly adopted the 2007 Amendment s to the SIP, the Board was expected to take action on expanded evaporative emissions from OHRV by 2010, with implementation begi nning in the 2012-2015 timeframe (ARB 2009). However, the rulemaking was delayed so that the emissions inventory could be updated. The creat ion of a new emissions inventory required staff to update emi ssions factors, perform us age surveys, and modify the fundamental assumptions associated wi th the inventory. To accommodate the inventory update, ARB adopted revisions to the rulemaking calendar for California’s PM 2.5 SIPs on May 18, 2011. The updated calendar commits ARB to expanding OHRV emission standards in 2013, with implementation schedules to be determined during the rulemaking process.
D. REGULATORY HISTORY OF OHRV EMISSIONS CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA
1. First Emissions Standards for OHRV Set in 1994 As with light-duty vehicles, California init ially led the U.S. in setting emissions standards for off-road mobile sources. In 1994, the Board adopted the first exhaust emissions standards for OHRV s, including off-road motorcycles and ATVs, which were previously not subject to any emissions control requirements. These standards estab lished compliance dates starting with MY 1997 and MY 1999 for engines great er than and less than 90 cubic centimeters (cc) displacement, respecti vely. Modifications to the original rulemaking reclassified the scope of off- highway vehicular controls such that specialty vehicles, gasoline-fuel gol f carts, and go-karts with less than 25 horsepower are now subject to SORE regulations, while those producing 25 horsepower or more are subjec t to LSI engine regulations.
2. Limitations on Use of Uncontrolled OHRV in California In 1998, the Board approved amendments to OHRV regulations that link registration with compliance to exhaus t emission standards, creating the red/green sticker program. Year-round operat ion is allowed only for emissioncompliant dirt bikes and ATVs. OHRV s that are not compliant with ARB emission standards are issued a limited us e red registration sticker through the California Department of Motor Vehicl es (DMV). OHRVs wit h red registration stickers can only be operated on public l and in accordance with the ARB Red Sticker Open Riding Schedu le. Although control of competition and racing vehicles is beyond the scope of ARB, their use is limited to operation on closed courses in sanctioned racing events or by adhering to rules that apply for red sticker vehicles.6 3. Federal Regulation of Evaporative (Permeation) Emissions from OHRV In 2002, the U.S. EPA promulgated the first evaporative emissions standards for OHRVs and engines, including off- road motorcycles and ATVs. These standards, which took effect in 2008, control permeation losses from fuel tanks and hoses. The standards limit plas tic fuel tank permeation to 1.5 grams per square meter per day (g/m 2 /day) and fuel system hose permeation at 15 g/m 2 /day. 4. Harmonizing with Federal Evaporative Emissions Regulations In 2006, ARB amended its OHRV emission s regulations to harmonize with evaporative emissions standards adopted by U.S. EPA in 2002, to control permeation emissions from fuel tan ks and hoses. Additional revisions adopted in 2006 addressed the riding seasons fo r noncompliant vehicles, clarified which vehicles are subject to the O HRV regulation, and inserted into the regulations labeling requirements that had been previously incorporated by reference.
E. NEED FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS The South Coast and San Joaquin Valley ai r basins are currently the only extreme nonattainment areas in the nation. The federally approved State Strategy for demonstrating 8-hour ozone attainment in these areas relies on the use of a mix of currently available technologies in combination with the development of advanced technologies. This regulatory pr oposal is based on the transfer of currently available technology from the on- road sector that can be cost-effectively scaled for use on OHRVs. Evaporative emissions control of OHRVs is currently limited to permeation from fuel tanks and hoses, which account for onl y a fraction of uncontrolled emissions. Expanding OHRV evaporative emissions control beyond t heir current scope is an essential piece of the enf orceable commitments for ROG emissions reductions articulated in the State St rategy. The 2007 State Strategy estimates that by 2023, the SJVAPCD and the SCAQMD will need an additional 54 tons per day (TPD) and 25 TPD of ROG emissions reductions, respectively, from all sources, including OHRVs (ARB, 2009). This regulatory proposal will provide ROG emission reductions of 0.6 TPD and 1 TPD for SJVAPCD and the SCAQMD respectively in 2023. In 2035 the reductions will be over 1.6 TPD and 3 TPD respectively when the regulati on is 70 percent implemented.

Due to the long vehicle life of OHRVs, the greatest reductions are expected after full implementation in 2042.. This regulat ory proposal will del iver substantial longer term emissions reductions anticipat ed for future, more stringent air quality standards.7 F. RATIONALE FOR CONTROLLING O HRV EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS Mobile sources have historically been the largest source of ROG emissions in California. As on-road mobile source s have become progressively cleaner, the role of off-road sources, as well as m obile sources under feder al and international jurisdiction (e.g., ships, locomotives, and aircraft) has become more prominent. To attain the 8-hour federal AAQS for ozone, which is both more challenging and more protective of public health than the previous standard, it is necessary to incorporate expanded off-road mobile source emissions control into California’s State Strategy. Fortunately, technologies that have been successfully used for controlling evaporative emissions from on-road vehi cles are readily available and can substantially reduce evaporative emissions fr om OHRVs. It is critical that ARB achieve these readily available evaporat ive emissions reductions from OHRVs, particularly given the m agnitude of California’s oz one problem and the State Strategy’s reliance on yet-to -be developed technologies. Specific rationale for each proposed regulat ory provision is provided in Section VIII, Summary and Rationale for Each Regulatory Provision.
G. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION For the past six years, ARB staff have invited public participation during the development of the proposed regulati on, test procedure, and analysis of underlying data. In early 2006, ARB maile d approximately 1,500 letters to dealers and manufacturers of OHRVs in California to invite participation in the rulemaking process. In March 2006, at a public wo rkshop in El Monte, ARB introduced the idea of comprehensive evaporative emissi ons standards for OHRVs as a means of building on what was t hen the near-term effort to adopt U.S. EPA’s design standards for limiting permeation emissions from fuel tanks and fuel lines. Among key stakeholders involved in the initial workshop and ongoing discussions was the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), which represents all major manufacturers of OHRVs for California markets. [1] Since early 2006, four public workshops (Table I-1) and nearly forty stakeholder meetings (Table I-2) have been held on all aspects of the regulatory proposal (Table I-3 and Attachment E). Table I-1: Public Workshops

LOCATION DATE

[1] “More than 300 members represent manufacturers and distributors of motorcyc les, scooters, parts and accessories, as well as allied trades such as publishing, insurance and consultants. While dealers, clubs and individuals are not eligible for membership, the MIC works with these groups on issues of mutual interest.” ( http://www.mic.org/ )8 El Monte 3/24/2006

Sacramento 9/6/2006

El Monte 4/20/2010

El Monte 12/18/2012

Table I-2: Pre-Hearing Meet ings and Teleconferences

PARTICIPANTS DATES

MIC and OHRV Manufacturers 1/14/2009, 1/15/2009, 4/7/2010, 4/29/2010, 7/21/2010, 9/30/2010, 11/8/2010, 11/ 9/2010, 11/7/2011, 3/22/2011, 4/27/2011, 8/18/ 2011, 9/26/2011, 3/5/2012, 4/17/2012, 4/25/2012, 10/ 17/2012, 3/6/2013, 3/25/2013, 4/4/2013, 4/12/2013

U.S. EPA 3/14/2013

Harley Davidson 8/26/2010, 9/27/2011, 11/7/ 2011, 5/4/2012,12/18/2012, 2/25/2013, 3/14/2013

MeadWestvaco 7/15/2009, 12/ 2/2009, 5/3/2011, 9/18/2012

Honda 11/2/2010, 11/ 9/2010, 3/27/2013

Evaporative Emissions Consulting Inc. 11/9/2009, 2/8/2010, 2/9/2010

Standards were developed in close collaboration with stakeholders. The final form of the proposed emissions standard r epresents a general consensus reached between ARB and industry (Table II-3). In particular, ARB proposes to adopt the diurnal standard proposed by industry.
Table I-3: Issues Raised by Industry and Stakeholders

ISSUES STAFF RESOLUTION

Economic conditions make complying with the proposed Delay implementation until MY 2018 and allow a flexible 4-year phase-in schedule.9 regulation more difficult

Make evaporative test plan aligned with exhaust testing to increase cost-effectiveness Allow evaporative precondition ing to be completed in conjunction with the mileage accumulation for exhaust testing, so long as the fuel system continuously has E10 (10% ethanol) fuel in it for a total of 140 days.
High cost of vehicle testing Reduce the number of requi red vehicle evaporative tests performed in a Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination (SHED). Running loss and hot soak testing are now precondi tioning cycles to the measured diurnal test.
High variable volume SHED testing cost Develop a reduced cost, 24- hour fixed volume SHED test with calculated vented emissions.

Safety concerns with pressurized fuel tank Require fuel tank pressure to be released before the fuel tank can be opened.

Vehicle tampering may limit effectiveness of this regulatory proposal Include anti-tampering requi rements on all OHRVs: evaporative component plac ement, tamper resistant fasteners, and a vehicle t ag. The vehicle tag is expected to increase cons umer awareness of illegal vehicle tampering.
Designing for the carbon canister integrity test is expensive The carbon canister integrit y test is essential to an effective regulation. To lowe r the cost of complying, the proposed number of required SHED tests was reduced. Running loss and hot soak tests are now preparation cycles, and a 24-hour SHED test with calculated vented emissions is allowed as an alternative to the 72 hour SHED test.



### II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROB LEM AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

A. MECHANISMS OF EVAPORATIVE EM ISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES The TOG emissions targeted by this regulatory proposal are a class of hydrocarbon emissions that are precursors for criteria air pollutants such as ozone. Hydrocarbon emissions from OHRV s constitute two general categories,10 namely tailpipe exhaust emissions and evaporative emissions. The proposed regulation focuses exclusively on evapor ative emission control. Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions can be further classified by the mechanism through which they enter the ambient air: fuel pe rmeation through fuel system components, vented emissions from vapor growth in t he fuel tank, vented emissions from the carburetor, and liquid l eakage and spillage emissions. In practice, vented carburetor and liquid l eakage emissions are often grouped together because routine testing cannot disti nguish between the sources. Permeation occurs when hydrocarbon molecu les diffuse through the walls of the fuel tank and fuel lines and is continuous whether the OHRV is in operation or in storage. Permeation is a f unction of fuel and materi al properties, material thickness, and temperature. Vented hydrocarbon emissions are driven by two mechanisms. First, emissions occur when a rise in the surface tem perature of the liqui d fuel causes a corresponding increase in the hydroc arbon vapor concentration of the head space. Second, emissions occur when the vapor volume increases with temperature, as described by the idea l gas law. Vented em issions are generated by engine heat and natural diur nal temperature swings.
Carburetors can emit vented hydrocarbon emissi ons when heated during operation or immediately after the engine is shut off. The hy drocarbons that are lost due to venting represent the consti tuents of gasoline that have the highest partial pressures and thus evaporate most quickly. Liquid fuel leaks seep through loose c onnection points such as gaskets and fuel lines, as well as spillage associated with vehicular tipping. Seeping through fuel line connection points can occur when a connection mechanism degrades and does not seal properly. Seeping from gaskets is generally from the carburetor and occurs because of poor or degrading gasket material. Gasket seepage is exacerbated by vibration as well as changes in fuel level associated with changes in spatial orientation. Liquid fuel leaks occur during operation and storage.
B. CHARACTERIZING EVAPORATI VE EMISSIONS FROM OHRVS For regulatory purposes, mechanisms of evaporative emissions delineated above must be subjected to specific usage modes, namely running loss, hot soak, and diurnal, which are defined below. As de scribed in the proposed regulation order (Attachment A) and Sections III and V III, the proposed regulation establishes emission standards to reduce evaporativ e emissions produced by OHRVs during permeation, venting, liquid leakage, and spillage. The evaporative emission testing cycle begins with a fuel system tip test to visually verify the absence of liquid leakage. Next, a running loss and hot soak preconditioning cycle is conducted to replicate vehicle operation, canister purging, and to subject the vehicle to a soak that occurs directly after operation. Upon completion of the preconditioning cycles, the diurnal test, whic h is designed to replicate real-world vehicle storage patterns, is perform ed and measured. The proposed emission11 standards eliminate redundancy in testing and allow manufac turers flexibility to choose the combination of technology t hat works best for their application. The proposed diurnal standard is measur ed in three consecutive 24-hour increments over a total test time of 72 hours (Figure II-1), which assesses carbon canister breakthrough. The standar d ensures that canisters must be adequately designed to control long-term di urnal storage emissions. The bottom half of Figure 5 shows a evaporative control system including the (1) fuel tank, (2) carbon canister, (3) v ent line, and (4) intake manifold line. Figure II-1: Carbon Canister Multi-Day Diurnal Emissions

Source: MeadWestvaco, 2013 Running Loss evaporative emissions are emitt ed while the OHRV is in use. For an uncontrolled OHRV, running loss emissions come from carburet or venting, liquid leakage, fuel tank venting, and to a lesser degree, permeation. Running loss permeation emissions are generally not si gnificant for OHRV because the typical duration of engine operation for OHRVs is relatively short. Hot soak emissions occur immediately a fter a running loss event. The sources of hot soak emissions arise from the car buretor, leakage, vent ing, and permeation. Venting emissions tend to dominate this mode, because the hot engine transfers heat to the fuel tank. Car buretor and leakage emissions can also be significant. Permeation emissions tend to be small bec ause the duration associated with hot soak emissions is short.
Diurnal emissions occur while the OHRV is in storage. Permeation and vented emissions account for a substantial porti on of diurnal emissions. In a poorly designed or aged system, carburetor and leakage emissions can also be significant. Note that all re ferences to diurnal emissions in this document consist of both diurnal and resting loss proce sses as defined in Attachment C.12 C. TECHNOLOGY TO CONTROL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES A variety of technologies are available to help manufacturers meet the proposed emission standards. Staff anticipate that this regulatory proposal will encourage manufacturers will use downsized and prov en on-road automobile technology for control of OHRV ev aporative emissions.
1. Low-Permeation Materials Permeation is controlled through the use of low permeation barrier layers such as post mold barrier treatments, co-e xtruded barrier layers, resin based additives, and/or nylon barriers added dur ing the manufacturing process. Fuel tank permeation can be eliminated by us ing metallic materials like aluminum or steel. Where polyethylene resins are necessary, permeation rates can be mitigated through the use of post mold barrier surface treatments like fluorination. Fluorination ex poses the fuel tank to fluorine gas which replaces hydrogen atoms with fluorine atoms on t he tank surface. The fluorinated surface layer ‘blocks’ the path that hydrocarbon molecules would normally take through the resin, thereby reducing perm eation rates. In addition to barrier treatments, permeation rates can be r educed using co-extruded barrier layers such as ethylene vinyl alcohol (E VOH). Co-extruded tanks using an EVOH barrier generally consist of six layers, with the EVOH layer sandwiched between layers of adhesive and Hi gh Density PolyEthylene ,HDPE (see Figure II-2). In the case of monol ayer applications, a special additive called DuPont Selar RB® can be blended with certain polyethylenes during the blow molding process. Selar RB® results in a laminar that produces overlapping layers within the tank wa ll. The overlapping layers create a “tortuous path” that impedes the perm eation of gasoline. For fuel tank production processes involving rotational molding, the introduction of nylons offer low permeation rates due to its crystalline structure.13 Figure II-2: Co-Extruded Fue l Tank Barrier Layers

Source: Agri Industrial Plastics, 2013 In addition to fuel tanks, low-permeati on control strategies can be applied to fuel lines. Aside from running rigi d non-permeable metal lines, there are several flexible fuel hoses (many c ontain a fluoroplastic permeation barrier) commercially available for OHRVs. Many of the hoses are capable of meeting the proposed 5 g/m2/day design-based small volume design standard.
2. Activated Carbon Canisters Vented emissions can be controlled by us ing an activated carbon canister to trap hydrocarbon molecules that are forc ed out of the fuel tank vent line (see Figure II-1). Two mechanisms are available to prevent the carbon canister from reaching its saturation poi nt and “overflowing” into the ambient air. First, passive purging occurs w hen hydrocarbons are pulled back into the tank head space during the contraction associated with diurnal cooling. When properly designed, a passively purged ca rbon canister can be as much as 65 percent efficient at preventing vented hydrocarbons from being emitted to the ambient air. The second mechanism for unloading a carbon canister is to use intake manifold vacuum to pull hydrocar bons from the canister into the engine, where they are combusted. OHRVs o ften spend long periods of time in storage between uses. During these stor age periods, the carbon canister is only passively purged because active purgi ng using intake manifold vacuum requires the vehicle to be in operation. In practice, this places an upper limit on control of diurnal em issions from OHRVs.
3. Pressure Relief Valves Vented emissions can also be controlled by a pressure relief valve on the vent of the fuel tank. The valve holds pressu re on the fuel and prevents vapors from escaping below a pre determined pressure.14 4. Strategic Placement or Insulation of Fuel Tank Another means by which to minimize vent ed emissions is to locate or insulate the fuel tank so that the head space and fuel inside the tank are not affected by large temperature increases due to engine heat or ambient temperature. 5. Connectors, Improved Carburetors, and Fuel Injection Carburetor and leakage em issions are each controll ed in different ways. Leakage emissions are controlled by using better fuel line connectors such as constant tension spring clamps on proper ly sized hose barbs or O-ring snap connections. Carburetor emissions c an be controlled by re-designing the carburetor to eliminate ga skets that could be exposed to fuel, improving the gasket material, or using fuel injection in stead of a carburetor. Fuel injection is extremely effective at controlling bot h leakage and carburetor emissions because the higher pressure in the fuel line renders use of pr oper connections imperative for safety and because t he closed nature of the fuel system eliminates carburet or emissions. Fuel injection also eliminates carburetor leakage due to a tipped OHRV.
D. TEST RESULTS FOR UNCONT ROLLED AND CONT ROLLED OHRV EQUIPMENT To verify the effectiveness of using proven automotive te chnology on OHRVs, ARB conducted extensive testing of a popular off-road moto rcycle and an ATV for baseline emissions as well as emissions with evaporative control technology (Figure II-3 and Figure II-4). Both OHRVs were tested over the running loss, hot soak, and diurnal emissions modes. The controlled and uncontrolled evaporative emissions OHRV test resu lts are summarized in15 Table II-1 in grams (g) of Total Organic Gas (TOG). Figure II-3: ATV SHED Testing in El Monte

Figure II-4: Off-Road Motorcycle SHED Testing in El Monte16 Table II-1: Summary of Result s from the OHRV SHED Tests

Emission

Control Status Test Run

ID ATV (g TOG) Off-Road Motorcycle (g TOG)

Running

Loss (g)* Hot Soak (g)** Diurnal (g)*** Running Loss (g)* Hot Soak (g)** Diurnal (g)***

Uncontrolled 1 11.649 1.632 5.603 9.802 6.712 20.264

2 11.511 2.233 5.643 10.342 5.705 17.735

3 4.211 0.988 5.956 8.366 4.782 19.507

Uncontrolled Average (g): 9.124 1.618 5.734 9.503 5.733 19.169

Controlled 1 0.178 0.363 1.242 0.111 0.552 0.761

2 0.097 0.268 1.093 0.129 0.712 0.968

3 0.126 0.377 1.222 0.146 0.667 0.876

Controlled Average (g): 0.134 0.336 1.186 0.129 0.644 0.868

Percent Reduction: 98.53% 79.23% 79.32% 98.64% 88.77% 95.47%

*23 minute test at 95 ° F **1.5 hour test conducted at 95 ° F ***Diurnal temperature range was 72-96-72 ° F per 24-hour period The data demonstrate that by fitting an OHRV with proven evaporative emissions control technology, already being used in the automotive sector, such as a carbon canister, low-permeation fuel systems, and fuel injection, evaporative emissions can be reduced significantly for all usage modes.
E. RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS The proposed standards were defined based on the test results in Section D above where existing OHRVs were retrofi tted with currently available evaporative emissions control technology. The standar ds reflect an emphasis on diurnal emissions control for two reasons. First, OHRV activity patterns include large periods of time when they are not operated, such that diurnal emissions contribute more than running loss and hot soak emissi ons. Secondly, the locations of diurnal emissions are concentrated w here OHRVs are stored, in contrast to hot soak and running loss emissions, which occur where they are operated. Since OHRVs registered in California t end to be stored in urban areas with greater air pollution control issues than the rural areas wher e they are operated, diurnal emissionscont r eva p by f a OH R stor a vehi c the r Cali f inve n Fi g

Etha
was diur n emi s perf o redu Figu r an O peri o on a r ol is even m p orative em
a r the large s R V in Califo
a ge period s c le operati o emaining 1 f ornia. The
n tory data c
g ure II-5: B

nol is maj o chosen as
n al standar d
s sions testi n o rm the run ce evapor a

r e II-6 sho w O HRV over
o d between

3-day diur n m ore critic a issions by
s t fraction ( rnia. This i s s for this ty p o ns, namel y

8% of eva p data used t
c ontained i n B reakdow n

r compone opposed t o d is very ef f
n g data. Th ning loss a a tive testin g

w s controll e

seven day s weekend u n al effectiv e

Figure II

Diurn a

82% a l. Figure II
u sage mo d ( 82%) of e v s due large p e of equip m y from runn p orative e m t o generat e n Attachm e

n of Califo r

nt of Califo
o ROG, wh i f ective at c o e stringent
a nd hot soa g costs (se e

e d and unc o s . The 7-d a u ses. The c e ly control s

- 6: 7-Day D a l,

17 -5 shows t h d e. A s sho w
v aporative e

ly to the re l
m ent. Eva p ing loss a n m issions fro
e the graph
e nt C.

r nia OHRV

rnia pump f i ch exclud e o ntrolling e diurnal st a k tests as p e A ttachme

o ntrolled di u a y test leng t
c ontrolled d
s long-term

D iurnal E m Hot Soak
, 5% h e breakd o
w n, diurnal p e missions f l atively low p orative em
n d hot soak

m the curr e is based o

Emission s

f uel so a s t
e s ethanol.
e missions a
a ndard allo w p reparation nt D).

u rnal evap o t h is repre s d ata shows

storage e m

m ission Te s

, Run n Loss, o wn of Cali f

p rocesses f rom curren
w usage an d
m issions as s processe s e nt fleet of O n the emis s

s by Usag e

t andard ba s The 1 g T O nd is supp o
w s manufa c cycles to f

o rative emi
s entative of

that a sta n m issions.

s t Results n ing

13% f ornia OHR V account fo r tly operate d d long
s ociated wi t
s , account f o

O HRV in
s ions

e Mode

s ed on TO G O G/day
o rted by
c turers to f urther

ssions fro m an averag e n dard base d V
r d

t h
o r

G

m

e d18 for a Controlled and Uncontrolled OHRV

F. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSED REGULATION Based on experience with the same te chnology for on-road vehicles, the technology that manufacturers are lik ely to use has been demonstrated to be safe. In general, control technology will make OHRVs safer by limiting opportunities for escaped liquid fuel to caus e fires. Pressurized fuel systems are a notable exception to enhanced safety a ssociated with evaporative emissions controls. To address concerns raised by pressurized fuel systems, the proposed regulation requires that any pressure built up in the fuel system be slowly released before the fuel cap can be removed. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

012345678TotalMass(gramsTOG)

Time (days) Uncontrolled OHRV

Controlled ATV19 

### III. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION

A. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION
The recommended Board Action will achieve cost-effective emissions reductions of ROG (as described in Section VII) through comprehensive evaporative emissions standards that allo w flexibility in the certif ication protocol and ensure the durability of control technology throughout a vehicle’s useful life. This section describes key components of the reco mmended Board Action, as well as alternatives considered. 1. Comprehensive Ev aporative Emissions Standards for OHRVs This rulemaking proposes comprehensiv e control of evaporative emissions from OHRVs. This categor y of vehicles is currently subject to federal evaporative permeation standards as we ll as ARB exhaust standards that were originally adopted in 1994 and mo st recently amended in 2006. This rulemaking expands the current feder al evaporative permeation standards, which are of limited scope, to include emission standards that apply to all evaporative emissions from OHRVs. S pecifically, the proposed rulemaking sets diurnal emission standards. 2. Independent Emission Standards fo r Evaporative and Exhaust Emissions The proposed evaporative emission standar ds are handled separately from the current, primarily exha ust-oriented, OHRV emissi ons regulation. Currently, OHRVs that do not meet exhaust standards and are issued a red registration sticker. The benefit of separ ate regulations is that t he red sticker OHRVs will be required to meet evaporative standards , therefore providing a substantial reduction in ROG emissions from this class of vehicles. Furthermore, this rulemaking is written to avoid any duplicative requirements between the current exhaust and proposed evaporative em issions regulations in labeling, testing, and certification. 3. Flexibility for Certification This proposal accommodates diversity in vehicle type and testing capabilities within the regulated community by offe ring multiple certification options. Manufacturers may certify OHRVs by m eeting a stringent 1 g TOG/day diurnal standard, proposed by industry stakeholder s. Manufacturers can demonstrate evaporative family compliance by followi ng the test procedures associated with the 72-hour diurnal standard or the steady state diurnal standard. The standards associated with this rulemaking ar e described in detail in Table 1 of proposed Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, § 2418 (a)(1). Manufacturers that produce less than 50 OHRVs per model year, for three consecutive MYs, are eligible to ce rtify to the small volume evaporative emission design standard proposed in Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, § 2418(b). The small volume manufacturers may apply fo r a design-based certification that does not require a whole-vehicle SHED test.20 The use of advanced fuel system te chnology is encouraged by allowing manufacturers to generate emissions credi ts from certification using diurnal test results that are lo wer than emission standards, or zero-emission vehicles. OHRV manufacturers may use earned cr edits to produce evaporative families above the diurnal standard; however, no single evaporative family may exceed three times the proposed diurnal standar d (upper limit). The upper limit of three times the standard was reached through negotiation with stakeholders after considering their need for flexibility to minimize the cost impact of the regulatory proposal and ARB’s need for emissions reductions. Placing an upper limit on evaporative family certificat ion values, or the evaporative family emissions limit, EFEL, is needed because of the relatively long lifetime associated with OHRVs. T he advanced fuel system cred it program is designed to encourage the production of zero-emi ssion vehicles, therefore increasing the availability of this technol ogy in the off-road market. 4. Incorporation of New Test Procedure A new test procedure, TP-933 (Attachm ent B), is incorporated into this regulatory proposal to dete rmine OHRV evaporative em issions. TP-933 is the result of years of collaboration betw een ARB and industry to develop a testing sequence that mimics emissions that occur during real-world use. 5. Durability Requirements to Ensure In-Use Control Both the test procedure and regulation em phasize verifying the durability of control technology. The test procedure subj ects the vehicle to conditions that mimic what the components would endure throughout the useful life of the OHRV. These conditions include exposur e to vibration, dust, and ultraviolet radiation. The proposed regulation includ es a warranty period of 30 months for components with repair costs under $200 ( adjusted for inflation) and 60 months for more expensive component s. Following the precedent set by regulations in the light-duty motor v ehicle sector, repl acement costs are established based on dealers’ list prices as well as standard labor price and time limits for warrantied components. Further durability provisions include the requirement that OHRVs have tampe r-resistant emission control components and careful placement to help reduce emission control component tampering by the end user.
B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED During the development of this regulat ory proposal, three other proposals, including no action, were considered as alternatives to the proposed package. These alternatives are described below alon g with the rationale for staff’s rejection of them.
1. No Action
Were the Board to abstain from a doption of more comprehensive OHRV evaporative regulations, t he only evaporative emission s regulation for OHRVs would be the permeation design st andards promulgated by U.S. EPA.21 Although this course of action (inacti on) would incur no additional cost to OHRV manufacturers, it would default on the State’s 2007 SIP commitment to comprehensively address OHRV evaporativ e emissions. Moreover, to meet 2007 SIP commitments for specific reductions in ROG by specific dates, the ROG shortfall associated with not ta king action on OHRV evaporative emissions would need to be made up in other areas. Proven ROG controls, such as those established in the light- duty motor vehicle sector are ready for transfer to OHRVs and do not exis t for all other ROG sources. 2. Removal of the Tip Test from the Current Proposal The durability tip test is important because carbon canisters are permanently damaged if exposed to liquid fuel when tipped during regular OHRV operation. Thus, to ensure that expected emissi ons reductions are achieved under realworld conditions, the tip test demands t hat canisters have minimal exposure to liquid fuel when tipped. If the tip test were removed from the pr oposed rulemaking, it is expected that carbon canisters on OHRVs would not control emissions throughout their useful life. An OHRV usage survey s uggests that off-road motorcycles are typically tipped at least once during eac h day of use. Without proper design, verified through the performance of a tip test, fuel would be repeatedly introduced into the carbon canister, causi ng virtually all off-road motorcycles to fail the emissions standard wit hin months of being sold. Although canister damage from liquid fuel could be fou nd during enforcement of in-use emission standards, the inclusion of a tip test in the certification process pre-empts a situation w herein a population of poorly designed OHRVs could be introduced into the California mark et, creating an enforcement burden, demanding re-design to address in-use co mpliance, and ultimately sacrificing emissions reductions. In other words, OHRVs that satisfy in-use compliance requirements will also satisfy the tip test. Hence, this test is not deemed to add additional burden and is retained in the regulatory proposal.
The solution to the carbon canister contam ination issue is a roll-over valve similar to the one shown in Figure III-1. In the ev ent of a vehicle roll-over, the valve is designed to prevent fuel leakage. The cost of a roll-over valve is approximately 5 dollars and in some cases may require tank modification; many on-road motorcycles already use them.22 Figure III-1: Fuel Tank Roll-Over Valve

3. Propose Separate Standards for Each Mode of Use An earlier regulatory proposal requir ed emissions from each OHRV usage mode, defined as running loss, hot soak, and diurnal, to be measured in a SHED enclosure. During regulatory devel opment, stakeholders proposed a 1 g TOG/day diurnal standard. Their propos al requires use of sufficiently advanced technology so as to render hot soak and running loss evaporative emissions standards redundant. The curr ent proposal removes the running loss and hot soak requirements and focu ses on the major emissions source from this category, which is di urnal emissions (Attachment C).
The dominance of diurnal emissions reflec ts the fact that OHRVs are typically stored for long periods of time betw een uses. Moreover, OHRVs are often stored in urban areas that are non-comp liant with regard to AAQSs for ozone, but are typically operated in rural areas , which have less severe air quality problems. Accordingly, it is more crit ical from an air quality perspective to control diurnal emissions. The proposed standards offer sought-after fl exibility to manufacturers while focusing on the dominant emissions mode. Relative to running loss and hot soak emissions, the diurnal emissions reductions achieved with this regulatory proposal are obtained in those parts of t he State with the most significant air quality issues.


### IV. AIR QUALITY BENEFITS The primary air quality benefit associat ed with the regulatory proposal is the curtailment of ambient ozone through emi ssions reductions of ROG, a family of ozone precursors. Quantific ation of these benefits is supported by extensive emissions inventory modeling (Attachment C). The modeling reflects an updated population and vehicle life of OHRVs based on DMV registration data (DMV 2010), updated activity factors derived from a California-based OHRV user survey, technology trends such as the shift from carb uretor to fuel injection delivery systems,23 and empirical evaporative emissions factors adj usted for a variety of influences such as garage temperature and spatial allocation. Evaporative emissions reductions associ ated with this regulatory proposal are modeled based on the emissions inventory me thodology described in Attachment C. The OHRV emissions inventory includes exhaust emissions and categories of vehicles, specifically snow mobiles and gasoline-f ueled golf carts that are not subject to the proposed regulation. All materi al relating to these categories have been excluded in the calculation of emissions reductions associated with this regulatory proposal, unless otherwise noted. Project ed ROG emissions reductions associated with the proposed regulation are present ed below. Although climate change considerations are beyond the scope of the OHRV emissions inventory model, a brief discussion of the direction of climate change impact associ ated with this regulatory proposal is also included. Also provi ded is a brief discussi on of the co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to air to xics, specifically benzene in confined garage spaces. A. ROG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OZONE ABATEMENT Ozone is the criteria pollutant that moti vates this regulatory proposal, which will yield substantial emissions reductions of ROG. These emissions reductions help fulfill commitments associated with the 2007 SIP and are necessary to meet the 8- hour ozone standard in California’s two ex treme non-attainment areas, namely the air basins for SJVAPCD and SCAQMD. ROG emissions reductions associated with the proposed regulation are also necessary , in whole or in part, for attainment of the 8-hour federal ozone standard for Ventura, Sacrament o, and other areas downwind of major urban centers. This regulatory proposal is expected to yield substantial statewide and select regional summertime ROG emis sions reductions as shown in Table IV-1, which presents expected emissions reductions in key attainment years identified in the 2007 SIP as well as in the year 2035. Due to an OHRV’s longer-than-expected lifetime, benefits from this regulation accrue further into the future than time horizons planned for in the 2007 SIP. T able IV-1 shows that the expected statewide emission reductions from t he baseline summertime evaporative ROG emissions from OHRVs to be 10.7 perc ent in 2020, 25.8 percent in 2023, and 65.5 percent in 2035, when the fleet is 70 percent controlled. This degree of control will significantly reduce the ov erall ROG emissions from OHRV as evaporative emissions account for approx imately three-quarters of the ROG emissions from the current fleet of vehicles.

Table IV-1: Summertime Evaporative ROG Re ductions Expected from the Regulatory Proposal in TPD, for Key Attainment Years and Regions in California.24 2020 Baseline Proposed Rule Benefit Reduction

Statewide 12.50 11.16 1.34 10.7%

SJVAPCD 2.03 1.81 0.22 10.8%

SCAQMD 3.86 3.48 0.38 9.8%

2023 Baseline Proposed Rule Benefit Reduction

Statewide 13.00 9.65 3.35 25.8%

SJVAPCD 2.12 1.57 0.55 25.9%

SCAQMD 4.02 3.05 0.97 24.1%

2035 Baseline Proposed Rule Benefit Reduction

Statewide 15.12 5.21 9.91 65.5%

SJVAPCD 2.46 0.85 1.61 65.4%

SCAQMD 4.70 1.71 2.99 63.6%
The magnitude in TPD of emissions r eductions is less than those envisioned based on the 2007 inventory estimates. The lower emissions reduction estimate is due to the fact that the inv entory of ROG emissions from this category is, in part due to the 2008 economic recession, le ss than anticipated. Thus, while the degree of control of this category is as str ong as originally envisioned, the size of the problem, and thus the aggregate benefit a ssociated with control, is somewhat less.
B. CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS Although the focus of the proposed diur nal emission standard is a criteria air pollutant (ROG), this standard is also expec ted to have a slight benefit in reducing emissions of climate change po llutants in California. 1. Reduced Fuel Consumption Evaporative emissions account for a sma ll fraction of the fuel consumed by OHRVs. The decrease in OHRV evaporat ive emissions associated with the25 regulatory proposal will reduc e OHRV fuel consumption by over two percent, and thus greenhouse gas emissions , by a small amount.
A more substantial effect that woul d reduce climate change emissions could result from reduced in-use fuel c onsumption associat ed with technology shifting. One means by which manufactu rers are expected to comply with the proposed regulation is through shifting fr om carburetor to fuel injection technology. Since fuel injection engines tend to be substantially more fuelefficient, the shift away from carburet or technology could yield substantial benefits in terms of reduced fuel c onsumption and theref ore emissions of carbon dioxide. 2. Indirect Warming Impacts This regulatory proposal is also expect ed to exert small, indirect climate change impacts through its effects on t he burden of climate forcing pollutants in the atmosphere. Since ROG emitted in to the atmosphere is oxidized within a relatively short timeframe, it exerts substantial climate impacts through its effects on atmospheric chemistry (Collins et al., 2002). These indirect impacts are mediated through changes in the conc entrations of tropospheric methane, CH 4 , and tropospheric ozone, O 3 . For example, curta ilment of tropospheric ozone associated with ROG emissions r eductions is a climate benefit, since tropospheric ozone is currently asso ciated with radiative forcing of approximately 0.39 Watts per square meter, W/m 2 (Shindell et al., 2005). Similarly, ROG perturbs atmospheric chemistry su ch that methane has a longer atmospheric lifetime. Since met hane is the second most-important of the relatively long-lived greenhouse gases tabulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cha nge (2007) in terms of radiative forcing, averting ROG emissions and the associated impacts on methane’s atmospheric lifetime constitute a climate benefit.
C. REDUCTION OF EXPOSURE TO TOXIC EMISSIONS One of the expected co-benef its of the proposed regul ation is reduced exposure to toxic air pollutants, specifically benzene, which makes up about 1 percent of current blends of gasoline. More than 80 percent of the evap orative emissions from the current fleet of OHRVs in California are produced during diurnal processes, or more specifically when these OHRVs are stor ed, oftentimes in enclosed garages for periods of a week or more. During these extended storage events, gasoline vapors, including benzene, can build up significantly. The concentration of benzene in a garage is dep endent on the air exchange rate of the garage and the emission rate. The concentration of benzene in a garage can be over two orders of magnit ude higher than the ambient level with the garage door closed. These elevated benzene levels may pose a health risk to individuals in the garage or to residents of homes wit h attached garages. OHRVs equipped with evaporative controls compliant with t he proposed emission standards, will reduce not only total TOG emissions, but also benzene, significantly.26 

### V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an environmental analysis for the proposed adoption of evaporative emission control requirements for OHRVs. Staff has determined that implementation of the propos ed regulation would not resu lt in any potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. This analysis provides the basis for reaching this conclusion. This se ction of the ISOR also discusses environmental benefits expect ed from implementing t he proposed regulation.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ARB is the lead agency for this regul atory proposal and has prepared this environmental analysis pursuant to its regulatory program certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources A gency (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15251(d); Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, § 60005-60007). In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.5 of the Ca lifornia Environmental Qua lity Act (CEQA), public agencies with certified regulatory programs are exempt from t he requirements for preparing environmental impact reports, negat ive declarations, and initial studies (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15250). As requi red by ARB’s certified regulatory program, and the policy and substantiv e requirements of CEQA, ARB has prepared as part of this ISOR, an asse ssment of the potentia l for significant adverse and beneficial environmental im pacts associated with the proposed regulation and a succinct anal ysis of those impacts (C al. Code Regs., tit.17, § 60005(b)). The resource areas from the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist were used as a framework fo r assessing the potential for significant impacts (Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, § 60005(b)). If comments received during the public review period raise significant environmental issues, staff will summari ze and respond to the comments in writing. The written responses will be incl uded in the Final Statement of Reasons for the regulation. Prior to taking final action on any proposed action for which significant environmental issues have been raised, the decision maker shall approve the written responses to thes e issues (Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, § 60007(a)). If the proposed regul ation is adopted, a Notice of Decision will be posted on ARB’s website and filed with the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for public inspection (C al. Code Regs., tit.17, §60007(b)).
C. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In 1994, the Board adopted the first ex haust emissions standards for OHRVs, including off-road motorcycles and ATVs, which were previously not subject to any emissions control requirements. The regulation adopted in 1994, as well as several Board approved revisions, are discu ssed in Section I (D) of this ISOR. The Staff Reports for the original exhaus t regulation and its subsequent revisions adopted by the Board identified the potent ial for a slight increase in NO x , due to leaner calibrations and a shift from two- stroke to four-stroke technology, which was determined to be insignificant. They also identified potential for a small27 increases in toxics, ambient particulate matter (PM) and emissions in attainment areas, which were determined to be unavoi dable, but less than significant. The previous Staff Reports identified no other adverse environmental impacts. In 2006, the Board adopted amendments to t he OHRV regulation which included harmonizing with evaporative emissions standards adopted by U.S. EPA in 2002. The staff report identified air quality benefit s due to the reduction of evaporative emission. The evaporative emissions standards identified no adverse environmental.
D. PROPOSED REGULATION 1. Description The proposed regulatory provisions are descr ibed in detail in Section III (A) of this Staff Report. Briefly, the regulat ory proposal includes the following:

 Expands control of evaporative em issions from OHRVs to include a stringent diurnal standard as well as a “tip test” to address potential fuel spillage on all vehicle modes;

 Provisions for certification, labelin g requirements, enforcement, recall, and use restrictions;

 A flexible 4-year phase-in peri od (MY 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) where the manufacturer must show that 75 percent of their new sales are certified for those years; and

 A new test procedure to determine evaporative emissions from OHRVs (TP-933). 2. Methods of Compliance The proposed regulation introduces OHRV evaporative emission standards to control diurnal and spillage emissions. A va riety of technolog ies are available to help manufacturers meet t he proposed amended standards. Staff anticipates that manufacturers will us e downsized, proven on-road automobile technology to reduce emissions from O HRVs. A detailed description of the available technologies to meet each proposed emission standard is included in Section II of this Staff Report. This regulatory proposal accommodates diversity in vehicle type and testing capabilities within the regulated community by offering two diurnal testing options, and a small volume manufacture r design based standard. Additional flexibility is granted by a llowing manufacturers to ce rtify using advanced fuel system credits. Manufacturers ma y produce OHRVs both above and below diurnal emission standards so long as no single evaporative family exceeds three times the diurnal st andard; provided that all yearly fleet credits and debits are equal to or below zero at the end of each model year. Corporate fleet averaging can encourage manufacture rs to produce more zero-emission OHRVs and thus increase availa ble zero-emission technology.28 E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Beneficial Impacts The proposed regulatory provisions would curtail ROG emissions released into the atmosphere, resulting in improved ai r quality that will help California meet the federal 8-hour air qualit y standard for ozone. Additionally, the proposed regulation would result in reduc ed exposure to benzene, a toxic air contaminant. Due to reduced fuel cons umption as well as ROG emissions reductions, climate co-benefits are also anticipated. These air quality benefits are detailed in Section IV. 2. Resource Areas with No Impacts Based on ARB’s review of the regulator y proposal, staff concludes that the regulatory proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Compliance with the proposed regulatory provis ions would not result in any physical change to t he existing environment. The proposed regulatory provisions wil l reduce evaporative emissions from OHRVs by setting emission standards that are eas ily met by incorporating currently available technologies during vehicle construction. Thus, the regulatory proposal would not involve or result in any physical changes to the existing environment, such as new development, mo difications to existing buildings or facilities, or new land use designations. AR B staff finds that it is not reasonably foreseeable that there will be any adverse impacts on aes thetics, air quality, agricultural and forestry resources, biol ogical resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, haz ardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, miner al resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, or traffic and transportation. The proposed regulatory provisions woul d not require any action by regulated parties that could affect these resources.
No discussion of alternatives or miti gation measures to address significant adverse environmental impacts is nece ssary because no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from implementation of the regulatory proposal. This is because the regulator y provisions merely propose emission standards to reduce diurnal and spillage emissions from OHRVs, which would be easily accomplished by using already existing technologies.29 

### VI. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
California Government Code ( Section 65040.12(e) ) defines environmental justice as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. ARB is commi tted to supporting the achievement of environmental justice. In 2001, the Boar d adopted a framework for incorporating environmental justice into the ARB's programs consistent wit h the directives of State law (ARB, 2001). Although ARB’ s environmental justice policies apply to all communities in California, they recognize that environmental justice issues have been raised more often in the context of low-income and minority communities.
As a result of ARB’s work with the public , the business sector, local government, and air districts, California’s ambient air is the cleanest since air quality measurements have been recorded (ARB, 2013a ). Whereas the Los Angeles Air Basin experienced 148 smog alerts in 1970, by the year 2000, there was not a single smog alert (ARB, 2013b ). However, large numbers of Californi ans live in areas that continue to experience episodes of unhealthy concentrations of ozone and PM 2.5
. The proposed rulemaking was designed to achieve ROG emissions reductions in support of attainment of t he federal 8-hour oz one standard. In particular, the proposed rulemaking supports attainment in the onl y two areas nationwide whose nonattainment status has been classified as “extreme,” namely the SJVAPCD and SCAQMD. Both areas have strong environmental justice groups that have lobbied ARB to take aggressive action in pursuit of ozone atta inment to ease air quality-related health burdens on their communities. The air qualit y impacts of this regulatory proposal promote environmental justice by improving California’s ai r quality is areas that are simultaneously the most adversely affect ed with respect to ground level ozone and home to many minority and low-income groups.30 

### VII. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This section analyzes the economic impacts of the regulator y proposal on OHRV manufacturers inside and outside Californ ia, individual consumers, and local and state government agencies. At present, t here are no major OHRV manufacturers affected by this regulation headquartered in California, therefore all discussions of manufacturer cost in this section is relat ed to facilities located outside of the State. The estimated cost to comply with this regulatory proposal is based on self-reported industry estimates. The increased cost fo r OHRVs is from hi gher manufacturing and certification costs, which are expressed bot h as incremental costs per vehicle and in fixed costs per evaporative family. Large vo lume manufacturers, which account for nearly 86 percent of California’s annual OHRV sales (see Attachment D), can spread the evaporative control implementation costs across many OHRVs to cost-effectively, comply with this regulatory proposal. A potential outcome of this regulatory proposal is that OHRV models with low sales volumes may be adversely impacted, resulti ng in a disproportionate price increase for their model offerings or decreased model availa bility in California. To mitigate this, a small volume evaporative emission design st andard is proposed in the regulation, to provide further flexibility for manufacturers that pr oduce fewer than 50 new OHRVs per MY. Consumers will have similar types of OHRVs available. However, they may have fewer options within a given OHRV class if manufacturers are unable to consolidate low volume models into higher vo lume evaporative families. In a situation where a specialized OHRV is no longer avai lable, a consumer could have a custom OHRV built using the sma ll volume design standard. Despite the current reduction in OHRV sa les due to the state of the economy, projected OHRV sales are expected to move towards pr e-recession levels before MY 2018 (see Attachment C). Over the longer term, OHRV sales are expected to rebound as the economy continues to impr ove and disposable income increases. Staff remained sensitive to this topic by working closely with industry to develop a regulatory proposal with cost-effective ev aporative emission reductions. The average cost to comply with this regulatory pr oposal ranges from $216 to $465 per OHRV, or a 4 to 9 percent increase (based on an OHRV costing $5,000), across all OHRV evaporative families. All the cost data used to calculate the cost of this regulation was self-reported by industry. Over time the cost of complianc e is expected to decline as manufacturers develop more innovative so lutions to meet the evaporative emission standards, and as scaled down evaporative components are more widely produced. Additionally, staff has dev eloped the proposed r egulations and test procedures with support from major manufacturers that prod uce vehicles for the on-road motorcycle industry. Future implementation of sim ilar requirements for on-road motorcycles would further reduce the cost of co mpliance for OHRV manufacturers.
A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Section 11346.3 of the California Govern ment Code requires State agencies to assess the potential for adverse econom ic impacts on California business enterprises and individuals when proposi ng to adopt or amend any administrative31 regulation. The assessment shall include a consideration of the impact of the regulatory proposal on California jobs; business expansion, elimination or creation; and the ability of California busi ness to compete with business in other states. State agencies are also required to estimate the cost or saving s to any State or local agency and school district in accor dance with instructions adopted by the Department of Finance. The estimate is to include any non-discretionary cost or savings to the local agencies and the cost or savings in federal funding to the State. The determinations made by the Board’s Executive Officer concerning the costs or savings necessarily incurred by public agencies and private persons and businesses to comply with the proposed re gulatory action are presented in the following sections.
B. ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The proposed rulemaking reflects several years of active collaboration between ARB staff and industry stakeholders to collectively agree upon proposed emissions standards that maximize em ission reductions while avoiding unnecessary costs. On January 22, 2013, a cost survey was sent out to manufacturers to determine the increm ental and fixed costs associated with implementation of the regul atory proposal. Staff receiv ed responses from four OHRV manufacturers repres enting approximately 50 percent of the total California market share. The respondents represented large and small manufacturers. After careful review and clarification of cost data and responses, staff omitted data for eight of the OHRV evaporative familie s received because projected sales and manufacturer information was not included. Based on survey responses, staff sought to reduce the cost of compliance by streamlining certific ation testing. Hot soak and running loss standards were removed from the proposal. The test procedure was revised to require running loss and hot soak event s as preparation cycles. In spite of the procedural change, the emissions reductions remained the same but the certification costs were reduced. A second survey was sent out on April 18, 2013, to update vehicle cost information. Only one response was received from industry, and was used to r eplace the manufacturer’s previous cost numbers. All the costs used to calculat e costs for the regulatory proposal are industry supplied and self-r eported. The cost associated with the warranty requirement of this regulatory proposal ar e estimated to be small as discussed in attachment D. Data from the surveys we re used to generate cost values used in this document (see Attachment D).

The total incremental and fixed costs per evaporative family are used to summarize the total additional OHRV cost per vehicle, as shown in Figure VII-1.The w eva p esti m rece i Fig u

Fig u bas e fami l w ide rang e p orative fa m m ate”, “low

i ved from m

u re VII-1: S

u re VII

- 2 sh
e d on the r e l y cost dec r Figur e e of this dat a m ilies with v

estimate”, a m anufactur e S ummary o

ows a sum e sults of A R
r eases as p

e VII-2 Su m a is explai n
v ery few O H
a nd “avera g e rs for eac h
of OHRV C o

mary of O H R B’s cost s u p rojected s a

m mary of C

32 n ed by the h H RV sales i g e estimat e h evaporati v

o st per Ve

H RV cost p e u rvey. The g a les increa s C ost-Effec t h igh cost o f i n Californi a e ” are bas e
v e family. hicle per E

e r pound p e graph sho w s e.
t iveness p f complian c a per yea r

. e d on the c o

E vaporati v

er evapora t
w s that the

p er Vehicl e c e for

The “high
o st number s

v e Family

tive family evaporativ e

e s

eThe t D, r a of th e whic prop mot o per p by t h the y t otal cost o a nges from

e regulator y h falls with i osal is low e o rcycle exh a p ound of th h e Board. H y ear of ado p f the regul a $90 millio n y proposal i n the rang e e r than the
a ust regul a i s regulato r H istoric cos t

p tion. a tion, base d
n to $215 m

in terms of
e of previo u inflation a d
a tion adopt e r y proposal t -effectiven e

33 d on the m e illion over 2 ROG emi s u s regulati o d justed cos t
e d in 1998.

to the cos t
e ss values e thodology 2 1 years. T
s sions redu
o ns. The c o t of 8.01 $/ l Figure VII t from othe r

are adjust e detailed in T he cost-ef f

ctions is $ 6
o st-effectiv e

l b. for the o -3 compar e r regulatio n e d to 2013 A ttachme n f ectiveness 6 .93/lb.,
e ness of thi s o n-road
e s the cost
n s adopted

dollars fro m n t

sFig u

The tech n fixe d four 201 8 Man u their and a C. P E E

1
S C
m p m p p s t
s t
s u re VII-3: O

cost of co m n ology co m d costs suc h

y ears of i m 8 , 75 perce n u facturers a needs, so
a ll evapora
P OTENTIA L E MPLOYM E E XPANSIO N

. Potentia l
S taff verifie d C alifornia, a
m anufactur e

opulation c m anufactur e

urchase A R romulgate d t orage sys t t andards. G and car m a O HRV Cos t

m pliance is
m ponents, a

h as redesi g m plementati o

n t in 2019,
a re given t h long as 75 tive contro l
L IMPACT E NT, AND N
l Impact on
d that there

nd that tho
e r vehicle d
c onsists of a e rs that me e R B compli a d , staff anti c t ems in ord G iven their
a nufacturer s t -Effective n

calculated
a nd the ann g n, testing,
o n follow a 75 percent h e flexibilit y

percent of l s are fully i
ON BUSI N BUSINES S

Business e

are no ma j se listed a s istribution f
a few small
e t small bu
a nt engines
c ipate that t er to comp low annual
s are expe c
34 n ess Com p

based on t h ualized pe r and certifi c vehicle ph a in 2020, a n y to adjust t

the MY 20 i mplement e
N ESSES, B S CREATI O

e s

j or OHRV m s manufact u f acilities. C a volume s p siness crit e and fuel m t hey will al s ly with the p productio n c ted to qua pared to S

h e increm e r -OHRV co
c ation. It is ase-in sch e nd 100 per c t he phase-i 18-2021 O H
e d for 2022
USINESS C O N, ELIMI N

m anufactu r u ring locati o a lifornia’s O p ark ignitio n e ria. These
m anageme n

s o purchas e p roposed e n volumes (
a lify for the s S imilar Re g

e ntal cost f o

sts associ a assumed t
e dule of 50 cent in 20 2 n schedule H RVs hav e 2 and subs e

C OMPETI T N ATION, O

r ers locate d
o ns are ac t O HRV man
n sand car

manufact u n t package s

e ARB cer t
e vaporative ( 50 or less)
s mall volu m g ulations

o r control
a ted with t hat the firs t

percent in 2 1.

to best fit
e controls
e quent MY s
T IVENESS , R

d in t ually large ufacturing

u rers alrea d
s , and if t ified fuel emission , California
m e OHRV t

s

.

,

d y

’s35 manufacturer design-based standard. As such, the typical small business in California will not find it necessary to assume costs associated with certification and redesign as long as t hey purchase ARB certified components. Annual reporting and incremental componen t costs are estimated to be the only impacts to small business. The cost of this regulatory proposal, if added to a sand car, is expected to be virtually indistinguishable within the overall price of these typically expensive vehicles.
Most OHRV manufacturers sell t heir products through distributors and dealerships, most of which are in dependently owned and ca rry OHRVs from multiple manufacturers. This regulator y proposal will have some indirect impact, although not significant, on small businesses that buy and sell OHRVs. During the initial years of implementat ion, the increased cost of OHRVs may lead to a slight drop in demand that could result in lower profits. The retailer would carry unsold stock over to the nex t year, possibly incurring less profit on the sale of these units. However, these impacts have been mitigated by the flexible phase-in schedule of emission c ontrols, the ability for manufacturers to certify OHRVs with credits, and an implem entation year that coincides with a steady increase in projected vehicle sa les. Manufacturers will incur the costs associated with annual reporti ng, however the costs ar e small compared with fixed and technology costs. All manufactu rers are required to submit similar annual reports for compliance with the OHRV exhaust emission regulation, therefore, the additional costs a ssociated the evaporative reporting requirements is expected to be minimal. 2. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness and Employment This regulatory proposal would have no significant impact on the ability of any OHRV manufacturing business to sell outside or within California. Specific to California sales, all OHRV manufa cturers are subject to the proposed regulations regardless of where they are manufactured. The California businesses impacted by this regulatory propos al are indirectly affected as they are affiliated businesses such as vehicl e dealers, aftermarket parts shops, and excursion companies that rent OHRVs to vacationers. These businesses compete within the State and are generally not subject to competition from outof-state businesses. Ther efore, this regulatory proposal is not expected to impose significant competitive disadv antages on affiliated businesses. A potential indirect employm ent impact could be that dealers, distributors, or importers downsize their staff due to a decrease in OHRV sales associated with the increase in costs to contro l evaporative emissions from OHRVs. However, these losses could be offset by increases from new technology development and demand. 3. Potential Impact on Business Creat ion, Elimination, or Expansion This regulatory proposal is not expect ed to have a noticeable impact on any OHRV manufacturers located within Ca lifornia because there are no major OHRV manufacturing facilities located in the state. OHRV sales in California36 represent only about 10 percent of nati onal sales (MIC, 2012). However, some small businesses operating outside of California may decide to discontinue producing vehicles for t he California market due to cost increases, which would result in a decrease in model availability. For the first time, the regulatory proposal allows zero-emi ssion OHRVs to generate advanced fuel system credits. This allowance will provide an incentive for OHRV manufacturers to expand existing zero-e mission vehicle production or to begin investing in the technology. Additional ly, the several small zero-emission OHRV manufacturing facilities that ex ist in California may benefit from an increase in demand and ma rket availability. 4. Potential Impact on Consumers The cost of implementation is expect ed to be passed down to the consumer and is estimated to result in a 4 to 9 percent cost increase per OHRV (based on an average retail cost of $5,000 per v ehicle) (see Attachment D). A retail price increase would be less noticeable for OHRVs that can more readily absorb fixed cost increases, such as OHRVs with high sales volumes or higher priced OHRVs. The end user will save an av erage of $53 in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle as a result of reduced evaporative emissions. Consumers who purchase OHRVs with fuel injecti on will also see a reduction in fuel consumption depending on the fuel control tune. There may be fewer options in a particular OHRV segment, but ther e is expected to be at least one OHRV model available for sale in each signifi cant segment. Segments that are very specialized can be filled with OHRVs ce rtified to meet the small volume manufacturer design standard.
D. POTENTIAL IMPACT TO CALIF ORNIA STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES Staff anticipates that the regulatory pr oposal will have little to no adverse impacts on local, state and federal agencies that purchase OHRVs. OHRVs are typically an incidental component of certain public fleets that are used on a fractional basis. Although future OHRV procurement pattern s are unknown, staff does not believe that the marginal per unit cost increases imposed by this regul ation are significant enough to require budgetary baseline augment ations. With respect to local agencies (cities, counties and school district s), this regulation will not trigger the subvention clauses enumerated in Article 13 B, Section 6 of the State Constitution and Sections 17500 et. seq. of California Government Code. This regulatory proposal applies to all residents general ly and equally, and does not represent a new or expanded program for local agencies. Although this regulatory pr oposal will have no adverse fiscal impacts on local and federal agencies, there is a small impact to the State. Staff es timates that the ARB will require an additional 2.5 person years (PY) to certify new OHRVs and ensure compliance. Staff recomm ends that the additional 1.5 PYs associated with certification will be needed in perpetuity starting during the 2016-2017 fiscal year, followed by the 1.0 PY for enforcement starting in fiscal year 2017-2018.37 E. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the proposed rulemaki ng are described in Section III, part B. Economic impacts of these alte rnatives are considered below. 1. Economic Impacts of Taking No Action Under this alternative, it is likel y that no vehicle manufacturers would voluntarily incorporate additional em ission control technology into their designs. A manufacturer that did would be at a competitive disadvantage. No additional direct costs would be imposed on manufacturers or stakeholders. However, no benefits in the form of ROG emissions reductions would be realized. Moreover, failure to meet 2007 SIP commitments could lead to a finding of non-implementation resulting in sanctions under Section 110(m) of the CAA. 2. Economic Impact of Eliminating the Ca rbon Canister Protec tion Tip Test Staff considered industry’s request to re move the carbon canist er protection tip test from the proposal. However, a fter consideration and analysis it was retained. Eliminating a ca rbon canister protection ti p test would reduce the redesign costs for manufacturers t hat must comply with the proposed regulation. However, both ATVs and o ff-road motorcycles operate at extreme angles and off-road motorcycles tip onto t heir sides during typical use. Without a carbon canister protection tip test ther e is no way to verify that the carbon canister is not exposed to liquid fuel during a tip over, which could permanently damage the canister within the first few running events. Adding a carbon canister protection tip test during certification is a proactive means to prevent manufacturers and consumers from bearing the cost of control technology that does not fully control emissions. P oorly designed evaporative emissions control systems could create an enfor cement burden, demand re-design to address in-use compliance, and forfei t expected emission reductions. TP-933 introduces a carbon canister prot ection tip test that is designed to be inexpensive but effective at verify ing protection. In the case where manufacturers would like to use other me thods, the test procedure outlines the general guidelines for developing a ca rbon canister protection test that ensures compliance with the emission standa rds at full useful life. For further details on estimated vehicle redesign costs see Attachment D. 3. Economic Impact of Separate Standards for Each Mode of Use A possible alternative to the propos ed regulation would be to adopt separate standards for each mode of use: running loss, hot soak, and diurnal. This alternative was proposed during the regulat ory development period, but it was withdrawn due to the added regu latory complexity, which provided little or no emissions benefit. Originally this regul atory proposal required all OHRVs to measure emissions from each usage mode in a SHED enclosure. The vehicle could certify to emission standards by co mparing test data to a variety of standard options. The additional flexibility of multiple standards for each test38 would have made the record keeping of credit calculations unnecessarily complicated and time-consuming fo r both manufacturers and ARB. Furthermore, the need for additional vari able volume SHED enclosures to perform all three of thes e tests on each vehicle family would place an unnecessary financial burden on manufacturers. The proposed rulemaking reduces SHED testing to only one test per vehicle, which substantially cuts manufacturers’ testing costs.39 

### VIII. SUMMARY AND RATIONAL E FOR EACH RE GULATORY PROVISION The proposed changes address the 2007 SIP commitments for comprehensive OHRV evaporative emissions reductions . The purpose and implications of each section of the proposed regulation or der are explained below. The Proposed Regulation Order (Attachment A) presents the full text of proposed changes, which comprise the adoption of Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, § 2416-2419.5.
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE RE GS., TIT.13, § 2416 - APPLICABILITY
Section 2416 states that MY 2018 and later OHRV s that are sold or offered for sale in California must meet the evaporative emissi ons requirements of th is regulation. OHRVs excluded from this regulatory proposal inclu de electric golf carts, zero-emissions OHRVs (apart from OHRVs used to generate emission cr edits), snowmobiles, and diesel-powered OHRVs.
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, §2417 - DEFINITIONS This section incorporates def initions previously set fort h (Cal. Code R egs., tit.13, § 1900(b)) with several additional of terms needed to support the proposed regulatory language. The following definitions are added in addition to references to existing definitions: (1) The definition of “Conventional Tool” is being added to reduce end-user tampering with the evaporative emission control system by requiring that common tools are not used to secure visible ev aporative system components. (2) The definition of “Diurnal Emission s” is being added to clarify evaporative emissions produced when the vehicle is subject to the specific 24-hour temperature profile indicated in associated test procedures. (3) A definition for “Fuel Injection” is be ing added to clarify the type of technology required by the small volume manufacturer design standard. (4) A definition for “Off-Highway Recreat ional Vehicle (OHRV)” is being amended so it includes any vehicle powered by an OHRV engine. (5) A definition for “Off-Highway Recreati onal (OHRV) Certification Value” has been added to clarify the emissions value measured during testing that is used to certify a specific evaporative family. An OHVR certif ication value that is different than the applicable emission standard will result in the generation or deficit of evaporative emission credits, as applicable. (6) A definition for “Permeat ion emissions” or “Permeati on” is being added to clarify emissions due to diffusion thr ough fuel system components. (7) A definition for “SAE J1737”, is being added to incorporate the test procedure for certifying fuel hoses for the design-bas ed standard by reference and include the title: Test Procedure to Determine the Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hoses, Fittings, and Fuel Line Assembly by Recirculation , revised November 2004 (SAE, 2004).40 (8) A definition for “Small Volume Off -Highway Recreational Vehicle (OHRV) Manufacturer” is being added to limit the exem ption to vehicle m anufacturer that sell less than or equal to 50 new OHRVs per MY, on average for three years. (9) A definition for “Tampering” is being adde d to clarify tampering vs. tamper which for this regulation will mean the same thing. (10) A definition for “Total Organic Gases” or “TOG” is being added to clarify all gases containing carbon, except carbon monoxid e, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which are not required to be measured by t he diurnal emission standards. (11) A definition for “Vehicle I dentification Number (VIN)” is being added as to clarify the alphanumeric code assigned by a manufacturer to identify a specific OHRV. (12) A definition for “TP-902” is being added to incorporate the test procedure for certifying carbon canister for the design-based standar d by reference and include the title: Test Procedure for Determining Diur nal Evaporative Emissions from Small Off-Road Engines , adopted July 26, 2004, which is incorporated by reference herein (ARB, 2004). (13) A definition for “TP-933” is being added incorporate the te st procedure by reference and include the title: Test Procedure for Determining Evaporative Emissions from Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles , adopted [adoption date]. PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, §2418 - EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES Section 2418(a) specifies t hat TP-933 must be used to m easure the emissions detailed in Table 1 of this section. To offer flexibil ity to manufacturers, t he regulation offers two test options by which an OHRV can m eet evaporative emissions standards. Table 1 presents the two test options for evaporative emission standards. Both test options include a 1 g TOG/day diurnal em ission standard and a zero liquid leakage allowance during a fuel syst em leakage tip test. The “7 2-Hour Diurnal Standard” option requires three 24-hour diurnal SHED tests to directly measure vehicle emissions per day. The “Steady State Diu rnal Standard” requires a 24-hour SHED test to demonstrate contro l of permeation emissions and proper evaporative system construction, in addition to vented emissi on calculations (evaluated and approved by Dr. Reddy of Evaporative Emissions Consul ting, Inc.) to show compliance with the standard. Manufacturers that choose to certify OHRVs using the “Steady State Diurnal Standard” are permitted to use a pressurized fuel system with a relief pressure of 2 pounds per square inch gauge.
To maximize emissions control from refueli ng, ATVs with fuel tanks over 3.5 gallons that are redesigned to be geometrically different after MY 2017, must meet the same fuel tank sealing surface specifications as on-road vehicles (I nternational Standards Organization 13331:1995(E)). Section 2418(b) allows manufacturers who sell less than 50 OHRVs in California for an average of three years, to certify using a design-based standard with prescriptive technology. The intent of this section is to mitigate per-vehicle certification testing costs. As shown in Table 2, requir ed control technology for small volume manufacturers includes low permeation f uel hoses, carbon canisters, and fuel41 injection. The fuel tank permeation st andard remains unchanged from the current federal standard. Section 2418(c) specifies the test procedur es required for certification testing to comply with the required standards. Section 2418(d) describes the phase-in sch edule for OHRV manuf acturers to meet the proposed evaporative standards. The phase- in provides flexibility over a four-year timeframe as long as the average compliance of the total California OHRV fleet over this time period is gr eater than or equal to 75 percent. PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, § 2419.1 - EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CONTROL LABELS All OHRV manufacturers subject to this regulation must attach an evaporative emissions label that provides the requisite information for proper vehicle identification and maintenance. To eliminate duplicative l anguage, OHRVs that ar e certified to both exhaust and evaporative emissions standards are permitted to use an integrated emissions label. All requirem ents for the exhaust emission label remain as specified in Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, §2413. This section describes t he evaporative labeling requirements. PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, § 2419.2 - DEFECTS WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS FOR EVA PORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEMS OF 2018 AND SUBSEQUENT MODEL OFF-H IGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES All OHRV manufacturers subject to the pr oposed regulation must warranty their “high priced” evaporative emissions components incl uding labor for 60 m onths, 5000 miles, or 500 hours, whichever comes first, from t he date of final sale to the end user. Any part which costs $200, adjusted for infl ation, or more is considered “high priced”. All other evaporative com ponents must have a wa rranty of 30 months, or 2500 miles, or 250 hours, wh ichever comes first. The wa rranty covers all parts not scheduled for replacement as required by the Air Resources Board “Emissions Warranty Parts List” dated December 14, 1978, as amended on February 22, 1985. Parts scheduled for replacement as required ma intenance in the written instructions are warrantied for the period of time prior to the first scheduled replacement point for that part. Each manufacturer must provi de written instructions for the maintenance and use of the vehicle by the owner and a list of warranted parts installed on that vehicle or engine. The only warra nty exclusion is if the m anufacturer can demonstrate that the vehicle was abused, neglected, or improperly maintained, and that such abuse, neglect, or improper maintenance wa s the direct cause of the need for the repair or replacement of the part.

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, §2419.3 - EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS CONTROL SYSTEM WARRANTY STATEMENT The manufacturer must provide a copy of t he warranty statement fo r all OHRVs sold in compliance with this regulation in Califo rnia. The warranty statement is a general42 description of the obligations and rights of the vehicle manufacturer and owner as they relate to this regulation. The format of the statement shall follow the outline below.

CALIFORNIA EMISSION CO NTROL WARRANTY STATEMENT

 YOUR WARRANTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

 MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY COVERAGE

 OWNER'S WARRANTY RESPONSIBILITIES
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, §2419.4 - NEW OFFHIGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICL E ENGINE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS, ENFORCEMENT AND RECALL PROVISIONS, WARRANTY, QUALITY AUDIT, AND NEW ENGINE TESTING All OHRVs subject to this regulation must follow the same vehicle emission-related recall procedures that have been used for light-duty vehicles since 1982. PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, § 2419.5 - EVAPORATIVE SYSTEM TESTING AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Section 2419.5(a) states t hat manufacturers must meet all other applicable codes and regulations. Section 2419.5(b) outlines t he requirements for manufacture rs to certify OHRVs to the emission standards in 2418(a) or t he OHRV small volume manufacturer design-based standards in 2418(b). Manufactu rers must obtain an Executive Order of Certification from ARB for any OHRV offe red for sale in California. Manufacturers that certify to the emissi on standards must supply data showing test results at or below the standard, generated in compliance with the regulation using TP-933 or another approved test procedure.
A small-volume manufacturer can choos e to certify using the evaporative design-based standards of section 2418(b) . The application for design-based certification must include test results showing compliance for each component used or reference an Executive Or der that documents compliance. Component certification can be done by following the requirement s of Section 2767. 1 of the SORE evaporative regulation Section 2419.5(c) specifies how manufacturers can use advanced fuel system credits to certify their fleet, where credits are gener ated based on certification values or zeroemission vehicle credits; credits can onl y be applied within the MY they were generated and can not to be sold or traded; eligible zero-emission OHRVs are awarded a 0.75 g/day TOG credit per OHRV ; and no single family of OHRVs can have a certification value over 300 percent of the standard. Manufacturers must certify zero-emission OHRVs to generate ev aporative emission credits. To certify a zero-emission vehicle evaporative family, a manufacturer only needs to comply with administrative requirements. Zero-emission golf carts are not eligible for credits because their gasoline-powered counterparts are regulated under SORE provisions.43 Manufacturers may use credits to certify OHRVs that exceed evaporative emission standards. Manufacturers certif ying evaporative families using credits must submit calculations detailing their annual production plans and certification test results, and they must submit their act ual sales data at the end of eac h MY. If a shortfall of credits is documented, based on final sales, all O HRVs sold under that Executive Order of Certification will be consider ed non-compliant. Manufacturers that participate in the advanced fuel system credits program must follow the administrative and final reporting requirements of Section 2419.5(d). Section 2419.5(d) describes the administrative require ments manufacturers must follow, as required by an Exec utive Order of Certification. An OHRV manufacturer is responsible for establishing, maintaining, and retaining records for each evaporative family for a minimum of eight years includi ng vehicle identificat ion data, projected sales, actual sales, and certification test results. Additionally, manufacturer calculations associated with vehicle phase- in and advanced fuel system credits must be included in the evaporative family record s. Actual sales volumes are defined as shipments to distributors of products intended for sale in California. Section 2419.5(e) requires manuf acturers to submit final r eports within 90 days of the end of a MY. The final reports must include projected sales volumes, actual sales volumes, and certification values. A dditional requirements for compliance demonstrations by calculation apply for manu facturers that partici pate in the vehicle phase-in period or advanced fuel system credits. Section 2419.5(f) specifie s evaporative testing requi rements including compliance test procedures and notif ication of failure. Section 2419.5(g) expresses the terms and conditions for su spension or revocation of an Executive Order of Certification. Section 2419.5(h) tamper resistant vehicl e design is required by the regulation to discourage end users from re moving evaporative emission co mponents from OHRVs. The carbon canister must be installed within the cross-sectional prof ile of the vehicle, or mounted such that non-conv entional tools are required to remove it and the vapor line connections to the canister. Non-convent ional tools are defined by the regulation as tools an owner would not have in their tool box, for example the screw types in Figure VIII-1, therefore making remova l of the evaporative components more challenging. A vehicle tamper ing statements is also requi red as part of the antitampering provisions, to educate owners about the legal requirement to maintain the OHRVs emission control system . Manufacturers are encouraged to place the vehicle tampering statement on a tag that will visibly hang from t he vehicle prior to sale, to educate both the final purchaser , and all other customers that view the vehicle at the dealership. However, in cases where this is not possible, the tag may be adhered to the front cover of the owner’s manual. Figure VIII-1: Example of Ta mper-Resistant Screw TypesSection Failure o purpos e Certific a 2419.5(f) a o f a manuf a e s may be g a tion, as st a a llows staff
a cturer, dis t g rounds for
a ted in sub d to periodic a t ributor, or suspensio d ivision (g)

.

44 a lly inspec t retailer to a n or revoc a

. t OHRV m a a llow acce s a tion of an E a nufacturin g s s for inspe E xecutive O g facilities. ction

rder of45 

### IX. REFERENCES Agri Industrial Plastics Company. Multi-Layer Co-Extrusion. http://www.agriindustrialplastics.com/epa- fuel-tanks/multi-layer-co-extrusion/ (accessed May 9, 2013).

ARB, 2001. Policies and Actions for Environmental Justice . ARB, December 13, 2001. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/ programs/ej/ejpolicies.pdf (accessed May 2, 2013).

ARB, 2004. Test Procedure for Determining Pe rmeation Emissions from Small Off-Road Engine Equipment Fuel Tanks
, TP-901 . California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Boar d, Sacramento, CA, 2004.

ARB, 2013a. History of Air Resources Board . Air Resources Board (ARB) website. http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/history.htm (accessed 5/2/13).

ARB, 2013b. Clearing California Skies . Video. http://www.arb.ca.gov/videos/clskies.htm (accessed May 2, 2013).

ARB, 2009. Status Report on the St ate Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy . Public Release Date: March 24, 2009. Board Hearing Date: April 23-24, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planni ng/sip/meetings/sipupdatereport.pdf (accessed May 14, 2013)

Collins, W.J., R. G. Derwent, C. E. Johnson, and D. S. Stevenson, 2002. The oxidation of organic compounds in t he troposphere and their global warming potentials. Climatic Change, 52: 453-479. http://link.springer.com/article/1 0.1023%2FA%3A1014221225 434?LI=true#page-1 (accessed May 6, 2013).

CAA, 1990. Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Incorporated into United States Code ( U.S.C. ) as Title 42, Chapter 85. 1990. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/ (accessed May 14, 2013).
DMV, 2010. Department of Motor Vehicle Registrati on Data for 2001 to 2010
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis . See section 2.10.3.3., http://www.ipcc.ch/publications _and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-3- 2.html (accessed May 6, 2013).

MIC, 2012. 2012 Statistical Annual, Moto rcycle Industry Council (MIC), 2012 Copyrighted.46 MeadWestvaco (MWV). Automotive Carbons Multiday Diurnals Video. http://www.meadwestvaco.com/SpecialtyC hemicals/AboutMWVSpecialtyChemicals/V ideos/MWV027790 (accessed May 1, 2013).
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. State and Federal Standards for MobileSource Emissions . Washington, D.C: The Nati onal Academies Press, 2006. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11586 (accessed May 6, 2013).
Society of Automotive Engineers, 2004. J1737: Test Procedure to Determine the Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hose s, Fittings, and Fuel Line Assemblies by Recirculation, Society of Automo tive Engineers Recommended Practice , Revised November 2004. http://standards.s ae.org/j1737_200411/.
Shindell, D. T., G. Faluvegi, N. Bell, and G. A. Schmidt, February 2005. An emissions-based view of climate forc ing by methane and tropospheric ozone. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L04803, doi: 10.1029/2004GL021900

.