Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF NEW EMISSION 

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 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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 Agencies .............................. 5 

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

II. Modifications Made to the Original Proposal (First 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) through (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, Subpart A

i. General Applicability, Subsection I.1.(d)............................................ 7 

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) 

i. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Subsection 101(a) 8 

ii. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Subsection 101(e) 8 

iii. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Subsection 101(f). 8 

iv. Provisions for Certifying Optional Lower-Emission Standard Engines, 

Subsection 140 ................................................................................. 8 

v. What testing requirements apply to my engines that have gone into 

service?, Subsection 401 .................................................................. 8 

vi. What are the provisions for exempting engines designed for lawn 

and garden applications?, Subsection 615........................................ 8 

D. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road 

Large Spark-ignition Engines (40 CFR, Part 1048)

i. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Subsection 101(a) 8 

ii. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Subsection 101(e) 9 

iii. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Subsection 101(f). 9 

iv. What emission-related warranty requirements apply to me, 

Subsection 120 ................................................................................. 9 
ii 

v. Provisions for Certifying Optional Lower-Emission Standard Engines, 

Subsection 140 ................................................................................. 9 

vi. What testing requirements apply to my engines that 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, Subsections 2775.2 

(a), (b), and (d) ................................................................................ 12 

F. Article 3, Verification Procedure, Warranty, and In-Use Compliance

Requirements for Retrofits to Control Emissions from Off-Road 

Large Spark-Ignition Engines

i. Emissions Reduction Testing Requirements, Subsections 2783 (e) 

and (k)............................................................................................. 13

ii. Other Requirements, Subsection 2786 (c) ...................................... 13 

iii. In-Use Compliance Requirements, Subsection 2789 (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 Emission 

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, Subsection 101(a)..14 

ii. Emission Related Warranty Requirements, Subsection 120........... 15 

iii. Engine Labeling Requirements, Subsection 135............................. 15 

iv. Provisions for Certifying Optional Lower-Emission Standard Engines, 

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

C. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road 

Large Spark-ignition Engines” (40 CFR, Part 1048) 

i. Emission Standards and Related Requirements, Subsection 101(a)15 

ii. Emission Related Warranty Requirements, Subsection 120........... 15 

iii. Engine Labeling Requirements, Subsection 135............................. 15 

iv. Provisions for Certifying Optional Lower-Emission 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, Subsections 2775.2 

(a) and (b) ....................................................................................... 17 
iii 

IV. Summary of Comments to the Original Proposal (45-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 Equipment Provisions ........ 35 

F. Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles ......................................................... 37 

G. Modifications to Definitions ...................................................................... 38 

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 of 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 ............................................................................ 62 
1 

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 EMISSION 

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 Procedures for Forklifts and Other 

Industrial Equipment (Staff Report), which was released to the public on March 3, 2006, 

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 Board 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 adopted “California Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Model-Year Off-Road 

Large Spark-Ignition Engines;” 3) the adopted “California Exhaust Emission Standards 

and Test Procedures for New 2007 and Later Model-Year Off-Road Large 

Spark-Ignition Engines;” and 4) the adopted “California Exhaust and Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Model-Year Off-Road Large 

Spark-Ignition Engines.” 

These regulations meet a commitment made in the 2003 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) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

emissions from forklifts and other industrial equipment powered by large spark-ignition 

(LSI) engines. The regulations achieve this by establishing: (1) lower emission 
2 

standards for manufacturers of new LSI engines, (2) fleet average emission level 

requirements for in-use LSI fleets, and (3) verification 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 subsequently 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 reference herein, described the 

rationale for the proposal. The notice, Staff Report, 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 hearing to consider adoption of the 

staff proposal. Written and oral comments were received at the hearing, and several 

parties suggested changes to the proposed regulation. The Board approved the staff’s 

proposal with modifications that included removal of the airport ground support 

equipment (GSE) electrification requirement, inclusion 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-highway regulations, exclusion of 

uncontrolled model year 2003 and 2004 rental equipment from the fleet average 

accounting provisions for an additional year, clarification of applicability to engines with 

power greater than 19 kilowatts, clarification of exhaust 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 Executive Officer to incorporate the 

identified modifications and other conforming modifications 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 least 15 days. The Executive Officer 

was then directed either to adopt the regulation with such additional modifications as 

may be appropriate in light of the comments received, or to present the regulation to the 

Board for further consideration if warranted in light of the comments. 

The text of the modifications to the originally proposed regulation and the supporting 

documents were made available for a supplemental 15-day comment period by 

issuance of a “Notice of Public Availability of Modified 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 “Modifications to the Original Proposal” 

were mailed on December 1, 2006, to all parties identified in section 44(a), title 1, CCR, 

and to other persons generally interested in the ARB’s rulemaking concerning large 

spark-ignition engine forklifts and other industrial equipment. These documents were 

also published on December 1, 2006, on ARB’s Internet 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 correcting the oversight, the Errata 

notice extended the 15-day comment deadline through January 12, 2007. The Errata 

notice and the document entitled “Errata” were mailed 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 First 15-Day Notice comment period, 

and staff proposed additional minor modifications in 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 public comment period that began on 

February 1, 2007, and ended on February 16, 2007 (Second 15-Day Notice, which is 

incorporated by reference herein). This second notice, 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 rulemaking for large spark-ignition 

engine forklifts and other industrial equipment. These documents were also published 

on February 1, 2007, on ARB’s Internet site. 

This FSOR updates the Staff Report by identifying and explaining the modifications that 

were made to the original proposal as a result of public comment and staff analysis after 

the Staff Report was issued. The FSOR also summarizes written and oral comments 

submitted to the Board on the proposed regulatory text 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 comment 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 comment period for the 

modifications discussed in section III are presented 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 Requirements, 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 Sanitation Manual; from 

Almond Hullers and Processors Association website copyrighted 2003) 

Discussion of almond processing (United States Environmental 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 activities and food 

processing (2002 NAICS Definitions 115114 and 311423; May 5, 2003) 

The NAICS code definition for “Postharvest Crop Activities,” Industry 115114 is also 

incorporated by reference into title 13, CCR, section 2775(d). 

In accordance with section 11347.1 of the Government Code, ARB published a 

supplemental notice of the addition of these references to the rulemaking file and as an 

incorporated reference within title 13, CCR, section 2775(d). 

C. Documents Incorporated by Reference 

Seven new and amended test procedures are incorporated by reference in CCR, title 

13, section 2434. These test procedure documents in turn incorporate certification test 

procedures adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and 

contained in 40 Code of federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1048, 1065, and 1068. Also 

incorporated by reference directly into section 2434 are provisions from 40 CFR Part 

1048. One of the above mentioned seven test procedures 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 from 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 incorporated document by title and date. 

The ARB documents are readily available from ARB upon 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 Office of the Federal Register, 

National Archives and Records Administration, and is therefore reasonably available to 

the affected public from a commonly known source. The NAICS definition is published 

in the North American Industry Classification System − United States, 2002, available 

through the U.S. Census Bureau, and is therefore reasonably available to the affected 

public from a commonly known source. 

The test procedures and the definition are incorporated by reference because it would 

be cumbersome, unduly expensive, and otherwise impractical to print them in the CCR. 

Existing ARB administrative practice has been to have the test procedures, guidelines, 

specifications, and similar documents incorporated by reference rather than printed in 

the CCR because these procedures, specifications, and 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 printed complete test procedures and 

guidance documents in the CCR, the directly affected 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 lengthy, technically complex 
5 

procedures with a limited audience in the CCR. Printing 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 mandate upon or create costs or 

savings, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5 (a)(6), to school districts and 

local agencies. Beginning in 2010, local public entities 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 public entities for new equipment is 

estimated to be $20,500 annually. Also in 2009, local public entities that operate four or 

more forklifts and/or other pieces of industrial equipment 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. However, reduced operating costs are 

expected to offset the bulk of the initial costs over the equipment’s life. 

Similarly, beginning in 2010, state agencies operating equipment under this proposal 

may incur minor increases in new equipment cost ($80 per unit). The total increased 

cost to state agencies for new equipment is estimated 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 also incur costs ranging from $0 to 

$80,000 to comply with the requirement for fleet users, depending on the fleet size. 

However, reduced operating costs are expected to offset 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 (including rental and lease equipment), 

owners, and operators of LSI engine-powered forklifts and other industrial equipment in 

California. A discussion of alternatives to the initial regulatory proposal is found in 

Chapter 7 of the Staff Report. The alternatives included an electric equipment purchase 

requirement and accelerated and more extensive in-use 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 alternatives 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 less burdensome to affected private 

persons than the action taken by the Board. 
6 

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (FIRST 15-DAY 

NOTICE) 

At the May 2006 hearing, the Board approved the regulation and proposed 

modifications. Furthermore, the Board directed staff to work with stakeholders 

regarding modifications or clarifications to the approved regulation. The following is a 

description of the modifications and clarifications, by section number. 

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

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2430. Applicability 

(a)(1) The engine size to which the proposal applies is clarified. The existing California 

LSI engine regulations define the engine as one that produces a power of 

25 horsepower or greater (≥), and the emission standards are stated in terms of 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 power for these same engines, and the 

federal standards are expressed in terms of grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr). 

Additionally, the newly amended California small off-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 modifications provide consistency with the 

federal program definition of engine size and address the overlap by clarifying that 

engines certifying in California at 19 kW [25 horsepower] would certify as small off-road 

engines. 

(a)(3) The reference to the U.S. EPA’s Off-Highway regulations is removed as the 

reference to U.S. EPA’s program could leave gaps in regulatory coverage and 

uncertainty to interested parties regarding how vehicles are classified. ARB staff’s 

modifications to ARB’s Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles regulations presented at the 

July 20, 2006 Public Hearing provides additional clarification as to how these vehicles 

are classified. 

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2431. Definitions 

(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 section 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 Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures – Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines 

(b)(1) For clarification, this section is divided into subparagraphs (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B). 

Subparagraph (b)(1)(A) contains the required exhaust emission standards while 

(b)(1)(B) contains the optional exhaust emission standards. Additionally, a correction is 
7 

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 inadvertently omitted from the table. 

Errors in the standards table and the optional standards 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 been 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 consistent with U.S. EPA. The 

term “family emission level” is added to clarify that the HC+NOx and CO numbers used 

in the formula do not have to be actual test results. This term is more consistent with 

U.S. EPA’s intent to provide engine manufacturers another engine certification element. 

(b)(4)(A) A clarification to the evaporative emissions standards 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 the evaporative emission 

standards is added to be consistent with the federal 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. In-Use Compliance Program 

(e)(7)(A) The term “STD” in the credit calculation is redefined by adding the phrase “or 

family emission level” after the phrase “the emission standard.” 

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, Subpart A) 

A second reference is added to the applicability section to reflect that there is now a 

second document prescribing exhaust emission standards and test procedures for small 

off-road engines (2005 and later). The last amended 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 applicable 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 presented 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 practice of including standards in test 

procedures and identifies these as California standards. 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 consistency.

(f) Language is changed to clarify that smaller engines within the LSI category (at or 

less than 1.0 liter displacement) must certify under 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 13, California Code of Regulations, 

Chapter 9, Article 1. 

§1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying Blue 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 engines that have gone into 

service? 

(b)(1) The change proposed for this section is deleted. This section was originally 

replaced in error because the reference to number of engines was believed to be 

related to the small business definition. In actuality, 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 engines designed for lawn and 

garden applications?

This section is deleted. The U.S. EPA provides manufacturers an option to certify 

engines with a total displacement of 1000 cc or less as small off-road engines in 

section 1048.101(f) and this section provided associated requirements. However, the 

ARB has modified section 1048.101(f) to stipulate that small engines are now 

considered to be LSI engines unless they have a brake horsepower of 19 kW or less. 

Thus, there is no need for the requirements contained in section 1048.615. 

D. Incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later 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 presented in Title 13, California Code 

of Regulations, Article 4.5, section 2433 (b)(1)(A) for 2010 and later model year engines 
9 

is reiterated here in a format consistent with section 1048.101 (a)(2) in the 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 

standards for LSI engines with a total displacement of 1000 cc or less are also 

reiterated. 

(e) The subsection numbering scheme is changed for consistency.

(f) Language is changed to clarify that smaller engines within the LSI category (at or 

less than 1.0 liter displacement) must certify under 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 13, California Code of Regulations, 

Chapter 9, Article 1. 

§1048.120 What emission-related warranty requirements apply to me?

The formula for determining the dollar value of a high-cost part is corrected by 

subscripting the “n” in “Limitn” and the “n-2” in the term “CPI n-2.” 

§1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying Blue 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 engines that have gone into 

service? 

(b)(1) The change proposed for this section is deleted. This section was originally 

replaced in error because the reference to number of engines was believed to be 

related to the small business definition. In actuality, 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 engines designed for lawn and 

garden applications?

This section is deleted. The U.S. EPA provides manufacturers an option to certify 

engines with a total displacement of 1000 cc or less as small off-road engines in 

section 1048.101(f) and this section provided associated requirements. However, the 

ARB has modified section 1048.101(f) to stipulate that small engines are now 

considered to be LSI engines unless they have a brake horsepower of 19 kW or less. 

Thus, there is no need for the requirements contained in section 1048.615. 
10 

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

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

“Agricultural Crop Preparation Services” 

The Agricultural Crop Preparation Services definition is clarified by defining the word 

“dehydrators” and the phrase “nut hullers and processors,” 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 Industry 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 potato products, and the making of bouillon, 

noodle mixes, rice mixes, soup mixes, sauce mixes, and salad dressing mixes. 

These clarifications and modifications respond to inquiries from affected businesses 

about the intent of the word “processors” in the phrase “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 are vehicles designed for on-road use, 

but dedicated to GSE operations and not licensed for 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) Memorandum of Understanding, dated 

November 27, 2002. 

“Dehydrators” 

A definition is added to clarify the use of the word “dehydrators” in the “Agricultural Crop 

Preparation Services” definition. The definition closely follows the intent of “sun drying” 

in the United States Census Bureau NAICS definition for Industry 115114 – Postharvest 

Crop Activities, but additionally includes the artificially drying and dehydrating portion of 

the manufacturing processes included in the NAICS definition for Industry 311423 – 

Food Processing. 

“Fleet Average Emission Level” 

The phrase “or verification level (absolute emissions)” is appended to the phrase 

“emissions certification standard” to reflect that the operator’s fleet average emission 

level calculations include in-use equipment with verified retrofit emissions control 

systems. Verified retrofits are one of the tools for compliance with the fleet average 

emission level requirements, and definitions for “retrofit,” “verification,” and “verification 

level” were all included in section 2775(d). Additionally, section 2772(e)(1)(A) was 

originally included to provide for extensions to the 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 fleet average for this equipment. 

The g/kW-hr equivalent emissions are added to the definition. 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 clarify 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 calculations 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 labels specify the emission standard to 

which the new engine certified. Modifications to the definition clarify that all engines 

with retrofit emission control systems are required to have a label specifying the 

verification level (absolute emissions) to which the 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 particular, adding the phrase “or its allies.” 

This modification responds to requests from military representatives to be consistent in 

our definition. 

“Nut Hullers and Processors” 

A definition is added to clarify the use of the word “processors” in the “Agricultural Crop 

Preparation Services” definition. The definition distinguishes the activities that fall within 

the United States Census Bureau NAICS definition for 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 conversion 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 necessary 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 must first establish their fleet size 

before identifying exceptions and subsequent fleet average emission level 
12 

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 alleviate the economic burden on dealers 

who would otherwise be responsible for addressing this equipment, new language has 

been added to exempt uncontrolled 2004 rental equipment from the operator fleet 

average calculations for an additional year and equipment leased prior to May 25, 2006. 

 

(b) Requirements related to requiring a specified percentage of ground support 

equipment at airports in the South Coast Basin to be 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 agricultural crop preparation 

services fleets now provides an additional year for equipment with uncontrolled 

2003-2004 model year engines. The original exclusion required all rental and leased 

forklifts to be controlled to a 3.0 g/bhp-hr emission standard or better on or after 

January 1, 2009. The extension of the exclusion takes 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/bhp-hr emission standard for the life of 

the lease or until January 1, 2010 as long as the lease 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 that only medium and large facilities 

(those subject to the requirements in 2775.1(a)) are required to conduct a baseline 

inventory. 

(b) Language is changed in this section to clarify that only medium and large facilities 

(those subject to the requirements in 2775.1(a)) are required to keep records. The 

record keeping requirement is clarified to state that 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 vehicle grade), if such statements 

(product delivery tickets or receipts) are available. 

(d) The effective date of the requirements for agricultural crop preparation services 

fleets is delayed by 18 months to reflect modifications 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 from 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 to correct: (1) the title of the 

reference containing the steady-state test procedure, (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 control 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 response to the First 15-Day Notice, 

additional modifications to the regulatory text were proposed in a Second Notice of 

Public Availability of Modified Text (Second 15-Day Notice). The following discussion 

summarizes the proposed substantive modifications and the rationale for making them. 

The section numbers and paragraphs are referenced as renumbered in the modified 

text. 

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

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, § 2433 Emission 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 States Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA) alternative certification formula. The optional exhaust emission 

standards formerly contained in (b)(1)(B) are now in 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 made to the notes section 

accompanying the mandatory standards table in subparagraph (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 units of g/bhp-hr; however, ARB in 

harmonizing with the U.S. EPA is now using the kilowatt-hour as the measurement unit 
14 

for power. The addition of note (5) provides the HC+NOx and CO standards for model 

year 2007 and newer severe-duty engines. This information was contained in the 

incorporated by reference “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and 

Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” 

(40 CFR, Part 1048), but was inadvertently omitted from this section and from the 

incorporated by reference “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 original note (5) is renumbered to note (6). 

(b)(2) The alternative certification formula originally contained 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 the optional standards in (b)(2)(A), 

consistent with U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky standards. These field testing standards were part 

of the Additionally, a note is added to the optional exhaust emissions table in 

subparagraph (b)(2)(A) clarifying that emissions are to be reported to the ARB in units 

of g/kW-hr for the reasons discussed in (b)(1) above. 

(b)(4)(B) A date is added to the reference in this subparagraph 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 J2260. 

(b)(4)(D) References to 40 CFR Sections 1048.105 and 1048.245 are added for 

manufacturers opting to use design-based certification 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 “PART 1:” as there is only one part of 

the “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 

New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines.” 

§1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my engines meet? 

(a)(2) A note is added to the exhaust emission standards table clarifying that emissions 

are to be reported to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr for the reasons discussed for title 13, 

CCR, section 2433(b)(1) above. Other requirements are added providing the HC+NOx 

and CO standards for model year 2007 through 2009 severe-duty engines. Both the 

note and the severe-duty engine requirements were to have been carried over from the 

corresponding exhaust emission standards table in the incorporated by reference 

“California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 

2010 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines,” but were inadvertently omitted. 
15 

§1048.120 What emission-related warranty requirements apply to me? 

A provision is added referencing the State’s warranty requirements. The intent of the 

additional provision is to clarify that both sets of 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 labeling requirements. The intent of the 

additional provision is to clarify that both sets of labeling requirements – title 13, CCR, 

section 2434 and 40 CFR Section 1048.135 – apply. 

§1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying optional lower-emission standard 

engines? 

Introductory language is corrected so that the requirements being applied to optional 

lower-emission standard (OLES) engines are those for 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 Standards and Test Procedures for New 

2010 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines.” 

A note is added to the optional exhaust emission standards 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 Later Off-Road 

Large Spark-ignition Engines” 

§1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my engines meet? 

(a)(2) The first note accompanying the exhaust emission standards table is modified to 

reflect that emissions are to be reported to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr for the reasons 

discussed in title 13, CCR, section 2433(b)(1) earlier. The language providing the 

HC+NOx and CO standards for model year 2010 and later severe-duty engines is 

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

§1048.120 What emission-related warranty requirements apply to me? 

A provision is added referencing the State’s warranty requirements. The intent of the 

additional provision is to clarify that both sets of 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 labeling requirements. The intent of the 

additional provision is to clarify that both sets of labeling requirements – title 13, CCR, 

section 2434 and 40 CFR Section 1048.135 – apply. 
16 

§1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying optional lower-emission standard 

engines? 

A correction is made to the section title of the section 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 standards 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 Fleet 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 onions, the flaking of potato products, and 

the making of bouillon, noodle mixes, rice mixes, soup 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 dried and dehydrated food 

manufacturing activities that were not considered to be part of the “dehydrators” 

definition and thus not part of the “agricultural crop preparation services” definition. 

Stakeholders expressed a concern that excluding certain activities implied that other 

related activities might be included. Since the existing “dehydrators” definition already 

stipulates those dried and dehydrated food manufacturing 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 not licensed for on-road use may be 

included in the fleet average calculations. The clarification 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 applied 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 applied 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 (sections 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 placed into 

sections (c)(1) and (c)(2) to clarify that section (c) provides requirements not only for 

owned forklifts, but requirements for rental and leased 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 to 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 inventory and keep records. 

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (45-DAY 

NOTICE) AND AGENCY RESPONSES 

The Board received numerous written and oral comments in the formal 45-day 

rulemaking comment period that began on March 3, 2006 with the publication of the 

hearing notice and ended with the closing of the record on May 25, 2006 at the 

May 2006 Board hearing. 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 action, together with 

an explanation of how the proposed action has been changed to accommodate the 

objection or recommendation or the reasons for making no change. The comments 

have been grouped by topic whenever possible. Comments not involving objections or 

recommendations specifically directed towards the rulemaking or to the procedures 

followed by the ARB in this rulemaking are not summarized 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, 2006 
18 

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, 2006 
19 

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, 2006 
20 

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 inappropriate to do so given 

the very limited data available. From EPA’s Draft Regulatory Support Document 

dated September 2002: “Considering the need to focus on transient emission 

measurements, we believe it is not appropriate to adopt more stringent emission 

standards based on the steady-state duty cycles. Stringent emission standards 

based on certain discrete modes of operation may inappropriately 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 interpretation of the 

U.S. EPA Draft Regulatory Support Document (RSD). The commenter claims that the 

U.S. EPA determined that it was inappropriate to establish an HC+NOx emission level 

below 2.0 g/bhp-hr because of limited data. In actuality, 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 emission 

standard of 2.0 g/bhp-hr to be met under both steady-state and transient duty cycle 

testing because it was consistent with the upper range of measured HC+NOx emission 

values from engines that the U.S. EPA tested with optimized emission controls under 

both of those duty cycles. 

In the RSD, the U.S. EPA states that they did not adopt 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 that 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 CFR, Part 1048.101(a)(3)) that will 

encourage manufacturers to reduce HC+NOx [levels] even further by allowing higher 

CO levels where a manufacturer certifies to lower HC+NOx levels. 

Additionally, the U.S. EPA established optional Blue Sky standards that are more 

stringent than the ARB’s 2010 standard in recognition of the potential to achieve 

extremely low emission levels. In discussing the Blue Sky standards in the September 

2002 Program Update that accompanied the RSD, the U.S. EPA states “manufacturers 
21 

may be able to use technologies such as advanced fuel injection, electronic controls, 

and catalytic converters that automotive manufacturers have already developed to 

achieve extremely low emission levels. They further state that even though some 

manufacturers are close to being able to produce Blue Sky engines, as of the Program 

Update, no manufacturer has certified one. They postulate that this is mostly caused by 

the fact that isolated requests for especially clean-burning engines don’t justify the 

expense of developing them. 

ARB believes that advances in the application of automotive emission control 

technology to LSI engines over the last five years now make the 2010 standards both 

technically feasible and cost-effective. By establishing 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 existing U.S. EPA provisions, 

manufacturers may currently certify to an HC+NOx versus 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, within six months of our May 2006 

Board hearing, one of the three largest forklift manufacturers 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 demonstrate that the technology exists 

to meet the 2010 standard and attain critical emission reductions. 

Alternative to the 2010 standard 

2. Comment: IMPCO respectfully proposes that ARB allow manufacturers to 

comply either by meeting the 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx standard in MY2010 over the 

transient test cycle as currently proposed by ARB (MY2010 Transient Test 

Option) or in addition to meeting all applicable EPA emissions standards, by 

meeting a 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx standard over the steady-state test cycle during 

the 2007-2015 model years with no additional reduction in transient HC+NOx 

emissions taking place during this time (MY2007 Steady-State Test Option). 

Those manufacturers who are able to meet the proposed MY2010 Transient Test 

Option with either calibration-only or minimal hardware changes can wait until 

MY2010 to meet the lower standard. Those manufacturers 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-needed flexibility and ARB will 

achieve substantial emissions reductions from MY2007-2009. The second option 

provides ARB with three additional years of emissions reductions. (IMPCO 1) 

Agency Response: In the preceding comment, IMPCO quotes from the U.S. EPA draft 

regulatory support document. Within that quote, the 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 prescribed by the steady state test 

cycle] may inappropriately constrain manufacturers from controlling emissions across 

the whole range of engine speeds and loads.” The ARB 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. The commenter requests that we 
22 

retain a less stringent test procedure as a trade off for the potential of attaining early 

and extended emissions reductions. However, the ARB does not believe that doing so 

would provide the same level of emission benefits as 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 additional 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 standard; no new data was 

generated or introduced for ARB to consider the appropriateness 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 testing and engineering evaluation 

for the 2007 standard, and which had a legal obligation to set a standard at the 

limits of technological feasibility, determined that 2.0 g/hp-hr HC+NOx reached 

the limits of technological feasibility. CARB, which has performed no testing and 

no engineering evaluation, has no basis for disagreeing with EPA’s assessment. 

(ITA 1) (ITA 2) 

5. Comment: The technology to reduce emissions from spark-ignited, off-road 

engines, in applications included in the proposed ARB regulations, is based on 

automotive-type three-way catalyst closed-loop technology. 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-called rich burn or stoichiometric 

natural gas engines) used for power production or pumping applications. These 

same catalyst technologies can be adapted to spark-ignited engines used in 

off-road mobile sources such as forklift trucks, airport ground support equipment, 

and portable generators. Closed-loop, three-way catalyst-based systems are 

already being used on these large, spark-ignited, off-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 industry for installation on 

uncontrolled engines (an LSI application) for nearly 10 years. In both new engine 

and retrofit applications, these closed-loop three-way catalyst systems have 

shown durable performance in LSI applications, consistent 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 significant improvements in 

three-way catalyst system performance can be achieved in these LSI 
23 

applications by readily available catalyst design changes and optimizations that 

more closely approach the catalyst designs used in modern light-duty 

automobiles. These design changes include the use of high performance catalyst 

formulations with layered catalyst architectures and the latest oxygen storage 

promoters, larger catalyst volumes relative to the engine displacement, and the 

use of higher cell density metallic or ceramic substrates. These advanced 

catalysts coupled with improved engine control strategies 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 engine certifications (as reported 

in the ARB staff report for these proposed rules). Advanced catalysts and 

advanced engine controls will also provide the technical solutions needed to 

achieve ARB’s proposed 2010 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx exhaust 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 proposal ahead of the 2007 or 

2010 requirements for new engines. 

In closing, MECA believes that advanced three-way catalyst technology based 

on automotive applications can provide a cost-effective, durable, high 

performance solution for controlling HC and NOx emissions from new and 

existing large spark-ignited engines used in off-road 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 attainable. 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 LSI 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 addressed. I do think it is important 

just to stress once more that the transient test cycle -- we've always been a big 

advocate of transient test cycles. We think they are 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 certification formula contained in 40 CFR, 

Part 1048.101(a)(3) and the Blue Sky standards contained in 40 CFR, Part 1048.140. 
24 

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

alternative certification formula. Manufacturers oppose the ARB’s use of this formula as 

evidence for a more stringent emission standard because they said there was limited 

data supporting it. However, as demonstrated in the ISOR, engines in similar 

applications already vastly exceed the 2010 standard, and in the almost four years 

between when the EPA promulgated their rule and when the ARB went to the Board in 

May 2006, the following additional supporting data were generated. 

First, Jeff J. White of the Southwest Research Institute presented the results of transient 

tests performed for the Propane Education and Research Council to the Industrial Truck 

Association spring meeting on March 23, 2004 and subsequently to the Texas Propane 

Technology Forum on September 23, 2004. This testing 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 emission 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 positive picture of future emission 

capabilities and one manufacturer requested that we not use it because they believed it 

was proprietary information. However, as the presentation had been posted to the 

Texas Railroad Commission website for almost four months at the time ARB staff 

downloaded it, ARB deemed it was in the public domain 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 standard. That engine is now certified to 

the 0.6 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx standard. 

And third, several manufacturers provided certification 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 emissions 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 engines 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-burning engines) and not technical 

feasibility as the reason they did not establish even lower HC+NOx emission standards. 

ARB believes that the switch to more robust automotive-style emission control 

equipment, especially catalysts with greater precious metal loading and cell densities, 

as has begun to occur in the intervening years between promulgation of the U.S. EPA 

regulation and development of the 2006 ARB regulation, virtually guarantees the 

feasibility of the ARB’s 2010 HC+NOx emission standard. 
25 

And MECA, whose members have developed emission control systems for hundreds of 

millions of on-road vehicles over the last thirty years, 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 feasible. 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 six 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 previously 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 major 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 Transient 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 emissions 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 manufacturers have expressed 

concerns about the impact of the 2007 transient test cycle on these numbers 

[HC+NOx]. To date, information provided by the Southwest Research Institute 

indicates that, under the transient test cycle, hydrocarbon emissions from an 

LPG engine increased by about 30 percent, but NOx emissions remained 

relatively constant. ... At 50 percent HC, the new test cycle could lead to a 

potential emissions increase of 15 percent over those under the steady state test 

cycle. ... To date, transient cycle test data has been limited.” 

After repeated requests by IMPCO and industry, ARB has not been able to 

provide the data used to make this assertion. Given 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 specify that the HC+NOx standard be 

met over the steady-state test cycle, or postpone finalizing a radical reduction in 

transient emissions until the technological feasibility can be ascertained. 

(IMPCO 1) 

9. Comment: CARB cannot legitimately rely on steady-state certification data to 

justify lowering the standard because compliance with the 2010 standard 

requires transient testing, there is insufficient data 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 transient 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. Beginning 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 emissions, but ITA members 

have only recently gained experience in running the cycle and observing its 

sometimes startling effect impact on emissions results. Some of the data, which 

is highly confidential, have recently been shared with 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 states 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 total. Following is the 

current ISOR’s explanation: 

Some manufacturers have expressed concerns about the 

impact of the 2007 transient test cycle on the feasibility of 

achieving the proposed new engine standards. To date, 

information provided by the Southwest Research Institute 

indicates that, under the transient test cycle, hydrocarbon 

emissions from an LPG engine increased by about 

30 percent, but NOx emissions remained relatively constant. 

In a review of 13 forklift engine families (of 19 total) 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 potential 

emissions increase of 15 percent over emissions from the 

steady state test cycle. However, all but 1 of the 13 engine 

families would still have an HC+NOx certification level of less 

than 1.0 g/bhp-hr because in instances where the HC

emissions were high, the corresponding NOx emissions 

were low. Clearly, the new test cycle does not prevent 

compliance with the proposed 2007 standard. 

At ITA’s request, staff provided the data underlying the claim that NOx and HC 

each constituted about 50 percent of the HC+NOx combination, which is critical 

to the conclusion that there is a 15percent HC+NOx penalty associated with the 

transient test. This data, which came from emissions 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 data were approximately 

50 percent, the data were so meager and scattered that the average and median 

figures are useless to any conclusion about the typical HC/NOx split. While only 

one of the 13 engine families had anything near the claimed 50-50 split, HC and 
27 

NOx otherwise varied wildly: NOx was only 3 percent on two of the engine 

families, but was between 90 percent and 100 percent on three others. The 

following chart1

 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 expected HC/NOx split is 

50 percent, then the HC+NOx penalty is almost 30 percent for engines B and G, 

but is zero or almost zero for engines A and F. All 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 that the data do not reveal any 

“typical” HC+NOx split, much less a 50-50 split. Accordingly, the test results say 

nothing about the “penalty” associated with the transient test. 

The other critical subconclusions underlying the claim 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 information weeks ago, ITA has so far 

not received CARB’s explanation for these conclusions. However, these levels 

of test-procedure “penalty” for the individual pollutants 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 Adjustment Factor (“TAF”) of 

1.3-- i.e., a 30 percent penalty--to an uncontrolled LSI engine’s hydrocarbon 

emissions to account for transient operation. No TAF, 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 for CARB’s statement that 

“under the transient test cycle, hydrocarbon emissions from an LPG engine 

increased by about 30 percent, but NOx emissions remained relatively constant.” 

If so, however, this would be a fundamental misreading of EPA’s analysis, 

because this 30 percent HC penalty and 0 percent NOx penalty are EPA’s 

estimates for uncontrolled engines. EPA’s TAF (penalty) for a controlled engine, 

which is the only engine relevant to this rulemaking, is 2.9 for hydrocarbons and 

1.5 for NOx. Thus, if HC and NOx are equal, the combined TAF for a controlled 

engine is 220 percent [(290% + 150%) ÷2 = 220%], not 15 percent. Consulting 

the chart showing the HC/NOx split for 13 engines shows 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 created were provided by staff to 

ITA. Where a range of values was provided for an engine, ITA used the average of the 

high and low emissions. 
28 

ITA questions the relevance of these broad inventory assumptions to the issue of 

the actual HC+NOx penalty associated with this particular test procedure. 

Nevertheless, since CARB has apparently chosen to rely upon this EPA analysis, 

CARB must read the analysis correctly. Having failed to do so, CARB cannot 

support its conclusion of a 30 percent HC penalty and no NOx penalty. Adding 

this error to the errors made in determining the typical HC/NOx split leaves 

CARB with no rationale whatsoever for the overall conclusion 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 position to maintain that the 

standard is technologically feasible. 

As ITA pointed out in its earlier comments, test results from the two forklift 

engines that EPA analyzed in actually developing the 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 that staff is relying upon, yet the 

latest ISOR makes no mention of them. In addition, staff has now seen 

confidential company information that contradicts the ISOR’s discussion of 

technological feasibility. 

Based on this new understanding of the relevant issues, 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 compliance 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 real-world use and emissions. The 

approved regulations align the ARB’s testing with the federal transient test procedure. 

The comments above relate to the discussion within the ISOR that quantifies the 

differences between the two procedures. The uncertainty associated with the 

relationship between the two test procedures is part of the commenter’s overall 

argument on the feasibility of the proposed standard. 

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 for a hypothetical engine family. 

Engines with an HC component greater than 50 percent would have a greater penalty; 

those with an HC component less than 50 percent would 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 acknowledges the uncertainty in assessing 

the differences in emissions between the steady-state and transient test procedures, 

both in a general sense and in specific applications. The ARB does not agree with 
29 

certain aspects of the comment2; however, even if the emissions penalties intended to 

be suggested by the commenter are accurate, the emission 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 applicable for use in meeting the 

proposed ARB 2010 emission standard requirements. To achieve such a drastic 

reduction over the 2007 EPA-ARB emission standards, Toyota would be required 

to assign significant resources not only in the development of a new fuel system, 

but potentially a new engine as well. The ARB 2010 proposal provides 

manufacturers approximately 3 years to develop technology to meet the 

regulation, however typical timing for complete development of new engine and 

emission system is at the very least, 6 years. (TMHU 1) 

11. Comment: Staff raised the possibility of a technology review in 2008. This might 

seem like a reasonable gesture, however, it will take at least three years to 

develop a new, robust technology to meet the proposed transient HC+NOx 

standards. Development includes design concept, technology assessment, 

vehicle integration, engine durability, certification, and production. This means 

that development must begin today to make the MY2010 timeframe. With a 

minimum three-year design cycle, a technology review in 2008 is far too late to 

assess the feasibility of a radical reduction in emissions 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 controlled 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, 2010) 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 instead enhance the performance of 

the emission control systems required to meet the 2007 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 Comment 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 the First 15-Day Notice. 

2. Comment: Capping HC+NOx emissions at 0.6 g/bhp-hr is not consistent with 

the U.S. EPA standards because permitting certification to only one point on the 

U.S. EPA curve is not the same as permitting certification to any point on the 

curve. The curve has no known application to gasoline engines. (ITA) 

3. Comment: The flexibility of the curve is important: (a) because the curve is at 

best a rough approximation of the relationship between HC+NOx and CO; (b) to 

permit manufacturers and users to account for equipment performance demands 

and individual workers’ exposure to CO; (c) because the effects of the 2007 

transient test procedure will remain unknown for several years; and (d) because 

of the uncertainty caused by inconsistent LPG fuel quality. (ITA) 

Agency Response: The U.S. EPA established the alternative certification formula 

(curve) to provide flexibility to manufacturers interested in reducing emissions beyond 

the 2007 2.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx exhaust emission standard. The ARB has included the 

same flexibility for the 2007-2009 model years; however, beginning in 2010, the ARB 

specifies that manufacturers must meet an HC+NOx emission 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 takes advantage of readily available 

emission control technologies and provides the state the necessary HC+NOx emission 

reductions. 

Manufacturer certification data and the Southwest Research Institute data clearly 

demonstrate that the same emission control technologies 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 levels 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 comments A.1 and A.7 above, and C.1 

through C.5 below, the ARB believes the standards for 2010 are appropriate. 

C. LPG Fuel Quality 

1. Comment: Although Toyota Industries Corporation may refer to automotive 

technology, industrial lift truck technology and applications is considerably 

different than the automobile. Unlike gasoline powered automobiles, for which 

fuel quality standards exist, approximately 90 percent of industrial forklifts 
31 

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, combined with heavy contaminants 

commonly found in LPG fuels will impact the performance of these very 

sophisticated emission control systems. Without measures 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 contamination to reduce impact on 

control devices (Nissan) 

3. Comment: ARB has drastically reduced on-road emissions standards over the 

last ten years. However, ARB has also developed and rigorously enforced 

reformulated gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuel quality standards to help 

manufacturers meet these emissions standards. Although LPG fuel specifications 

exist on the books, they are not nor have they ever been enforced. ARB 

recognizes the importance that clean fuels play when developing new emissions 

standards and technologies. From a 2005 Off-Road LSI workshop presentation, 

ARB stated that “Clean fuel is important”, “Heavy ends are detrimental to control 

technologies”, and “Strive to ensure high quality fuel throughout distribution 

chain”. New technologies designed to meet lower emissions standards are far 

more sensitive to LPG fuel contaminants such as oily residues, paraffins, and 

propene as compared to older technologies. Such contaminants may reduce the 

effectiveness of the emission control system and increase emissions. In many 

cases, this reduced effectiveness is not reversible and components must be 

replaced to operate as designed. Before more stringent emissions standards 

can be implemented, ARB must first enforce fuel quality 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 support existing and future 

LPG-fueled vehicles including developing appropriate specifications, if 

necessary.” ITA’s initial comments pointed out the many aspects of the 

fuel-quality issue and stated our concern “that CARB 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-year period since the initial ISOR, 

the only progress that CARB has made on the fuels problem is the issuance of a 

request for proposals to analyze 150 LPG samples that CARB staff intends to 

collect. The analytical work itself will not be completed for at least another year. 

Although the analysis presumably will confirm the fuel-quality problem and will 
32 

perhaps shed some light on its scope, it will do nothing to solve it. Solving it will 

likely require a rulemaking proceeding and/or a major enforcement effort in order 

to change the long-standing business behavior of the myriad participants in the 

propane production, transmission, storage and distribution sectors. This is a 

long-term prospect. Rather than offering a plan for meeting the commitment 

made in the original ISOR, however, the current ISOR simply deleted the 

commitment. Without explanation, staff has removed from the ISOR the 

statement that “ARB will take the necessary steps to 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 ISOR in most respects, the 

pointed elimination of this earlier statement of commitment concerning the fuel 

problem is hardly encouraging. The omission of the commitment may be a tacit 

acknowledgement that it cannot be met in the necessary time frame, but the 

requirements of technological feasibility cannot be so easily avoided. The fact 

remains that dependable fuel quality is necessary to support such low emissions 

levels, but dependable fuel quality is not on the near horizon. (ITA 1) (ITA 2) 

5. Comment: Fuel quality will play an important role in the successful use of 

advanced three-way catalyst systems to achieve ARB’s proposed 2007 and 2010 

emission standards for new LSI engines, optional lower certification emission 

standards for new engines, and retrofit applications verified at some of the lower 

absolute emission levels (or highest conversion efficiencies) included in this ARB 

proposal. The importance of fuel quality in an overall systems approach to 

reducing exhaust emissions has clearly been demonstrated in the automotive 

industry for both gasoline and diesel fuel. The same attention to fuel quality is 

necessary with LPG fuel used by off-road LSI engines. MECA asks ARB to 

continue its efforts to work with industry to determine 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 sometimes damaging impact on the fuel 

delivery system and the emissions control system. Contamination typically occurs 

downstream of production during storage and distribution. 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 often the result of using commercial 

grade fuel in motor vehicles. Commercial grade fuel 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 ultimately 
33 

causing poor delivery of the fuel and inaccurate fuel-to-air ratios. Heavy hydrocarbon 

residue may also cause similar problems. 

In 1992, ARB established motor vehicle fuel specifications for LPG limiting the propene 

content to 10 percent by volume. Other heavier hydrocarbons are also limited. Not all 

LPG produced meets the LPG motor vehicle specifications. The LPG not meeting the 

motor vehicle specification is considered commercial grade propane and is used mostly 

for space heating and recreational purposes. 

The motor vehicle fuel specifications also limit sulfur 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 consultation with engine makers. In 

excess of the specification, sulfur can be detrimental to catalysts and can cause an 

increase in HC+NOx emissions. 

The ARB is committed to working with industry to determine if the existing LPG fuel 

specifications are adequate to support more stringent emission standards. The ARB is 

executing a contract to analyze 150 LPG samples from various sites statewide and will 

determine if regulatory action is required either in 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 manufacturers, refiners, and LPG 

distributors to make advanced fuel filters, low olefin LPG fuel, and fuel additives 

available to fleets, leading to reduced emissions and vehicle maintenance and improved 

fuel efficiency. In addition to efforts taken by the ARB, it will be incumbent upon 

equipment users to obtain readily available clean motor vehicle grade fuel. 

6. Comment: Test fuel should be harmonized. Generally, California gasoline is 

cleaner. So, CARB should approve federal certification gasoline without any 

demonstration. (Nissan) 

Agency Response: The ARB already allows manufacturers to use fuel other 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 off-road engines or SORE under 

ARB) or LSI engines. The EMA supports retaining language proposed in the 

45-day public hearing notice that would allow harmonization 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 liter that are derived from small 

spark-ignition engines, and these manufacturers have special circumstances: 

distinct technology, application, cost, and market differences, and because of the 

benefits associated with harmonization with U.S. EPA. ARB staff has done this 
34 

in the proposed 45-day notice package. Additionally, 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 regulatory language for 

CCR, title 13, section 2430 in the 45-day notice would have allowed manufacturers of 

engines with displacement of one liter or less an opportunity to certify to either the LSI 

or the SORE regulations. In reviewing this language, 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 category 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-protective and would address 

reductions that may be possible from these small engines that are very different from 

LSI engines in both their engineering and application. For this reason at the hearing, 

the Board directed that the existing controls for these engines remain in place until a 

new assessment specifically addressing cost-effective emission control technologies 

could be completed. 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. 

2. Comment: The proposed evaporative emission requirements harmonize with 

U.S. EPA requirements for greater than one liter engines; however they do not 

harmonize for engines of one liter or less since there 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 liter or less to be certified to 

ARB SORE evaporative emission requirements per title 13, Chapter 15, but 

these provisions are scheduled to take effect in the 2008 model year, providing 

only a little over a year. This is important because 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 feasibility of compliance with evaporative 

emission requirements for LSI engines with a displacement of one liter or less 

and the lead time is inadequate, EMA recommends that implementation of 

evaporative emission controls for engines with a displacement 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 liter or less from consideration in this 

rulemaking. There are no longer any evaporative emission requirements for LSI 

engines with a displacement of one liter or less; however, the Board will be pursuing a 

new rulemaking in the future to address these engines. That rulemaking will consider 

cost and technical feasibility and will establish effective dates and a reasonable 

development lead time based on consultation with the affected industry. 

3. Comment: To minimize confusion between requirements of the proposed 

regulatory language, EMA recommends: section 2433(b)(1) reflect the provisions 

in 1048.101(f) and 1048.615(a) and (d) of the following two documents - 

“California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 
35 

through 2009 Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition 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 less 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 displacement 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 Procedures for New 2007 through 

2009 Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines” 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 liter with higher and higher 

power ratings. And it needs further consideration as to what emission standards 

and test cycles should apply to those engines. (ECS) 

Agency Response: As discussed in the response to Comment D.1, ARB staff will 

return to the Board with regulatory modifications for LSI engines with a displacement of 

one liter or less at a later date. At that time, the Board will address all issues relative to 

these engines, including higher power rating engines. 

E. Modifications to the Airport Ground Support Equipment Provisions 

1. Comment: ATAA and its members believe that ARB is preempted from 

regulating airport ground support equipment (GSE) in the manner proposed by 

the LSI rule by the Federal Aviation Act, Airline Deregulation Act, and Clean Air 

Act, which reflect Congress’ judgment that GSE – which is critical to the safe and 

efficient functioning of the National Airspace System – 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 support 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 addressing the health-based 

regulation of air pollution. While the CAA preempts state regulation of emissions from 

aircraft and their engines, California notably is granted independent authority under 

CAA section 209(e)(2) to adopt and enforce standards 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 under the FAA relates to aircraft 

operations and airspace management, while the scope of preemption under the ADA 

relates to economic regulations that affect the rates, routes or services of an air carrier. 
36 

Since the LSI fleet requirements are health-based and do not affect these areas, they 

are not federally preempted. 

2. Comment: Section 2775.2(e)(2)(C) unnecessarily provides that compliance 

extensions (the so-called “off-ramp provision”) shall not be issued by the 

executive officer beyond January 1, 2013. Given the necessity that such 

extensions be available for GSE and the nature of the showing required under 

section 2775.2(e)(2)(B), it is not necessary to place an arbitrary date limit on the 

executive officer’s ability to grant compliance extensions. Instead, the EO should 

be empowered to grant such extensions at the outset. At a minimum, for 

determinations involving extensions beyond 2013, the EO should be empowered 

to make the initial determination, subject to Board review, with the EO’s 

determination standing absent Board action to the contrary. While ATAA would 

prefer that the off-ramp provisions extend beyond 2013, we trust the Board will 

approve such an extension should future circumstances support that. (ATAA 1) 

(ATAA 2) 

Agency Response: As noted by the commenter, the compliance extensions specific to 

GSE are limited. However, the general regulatory language for compliance extensions 

provides the Executive Officer enough flexibility to make such adjustments if conditions 

warrant an extension beyond 2013. 

3. Comment: Allow on-road equivalent GSE into fleet average calculations. 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 airport ground support equipment into 

the “Airport Ground Support Equipment” and “Fleet Average 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 regulations. 

4. Comment: ATAA is pleased that ARB staff has recommended the removal of 

the proposed 30 percent electrification mandate from the rule and urges the 

Board in the strongest possible terms to accept that recommendation. As staff 

pointed out, airlines in the aggregate already meet the proposed electrification 

target today. And record keeping requirements provide staff ample ability to 

monitor airline electrification levels going forward, 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 recommended the removal of the 

electrification mandate from the rule. The electrification mandate is 
37 

unnecessary, as the environmental benefits from the rule are already captured 

by the fleet average emission requirements. In addition, the mandate unfairly 

targets most, but not all, domestic air carriers and creates a competitive 

advantage for foreign airlines that would not be impacted by it. (UAL 2) 

Agency Response: The Board agreed with the staff recommendation and 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 horsepower electric-powered 

units perform the same work as LSI engine-powered units with higher 

horsepower, but on a far more efficient basis. United requests that ARB confirm 

that electric carts and other less than 25 hp electric-powered equipment can be 

allowed to be incorporated into the GSE fleet for the purpose of fleet average 

calculations. (UAL 1) 

Agency Response: The “Fleet Average Emission Level” definition specifically 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 LSI engine-powered piece of 

equipment.” If the operator can demonstrate that their electric carts and other 

electric-powered equipment of less than 25 hp perform the work equivalent of an LSI 

engine-powered piece of equipment, then those pieces 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 compliance approach. As 

anyone who has sat in an airplane and watched the ground crew prepare for a 

flight probably knows, airport ground support equipment are often atypical 

vehicles. Ground support equipment, or GSE, are highly specialized, built for 

durability and operated to ensure safe and on-time commercial air travel. A fleet 

average approach provides GSE operators with the operational flexibility to 

select the most appropriate and technologically feasible control option for each 

unit. (UAL 2) 

Agency Response: ARB worked closely with air carriers to understand the unique 

environment and operating requirements associated with 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 LSI rule to reflect that 

ATV engines and applications are not similar to true LSI engine applications. The 

certification of these products best fits within the OHRV regulations. (L&W) 

(Polaris) 
38 

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the comment and has considered the 

classification of these engines at the Board's July 2006 hearing on Off-Highway 

Recreational Vehicles. The final regulation clarifies that engines used in all-terrain 

vehicles and applications are now subject to the Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles 

regulations. See FSOR section II. Modifications Made to the Original Proposal, part A. 

Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines for a description 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 1051). It would be better if 

vehicles and engines covered by 40 CFR, Part 1051 were 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 manufacturers, and dryers” because 

the operations involve basic processing of fruits and vegetables analogous to the 

nut hullers, packinghouses, and cotton gins that are also included in the 

proposed rule as agricultural operations. (CLFP) 

Agency Response: In response to this comment, ARB has clarified the definition of 

“agricultural crop preparation services” and has added clarifying definitions for “nut 

hullers and processors” and “dehydrators.” To reflect 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 added 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 activities, the form of the agricultural crop is 

changed, typically through slicing, dicing, chopping, flaking, juicing, or freeze-drying. 

The operations at canneries, freezer plants, and juice 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 and processors” and “dehydrators” that 

are consistent with the scope of the NAICS definition for “Industry 115114 − Postharvert 

Crop Activities.” The definition of “dehydrators” includes both artificial and sun drying as 
39 

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 section II. Modifications Made to the 

Original Proposal, part E. Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Fleet Requirements. 

2. Comment: Our concern with this rule is in the fleet definition. And we feel that 

as defined it would conceivably lump as one fleet the 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 cookie 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 really a city unto itself, with a daytime 

population of 50,000 people, with a span of activities from ship loading, ship 

maintenance, warehousing, even a major recycling facility. 

We would like to see the fleet definition allow us to define the fleet as an 

individual military installation and not run the risk of having them defined as the 

entire military establishment in California. (USN 1) (USN 2) 

Agency Response: The “Aggregated Operations” definition requires fleets to be 

aggregated (fleet size determinations made) at the same government or corporate 

headquarters organizational level as purchasing decisions are made. ARB believes that 

the definition provides the flexibility for the commenter to aggregate equipment at an 

“installation” level. 

3. Comment: We would also like to see the definition of tactical 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 tactical vehicles or 

equipment” as requested. 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 modification. 

H. Financial Impact on Businesses and Consumers 

1. Comment: Along with the significant resources (manpower and money) required 

to develop such an engine/emission system to meet the ARB 2010 proposal, 

comes the financial impact on society. Manufacturers developing 

engine/emission systems to meet this proposal would pass on the considerably 

high development expense directly to California customers. From a California 

customer perspective, the combination of ARB’s proposal 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 for emissions. I think you 

should stay out these small use areas and concentrate 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 periodically performing 

emissions tests to demonstrate compliance with the standards. Durability 

programs typically run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 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 many times that 2010 new 

engine standard can be met through minor calibration changes and minor 

catalyst changes at a small incremental cost per engine. 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 would still be required to 

perform four additional durability demonstration programs, which would cost an 

additional $2 million with no real benefit to Californians or to clean air. Assuming 

that a new generation technology must also be developed, the total cost could be 

$3 million. 

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

California as EPA does not intend to create more stringent 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 California market. IMPCO is a California 

business headquartered in Santa Ana, California. California Code 11346.3 

requires that ARB assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on 

California business. ARB’s ISOR states: “Engine manufacturers are located 

mostly outside of California.” And the Notice of Public Hearing states: “In 

accordance with Government Code section 11346.3, the 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 State of California, or the 

expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California.” 

IMPCO will incur significant costs to meet ARB’s proposed transient HC+NOx 

standards. The statements above seriously misrepresent and undermine the 

financial impact to IMPCO, a California company that will represent almost 50 

percent of the total LSI forklift market in California. 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 the 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 proposes to perform a maximum of 

one durability program on the expected worst case engine to fulfill this durability 

demonstration requirement for these 2010 engines rather than performing four 

separate durability demonstration program. (IMPCO 2) 

Agency Response: Manufacturers are already in the process of certifying 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 they 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 and that this cost would be passed 

along to the consumer. 

The Board acknowledged IMPCO’s concern with performing expensive durability 

programs and directed that staff work with industry to build flexibility into the durability 

demonstrations, thereby reducing the cost of compliance. ARB certification staff has 

already expressed agreement in concept with the proposal 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 forklift, certified to the 2010 standard, will 

be made available nationwide. We expect other manufacturers will do the same. And 

we expect other states, if not the federal government, may adopt our 2010 HC+NOx 

standard. 

I. Equipment Replacement using Incentive Funding 

1. Comment: Please confirm that food processors with owned fleets of LSI forklifts 

will be eligible for Carl Moyer Program incentive funding for off-road equipment 

retrofits. (CLFP) 

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

to the extent that cost-effective emissions reductions from the retrofit of these forklifts 

are in excess of, or in advance of, emissions reductions attributable to the LSI 

regulation. 

2. Comment: While we are not completely satisfied with this version 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 comment, and that's to strongly 

encourage this Board and the staff to go back and revisit 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 Moyer, look at that and address 
42 

the emissions from those engines and the opportunity 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. Since 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 services to reduce the economic burden on 

agricultural businesses. Specifically, rather than requiring the replacement of all 

uncontrolled forklifts, which could have entailed the 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 kind of assistance; however, other 

entities, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 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 peak periods of the year, 

peak periods that will correlate with poor air quality. And although they may not 

do a huge number of years to, quote, be cost effective under Moyer, I think if one 

took a look at their operational periods at peak times of the year, you'd find out 

that further considering grants or incentives to retrofit those equipment would not 

only give you reductions at severe air quality periods, 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 the regulation, but 

the ARB would like to address it anyway. Those pieces 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 industry to provide funding for equipment in 

these applications providing that cost effective emission reductions can be obtained as 

required by the incentive programs. 

J. Miscellaneous Comments 

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

assertion that normal fleet turnover would not bring about sufficient emission 

improvements by the prescribed dates. ARB staff has not evaluated the impact 

on turnover of leased forklifts. The proportion of leased equipment used in 

California will have a significant impact on the average emission improvement 

that can be expected from normal equipment turnover. Forklift leases run five 

years while the ARB analysis assumed a seven-year fleet turnover. 
43 

Different size fleets are not differentiated from each other regarding their relative 

age or proportion of leased equipment, but are assumed to have the same 

average age of equipment and turnover. 

The ARB forklift inventory is not up to date, but is projected from a 1990 

baseline. If staff had used the four 5-year turnover 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 details of the forklift analysis 

raises concerns about the Board’s commitment to transparency. In an age of 

essentially cost-less electronic publication, there is no reasonable justification for 

withholding any detail of staff analyses that is essential to an outside review. 

That detail should include working copies of the actual 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 until a consideration of the impact 

of leasing on fleet turnover is conducted and all details of staff calculations are 

made public with sufficient time allowed for their analysis. (CTA) 

Agency Response: Fleet turnover is the foundation upon which the fleet average 

emission level requirements were built. Based on the most detailed studies of the 

forklift industry (for example, the CNG report referenced in our ISOR (GRI, 1995, 

"Industrial Truck Market Analysis," Final Report (GRI-95/0422), Gas Research Institute, 

October 1995), our own statewide equipment inventory, and information gleaned from 

equipment providers and users, seven years is the typical 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 expected, larger facilities have 

shorter turnover rates and smaller facilities have longer turnover rates. 

While some facility fleets may be comprised exclusively of leased equipment, most are 

comprised of a mix of rental, leased, and owned equipment. And often, the rental or 

owned equipment is former leased equipment. As such, 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 several 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 2005 workshops for the LSI 

rulemaking. Development of the fleet average was discussed at both workshops. CTA 

never inquired about the seven-year turnover until April 2006 – within the 45-day public 
44 

hearing notice comment period. In recognition of the 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 calculations 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 Benefit Spreadsheet). ARB staff 

previously discussed the spreadsheet with the LSI working group and committed to 

making it available upon request as we did with CTA. 

2. Comment: Format of certification documents should be harmonized. The 

[power measurement] unit is not consistent with that of the U.S. EPA. While the 

U.S. EPA uses g/kW-hr, CARB uses g/bhp-hr. Emission standards are written in 

an engine label. So this inconsistency may cause customer confusion. CARB 

should harmonize with the U.S. EPA. (Nissan) 

Agency Response: All of the ARB’s certification documents follow similar formatting, 

and modifying the LSI certification documents to more closely harmonize with U.S. EPA 

certification documents would create difficulties for ARB certification staff. However, the 

ARB has committed to the same unit of power (kilowatt-hour) as the U.S. EPA. All 

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

3. Comment: CARB should approve the alternative test procedure written in 

40 CFR 1065.10 without any demonstration, if U.S. EPA approves it. (Nissan) 

Agency Response: The ARB works closely with the U.S. EPA on these procedures 

and achieves common approvals when possible. At the same time, situations may arise 

where the U.S. EPA determines something is appropriate without giving full 

consideration for California's specific needs and responsibilities 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 they 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 corresponding 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 corresponding 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 table 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 contain field test 

requirements. Nissan believes there is no field test 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. 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. 

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 Blue Sky standards. 

Manufacturers choosing to certify to the OLES standard 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 indicate whether design 

standard application is allowed. CARB should allow 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 Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Model-Year Off-Road 

Large Spark-Ignition Engines” and the adopted “California Exhaust and Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later 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 engine 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 resources 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 operate industrial lift trucks. 

(TMHU 1) 

Agency Response: The ARB appreciates Toyota’s commitment to a greener fleet and 

the Board has determined that the emission reductions attributable to this regulation are 

cost-effective. The ARB’s 2007 through 2009 standards harmonize with those of the 

U.S. EPA; therefore, there are little or no additional costs to Toyota for complying with 
46 

that portion of the California regulation. The ARB 2010 standard is expected to be met 

through minor catalyst and calibration changes to those engines designed to meet the 

existing 2007 standard. The ARB estimates these costs 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 warming. Fuel cell 

vehicles that use reformulated gasoline produce large amounts of CO2. Fuel 

cells are likely to be used in future models of forklifts and other industrial 

equipment. I urge CARB to include restrictions on CO2 emissions in this 

rulemaking, and to implement CO2 restrictions on passenger vehicles and trucks. 

(Murphy) 

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

undertaken to reduce emissions of HC+NOx from LSI engines. These LSI emissions 

contribute significantly to the formation of smog or ground level ozone in California. The 

rulemaking fulfills commitments made in the 2003 State Implementation Plan to adopt 

two measures that address respectively the emissions of new and in-use LSI engines. 

Although fuel cells using gasoline reformers may have higher CO2 emissions, fuel cells, 

especially those used in off-road equipment, are expected to use hydrogen directly 

(without a reformer). And a number of methods of producing 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, including 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 proposed 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 robust solution for reducing 

emissions from uncontrolled, in-use LSI engines. As detailed in the 

March 3, 2006 staff report, one manufacturer has already verified a retrofit 

system for a range of uncontrolled, off-road LSI engines. This verified retrofit 

system brings uncontrolled, 12 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx equipment down to 

1.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx emission levels, an emissions level well below the 2004 

3.0 g/bhp-hr HC+NOx certification requirements for new equipment. MECA fully 

expects additional manufacturers to verify cost-effective, durable retrofit options 
47 

for these LSI applications using the available interim and proposed final 

verification protocols. ARB’s proposed verification protocols provides end-users 

and ARB with needed assurances that retrofit options 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 retrofit verification applications. 

(MECA 1) 

Agency Response: The ARB has committed staff to assist retrofit emission control 

system manufacturers in validating their control systems. 

13. Comment: Staff should provide annual implementation status reports to the 

Board with recommendations to further strengthen new and in-use emission 

requirements where feasible (CAPCOA) 

Agency Response: The regulatory standards for LSI engines include optional 

lower-emission standards that are numerically lower than the 2007 and 2010 mandatory 

standards. As engines are certified to these optional standards, ARB staff will have an 

opportunity to reassess the mandatory standards. Similarly, as retrofit emission control 

systems are verified, ARB staff will have an opportunity to reassess in-use emission and 

retrofit requirements. 

14. Comment: In-use proposal won’t ultimately achieve the emissions reductions 

that the state needs. The agricultural portion permanently exempts pre-1990 

equipment from the regulation with a loss of 1.5 tons per day in air quality 

benefits. (ED) 

Agency Response: The Board determined that the emission reductions attributable to 

the LSI regulation were the maximum achievable in consideration of technical and 

economic feasibility. In general, agricultural businesses have older forklifts than other 

businesses. Since there are no retrofit emission control systems available for these 

older forklifts, replacement would have been the only option. But the Board determined 

that it was not economically feasible for agricultural businesses to replace forklifts 

because the equipment is only used seasonally and does not accrue hours as rapidly, 

and because agricultural businesses are price takers and cannot easily pass along the 

cost of new equipment. 

15. Comment: Special Treatment for Small Volume Engines. Harmonization is a 

good concept to concentrate manufacturers’ development resources on 

environmentally friendly equipment. But by this standard, harmonization ends in 

the 2009 model year. So, manufacturers will need measures 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 volume. In that case, it is very 

difficult for manufacturers to recover their development cost by equipment 
48 

price-up. CARB should consider special treatment for an engine family with 

small volume sales. (Nissan) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with this comment and believes that the 

commenter's proposal would give manufacturers an incentive 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 manufacturers through other means such 

as limits on production line testing or assigned deterioration 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 liter engines are excluded from the 

provisions of the LSI regulation for the reasons discussed in the agency response to 

Comment D.1. See FSOR section II. Modifications Made 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 OF 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 provide 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 action, together with an explanation 

of how the proposed action has been changed to accommodate the objection or 

recommendation or the reasons for making no change. The comments have been 

grouped by topic whenever possible. Comments not involving objections or 

recommendations specifically directed towards the rulemaking or to the procedures 

followed by the ARB in this rulemaking are not summarized below. Additionally, any 

other referenced documents are not summarized below. 
49 

Comment Received during the First 15-day Comment Period

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 which types of 

businesses will be eligible for the agricultural alternative 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 processors as 

“agricultural operations” and contended that the definition 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 Part IV. 

Summary of Comments to the Original Proposal (45-Day Notice) and Agency 

Responses. 

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

number of older forklifts that cannot be retrofitted 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 operations that will be included in the 

special compliance provisions, and some of the types that will be excluded. 
50 

Instead, ARB should develop a new proposal that will include fruit and vegetable 

canning and freezing operations. (CLFP) 

Agency Response: See the Agency Response to Comment G.1, in FSOR Part IV. 

Summary of Comments to the Original Proposal (45-Day Notice) and Agency 

Responses. 

4. Comment: It is unclear why CARB doesn’t simply define “Agricultural Crop 

Preparation Services” as activities that fall within the scope of NAICS 115114 

plus the activity of artificially drying and dehydrating fruits and vegetables, since it 

appears that the result would be the same. The attempt to clarify matters by 

excluding certain activities actually confuses matters by creating an implication 

that similar activities that are not specifically excluded are intended to be 

included. It seems that CARB could accomplish its entire purpose simply by 

defining “Agricultural Crop Preparation Services” as those activities that fall within 

the scope of NAICS 115114 plus the activity of artificially drying and dehydrating 

fruits and vegetables, eliminating the need to define “nut hullers and processors,” 

and “dehydrators.” (ITA) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the assertion that the results would be the 

same. “Artificially drying and dehydrating” is a superset 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 handle businesses 

that are engaged in both “Agricultural Crop Preparation 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 and 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 crop 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 California 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 has failed to properly do so. The 

modifications proposed in the December 1, 2006 modifications specifically 

preclude engine manufacturers from considering these engines as small spark 

ignition engines for purposes of certification and compliance. This is not in 
51 

accordance with the direction approved by the Board in Resolution 06-11, which 

states that the LSI rule must: (i) harmonize with federal programs; (ii) provide 

simplified certification procedures through alignment 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 certified as LSI 

engines, but exempts them from the LSI evaporative emission standards. As 

such, the LSI rule does not harmonize with the federal program and does not 

provide for simplified certification procedures through alignment with the federal 

program. Worse, these engines are subject to a less stringent LSI standard 

instead of the SORE standard. (EMA) 

3. Comment: It appears that CARB has reversed its written position, as set forth in 

the 45-day notice, concerning the treatment of engines 1 liter or less. The 

45-day notice stated as follows: Small engines. Engines with total displacement 

at or below 1000 cc may comply with the requirements of Title 13, California 

Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, Article 1, Small Off-Road Engines and Chapter 

15, Article 1, Evaporative Emission Requirements for 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 CARB proposes in the 15-day 

notice that these engines meet separate higher emissions standards than larger 

engines and that they not be required to meet the evaporative emissions 

standards does not alter the fact that this is a significant change in the regulatory 

scheme to which the engines are subject. The proposal destroys the alignment 

with EPA standards for these engines, imposes different certification and labeling 

requirements, and has potentially negative implications 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 this 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 could complete its assessment of the 

feasibility of new emission control technologies for 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 certify these engines to a SORE 

standard that is three times greater than the existing 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 specifically 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 displacement of greater than 

one liter; 

• the first of the two options described above for obtaining emissions reductions 

from LSI engines with a displacement of one liter or less has a potential for 

greater emission reductions over the long term, and

• it would be difficult to adopt a separate more stringent regulation for these small 

engines if the Board had already accepted modifications to the LSI regulation 

allowing manufacturers to choose to certify engines to the SORE standard. 

The ARB has already begun the process of identifying this category of engines as an 

emission reduction measure in the next State Implementation 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 regulatory 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 the LSI regulation or those of the 

SORE regulation. 

EMA points out that the regulatory language proposed 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 of 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 will include emission standards that are 

significantly lower than the 6.0 g/bhp-hr SORE standard (and more closely aligned to 

the LSI standards), and will be more health-protective, providing a greater benefit to the 

breathers of the State over the long term. 

In summary, the ARB believes that allowing manufacturers to certify an LSI engine with 

a displacement of one liter or less to the SORE standard as the commenter suggests 

provides manufacturers a convenient way to circumvent the more stringent existing 

standards promulgated for LSI engines with a displacement greater than one liter and 

the expected more stringent standards for LSI engines with a displacement of one liter 

or less. 

C. New Engine Standards 

1. Comment: The new definition of Family Emission Level is confusing. In other 

nonroad regulations, it is used for certification averaging programs, but this 

regulation does not have such a program. It appears that the use of FEL in this 

regulation relates only to the alternative emissions standards represented by the 

formula, but the concept of FEL is not needed for that purpose as shown by the 

fact that EPA uses the same formula without using the 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 established term FEL, 

consistent in its use, would be confusing to any significant degree. On the contrary, it 
53 

will make certification and compliance consistent with other ARB engine certification 

programs and ensure easier tracking of manufacturers' obligations for both staff and 

industry. In the context of this regulation, the term FEL has the same meaning as the 

manufacturer chosen standard. 

2. Comment: The provision for optional standards is out of place, 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) alternative certification formula. The 

optional exhaust emission standards formerly contained in (b)(1)(B) are now in 

subparagraph (b)(2). See FSOR, Part III. Subsequent Modifications (Second 15-Day 

Notice) section A, for further discussion of the regulation’s final organization. 

3. Comment: All of the adopted EPA standards, as for field testing and 

severe-duty engines, should be set forth in section 2433. They appear in the 

“Proposed California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 2007 Through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-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 Engines,” but they do not appear 

in §2433. Without them, §2433 is incomplete, misleading, and of no particular 

use. (ITA) 

Agency Response: ARB concurs that field testing and severe-duty engine standards 

should be included in Section 2433. Subparagraph (b)(1)(c) has been added containing 

a reference to the field testing standards contained 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 standards for model year 2007 

and newer severe-duty engines. See FSOR, Part III. Subsequent Modifications 

(Second 15-Day Notice) section A, for further discussion of the regulation’s final 

organization. 

4. Comment: There are various unexplained, substantive changes 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 standards, so the 

“correction,” cannot be attributed to harmonization. Instead, these appear to be 

unexplained substantive changes that make the optional 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 standards (OLES) is 

to achieve HC+NOx reductions in excess of those attributable 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 cases. The ARB modified the CO 

standards because it is not appropriate for ARB OLES engines to have emissions that 

exceed the emissions level of engines certified under the U.S. EPA’s alternative 

certification formula. 

Government Code section 11346.8(c) permits ARB to make changes to the originally 

proposed regulatory action if the change is significantly 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 Procedures for New 2010 and Later OffRoad Large Spark-Ignition Engines,” Subpart B section 1048.140. In the ARB’s first 

notice of modifications to the original proposal, the ARB added these optional standards 

to the incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative 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 “Optional 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 corresponding field testing 

standards for its optional standards. This may be an oversight, since EPA’s and 

CARB’s mandatory standards and EPA’s optional standards 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 defeat 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 operation, 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 Engines (1048.140). Until data 

is collected which indicates to the contrary, ARB should include separate, more 

lenient field-test emission standards consistent with those allowed by EPA. 

(IMPCO) 

Agency Response: ARB has included field testing standards for its optional 

standards. They appear in Section 2433 subparagraph (b)(2)(B) and are consistent 

with U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky standards. The U.S. EPA field testing standards contained in 

40 CFR, Part 1048.101(c) are already incorporated by 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, which 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-based certification for the 

evaporative emission standards. 

8. Comment: The 15-day notice proposes no further modification to this section, 

which would leave in place the modification announced in the 45-day notice. 

That modification changes §2434(c)(5)(G) by apparently 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 example given in the proposed 

modification applies to 2002 engines, which is confusing, since all new 2002 

engines were sold long ago and there was no previous requirement to include 

the emission level on such engines; and 2. CARB says that it is adopting 

40 CFR 1048.135, which has not been consistently interpreted 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, CCR, section 2434) also apply. And 

section 2434(c)(5)(G) as presented in the 45-day public hearing notice, clearly specifies 

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

contained in the emission label. See FSOR section III. Subsequent Modifications, 

part E. incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Off-Road Large Spark-ignition Engines” and 

incorporated “California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines for a 

description of the final regulation. 

9. Comment: CARB’s supplemental notice was intended to correct the omission of 

EPA’s separate standards for severe-duty engines. However, the correction is 

also in error because it inserts the wrong standards for HC+NOx. The EPA 

language is as follows: “For severe-duty engines, the Tier 2 HC+NOX standard is 

2.7 g/kW-hr and the Tier 2 CO standard is 130.0 g/kW-hr.” The language that 

CARB proposes to add is as follows: “For severe-duty 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 specifying the 

following HC+NOx emission standard for MY07-09 severe-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 emission standard is 

2.7 g/kW-hr. Therefore, the severe-duty engine HC+NOx standard specified in 

the Errata notice is far more stringent than the MY07-09 Tier 2 standard. This 
56 

0.8 g/kW-hr value should be revised to read 2.7 g/kW-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-duty engines has been modified to 

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

11. Comment: The difference between the MY07-09 Tier 2 (1048.101) and OLES 

(1048.140) emission standards is not clear. Manufacturers are allowed to certify 

to the Tier 2 emission standards using one of two methods: a) Certify to 

2.7 g/kW-hr HC+NOx and 4.4 g/kW-hr CO, or b) Use the formula 

(HC+NOX) × CO 0.784 ≤ 8.57, as long as HC+NOx does not exceed 2.7 g/kW-hr 

and CO does not exceed 20.6 g/kW-hr. The first three OLES HC+NOx and 

corresponding CO values are identical to those found using the formula 

(HC+NOX) × CO 0.784 ≤ 8.57 under the Tier 2 standards. Further clarification of 

the difference between engines certified under the Tier 2 emission standards 

(1048.101) and the OLES emission standards (1048.140) is appreciated. 

(IMPCO) 

Agency Response: The ARB promulgated Manufacturer Advisory Correspondence 

2005-01 in March 2005, establishing interim voluntary OLES. The MAC allowed 

equipment manufacturers to certify equipment to levels below the existing ARB and 

U.S. EPA Tier 1 standard so that it would be available to equipment operators working 

to attain the 2009 fleet average emission level requirements. 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 alternative certification formula in 

40 CFR Part 1048.101(a)(3). The field testing standards 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 stringent than those for the U.S. EPA’S 

Tier 2 standard. As such, a manufacturer might choose to certify to a low HC+NOx 

standard under the U.S. EPA Tier 2 standard to avoid the more stringent field testing 

standards associated with either the Blue Sky or OLES field testing standards. While 

concern about the more stringent field testing standards may preclude some 

manufacturers from certifying either OLES or Blue Sky engines, it is ARB’s hope that 

manufacturers will certify OLES engines to the first three OLES levels in the near term 

and to the three remaining OLES levels (0.5, 0.3, and 0.1 g/kW-hr) in the longer term as 

they become more comfortable controlling their engines to levels below the minimum 

HC+NOx level that a manufacturer can certify to under the U.S. EPA’s alternative 

certification formula. 

12. Comment: The proposed language, in setting forth the requirements 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 error, where the reference should 
57 

have been “all the requirements in this part that apply to 2007-2009 model year 

engines.” (ITA) 

13. Comment: ARB has proposed in 1048.140 that “...”OLES” engines must meet 

all the requirements in this part that apply to 2010 model year engines...” 2010 

model year engines are subject to substantially different requirements as 

compared to those for MY07-09 engines. IMPCO does not believe that ARB’s 

intent was to make it more difficult for a manufacturer to certify a MY07-09 

engine to a lower emission standard, by requiring that all of the MY10 

requirements are met. (IMPCO) 

Agency Response: The final regulation specifies that the requirements being applied 

to optional lower-emission standard (OLES) engines are those for model year 2007 

through 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 Standards and 

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

14. Comment: The Summary of Proposed Modifications says that section 1048.401 

is related to production line testing. However, the 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 production 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 there 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 Equipment” is based on 

the 24 categories in the South Coast Ground Support Equipment Memorandum 

of Understanding (“GSE MOU”). One of those categories is “forklifts.” 

Presumably, however, CARB does not intend to consider forklifts as Airport GSE 

for purposes of this regulation. Otherwise, a fleet comprised only of forklifts 

could literally meet the definition of a “non-forklift fleet” if the forklifts are 

characterized as GSE. In addition, the definition includes equipment designed 

for on-road use that lacks a California license plate. Taken literally, this could 

include an on-road truck, such as a fuel truck, catering truck or service truck, 

which bears a license plate from another state. (In 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 “vehicles 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 only the provisions of 

the regulation that are unique to GSE. In the final 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 categories of GSE designed for on-road 

use, but dedicated to GSE operations and not licensed for on-road use may be included 

in the GSE fleet average calculations. See FSOR Part III. Subsequent Modifications 

(Second 15-Day Notice), section D. for a description 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 are 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 on-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 turnover rate for on-road vehicles and 

modeling runs using the ARB’s EMFAC2002 emissions model. 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 Board 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 the fleet average is not licensed for 

on-road use in any state. See FSOR Part III. Subsequent 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 Modifications 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 one year until 2010. However, 

the explanation says that the new language would “exempt uncontrolled 2004 

rental equipment from the operator fleet average calculations for an additional 

year and equipment leased prior to May 25, 2006.” (ITA) 

Agency Response: A complete explanation for the changes was included in the 

Summary of Proposed Modifications. Since the changes 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 of the change is to 

“alleviate the economic burden on dealers” in light of the fact that “model year 
59 

2004 equipment contained in many instances uncontrolled 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 that matter, why the relief is 

limited to rented or leased equipment. (ITA) 

Agency Response: The ARB worked with the affected industry to establish provisions 

to address this select group of engines. The changes made were sufficient to alleviate 

the impact on dealers and agriculture while remaining 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 services depending on whether they 

are leased or rented, but the proposal never explains the difference. Although 

the intended distinction may be that “rental” refers 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 followed in other parts of the 

proposal. (ITA) 

Agency Response: The ARB agrees with the comment and added definitions for 

rental and lease as applied to forklifts used in agricultural crop preparation services in 

title 13, CCR, section 2775.1(c)(3) to clarify intent. 

4. Comment: Another problem making the treatment of forklifts used in agricultural 

crop preparation services incomprehensible arises from the contradiction 

between the introductory portion of §2775.1(c) and the subparts under it. The 

introductory part, or scope, is limited to “owned uncontrolled” forklift engines. 

However, (c)(3)(A) and (B) deal, respectively, with leased and rented forklifts, not 

“owned” forklifts. Both also deal with forklifts that meet a 4 g/kW-hr standard, not 

“uncontrolled” forklifts (except for the last sentence of (B)). (ITA) 

Agency Response: The ARB agrees that clarification was needed. To 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 requirements not only for owned forklifts, 

but requirements for rental and leased forklifts as well. 

5. Comment: The provisions of §2775.1(f) complicate matters further. This 

subsection exempts operators of forklift fleets used 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 provides an alternative compliance 

option to §2775.1(c). In fact, it might be characterized as an alternative to an 

alternative, since §2775.1(c) is itself an alternative or exception to §2775.1(a), 

which sets forth the basic fleet average requirements. However, as noted, 

§2775.1(c) is limited to owned, uncontrolled forklifts. Thus, it appears that there 

is no exception or alternative compliance option for operators of forklift fleets 

used in agricultural crop preparation services insofar as those fleets consist of 
60 

controlled forklifts. This would suggest that operators of forklift fleets used in 

agricultural crop preparation services must still comply with §2775.1(a), which 

sets forth the table of Fleet Average Emission Level Standards, as to their 

owned, controlled fleets. It seems unlikely that this was CARB’s intention and 

more likely that CARB instead intended a completely separate program for forklift 

fleets used in agricultural crop preparation services, whether the forklifts are 

owned, rented, leased, controlled or uncontrolled. Assuming this is the case, the 

proposal should be reorganized to put those forklifts into a stand-alone section, 

because the current approach is not comprehensible. (ITA) 

Agency Response: The ARB believes that the existing language is clear 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 operators subject to the 

requirements in §2775.1(a).” The Summary of Proposed Modifications explains 

that this is limiting language intended to limit the application of §2775.2(a) and (b) 

to medium and large fleets. However, the first sentence 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 problem is worse in §2775.2(b). 

Even if one guessed that the first sentence of §2775.2(b) was limited to medium 

and large fleets (notwithstanding the ambiguity just discussed), the next 

sentence, which deals with fuel records, applies simply to “Fleet operators,” 

without limitation to “fleet operators subject to the 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 not CARB’s intention, according 

to the Summary of Proposed Modifications. These subsections need to be 

rewritten so as to leave no doubt about which, if any, recordkeeping 

requirements are imposed on operators of small fleets. (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 those with a non-forklift fleet (four or 

more pieces of equipment by definition) are required to conduct a baseline inventory 

and keep records. See FSOR section III. Subsequent Modifications, part D. Article 2. 

Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engine Fleet Requirements 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 1996, and not 2004. (Nissan) 

Agency Response: The ARB has added a date to Section 2433(b)(4)(B) specifying 

that the applicable evaporative emission specifications for non-metallic fuel lines are 

contained in the November 1996, and not the November 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 additionally recommends 

that brake horsepower be included parenthetically. (ITA) 

3. Comment: Terms of grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), grams per 

kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr), horsepower (hp), and kilowatt (kW) are used 

inconsistently throughout the proposed text. To align 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, optionally referencing g/bhp-hr and 

hp in parenthesis. (IMPCO) 

Agency Response: The ARB has corrected the notes accompanying the standards 

tables in Section 2433(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2)(A), 40 CFR 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 the 2010 and later model year 

engines) to clarify that emissions are to be reported to the ARB in units of g/kW-hr. 

Emissions were previously reported in units of g/bhp-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 reference power in g/kW-hr. The ARB will 

not provide power references parenthetically in g/bhp-hr because of the opportunity it 

provides for confusion on the part of equipment operators performing fleet average 

emission level calculations. However, outreach materials 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 the CCR: - MY07+ EmissionControl Labels (CCR 2434, 40 CFR 1048.135); - MY07+ Emission Control 

System Warranty Statement (CCR 2436, 40 CFR 1048.120) (IMPCO) 

Agency Response: Provisions were added to the State’s warranty and labeling 

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 – apply. 

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 modifications. 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 and form of the timely submitted 

comment. That is followed by a summary of each objection or recommendation made 

regarding the proposed action, together with an explanation of how the proposed action 
62 

has been changed to accommodate the objection or recommendation 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-emission standard 

(OLES) off-road large spark-ignition engines. However, these proposed field test 

standards are not incorporated into 40 CFR, Part 1048.140 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 were inadvertently 

omitted from section 1048.140 of both the “California Exhaust Emission Standards and 

Test Procedures for New 2007 through 2009 Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition 

Engines” and the “California Exhaust and Emission Standards 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 model year Tier 2 

emission standards and the 2007 through 2009 model year OLES emission 

standards is still not clear. The OLES emission standards greater than or equal 

to 0.8 g/kW-hr are identical to the Tier 2 standards found in 1048.101 using the 

alternative certification formula (HC+NOx) x CO0.784 < 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 emission standard using the 

alternative certification formula, but the OLES provisions only allow certification 

to three distinct standards. With more stringent field test standards and minimum 

flexibility when choosing an emission standard, there does not appear to be any 

reason for a manufacturer to certify under the OLES provisions. IMPCO 

requests that the ARB either provide further clarification 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 Part V. 

Summary of Comments to the First 15-Day Notice of Modified Text and Agency 

Responses for a full discussion of this issue. 

3. Comment: To minimize confusion between ARB and U.S. EPA regulations, 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 which 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 that 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 Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for New 2010 and Later Model-Year Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition 

Engines.”