# Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF NEW EMIS SION STANDARDS, FLEET REQUIREMENTS, AND TEST PROCEDURES
FOR FORKLIFTS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

Public Hearing Date: April 20, 2006 Postponed to: May 25, 2006 Agenda Item No.: 06-5-4i 

## T ABLE OF 

## C ONTENTS

Contents Page

I. General.........................................

................................................... ..................... 1 A. Description of Board Action ..................... .................................................. 1

B. Additional References Identified ................ ................................................ 3 C. Incorporation by Reference in the Regulation.... ........................................ 4 D. Fiscal Impacts to School Districts and Local Age ncies .............................. 5

E. Consideration of Alternatives ................... .................................................. 5

II. Modifications Made to the Original Proposal (Fi rst 15-Day Notice) ...................... 6

A. Article 4.5. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines

i. Applicability, Subsection 2430 (a) .............. ....................................... 6 ii. Definitions, Subsection 2431(a) ................ ........................................ 6 iii. Emission Standards, Subsections 2433(b) throug h (d) ..................... 6 iv. In-Use Compliance Program, Subsection 2438(e) .. .......................... 7

B. Incorporated “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2001 through 2006 Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines, Part I” (40 CFR, Part 86, S ubpart A i. General Applicability, Subsection I.1.(d)....... ..................................... 7
C. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Em ission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” (40 CFR, Part 1048 ) i. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Sub section 101(a) 8 ii. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Su bsection 101(e) 8 iii. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, S ubsection 101(f). 8 iv. Provisions for Certifying Optional Lower-Emissi on Standard Engines,

Subsection 140 ..................................... ............................................ 8 v. What testing requirements apply to my engines th at have gone into service?, Subsection 401 ........................... ....................................... 8 vi. What are the provisions for exempting engines d esigned for lawn and garden applications?, Subsection 615........... ............................. 8

D. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Em ission

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Late r Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines (40 CFR, Part 1048) i. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Sub section 101(a) 8 ii. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Su bsection 101(e) 9 iii. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, S ubsection 101(f). 9 iv. What emission-related warranty requirements app ly to me,

Subsection 120 ..................................... ............................................ 9ii v. Provisions for Certifying Optional Lower-Emissio n Standard Engines,

Subsection 140 ..................................... ............................................ 9 vi. What testing requirements apply to my engines t hat have gone into service?, Subsection 401 ........................... ....................................... 9 vii. What are the provisions for exempting engines designed for lawn and garden applications?, Subsection 615........... ............................. 9

E. Article 2. Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engine Fleet Requirements i. Definitions, Subsection 2775 (d) ................ ..................................... 10 ii. Standards, Subsections 2775.1 (a) through (h).. ............................. 11 iii. Compliance Requirements for Fleet Operators, S ubsections 2775.2 (a), (b), and (d) .................................. .............................................. 12

F. Article 3, Verification Procedure, Warranty, and In -Use Compliance Requirements for Retrofits to Control Emissions fro m Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines i. Emissions Reduction Testing Requirements, Subsec tions 2783 (e) and (k)............................................ ................................................. 13 ii. Other Requirements, Subsection 2786 (c) ........ .............................. 13 iii. In-Use Compliance Requirements, Subsection 278 9 (e)................. 13

III. Subsequent Modifications (Second 15-Day Notice ) ........................................... 13

A. Article 4.5. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines

i. Emission Standards, Subsections 2433(b)......... ............................. 13

B. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Em ission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” (40 CFR, Part 1048 ) i. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Sub section 101(a)..14 ii. Emission Related Warranty Requirements, Subsect ion 120........... 15 iii. Engine Labeling Requirements, Subsection 135.. ........................... 15 iv. Provisions for Certifying Optional Lower-Emissi on Standard Engines,

Subsection 140 ..................................... .......................................... 15

C. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Em ission

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Late r Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” (40 CFR, Part 1048 ) i. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Sub section 101(a)15 ii. Emission Related Warranty Requirements, Subsect ion 120........... 15 iii. Engine Labeling Requirements, Subsection 135.. ........................... 15 iv. Provisions for Certifying Optional Lower-Emissi on Standard Engines,

Subsection 140 ..................................... .......................................... 16

D. Article 2. Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engine Fleet Requirements i. Definitions, Subsection 2775 (d) ................ ..................................... 16 ii. Standards, Subsections 2775.1 (c) .............. ................................... 17 iii. Compliance Requirements for Fleet Operators, S ubsections 2775.2 (a) and (b) ........................................ ............................................... 17iii

IV. Summary of Comments to the Original Proposal (4 5-Day Notice) and Agency Responses..........................................

................................................... ............. 17

A. The 2010 HC+NOx Emission Standard ............... .................................... 20

B. U.S. EPA Alternative Certification Formula...... ........................................ 30 C. LPG Fuel Quality ................................

................................................... .. 30 D. Treatment of LSI Engines with a Displacement of One Liter or Less....... 33 E. Modifications to the Airport Ground Support Equi pment Provisions ........ 35 F. Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles ............... .......................................... 37

G. Modifications to Definitions .................... .................................................. 3 8 H. Financial Impact on Businesses and Consumers .... ................................ 39 I. Equipment Replacement using Incentive Funding... ................................ 41

J. Miscellaneous Comments.......................... .............................................. 42

V. Summary of Comments to the First 15-Day Notice o f Modified Text and Agency Responses..........................................

................................................... ............. 48

A. Agricultural Crop Preparation Service Definition ...................................... 49 B. Treatment of LSI Engines with a Displacement of One Liter or Less....... 50 C. New Engine Standards ............................ ................................................ 52 D. Airport Ground Support Equipment................ .......................................... 57 E. Fleet Average Emission Level Requirements ....... ................................... 58

F. Miscellaneous Comments.......................... .............................................. 60

VI. Summary of Comments to the Second 15-Day Notice of Modified Text and Agency Responses...................................

................................................... ....... 61

A. New Engine Standards ............................ ................................................ 621 State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF NEW EMIS SION STANDARDS, FLEET REQUIREMENTS, AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR

FORKLIFTS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

Public Hearing Date: April 20, 2006 Postponed to: May 25, 2006 Agenda Item No.: 06-5-4

I. GENERAL

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) provides an update of the Staff Report: New Emission Standards, Fleet Requirements, and Test Pr ocedures for Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment ( Staff Report ), which was released to the public on March 3, 200 6, and is incorporated by reference herein

.

A. Description of Board Action

In this rulemaking, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) has amended sections 2430, 2431, 2433, 2434, and 2438 of title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) and several documents incorporated by reference therein. The B oard has also adopted sections
2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789 of title 13, CCR.

The documents incorporated by reference are: 1) the amended “California Exhaust

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2001 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines,” Parts I and II; 2) the ado pted “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines;” 3) the adopted “Cali fornia Exhaust Emission Standards

and Test Procedures for New 2007 and Later Model-Ye ar Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines;” and 4) the adopted “Califo rnia Exhaust and Emission

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Late r Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines.”

These regulations meet a commitment made in the 200 3 State and Federal Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, and approved by the Board on October 23, 2003, to reduce the public’s exposure to hydrocarbon (HC) an d oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from forklifts and other industrial equip ment powered by large spark-ignition (LSI) engines. The regulations achieve this by es tablishing: (1) lower emission2

standards for manufacturers of new LSI engines, (2) fleet average emission level requirements for in-use LSI fleets, and (3) verific ation procedures for retrofit emission control systems.

This rulemaking was initiated by the March 3, 2006 publication of a notice for a public hearing on April 20, 2006. That hearing was subseq uently postponed to May 25, 2006. The Staff Report was also made available for public review and comment starting on March 3, 2006. The Staff Report, incorporated by r eference herein, described the rationale for the proposal. The notice, Staff Repo rt, and the text of the proposed regulations were also posted on the ARB’s Internet site for the rulemaking at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/lore2006/lore2006.htm (ARB’s Internet site for the rulemaking).

On May 25, 2006, the Board conducted a public heari ng to consider adoption of the staff proposal. Written and oral comments were rec eived at the hearing, and several parties suggested changes to the proposed regulatio n. The Board approved the staff’s proposal with modifications that included removal o f the airport ground support equipment (GSE) electrification requirement, inclus ion of on-road equivalent GSE into the fleet average accounting provisions, removal of a reference to United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) off-high way regulations, exclusion of uncontrolled model year 2003 and 2004 rental equipm ent from the fleet average accounting provisions for an additional year, clari fication of applicability to engines with power greater than 19 kilowatts, clarification of e xhaust and evaporative emission standards, and finally, corrections to references – both test procedures and model years. At the conclusion of the hearing on May 25 , 2006, the Board adopted Resolution 06-11, in which it approved the adoption of the originally proposed regulation with the modifications identified at the hearing. In accordance with section 11346.8 of the Government Code, the Board directed the Executi ve Officer to incorporate the identified modifications and other conforming modif ications and technical amendments as may be appropriate into the proposed regulatory text and to make such modifications available for a supplemental comment period of at l east 15 days. The Executive Officer was then directed either to adopt the regulation wi th such additional modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments receive d, or to present the regulation to the Board for further consideration if warranted in lig ht of the comments.

The text of the modifications to the originally pro posed regulation and the supporting documents were made available for a supplemental 15 -day comment period by issuance of a “Notice of Public Availability of Mod ified Text and Supporting Documents and Information” (First 15-Day Notice). The First 15-Day Notice, a copy of Resolution 06-11, and the document entitled “Modifi cations to the Original Proposal” were mailed on December 1, 2006, to all parties ide ntified in section 44(a), title 1, CCR, and to other persons generally interested in the AR B’s rulemaking concerning large spark-ignition engine forklifts and other industria l equipment. These documents were also published on December 1, 2006, on ARB’s Intern et site.3

Staff subsequently discovered an oversight in the “ Modifications to the Original Proposal” accompanying the First 15-Day Notice and issued an Errata notice and document on December 18, 2006. In addition to corr ecting the oversight, the Errata notice extended the 15-day comment deadline through January 12, 2007. The Errata

notice and the document entitled “Errata” were mail ed on December 18, 2006, to the same recipients as the First 15-Day Notice. These documents were also published on December 18, 2006, on ARB’s Internet site.

Five written comments were received during the Firs t 15-Day Notice comment period, and staff proposed additional minor modifications i n response to these comments. These modifications were explained in detail in the second Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text that was issued for a 15-day publi c comment period that began on February 1, 2007, and ended on February 16, 2007 (S econd 15-Day Notice, which is incorporated by reference herein). This second not ice, along with a copy of the modified text was mailed to all parties identified in section 44(a), title 1, CCR, and to other persons generally interested in the ARB’s rul emaking for large spark-ignition engine forklifts and other industrial equipment. T hese documents were also published on February 1, 2007, on ARB’s Internet site.

This FSOR updates the Staff Report by identifying a nd explaining the modifications that were made to the original proposal as a result of p ublic comment and staff analysis after the Staff Report was issued. The FSOR also summari zes written and oral comments submitted to the Board on the proposed regulatory t ext during the formal rulemaking process and the ARB’s responses to those comments.

Responses to comments made during the 45-day public comment period preceding the May 25, 2006 Board hearing are presented in section IV of this FSOR. Responses to comments made during the First 15-Day Notice commen t period for the modifications discussed in section II are presented in section V of this FSOR. Responses to comments made during the Second 15-Day Notice comme nt period for the modifications discussed in section III are presente d in section VI of this FSOR.

B. Additional References Identified

The ARB has identified three additional references that it is relying on in adopting article 2, Large Spark Ignition (LSI) Engine Fleet Requirem ents, within chapter 15, division 3, title 13, CCR:

Almond Hullers and Processors Association flowchart of tree nut processing (California Almond Hullers & Processors Association, Huller/Sheller Good Manufacturing Practices and San itation Manual; from

Almond Hullers and Processors Association website c opyrighted 2003)

Discussion of almond processing (United States Envi ronmental Protection Agency, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 9: Food and Agricultural Industries; January 1995)4

United States Census Bureau North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for post harvest crop activiti es and food processing (2002 NAICS Definitions 115114 and 31142 3; May 5, 2003)

The NAICS code definition for “Postharvest Crop Act ivities,” Industry 115114 is also incorporated by reference into title 13, CCR, secti on 2775(d).

In accordance with section 11347.1 of the Governmen t Code, ARB published a supplemental notice of the addition of these refere nces to the rulemaking file and as an incorporated reference within title 13, CCR, sectio n 2775(d).

C. Documents Incorporated by Reference

Seven new and amended test procedures are incorpora ted by reference in CCR, title 13, section 2434. These test procedure documents i n turn incorporate certification test procedures adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (U.S. EPA) and contained in 40 Code of federal Regulations (CFR) P arts 1048, 1065, and 1068. Also incorporated by reference directly into section 243 4 are provisions from 40 CFR Part 1048. One of the above mentioned seven test proced ures is also incorporated by reference in CCR, title 13, section 2783. Section 2783 along with CCR, title 13, sections 2784 and 2789 also directly incorporate by reference test procedures from 40 CFR Parts 1048 and 1065. Lastly a definition fr om the U.S. Census Bureau’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is incorporated by reference into CCR, title 13, section 2775.

Each instance of incorporation identifies the incor porated document by title and date. The ARB documents are readily available from ARB up on request and were made available in the context of this rulemaking in the manner specified in Government Code section 11346.5(b). The CFR is published by the Of fice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, and i s therefore reasonably available to the affected public from a commonly known source. The NAICS definition is published in the North American Industry Classification Syste m − United States, 2002 , available through the U.S. Census Bureau, and is therefore re asonably available to the affected public from a commonly known source.

The test procedures and the definition are incorpor ated by reference because it would be cumbersome, unduly expensive, and otherwise impr actical to print them in the CCR. Existing ARB administrative practice has been to ha ve the test procedures, guidelines, specifications, and similar documents incorporated by reference rather than printed in the CCR because these procedures, specifications, a nd guidelines are highly technical and complex. The test procedures include the “nuts and bolts” engineering protocols and laboratory practices required for certification and testing of LSI engines and have a very limited audience. Because ARB has never print ed complete test procedures and guidance documents in the CCR, the directly affecte d public is accustomed to the incorporation format. The ARB’s test procedures as a whole are extensive and it would be both cumbersome and expensive to print these len gthy, technically complex5

procedures with a limited audience in the CCR. Pri nting portions of the ARB’s test procedures that are incorporated by reference would be unnecessarily confusing to the affected public.

D. Fiscal Impacts

Pursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(2), ARB has determined that the amended and adopted regulations may impose a mandat e upon or create costs or savings, as defined in Government Code section 1134 6.5 (a)(6), to school districts and local agencies. Beginning in 2010, local public en tities operating equipment affected by these regulations may incur minor increases in cost ($80 per unit) when purchasing new equipment. The increased statewide cost to local p ublic entities for new equipment is estimated to be $20,500 annually. Also in 2009, lo cal public entities that operate four or more forklifts and/or other pieces of industrial eq uipment with large spark-ignition engines may incur costs ranging from $0 to $240,000 to comply with the requirements for fleet users, depending on the fleet size. Howe ver, reduced operating costs are expected to offset the bulk of the initial costs ov er the equipment’s life.

Similarly, beginning in 2010, state agencies operat ing equipment under this proposal may incur minor increases in new equipment cost ($8 0 per unit). The total increased cost to state agencies for new equipment is estimat ed to be $6,900 annually. In 2009, state agencies that operate four or more forklifts and/or other pieces of industrial equipment with large spark-ignition engines may als o incur costs ranging from $0 to $80,000 to comply with the requirement for fleet us ers, depending on the fleet size. However, reduced operating costs are expected to of fset the bulk of the initial costs over a five-year timeframe.

E. Consideration of Alternatives

The regulations considered in this rulemaking were the subject of discussions involving staff and the affected manufacturers, sellers (incl uding rental and lease equipment), owners, and operators of LSI engine-powered forklif ts and other industrial equipment in

California. A discussion of alternatives to the in itial regulatory proposal is found in Chapter 7 of the Staff Report. The alternatives in cluded an electric equipment purchase requirement and accelerated and more extensive in-u se retrofit requirements. For the reasons set forth in the Staff Report, the staff’s presentation at the hearing, and this FSOR, the Board has determined that none of the alt ernatives considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory action was proposed or would be as effective and le ss burdensome to affected private persons than the action taken by the Board.6

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (FI RST 15-DAY NOTICE)

At the May 2006 hearing, the Board approved the reg ulation and proposed modifications. Furthermore, the Board directed sta ff to work with stakeholders regarding modifications or clarifications to the ap proved regulation. The following is a description of the modifications and clarifications , by section number.

A. Article 4.5. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engi nes

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2430. A pplicability (a)(1) The engine size to which the proposal applies is cl arified. The existing California LSI engine regulations define the engine as one tha t produces a power of 25 horsepower or greater ( ≥ ), and the emission standards are stated in terms o f grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). In contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) uses kilowatt as the unit of powe r for these same engines, and the federal standards are expressed in terms of grams p er kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr). Additionally, the newly amended California small of f-road engine regulations apply to engines that produce a gross power at or below ( ≤ ) 19 kW. This results in a temporary overlap in the California regulatory definition of large versus small off-road engines (e.g., engines with displacement equal to 19 kW can either be certified under small off-road engines or LSI regulations). The modifica tions provide consistency with the federal program definition of engine size and addre ss the overlap by clarifying that engines certifying in California at 19 kW [25 horse power] would certify as small off-road engines.

(a)(3) The reference to the U.S. EPA’s Off-Highway regulat ions is removed as the reference to U.S. EPA’s program could leave gaps in regulatory coverage and uncertainty to interested parties regarding how veh icles are classified. ARB staff’s modifications to ARB’s Off-Highway Recreational Veh icles regulations presented at the July 20, 2006 Public Hearing provides additional cl arification as to how these vehicles

are classified.

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2431. D efinitions (a)(19) A definition is added for “family emission level or FEL.” This definition prescribes the HC+NOx and CO emission level numbers to be used in the alternative

emissions certification formula contained in sectio n 2433 (b)(2).

(a)(28) The definition is amended to address kilowatts as a unit of power as described for the change made in section 2430(a)(1).

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2433 Em ission Standards and Test Procedures – Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines (b ) (1) For clarification, this section is divided into sub paragraphs (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B). Subparagraph (b)(1)(A) contains the required exhaus t emission standards while (b)(1)(B) contains the optional exhaust emission st andards. Additionally, a correction is7

made to the first row of the table in subparagraph (b)(1)(A) to show that the exhaust emission standards in that row are for engines with displacement of equal to or less than one liter. The symbol for “equal to” was inad vertently omitted from the table. Errors in the standards table and the optional stan dards table for the carbon monoxide standard for model years 2007 through 2009 and for model year 2010 and subsequent

are corrected. The carbon monoxide standard has be en harmonized with the federal

standard and the alternative certification formula contained in subparagraph (b)(2).

(b)(2) An optional certification formula is added to be c onsistent with U.S. EPA. The term “family emission level” is added to clarify th at the HC+NOx and CO numbers used

in the formula do not have to be actual test result s. This term is more consistent with U.S. EPA’s intent to provide engine manufacturers a nother engine certification element.

(b)(4)(A) A clarification to the evaporative emissions stand ards is added to apply the requirements to engines over one liter, consistent with the federal program.

(b)(4)(D) An option to use design-based certification for th e evaporative emission

standards is added to be consistent with the federa l program.

(c) The references for the incorporated test procedures for determining certification and compliance with the standards for exhaust emissions are corrected and added.

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2438. I n-Use Compliance Program (e)(7)(A) The term “STD” in the credit calculation is redefin ed by adding the phrase “or family emission level” after the phrase “the emissi on standard.”

B. Incorporated “California Exhaust Emission Standa rds and Test Procedures for New 2001 through 2006 Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines, Part I” (40 CFR, Part 86, S ubpart A)

A second reference is added to the applicability se ction to reflect that there is now a second document prescribing exhaust emission standa rds and test procedures for small off-road engines (2005 and later). The last amende d date of the first document (1995-2004) is corrected.

C. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” (40 CFR, Part 1048)

The caption for the incorporated standards and test procedures for model years 2007 through 2009 is corrected to reference the applicab le engine model years and that there is only a single applicable procedure for the 2007 though 2009 model years based on 40 CFR, Part 1048.8

§1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my engines meet? (a)(2) The portion of the emission standards table prese nted in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Article 4.5, section 2433 (b)(1)(A) for 2007 through 2009 model year engines is reiterated here. This reflects ARB prac tice of including standards in test procedures and identifies these as California stand ards. The standards for LSI engines with a total displacement of 1000 cc or less are al so reiterated.

(e) The subsection numbering scheme is changed for cons istency.

(f) Language is changed to clarify that smaller engines within the LSI category (at or less than 1.0 liter displacement) must certify unde r the standards for LSI engines, and not the standards for small off-road engines. The applicability section states that small off-road engines are those with a brake horsepower of 19 kW or less; those engines must certify to the applicable standards in Title 1 3, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, Article 1.

§1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying B lue Sky Series engines? The section on Blue Sky Series engines and Blue Sky standards is replaced by a section on optional lower-emission standards (OLES) engines. This conforms to the establishment of OLES engines in the 2007-2009 time frame in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2433 Emission Standards and Test Procedures – Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines.

§1048.401 What testing requirements apply to my en gines that have gone into

service? (b)(1) The change proposed for this section is deleted. T his section was originally replaced in error because the reference to number o f engines was believed to be

related to the small business definition. In actua lity, the number is related to production line testing and should be consistent with the U.S. EPA number.

§1048.615 What are the provisions for exempting en gines designed for lawn and garden applications? This section is deleted. The U.S. EPA provides man ufacturers an option to certify engines with a total displacement of 1000 cc or les s as small off-road engines in section 1048.101(f) and this section provided assoc iated requirements. However, the ARB has modified section 1048.101(f) to stipulate t hat small engines are now considered to be LSI engines unless they have a bra ke horsepower of 19 kW or less. Thus, there is no need for the requirements contain ed in section 1048.615.

D. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Late r Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines (40 CFR, Part 1048)

§1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my engines meet? (a)(2) The portion of the emission standards table prese nted in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Article 4.5, section 2433 (b)(1)(A) for 2010 and later model year engines9

is reiterated here in a format consistent with sect ion 1048.101 (a)(2) in the Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standa rds and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Eng ines” (40 CFR, Part 1048). The standards for LSI engines with a total displacement of 1000 cc or less are also

reiterated.

(e) The subsection numbering scheme is changed for cons istency.

(f) Language is changed to clarify that smaller engines within the LSI category (at or less than 1.0 liter displacement) must certify unde r the standards for LSI engines, and not the standards for small off-road engines. The applicability section states that small off-road engines are those with a brake horsepower of 19 kW or less; those engines must certify to the applicable standards in Title 1 3, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, Article 1.

§1048.120 What emission-related warranty requireme nts apply to me? The formula for determining the dollar value of a h igh-cost part is corrected by subscripting the “n” in “Limitn” and the “n-2” in t he term “CPI n-2.”

§1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying B lue Sky Series engines? The section on Blue Sky Series engines and Blue Sky standards is replaced by a section on optional lower-emission standards (OLES) engines. This conforms to the establishment of OLES engines in the 2010 and later time frame in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2433 Emission Standards and Test Procedures – Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines.

§1048.401 What testing requirements apply to my en gines that have gone into

service? (b)(1) The change proposed for this section is deleted. T his section was originally replaced in error because the reference to number o f engines was believed to be

related to the small business definition. In actua lity, the number is related to production line testing and should be consistent with the U.S. EPA number.

§1048.615 What are the provisions for exempting en gines designed for lawn and garden applications? This section is deleted. The U.S. EPA provides man ufacturers an option to certify engines with a total displacement of 1000 cc or les s as small off-road engines in section 1048.101(f) and this section provided assoc iated requirements. However, the ARB has modified section 1048.101(f) to stipulate t hat small engines are now considered to be LSI engines unless they have a bra ke horsepower of 19 kW or less. Thus, there is no need for the requirements contain ed in section 1048.615.10

E. Article 2. Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engine Fl eet Requirements

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2775(d) Definitions

“Agricultural Crop Preparation Services” The Agricultural Crop Preparation Services definiti on is clarified by defining the word “dehydrators” and the phrase “nut hullers and proce ssors,” and by modifying the phrase

“and other related activities” to read “and other related activities that fall within the

United States Census Bureau NAICS definition for In dustry 115114 – Postharvest Crop

Activities.” The definition further clarifies “and other related activities” by excluding manufacturing activities such as the freeze drying of fruits and vegetables, the slicing and dicing of garlic or onions, the flaking of pota to products, and the making of bouillon, noodle mixes, rice mixes, soup mixes, sauce mixes, and salad dressing mixes.

These clarifications and modifications respond to i nquiries from affected businesses about the intent of the word “processors” in the ph rase “nut hullers and processors,” the intent of the word “dehydrators,” and the intent of the phrase “and other related activities.” They also reflect our intent that the “Agricultural Crop Preparation Services”

definition follows the United States Census Bureau NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) definition for “Postharvest Crop Activities” as closely as possible.

“Airport Ground Support Equipment” Language is added to the definition to clarify that some of the categories of equipment to be included in the fleet average calculations ar e vehicles designed for on-road use, but dedicated to GSE operations and not licensed fo r on-road use. This definition is based on the 24 categories of equipment included in section B.3. of Appendix 2 of the South Coast Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Memorand um of Understanding, dated November 27, 2002.

“Dehydrators” A definition is added to clarify the use of the wor d “dehydrators” in the “Agricultural Crop Preparation Services” definition. The definition c losely follows the intent of “sun drying”

in the United States Census Bureau NAICS definition for Industry 115114 – Postharvest Crop Activities, but additionally includes the arti ficially drying and dehydrating portion of the manufacturing processes included in the NAICS d efinition for Industry 311423 – Food Processing.

“Fleet Average Emission Level” The phrase “or verification level (absolute emissio ns)” is appended to the phrase

“emissions certification standard” to reflect that the operator’s fleet average emission level calculations include in-use equipment with ve rified retrofit emissions control systems. Verified retrofits are one of the tools f or compliance with the fleet average emission level requirements, and definitions for “r etrofit,” “verification,” and “verification level” were all included in section 2775(d). Addit ionally, section 2772(e)(1)(A) was originally included to provide for extensions to th e fleet average compliance dates if retrofit emission control systems are not verified or commercially available.11

For on-road equivalent GSE, the definition provides assumed HC+NOx emission levels to provide a uniform basis for calculating the flee t average for this equipment.

The g/kW-hr equivalent emissions are added to the d efinition. This is consistent with our effort to provide the g/kW-hr conversion in all places where emissions have been listed in g/bhp-hr.

Additional language is added to the definition to c larify that fleet operators may exclude electric-powered equipment from their fleet average emission level calculations. This allows operators the flexibility to apply electric equipment in excess of that needed to comply with the LSI fleet average emission level ca lculations to be applied to non-LSI fleet average requirements as are being proposed in the off-road compression ignition engine rulemaking.

“Label” The label definition requires that new engine label s specify the emission standard to which the new engine certified. Modifications to t he definition clarify that all engines with retrofit emission control systems are required to have a label specifying the verification level (absolute emissions) to which th e engine is verified.

“Military Tactical Support Equipment” The Military Tactical Support Equipment definition is modified to be consistent with the same definition in other Board regulations, in part icular, adding the phrase “or its allies.” This modification responds to requests from militar y representatives to be consistent in

our definition.

“Nut Hullers and Processors” A definition is added to clarify the use of the wor d “processors” in the “Agricultural Crop Preparation Services” definition. The definition d istinguishes the activities that fall within

the United States Census Bureau NAICS definition fo r Industry 115114 – Postharvest Crop Activities from those which do not.

“Verification Level” The g/kW-hr equivalent absolute emission level has been added to Table 1. This is consistent with our effort to provide the g/kW-hr c onversion in all places where emissions have been listed in g/bhp-hr.

“Zero Emission Vehicle” or “ZEV” The definition is deleted as it is no longer necess ary because the requirements in section 2775.1(b) for a specified portion of ground support equipment to be ZEV equipment has been deleted.

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2775.1. Standards

(a) Language has been added to clarify that operators m ust first establish their fleet size before identifying exceptions and subsequent fleet average emission level12

requirements. This language conforms to the intent of the original language but more clearly spells out for operators that they may not exclude equipment before determining

fleet size.

(a)(2) The fleet average emission standards are based on the assumption that all equipment procured by dealers or operators in 2004 would have controlled engines. This was not the case as model year 2004 equipment contained in many instances uncontrolled engines produced in 2003. To alleviat e the economic burden on dealers who would otherwise be responsible for addressing t his equipment, new language has been added to exempt uncontrolled 2004 rental equip ment from the operator fleet average calculations for an additional year and equ ipment leased prior to May 25, 2006.

(b) Requirements related to requiring a specified perce ntage of ground support equipment at airports in the South Coast Basin to b e zero emission equipment has been

deleted because air carriers have demonstrated that they have already attained the specified percentage of electric equipment and have assured the Board that factors operating in the south coast air basin will act to increase the electric component over

time.

(c)(3) The exclusion for rental and leased forklifts in a gricultural crop preparation services fleets now provides an additional year for equipment with uncontrolled 2003-2004 model year engines. The original exclusi on required all rental and leased forklifts to be controlled to a 3.0 g/bhp-hr emissi on standard or better on or after January 1, 2009. The extension of the exclusion ta kes into account the lifetime of the

rental and leased forklifts with uncontrolled 2003- 2004 model year engines. These leased forklifts are now excluded from the 3.0 g/bh p-hr emission standard for the life of the lease or until January 1, 2010 as long as the l ease agreement was initiated before the Board hearing. These rental forklifts are now excluded from the 3.0 g/bhp-hr emission standard until January 1, 2010.

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2775.2. Compliance Requirements for Fleet Operators

(a) Language is changed in this section to clarify th at only medium and large facilities (those subject to the requirements in 2775.1(a)) ar e required to conduct a baseline inventory.

(b) Language is changed in this section to clarify th at only medium and large facilities (those subject to the requirements in 2775.1(a)) ar e required to keep records. The record keeping requirement is clarified to state th at operators are only required to obtain written statements (bills of lading?) from the fuel supplier indicating that the fuel meets state and federal law (i.e., the fuel meets motor v ehicle grade), if such statements (product delivery tickets or receipts) are availabl e.

(d) The effective date of the requirements for agricult ural crop preparation services fleets is delayed by 18 months to reflect modificat ions made in the requirements themselves. The reference to section 2775.1(d) is corrected to read 2775.1(c).13

F. Article 3, Verification Procedure, Warranty, and In-Use Compliance Requirements for Retrofits to Control Emissions fro m Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2783. Emissions Reduction Testing Requirements

(e) Modifications are made to the test cycle language t o correct: (1) the title of the reference containing the steady-state test procedur e, (2) the location of the reference, and (3) the reference adoption date.

(k) Modifications are made to correct the reference.

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2786. Other Requirements (c)(1) A correction is made to the retrofit emission contr ol group name within the system labeling requirement.

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2789. In-Use Compliance Requirements (e)(2) A correction is made to the reference adoption date

.

III. SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS (SECOND 15-DAY NOTICE )

Based on the comments that were received in respons e to the First 15-Day Notice, additional modifications to the regulatory text wer e proposed in a Second Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text (Second 15-Day Notice). The following discussion summarizes the proposed substantive modifications a nd the rationale for making them. The section numbers and paragraphs are referenced a s renumbered in the modified

text.

A. Article 4.5. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engi nes

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2433 Em ission Standards and Test Procedures – Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines (b ) (1) To better delineate between mandatory and optional standards, this section is reorganized. Subparagraph (b)(1)(A) still contains the required exhaust emission standards, but (b)(1)(B) now contains the United St ates Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) alternative certification formula . The optional exhaust emission standards formerly contained in (b)(1)(B) are now i n subparagraph (b)(2). And subparagraph (b)(1)(c) has been added containing a reference to the field testing standards contained in 40 CFR Section 1048.101(c).

Additionally, two corrections and an addition are m ade to the notes section accompanying the mandatory standards table in subpa ragraph (b)(1)(A). Both corrections to note (1) clarify that emissions are to be reported to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr. Emissions were previously reported in unit s of g/bhp-hr; however, ARB in harmonizing with the U.S. EPA is now using the kilo watt-hour as the measurement unit14

for power. The addition of note (5) provides the HC +NOx and CO standards for model year 2007 and newer severe-duty engines. This infor mation was contained in the incorporated by reference “California Exhaust and E vaporative Emission Standards and

Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Lar ge Spark-ignition Engines” (40 CFR, Part 1048), but was inadvertently omitted from this section and from the incorporated by reference “California Exhaust and E vaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” (40 CFR, Part 1048). The original note (5) is renum bered to note (6).

(b)(2) The alternative certification formula originally co ntained in (b)(2) is now contained in (b)(1)(B). New subparagraph (b)(2)(A) contains the optional exhaust emission standards formerly contained in (b)(1)(B). New subparagraph (b)(2)(B) contains the field testing standards accompanying t he optional standards in (b)(2)(A), consistent with U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky standards. Thes e field testing standards were part of the Additionally, a note is added to the optiona l exhaust emissions table in subparagraph (b)(2)(A) clarifying that emissions ar e to be reported to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr for the reasons discussed in (b)(1) abov e.

(b)(4)(B) A date is added to the reference in this subparagra ph to specify that the applicable evaporative emission specifications for non-metallic fuel lines is contained in the November 1996, and not the November 2004, SAE J 2260.

(b)(4)(D) References to 40 CFR Sections 1048.105 and 1048.245 are added for manufacturers opting to use design-based certificat ion for the evaporative emission

standards.

B. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” (40 CFR, Part 1048)

The title is changed to remove the reference to “PA RT 1:” as there is only one part of the “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission St andards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines.”

§1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my e ngines meet? (a)(2) A note is added to the exhaust emission standards t able clarifying that emissions are to be reported to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr f or the reasons discussed for title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1) above. Other requirements a re added providing the HC+NOx and CO standards for model year 2007 through 2009 s evere-duty engines. Both the note and the severe-duty engine requirements were t o have been carried over from the corresponding exhaust emission standards table in t he incorporated by reference “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standa rds and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engine s,” but were inadvertently omitted.15

§1048.120 What emission-related warranty requiremen ts apply to me? A provision is added referencing the State’s warran ty requirements. The intent of the additional provision is to clarify that both sets o f warranty requirements – title 13, CCR, section 2436 and 40 CFR Section 1048.120 – apply.

§1048.135 How must I label and identify the engines I produce? A provision is added referencing the State’s labeli ng requirements. The intent of the additional provision is to clarify that both sets o f labeling requirements – title 13, CCR, section 2434 and 40 CFR Section 1048.135 – apply.

§1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying op tional lower-emission standard engines? Introductory language is corrected so that the requ irements being applied to optional lower-emission standard (OLES) engines are those fo r model year 2007-2009 engines and not model year 2010 engines. The 2010 reference was carried over in error from the corresponding exhaust emission standards table in the incorporated by reference “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standa rds and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engine s.” A note is added to the optional exhaust emission st andards table clarifying that emissions are to be reported to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr for the reasons discussed earlier for title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1).

C. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Late r Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines”

§1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my e ngines meet? (a)(2) The first note accompanying the exhaust emission st andards table is modified to reflect that emissions are to be reported to the AR B in units of g/kW-hr for the reasons discussed in title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1) earl ier. The language providing the HC+NOx and CO standards for model year 2010 and lat er severe-duty engines is

modified to reflect the correct federal HC+NOx stan dard for these engines.

§1048.120 What emission-related warranty requiremen ts apply to me? A provision is added referencing the State’s warran ty requirements. The intent of the additional provision is to clarify that both sets o f warranty requirements – title 13, CCR, section 2436 and 40 CFR Section 1048.120 – apply.

§1048.135 How must I label and identify the engines I produce? A provision is added referencing the State’s labeli ng requirements. The intent of the additional provision is to clarify that both sets o f labeling requirements – title 13, CCR, section 2434 and 40 CFR Section 1048.135 – apply.16

§1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying op tional lower-emission standard engines?

A correction is made to the section title of the se ction being deleted and replaced to clarify that it is Blue Sky Series engine standards that are being replaced and not optional lower-emission engine standards.

A note is added to the optional exhaust emission st andards table requiring emissions to be reported to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr for the reasons discussed for title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1).

D. Article 2. Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engine Fl eet Requirements

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2775(d) Definitions

“Agricultural Crop Preparation Services” Language excluding manufacturing activities such as the freeze drying of fruits and vegetables, the slicing and dicing of garlic or oni ons, the flaking of potato products, and the making of bouillon, noodle mixes, rice mixes, s oup mixes, sauce mixes, and salad dressing mixes is removed from the definition. This language was included in the First 15-Day Notice to provide examples of the types of d ried and dehydrated food manufacturing activities that were not considered t o be part of the “dehydrators” definition and thus not part of the “agricultural c rop preparation services” definition. Stakeholders expressed a concern that excluding cer tain activities implied that other related activities might be included. Since the exi sting “dehydrators” definition already stipulates those dried and dehydrated food manufact uring activities that are “included,” the ARB concurs that there is no need to exemplify excluded activities.

“Airport Ground Support Equipment” Language is added to the definition to clarify that categories of GSE designed for on-road use, but dedicated to GSE operations and no t licensed for on-road use may be included in the fleet average calculations. The cla rification ensures that on-road equivalent GSE may not contain a license plate from any state, not just California.

“Leased forklift” A definition is added that clarifies the term as ap plied to forklifts used in agricultural crop preparation services in title 13, CCR, section 2775 .1(c)(3).

“Rental forklift” A definition is added that clarifies the term as ap plied to forklifts used in agricultural crop preparation services in title 13, CCR, section 2775 .1(c)(3).

“South Coast Air Basin Airports” This definition has been removed as it only applied to sections that were removed in the first Notice of Availability of Modified Text (sect ions 2775.1(b), (b)(1), and (b)(2)).17

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2775.1. Standards (c), (c)(1), and (c)(2) The word “owned” is removed from section (c) and pl aced into sections (c)(1) and (c)(2) to clarify that section (c) provides requirements not only for owned forklifts, but requirements for rental and le ased forklifts as well.

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2775.2. Compliance Requirements for Fleet Operators (a) and (b) Provisions are further modified in these sections t o clarify that only medium and large facilities and those with a non-forklift fleet (four or more pieces of equipment by definition) are required to conduct a baseline i nventory and keep records.

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (4 5-DAY NOTICE) AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The Board received numerous written and oral commen ts in the formal 45-day rulemaking comment period that began on March 3, 20 06 with the publication of the hearing notice and ended with the closing of the re cord on May 25, 2006 at the May 2006 Board hearing. A list of commenters is se t forth below, identifying the date and form of all comments that were timely submitted . Following the list is a summary of each objection or recommendation made regarding the proposed action, together with an explanation of how the proposed action has been changed to accommodate the objection or recommendation or the reasons for maki ng no change. The comments have been grouped by topic whenever possible. Comm ents not involving objections or recommendations specifically directed towards the r ulemaking or to the procedures followed by the ARB in this rulemaking are not summ arized below. Additionally, any

other referenced documents are not summarized below

.

Comments Received during the 45-day Comment Period

Abbreviation Reference

Number Commenter

ATAA ATAA 1 Timothy Pohle Air Transport Association of America Written testimony: May 24, 2006

ATAA ATAA 2 Timothy Pohle Air Transport Association of America Oral testimony: May 25, 2006

CAPCOA CAPCOA Barbara Lee

California Air Pollution Control Officers Assn. Written testimony: May 23, 200618

CCGGA CCGGA Roger Isom

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Assn. Oral testimony: May 25, 2006

CLFP CLFP Rob Neenan California League of Food Processors Written testimony: May 4, 2006

CTA CTA Stephanie Williams California Trucking Association Written testimony: May 24, 2006

ECS ECS Kevin Brown Engine Control Systems Oral testimony: May 25, 2006

ED ED Kathryn Phillips Environmental Defense et al (Coalition for Clean Air, American Lung Association of California, and Union of Concerned Scientists) Written testimony: May 23, 2006

EMA EMA 1 Roger Gault Engine Manufacturers Association Written testimony: May 24, 2006

EMA EMA 2 Roger Gault Engine Manufacturers Association Oral testimony: May 25, 2006

IMPCO IMPCO 1 Karen Hay IMPCO Technologies Written testimony: May 24, 2006

IMPCO IMPCO 2 Karen Hay IMPCO Technologies Oral testimony: May 25, 2006

ITA ITA 1 Gary Cross

Industrial Truck Association Written testimony: May 23, 2006

ITA ITA 2 Gary Cross

Industrial Truck Association Oral testimony: May 25, 200619

LW LW Robert Wyman

Latham and Watkins Written testimony: May 24, 2006

MECA MECA 1 Joe Kubsh

Executive Director

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association Written testimony: May 23, 2006

MECA MECA 2 Joe Kubsh

Executive Director

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association Oral testimony: May 25, 2006

Murphy Murphy Mr. Michael Murphy Written testimony: April 23, 2006

Nissan Nissan Kazuo Kojima Nissan Motor Company, LTD Written testimony: May 24, 2006

Polaris Polaris Lawrence Keller

Polaris Industries Inc. Written testimony: May 24, 2006

Powell Powell Mr. John Powell Written testimony: April 7, 2006

TMHU TMHU Martin Boyd Toyota National Product Planning Manager Toyota Material Handling Unit Written testimony: May 23, 2006

UAL UAL Jeff Endsley

United Airlines Written testimony: May 24, 2006

USN USN 1 Rene Trevino Department of Defense, Department of the Navy Written testimony: May 23, 2006

USN USN 2 Randy Friedman Department of Defense, Department of the Navy Oral testimony: May 25, 200620

A. The 2010 HC+NOx Emission Standard

Limited Data

1. Comment : In 2002, the U.S. EPA adopted a transient HC+NOx standard of 2.0 g/bhp-hr for 2007 model year engines based upon the best data available at that time. EPA intentionally did not mandate HC+NOx emissions standards below 2.0 g/bhp-hr because EPA determined that it was ina ppropriate to do so given the very limited data available. From EPA’s Draft R egulatory Support Document dated September 2002: “Considering the need to focu s on transient emission measurements, we believe it is not appropriate to a dopt more stringent emission standards based on the steady-state duty cycles. St ringent emission standards based on certain discrete modes of operation may in appropriately constrain manufacturers from controlling emissions across the whole range of engine speeds and loads. We therefore intend to rely more heavily on the transient testing to determine the stringency of the emission -control program.” (IMPCO 1) (ITA 2)

Agency Response: The ARB disagrees with the commenter’s interpreta tion of the U.S. EPA Draft Regulatory Support Document (RSD). The commenter claims that the U.S. EPA determined that it was inappropriate to es tablish an HC+NOx emission level below 2.0 g/bhp-hr because of limited data. In act uality, the U.S. EPA only says that it is not appropriate to adopt more stringent emission standards “ based on the steady-state duty cycle” because that cycle alone is not representative of real world engine operating conditions

. Instead, the U.S. EPA established an HC+NOx emissio n standard of 2.0 g/bhp-hr to be met under both stead y-state and transient duty cycle testing because it was consistent with the upper ra nge of measured HC+NOx emission values from engines that the U.S. EPA tested with o ptimized emission controls under both of those duty cycles.

In the RSD, the U.S. EPA states that they did not a dopt lower standards because they believed that the further reductions might only be possible with a very extensive development effort to adapt advanced highway engine technologies to nonroad applications. And in 2002, the U.S. EPA believed t hat it was not appropriate to propose standards at these more stringent levels due to the relatively low sales volumes of Large SI engines.

But elsewhere in the RSD, the U.S. EPA states that they are adopting provisions (the

alternative certification formula contained in 40 C FR, Part 1048.101(a)(3)) that will encourage manufacturers to reduce HC+NOx [levels] e ven further by allowing higher

CO levels where a manufacturer certifies to lower H C+NOx levels.

Additionally, the U.S. EPA established optional Blu e Sky standards that are more stringent than the ARB’s 2010 standard in recogniti on of the potential to achieve extremely low emission levels. In discussing the B lue Sky standards in the September 2002 Program Update that accompanied the RSD, the U .S. EPA states “manufacturers21

may be able to use technologies such as advanced fu el injection, electronic controls, and catalytic converters that automotive manufactur ers have already developed to achieve extremely low emission levels. They furthe r state that even though some manufacturers are close to being able to produce Bl ue Sky engines, as of the Program Update, no manufacturer has certified one. They pos tulate that this is mostly caused by the fact that isolated requests for especially clea n-burning engines don’t justify the expense of developing them.

ARB believes that advances in the application of au tomotive emission control technology to LSI engines over the last five years now make the 2010 standards both technically feasible and cost-effective. By establ ishing the fleet average requirements contained in title 13, CCR, section 2775.1, the ARB has created sufficient demand for engines meeting the 2010 standard. And under the e xisting U.S. EPA provisions, manufacturers may currently certify to an HC+NOx ve rsus CO standard equivalent to that established by the ARB as their 2010 emission standard and as a 2007 through 2009 optional lower emission standard. Indeed, wit hin six months of our May 2006 Board hearing, one of the three largest forklift ma nufacturers had certified to a 1.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx level, and the two others were in the process of certifying to the 2010 0.6 g/bhp-hr standard. These certifications d emonstrate that the technology exists

to meet the 2010 standard and attain critical emiss ion reductions.

Alternative to the 2010 standard

2. Comment : IMPCO respectfully proposes that ARB allow manuf acturers to comply either by meeting the 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx st andard in MY2010 over the transient test cycle as currently proposed by ARB ( MY2010 Transient Test Option) or in addition to meeting all applicable EP A emissions standards, by meeting a 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx standard over the ste ady-state test cycle during the 2007-2015 model years with no additional reduct ion in transient HC+NOx emissions taking place during this time (MY2007 Ste ady-State Test Option). Those manufacturers who are able to meet the propos ed MY2010 Transient Test Option with either calibration-only or minimal hard ware changes can wait until

MY2010 to meet the lower standard. Those manufactu rers who are able and willing to meet the standard over the steady-state test cycle in MY2007 may do so. This will provide manufacturers with much-neede d flexibility and ARB will

achieve substantial emissions reductions from MY200 7-2009. The second option provides ARB with three additional years of emissio ns reductions. (IMPCO 1)

Agency Response: In the preceding comment, IMPCO quotes from the U .S. EPA draft regulatory support document. Within that quote, th e U.S. EPA states that they “need to

focus on transient emission measurements” because “ Stringent emission standards based on certain discrete modes of operation [as pr escribed by the steady state test cycle] may inappropriately constrain manufacturers from controlling emissions across the whole range of engine speeds and loads.” The A RB concurs with the U.S. EPA assessment that the steady state test cycle may not be an appropriate indicator of emissions under real world operating conditions. T he commenter requests that we22

retain a less stringent test procedure as a trade o ff for the potential of attaining early and extended emissions reductions. However, the AR B does not believe that doing so would provide the same level of emission benefits a s the approved regulation.

Feasibility of the standard

3. Comment: Using this same data, ARB somehow determined that it was appropriate to reduce the EPA standard by an additi onal 70 percent to 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx. Note that ARB used only EPA’s data as a basis for determining the proposed 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx standa rd; no new data was generated or introduced for ARB to consider the app ropriateness of a tighter emission standard. (IMPCO 1)

4. Comment: CARB’s proposed HC+NOx emissions standard of 0.6 g/hp-hr in 2010 represents a reduction of 70 percent from the 2007 federal standard of 2.0 g/bhp-hr. EPA, which conducted all of the test ing and engineering evaluation for the 2007 standard, and which had a legal obliga tion to set a standard at the limits of technological feasibility, determined tha t 2.0 g/hp-hr HC+NOx reached the limits of technological feasibility. CARB, whi ch has performed no testing and no engineering evaluation, has no basis for disagre eing with EPA’s assessment. (ITA 1) (ITA 2)

5. Comment: The technology to reduce emissions from spark-ignit ed, off-road engines, in applications included in the proposed A RB regulations, is based on automotive-type three-way catalyst closed-loop tech nology. This technology has been used on well over 300,000,000 automobiles with outstanding results. Three-way catalysts have also been used effectively on thousands of large, natural gas-fueled, reciprocating engines (so-calle d rich burn or stoichiometric natural gas engines) used for power production or p umping applications. These same catalyst technologies can be adapted to spark- ignited engines used in off-road mobile sources such as forklift trucks, ai rport ground support equipment, and portable generators. Closed-loop, three-way ca talyst-based systems are already being used on these large, spark-ignited, o ff-road engines to meet ARB’s and EPA’s 2004 3.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx standard. Closed -loop, three-way catalyst systems will also be the primary technology pathway for meeting EPA’s and the proposed ARB 2007 exhaust emission standard of 2.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx. Retrofit kits that include air/fuel control systems along with three-way catalysts

have been sold into the LPG-fueled fork lift indust ry for installation on uncontrolled engines (an LSI application) for nearl y 10 years. In both new engine and retrofit applications, these closed-loop three- way catalyst systems have shown durable performance in LSI applications, cons istent with the excellent durability record of closed-loop three-way catalyst systems used in automotive applications for more than twenty-five years.

MECA agrees with the ARB assessment that significan t improvements in three-way catalyst system performance can be achiev ed in these LSI23

applications by readily available catalyst design c hanges and optimizations that more closely approach the catalyst designs used in modern light-duty automobiles. These design changes include the use o f high performance catalyst formulations with layered catalyst architectures an d the latest oxygen storage promoters, larger catalyst volumes relative to the engine displacement, and the use of higher cell density metallic or ceramic subs trates. These advanced catalysts coupled with improved engine control stra tegies are already beginning to find use on some new LSI engines as evidenced by some of the very low emission levels reported to ARB in recent LSI engin e certifications (as reported in the ARB staff report for these proposed rules). Advanced catalysts and advanced engine controls will also provide the tech nical solutions needed to achieve ARB’s proposed 2010 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx exh aust emission standards for off-road LSI engines included in the proposal. Advanced catalyst systems can be used to certify off-road LSI engines to some of the optional low emission certification standards included in this p roposal ahead of the 2007 or 2010 requirements for new engines.

In closing, MECA believes that advanced three-way c atalyst technology based on automotive applications can provide a cost-effec tive, durable, high performance solution for controlling HC and NOx emi ssions from new and existing large spark-ignited engines used in off-ro ad applications. MECA believes that ARB’s proposed 2007 and 2010 exhaust emission regulations for new engines are technically feasible. (MECA 1) (MECA 2)

6. Comment: We believe the 2010 standards really are attainab le. I think it's an incredible opportunity with those manufacturers of LSI engines. I would point out the non-road emission standards in 2011, 2014 -- if I was in that industry I would be looking how I could increase my market share by offering an even cleaner alternative to other diesel engines. I think the L SI engine's going to offer some packaging advantages and cost advantages after 2010 . So I would be looking at ensuring I had the lowest emission standards going. And I think those standards are attainable. (ECS)

7. Comment: I would tell you that I think staff has got this one right. I think they've addressed most of what can be addressed and they're going to continue to focus on the remaining issues that are left to be address ed. I do think it is important just to stress once more that the transient test cy cle -- we've always been a big advocate of transient test cycles. We think they a re needed to more accurately address the emissions characteristics of engines. (ECS)

Agency Response: As mentioned in the agency response to Comment A. 1, the

U.S. EPA established an HC+NOx emission level of 2. 0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx to be met under the more stringent transient test cycle. But their testing led them to believe that much lower HC+NOx emission levels were technically feasible. These beliefs

manifested themselves in the alternative certificat ion formula contained in 40 CFR, Part 1048.101(a)(3) and the Blue Sky standards cont ained in 40 CFR, Part 1048.140.24

The ARB’s 2010 standard represents harmonization wi th the low HC+NOx end of the

alternative certification formula. Manufacturers o ppose the ARB’s use of this formula as evidence for a more stringent emission standard bec ause they said there was limited data supporting it. However, as demonstrated in th e ISOR, engines in similar applications already vastly exceed the 2010 standar d, and in the almost four years between when the EPA promulgated their rule and whe n the ARB went to the Board in May 2006, the following additional supporting data were generated.

First, Jeff J. White of the Southwest Research Inst itute presented the results of transient tests performed for the Propane Education and Resea rch Council to the Industrial Truck Association spring meeting on March 23, 2004 and su bsequently to the Texas Propane Technology Forum on September 23, 2004. This testi ng program, of which the Industrial Truck Association was a part, concluded in the fall of 2004 and showed that 10 of 11 engine and catalyst combinations had emiss ion levels below the proposed

2010 HC+NOx emission standard. Even with known or expected deterioration factors incorporated (see the agency response to Comments A .8 and A.9), several combinations would have still met the proposed 2010 emission standard more than five years early. This testing program painted a positi ve picture of future emission capabilities and one manufacturer requested that we not use it because they believed it was proprietary information. However, as the prese ntation had been posted to the

Texas Railroad Commission website for almost four m onths at the time ARB staff downloaded it, ARB deemed it was in the public doma in and has included the presentation as a reference in the Staff Report.

Second, an engine supplier to one of the top three forklift manufacturers provided confidential certification data demonstrating that their new engine would achieve emission levels well below the proposed 2010 standa rd. That engine is now certified to the 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx standard.

And third, several manufacturers provided certifica tion data demonstrating that their engines had emission levels well below 1.0 g/bhp-hr under the steady state test cycle. Even when incorporating the expected increase in em issions under the transient test cycle, these engines were still expected to meet or be close to meeting the proposed 2010 emission standards. And yet even these engine s did not have the catalyst volumes per liter of engine displacement, precious metal loadings, or catalyst cell densities approaching those observed in automotive applications using the same or similar engine blocks.

As mentioned in the agency response to Comment A.1, the U.S. EPA identified limited demand (isolated requests for especially clean-burn ing engines) and not technical feasibility as the reason they did not establish ev en lower HC+NOx emission standards.

ARB believes that the switch to more robust automot ive-style emission control equipment, especially catalysts with greater precio us metal loading and cell densities, as has begun to occur in the intervening years betw een promulgation of the U.S. EPA regulation and development of the 2006 ARB regulati on, virtually guarantees the feasibility of the ARB’s 2010 HC+NOx emission stand ard.25

And MECA, whose members have developed emission con trol systems for hundreds of millions of on-road vehicles over the last thirty y ears, and more significantly, systems for tens of housands of off-road engines including LSI engines over the last 10 years, concurs that the 2010 standards are technically fea sible. Manufacturer activities to date

bear this out. Manufacturers of retrofit emission control systems verified retrofit kits at 1.0 and 1.5 g/bhp-hr, well below the level expected for retrofit verifications – 3.0 g/bhphr – in advance of the Board hearing. And within s ix months of the Board hearing, two large forklift engine manufacturers were certifying to the 2010 emission level of 0.6 g/bhp-hr, and a third large manufacturer that had p reviously certified at 1.0 g/bhp-hr was considering recertifying to the 2010 standard.

In summary, some commenters expressed concern with the 2010 standard. But other commenters, both in the emission control and engine manufacturing industries believed the 2010 standard was technically feasible. With m ajor equipment manufacturers certifying engines to the 2010 standard, we believe the concerns expressed about its stringency are no longer warranted.

Emission Penalty going from Steady State to Transie nt Cycle Testing

8. Comment: Very little is known about transient testing and its effect on HC+NOx emissions over an LSI engine’s useful life. ARB has stated that there is approximately a 15 percent increase in HC+NOx emiss ions when measured over the transient test cycle as compared to the steady- state test cycle. The ARB Staff Report released May 6, 2005 states: “Some man ufacturers have expressed concerns about the impact of the 2007 transient tes t cycle on these numbers [HC+NOx]. To date, information provided by the Sout hwest Research Institute indicates that, under the transient test cycle, hyd rocarbon emissions from an LPG engine increased by about 30 percent, but NOx e missions remained relatively constant. ... At 50 percent HC, the new te st cycle could lead to a potential emissions increase of 15 percent over tho se under the steady state test cycle. ... To date, transient cycle test data has bee n limited.”

After repeated requests by IMPCO and industry, ARB has not been able to provide the data used to make this assertion. Give n the lack of data available to determine the feasibility of the proposed 0.6 g/bhp -hr transient HC+NOx standard, it is reasonable for ARB to either specif y that the HC+NOx standard be met over the steady-state test cycle, or postpone f inalizing a radical reduction in transient emissions until the technological feasibi lity can be ascertained. (IMPCO 1)

9. Comment: CARB cannot legitimately rely on steady-state cer tification data to justify lowering the standard because compliance wi th the 2010 standard requires transient testing, there is insufficient d ata to correlate steady-state and

transient test results over the useful life of the regulated engines, and CARB’s claim of only a 15 percent HC+NOx “penalty” for tr ansient testing is unsupported.26

All of the certification data that CARB relies upon to support the 2010 standard is based upon emissions testing under the steady-state cycle, known as the C-2 cycle, which has been in use for many years. Begin ning with model year 2007, however, certification must be made under both the C-2 cycle and the new, extremely rigorous transient cycle developed by EPA . ITA long ago raised the issue of the effect of the new transient cycle on e missions, but ITA members have only recently gained experience in running the cycle and observing its sometimes startling effect impact on emissions resu lts. Some of the data, which is highly confidential, have recently been shared w ith CARB staff and should be given far greater weight than the data and analysis that appears in the ISOR. In both the withdrawn and the current ISOR, CARB st ates that the transient test cycle could account for an increase in emissions of 15 percent. This conclusion is based on three critical subconclusions: (1) that HC emissions will increase 30 percent, (2) that NOx emissions will not increase, and (3) that HC and NOx emissions each represent 50 percent of the HC+NOx t otal. Following is the current ISOR’s explanation:

Some manufacturers have expressed concerns about th e impact of the 2007 transient test cycle on the feas ibility of achieving the proposed new engine standards. To dat e, information provided by the Southwest Research Inst itute indicates that, under the transient test cycle, hyd rocarbon emissions from an LPG engine increased by about 30 percent, but NOx emissions remained relatively c onstant. In a review of 13 forklift engine families (of 19 t otal) in our 2004 certification test database, NOx constituted approximately 50 percent of the HC+NOx emissions. At 50 percent HC, the new test cycle could lead to a p otential emissions increase of 15 percent over emissions fro m the steady state test cycle. However, all but 1 of the 13 engine

families would still have an HC+NOx certification l evel of less than 1.0 g/bhp-hr because in instances where the HC emissions were high, the corresponding NOx emission s were low. Clearly, the new test cycle does not prev ent compliance with the proposed 2007 standard.

At ITA’s request, staff provided the data underlyin g the claim that NOx and HC each constituted about 50 percent of the HC+NOx com bination, which is critical to the conclusion that there is a 15percent HC+NOx penalty associated with the transient test. This data, which came from emissio ns testing of thirteen engine families, simply does not support this 50-50 split between HC and NOx. While the average and median percentages of NOx in the da ta were approximately 50 percent, the data were so meager and scattered t hat the average and median figures are useless to any conclusion about the typ ical HC/NOx split. While only one of the 13 engine families had anything near the claimed 50-50 split, HC and27

NOx otherwise varied wildly: NOx was only 3 percent on two of the engine families, but was between 90 percent and 100 percen t on three others. The following chart 1 depicts the data:

Engine A B C D E F G H I J K L M

HC% 4 97 78 67 14 0 97 24 10 76 44 38 87

NOx% 96 3 22 33 86 100 3 76 90 24 56 62 13

If staff were correct in its conclusion that the ex pected HC/NOx split is 50 percent, then the HC+NOx penalty is almost 30 pe rcent for engines B and G, but is zero or almost zero for engines A and F. Al l of these calculations and conclusions, however, are a misuse of the data. In ITA’s opinion, the only

conclusion that can be drawn from this data is tha t the data do not reveal any “typical” HC+NOx split, much less a 50-50 split. A ccordingly, the test results say nothing about the “penalty” associated with the tra nsient test.

The other critical subconclusions underlying the cl aim of a 15 percent HC+NOx penalty are that, under the transient test, HC will increase by 30 percent and NOx will not increase. Despite requesting the informat ion weeks ago, ITA has so far not received CARB’s explanation for these conclusio ns. However, these levels of test-procedure “penalty” for the individual poll utants match the levels that EPA used for inventory purposes in its 2002 Regulatory Support Document. Stating that“[e]missions during transient operation can be significantly higher than during steady-state operation,” EPA applied a Transient Ad justment Factor (“TAF”) of
1.3-- i.e., a 30 percent penalty--to an uncontrolled LSI engin e’s hydrocarbon emissions to account for transient operation. No T AF, meaning a penalty of 0 percent, was applied to the uncontrolled engine’s NOx emissions. It may be that this EPA inventory analysis forms the basis fo r CARB’s statement that “under the transient test cycle, hydrocarbon emissi ons from an LPG engine increased by about 30 percent, but NOx emissions re mained relatively constant.”

If so, however, this would be a fundamental misread ing of EPA’s analysis, because this 30 percent HC penalty and 0 percent NO x penalty are EPA’s

estimates for uncontrolled engines. EPA’s TAF (penalty) for a controlled engine, which is the only engine relevant to this rulemakin g, is 2.9 for hydrocarbons and 1.5 for NOx. Thus, if HC and NOx are equal, the co mbined TAF for a controlled engine is 220 percent [(290% + 150%) ÷2 = 220%], no t 15 percent. Consulting the chart showing the HC/NOx split for 13 engines s hows that the minimum penalty, where NOx represents 100 percent of the HC +NOx total, is 150 percent, which is 10 times greater than staff’s claim of 15 percent. For the two engines where HC represented 97 percent, the HC+NOx penalty is over 280 percent, nearly 20 times greater than staff claims.

1 The HC and NOx values from which the chart was cre ated were provided by staff to ITA. Where a range of values was provided for an e ngine, ITA used the average of the high and low emissions.28

ITA questions the relevance of these broad inventor y assumptions to the issue of the actual HC+NOx penalty associated with this part icular test procedure. Nevertheless, since CARB has apparently chosen to r ely upon this EPA analysis, CARB must read the analysis correctly. Having fail ed to do so, CARB cannot support its conclusion of a 30 percent HC penalty a nd no NOx penalty. Adding this error to the errors made in determining the ty pical HC/NOx split leaves

CARB with no rationale whatsoever for the overall c onclusion that the transient test procedure imposes a penalty of only 30 percent . Without knowing the extent of the test-procedure penalty, CARB is not in a pos ition to maintain that the standard is technologically feasible.

As ITA pointed out in its earlier comments, test re sults from the two forklift engines that EPA analyzed in actually developing th e transient test revealed that “transient HC+NOx emissions compared to the steady state emissions were more than double for one engine and more than three times higher for the other.” These data points were generated after the data tha t staff is relying upon, yet the latest ISOR makes no mention of them. In addition, staff has now seen confidential company information that contradicts t he ISOR’s discussion of technological feasibility.

Based on this new understanding of the relevant iss ues, it is incumbent upon staff to rethink the combination of (1) the .6g/hp- hr standard for HC+NOx; (2) the transient test procedure for demonstrating complian ce with that standard; and (3) the 2010 effective date of that standard. (ITA 1) ( ITA 2)

Agency Response: In 2004, the U.S. EPA adopted a new test procedure for certifying engine emissions beginning with the 2007 model-year . The new procedure, referred to as a “transient” test, more accurately reflects rea l-world use and emissions. The approved regulations align the ARB’s testing with t he federal transient test procedure.

The comments above relate to the discussion within the ISOR that quantifies the differences between the two procedures. The uncert ainty associated with the relationship between the two test procedures is par t of the commenter’s overall argument on the feasibility of the proposed standar d.

The ISOR discussion was intended to give a general sense of the differences from each test procedure. Specifically, the mean of 13 engine families from the ARB certification database was used to estimate the average penalty f or a hypothetical engine family. Engines with an HC component greater than 50 percen t would have a greater penalty; those with an HC component less than 50 percent wou ld have a lesser penalty.

The ARB also considered test data from a reputable engine testing facility, Southwest Research Institute, in estimating the difference in emission levels attributable to the two different test cycles. With that said, the ARB ackn owledges the uncertainty in assessing the differences in emissions between the steady-sta te and transient test procedures, both in a general sense and in specific application s. The ARB does not agree with29

certain aspects of the comment 2 ; however, even if the emissions penalties intended to be suggested by the commenter are accurate, the emi ssion standards would still be technically feasible as discussed in the responses to comments 3 to 7.

Timing of the 2010 standard

10. Comment: The emission system designed specifically to meet the upcoming 2007 EPA-ARB emission standards, will not be applic able for use in meeting the proposed ARB 2010 emission standard requirements. T o achieve such a drastic reduction over the 2007 EPA-ARB emission standards, Toyota would be required to assign significant resources not only in the dev elopment of a new fuel system, but potentially a new engine as well. The ARB 2010 proposal provides manufacturers approximately 3 years to develop tech nology to meet the regulation, however typical timing for complete dev elopment of new engine and emission system is at the very least, 6 years. (TMH U 1)

11. Comment: Staff raised the possibility of a technology revi ew in 2008. This might seem like a reasonable gesture, however, it will ta ke at least three years to develop a new, robust technology to meet the propos ed transient HC+NOx standards. Development includes design concept, tec hnology assessment, vehicle integration, engine durability, certificati on, and production. This means that development must begin today to make the MY201 0 timeframe. With a minimum three-year design cycle, a technology revie w in 2008 is far too late to assess the feasibility of a radical reduction in em issions effective MY2010. (IMPCO 1)

Agency Response: From the time of ARB’s first LSI Board hearing in September 1998 until manufacturers had to begin phasing in control led engines in the 2001 model year was less than three years. In September 2002, the U.S. EPA gave manufacturers just over four years to begin certifying LSI engines to the 2.0 g/bhp-hr standard under the transient test cycle. ARB is now proposing to give manufacturers slightly over three and one half years (from May 25, 2006 to January 1, 201 0) to produce LSI engines meeting the 2010 standard. As we expect that manufacturers will not have to make extensive design changes to the engine hardware, but will ins tead enhance the performance of the emission control systems required to meet the 2 007 U.S. EPA emission standards through increases in catalyst volume, cell density or precious metal loading, we believe the lead time is appropriate. The provider of Comm ent A.10 appears to bear this out as they are currently in the process of certifying to the 2010 standard almost three years early in spite of their comment that typical timing for the complete development of a new engine and emission system is at the very least six years.

2 For example, the commenter identifies penalties of 150 percent for NOx and 280 percent for HC when in actuality, TAFs of 1.5 and 2.9 represent penalties of 50 percent for NOx and 190 percent for HC respectively.30

B. U.S. EPA Alternative Certification Formula

1. Comment: Title 13, CCR, section 2433 does not provide the alternative certification formula allowed by 40 CFR, Part 1048. 101(c). (Nissan)

Agency Response: The ARB modified title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1) to incorporate

the U.S. EPA alternative certification formula in t he First 15-Day Notice.

2. Comment: Capping HC+NOx emissions at 0.6 g/bhp-hr is not c onsistent with the U.S. EPA standards because permitting certifica tion to only one point on the U.S. EPA curve is not the same as permitting certif ication to any point on the curve. The curve has no known application to gasol ine engines. (ITA)

3. Comment: The flexibility of the curve is important: (a) be cause the curve is at best a rough approximation of the relationship betw een HC+NOx and CO; (b) to permit manufacturers and users to account for equip ment performance demands and individual workers’ exposure to CO; (c) because the effects of the 2007 transient test procedure will remain unknown for se veral years; and (d) because of the uncertainty caused by inconsistent LPG fuel quality. (ITA)

Agency Response: The U.S. EPA established the alternative certificat ion formula (curve) to provide flexibility to manufacturers int erested in reducing emissions beyond the 2007 2.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx exhaust emission stand ard. The ARB has included the same flexibility for the 2007-2009 model years; how ever, beginning in 2010, the ARB specifies that manufacturers must meet an HC+NOx em ission level corresponding to

the lowest HC+NOx level on the U.S. EPA alternative certification curve. ARB has established a more protective 2010 standard that ta kes advantage of readily available emission control technologies and provides the stat e the necessary HC+NOx emission

reductions.

Manufacturer certification data and the Southwest R esearch Institute data clearly

demonstrate that the same emission control technolo gies that allow these engines to

achieve low HC+NOx levels allow them to achieve low CO emissions as well, so there is no longer a need to accept elevated HC+NOx level s just so CO can be lowered to safe exposure levels.

ARB acknowledges the uncertainties described in B.3 (c) and (d). However, for the reasons provided in the agency responses to comment s A.1 and A.7 above, and C.1 through C.5 below, the ARB believes the standards f or 2010 are appropriate.

C. LPG Fuel Quality

1. Comment: Although Toyota Industries Corporation may refer to automotive technology, industrial lift truck technology and ap plications is considerably different than the automobile. Unlike gasoline powe red automobiles, for which fuel quality standards exist, approximately 90 perc ent of industrial forklifts31

operate on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), for which no quality standards exist. Since no quality standards exist for LPG, the high sulfur content, which is known to negatively influence catalyst performance, combi ned with heavy contaminants commonly found in LPG fuels will impact the perform ance of these very sophisticated emission control systems. Without mea sures in place to limit sulfur content and contaminants in LPG, the ability for a manufacturer to guarantee proper operation of their emission system becomes a major challenge. (TMHU 1)

2. Comment: Improve LPG fuel quality – reduce sulfur content which is very influential on catalyst performance and tar contami nation to reduce impact on control devices (Nissan)

3. Comment: ARB has drastically reduced on-road emissions sta ndards over the last ten years. However, ARB has also developed an d rigorously enforced reformulated gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuel qu ality standards to help

manufacturers meet these emissions standards. Altho ugh LPG fuel specifications exist on the books, they are not nor have they ever been enforced. ARB recognizes the importance that clean fuels play whe n developing new emissions standards and technologies. From a 2005 Off-Road LS I workshop presentation, ARB stated that “Clean fuel is important”, “Heavy e nds are detrimental to control technologies”, and “Strive to ensure high quality f uel throughout distribution chain”. New technologies designed to meet lower em issions standards are far

more sensitive to LPG fuel contaminants such as oil y residues, paraffins, and propene as compared to older technologies. Such co ntaminants may reduce the effectiveness of the emission control system and in crease emissions. In many cases, this reduced effectiveness is not reversible and components must be replaced to operate as designed. Before more strin gent emissions standards can be implemented, ARB must first enforce fuel qua lity standards. (IMPCO 1) (IMPCO 2)

4. Comment: The original ISOR acknowledged that LPG that does not meet adequate specifications “can prevent an engine from complying with existing and future emissions standards” and promised that “ARB will take the necessary steps to ensure that quality fuel is available to s upport existing and future LPG-fueled vehicles including developing appropriat e specifications, if necessary.” ITA’s initial comments pointed out the many aspects of the fuel-quality issue and stated our concern “that CAR B will not be able to keep the promise because the problem . . . is multi-faceted and has not yet been fully

defined.” ITA concluded: “ITA does not believe it is realistic to predict that the fuel problem will be solved in time for compliance with such low HC+NOx standards and does not believe it is appropriate to impose such standards in the face of this known problem.” In the nearly one-yea r period since the initial ISOR, the only progress that CARB has made on the fuels p roblem is the issuance of a request for proposals to analyze 150 LPG samples th at CARB staff intends to collect. The analytical work itself will not be co mpleted for at least another year. Although the analysis presumably will confirm the f uel-quality problem and will32

perhaps shed some light on its scope, it will do no thing to solve it. Solving it will likely require a rulemaking proceeding and/or a maj or enforcement effort in order to change the long-standing business behavior of th e myriad participants in the propane production, transmission, storage and distr ibution sectors. This is a long-term prospect. Rather than offering a plan fo r meeting the commitment made in the original ISOR, however, the current ISO R simply deleted the commitment. Without explanation, staff has removed from the ISOR the statement that “ARB will take the necessary steps t o ensure that quality fuel is available to support existing and future LPG-fueled vehicles ....” Since the

current ISOR is a verbatim version of the initial I SOR in most respects, the pointed elimination of this earlier statement of co mmitment concerning the fuel problem is hardly encouraging. The omission of the commitment may be a tacit acknowledgement that it cannot be met in the necess ary time frame, but the requirements of technological feasibility cannot be so easily avoided. The fact remains that dependable fuel quality is necessary t o support such low emissions levels, but dependable fuel quality is not on the n ear horizon. (ITA 1) (ITA 2)

5. Comment: Fuel quality will play an important role in the s uccessful use of advanced three-way catalyst systems to achieve ARB’ s proposed 2007 and 2010 emission standards for new LSI engines, optional lo wer certification emission standards for new engines, and retrofit application s verified at some of the lower absolute emission levels (or highest conversion eff iciencies) included in this ARB proposal. The importance of fuel quality in an over all systems approach to reducing exhaust emissions has clearly been demonst rated in the automotive industry for both gasoline and diesel fuel. The sam e attention to fuel quality is necessary with LPG fuel used by off-road LSI engine s. MECA asks ARB to continue its efforts to work with industry to deter mine if existing LPG specifications for off-road engines are adequate to support the more stringent emission standards included in this proposal. (MECA 1)

Agency Response: There are three separate concerns about LPG motor vehicle fuel quality - fuel contamination, high olefin content, and high sulfur content.

Contaminated fuel can have an immediate and sometim es damaging impact on the fuel delivery system and the emissions control system. Contamination typically occurs downstream of production during storage and distrib ution. For example, contamination can occur from fuel-hose degradation.

There is information to suggest that LPG containing high olefins, such as propene, can accumulate on fueling components and can adversely affect the fuel-delivery and emission-control systems. This accumulation is oft en the result of using commercial grade fuel in motor vehicles. Commercial grade fue l is intended primarily for heating and has a higher olefin content than motor vehicle grade LPG. Olefins react to create a plastic-like coating in the vaporizers, carburetors , and injectors. This coating gums up these engine components, reducing the effectiveness of heat transfer and ultimately33

causing poor delivery of the fuel and inaccurate fu el-to-air ratios. Heavy hydrocarbon residue may also cause similar problems.

In 1992, ARB established motor vehicle fuel specifi cations for LPG limiting the propene content to 10 percent by volume. Other heavier hyd rocarbons are also limited. Not all LPG produced meets the LPG motor vehicle specificat ions. The LPG not meeting the motor vehicle specification is considered commercia l grade propane and is used mostly for space heating and recreational purposes.

The motor vehicle fuel specifications also limit su lfur content to 80 parts per million by weight. Sulfur is added to LPG fuel as an odorant, and the 80 parts per million by weight maximum concentration was derived in consult ation with engine makers. In excess of the specification, sulfur can be detrimen tal to catalysts and can cause an

increase in HC+NOx emissions.

The ARB is committed to working with industry to de termine if the existing LPG fuel specifications are adequate to support more stringe nt emission standards. The ARB is executing a contract to analyze 150 LPG samples fro m various sites statewide and will determine if regulatory action is required either i n the form of more stringent LPG fuel quality standards or more stringent enforcement of existing standards. The ARB is also working with engine and emission control device man ufacturers, refiners, and LPG distributors to make advanced fuel filters, low ole fin LPG fuel, and fuel additives available to fleets, leading to reduced emissions a nd vehicle maintenance and improved fuel efficiency. In addition to efforts taken by t he ARB, it will be incumbent upon equipment users to obtain readily available clean m otor vehicle grade fuel.

6. Comment: Test fuel should be harmonized. Generally, Calif ornia gasoline is cleaner. So, CARB should approve federal certifica tion gasoline without any demonstration. (Nissan)

Agency Response: The ARB already allows manufacturers to use fuel ot her than

federal indolene as a test fuel. The manufacturer just has to inform the ARB of their choice. Regardless of whether the test fuel may be dirtier or cleaner, the ARB does not require additional testing, just disclosure for the purposes of certification.

D. Treatment of LSI engines with a Displacement of One Liter or Less

1. Comment : The U.S. EPA LSI regulations allow manufacturers of LSI engines with a displacement of one liter or less to certify those engines either as small spark-ignition engines (also referred to as small o ff-road engines or SORE under ARB) or LSI engines. The EMA supports retaining la nguage proposed in the 45-day public hearing notice that would allow harmo nization with the U.S. EPA provisions because there are a lot of manufacturers that produce engines that are greater than 25 horsepower but less than one li ter that are derived from small spark-ignition engines, and these manufacturers hav e special circumstances: distinct technology, application, cost, and market differences, and because of the

benefits associated with harmonization with U.S. EP A. ARB staff has done this34

in the proposed 45-day notice package. Additionall y, the proposal provides for

reduced exhaust emission levels if the manufacturer certifies to the standards for small spark-ignition engines (title 13, Chapter 9) (EMA)

Agency Response: EMA points out in this comment that the regulator y language for CCR, title 13, section 2430 in the 45-day notice wo uld have allowed manufacturers of engines with displacement of one liter or less an o pportunity to certify to either the LSI or the SORE regulations. In reviewing this languag e, ARB determined that a new regulation specifically intended for engines with a displacement of one liter or less is a better way to address the emissions from this categ ory of engines. A separate, new regulation that prescribes emission standards that are significantly lower than the 6.0 g/bhp-hr SORE standard would be more health-pro tective and would address reductions that may be possible from these small en gines that are very different from LSI engines in both their engineering and applicati on. For this reason at the hearing, the Board directed that the existing controls for t hese engines remain in place until a new assessment specifically addressing cost-effecti ve emission control technologies could be completed. See FSOR section II. Modificati ons to the Original Proposal, part A. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines for a further description of the final regulation.

2. Comment : The proposed evaporative emission requirements h armonize with U.S. EPA requirements for greater than one liter en gines; however they do not harmonize for engines of one liter or less since th ere are no U.S. EPA evaporative emission requirements for engines with a displacement of one liter or less. The proposal does allow for engines of one l iter or less to be certified to ARB SORE evaporative emission requirements per titl e 13, Chapter 15, but these provisions are scheduled to take effect in th e 2008 model year, providing only a little over a year. This is important becau se there has been no product development yet, and no product is available based on lead time. As the ARB

has not considered the cost or technical feasibilit y of compliance with evaporative emission requirements for LSI engines with a displa cement of one liter or less and the lead time is inadequate, EMA recommends tha t implementation of evaporative emission controls for engines with a di splacement of one liter or less be pushed back to the 2010 model year. (EMA)

Agency Response: As discussed in the agency response to Comment D. 1, the ARB removed LSI engines with a displacement of one lite r or less from consideration in this rulemaking. There are no longer any evaporative em ission requirements for LSI engines with a displacement of one liter or less; h owever, the Board will be pursuing a new rulemaking in the future to address these engin es. That rulemaking will consider cost and technical feasibility and will establish e ffective dates and a reasonable development lead time based on consultation with th e affected industry.

3. Comment : To minimize confusion between requirements of th e proposed regulatory language, EMA recommends: section 2433(b )(1) reflect the provisions in 1048.101(f) and 1048.615(a) and (d) of the follo wing two documents -

“California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Pro cedures for New 200735

through 2009 Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Igniti on Engines” and “California

Exhaust and Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines.” (EMA)

Agency Response: As discussed in the response to Comment D.1, the ARB removed LSI engines with a displacement of one liter or les s from consideration in this rulemaking. Part of that effort included modifying the provisions of section 1048.101(f) so that it only addresses LSI engines with a displa cement greater than one liter, and deleting the provisions of sections 1048.615(a) and (d) in the following two documents -

“California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Pro cedures for New 2007 through 2009 Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engin es” and “California Exhaust and

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines.”

4. Comment: I have concerns about engines less than one liter . I've noticed an increasing number of them coming in less than one l iter with higher and higher power ratings. And it needs further consideration as to what emission standards and test cycles should apply to those engines. (EC S)

Agency Response: As discussed in the response to Comment D.1, ARB staff will return to the Board with regulatory modifications f or LSI engines with a displacement of
one liter or less at a later date. At that time, t he Board will address all issues relative to these engines, including higher power rating engine s.

E. Modifications to the Airport Ground Support Equi pment Provisions

1. Comment: ATAA and its members believe that ARB is preempte d from regulating airport ground support equipment (GSE) i n the manner proposed by the LSI rule by the Federal Aviation Act, Airline D eregulation Act, and Clean Air Act, which reflect Congress’ judgment that GSE – wh ich is critical to the safe and efficient functioning of the National Airspace Syst em – can only be regulated in a

consistent and uniform manner at the federal level. (ATAA 1) (ATAA 2)

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the commenter’s view that the LSI regulations’ requirements for airport ground suppor t equipment are preempted by the

federal statutes mentioned. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a partnership between the state and federal governments in the ad dressing the health-based regulation of air pollution. While the CAA preempt s state regulation of emissions from aircraft and their engines, California notably is g ranted independent authority under CAA section 209(e)(2) to adopt and enforce standard s and other requirements for off-road vehicles and engines, such as LSI off-road vehicles and engines. Likewise, preemption is not plenary under either the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) or the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The scope of preemption und er the FAA relates to aircraft operations and airspace management, while the scope of preemption under the ADA relates to economic regulations that affect the rat es, routes or services of an air carrier.36

Since the LSI fleet requirements are health-based a nd do not affect these areas, they are not federally preempted.

2. Comment: Section 2775.2(e)(2)(C) unnecessarily provides th at compliance extensions (the so-called “off-ramp provision”) sha ll not be issued by the executive officer beyond January 1, 2013. Given th e necessity that such

extensions be available for GSE and the nature of t he showing required under section 2775.2(e)(2)(B), it is not necessary to pla ce an arbitrary date limit on the executive officer’s ability to grant compliance ext ensions. Instead, the EO should be empowered to grant such extensions at the outset . At a minimum, for determinations involving extensions beyond 2013, th e EO should be empowered to make the initial determination, subject to Board review, with the EO’s determination standing absent Board action to the c ontrary. While ATAA would prefer that the off-ramp provisions extend beyond 2 013, we trust the Board will approve such an extension should future circumstanc es support that. (ATAA 1) (ATAA 2)

Agency Response: As noted by the commenter, the compliance extensi ons specific to GSE are limited. However, the general regulatory la nguage for compliance extensions provides the Executive Officer enough flexibility t o make such adjustments if conditions warrant an extension beyond 2013.

3. Comment: Allow on-road equivalent GSE into fleet average c alculations. ATAA supports modifications to the rule clarifying that on-road equivalent vehicles can be included in fleet average calculations, and that their emission factors be: 1.1 g/bhp-hr in 2009, 0.8 g/bhp-hr in 2011, and 0.7 g/bhp-hr in 2013. (ATAA 1) (ATAA 2)

Agency Response: The Board agreed with this recommendation and has incorporated the cited emission factors for on-road equivalent a irport ground support equipment into the “Airport Ground Support Equipment” and “Fleet A verage Emission Level” definitions of the fleet average emission level requirements. See FSOR section II. Modifications Made to the Original Proposal, part E. Large Spark- Ignition (LSI) Engine Fleet Requirements for a description of the final regulat ions.

4. Comment: ATAA is pleased that ARB staff has recommended th e removal of the proposed 30 percent electrification mandate fro m the rule and urges the Board in the strongest possible terms to accept tha t recommendation. As staff pointed out, airlines in the aggregate already meet the proposed electrification target today. And record keeping requirements prov ide staff ample ability to monitor airline electrification levels going forwar d, rendering the mandate unnecessary. We strongly urge the Board to accept staff's recommendation and remove the provision from the LSI rule. (ATAA 1) (ATAA 2)

United is pleased to learn that ARB staff has recom mended the removal of the

electrification mandate from the rule. The electri fication mandate is37

unnecessary, as the environmental benefits from the rule are already captured by the fleet average emission requirements. In add ition, the mandate unfairly targets most, but not all, domestic air carriers an d creates a competitive advantage for foreign airlines that would not be im pacted by it. (UAL 2)

Agency Response: The Board agreed with the staff recommendation an d removed the mandatory electrification component for airport ground support equipment from the requirements.

5. Comment: United supports allowing less than 25hp electric equivalent equipment into the GSE fleet average. These “low h orsepower electric-powered units perform the same work as LSI engine-powered u nits with higher horsepower, but on a far more efficient basis. Uni ted requests that ARB confirm that electric carts and other less than 25 hp elect ric-powered equipment can be allowed to be incorporated into the GSE fleet for t he purpose of fleet average calculations. (UAL 1)

Agency Response: The “Fleet Average Emission Level” definition spe cifically states that electric-powered equipment of less than 19kW ( 25hp) “shall be allowed to be included in the fleet average calculation provided that the operator can demonstrate that the equipment performs the work equivalent of an LS I engine-powered piece of equipment.” If the operator can demonstrate that t heir electric carts and other electric-powered equipment of less than 25 hp perfo rm the work equivalent of an LSI engine-powered piece of equipment, then those piece s of equipment can be allowed to be incorporated into the GSE fleet for the purpose of fleet average calculations.

6. Comment: United strongly supports the fleet-average compli ance approach. As anyone who has sat in an airplane and watched the g round crew prepare for a flight probably knows, airport ground support equip ment are often atypical vehicles. Ground support equipment, or GSE, are hi ghly specialized, built for durability and operated to ensure safe and on-time commercial air travel. A fleet average approach provides GSE operators with the op erational flexibility to select the most appropriate and technologically fea sible control option for each unit. (UAL 2)

Agency Response: ARB worked closely with air carriers to understan d the unique environment and operating requirements associated w ith GSE, and to ensure that the fleet average approach is appropriate for GSE. We appreciate the support for the regulation.

F. Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRV)

1. Comment : The ARB should revise the applicability of the L SI rule to reflect that ATV engines and applications are not similar to tru e LSI engine applications. The certification of these products best fits within th e OHRV regulations. (L&W) (Polaris)38

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the comment and has considered th e classification of these engines at the Board's July 2006 hearing on Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. The final regulation clarif ies that engines used in all-terrain vehicles and applications are now subject to the Of f-Highway Recreational Vehicles regulations. See FSOR section II. Modifications Ma de to the Original Proposal, part A. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines for a descrip tion of the final regulation.

2. Comment: The LSI regulations should not apply to engines in vehicles subject to the U.S. EPA’s OHRV regulations (40 CFR, Part 10 51). It would be better if vehicles and engines covered by 40 CFR, Part 1051 w ere covered by ARB’s OHRV rules for certifying off-highway recreational vehicles and engines; i.e.,

ARB should harmonize their OHRV rules with the EPA rules to ensure that engines that are similar in design and function can be certified under the OHRV regulations. (L&W) (Polaris)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment F.1 above.

G. Modifications to Definitions

1. Comment : We request clarification of the term “processors ” and suggest that it include “all canneries, freezer plants, juice manuf acturers, and dryers” because the operations involve basic processing of fruits a nd vegetables analogous to the nut hullers, packinghouses, and cotton gins that ar e also included in the proposed rule as agricultural operations. (CLFP)

Agency Response: In response to this comment, ARB has clarified th e definition of “agricultural crop preparation services” and has ad ded clarifying definitions for “nut hullers and processors” and “dehydrators.” To refl ect ARB’s intent that the definition of “agricultural crop preparation services” follow the definition of “postharvest crop

activities” as defined in the United States Census Bureau North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), a cross reference to the NAICS definition for “Industry 115114 − Postharvert Crop Activities” has been adde d to the definition of “agricultural crop preparation services.”

Canneries, freezer plants, juice manufacturers, and dryers fall within a separate NAICS definition for Industry 311423 − Food Processing. These facilities are manufacturing facilities where, unlike in postharvest crop activi ties, the form of the agricultural crop is changed, typically through slicing, dicing, choppin g, flaking, juicing, or freeze-drying. The operations at canneries, freezer plants, and ju ice manufacturers are not analogous

to those intended for inclusion of ARB’s definition for “agricultural crop preparation

services.”

ARB’s has also added definitions of “nut hullers an d processors” and “dehydrators” that are consistent with the scope of the NAICS definiti on for “Industry 115114 − Postharvert Crop Activities.” The definition of “dehydrators” i ncludes both artificial and sun drying as39

within the scope of “agricultural crop preparation services” for those crops that falls within the NAICS definition for “Industry 115114 − Postharvert Crop Activities.”

For descriptions of the definitions, see FSOR secti on II. Modifications Made to the Original Proposal, part E. Large Spark-Ignition (LS I) Fleet Requirements.

2. Comment : Our concern with this rule is in the fleet defin ition. And we feel that as defined it would conceivably lump as one fleet t he entire Department of Defense in California and certainly by each branch of the Services. We understand what you're trying to do with this rule in terms of private businesses or warehouse stores that basically all do -- are co okie cutters of one another and all have very common management. But we'd ask you to consider something like the naval station in San Diego, which is reall y a city unto itself, with a daytime population of 50,000 people, with a span of activit ies from ship loading, ship maintenance, warehousing, even a major recycling fa cility.

We would like to see the fleet definition allow us to define the fleet as an individual military installation and not run the ri sk of having them defined as the entire military establishment in California. (USN 1) (USN 2)

Agency Response: The “Aggregated Operations” definition requires fle ets to be aggregated (fleet size determinations made) at the same government or corporate headquarters organizational level as purchasing dec isions are made. ARB believes that the definition provides the flexibility for the com menter to aggregate equipment at an

“installation” level.

3. Comment: We would also like to see the definition of tacti cal support equipment include the phrase “or its allies” after the phrase “U.S. military services (USN 1) (USN 2)

Agency Response: ARB has modified the definition of “military tact ical vehicles or equipment” as requested. See FSOR section II. Modi fications Made to the Original Proposal, part E. Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engine Fleet Requirements for a description

of the final modification.

H. Financial Impact on Businesses and Consumers

1. Comment: Along with the significant resources (manpower an d money) required to develop such an engine/emission system to meet t he ARB 2010 proposal, comes the financial impact on society. Manufacturer s developing engine/emission systems to meet this proposal would pass on the considerably high development expense directly to California cus tomers. From a California customer perspective, the combination of ARB’s prop osal for end user fleet averaging, along with this significant capital cost increase, could drive business out of the state, thereby impacting the economy and society as a whole. (TMHU 1)40

2. Comment: I think the state is trying to go too far, small companies can not afford to change update or modify their equipment f or emissions. I think you should stay out these small use areas and concentra te your efforts on the high

volume fuel users and maintain sufficient staff to do so, lay off remaining staff and save the tax payers the money. (Powell)

3. Comment: To certify an LSI engine, a manufacturer such as IMPCO must demonstrate 5,000 hours of engine, fuel system and catalyst durability. This is achieved by accumulating hours on the engine and pe riodically performing emissions tests to demonstrate compliance with the standards. Durability programs typically run 24 hours a day, 7 days a wee k, and cost in the area of half a million dollars per engine. Any time that there' s a change in the engine fuel system or catalyst, ARB generally requires that the manufacturer perform a new durability demonstration program. ARB has stated m any times that 2010 new engine standard can be met through minor calibratio n changes and minor catalyst changes at a small incremental cost per en gine. Assuming that the 0.6 g/bhp-hr standard can be met through the minor calibration and catalyst changes alone, under the current regulation IMPCO w ould still be required to perform four additional durability demonstration pr ograms, which would cost an additional $2 million with no real benefit to Calif ornians or to clean air. Assuming that a new generation technology must also be devel oped, the total cost could be $3 million.

This $2 to $3 million is purely for engines to be i mported into the State of

California as EPA does not intend to create more st ringent 49-state emission standards any time in the near future. As a result , ARB has, in effect, created a $3 million dollar barrier to entry into the Califor nia market. IMPCO is a California business headquartered in Santa Ana, California. Ca lifornia Code 11346.3 requires that ARB assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on California business. ARB’s ISOR states: “Engine ma nufacturers are located mostly outside of California.” And the Notice of P ublic Hearing states: “In accordance with Government Code section 11346.3, th e Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action will not affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California, the creation of new businesses or elimination of existing businesses within the St ate of California, or the expansion of businesses currently doing business wi thin the State of California.”

IMPCO will incur significant costs to meet ARB’s pr oposed transient HC+NOx standards. The statements above seriously misrepre sent and undermine the financial impact to IMPCO, a California company tha t will represent almost 50 percent of the total LSI forklift market in Califor nia. In addition, IMPCO is a public company; any additional cost incurred will directly impact the bottom line and

affect thousands of shareholders.41

I'd like to propose that ARB allow manufacturers to consolidate their durability programs to meet the 2010 0.6 g/bhp-hr standards. For example, in 2007, IMPCO performs four durability programs. To meet t he new standard in 2010, assuming that hardware is similar to that of 2007, but upgrades are made to the calibration and catalyst, as a result IMPCO propose s to perform a maximum of one durability program on the expected worst case e ngine to fulfill this durability demonstration requirement for these 2010 engines ra ther than performing four separate durability demonstration program. (IMPCO 2)

Agency Response: Manufacturers are already in the process of certify ing engines to

the new 2007 EPA standards under the transient test cycle. Some manufacturers have indicated that they will make the changes necessary to attain ARB’s 2010 standards – either calibration or engineering – now so that the y only have to go through the certification process once. The ARB estimates that the LSI regulations will increase the cost of new engines by less than $100 per engine an d that this cost would be passed along to the consumer.

The Board acknowledged IMPCO’s concern with perform ing expensive durability programs and directed that staff work with industry to build flexibility into the durability demonstrations, thereby reducing the cost of compli ance. ARB certification staff has already expressed agreement in concept with the pro posal by IMPCO that the number of durability programs be minimized in cases where only calibration or catalyst are changing. And contrary to IMPCO’s assertion, the cost of performing durability programs for 0.6 g/bhp-hr engines is not likely to be for just a one-state engine. Toyota has already indicated that their new 8 Series forkl ift, certified to the 2010 standard, will be made available nationwide. We expect other manu facturers will do the same. And we expect other states, if not the federal governme nt, may adopt our 2010 HC+NOx

standard.

I. Equipment Replacement using Incentive Funding

1. Comment : Please confirm that food processors with owned f leets of LSI forklifts will be eligible for Carl Moyer Program incentive f unding for off-road equipment retrofits. (CLFP)

Agency Response: Carl Moyer Incentive Program grant funds are avai lable for forklifts

to the extent that cost-effective emissions reducti ons from the retrofit of these forklifts are in excess of, or in advance of, emissions reduc tions attributable to the LSI regulation.

2. Comment: While we are not completely satisfied with this v ersion of the rule, we are choosing not to oppose this regulation today. However, we are going to take this opportunity to point out -- or make one commen t, and that's to strongly encourage this Board and the staff to go back and r evisit the one issue that has been left off the table, and that's replacements of this older equipment. We would strongly encourage the ARB to revisit Carl Mo yer, look at that and address42

the emissions from those engines and the opportunit y that we have to do together. (CCGGA)

Agency Response: It is not clear that this comment is specific to the regulation, but for the sake of thoroughness, ARB would like to respond . The ARB recognizes that many forklifts used in agricultural businesses are used fewer hours than those in other industries and are therefore older on average. Sin ce no retrofit kits were certified for pre-1990 forklifts, and since wholesale replacement of these older pieces of equipment is not economically feasible, the ARB developed an alternative set of requirements for forklifts used in agricultural crop preparation ser vices to reduce the economic burden on agricultural businesses. Specifically, rather than requiring the replacement of all uncontrolled forklifts, which could have entailed t he purchase of new equipment, the fleet requirement for agricultural crop preparation services addresses 1990 and newer

uncontrolled forklifts. While the ARB assumes that most pre-1990 forklifts would be retired before 2015, addressing the emissions from these older units is still important. The ARB does not have a specific incentive program to assist with replacement of these units, and the Carl Moyer Program precludes this ki nd of assistance; however, other entities, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Poll ution Control District, do have programs for replacing equipment when demonstrated to be cost-effective, and we encourage agricultural businesses to take advantage of these programs.

3. Comment: A lot of agricultural LSI engines will run at pea k periods of the year, peak periods that will correlate with poor air qual ity. And although they may not do a huge number of years to, quote, be cost effect ive under Moyer, I think if one took a look at their operational periods at peak ti mes of the year, you'd find out that further considering grants or incentives to re trofit those equipment would not only give you reductions at severe air quality peri ods, but it'd also really go a long way to protect the health of people working in the industry with that equipment. (ECS)

Agency Response: It is not clear that this comment is specific to th e regulation, but the ARB would like to address it anyway. Those pie ces of equipment not subject to the requirements of the regulation may be eligible for Carl Moyer Program grants or other

incentives. ARB works with air districts and indus try to provide funding for equipment in these applications providing that cost effective em ission reductions can be obtained as required by the incentive programs.

J. Miscellaneous Comments

1. Comment: CTA opposes in-use fleet requirements that are ba sed on an

assertion that normal fleet turnover would not brin g about sufficient emission improvements by the prescribed dates. ARB staff ha s not evaluated the impact on turnover of leased forklifts. The proportion of leased equipment used in California will have a significant impact on the av erage emission improvement that can be expected from normal equipment turnover . Forklift leases run five years while the ARB analysis assumed a seven-year f leet turnover.43

Different size fleets are not differentiated from e ach other regarding their relative age or proportion of leased equipment, but are assu med to have the same average age of equipment and turnover.

The ARB forklift inventory is not up to date, but i s projected from a 1990 baseline. If staff had used the four 5-year turnov er cycles by 2010 versus slightly less than three 7-year turnover cycles, the result would be a substantially different fleet emission profile in 2009.

Details of calculations that have been performed by ARB have not been made public or provided in sufficiently documented form to allow them to be analyzed and critiqued.

The decision by ARB management to not provide detai ls of the forklift analysis

raises concerns about the Board’s commitment to tra nsparency. In an age of essentially cost-less electronic publication, there is no reasonable justification for withholding any detail of staff analyses that is es sential to an outside review. That detail should include working copies of the ac tual spreadsheets that were

used to make calculations as well as documentation of assumptions used and the basis for those assumptions.

CTA requests that the Board delay its decision unti l a consideration of the impact of leasing on fleet turnover is conducted and all d etails of staff calculations are made public with sufficient time allowed for their analysis. (CTA)

Agency Response: Fleet turnover is the foundation upon which the f leet average emission level requirements were built. Based on t he most detailed studies of the forklift industry (for example, the CNG report refe renced in our ISOR (GRI, 1995, "Industrial Truck Market Analysis," Final Report (G RI-95/0422), Gas Research Institute, October 1995), our own statewide equipment inventor y, and information gleaned from equipment providers and users, seven years is the t ypical turnover rate for user fleets. That turnover rate is based upon small, medium, and large fleets comprised of a mix of rental, leased, and owned equipment. As would be e xpected, larger facilities have

shorter turnover rates and smaller facilities have longer turnover rates.

While some facility fleets may be comprised exclusi vely of leased equipment, most are comprised of a mix of rental, leased, and owned equ ipment. And often, the rental or owned equipment is former leased equipment. As suc h, leased pieces of equipment do not disappear after five years, but instead become used pieces of equipment in rental or secondary fleets and remain in the fleet for severa l more years.

The ARB disagrees with the comment that details of the calculations behind the fleet average emission levels were not made public. The California Trucking Association was represented at both the August 2004 and March 2 005 workshops for the LSI rulemaking. Development of the fleet average was d iscussed at both workshops. CTA never inquired about the seven-year turnover until April 2006 – within the 45-day public44

hearing notice comment period. In recognition of t he time constraints that their new consultant was under to review data supporting the fleet average emission level requirements, ARB staff dedicated several calls and meetings to educating the consultant on the development of the requirements. That included providing him with the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing the calc ulations and meeting with him to discuss the spreadsheet in detail. The spreadsheet was included in the ISOR as a reference (ARB, 2006a Criteria Pollutant Emission B enefit Spreadsheet). ARB staff previously discussed the spreadsheet with the LSI w orking group and committed to making it available upon request as we did with CTA

.

2. Comment: Format of certification documents should be harmo nized. The [power measurement] unit is not consistent with tha t of the U.S. EPA. While the U.S. EPA uses g/kW-hr, CARB uses g/bhp-hr. Emissio n standards are written in an engine label. So this inconsistency may cause c ustomer confusion. CARB should harmonize with the U.S. EPA. (Nissan)

Agency Response: All of the ARB’s certification documents follow sim ilar formatting, and modifying the LSI certification documents to mo re closely harmonize with U.S. EPA

certification documents would create difficulties f or ARB certification staff. However, the ARB has committed to the same unit of power (kilowa tt-hour) as the U.S. EPA. All

future executive orders will list emissions in unit s of g/kW-hr.

3. Comment: CARB should approve the alternative test procedur e written in 40 CFR 1065.10 without any demonstration, if U.S. E PA approves it. (Nissan)

Agency Response: The ARB works closely with the U.S. EPA on these pr ocedures and achieves common approvals when possible. At th e same time, situations may arise where the U.S. EPA determines something is appropri ate without giving full consideration for California's specific needs and r esponsibilities under the Clean Air Act. In those instances, it is most appropriate for the ARB to reserve the right to maintain its own test procedure, and consider alternatives as th ey are proposed, rather than giving blanket approval to any alternative approved by U.S . EPA.

4. Comment: The exhaust emission standards table in title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1) lists 20.8 g/kW-hr for CO as cor responding to the 2.7 g/kW-hr for HC+NOx in the 2007 through 2009 timeframe. The U.S. EPA standard during this same time frame lists 4.4 g/kW-hr CO as corres ponding to 2.7 g/kW-hr HC+NOx, and the maximum U.S. EPA standard for CO is 20.6 g/kW-hr. (Nissan)

Agency Response: The ARB corrected the exhaust emission standards ta ble in title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1) to reflect the U. S. EPA CO standard of 4.4 g/kW-hr. See FSOR section II. Modifications to the Original Proposal, part A. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines for a further description of the final regulation.

5. Comment: Title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1) does not contai n field test requirements. Nissan believes there is no field te st requirement. CARB should clarify this. (Nissan)45

Agency Response: The ARB modified title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1) to incorporate

the U.S. EPA alternative certification formula. Se e FSOR section II. Modifications to the Original Proposal, part A. Off-Road Large Spark-Ign ition Engines for a further description of the final regulation.

6. Comment: CARB’s optional lower emission standards and the U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky standards should be harmonized. If different, it will be very difficult for manufacturers to develop systems for both standards . (Nissan)

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with this comment. The intention of the ARB optional lower emission standards (OLES) is to get HC+NOx emissions reductions sooner than we would expect to under the U.S. EPA B lue Sky standards. Manufacturers choosing to certify to the OLES stand ard will be able to be certified to either the corresponding or less stringent Blue Sky standard and vice versa.

7. Comment: Title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(4) does not indica te whether design standard application is allowed. CARB should allo w manufacturer’s design standard application. (Nissan)

Agency Response: A design-based certification option has been added to title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(4) for manufacturers opting to use it. See FSOR section II. Modifications to the Original Proposal, part A. Off -Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines for a further description of the final regulation.

8. In title 13, CCR, section 2433, OBD requirements do not appear. Nissan thinks OBD requirements should be just the same as the U.S . EPA. CARB should clarify this. (Nissan)

Agency Response: The preamble to the adopted “California Exhaust Emi ssion Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines” and the adopted “Cali fornia Exhaust and Emission

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Late r Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines” specifies that sections of the code of federal regulations that have been included in their entirety are set forth with the section number and title. That is the case for 40 CFR Part 1048.110 regarding engi ne diagnostics. Thus, the ARB’s OBD requirements are the same as those of the U.S. EPA.

9. Comment: Toyota would be required to assign significant re sources not only in the development of a new fuel system, but possibly a new engine. As part of its commitment towards a “greener” environment, Toyota has invested, and

continues to invest an enormous amount of resources (manpower and money) in the development of alternative fuel systems to oper ate industrial lift trucks. (TMHU 1) Agency Response: The ARB appreciates Toyota’s commitment to a greene r fleet and

the Board has determined that the emission reductio ns attributable to this regulation are cost-effective. The ARB’s 2007 through 2009 standa rds harmonize with those of the U.S. EPA; therefore, there are little or no additio nal costs to Toyota for complying with46

that portion of the California regulation. The ARB 2010 standard is expected to be met through minor catalyst and calibration changes to t hose engines designed to meet the existing 2007 standard. The ARB estimates these co sts represent less than one percent of the overall purchase price of a typical forklift and expects that the costs will be passed along to the consumer.

10. Comment: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a major cause of global w arming. Fuel cell vehicles that use reformulated gasoline produce lar ge amounts of CO2. Fuel cells are likely to be used in future models of for klifts and other industrial equipment. I urge CARB to include restrictions on CO2 emissions in this rulemaking, and to implement CO2 restrictions on pa ssenger vehicles and trucks. (Murphy)

Agency Response: As noted in the Staff Report, the LSI rulemaking ha s been

undertaken to reduce emissions of HC+NOx from LSI e ngines. These LSI emissions contribute significantly to the formation of smog o r ground level ozone in California. The rulemaking fulfills commitments made in the 2003 St ate Implementation Plan to adopt two measures that address respectively the emission s of new and in-use LSI engines.

Although fuel cells using gasoline reformers may ha ve higher CO2 emissions, fuel cells, especially those used in off-road equipment, are ex pected to use hydrogen directly (without a reformer). And a number of methods of p roducing hydrogen have inherently

low CO2 emissions.

Finally, as authorized by Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the ARB will be addressing emissions of greenhouse gases, includ ing carbon dioxide, in future rulemakings.

11. Comment: CLFP urges the ARB to work with the agricultural industry to identify

the methods that will be used to establish baseline inventory and compliance. (CLFP)

Agency Response: The ARB will work with all affected businesses and industries to assist with implementation.

12. Comment: MECA supports ARB’s proposal to include verified retrofit systems as an option for fleet users to comply with propose d fleet emission requirements for off-road LSI engines. Retrofit systems based on closed-loop control with three-way catalysts have already proven to be a rob ust solution for reducing emissions from uncontrolled, in-use LSI engines. As detailed in the March 3, 2006 staff report, one manufacturer has al ready verified a retrofit system for a range of uncontrolled, off-road LSI en gines. This verified retrofit system brings uncontrolled, 12 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx equi pment down to 1.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx emission levels, an emissions l evel well below the 2004 3.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx certification requirements for new equipment. MECA fully expects additional manufacturers to verify cost-eff ective, durable retrofit options47

for these LSI applications using the available inte rim and proposed final verification protocols. ARB’s proposed verificatio n protocols provides end-users and ARB with needed assurances that retrofit option s will deliver real emission reductions over the required warranty period. MECA would ask ARB to ensure that adequate resources are available to manage ARB ’s retrofit verification program to minimize delays in approving valid retro fit verification applications. (MECA 1)

Agency Response: The ARB has committed staff to assist retrofit emis sion control system manufacturers in validating their control sy stems.

13. Comment: Staff should provide annual implementation status reports to the Board with recommendations to further strengthen ne w and in-use emission requirements where feasible (CAPCOA)

Agency Response: The regulatory standards for LSI engines include op tional lower-emission standards that are numerically lower than the 2007 and 2010 mandatory standards. As engines are certified to these optio nal standards, ARB staff will have an opportunity to reassess the mandatory standards. S imilarly, as retrofit emission control systems are verified, ARB staff will have an opport unity to reassess in-use emission and retrofit requirements.

14. Comment: In-use proposal won’t ultimately achieve the emis sions reductions that the state needs. The agricultural portion per manently exempts pre-1990 equipment from the regulation with a loss of 1.5 to ns per day in air quality benefits. (ED)

Agency Response: The Board determined that the emission reductions a ttributable to the LSI regulation were the maximum achievable in c onsideration of technical and economic feasibility. In general, agricultural bus inesses have older forklifts than other

businesses. Since there are no retrofit emission c ontrol systems available for these older forklifts, replacement would have been the on ly option. But the Board determined that it was not economically feasible for agricultu ral businesses to replace forklifts because the equipment is only used seasonally and d oes not accrue hours as rapidly, and because agricultural businesses are price taker s and cannot easily pass along the cost of new equipment.

15. Comment: Special Treatment for Small Volume Engines. Harm onization is a good concept to concentrate manufacturers’ developm ent resources on environmentally friendly equipment. But by this st andard, harmonization ends in the 2009 model year. So, manufacturers will need m easures to recover their resources. One of them, Nissan thinks, is special treatment for an engine family with small volume sales. In response to customers’ demand, manufacturers sometimes add an engine family with very small volu me. In that case, it is very

difficult for manufacturers to recover their develo pment cost by equipment48

price-up. CARB should consider special treatment f or an engine family with small volume sales. (Nissan)

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with this comment and believes that t he commenter's proposal would give manufacturers an in centive to place engines in smaller compartmentalized engine families. Special treatment for compartmentalized engine families would endanger emission reductions from LSI engines as a category. The ARB already provides flexibility to engine manu facturers through other means such as limits on production line testing or assigned de terioration factors that reduce the

burden on manufacturers.

16. Comment: Exactly one liter engines are not addressed (EMA)

Agency Response: ARB has modified the table contained in title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1)(A) to reflect that exactly one l iter engines are excluded from the provisions of the LSI regulation for the reasons di scussed in the agency response to

Comment D.1. See FSOR section II. Modifications Ma de to the Original Proposal, part A. Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines for a description of the final modification.

V. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS TO THE FIRST 15-DAY NOTICE O F MODIFIED

TEXT AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The Board received five written comments during the First 15-Day Notice comment period that began on December 1, 2006 and ended on January 12, 2007 (the First 15-Day Notice comment period was extended to provid e commenters additional time to respond). A list of commenters is set forth below, identifying the date and form of all comments that were timely submitted. Following the list is a summary of each objection or recommendation made regarding the proposed actio n, together with an explanation of how the proposed action has been changed to acco mmodate the objection or recommendation or the reasons for making no change. The comments have been grouped by topic whenever possible. Comments not i nvolving objections or recommendations specifically directed towards the r ulemaking or to the procedures followed by the ARB in this rulemaking are not summ arized below. Additionally, any

other referenced documents are not summarized below

.49

Comment Received during the First 15-day Comment Pe riod

Abbreviation Reference

Number Commenter

CLFP CLFP Rob Neenan California League of Food Processors Written testimony: December 5, 2006

EMA EMA 1 Roger Gault Engine Manufacturers Association Written testimony: December 18, 2006

IMPCO IMPCO Karen Hay IMPCO Technologies Written testimony: January 12, 2007

ITA ITA Gary Cross

Industrial Truck Association Written testimony: January 11, 2007

Nissan Nissan Harada Hidemi Nissan Motor Company, LTD Written testimony: January 10, 2007

A. Agricultural Crop Preparation Service Definition

1. Comment: ARB, in using NAICS code 115114 to determine whic h types of businesses will be eligible for the agricultural al ternative compliance option, has drawn an arbitrary distinction as to what types of firms will qualify for the agricultural compliance provisions. CLFP urges the board not to adopt the NAICS usage because it draws an entirely unfair and inconsistent administrative distinction. (CLFP)

2. Comment: We asked ARB to clarify the status of food proces sors as “agricultural operations” and contended that the de finition of the term “processor” should include fruit and vegetable canners, freezer plants, dehydrators, dryers, and juice operations. (CLFP)

Agency Response: See the Agency Response to Comment G.1, in FSOR Par t IV. Summary of Comments to the Original Proposal (45-Da y Notice) and Agency Responses.

3. Comment: Fruit and vegetable processors are highly seasonal operations with a

number of older forklifts that cannot be retrofitte d to meet emission standards. Food processors, like most agricultural firms, are largely price-takers and operate on relatively small financial margins. Therefore, there is no appreciable difference between the types of agricultural operat ions that will be included in the special compliance provisions, and some of the type s that will be excluded.50

Instead, ARB should develop a new proposal that wil l include fruit and vegetable canning and freezing operations. (CLFP)

Agency Response: See the Agency Response to Comment G.1, in FSOR Par t IV. Summary of Comments to the Original Proposal (45-Da y Notice) and Agency Responses.

4. Comment: It is unclear why CARB doesn’t simply define “Agr icultural Crop Preparation Services” as activities that fall withi n the scope of NAICS 115114 plus the activity of artificially drying and dehydr ating fruits and vegetables, since it appears that the result would be the same. The att empt to clarify matters by excluding certain activities actually confuses matt ers by creating an implication that similar activities that are not specifically e xcluded are intended to be

included. It seems that CARB could accomplish its entire purp ose simply by defining “Agricultural Crop Preparation Services” a s those activities that fall within the scope of NAICS 115114 plus the activity of arti ficially drying and dehydrating fruits and vegetables, eliminating the need to defi ne “nut hullers and processors,” and “dehydrators.” (ITA)

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the assertion that the results w ould be the same. “Artificially drying and dehydrating” is a s uperset of activities of which our definition only allows those activities stipulated under the “dehydrating” definition. See also the responses to Comments 1 to 3 above.

5. Comment: Perhaps more significant is the issue of how to h andle businesses that are engaged in both “Agricultural Crop Prepara tion Services” as defined and

other activities that fall outside the definition. For example, if a business is engaged in shelling nuts as well as roasting nuts a nd uses the same LSI equipment in both activities, it is unclear whether it will be considered to be engaged in “Agricultural Crop Preparation Services. ” CARB should address this issue, perhaps through a simple “primary activity” test. (ITA)

Agency Response: The exemption for equipment used in agricultural cr op preparation

services is intended to be narrow and limited. The equipment that is engaged in uses outside the scope of the exemption is not intended to qualify for the exemption.

B. Treatment of LSI engines with a Displacement of One Liter or Less

1. Comment: LSI engines of one liter or less displacement are most appropriately regulated through the Small Spark Ignition Exhaust and Evaporative emission requirements in title 13, Chapter 9 of the Californ ia Code of Regulations. ARB staff appears to grasp the special circumstance of this narrow engine segment and the need to exclude it from the LSI rule, but h as failed to properly do so. The modifications proposed in the December 1, 2006 modi fications specifically preclude engine manufacturers from considering thes e engines as small spark ignition engines for purposes of certification and compliance. This is not in51

accordance with the direction approved by the Board in Resolution 06-11, which states that the LSI rule must: (i) harmonize with f ederal programs; (ii) provide simplified certification procedures through alignme nt with U.S. EPA’s program; and (iii) have no adverse impact on the environment . (EMA)

2. Comment: The staff proposal requires these engines to be c ertified as LSI engines, but exempts them from the LSI evaporative emission standards. As such, the LSI rule does not harmonize with the fede ral program and does not provide for simplified certification procedures thr ough alignment with the federal program. Worse, these engines are subject to a les s stringent LSI standard instead of the SORE standard. (EMA)

3. Comment: It appears that CARB has reversed its written pos ition, as set forth in the 45-day notice, concerning the treatment of engi nes 1 liter or less. The 45-day notice stated as follows: Small engines. Eng ines with total displacement at or below 1000 cc may comply with the requirement s of Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, Article 1, Small Of f-Road Engines and Chapter 15, Article 1, Evaporative Emission Requirements fo r Off-Road Equipment instead of complying with the requirements of this part, as described in §1048.615. The new proposal says that LSI engines one liter or less must comply with the LSI regulations. This substantive change would not appear to be appropriate for a 15-day notice. The fact that CAR B proposes in the 15-day notice that these engines meet separate higher emis sions standards than larger engines and that they not be required to meet the e vaporative emissions

standards does not alter the fact that this is a si gnificant change in the regulatory scheme to which the engines are subject. The propo sal destroys the alignment with EPA standards for these engines, imposes diffe rent certification and labeling requirements, and has potentially negative implicat ions for California’s control of exhaust and evaporative emissions. (ITA)

Agency Response: As mentioned in the Agency Response to Comment D.1 to the Original Proposal, the ARB’s initial efforts in thi s rulemaking were directed at engines with a displacement of greater than one liter. The Board subsequently evaluated two options regarding the treatment of LSI engines with a displacement of one liter or less.

The first was to allow manufacturers to continue to certify to the existing LSI standard of 9.0 g/bhp-hr – in the near term – until the ARB cou ld complete its assessment of the feasibility of new emission control technologies fo r these engines and, if appropriate,

recommend new emission standards to the Board. The second was to modify the LSI regulation to allow manufacturers to indefinitely c ertify these engines to a SORE standard that is three times greater than the exist ing LSI engine standard.

The ARB believes it is more appropriate to maintain the original agency direction and follow up at a later date with a rule that specific ally assesses the best available cost-effective emission control technology for use on these small engines because:52

• the Board’s original focus was on engines with a d isplacement of greater than one liter;

• the first of the two options described above for o btaining emissions reductions from LSI engines with a displacement of one liter o r less has a potential for greater emission reductions over the long term, and

• it would be difficult to adopt a separate more str ingent regulation for these small engines if the Board had already accepted modificat ions to the LSI regulation allowing manufacturers to choose to certify engines to the SORE standard.

The ARB has already begun the process of identifyin g this category of engines as an emission reduction measure in the next State Implem entation Plan or SIP, a document demonstrating to the U.S. EPA the Board’s plan for attaining federal ambient air quality standards. For this reason, the ARB modified the r egulatory language to remove the option allowing manufacturers of LSI engines with a displacement of one liter or less to choose to comply with either the requirements of th e LSI regulation or those of the SORE regulation.

EMA points out that the regulatory language propose d in 45-day public hearing notice would have allowed manufacturers an opportunity to certify to the SORE standard of 6.0 g/bhp-hr instead of the existing LSI standard o f 9.0 g/bhp-hr. As mentioned previously, the ARB believes that a new regulation developed specifically for LSI engines with a displacement of one liter or less wi ll include emission standards that are significantly lower than the 6.0 g/bhp-hr SORE stan dard (and more closely aligned to the LSI standards), and will be more health-protect ive, providing a greater benefit to the breathers of the State over the long term.

In summary, the ARB believes that allowing manufact urers to certify an LSI engine with a displacement of one liter or less to the SORE sta ndard as the commenter suggests provides manufacturers a convenient way to circumve nt the more stringent existing standards promulgated for LSI engines with a displa cement greater than one liter and the expected more stringent standards for LSI engin es with a displacement of one liter

or less.

C. New Engine Standards

1. Comment: The new definition of Family Emission Level is co nfusing. In other nonroad regulations, it is used for certification a veraging programs, but this regulation does not have such a program. It appear s that the use of FEL in this regulation relates only to the alternative emission s standards represented by the formula, but the concept of FEL is not needed for t hat purpose as shown by the fact that EPA uses the same formula without using t he concept of FEL. If CARB intended consistency with EPA, then the FEL concept should be removed. Otherwise, the regulation should be amended. (ITA)

Agency Response: The ARB does not agree that the use of the establis hed term FEL, consistent in its use, would be confusing to any si gnificant degree. On the contrary, it53

will make certification and compliance consistent w ith other ARB engine certification programs and ensure easier tracking of manufacturer s' obligations for both staff and industry. In the context of this regulation, the t erm FEL has the same meaning as the

manufacturer chosen standard.

2. Comment: The provision for optional standards is out of pl ace, appearing between two alternatives for mandatory compliance, and should follow the alternative certification formula. (ITA)

Agency Response: To better delineate between mandatory and optional standards, section 2433(b) has been reorganized. Subparagraph (b)(1)(A) still contains the required exhaust emission standards, but (b)(1)(B) now contains the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) alternat ive certification formula. The optional exhaust emission standards formerly contai ned in (b)(1)(B) are now in subparagraph (b)(2). See FSOR, Part III. Subsequen t Modifications (Second 15-Day Notice) section A, for further discussion of the re gulation’s final organization.

3. Comment: All of the adopted EPA standards, as for field te sting and severe-duty engines, should be set forth in section 2433. They appear in the “Proposed California Exhaust and Evaporative Emissi on Standards and Test Procedures for 2007 Through 2009 Off-Road Large Spa rk-Ignition Engines

Part 1: 2007-2009 Emission Standards” and into the “Proposed California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engine s,” but they do not appear in §2433. Without them, §2433 is incomplete, misle ading, and of no particular use. (ITA)

Agency Response: ARB concurs that field testing and severe-duty engi ne standards should be included in Section 2433. Subparagraph ( b)(1)(c) has been added containing a reference to the field testing standards containe d in 40 CFR Section 1048.101(c), and note (5) of the exhaust emission standards table in subparagraph (b)(1)(a), has been added containing a reference to the HC+NOx and CO s tandards for model year 2007 and newer severe-duty engines. See FSOR, Part III. Subsequent Modifications (Second 15-Day Notice) section A, for further discu ssion of the regulation’s final organization.

4. Comment: There are various unexplained, substantive change s to the optional

CO standards attributed to the correction of errors . CARB’s optional standards are not intended to be the same as EPA’s Blue Sky s tandards, so the “correction,” cannot be attributed to harmonization . Instead, these appear to be unexplained substantive changes that make the optio nal CO standards far more stringent, going from 15.5 g/hp-hr to 4.8 and 8.3 g /hp-hr, respectively, for HC+NOx levels of 1.5 and 1.0 g//hp-hr. Changes of this sort are not candidates for a 15-day notice. (ITA)54

Agency Response: The intent of ARB’s optional lower-emission standar ds (OLES) is

to achieve HC+NOx reductions in excess of those att ributable to the U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky standards by allowing the CO emission level to float. However, the original structure of the optional lower-emission standards inadvertently made them less stringent than those of the U.S. EPA in certain cas es. The ARB modified the CO standards because it is not appropriate for ARB OLE S engines to have emissions that exceed the emissions level of engines certified und er the U.S. EPA’s alternative

certification formula.

Government Code section 11346.8(c) permits ARB to m ake changes to the originally proposed regulatory action if the change is signifi cantly related and the text of the change is made available to the public for at least 15 days. In ARB’s original proposal, the optional certification standards were set forth in the incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standard and Test Procedur es for New 2010 and Later OffRoad Large Spark-Ignition Engines,” Subpart B secti on 1048.140. In the ARB’s first notice of modifications to the original proposal, t he ARB added these optional standards to the incorporated “California Exhaust and Evapora tive Emission Standard and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines,” Subpart B section 1048.140. The table of the “Opti onal Exhaust Emission Standards” in section 2433(b) was also corrected to parallel the provisions in the incorporated

sections 1048.140.

5. Comment: CARB has apparently failed to include correspondi ng field testing standards for its optional standards. This may be an oversight, since EPA’s and CARB’s mandatory standards and EPA’s optional stand ards all have corresponding field test standards, which are 40-50 percent higher than the certification standards. The issue is substantive, since having to meet the same standard in the field as in certification may well dissuade anyone from certifying to the optional standards, which would completely d efeat their purpose. (ITA)

6. Comment: EPA Tier 2 and Blue Sky emission standards allow for more lenient

in-use field-test emission standards to reflect the observed variation in emissions from in-field testing due to varying engine operati on, and the projected effects of ambient conditions on different technologies. ARB does not specify more lenient field-test standards in either of the following: - MY10+ Tier 2 Standards (1048.101) or - MY07+ Optional Lower-Emission Engin es (1048.140). Until data is collected which indicates to the contrary, ARB s hould include separate, more

lenient field-test emission standards consistent wi th those allowed by EPA. (IMPCO)

Agency Response: ARB has included field testing standards for its op tional standards. They appear in Section 2433 subparagrap h (b)(2)(B) and are consistent with U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky standards. The U.S. EPA f ield testing standards contained in 40 CFR, Part 1048.101(c) are already incorporated b y reference into the ARB’s 2007 and 2010 engine standards.55

7. Comment: In section 2433(b)(4)(D), the statement, “Design- based certification may be used instead of generating new emission data ” should be followed by a reference to 40 CFR 1048.105 and 40 CFR 1048.245, w hich explain what the design requirements are. (ITA)

Agency Response: References to 40 CFR Sections 1048.105 and 1048.245 have been added for manufacturers opting to use design-b ased certification for the evaporative emission standards.

8. Comment: The 15-day notice proposes no further modificatio n to this section, which would leave in place the modification announc ed in the 45-day notice. That modification changes §2434(c)(5)(G) by apparen tly requiring that the emission level to which the engine is certified be placed on the label. There are at least two problems with this: 1. The first examp le given in the proposed modification applies to 2002 engines, which is conf using, since all new 2002 engines were sold long ago and there was no previou s requirement to include the emission level on such engines; and 2. CARB sa ys that it is adopting 40 CFR 1048.135, which has not been consistently in terpreted to require putting the numeric certification level on the label. (ITA)

Agency Response: The ARB has added a provision to 40 CFR Part 1048 .135 stating that the State’s labeling requirements (title 13, C CR, section 2434) also apply. And section 2434(c)(5)(G) as presented in the 45-day pu blic hearing notice, clearly specifies

that the HC+NOx and CO emission standard to which t he engine is certified must be

contained in the emission label. See FSOR section III. Subsequent Modifications, part E. incorporated “California Exhaust and Evapor ative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” and incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Em ission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Large Sp ark-Ignition Engines for a description of the final regulation.

9. Comment: CARB’s supplemental notice was intended to correc t the omission of EPA’s separate standards for severe-duty engines. However, the correction is also in error because it inserts the wrong standard s for HC+NOx. The EPA language is as follows: “For severe-duty engines, t he Tier 2 HC+NOX standard is 2.7 g/kW-hr and the Tier 2 CO standard is 130.0 g/k W-hr.” The language that CARB proposes to add is as follows: “For severe-dut y engines, the HC+NOx standard is 0.8 g/kW-hr and the CO standard is 130. 0 g/kW-hr.” ITA assumes this was also inadvertent. (ITA)

10. Comment: ARB issued a December 18, 2006 Errata notice spec ifying the following HC+NOx emission standard for MY07-09 seve re-duty engines: “For severe-duty engines, the HC+NOx standard is 0.8 g/kW-hr and the CO standard is 130.0 g/kW-hr...” The MY07-09 Tier 2 HC+NOx emiss ion standard is

2.7 g/kW-hr. Therefore, the severe-duty engine HC+NOx s tandard specified in the Errata notice is far more stringent than the MY 07-09 Tier 2 standard. This56

0.8 g/kW-hr value should be revised to read 2.7 g/k W-hr, consistent with EPA and ARB MY07-09 Tier 2 exhaust emission standards, and EPA MY07+ severe-duty engine standards. (IMPCO)

Agency Response: The language providing the HC+NOx and CO standards for model year 2007 through 2009 and 2010 and later severe-du ty engines has been modified to

reflect the correct federal HC+NOx standard for the se engines.

11. Comment: The difference between the MY07-09 Tier 2 (1048.1 01) and OLES (1048.140) emission standards is not clear. Manufa cturers are allowed to certify to the Tier 2 emission standards using one of two m ethods: a) Certify to 2.7 g/kW-hr HC+NOx and 4.4 g/kW-hr CO, or b) Use th e formula (HC+NOX) × CO 0.784 ≤ 8.57, as long as HC+NOx does not exceed 2.7 g/kW-h r and CO does not exceed 20.6 g/kW-hr. The first thr ee OLES HC+NOx and corresponding CO values are identical to those foun d using the formula (HC+NOX) × CO 0.784 ≤ 8.57 under the Tier 2 standards. Further clarific ation of the difference between engines certified under the Tier 2 emission standards (1048.101) and the OLES emission standards (1048.14 0) is appreciated. (IMPCO)

Agency Response: The ARB promulgated Manufacturer Advisory Correspon dence 2005-01 in March 2005, establishing interim volunta ry OLES. The MAC allowed equipment manufacturers to certify equipment to lev els below the existing ARB and

U.S. EPA Tier 1 standard so that it would be availa ble to equipment operators working to attain the 2009 fleet average emission level req uirements. Those same MAC standards minus the 2.7 g/kW-hr standard beginning in 2007 became the OLES. The first three OLES levels (2.0, 1.3, and 0.8 g/kW-hr HC+NOx) are identical to levels that manufacturers can certify to under the U.S. EPA’s a lternative certification formula in 40 CFR Part 1048.101(a)(3). The field testing stan dards for the ARB’s OLES engines align with the field testing standards for the U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky standard engines (40 CFR Part 1048.140) and are therefore more strin gent than those for the U.S. EPA’S Tier 2 standard. As such, a manufacturer might cho ose to certify to a low HC+NOx

standard under the U.S. EPA Tier 2 standard to avoi d the more stringent field testing standards associated with either the Blue Sky or OL ES field testing standards. While concern about the more stringent field testing stan dards may preclude some manufacturers from certifying either OLES or Blue S ky engines, it is ARB’s hope that manufacturers will certify OLES engines to the firs t three OLES levels in the near term and to the three remaining OLES levels (0.5, 0.3, a nd 0.1 g/kW-hr) in the longer term as they become more comfortable controlling their engi nes to levels below the minimum HC+NOx level that a manufacturer can certify to und er the U.S. EPA’s alternative

certification formula.

12. Comment: The proposed language, in setting forth the requi rements for optional low emission standard engines (“OLES”) in the 2007- 2009 time frame, states, “These engines . . . must meet all the requirements in this part that apply to 2010 model year engines . . .” This appears to be an err or, where the reference should57

have been “all the requirements in this part that a pply to 2007-2009 model year engines.” (ITA)

13. Comment: ARB has proposed in 1048.140 that “...”OLES” engine s must meet all the requirements in this part that apply to 201 0 model year engines...” 2010 model year engines are subject to substantially dif ferent requirements as compared to those for MY07-09 engines. IMPCO does n ot believe that ARB’s

intent was to make it more difficult for a manufact urer to certify a MY07-09 engine to a lower emission standard, by requiring t hat all of the MY10 requirements are met. (IMPCO)

Agency Response: The final regulation specifies that the requirement s being applied to optional lower-emission standard (OLES) engines are those for model year 2007 through 2009 engines and not model year 2010 engine s. The 2010 reference was carried over in error from the corresponding exhaus t emission standards table in the incorporated by reference “California Exhaust and E vaporative Emission Standards and

Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Lar ge Spark-ignition Engines.”

14. Comment: The Summary of Proposed Modifications says that s ection 1048.401 is related to production line testing. However, th e EPA provision that CARB is proposing to adopt deals with “in-use engines” and “engines that have gone into service,” which are completely distinct from produc tion line testing. CARB therefore needs to explain its understanding of the purpose of this provision. (ITA)

Agency Response: The explanation in the First 15-day Notice attempts to explain a mistake that is being corrected. The result of the modification is that the ARB has incorporated the federal test procedure so that the re is no unique ARB provision. The ARB provision in the final regulation is identical to U.S. EPA’s provision.

D. Airport Ground Support Equipment

1. Comment: The definition of “Airport Ground Support Equipme nt” is based on the 24 categories in the South Coast Ground Support Equipment Memorandum of Understanding (“GSE MOU”). One of those categor ies is “forklifts.” Presumably, however, CARB does not intend to consid er forklifts as Airport GSE for purposes of this regulation. Otherwise, a flee t comprised only of forklifts could literally meet the definition of a “non-forkl ift fleet” if the forklifts are characterized as GSE. In addition, the definition includes equipment designed for on-road use that lacks a California license pla te. Taken literally, this could include an on-road truck, such as a fuel truck, cat ering truck or service truck, which bears a license plate from another state. (I n this connection, it may be relevant that the definition of “LSI Engines” does not include the concept of non-road use.) Thus, while the Summary of Proposed Modifications states that the purpose is to clarify the inclusion of “vehicle s designed for on-road use, but dedicated to GSE operations and not licensed for on -road use,” the regulatory language does not accomplish this purpose. (ITA)58

Agency Response: The definition for airport GSE is relevant for on ly the provisions of the regulation that are unique to GSE. In the fina l regulation, the sole unique provision is in section 2775.2(e)(2). In all other respects, GSE is treated the same as other mixed

fleets. The GSE definition now clarifies that cate gories of GSE designed for on-road use, but dedicated to GSE operations and not licens ed for on-road use may be included in the GSE fleet average calculations. See FSOR Pa rt III. Subsequent Modifications (Second 15-Day Notice), section D. for a descriptio n of the modification.

2. Comment: CARB’s Summary of Proposed Modifications does not address the significant addition of default emission levels for on-road equivalent ground support equipment and whether or not these levels a re to be used even if the engine in the piece of equipment has been certified to an emission level or has

an absolute verified emission level which is lower than the default level. (ITA)

Agency Response: The ARB developed the default emission levels for o n-road equivalent ground support equipment in consultation with the air carrier industry. The 2009, 2011, and 2013 levels represent the expected on-road equivalent fleet average for those compliance dates based upon the GSE turno ver rate for on-road vehicles and modeling runs using the ARB’s EMFAC2002 emissions m odel. The Board approved regulatory text incorporating these emission levels as part of the package of 15-day modifications made available at the May 25, 2006 Bo ard hearing. Commenting on these provisions, the Air Transport Association of America was in support. See Comment 3, FSOR section IV. Summary of Comments to the Original Proposal (45-Day Notice) and Agency Responses, Part E. The on-road equivalent definition was further

modified to ensure that a vehicle included within t he fleet average is not licensed for on-road use in any state. See FSOR Part III. Subse quent Modifications (Second 15-Day Notice), section E. for a description of the final regulation.

E. Fleet Average Emission Level Requirements

1. Comment: The explanation in the Summary of Proposed Modifi cations does not match the proposed change, making effective comment impossible. The proposed change permits fleet operators to exclude uncontrolled 2003 and 2004 model year rental equipment rented for less than on e year until 2010. However, the explanation says that the new language would “e xempt uncontrolled 2004 rental equipment from the operator fleet average ca lculations for an additional year and equipment leased prior to May 25, 2006.” (ITA)

Agency Response : A complete explanation for the changes was inclu ded in the Summary of Proposed Modifications. Since the chang es had a impact on both equipment dealers and agricultural crop preparation services, the explanation for the changes was contained in both (a)(2) and (c)(3).

2. Comment: Moreover, the explanation says that the purpose o f the change is to “alleviate the economic burden on dealers” in light of the fact that “model year59

2004 equipment contained in many instances uncontro lled engines produced in 2003.” Given this purpose, the question arises why the relief is limited to equipment leased for less than one year or, for tha t matter, why the relief is limited to rented or leased equipment. (ITA)

Agency Response : The ARB worked with the affected industry to est ablish provisions to address this select group of engines. The chang es made were sufficient to alleviate the impact on dealers and agriculture while remaini ng sufficiently narrow to prevent unintended negative impacts to air quality.

3. Comment: Section 2775.1(c)(3) distinguishes between leased forklifts and rental forklifts, imposing different conditions for excluding them from the fleet calculations for agricultural crop preparation serv ices depending on whether they are leased or rented, but the proposal never explai ns the difference. Although the intended distinction may be that “rental” refer s to contracts that are for less than one year while “lease” refers to contracts for one year or longer, no definitions are given and the distinction is not fo llowed in other parts of the proposal. (ITA)

Agency Response : The ARB agrees with the comment and added defini tions for rental and lease as applied to forklifts used in ag ricultural crop preparation services in title 13, CCR, section 2775.1(c)(3) to clarify inte nt.

4. Comment: Another problem making the treatment of forklifts used in agricultural crop preparation services incomprehensible arises f rom the contradiction between the introductory portion of §2775.1(c) and the subparts under it. The introductory part, or scope, is limited to “owned u ncontrolled” forklift engines. However, (c)(3)(A) and (B) deal, respectively, with leased and rented forklifts, not

“owned” forklifts. Both also deal with forklifts t hat meet a 4 g/kW-hr standard, not “uncontrolled” forklifts (except for the last sente nce of (B)). (ITA)

Agency Response : The ARB agrees that clarification was needed. T o address this issue, the word “owned” was removed from section (c ) and placed into sections (c)(1) and (c)(2) to clarify that section (c) provides req uirements not only for owned forklifts, but requirements for rental and leased forklifts as well.

5. Comment: The provisions of §2775.1(f) complicate matters f urther. This subsection exempts operators of forklift fleets use d in agricultural crop preparation services from the provisions of §2775.1 (c) if the forklift fleet meets a 4 g/kW-hr fleet average emission level--thus it pro vides an alternative compliance option to §2775.1(c). In fact, it might be charact erized as an alternative to an alternative, since §2775.1(c) is itself an alternat ive or exception to §2775.1(a), which sets forth the basic fleet average requiremen ts. However, as noted, §2775.1(c) is limited to owned

, uncontrolled

forklifts. Thus, it appears that there is no exception or alternative compliance option fo r operators of forklift fleets used in agricultural crop preparation services inso far as those fleets consist of60

controlled

forklifts. This would suggest that operators of f orklift fleets used in agricultural crop preparation services must still c omply with §2775.1(a), which sets forth the table of Fleet Average Emission Leve l Standards, as to their owned, controlled fleets. It seems unlikely that t his was CARB’s intention and more likely that CARB instead intended a completely separate program for forklift fleets used in agricultural crop preparation servic es, whether the forklifts are owned, rented, leased, controlled or uncontrolled. Assuming this is the case, the proposal should be reorganized to put those forklif ts into a stand-alone section, because the current approach is not comprehensible. (ITA)

Agency Response: The ARB believes that the existing language is clea r in its intent. The regulation is applicable to all forklifts used in agricultural crop preparation services. However, for those already controlled, there are no additional requirements.

6. Comment: Subsections 2775.2(a) and (b) apply to “fleet ope rators subject to the requirements in §2775.1(a).” The Summary of Propos ed Modifications explains that this is limiting language intended to limit th e application of §2775.2(a) and (b) to medium and large fleets. However, the first sen tence of §2775.1(a), which requires a determination of fleet size, applies to all fleets, including small fleets. Since part of §2775(a)(1) applies to all fleets and part of it applies only to medium and large fleets, there is an ambiguity. The probl em is worse in §2775.2(b). Even if one guessed that the first sentence of §277 5.2(b) was limited to medium and large fleets (notwithstanding the ambiguity jus t discussed), the next sentence, which deals with fuel records, applies si mply to “Fleet operators,” without limitation to “fleet operators subject to t he requirements of §2775.1(a).” Since there is no limitation, this might easily be read to require operators of small fleets to keep fuel records, which apparently is no t CARB’s intention, according to the Summary of Proposed Modifications. These su bsections need to be rewritten so as to leave no doubt about which, if a ny, recordkeeping requirements are imposed on operators of small flee ts. (ITA)

Agency Response: The ARB has modified title 13, CCR, sections 2775 .2(a) and (b) to clarify that only medium and large facilities and t hose with a non-forklift fleet (four or more pieces of equipment by definition) are require d to conduct a baseline inventory and keep records. See FSOR section III. Subsequent Modifications, part D. Article 2. Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engine Fleet Requirement s for a description of the final

modification.

F. Miscellaneous Comments

1. Comment: Nissan would like ARB to harmonize with U.S. EPA by clarifying that the permeation specification is SAE J2260, dated 19 96, and not 2004. (Nissan)

Agency Response: The ARB has added a date to Section 2433(b)(4)(B) s pecifying that the applicable evaporative emission specificat ions for non-metallic fuel lines are contained in the November 1996, and not the Novembe r 2004, issuance of SAE J2260.61

2. Comment: The ARB is inconsistent in its use of power units . ITA recommends

that ARB harmonize with EPA and use kilowatts and a dditionally recommends that brake horsepower be included parenthetically. (ITA)

3. Comment: Terms of grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-h r), grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr), horsepower (hp), and kilow att (kW) are used inconsistently throughout the proposed text. To ali gn with EPA terminology and minimize confusion for certification, labeling, and reporting purposes, the primary units should be in terms of g/kW-hr and kW, optiona lly referencing g/bhp-hr and hp in parenthesis. (IMPCO)

Agency Response: The ARB has corrected the notes accompanying the s tandards tables in Section 2433(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2)(A), 40 C FR Part 1048.101(a)(2) (both for the 2007 through 2009 and the 2010 and later model year engines), and 40 CFR Part 1048.140 (both for the 2007 through 2009 and t he 2010 and later model year engines) to clarify that emissions are to be report ed to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr. Emissions were previously reported in units of g/bh p-hr; however, ARB in harmonizing with the U.S. EPA is now using the kilowatt-hour as the measurement unit for power. ARB engine certification documents will also refere nce power in g/kW-hr. The ARB will not provide power references parenthetically in g/b hp-hr because of the opportunity it provides for confusion on the part of equipment ope rators performing fleet average emission level calculations. However, outreach mat erials will include conversion factors to aid interested parties in converting power from one unit of measurement to the other.

4. Comment: IMPCO suggests that ARB update the following CFR sections to

remain consistent with the text contained within th e CCR: - MY07+ EmissionControl Labels (CCR 2434, 40 CFR 1048.135); - MY07+ Emission Control System Warranty Statement (CCR 2436, 40 CFR 1048.12 0) (IMPCO)

Agency Response: Provisions were added to the State’s warranty and l abeling requirements to clarify that both sets of warranty requirements – title 13, CCR, section

2436 and 40 CFR Section 1048.120 – and both sets of labeling requirements – title 13, CCR, section 2434 and 40 CFR Section 1048.135 – app ly.

VI. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS TO THE SECOND 15-DAY NOTICE OF

MODIFIED TEXT AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The Board received two written comments during the Second 15-Day Notice comment period that began on February 1, 2007 and ended on February 16, 2007. One comment did not specifically address the modificati ons. The other comment was made regarding the specific regulatory actions proposed in the Second 15-Day Notice. The comments is set forth below, identifying the date a nd form of the timely submitted comment. That is followed by a summary of each obj ection or recommendation made regarding the proposed action, together with an exp lanation of how the proposed action62

has been changed to accommodate the objection or re commendation or the reasons for making no change.

Abbreviation Reference

Number Commenter

IMPCO IMPCO Karen Hay IMPCO Technologies Written comment: February 16, 2007

Cal/Trans Not Applicable Ed Hardiman California Department of Transportation Written comment: February 16, 2007

A. New Engine Standards

1. Comment: ARB added field test standards for optional lower-e mission standard (OLES) off-road large spark-ignition engines. Howe ver, these proposed field test standards are not incorporated into 40 CFR, Part 10 48.140 of either the 2007 through 2009 or 2010 and Later “Proposed California Exhaust and Evaporative

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New Off- Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines.” IMPCO suggests that ARB update 1048.140 to remain consistent with the language in CCR 2433. (IMPCO)

Agency Response: The ARB field test standards for OLES engines wer e inadvertently

omitted from section 1048.140 of both the “Californ ia Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Model-Yea r Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines” and the “California Exhaust and Emission S tandards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark- Ignition Engines.” The field test standards for OLES engines will be included in both of these incorporated documents in the final regulation order.

2. Comment: The difference between the 2007 through 2009 mode l year Tier 2 emission standards and the 2007 through 2009 model year OLES emission

standards is still not clear. The OLES emission st andards greater than or equal to 0.8 g/kW-hr are identical to the Tier 2 standard s found in 1048.101 using the alternative certification formula (HC+NOx) x CO 0.784 < 8.57. Whereas the Tier 2

field test standards are more lenient than the Tier 2 certification standards, the

OLES field test standards are identical to the OLES certification standards. Also, Tier 2 standards allow for certification to any emi ssion standard using the alternative certification formula, but the OLES pro visions only allow certification to three distinct standards. With more stringent f ield test standards and minimum flexibility when choosing an emission standard, the re does not appear to be any reason for a manufacturer to certify under the OLES provisions. IMPCO requests that the ARB either provide further clarif ication on the difference between engines certified under the Tier 2 and OLES emission standards or remove section 12048.140. (IMPCO)63

Agency Response: See the Agency Response to Comment C.11 in FSOR P art V. Summary of Comments to the First 15-Day Notice of M odified Text and Agency Responses for a full discussion of this issue.

3. Comment: To minimize confusion between ARB and U.S. EPA re gulations, the primary reference to all emission standards should be in g/kW-hr with g/bhp-hr listed after, in parenthesis. (IMPCO)

Agency Response: For the prospective standards, ARB has referenced primarily standards in units of g/kW-hr. For regulations whi ch may apply to 2006 and prior model years, the standard may often be given in units of g/bhp-hr because the standards for those years were given in g/bhp-hr.

4. Comment: ARB proposed to add a new paragraph (f) to section 1048.120 of the

“California Exhaust and Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines.” Because this paragraph already exists, the ARB should clarify th at the new paragraph (f) should be renamed paragraph (h). (IMPCO)

Agency Response: The ARB will rename this paragraph as paragraph ( h) in the final regulation order for the “California Exhaust and Em ission Standards and Test

Procedures for New 2010 and Later Model-Year Off-Ro ad Large Spark-Ignition Engines.”