Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0133-0021
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-06-02T04:00Z

BOARD
MEETING
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
JOE
SERNA,
JR.
BUILDING
CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
CENTRAL
VALLEY
AUDITORIUM,
SECOND
FLOOR
1001
I
STREET
SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER
25,
2003
9:
00
A.
M.
JAMES
F.
PETERS,
CSR,
RPR
CERTIFIED
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
LICENSE
NUMBER
10063
TIFFANY
C.
KRAFT,
CSR,
RPR
CERTIFIED
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
LICENSE
NUMBER
12277
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD
MEMBERS
Dr.
Alan
Lloyd,
Chairperson
Mr.
Joseph
Calhoun
Ms.
Dorene
D'Adamo
Supervisor
Mark
DeSaulnier
Professor
Hugh
Friedman
Dr.
William
Friedman
Supervisor
Barbara
Patrick
Mrs.
Barbara
Riordan
BOARD
MEMBERS
EXCUSED
Dr.
William
Burke
Mr.
Matthew
McKinnon
Supervisor
Ron
Roberts
STAFF
Ms.
Catherine
Witherspoon,
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Tom
Cackette,
Chief
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Michael
Scheible,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Ms.
Lynn
Terry,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Ms.
Kathleen
Tschogl,
Ombudsman
Ms.
Kathleen
Walsh,
General
Counsel
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
iii
APPEARANCES
CONTINUED
STAFF
Mr.
Gerhard
Achtelik,
Air
Pollution
Specialist,
MSCD
Ms.
Analisa
Bevan,
Manager,
ZEV
Implementation
Section
Ms.
Crystal
Reul
Chen,
Air
Resources
Engineer,
Retrofit
Implementation
Section,
MSCD
Mr.
Bob
Cross,
Chief,
MSCD
Ms.
Cynthia
Garcia,
Population
Studies
Section,
Research
Division
Ms.
Annette
Hebert,
Chief,
Heavy­
Duty
Diesel
In­
Use
Strategies
Branch,
MSCD
Mr.
Jack
Kitowski,
Chief,
On­
Road
Controls
Branch
Mr.
Bob
Loscutoff,
Chief,
Monitoring
and
Laboratory
Division
Ms.
Alexa
Malik,
Board
Secretary
Mr.
George
Poppic,
Staff
Counsel
Mr.
David
Salardino,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
Ms.
Nancy
Steele,
Manager,
Retrofit
Implementation
Section,
MSCD
Mr.
Jim
Watson,
Monitoring
and
Laboratory
Division
ALSO
PRESENT
Mr.
Tom
Addison,
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
Districts
Ms.
Yvette
Agredano,
California
Chapters
of
SWANA
Mr.
David
Achiro,
Tahoe
Truckee
Sierra
Disposal
Co.,
Inc.
Mr.
Don
Anair,
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists
Mr.
Jeff
Arnold,
Association
of
Rotation
Molders
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
iv
APPEARANCES
CONTINUED
ALSO
PRESENT
Mr.
Kelly
Astor,
CA
Refuse
Removal
Council
Ms.
Diane
Bailey,
NRDC
Mr.
Rick
Bell,
Dupont
Ms.
Emily
Brown,
Inform
Mr.
Doug
Button,
South
San
Francisco
Scavenger
Co.,
Inc.
Mr.
Todd
Campbell,
City
of
Burbank
&
Coalition
for
Clean
Air
Mr.
Frank
Caponi,
L.
A.
County
of
Sanitation
Mr.
Richard
Caglia
II,
Industrial
Waste
and
Salvage
Mr.
Bill
Dobert,
Specialty
Solid
Waste,
CRRC
Mr.
Sean
Edgar,
California
Refuse
Removal
Council
Ms.
Shiela
Edwards,
Marine
Sanitary
Service
Mr.
Mark
Figone,
East
Bay
Sanitary
Company,
Inc.
Mr.
Jack
Fiori,
California
Waste
Recovery
Systems
Mr.
Tom
Fulks,
Green
Car
Institute
Ms.
Sheryl
Granzella,
Richmond
Sanitary
Service
Mr.
Bill
Guerry,
Outdoor
Power
Equipment
Institute
Mr.
Chuck
Helget,
Allied
Waste
Industries
Mr.
David
Huerta,
City
of
Fremont
Ms.
Bonnie
Holmes­
Gen,
American
Lung
Association
Ms.
Yvonne
Hunter,
League
of
California
Cities
Mr.
Robert
Kittell,
Electricab
Energy
Dr.
Joseph
Kubsh,
Manufacturer's
Emission
Control
Association
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
v
APPEARANCES
CONTINUED
ALSO
PRESENT
Mr.
Mark
Leary,
California
Integrated
Waste
Mr.
Jed
Mandel,
Engine
Manufacturers
Association
Mr.
Alan
Marchant,
Turlock
Scavenger
Company
Mr.
Ruben
Martinez,
Diesel
Air
Fleet
Service
Mr.
John
McNamara,
California
Refuse
Removal
Council
Mr.
Jim
Medich,
City
of
West
Sacramento
Mr.
Sam
Mendoza,
City
of
San
Diego
Mr.
Daniel
Meyers,
City
of
Los
Angeles
Mr.
Harry
Miller,
Tracy
Delta
Solid
Waste
Management
Co.
Mr.
David
Modisette,
Public
Policy
Advocates
Mr.
Michael
Mohajer,
L.
A.
County
Solid
Waste
Management
Committee
Ms.
Patricia
Monahan,
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists
Mr.
Kevin
Mullins,
Mill
Valley
Refuse
Service
Mr.
Graham
Noyes,
World
Energy
Mr.
Louie
Pellegrini,
Peninsula
Sanitary
Service
Ms.
Kathryn
Phillips,
Center
for
Energy
Efficiency
&
Renewable
Technologies
Ms.
Mary
Pitto,
Regional
Council
of
Rural
Counties
Mr.
Ronald
Proto,
CCRC
Member
Consulting
Group
Mr.
David
Raney,
Honda
Mr.
Andy
Rose
Mr.
Greg
Sanders,
Varner
Brothers,
Inc.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
vi
APPEARANCES
CONTINUED
ALSO
PRESENT
Mr.
Harry
Schrauth,
City
of
Oakland
Mr.
Dennis
Shuler,
Gilton
Solid
Waste
Management
Mr.
Wendel
Smith,
Global
Fuel
Mr.
Scott
Smithline,
Californians
Against
Waste
Mr.
Kent
Stoddard,
Waste
Management
Mr.
Timothy
Vail,
General
Motors
Mr.
Tim
Ward,
CA
Independent
Oil
Marketing
Association
Mr.
Paul
Wuebben,
South
Coast
AQMD
Ms.
Stephanie
Williams,
CA
Trucking
Association
Mr.
David
Wilson,
City
of
Los
Angeles
Ms.
Karen
Wilson,
Sacramento
Metropolitan
Air
Quality
Management
District
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
vii
INDEX
PAGE
Pledge
of
Allegiance
1
Roll
Call
1
Item
03­
7­
1
Chairman
Lloyd
16
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
17
Staff
Presentation
17
Q&
A
21
Item
03­
7­
2
Chairperson
Lloyd
22
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
23
Staff
Presentation
25
Ombudsman
Tschogl
42
Q&
A
44
Mr.
Mark
Leary
54
Ms.
Yvonne
Hunter
58
Mr.
Daniel
Meyers
60
Ms.
Mary
Pitto
61
Mr.
Harry
Schrauth
62
Mr.
Michael
Mohajer
62
Ms.
Yvette
Agredano
65
Mr.
Sam
Mendoza
68
Mr.
Frank
Caponi
75
Mr.
Jed
Mandel
77
Ms.
Emily
Brown
89
Mr.
David
Huerta
92
Mr.
Graham
Noyes
93
Ms.
Stephanie
Williams
100
Mr.
Tim
Ward
116
Mr.
Kelly
Astor
118
Mr.
Bill
Dobert
132
Mr.
Greg
Sanders
135
Mr.
Jack
Fiori
138
Mr.
Andy
Rose
141
Mr.
Mark
Figone
143
Mr.
Dennis
Shuler
147
Ms.
Sheila
Edwards
149
Mr.
Kevin
Mullins
151
Mr.
Louie
Pellegrini
154
Ms.
Sheryl
Granzella
157
Mr.
Ronald
Proto
158
Mr.
Doug
Button
159
Mr.
David
Archiro
161
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
viii
INDEX
CONTINUED
PAGE
Item
03­
7­
2
continued
Mr.
Henry
Miller
162
Mr.
Alan
Marchant
165
Mr.
John
McNamara
166
Mr.
Richard
Caglia
171
Mr.
Sean
Edgar
172
Mr.
Chuck
Helget
176
Mr.
Kent
Stoddard
179
Mr.
David
Wilson
184
Mr.
Paul
Wuebben
187
Mr.
Ruben
Martinez
188
Dr.
Joseph
Kubsh
191
Mr.
Scott
Smithline
193
Ms.
Karen
Wilson
195
Mr.
Todd
Campbell
197
Ms.
Bonnie
Holmes­
Gen
203
Mr.
Todd
Addison
206
Ms.
Patricia
Monahan
208
Ms.
Diane
Bailey
212
Mr.
Wendel
Smith
214
Q&
A
215
Motion
230
Vote
234
Item
03­
7­
3
235
Chairperson
Lloyd
235
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
237
Staff
Presentation
239
Q&
A
266
Ombudsman
Tschogl
284
Mr.
David
Raney
287
Mr.
Bill
Guerry
297
Mr.
Joseph
Kubsh
310
Mr.
Don
Anair
314
Mr.
Rick
Bell
316
Mr.
Jeff
Arnold
321
Mr.
Jeff
Medich
326
Mr.
Dave
Modisette
328
Mr.
Jed
Mandel
337
Discussion
354
Motion
355
Vote
359
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
ix
INDEX
CONTINUED
PAGE
Item
03­
7­
4
360
Chairperson
Lloyd
360
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
361
Staff
Presentation
362
Q&
A
371
Mr.
Timothy
Vail
378
Mr.
Tom
Fulks
384
Mr.
Robert
Kittell
395
Ms.
Kathryn
Phillips
399
Discussion
405
Adjournment
410
Reporters'
Certificates
412
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
1
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
morning.
The
September
3
25th,
2003,
public
meeting
of
the
Air
Resources
Board
will
4
now
please
come
to
order.
5
Dr.
Friedman,
will
you
please
lead
us
in
the
6
pledge
of
allegiance.
7
(
Thereupon
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
was
8
Recited
in
Unison.)
9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
10
Will
the
Clerk
of
the
Board
please
call
the
roll?
11
BOARD
CLERK
MALIK:
Dr.
Burke?
12
Mr.
Calhoun?
13
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Here.
14
BOARD
CLERK
MALIK:
Ms.
D'Adamo?
15
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Here.
16
BOARD
CLERK
MALIK:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier?
17
Professor
Friedman?
18
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Here.
19
BOARD
CLERK
MALIK:
Dr.
Friedman?
20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Here.
21
BOARD
CLERK
MALIK:
Mr.
McKinnon?
22
Supervisor
Patrick?
23
SUPERVISOR
PATRICK:
Here.
24
BOARD
CLERK
MALIK:
Ms.
Riordan?
25
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Here.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
2
1
BOARD
CLERK
MALIK:
Supervisor
Roberts?
2
Chairman
Lloyd?
3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Here.
4
Thank
you
very
much.
5
Before
we
start
this
morning,
I'd
just
like
to
6
highlight
a
couple
of
my
activities
in
the
last
week,
and
7
one
of
those
is
Mike
Scheible
and
myself
had
a
chance
to
8
go
down
to
the
port
of
Los
Angeles
last
week
to
see
9
firsthand
some
of
the
issues
being
faced
by
the
port
and
10
also
understand
what
can
be
done
in
terms
of
mitigating
11
air
quality
and
emission
issues
there.
So
again,
we
had
a
12
great
hosting
of
the
visit,
and
I
think
it
was
very,
very
13
educational.
Everybody
has
the
opportunity
to
do
that
­­
14
it
was
really
impressive.
And
to
see
it's
the
third
15
largest
port
in
the
world
behind
Singapore
and
Hong
Kong,
16
although
that's
traded
sometime
with
the
Port
of
Long
17
Beach.
18
A
few
interesting
pieces,
looking
at
the
truck
19
traffic
coming
in
there
as
well
as
now
the
increasing
20
train
and
rail
traffic,
so
I
think
there's
nothing
like
21
going
in
firsthand
and
seeing
what's
going
on.
22
Another
week
a
delegation
of
us
had
gone
down
23
including
Ms.
D'Adamo
to
visit
three
dairies
down
in
24
Modesto
area,
and
again,
that
was
very
educational
to
see
25
what
was
going
on
and
to
understand
the
complexity.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
3
1
I'd
just
like
to
indicate
the
first
slide
2
indicates
the
opportunity
that
Mike
and
I
had
to
go
out
in
3
the
early
morning
and
to
actually
go
up
on
one
of
these
4
rope
ladders
and
we
climbed
up
on
the
container
ship.
You
5
can
see
the
containers
right
at
the
top.
It's
about
200
6
feet
going
up
there.
So
we
had
to
make
sure
when
you
got
7
on
board,
if
it
was
rising
and
falling,
make
sure
you
got
8
out
on
the
up.
9
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
is
that
­­
10
CHAIRMAN
LLOYD:
That's
me
going
up.
Mike
­­
we
11
have
another
picture
of
Mike
also.
Mike
was
there.
We
12
had
a
great
time.
13
That's
the
real
story.
We
were
disappointed
that
14
we
didn't
have
to
travel
further.
But
the
person
who
did
15
the
photography,
his
wife
is
a
professional
photographer
16
so
he
said
he
could
embellish
that
for
us.
But
it
was
17
very
­­
it's
like
the
fishtail.
But
on
the
serious
side,
18
it
was
very
educational.
A
lot
can
be
done.
But
also
you
19
look
at
this
when
you
have
70,000
hour
power
diesel
20
engines
coming
in.
You
can
understand
the
magnitude
and
21
also
understand
what
can
and
cannot
be
done
when
we
talk
22
about
electrification
and
whatnot.
It's
easier
for
new
23
engines
than
older
engines.
But
also
the
port
­­
I
was
24
impressed
by
the
staff
and
the
management
there
of
trying
25
to
do
things
and
I
think
again
we
learned
a
lot.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
235
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
against?
2
Thank
you
very
much.
3
And
again,
thank
you,
staff,
for
a
great
job
in
4
bringing
this
together.
Unfortunately,
the
work
isn't
5
finished.
But
thank
you
very
much
indeed.
6
With
that,
we
will
take
a
break
until
3:
00
when
7
we'll
start
the
item
on
the
small
off­
road
engines.
8
(
Thereupon
a
recess
was
taken.)
9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
After
that
10
10­
minute
break
we
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
item,
11
03­
7­
3,
proposed
exhaust
and
evaporative
standards
for
12
small
off­
road
engines.
13
Staff
has
been
working
on
this
regulatory
14
proposal
for
several
years
and
is
now
ready
for
our
15
consideration.
I've
witnessed
firsthand
the
incredible
16
number
of
staff
hours
devoted
to
this
task;
the
extensive
17
negotiations
that
have
gone
on
with
the
affected
industry
18
groups;
and,
most
recently,
the
strenuous
efforts
19
undertaken
by
staff,
California's
two
senators,
the
20
Governor's
Washington
DC
office,
environmental
groups,
and
21
our
air
quality
colleagues
throughout
the
nation
to
defend
22
states'
rights
to
proceed
with
these
essential
emission
23
control
measures.
24
I
wish
I
could
report
that
the
latter
issue
was
25
resolved
at
this
time.
Unfortunately,
it
is
not.
And,
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
236
1
fact,
that's
why
we
had
the
slight
delay
because
we're
2
still
getting
communications
coming
in
on
this
issue.
3
But
what
is
absolutely
clear
in
my
mind
is
that
4
the
small
off­
road
engine
regulation
is
one
of
the
most
5
thoroughly
analyzed
and
most
carefully
constructed
rules
6
our
staff
has
worked
on
for
some
time.
It
is
not
7
half­
baked,
it
is
not
premature,
and
my
colleagues
on
the
8
Board
should
be
confident
that
staff
understands
this
9
source
category
quite
well.
10
And
I
remember
several
months
ago
I
was
asked
to
11
take
a
look
at
what
staff
was
doing
on
this
issue
to
make
12
sure
that
there
was
communication
between
the
industry
and
13
staff.
And,
again,
I
can
attest
that
maybe
there
was
some
14
lack
of
interest
on
industry,
or
at
least
maybe
not
taking
15
this
too
seriously,
but
since
that
time
I
feel
that
staff
16
has
been
fully
engaged.
We've
had
many
proposals.
We've
17
worked
­­
the
staff
was
worked
especially
with
many
pieces
18
of
the
industry.
And,
again,
today
while
we
clearly
don't
19
have
everybody
on
board,
I'm
convinced
that
those
people
20
who
are
interested
in
really
cleaning
up
the
air
have
21
worked
with
us
very
carefully
and
that
we
are
ready
to
22
hear
this
item.
23
Next
month
the
Board
will
consider
a
revision
to
24
the
State
Implementation
Plan
for
the
South
Coast
Air
25
basin.
That
plan
contains
several
regulatory
commitments
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
237
1
for
this
Board's
consideration.
And
we
already
are
2
receiving
letters
that
should
contain
even
more.
Two
of
3
the
commitments
in
the
proposed
South
Coast
plan
relate
to
4
reducing
emissions
from
small
off­
road
engines.
If
the
5
Board
approves
the
proposed
SORE
rule
today,
we
would
be
6
fulfilling
both
of
those
SIP
commitments.
7
And
so
this
is
an
important
rule,
it's
an
8
important
challenge
as
we
look
ahead,
as
I
mentioned,
to
9
next
month
the
challenge
we
have
in
the
South
Coast
basin.
10
We
need
every
pound
of
pollution
that
we
can
get
from
11
every
category
that
we
can
get.
12
And,
again,
I
continue
in
the
tradition
of
13
looking
at
making
sure
we
can
get
the
technology
that's
14
proven
elsewhere
into
various
categories
is
very,
very
15
important.
16
So,
Ms.
Witherspoon,
would
you
please
begin
the
17
staff
presentation
on
this
important
item.
18
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,
19
Chairman
Lloyd,
and
members
of
the
Board.
20
Small
off­
road
engines
are
a
major
source
of
21
emissions
in
California.
Exhaust
standards
previously
22
adopted
by
the
Board
have
stopped
the
growth
of
tailpipe
23
emissions
in
this
category.
However,
there
are
no
24
evaporative
emission
controls
in
place
today.
The
25
proposal
you
are
considering
would
tighten
exhaust
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
238
1
emission
standards
by
one­
third
and
would
establish
2
evaporative
standards
for
the
first
time.
3
As
you
will
hear
in
the
staff
presentation,
we
4
have
continued
to
work
with
the
major
stakeholders
right
5
up
to
the
eve
of
this
hearing.
As
a
result
of
these
6
discussions,
staff
will
be
proposing
revised
exhaust
7
emission
standards
and
two
new
options
to
comply
with
the
8
evaporative
emission
requirements.
9
The
revised
proposal
reduces
costs,
addresses
10
engineering
challenges
related
to
using
a
catalytic
11
converter
on
these
small
engines,
and
provides
additional
12
compliance
flexibility.
We
believe
the
staff's
revised
13
proposal
addresses
all
the
major
technical
issues
raised
14
by
industry
representatives,
while
achieving
nearly
the
15
same
emission
reductions
as
the
original
staff
proposal.
16
I'd
like
to
emphasize
these
changes
are
fully
17
within
the
scope
of
our
original
notice
and
can
be
acted
18
upon
by
the
Board
today
even
though
staff
is
still
working
19
on
the
specific
regulatory
language
to
accomplish
them,
20
which
would
be
circulated
for
comment
during
the
routine
21
15­
day
change
process.
22
At
this
time
I'd
like
to
turn
the
presentation
23
over
to
David
Salardino
of
our
Mobile
Source
Control
24
Division,
who
will
present
staff's
recommendation
on
the
25
exhaust
side.
Following
David's
presentation
Jim
Watson
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
239
1
of
our
Monitoring
and
Laboratory
Division
will
discuss
the
2
evaporative
emission
portion
of
the
proposal.
3
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
4
Presented
as
follows.)
5
MR.
SALARDINO:
Thank
you,
Ms.
Witherspoon.
6
Greetings,
Chairman
Lloyd,
members
of
the
7
Board
­­
8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Microphone
please.
It's
not
9
on.
10
MR.
SALARDINO:
Sorry.
Thank
you.
11
Greetings,
Chairman
Lloyd,
members
of
the
Board,
12
ladies
and
gentlemen.
13
Today
staff
is
proposing
for
the
Board's
approval
14
amendments
to
the
current
small
off­
road
engine
exhaust
15
emissions
regulations
as
well
as
new
regulations
to
reduce
16
evaporative
emissions
from
small
off­
road
engines
and
17
equipment.
This
item
is
a
joint
effort
between
staff
and
18
the
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
and
the
Monitoring
and
19
Laboratory
Division.
20
­­
o0o­­
21
MR.
SALARDINO:
In
this
presentation
I'll
begin
22
by
viewing
some
of
the
background
information
regarding
23
the
small
off­
road
engine
category.
I'll
then
summarize
24
our
proposal
to
reduce
exhaust
emissions
from
small
25
engines,
after
which
I
will
turn
the
presentation
over
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
240
1
Mr.
Jim
Watson
of
the
Monitoring
and
Laboratory
Division
2
to
summarize
the
evaporative
emission
reduction
proposal,
3
the
environmental
benefits
of
staff's
proposal,
as
well
as
4
the
economic
impacts.
5
Mr.
Watson
will
then
conclude
the
presentation
6
with
a
brief
summary
and
a
recommendation
to
the
Board.
7
­­
o0o­­
8
MR.
SALARDINO:
The
small
off­
road
engine
9
category
consists
of
engines
at
or
below
19
kilowatts.
It
10
includes
and
consists
of
both
two
and
four
stroke
engines,
11
which
are
used
primarily
in
lawn
and
garden
and
small
12
industrial
and
commercial
equipment.
By
definition,
this
13
category
does
not
include
equipment
that
qualifies
under
14
the
farm
and
construction
equipment
preemption
that
was
15
contained
in
the
1990
federal
­­
16
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Excuse
me.
We're
17
having
trouble
hearing
you.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
putting
18
that
microphone
real
close
to
your
chin,
I'd
really
19
appreciate
it.
20
MR.
SALARDINO:
Sorry
about
that.
21
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Thank
you.
22
MR.
SALARDINO:
California
cannot
regulate
23
emissions
from
new
farm
and
construction
equipment
less
24
than
175
horsepower
that
would
otherwise
be
in
this
25
category.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
241
1
­­
o0o­­
2
MR.
SALARDINO:
This
shows
examples
of
some
the
3
equipment
in
the
small
engine
powered
category.
Small
4
engines
are
typically
categorized
as
handheld
and
5
non­
handheld.
6
Handheld
engines
have
small
engine
displacements
7
and
are
typically
used
in
applications
in
which
the
8
operator
supports
the
equipment,
such
as
a
leaf
blower
or
9
a
string
trimmer.
10
Nonhandheld
engines
are
larger.
A
majority
of
11
the
non­
handheld
category
consists
of
walk­
behind
mowers.
12
Please
note
that
for
the
remainder
of
this
13
presentation
you
will
see
a
drawing
of
a
string
trimmer
in
14
the
lower
lefthand
corner
and/
or
a
drawing
of
a
lawnmower
15
in
the
lower
righthand
corner
denoting
slides
specifically
16
pertaining
to
this
equipment.
17
­­
o0o­­
18
MR.
SALARDINO:
Small
off­
road
engines
were
19
California's
first
off­
road
category
subject
to
emission
20
control
regulations.
In
1990
the
Board
adopted
exhaust
21
emission
standards
for
small
engines
with
implementation
22
dates
starting
in
1995.
23
Manufacturers
were
able
to
meet
these
standards
24
for
the
most
part
by
modifying
engines
to
run
at
a
leaner
25
air/
fuel
ratio
and
improving
engine
cooling.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
242
1
In
1998
the
Board
amended
the
small
engine
2
regulations
to
incorporate
more
stringent
exhaust
3
standards
and
included
a
requirement
that
manufacturers
4
show
emission
compliance
over
the
useful
life
of
the
5
engine.
These
new
durability­
based
standards
were
6
implemented
started
in
2000.
7
­­
o0o­­
8
MR.
SALARDINO:
During
this
time
period
the
U.
S.
9
EPA
finalized
its
own
exhaust
emission
reduction
10
requirements
for
small
engines,
which
are
similar
to
11
California's
program.
There
currently
are
no
federal
or
12
State
requirements
to
control
evaporative
emissions
from
13
small
engines.
Staff
is
now
returning
to
the
Board
to
14
propose
requirements
to
further
reduce
small
engine
15
emissions.
16
­­
o0o­­
17
MR.
SALARDINO:
The
combined
exhaust
and
18
evaporative
emission
contribution
from
small
off­
road
19
engines
is
significant,
at
152
tons
per
day
in
2000,
with
20
evaporative
emissions
making
up
about
30
percent
of
the
21
total.
22
The
adopted
emission
standards
will
continue
to
23
reduce
exhaust
emissions
as
older
diurnal
units
get
24
replaced
with
new
cleaner
units.
However,
after
2010
the
25
small
engine
emissions
are
expected
to
increase
as
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
243
1
addition
of
cleaner
engines
is
offset
by
population
2
growth.
3
In
addition,
with
no
regulatory
requirements
4
evaporative
emissions
will
continue
to
increase
with
5
growth
and
will
make
up
about
40
percent
of
the
total
by
6
2020.
7
­­
o0o­­
8
MR.
SALARDINO:
Next
month
staff
is
scheduled
to
9
present
a
new
State
Implementation
Plan
that
measures
­­
10
that
includes
measures
to
reduce
air
pollution
throughout
11
the
state.
Today's
proposal
is
designed
to
meet
the
12
emission
reduction
commitments
outlined
in
two
of
the
13
measures.
Those
two
measures,
Small
Off­
Road
1
and
Small
14
Off­
Road
2,
count
on
exhaust
and
evaporative
emission
15
reductions
from
handheld
engines
and
non­
handheld
engines
16
respectively.
17
­­
o0o­­
18
MR.
SALARDINO:
I
will
now
discuss
staff's
19
proposal
to
reduce
exhaust
emissions
from
small
engines.
20
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
U.
S.
EPA
has
21
promulgated
federal
emission
standards
for
small
engines.
22
EPA's
HC+
NOx
standard
for
handheld
engines
gets
23
increasingly
more
stringent
through
2005,
reaching
a
level
24
of
50
grams
per
kilowatt
hour
for
engines
less
than
50
cc,
25
which
is
more
stringent
than
California's
current
standard
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
244
1
of
72
grams
per
kilowatt
hour.
2
Therefore,
staff
proposes
a
third
tier
standard
3
equivalent
to
the
federal
HC+
NOx
standard
for
engines
less
4
than
50
cc.
Implementation
would
begin
with
the
2005
5
model
year.
This
would
be
a
30
percent
decrease
from
the
6
current
Tier
2
standards.
7
­­
o0o­­
8
MR.
SALARDINO:
Technologies
already
exist
which
9
enable
manufacturers
to
meet
the
proposed
Tier
3
10
standards.
There
are
currently
25
engine
families
11
certified
in
California
that
already
meet
the
Tier
3
12
levels.
These
certified
engine
families
include
all
types
13
of
handheld
equipment.
14
Manufacturers
have
used
a
variety
of
technologies
15
to
comply
with
the
handheld
standards,
such
as
replacing
16
two­
stroke
engines
with
four­
stroke
engines,
addition
of
a
17
catalyst
to
a
two­
stroke
engine,
advanced
stratified
18
scavaging,
and
two
stroke/
four
stroke
hybrids.
19
In
addition,
zero
emission
electric
equipment
is
20
also
available.
21
These
technologies
have
allowed
manufacturers
to
22
comply
with
the
current
emission
requirements
as
well
as
23
confirm
the
feasibility
of
the
proposed
emission
24
requirements.
25
­­
o0o­­
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
245
1
MR.
SALARDINO:
Non­
handheld
engines
are
2
separated
in
to
two
classes:
Engines
between
80
and
225
3
cc
are
classified
as
Class
1
engines;
and
engines
225
cc
4
are
Class
2
engines.
5
Staff
proposes
emission
standards
for
these
6
engines
that
are
consistent
with
reductions
achievable
7
with
the
addition
of
a
catalytic
converter.
Staff
has
8
taken
part
in
meetings
within
the
last
few
weeks
in
which
9
manufacturers
and
manufacturer
associations
have
made
10
counterproposals
to
staff's
original
proposal
as
outlined
11
in
the
staff
report.
12
The
industry
counterproposals
suggest
additional
13
flexibility
to
use
compliance
and/
or
reduce
the
cost
of
14
compliance.
In
response
to
these
discussions,
staff
is
15
proposing
alternative
Tier
3
standards
for
HC+
NOx
of
10
16
grams
per
kilowatt
hour
or
engines
between
80
and
225
cc
17
and
8
grams
per
kilowatt
hour
for
engines
225
cc
and
18
above.
These
standards
are
an
alternative
to
staff's
19
originally
proposed
standards
of
8
and
6
grams
per
20
kilowatt
hour.
21
Staff's
alternative
standards
will
reduce
the
22
amount
of
heat
generated
from
the
catalytic
converter
that
23
must
be
managed,
reduce
costs,
and
eliminate
the
chance
24
that
major
engine
redesign
may
be
needed
for
some
older
25
engine
designs.
Tailpipe
emissions
from
these
engines
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
246
1
would
be
reduced
by
about
one­
third
with
the
alternative
2
proposed
standards.
3
In
addition,
staff
proposes
to
stagger
the
4
implementation
date
of
these
standards
to
allow
5
manufacturers
appropriate
lead
time
for
engineering
and
6
development,
while
providing
the
earliest
start
to
7
achieving
the
desired
emission
reductions.
Thus
for
8
engines
between
80
and
225
cc's
staff
proposes
an
9
implementation
date
of
2007,
and
2008
for
engines
225
cc
10
and
above.
11
As
shown
in
the
next
few
slides
these
proposed
12
standards
were
based
on
test
results
in
which
several
13
engines
were
equipped
with
catalytic
converters.
14
­­
o0o­­
15
MR.
SALARDINO:
ARB
funded
a
catalyst
test
16
program
designed
to
show
the
technical
feasibility
of
new
17
emission
standards
based
on
the
use
of
catalysts
on
18
non­
handheld
engines.
Small
engine
and
equipment
19
manufacturers
participated
with
ARB
in
the
test
program
20
through
monthly
meetings
and
technical
assistance.
21
ARB
contracted
with
the
Southwest
Research
22
Institute
to
conduct
exhaust
emission
durability
testing
23
on
six
small
engines
over
80
cc.
The
objective
of
the
24
program
was
to
develop
six
non­
handheld
engines
and
25
low­
emission
configurations
and
then
age
and
test
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
247
1
engines
throughout
their
useful
life.
The
six
engines
2
chosen
for
the
program
are
shown
here.
3
These
engines
all
meet
the
current
California
4
Tier
2
emission
standards.
Four
engines
are
using
5
walk­
behind
mower
applications.
One
is
for
a
riding
6
mower.
And
one
is
used
in
constant­
speed
generator
7
applications.
8
These
engines
were
tested
when
new,
i.
e.,
at
zero
9
hour,
and
then
tested
again
after
running
for
hundreds
of
10
hours
over
a
service­
accumulation
cycle.
11
Each
engine
was
equipped
with
a
three­
way
12
catalytic
converter
and
a
relatively
simple
air
induction
13
system
to
enhance
the
catalytic
reaction.
14
In
addition,
for
the
Briggs
&
Stratton
engine
No.
15
1
and
for
the
Kawasaki
engine,
Southwest
adjusted
the
16
carburetor
to
lean
out
the
air/
fuel
mixture.
17
­­
o0o­­
18
MR.
SALARDINO:
Here
we
see
three
of
the
engines
19
that
Southwest
equipped
with
catalysts.
The
mufflers
20
shown
installed
on
the
engines
are
the
developed
mufflers
21
with
the
catalyst.
The
original
mufflers
are
shown
next
22
to
the
engines
on
the
left
for
comparison.
23
As
you
can
see,
in
some
cases
the
muffler
was
24
increased
slightly
or
modified
to
accommodate
the
25
catalyst,
as
in
the
case
with
the
Honda
No.
2
engine.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
248
1
However,
in
many
cases,
such
as
the
Briggs
engine
shown,
2
the
catalyst
was
fit
into
the
existing
muffler
housing.
3
­­
o0o­­
4
MR.
SALARDINO:
The
objective
of
the
test
program
5
was
to
develop
small
engines
in
low­
emissions
6
configurations,
with
the
ultimate
goal
of
reducing
7
tailpipe
HC+
NOx
emissions
by
50
percent
or
more
at
the
end
8
of
the
useful
life.
9
As
shown
in
this
table,
each
developed
engine
10
except
for
the
Briggs
&
Stratton
No.
2
met
or
exceeded
the
11
50
percent
target
level
at
each
of
the
test
points.
12
­­
o0o­­
13
MR.
SALARDINO:
This
slide
shows
the
emission
14
levels
achieved
by
engines
in
the
Southwest
test
program
15
as
compared
to
the
revised
proposed
alternative
standards.
16
The
testing
of
Southwest
was
designed
to
be
a
17
proof­
concept
project
which
ultimately
demonstrated
that
18
small
engines
can
be
designed
to
meet
the
proposed
19
standards
over
the
useful
life
of
the
engine.
While
the
20
proposed
emission
standards
are
certainly
feasible,
some
21
engines
may
require
additional
development
beyond
the
work
22
completed
at
Southwest
as
evidenced
by
two
of
the
engines
23
in
this
program.
24
Manufacturers
have
raised
safety
concerns
related
25
to
increased
temperatures
resulting
from
the
incorporation
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
249
1
of
a
catalyst
on
small
engines.
Oxidation
of
HC
and
CO
2
creates
heat,
and
along
with
any
enleanment
of
the
3
air/
fuel
mixture
could
lead
to
increased
exhaust
gas
4
temperatures
and
catalyst
muffler
skin
temperatures.
5
This
temperature
slide
shows
that
in
some
cases
6
the
addition
of
a
catalyst
resulted
in
increased
muffler
7
skin
temperatures.
While
we
believe
that
in
some
cases
8
the
increase
of
temperature
will
be
small,
on
the
order
of
9
less
than
50
degrees
Fahrenheit,
in
other
cases
it
might
10
be
significantly
higher.
11
Manufacturers
will
need
to
address
surface
12
temperature
issues
when
developing
a
catalyst
system
to
13
meet
the
proposed
standards.
But
as
has
been
done
with
14
many
two­
stroke
engines
currently
equipped
with
catalysts,
15
these
issues
can
be
adequately
addressed
in
the
design
of
16
the
system
by,
for
instance,
improving
cooling
flow
and
17
providing
additional
shielding
of
the
catalyst.
18
As
shown
in
this
slide
by
the
purple
bar,
the
19
catalyst
shield
temperature
on
the
Honda
engine
was
almost
20
500
degrees
lower
than
the
catalyst
surface
temperature.
21
Staff
is
certain
that
the
lawn
and
garden
22
manufacturers
will
be
able
to
address
temperature
concerns
23
by
using
approaches
similar
to
those
developed
by
other
24
manufacturers
who
have
successfully
and
safely
implemented
25
catalyst
technology
over
the
last
28
years.
The
staff's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
250
1
proposal
was
designed
to
provide
manufacturers
with
the
2
lead
time
necessary
to
address
such
design
changes.
3
­­
o0o­­
4
MR.
SALARDINO:
So
to
summarize:
5
Staff
is
proposing
a
Tier
3
HC+
NOx
exhaust
6
emission
standard
of
50
grams
per
kilowatt
hour
for
7
engines
less
than
50
cc,
equivalent
to
the
most
stringent
8
federal
standard
for
these
engines.
9
For
engines
50
to
80
cc
the
HC+
NOx
standard
will
10
remain
at
the
current
level
of
72
grams
per
kilowatt
hour,
11
as
it
is
already
equivalent
to
the
most
stringent
federal
12
standard
for
these
engines.
13
­­
o0o­­
14
MR.
SALARDINO:
The
Tier
3
standards
for
engines
15
above
80
cc
will
be
based
on
the
addition
of
a
catalytic
16
converter
and
will
begin
implementation
with
the
2007
17
model
year.
18
­­
o0o­­
19
MR.
SALARDINO:
To
encourage
the
manufacture
and
20
use
of
engines
that
go
beyond
mandatory
emission
21
standards,
the
staff
proposes
voluntary
optional
low
22
exhaust
emission
standards
for
small
engines
in
connection
23
with
the
proposed
Tier
3
standards.
24
An
engine
found
to
be
certified
to
the
voluntary
25
standards
will
be
classified
as
a
California
Blue
Sky
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
251
1
engine.
The
Blue
Sky
standards
represent
a
reduction
of
2
50
percent
below
the
proposed
Tier
3
levels
for
HC+
NOx.
3
The
Blue
Sky
Engine
Program
provides
an
4
opportunity
for
these
engines
to
participate
in
clean
5
labeling
and
incentive
programs.
The
manufacturer
must
6
declare
at
the
time
of
certification
whether
it
is
7
certifying
an
engine
family
to
a
Blue
Sky
series
standard.
8
In
order
to
guarantee
that
emission
credits
associated
9
with
the
Blue
Sky
engine
are
real,
engines
certified
to
10
these
voluntary
standards
would
not
be
eligible
to
11
participate
in
the
corporate
averaging
programs
allowed
in
12
the
small
engine
exhaust
emission
regulations.
13
At
this
time
staff
is
also
suggesting
amending
14
the
Blue
Sky
Engine
Program
to
include
zero
emission
15
equipment.
16
­­
o0o­­
17
MR.
SALARDINO:
In
addition
to
new
standards,
18
staff
also
proposes
a
few
other
modifications
to
the
19
existing
exhaust
emission
regulations
and
test
procedures.
20
To
more
closely
align
with
the
federal
21
regulation,
staff
proposes
to
adopt
the
use
of
kilowatt
as
22
the
unit
of
power
for
small
off­
road
engines.
23
Staff
also
proposes
to
include
the
federal
1,000
24
hour
durability
option
for
engines
certified
at
or
about
25
225
cc.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
252
1
In
addition,
staff
proposes
to
incorporate
the
2
federal
small
engine
test
procedures
subparts
A,
B,
D,
and
3
E
of
CFR
Part
90
in
to
California's
test
procedures
for
4
2005
and
later
model
year
engines.
5
These
changes
will
further
ease
the
burden
on
6
manufacturers
certifying
an
engine
family.
7
In
1998,
the
Board
adopted
a
65
cc
displacement
8
limit
on
engines
subject
to
the
handheld
emission
9
standards.
However,
since
that
time
manufacturers
have
10
noted
increased
consumer
demand
for
more
power
from
11
handheld
engines,
requiring
engine
size
above
the
65
cc
12
limit.
13
Manufacturers
requested
a
higher
limit
for
14
handheld
engines
and
promised
the
continued
introduction
15
of
clean
technologies.
Staff,
therefore,
proposes
to
16
increase
the
handheld
category
to
include
engines
up
to
80
17
cc
beginning
with
the
2005
model
year.
18
­­
o0o­­
19
MR.
SALARDINO:
Staff
also
proposes
a
requirement
20
that
a
manufacturer
report
emission­
related
defects
21
affecting
a
given
engine
family
­­
a
given
family
of
22
engines.
A
manufacturer
will
be
required
to
file
the
23
report
with
ARB
whenever
the
manufacturer
determines
that
24
either
a
safety­
related
or
performance­
related
defect
25
exists
in
25
or
more
engines
of
a
given
family.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
253
1
ARB
will
then
require
the
manufacturer
to
submit
2
a
plan
to
resolve
the
nonconformity
of
the
engines.
A
3
resolution
could
be
in
the
form
of
a
recall
of
those
4
engines
or
alternative
measures
that
offset
the
5
noncompliance.
6
This
requirement
for
defect
reporting
and
recall
7
is
similar
to
the
current
federal
program
and
is
also
8
included
in
staff's
proposed
evaporative
emission
9
reduction
program.
10
Staff
also
proposes
to
include
additional
text
in
11
the
test
procedures
that
clarify
engine
clearing
12
requirements
for
certification
emissions
testing.
This
13
clarification
is
necessary
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
14
test
conditions
are
representative
of
real­
world
15
conditions.
16
This
concludes
staff's
proposal
for
amendments
to
17
California's
small
engine
exhaust
emission
programs.
18
At
this
point
the
presentation
will
show
a
slide
19
representing
evaporative
emission
sources
from
small
20
engines.
And
I
would
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
21
to
Mr.
Jim
Watson
to
discuss
staff's
evaporative
emission
22
proposal.
23
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
24
Presented
as
follows.)
25
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
For
those
of
us
who
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
254
1
need
visuals.
2
MR.
WATSON:
Good
afternoon,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
3
members
of
the
Board.
4
The
animated
slide
David
shared
with
us
depicts
5
the
major
sources
of
evaporative
emissions
from
small
6
off­
road
engines.
The
proposal
I
will
present
today
7
covers
staff's
proposal
­­
the
proposal
I
will
present
8
today
covers
staff's
proposal
and
two
alternatives
9
suggested
as
15­
day
changes
that
control
emissions
from
10
these
sources.
The
addition
of
these
alternatives
provide
11
manufacturers
some
needed
flexibility
in
implementing
the
12
proposed
standards.
13
The
first
topic
of
the
presentation
will
14
highlight
three
elements
of
staff's
proposal:
15
The
discussion
will
briefly
cover
the
proposed
16
standards,
controlled
technologies,
test
data,
and
17
industry
issues.
18
The
presentation
will
then
focus
on
ARB
19
alternative
options
developed
as
a
result
of
our
working
20
with
industry
after
the
release
of
the
staff
report.
21
These
alternatives
are
proposed
as
15­
day
modifications.
22
I
will
close
the
presentation
with
a
discussion
23
of
the
proposal's
overall
cost
effectiveness,
cost,
24
overall
controlled
emissions
comparison,
and
finally
25
staff's
conclusions.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
255
1
­­
o0o­­
2
MR.
WATSON:
The
primary
elements
of
the
3
evaporative
proposal
are
a
fuel
tank
permeation
standard
4
for
handheld
equipment,
three
diurnal
standards
for
5
non­
handheld
equipment,
and
certification.
6
­­
o0o­­
7
MR.
WATSON:
This
chart
summarizes
the
proposed
8
permeation
standard
and
implementation
date
for
handheld
9
equipment.
10
Permeation
occurs
when
a
gas
or
liquid
11
saturates
a
permeable
material
and
is
released
on
the
12
other
side.
13
An
example
of
permeation
would
be
the
old
14
helium­
filled
rubber
balloons.
After
several
hours
the
15
helium
would
permeate
through
the
balloon's
walls
and
the
16
balloon
would
go
flat.
That
is
why
we
now
have
mylar
17
party
balloon,
to
control
permeation.
18
For
small
gasoline
engines
permeation
emissions
19
occur
when
gasoline
saturates
permeable
materials
like
20
high
density
polyethylene
and
rubber
and
evaporates
on
21
their
outside
surfaces.
22
This
proposal
sets
a
23
two­
gram­
per­
square­
meter­
per­
day
fuel
tank
permeation
24
standard.
Since
most
handheld
equipment
use
sealed
25
systems
to
control
tank
and
carbon
vapors,
staff's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
256
1
proposal
does
not
include
a
diurnal
evaporative
emission
2
standard
for
this
category.
3
The
next
slide
discusses
the
diurnal
standards
as
4
they
apply
to
non­
handheld
equipment.
5
­­
o0o­­
6
MR.
WATSON:
This
slide
summarizes
the
proposed
7
diurnal
standards
and
implementation
data
for
non­
handheld
8
equipment.
9
Diurnal
emissions
occur
as
a
result
of
daily
10
temperature
variations
and
include
vented
and
permeation
11
emissions.
This
proposal
does
not
include
separate
12
permeation
standards
for
non­
handheld
equipment
tanks
13
because
permeation
is
addressed
by
the
proposed
diurnal
14
standards
and
test
procedures.
15
The
three
diurnal
standards
that
apply
to
16
non­
handheld
Class
1
and
Class
2
equipment
include
a
17
one­
gram­
per­
day
diurnal
standard
for
Class
1
walk­
behind
18
mowers,
a
diurnal
standard
based
on
tank
volume
for
other
19
Class
1
equipment,
and
a
two­
gram­
per­
day
diurnal
standard
20
for
Class
2
equipment.
21
­­
o0o­­
22
MR.
WATSON:
The
final
element
of
the
evaporative
23
proposal
is
certification.
Staff's
proposal
requires
all
24
equipment
to
be
certified.
Manufacturers
must
test
at
25
least
one
worst
case
engine
or
fuel
tank
for
non­
handheld
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
257
1
equipment
within
each
evaporative
family
with
the
highest
2
emissions
potential.
3
Handheld
tanks
and
non­
handheld
equipment
are
4
tested
and
certified
per
applicable
test
procedures
as
5
listed
in
the
slide.
The
certification
and
test
6
procedures
are
an
integral
part
of
the
evaporative
7
proposal.
8
­­
o0o­­
9
MR.
WATSON:
I
would
now
like
to
discuss
10
technologies
for
controlling
permeation
emissions.
11
Controlling
permeation
emissions
is
meeting
the
12
proposed
standards.
There
are
a
number
of
proven
13
technologies
that
can
be
used
to
control
fuel
tank
14
permeation
emissions,
which
include
metal
tanks,
nylon
15
tanks,
and
barrier
treatments.
16
Options
for
controlling
permeation
emissions
from
17
other
fuel
system
components
include
the
use
of
thermal
18
plastic
materials
and
teflon.
19
­­
o0o­­
20
MR.
WATSON:
Based
on
experience
from
the
21
portable
fuel
container
rule,
barrier
treatments
are
an
22
option
that
can
be
used
to
control
fuel
tank
permeation
23
emissions
when
optimized
resins
and
additives
are
used.
24
Staff
validated
the
effectiveness
of
applying
a
25
barrier
treatment
by
performing
permeation
testing
on
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
258
1
three
untreated
and
three
fluorinated
fuel
tanks.
The
2
average
test
results
show
that
fluorination
is
quite
3
effective
and
to
reduce
permeation
emissions
by
more
than
4
98
percent
when
optimized.
5
I
will
now
go
on
to
a
discussion
of
technology
6
that
controls
the
portion
of
the
diurnal
emission
that
7
arises
from
vented
tanks.
8
­­
o0o­­
9
MR.
WATSON:
There
are
three
basic
technologies
10
that
control
vented
diurnal
emissions.
The
technology
11
consists
of
sealed
systems,
carbon
cannisters,
and
hybrid
12
systems.
13
Sealed
systems
are
the
most
effective
in
reducing
14
emissions,
but
require
fuel
tanks
designed
to
withstand
15
pressure.
16
Cannister
technology
has
a
proven
track
record
in
17
onroad
applications.
18
And
the
hybrid
systems
are
basically
sealed
19
systems
that
vent
to
a
cannister
above
a
fixed
pressure
20
limit.
21
­­
o0o­­
22
MR.
WATSON:
Staff
evaluated
prototype
equipment
23
configured
with
technology
to
control
permeation
and
24
vented
emissions
in
an
effort
to
develop
appropriate
25
diurnal
standards.
Staff
tested
six
walk­
behind
mowers
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
259
1
configured
with
sealed
systems,
fluorinated
tanks,
and
2
low­
permeation
fuel
lines.
We
also
tested
a
generator
and
3
a
commercial
mower
configured
with
carbon
cannisters,
4
metal
fuel
tanks,
and
low­
permeation
fuel
lines.
5
­­
o0o­­
6
MR.
WATSON:
In
regard
to
the
sealed
system
7
testing,
this
chart
showed
the
uncontrolled
and
controlled
8
test
results
for
six
mowers
tested
by
ARB.
The
blue
and
9
green
columns
represent
uncontrolled
results
from
mowers
10
tested
with
fuel
containing
MTBE
and
fuel
containing
11
ethanol,
respectively.
The
purple
and
gray
columns
12
represent
controlled
emissions.
13
The
controlled
columns
clearly
show
that
the
14
proposed
standards
are
feasible
when
tested
with
fuel
15
containing
ethanol.
However,
staff
is
proposing
that
all
16
equipment
be
certification
tested
only
with
certification
17
fuel.
18
­­
o0o­­
19
MR.
WATSON:
In
regard
to
the
cannister
testing,
20
this
chart
shows
the
uncontrolled
and
controlled
tests
for
21
the
generator
and
commercial
mower
when
tested
with
22
certification
fuel.
Staff
were
able
to
reduce
average
23
emissions
by
95
and
87
percent
for
the
generator
and
24
mower,
respectively.
The
test
results
support
staff's
25
finding
that
large
non­
handheld
equipment
can
meet
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
260
1
proposed
two­
gram­
per­
day
diurnal
evaporative
emission
2
standard.
3
In
the
last
few
slides
I
presented
technical
data
4
that
supports
staff's
proposed
permeation
and
diurnal
5
standards.
6
I
would
now
like
to
discuss
two
additional
7
changes
to
the
proposal
that
will
be
included
as
15­
day
8
changes.
9
­­
o0o­­
10
MR.
WATSON:
Staff
suggests
lowering
the
11
cannister
design
requirements
in
Test
Procedure
902
from
12
two
grams
per
liter
of
fuel
tank
volume
to
1.4
grams
per
13
liter
of
fuel
tank
volume
for
tanks
one
gallon
and
14
greater,
and
one
gram
per
liter
for
tanks
less
than
one
15
gallon.
The
change
will
help
solve
packaging
issues
on
16
equipment
configured
with
carbon
canisters.
17
Another
suggested
15­
day
change
concerns
small
18
volume
manufacturers.
Staff
proposes
to
require
small
19
volume
manufacturers
to
submit
a
letter
of
conformance.
20
The
change
will
allow
certification
staff
to
track
small
21
volume
equipment
being
sold
in
California.
22
There
were
many
issues
raised
by
industry.
Most
23
of
these
issues
had
been
resolved
by
staff's
proposal.
24
However,
several
major
issues
were
not
resolved
such
as
25
stringency
of
the
exhaust
and
evaporative
standards,
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
261
1
compliance
flexibility,
and
costs.
We
invited
industry
to
2
come
up
with
alternative
proposals
that
would
address
3
these
issues
while
still
achieving
equivalent
emission
4
reductions
compared
to
staff's
proposal.
5
­­
o0o­­
6
MR.
WATSON:
Over
the
last
several
weeks
Briggs
7
and
Stratton,
EMA
and
OPEI
and
Honda
responded
to
staff's
8
invitation
by
proposing
three
alternative
proposals.
9
Staff
evaluated
each
proposal
with
respect
to
emissions
10
equivalency
and
enforceability.
Subsequently
staff
11
developed
two
alternatives
from
industry
proposals
which
I
12
will
identify
as
Alternative
No.
1
and
Alternative
No.
2.
13
­­
o0o­­
14
MR.
WATSON:
Key
benefits
of
the
alternatives
is
15
that
they
provide
industry
with
greater
flexibility
and
16
compliance,
while
providing
additional
evaporative
17
emission
benefits
at
a
lower
cost.
18
The
alternatives
achieved
essentially
the
same
19
level
of
benefits
of
the
base
proposal
and
still
enables
20
the
ARB
to
meet
its
SIP
commitments.
21
­­
o0o­­
22
MR.
WATSON:
Shown
on
the
graph
are
the
overall
23
exhaust
and
evaporative
emission
reductions
of
staff's
24
proposal
in
the
Alternatives
1
and
2.
25
The
alternatives
achieve
between
91
and
97
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
262
1
percent
of
the
emission
reductions
contained
in
staff's
2
proposal
in
2010.
3
In
2020
the
alternatives
achieve
between
98
and
4
99
percent
of
the
reductions
in
staff's
proposal.
5
­­
o0o­­
6
MR.
WATSON:
I
will
now
discuss
the
major
7
elements
of
the
first
alternative.
8
This
alternative
provides
additional
evaporative
9
emission
reductions
while
equipment
is
operating,
which
10
are
defined
as
running
loss
emissions.
It
also
contains
a
11
requirement
for
testing
complete
engines,
implements
low
12
permeation
fuel
hoses
one
year
earlier
than
staff's
13
proposal,
and
allows
fleet
averaging.
14
­­
o0o­­
15
MR.
WATSON:
The
first
alternative
sets
a
2006
16
fuel
hose
standard
and
less
stringent
interim
diurnal
17
standards
based
on
tank
volume
for
all
Class
1
engines.
18
Setting
interim
standards
will
allow
manufacturers
time
to
19
control
production
variability
as
evaporative
technology
20
is
adapted
to
off­
road
equipment.
21
In
2009,
the
diurnal
standards
for
Class
1
22
engines
are
lowered.
Standards
that
apply
to
Class
2
23
engines
under
the
first
alternative
include
a
2006
24
implementation
of
a
fuel
hose
permeation
standard
and
a
25
less
stringent
diurnal
standard
based
on
tank
volume
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
263
1
implemented
in
2008.
2
­­
o0o­­
3
MR.
WATSON:
I
will
now
discuss
the
second
4
alternative.
It
also
achieves
additional
running
loss
5
emission
reductions.
Other
major
elements
of
the
second
6
alternative
include
a
requirement
to
test
Class
1
7
walk­
behind
mowers,
implementation
of
a
low
permeation
8
fuel
hose
is
two
years
earlier
than
staff's
proposal,
and
9
reduces
compliance
testing
for
equipment
certified
by
10
design.
11
­­
o0o­­
12
MR.
WATSON:
The
second
alternative
requires
13
diurnal
testing
of
walk­
behind
mower
engines
as
part
of
14
certification.
This
requirement
ensures
that
the
majority
15
of
Class
1
engines
meet
specific
emission
targets.
16
Design­
based
standards
apply
to
non­
walk­
behind
mowers.
17
Beginning
in
2005
all
Class
1
equipment
must
meet
a
18
post­
permeation
standard.
For
model
years
2007
through
19
2011
interim
performance
and
design
standards
apply
to
all
20
equipment.
In
2012
the
interim
standards
are
lowered
to
21
be
equal
to
staff's
proposal.
22
­­
o0o­­
23
MR.
WATSON:
In
this
second
alternative,
24
design­
based
also
applies
to
Class
2
engines.
In
2005,
25
they
must
meet
a
fuel
hose
permeation
standard.
In
2008,
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
264
1
90
percent
of
a
manufacturer's
production
volume
must
2
comply
with
the
additional
interim
design
standards.
The
3
following
year,
100
percent
of
a
manufacturer's
production
4
volume
must
be
compliant.
In
2010,
design
standards
for
5
fuel
hoses
in
catalysts
apply
to
small­
volume
6
manufacturers.
In
2013,
the
interim
design
standards
are
7
lowered
by
setting
a
more
stringent
tank
permeation
8
standard
for
90
percent
of
a
manufacturer's
volume.
In
9
2014,
100
percent
of
the
manufacturer's
volume
must
meet
10
the
lower
requirements.
11
This
concludes
staff's
discussion
of
the
12
alternative
options.
The
remaining
portions
of
the
13
presentation
will
include
both
exhaust
and
evaporative
14
aspects
of
the
proposal.
15
­­
o0o­­
16
MR.
WATSON:
Staff's
proposal
for
exhaust
and
17
evaporative
emissions
is
cost
effective
for
both
handheld
18
and
non­
handheld
equipment.
19
Staff
determined
that
the
cost
effectiveness
for
20
handheld
equipment
will
range
from
$
1.71
to
$
6.21
per
21
pound
of
hydrocarbon
reduced.
22
The
cost
effectiveness
for
non­
handheld
equipment
23
will
range
from
a
low
of
20
cents
to
a
high
of
$
4.30
per
24
pound
of
hydrocarbon
and
NOx
reduced.
25
For
the
alternatives
under
consideration
staff
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
265
1
expects
the
cost
effectiveness
will
improve.
2
­­
o0o­­
3
MR.
WATSON:
The
estimated
increase
in
the
retail
4
price
of
handheld
equipment
will
range
from
$
2.16
to
5
$
4.84,
depending
on
the
type
of
equipment
purchased.
The
6
estimated
increase
in
the
retail
price
of
non­
handheld
7
equipment
will
range
from
$
37
for
a
walk­
behind
mower
to
8
$
179
for
a
commercial
mower.
9
As
the
cost
effectiveness
improvement
for
the
10
alternatives
under
consideration
staff
expects
retail
11
increases
to
be
lower.
12
­­
o0o­­
13
MR.
WATSON:
This
chart
compares
the
cost
14
effectiveness
of
major
regulations
adopted
by
the
Board.
15
The
$
4
per
pound
average
cost
effectiveness
of
the
16
proposed
handheld
standards
is
lower
than
recently
17
approved
control
measures
for
some
consumer
products,
18
on­
road
motorcycles
and
enhanced
vapor
recovery.
The
19
average
$
2.25
per
pound
cost
effectiveness
for
20
non­
handheld
equipment
compares
favorably
with
other
21
regulations.
22
­­
o0o­­
23
MR.
WATSON:
The
green
columns
of
this
chart
show
24
the
controlled
emissions
should
the
Board
adopt
the
25
proposal,
which
are
significantly
lower
than
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
266
1
uncontrolled
columns
shown
in
light
blue.
2
This
shows
a
22­
ton­
per­
day
reduction
in
2010
and
3
a
50­
ton­
per­
day
reduction
in
2020.
Also
shown
in
this
4
chart
is
a
maximum
change
in
controlled
emissions
for
the
5
alternatives,
which
are
represented
by
small
purple
6
segments
above
the
controlled
emissions
column.
7
As
you
can
see,
in
2010
the
maximum
shortfall
of
8
the
alternatives
is
.8
tons
per
day.
In
2020,
the
maximum
9
shortfall
is
.9
tons
per
day.
10
­­
o0o­­
11
MR.
WATSON:
In
conclusion,
staff
has
determined
12
that
the
proposal
and
alternative
provide
significant
13
emission
reductions
and
will
help
to
achieve
attainment
of
14
air
quality
standards
that
will
benefit
the
health
of
all
15
Californians.
Staff
has
determined
that
the
proposed
16
standards
are
cost
effective
and
attainable
with
existing
17
technologies.
18
Staff
recommends
Board
adoption
of
the
staff's
19
proposal
including
the
alternatives.
Adopting
staff's
20
proposal
and
the
alternatives
will
provide
industry
with
a
21
great
flexibility
while
retaining
our
emission­
reduction
22
goals.
23
This
completes
my
presentation.
At
this
time
I
24
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
25
Thank
you.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
267
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
2
On
your
penultimate
slide
there,
when
you
talk
3
about
emissions
reductions,
what
emissions
reductions
are
4
you
talking
about?
5
MR.
WATSON:
These
are
the
exhaust
and
6
evaporative
emission
reductions.
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Hydrocarbon
plus
NOx?
8
MR.
WATSON:
Hydrocarbon
plus
NOx
or
non­
handheld
9
and
handheld
equipment.
10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
what's
the
breakdown?
11
MR.
WATSON:
In
2020
there
are
about
6
tons
per
12
day
for
handheld
equipment
and
43.5
tons
per
day
for
13
non­
handheld
equipment.
14
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
There's
more
ROG
15
than
NOx
because
they're
new
evaporative
standards
and
16
strengthened
exhaust
standards.
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
what
was
that
again?
18
MR.
WATSON:
In
2020
there
are
about
­­
19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
In
2010
what
was
the
20
breakdown
for
hydrocarbon?
X
hydrocarbon
plus
Y
NOx,
what
21
was
that?
And
the
same
for
2020.
22
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
He
was
providing
23
it
in
handheld
and
non­
handheld,
which
is
why
I
jumped
in
24
and
gave
it
­­
told
you
that
the
thrust
of
it
is
ROG.
25
But
they'll
get
that
answer.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
268
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You
see
you're
talking
to
a
2
chemist.
3
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
It
should
mostly
4
be
ROG.
5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
While
you're
working
that
6
out,
again,
just
for
clarification,
that
the
way
it
was
7
described,
staff
came
up
with
their
proposal
and
then
8
worked
with
the
industry
after
shipping
an
earlier
9
version,
tried
to
get
some
of
the
ideas
from
industry
and
10
then
tried
to
incorporate
those.
And
as
a
result
we've
11
come
up
with
a
proposal
which
incorporates
several
of
the
12
ideas
that
the
industry
has.
Is
that
a
fair
­­
13
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
That's
correct.
14
And
they
came
very,
very
close
to
our
original
staff
15
proposal,
within
less
than
a
ton
of
what
our
regulation
16
would
provide.
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
18
Professor
Friedman.
19
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
didn't
hear
you
20
address
the
safety
concern
that's
been
raised
in
the
21
correspondence
we
received,
the
fire
specifically.
I
22
guess
that
has
to
do
with
the
exhaust
controls
and
the
23
catalytic
conversion.
24
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes.
25
We
did
address
it
partially
in
the
charts
that
showed
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
269
1
testing
we
did
down
in
Texas
where
we
measured
the
2
increase
in
exhaust
temperatures.
And
you
saw
mixed
3
results.
The
catalyst
actually
resulted
in
a
slightly
4
cooler
muffler
lower
and
some
engines
and
up
to
200
5
degrees
higher
in
other
engines.
6
One
of
the
points
that
we've
considered
is
the
7
fact
these
are
hot
exhaust
without
a
catalyst,
and
they
8
could
catch
fire
to
things.
And
for
that
reason
the
9
engines
provide
shielding
and
other
protection
to
protect
10
against
fires
and
to
protect
against
you
putting
your
hand
11
on
it.
12
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Tom,
I
want
to
be
13
sure
I
understand
this.
I
think
it's
very
important.
14
Would
you
mind
repeating
what
you're
saying.
And
I
want
15
to
­­
I
want
to
be
sure
I'm
hearing
it.
16
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
And
17
I've
got
about
a
three­
part
answer
unfortunately
here.
So
18
bear
with
me
on
­­
if
the
first
part
doesn't
answer
all
19
the
questions.
20
We
were
aware
of
the
­­
very
aware
of
the
safety
21
issue.
We
equipped
engines
­­
six
different
engines
with
22
catalytic
converters
in
a
test
facility
down
in
Texas.
23
And
we
measured
the
temperatures
of
the
surface
of
the
24
catalyst,
the
temperatures
of
the
exhaust,
and
so
forth.
25
What
we
found
was
on
some
of
the
mowers
the
temperature
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
270
1
didn't
go
up
and
some
of
them
it
did
go
up.
And
the
2
temperature
of
the
exhaust
and
the
muffler
is
very
hot
3
either
way.
Adding
a
catalyst
on
several
engines
raised
4
it
by
up
to
200
degrees.
So
it
got
hotter.
5
We
then
looked
at,
can
that
be
shielded?
Here's
6
the
data
here.
Can
it
be
shielded
and
protected?
The
7
manufacturers
already
do
that
because
at,
you
know
500
to
8
600
degrees,
which
is
a
current
muffler
temperature,
they
9
don't
want
you
to
put
your
hand
on
it
and
they
don't
want
10
grass
to
go
on
it
because
it
could
catch
on
fire.
11
So
these
are
­­
there's
additional
heat.
But
we
12
believe
that
they
could
manage
that
heat
by
shielding
and
13
proper
design
of
the
exhaust
system.
14
Subsequent
to
that
testing
and
in
publishing
and
15
in
our
staff
report
the
industry
came
back
and
said,
"
You
16
know,
this
does
cause
a
lot
of
problems
for
us."
The
17
catalyst,
because
it's
burning
up
a
lot
of
pollution
from
18
these
engines,
which
are
fairly
high
polluting
engines
­­
19
burning
them
up
creates
heat.
That's
what
the
process
is.
20
And
they
came
back
and
said,
"
Look,
it
still
causes
us
a
21
lot
of
problems.
When
the
temperature
goes
up,
there's
22
plastic
next
to
it,
we
might
have
to
change
the
plastic.
23
It
creates
the
need
for
more
shielding.
More
shielding
24
might
catch
the
grass
more
and
cause
a
fire
hazard."
All
25
these
different
things.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
271
1
We
were
personally
convinced
that
there
were
2
engineering
solutions
to
that.
The
purple
bar
shows
you
3
one
of
them.
It
shows
you
how
much
the
temperature
can
be
4
dropped
by
a
good
heat
shield
on
that
Honda.
But,
you
5
know,
we
were
sensitive
to
the
arguments.
So
when,
as
in
6
the
previous
discussion,
we
invited
the
industries
to
come
7
back
with
alternative
proposals,
they
came
back
with
an
8
alternative
proposal
­­
two
different
alternative
9
proposals
that
had
a
less
stringent
exhaust
emissions
10
standard.
And
instead
of
getting
a
50
percent
reduction
11
in
tailpipe
emissions,
it
was
about
35
percent.
12
And
what
they
have
told
us,
a
number
of
them,
and
13
you'll
hear
it
in
testimony
I
believe
today,
is
that
14
because
less
pollution
is
being
converted
by
the
catalytic
15
converter,
there
will
be
less
heat
and
that
the
heat
that
16
will
be
there
is
manageable
and
does
not
create
a
safety
17
hazard.
So
we
believe
that
the
alternatives
that
we're
18
offering
for
your
consideration
today
remove
any
safety
19
issues
that
were
there
at
all.
We
don't
think
they
were
20
there
in
the
first
place.
They
could
be
solved.
But
they
21
removed
them
from
the
table.
And
we
hope
that
you
will
22
hear
that
in
testimony
today.
23
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Sufficiently
reduces
24
the
emission
reduction
resulting
in
greater
heat
by
25
reducing
the
­­
and,
therefore,
reduces
the
heat?
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
272
1
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yeah.
2
If
there's
less
­­
if
the
catalyst
is
less
efficient
­­
3
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
And,
therefore,
4
reduces
the
risk
of
fire.
5
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Right.
6
So
the
tradeoff
is
the
heat
comes
down,
we
get
less
7
emission
reduction.
But
in
the
proposals
we
challenged
­­
8
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
But
you
get
more
9
evap?
10
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Right.
11
We
challenged
the
industry
to
come
and
take
that
­­
12
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Which
doesn't
reduce
13
NOx
so
much,
but
it
does
reduce
­­
14
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,
15
it
loses
­­
the
exhaust
side
loses
both
NOx
and
16
hydrocarbons.
And
it's
made
up
with
hydrocarbon
evap
17
control
that
goes
beyond
what
we
had
proposed.
18
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Has
there
been
any
19
additional
communication
with
any
of
the
fire
fighting
20
groups?
21
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes,
we
22
have
talked
to
a
number
of
them
today.
I
can't
­­
you'll
23
have
to
wait
until
they
testify,
but
I
believe
that
there
24
will
be
evidence
that
they
believe
this
addresses
the
25
associations
­­
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
273
1
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
So
that's
why
it's
2
really
not
listed
as
an
ongoing
issue
of
any
­­
3
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Right.
4
We
think
it
has
been
solved
by
this.
5
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Okay.
Thank
you.
6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Go
back
to
the
previous
7
slide,
the
previous
one
to
this.
8
Just
to
clarify
there,
that
­­
because
black
and
9
white
doesn't
come
through
so
well.
So
what
we're
saying,
10
if
I
look
at
the
different
engines,
that
there
are
a
11
certain
number
at
zero
hours
and
then
after
125
hours,
12
depending
on
the
engine,
there's
a
significant
13
degradation.
Am
I
reading
that
correctly?
14
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes.
15
The
ones
labeled
Briggs
and
Stratton,
we
had
problems
with
16
both
of
those
engines.
It's
not
related,
we
don't
17
believe,
to
the
catalyst.
It
was
related
to
changes
in
18
the
engine
that
resulted
in
higher
emissions.
And
as
you
19
can
see
from
the
other
manufacturers,
the
deterioration
20
was
quite
minimal.
The
purpose
of
doing
this
testing
in
21
part
was
to
determine
if
these
very
inexpensive
catalysts
22
would
wear
out
real
fast.
And
the
data
suggests
that
they
23
will
not.
24
The
conversion
efficiency
in
those
tall
blue
25
bars,
the
first
two
under
Briggs
and
Stratton
was
still
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
274
1
very
high.
It's
just
that
the
engine
was
putting
out
a
2
whole,
whole
bunch
more
emissions
due
to
some
problem
with
3
the
engine.
4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
was
this
typical
of
Briggs
5
and
Stratton?
6
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
don't
7
know.
It's
a
sample
of
two,
so
I
don't
­­
I
couldn't
tell
8
you
that.
9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
two
out
of
two?
10
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
11
the
staff
could
comment
on
whether
they
figured
out
what
12
the
problem
was
and
resolved
it.
13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
one
of
the
­­
and
what
14
I'm
driving
at
here,
if
we
got
some
inherently
high
15
emitters
in
this
category
and
if
certain
varieties
are
16
more
prone
to
that,
how
do
we
follow
up?
I
mean
we
can
17
have
these
engines,
which
maybe
meet
our
certification
18
numbers,
but
they
get
out
in
the
field
and
then
they
19
become
gross
polluters.
20
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,
21
until
­­
22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
what
mechanism
is
there
to
23
prevent
that?
24
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,
25
until
­­
well,
first
of
all,
the
regulation
is
structured
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
275
1
so
that
there
could
be
testing
of
these
when
they're
new.
2
And
if
there's
a
problem,
there
can
be
a
recall.
We
know,
3
however,
that
a
recall
in
the
traditional
sense
is
not
4
going
to
work
very
well
because
we're
not
going
to
­­
you
5
know,
who's
going
to
turn
their
lawnmower
in?
With
cars,
6
you
know,
we
can
tie
it
to
registration.
But
in
this
7
case,
it's
harder
to
do
with
lawnmowers.
But
despite
8
that,
that
is
a
regulatory
lever
that
we
have
­­
or
9
enforcement
lever.
10
Second
of
all,
we
are
in
the
stages
of
completing
11
construction
of
a
test
facility
down
in
El
Monte
where
we
12
could
test
these
engines
ourselves.
And
based
on
that
we
13
can
take
appropriate
action
if
we
find
that
the
emissions
14
are
high.
15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
many
lawnmowers
have
we
16
recalled
because
of
emissions
problems?
17
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,
18
we've
never
­
­
until
now
we've
never
been
able
to
test
19
them
ourselves.
We've
only
been
able
to
go
to
their
20
assembly
line
and
look
at
an
assembly
line.
We
have
had,
21
quote,
recalls
on
the
assembly
line
of
several
models
that
22
were
not
meeting
emissions
standards.
23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
do
we
have
a
plan
for
24
looking
at
in­
use
testing?
25
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
276
1
We
will
test
them
when
they're
new
or,
you
know,
picked
up
2
from
the
dealership.
And
we
can
also
test
them
in
use.
3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
maybe
we
could
work
with
4
the
districts
on
that
and
looking
at
a
mechanism
where
we
5
can
pull
these
in
and
test
them.
6
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Right.
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Unless
you're
thinking
of
OBD
8
for
lawnmowers.
9
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Not
10
yet.
11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
but
that's
­­
again,
12
that's
a
real
cause
for
concern
as
we
look
at
that
because
13
it
can
be
in
doing
our
best
efforts
here
to
get
it.
And
14
particularly
as
we
look
at
the
variation
in
the
quality
of
15
the
different
manufacturers.
16
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Right.
17
And
this
is
­­
unfortunately
this
is
symptomatic
of
all
of
18
the
off­
road
engine
equipment.
It's
not
registered;
19
therefore,
it's
harder
to
enforce
through
license
plates
20
and
annual
registration.
And,
you
know,
we
also
don't
21
have
the
capability
of
testing
much
of
this
stuff.
So
we
22
are
­­
we
have
a
weaker
ability
on
the
off­
road
to
enforce
23
it.
But
we're
trying
to
address
it
with
the
best
tools
24
we've
got,
given
­­
25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
if
we
buy
the
cleanest
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
277
1
cars
possible
and
we
get
in
to
the
P­
ZEVs
and
AT
P­
ZEVs,
2
one
trip
around
our
lawn
­­
finish
our
lawn,
we've
undone
3
a
lot
of
the
good
we've
done.
4
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes,
5
that
is
absolutely
true.
6
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Mr.
Chairman?
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
Ms.
D'Adamo.
8
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Along
those
lines,
I
think
9
one
way
to
address
this
issue
is
with
a
zero
emission
10
requirement.
And
I'm
a
little
disappointed
that
we
11
weren't
able
to
accomplish
that
in
this
proposal.
But
I'm
12
interested
in
seeing
what
this
Board
can
do
on
that
issue
13
perhaps
at
a
future
date.
14
So
I'd
just
like
to
put
that
out
there
to
other
15
Board
members.
And
when
we
wrap
things
up,
I'd
be
16
interested
in
including
a
component
in
the
resolution
that
17
we
come
back
on
that
issue.
18
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman?
19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
Mrs.
Riordan.
20
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I'm
just
wondering
if
21
staff
has
completed
their
work
on
your
original
question.
22
MR.
WATSON:
Yes,
we
have.
23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks
for
reminding
them.
24
MR.
WATSON:
Well
­­
25
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
278
1
stalled
for
a
long
time
there
so
they
could
get
to
it.
2
MONITORING
AND
LABORATORY
CHIEF
LOSCUTOFF:
Okay.
3
The
emission
reductions
in
2010
are
roughly
22
tons
a
day.
4
And
that's
split
between
about
6
tons
per
day
for
the
5
non­
handheld,
16
for
the
­­
excuse
me.
6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Repeat
that.
7
MONITORING
AND
LABORATORY
CHIEF
LOSCUTOFF:
Six
8
tons
a
day
for
the
handheld.
9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Six.
What's
the
total
there?
10
MONITORING
AND
LABORATORY
CHIEF
LOSCUTOFF:
11
Twenty­
two.
12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Twenty­
two.
13
MONITORING
AND
LABORATORY
CHIEF
LOSCUTOFF:
Six
14
for
handheld,
16
for
nonhandheld
That's
roughly
22/
78
15
percent
split.
16
Then
in
2020,
we're
talking
about
a
17
50­
ton­
per­
day
reduction,
which
is
approximately
43
tons
a
18
day
for
the
non­
handheld
and
7
tons
a
day
for
the
19
handheld,
which
is
about
a
­­
I
did
that
in
reverse.
20
The
NOx/
hydrocarbon
split.
Okay.
21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That
was
the
question.
22
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Just
of
23
the
22
­­
24
MONITORING
AND
LABORATORY
CHIEF
LOSCUTOFF:
The
25
NOx/
hydrocarbon
split
for
the
22
tons
in
2010,
4
tons
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
279
1
that
are
NOx.
The
rest
of
it
is
hydrocarbon.
2
In
2020,
the
NOx
is
reduced
by
roughly
8
tons
per
3
day
of
the
50
tons
a
day
total.
4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
And
those
5
calculations
are
for
the
base
staff
proposal
where
if
we
6
did
any
of
the
alternatives,
the
NOx
reduction
would
be
7
less,
correct?
8
MONITORING
AND
LABORATORY
CHIEF
LOSCUTOFF:
Yes.
9
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
It
would
go
up
in
10
hydrocarbons
and
down
in
NOx?
11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
12
Mr.
Calhoun.
13
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Yes.
I
want
to
get
back
14
to
the
question
that
you
asked,
Mr.
Chairman.
And
at
15
least
I
thought
I
heard
you
ask
the
question
about
these
16
lawnmowers
in
use
and
testing
them.
Are
you
talking
about
17
testing
my
lawnmower
or
are
you
­­
18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
random
sample
of
how
do
19
we
find
out
what
the,
if
you
like,
the
emissions
from
this
20
category
is
in
use.
21
Well,
I
know
you
got
an
electric
lawnmower,
so
22
you
don't
have
a
problem.
23
(
Laughter.)
24
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Well,
I
have
to
talk
to
25
Jerry
about
that.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
280
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Professor
Friedman
said
­­
2
maybe
I
misunderstood
you
­­
you
were
offering
yours
to
be
3
tested
at
El
Monte?
4
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
No.
5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No.
Okay.
6
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
I'm
just
­­
there
are
a
7
lot
of
lawnmowers
out
there,
an
awful
lot
of
them.
And
8
there
are
a
lot
of
hydrocarbon
emissions
from
these
9
lawnmowers.
But
I
question
whether
or
not
it's
practical
10
to
get
in­
use
lawnmowers
and
retrofitting
them
or
just
new
11
ones.
12
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
No,
13
there's
no
talk
about
retrofitting
them.
It's
just
­­
the
14
question
was,
if
the
lawnmower
emits
1
gram
per
hour,
15
whatever
the
number
is,
when
we
certify
it,
is
it
going
to
16
be
one
in
use
or
is
it
going
to
be
two
in
use.
And
so
we
17
can
find
that
out
reasonably
well
with
a
sample
of,
I
18
don't
know,
50
lawnmowers.
With
our
new
facility
we
can
19
test
those
pretty
quickly.
20
So,
you
know,
over
time
we
would
get
an
audit
of
21
whether
or
not
these
engines
are
complying.
22
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Well,
what
happens
if
you
23
do
test
it
and
find
that
it's
exceeding
the
standard?
It
24
may
be
exceeding
because
Bob
Cross
tampered
with
it.
25
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
281
1
we'll
have
to
­­
we'll
find
that
out
from
those
mowers,
2
yeah.
I
mean
that's
what
we
could
do.
3
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
And
then
what
do
you
do?
4
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
It's
no
5
different
than
what
we've
done
on
cars.
I
mean
we
sort
of
6
found
the
same
thing
on
the
earlier
cars.
They
were
clean
7
when
they
were
produced.
They
were
dirty
six
months
8
later.
And
we
had
to
come
up
with
anti­
tampering
programs
9
and
various
other
things
to
assure
that
their
emissions
10
are
low.
And
we
were
successful.
11
We
just
want
to
do
the
same
due
diligence
on
12
lawnmowers.
I
don't
know
the
answer,
and
so
I
don't
know
13
what
the
solution
would
be
if
there
is
a
problem.
But
we
14
have
to
figure
it
out.
But
at
least
we
have
the
tool
now
15
to
be
able
to
do
it.
We
can
do
it
in
southern
California
16
and
­­
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Bob
­­
18
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
­­
give
19
you
feedback.
20
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
21
Jack,
you
reminded
me
that
the
current
proposal
stops
with
22
new.
In
other
words,
it
is
defects
reporting
and
assembly
23
line
testing
type
of
measures.
So
the
activity
that
we're
24
doing
with
the
in­
use
would
be
data
gathering
as
opposed
25
to
real
enforcement
at
this
point.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
282
1
We
have
done
some
in
the
past.
And
I
think
we'll
2
just
­­
and
that's
really
kind
of
helped
us
understand
3
some
inuse
­­
not
in­
use
test,
but
at
least
durability
4
testing.
That's
helped
us
understand
what
the
mowers
do
5
in
the
first
place.
An
we'll
just
continue
that.
6
So
I
don't
think
you
have
to
worry
about
7
lawnmower
smog
check
for
a
few
years.
And
I'll
probably
8
still
be
able
to
tamper.
9
That
was
a
joke
at
the
end.
10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Professor
Friedman.
11
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
One
other
question.
12
It's
I
guess
related,
but
broader.
13
Is
it
true
that
to
the
extent
that
these
rules
14
would
only
apply
to
small
engines,
under
175
horsepower,
15
or
small
motors,
that
they
only
account
for
1
percent
of
16
our
smog­
forming
emissions
in
California
overall?
Is
that
17
a
true
statement?
18
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
19
the
numbers
that
have
been
floating
around
all
the
press
20
releases
get
a
little
mixed
up.
21
As
I
recall,
the
lawnmowers,
which
are
the
ones
22
under
25
horsepower,
are
on
the
order
of
a
few
percent
of
23
our
emissions.
The
ones
that
­­
24
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
So
it's
the
little
25
lawnmower's
2
percent?
But
­­
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
283
1
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yeah,
2
lawnmowers
and
other
lawn
and
garden.
And
that's
under
3
25,
which
is
the
subject
of
the
proposal.
4
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Yeah.
But
under
5
175?
6
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
It
was
7
13
percent
of
­­
the
non­
preempted
engines
were
13
percent
8
of
all
the
mobile
source
emissions,
which
is
­­
for
HC
and
9
NOx
is
probably
60
or
some
percent
of
all
of
the
10
emissions.
So
we're
probably
talking
about
7
percent
or
11
something,
on
that
order,
for
the
under
175
off­
road
12
equipment.
13
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Seven
percent?
14
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yeah,
15
and
of
the
­­
that
had
a
lot
of
diesels
in
it.
And
they
16
represent
the
off­
road.
Diesels
represent
about
44
17
percent
of
the
toxic
particulate
emissions
overall.
18
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Okay.
Thank
you.
I
19
just
wanted
to
get
the
record
straight,
at
least.
20
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
My
13
21
was
17
percent.
So
it's
probably
17
times
.6.
So
maybe
22
like
10
percent
for
all
of
­­
of
the
smog­
forming
23
emissions
for
all
of
­­
all
of
the
under­
175,
which
is
24
gasoline,
diesel,
way
more
than
this
proposal
deals
with.
25
And
this
is
a
few
percent.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
284
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
2
Seeing
no
other
questions,
I
guess
we
go
to
3
our
­­
well,
first
of
all,
ask
Madam
Ombudsman
­­
pleased
4
to
see
you
had
your
wake­
up
call.
5
Would
you
please
describe
the
public
6
participation
process
that
occurred
while
this
item
was
7
being
developed,
and
share
any
concerns
or
other
comments
8
that
you
may
have
with
the
Board
at
this
time.
9
OMBUDSMAN
TSCHOGL:
I
was
going
to
apologize
for
10
the
misbehavior
of
my
device.
But,
anyway,
I'll
just
get
11
on
with
this.
12
Mr.
Chairman
and
members
of
the
Board,
this
13
control
measure
has
been
developed
with
input
from
the
14
Engine
Manufacturers
Association,
Outdoor
Power
Equipment
15
Institute,
Portable
Power
Equipment
Manufacturers
16
Association,
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls,
and
17
several
private
companies.
18
In
2000,
staff
began
its
effort
to
draft
a
19
regulation
to
control
evaporative
emissions
from
small
20
off­
road
engines.
And
on
November
9th
of
that
year
they
21
held
their
first
public
workshop.
22
Subsequent
workshops
were
held
in
2002
and
2003.
23
In
2002,
staff
introduced
its
exhaust
emission
reduction
24
proposal
for
small
off­
road
engines.
During
this
nearly
25
three­
year
period,
four
public
workshops
were
held.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
285
1
Staff
also
had
approximately
40
meetings
with
2
trade
associations
and
a
significant
number
of
one­
on­
one
3
meetings
with
several
companies.
4
That
concludes
my
comments.
Thank
you.
5
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
They're
trying
to
6
figure
out,
is
it
Bach,
Beethoven,
Mozart,
or
was
it
Howdy
7
Doody?
8
(
Laughter.)
9
OMBUDSMAN
TSCHOGL:
I
have
no
idea.
10
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
May
I
ask
the
staff
one
11
question.
12
About
how
many
workshops?
I
counted
four
or
13
five.
14
OMBUDSMAN
TSCHOGL:
There
were
four
public
15
workshops.
16
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Okay.
And
the
industry,
I
17
assume,
had
adequate
time
to
express
its
views
regarding
18
the
feasibility
of
the
technology?
19
OMBUDSMAN
TSCHOGL:
I
believe
so.
20
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
They
had
years.
21
OMBUDSMAN
TSCHOGL:
I
believe
everyone
was
quite
22
involved.
23
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Okay.
Thank
you.
24
That's
all.
25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
286
1
I'd
like
to
call
up
our
first
three
witnesses.
2
Bonnie
Holmes­
Gen,
Jed
Mandel,
and
David
Raney.
3
Bonnie?
4
I
saw
her
earlier,
but
maybe
she
has
left.
So
I
5
guess
­­
we
have
Bonnie's
testimony
on
behalf
of
the
Lung
6
Association,
the
California
Electric
Transportation
7
Coalition,
Center
for
Energy
Efficiency
and
Renewable
8
Technologies,
Coalition
for
Clean
Air,
Natural
Resources
9
Defense
Council,
Steven
and
Michele
Kirsch
Foundation,
10
Sierra
Club,
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists.
And
this
is
11
in
support
of
our
regulation.
12
Jed
Mandel.
13
MR.
MODISETTE:
Excuse
me,
Mr.
Chair.
That
14
was
­­
I'm
going
to
be
presenting
the
letter
that
you
just
15
read.
16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Later
on?
17
MR.
MODISETTE:
Yes.
18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
Thanks,
Dave.
19
Jed
Mandel,
David
Raney,
Bill
Guerry.
20
MR.
MANDEL:
I
know
you're
excited
and
pleased
to
21
see
me
so
soon
again
from
this
morning.
I
was
actually
22
hoping
not
to
see
you
so
soon
again.
I'd
asked
to
testify
23
at
the
end
of
this
item
because
there's
a
lot
of
new
24
information
that
has
been
shared
just
in
the
staff
report.
25
And
it's
possible
there
will
be
some
new
information
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
287
1
shared
by
subsequent
testifiers.
2
I'm
pleased
to
go
now,
but
if
I
might
be
able
to
3
have
a
couple
moments
afterwards.
4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No,
if
you'd
like
to
go
at
5
the
end,
and
I
respect
your
desire
to
do
that,
if
staff
6
has
no
problem.
7
MR.
MANDEL:
It
would
save
time
in
case
there's
8
something
else
that
I
need
to
respond
to.
9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
As
long
as
­­
you
know,
as
10
long
as
we
can
assume
you're
going
to
move
across
from
11
left.
As
long
as
you
go
left.
12
MR.
MANDEL:
I
promise
to
cut
my
hour
testimony
13
down
to
at
least
45
minutes.
14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks.
15
So
then
we
have
David
Raney
and
Bill
Guerry.
16
MR.
RANEY:
Gosh,
I
wanted
to
go
last.
17
(
Laughter.)
18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
19
MR.
RANEY:
I
believe
everybody
has
a
written
20
copy
of
our
statement.
21
There's
a
major
change
I
need
to
ask
you
to
make,
22
and
that's
to
change
"
good
morning"
to
"
good
afternoon."
23
That's
the
most
major
change.
24
Good
afternoon,
ladies
and
gentlemen
of
the
Board
25
and
Chairman
Lloyd
and
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
288
1
staff.
2
My
name
is
David
Raney.
I'm
the
Senior
Manager
3
of
Environmental
and
Energy
Affairs
at
American
Honda
4
Motor
Company
headquartered
here
in
California.
5
I'm
pleased
to
be
hear
on
behalf
of
my
company,
6
our
Power
Equipment
Division,
which
is
based
in
7
Alpharetta,
Georgia,
just
north
of
Atlanta,
and
our
Honda
8
R&
D
teams
both
here
and
in
Japan.
9
I
also
have
with
me
here
Tom
Bingham
from
10
American
Honda,
whose
desk
is
actually
at
our
Power
11
Equipment
Division
office
in
Georgia,
so
he
has
a
vested
12
interest
in
this
as
well.
13
I'm
going
to
spend
a
few
minutes
with
you
just
14
explaining
a
little
bit
about
Honda's
product
line
so
you
15
can
kind
of
see
where
we
have
an
interest
in
this.
16
We
do
design
and
produce
in
the
United
States
a
17
significant
portion
of
small
engine
products
that
we
sell
18
here.
We
have
a
significant
employment
presence
at
our
19
factories
and
research
and
development
facilities
in
North
20
Carolina,
as
well
as
a
broad
nationwide
dealer
network.
21
Our
associates
in
North
Carolina
produce
a
22
diverse
product
line
of
walk­
behind
mowers
and
engines
for
23
countless
OEM
products.
And
we
manufacture
engines
and
24
complete
products
in
all
displacement
categories
covered
25
by
the
staff
proposal.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
289
1
In
the
small
engine
category
we've
got
engine
2
models
ranging
from
a
four
stroke
1
horsepower
25
cc
3
handheld
engine
for
string
trimmers
to
a
25
horsepower
4
V­
twin
engine
that
is
primarily
used
on
construction
5
equipment.
6
Honda
supplies
engines
to
thousands
of
equipment
7
manufacturers
nationwide,
both
directly
and
through
28
8
engine
distributors.
The
three
engine
distributors
in
9
California
supply
engines
directly
to
a
200
plus
equipment
10
manufacturer
network.
The
distributors
have
their
own
11
dealer
network
that
supplies
engines
and
service
for
the
12
California
market.
And
these
folks
are
very
important
to
13
our
business
as
well.
Many
of
the
Honda
engines
sold
here
14
in
California
are
used
in
rental
and
construction
15
equipment,
and
they
are
supported
by
600
plus
servicing
16
dealers.
17
We
also
supply
engines
for
walk­
behind
mowers
and
18
other
products
to
several
large
volume
equipment
19
manufacturers
that
produce
product
for
sale
in
California.
20
And,
finally,
we
manufacture
complete
products
under
the
21
Honda
brand
such
as
walk­
behind
lawnmowers,
tillers,
22
generators,
trimmers,
and
water
pumps
that
are
retailed
23
directly
through
a
Honda
dealer
network,
with
some
24
lawnmowers
and
a
tiller
model
also
available
at
Home
25
Depot.
There
are
400
plus
Honda
sales
and
service
dealers
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
290
1
in
this
state.
2
Our
primary
interest
is
in
protecting
and
growing
3
our
business
for
these
products
and
supporting
our
dealers
4
and
customers
by
providing
highly
efficient,
long
lasting,
5
and
quality
products
branded
with
the
Honda
name.
And
I
6
can
assure
you
that
we
have
no
intention
of
reducing
7
employment
or
manufacturing
capacity
as
a
result
of
this
8
regulation.
9
As
a
corporation,
Honda's
philosophy
of
advancing
10
and
applying
cost
effective
low
emissions
control
11
technology
to
our
products
doesn't
stop
with
our
12
light­
duty
vehicles
and
light
duty
trucks.
It
also
13
applies
to
the
small
engines
and
products
under
14
consideration
before
you
today.
15
We
have
a
significant
vested
interest
in
the
16
outcome
of
this
regulatory
proposal,
both
for
increased
17
environmental
protection
as
well
as
in
protecting
the
18
availability
and
affordability
of
our
products
for
our
OEM
19
business
partners,
our
dealers,
and
our
retail
customers.
20
With
that
said,
I'll
say
that
there
are
many
21
remaining
concerns
with
the
proposal
before
you
today.
22
But
that
Honda
can
support
the
proposal
if
the
Board
can
23
direct
the
staff
to
resolve
these
concerns
that
we'll
24
discuss
briefly
in
a
satisfactory
manner.
25
We
have
come
a
long
way
with
staff
during
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
291
1
past
few
months.
And
my
company
believes
we
have
reached
2
a
point
today
where
we're
almost
there.
I
don't
want
to
3
give
you
or
our
customers
or
our
colleagues
in
this
4
industry
the
idea
that
we
wholeheartedly
support
the
5
proposal
in
its
present
modified
form.
There
are
several
6
concerns
that
must
be
resolved
before
we
can
fully
support
7
the
proposal.
But
we
do
not
believe
these
are
8
insurmountable.
Honda
is
prepared
and
very
willing
to
9
continue
to
work
with
staff
on
this
under
whatever
the
10
decision
the
Board
makes
today.
11
It
is
important
that
you
understand
our
remaining
12
concerns
though
and
I
want
to
outline
those
to
you
and
13
staff.
14
Before
I
begin,
I
would
like
to
especially
thank
15
the
staff
and
its
management
for
the
open
channels
of
16
communication
that
have
been
maintained
with
industry
17
while
we've
deliberated
this
process.
They
have
listened
18
and
learned
and
so
have
we.
I
believe
we
have
all
19
benefited
from
this.
And
we
look
forward
to
continuing
20
the
open
communication
as
we
head
to
a
final
rule.
21
Now,
several
months
ago,
as
the
content
of
this
22
regulation
and
staff's
original
direction
came
clearer,
we
23
began
to
express
significant
concerns
about
the
following
24
issues:
25
We
were
concerned
about
the
potential
performance
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
292
1
and
cost
differential
between
California
and
49­
state
2
product
that
might
exist
under
the
original
proposal
and
3
absent
any
new
federal
regulation
that
actually
harmonized
4
CARB
and
EPA
regulations.
We
expressed
concern
that
our
5
customers
and
dealers
in
California
could
be
penalized
if
6
the
products
sold
here
had
a
significantly
higher
price
7
tag
caused
by
the
stringency
of
standards
relative
to
8
products
sold
outside
of
the
state.
9
And,
secondly,
we
expressed
significant
concern
10
about
the
potential
impact
on
safety
that
the
exhaust
11
portion
of
the
original
proposal
and
its
level
of
12
stringency
might
pose
to
our
products
and
customers.
13
Finally,
we
clearly
stated
to
staff
the
need
for
14
an
equitable
and
fair
playing
field
in
the
certification
15
process,
specifically
on
test
procedure
issues
and
the
16
means
by
which
certain
performance
aspects
could
be
17
demonstrated
under
design­
based
standards.
18
While
it
is
generally
understood
that
increased
19
cost
is
usually
associated
with
regulation,
we
believe
20
that
staff
has
thoroughly
addressed
in
its
latest
21
revisions
or
will
and
can
try
to
resolve
these
issues
22
before
finalizing
the
rule,
therein
mitigating
their
23
significant
effects
that
were
originally
raised
on
the
24
market.
The
modifications
to
the
exhaust
and
evaporative
25
emissions
proposals
put
forth
today
have
given
us
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
293
1
increased
possibility
to
greatly
lessen
cross­
border
cost
2
differentials.
And
we
believe
staff
is
listening
to
our
3
concerns
expressed
about
the
need
for
a
level
playing
4
field
in
the
certification
process.
5
I
want
to
say
a
few
things
specific
to
the
issue
6
of
safety.
We
have
continued
throughout
this
process
to
7
bring
this
concern
to
the
staff.
It
was
a
significant
8
concern.
The
proposal
originally
put
forth
by
staff
was
9
not
acceptable
to
Honda
because
of
the
potential
for
10
exhaust
flames
resulting
from
the
high
conversion
rate
11
that
you
discussed
earlier
necessary
to
meet
the
12
originally
proposed
exhaust
standards.
We
think
that
the
13
modified
exhaust
emissions
proposal
presented
today
of
10
14
and
8
grams
will
make
it
possible
to
have
an
exhaust
15
system
with
a
lower
risk
of
being
a
fire
safety
hazard.
16
It's
manageable
today
on
our
current
products.
And
with
17
this
revised
proposal
it
will
be
manageable
on
the
future
18
engines.
19
The
revised
proposal
will
also
be
significantly
20
more
cost
effective
air
quality
improvement
for
21
California.
22
This
modification
has
been
a
positive
and
very
23
helpful
change.
While
there
is
always
risk,
even
on
24
today's
products,
due
to
their
diversity
of
use
or
even
25
misuse
in
their
application,
we
don't
believe
that
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
294
1
staff
proposal
presented
here
today
for
future
exhaust
2
emission
standards
will
have
any
significant
impact
on
the
3
safety
of
our
future
engines
in
comparison
to
current
4
engines
or
products.
5
Now
there
are
several
issues
that
do
remain
as
6
concerns
to
Honda,
as
I
stated
earlier.
I
have
attached
a
7
list
of
these
concerns
to
our
testimony
for
the
record.
8
And
for
the
sake
of
preserving
time,
Chairman
Lloyd,
I
9
won't
go
through
them
specifically.
10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
have
copies
here.
11
MR.
RANEY:
Okay.
Again,
happy
to
meet
with
12
staff
at
any
time
to
discuss
our
concerns
there.
13
These
are
all
important
issues
and
we
do
believe
14
they
must
be
addressed.
But
as
I
said
earlier,
they
are
15
not
insurmountable.
We
hope
that
the
Board
will
guide
the
16
staff
today
to
work
with
our
industry
on
these
issues.
17
And
we
look
forward
to
working
with
staff
to
address
them
18
in
the
complex
regulatory
text
that
will
no
doubt
19
accompany
them
as
soon
as
possible.
20
Our
engineers
need
to
have
some
certainty
about
21
the
timing
of
the
regulation
and
clarity
in
the
regulatory
22
language
in
order
to
continue
the
development
of
new
23
products
in
an
efficient
and
timely
manner.
And
as
you
24
know
and
have
seen
this
morning,
some
of
the
provisions
in
25
the
current
proposal
take
effect
even
in
the
2005
model
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
295
1
year.
For
our
development
teams,
that's
today.
2
In
closing,
Chairman
Lloyd,
we
hope
that
the
3
Board
and
staff
view
these
comments
as
helpful
and
4
constructive.
And
I
thank
you
very
much
for
your
5
attention
and
for
your
serious
attention
that
you
will
6
give
to
them.
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much,
Mr.
8
Raney.
9
Just
a
couple
of
questions
there.
Can
I
read
10
into
your
comments
here
that
you
would
support
us
adopting
11
the
regulation
today
provided
that
staff
worked
with
you
12
to
address
those
concerns
in
the
15­
day
period?
13
MR.
RANEY:
Yes.
14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
the
other
one
which
you
15
had
raised.
And
I
think
I
read
your
statement
correctly
16
there
that
this
would
be
unacceptable
because
of
safety
17
concerns
early
on.
But
given
staff's
modifications
here,
18
you
don't
feel
now
that
safety
will
be
­­
safety
would
be
19
a
concern
as
a
result
of
this
regulation?
20
MR.
RANEY:
That's
true.
21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Fire
hazard.
Okay.
22
Well,
that's
very
helpful.
And,
again,
we
really
23
appreciate
your
ability
to
work
with
staff
on
this
issue
24
and
staff
worked
with
you.
And
clearly
your
pioneering
25
work
on
the
automobile
is
a
­­
we're
delighted
to
see
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
296
1
you're
now
turning
that
to
helping
us
on
some
of
the
2
smaller
sources
as
well.
3
Professor
Friedman.
4
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
To
me
this
is
5
really,
if
not
optimal,
it's
as
close
as
it
can
get
to
the
6
way
this
should
work,
this
process.
Staff
puts
out
a
7
proposal
after
a
dialogue
with
the
sources
to
be
8
regulated.
And
the
regulators
­­
those
to
be
regulated
9
respond.
They
give
their
concerns.
Staff
responds.
They
10
have
more
conversation
at
workshops.
And
at
least
from
11
what
I've
just
heard
from
Honda,
there
has
been
a
12
collaborative
resolution,
with
a
number
of
items
yet
to
be
13
considered
and
addressed.
But
they're
not
so
major
in
14
principle
that
they
prevent
support
from
those
to
be
15
regulated,
at
least
from
Honda.
16
So
to
me,
I
congratulate
you
both
at
this
point.
17
I
hope
we'll
hear
more
of
that.
And
I
hope
that
­­
I
mean
18
it's
always
wonderful
when
you're
presented
with
a
19
proposal
that
those
who
are
going
to
have
to
bear
the
20
cost,
and
hopefully
pass
it
on
to
the
consuming
public,
21
have
engaged
in
the
process
of
working
out
the
solution,
22
creatively
and
constructively,
as
you
put
it.
23
So
I
thank
you,
for
one.
And,
again,
I
thank
the
24
staff
for
being
able
to
work
this
way.
25
MR.
RANEY:
I'd
like
to
say
that
you've
got
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
297
1
good
staff
and
a
tough
staff
as
well.
This
was
not
an
2
easy
thing
to
convince
them
of.
But
we
kept
bringing
3
bigger
hammers.
4
(
Laughter.)
5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
of
course
one
of
your
6
biggest
assets
is
one
of
your
biggest
problems.
And,
that
7
is,
that
your
ability
to
meet
the
toughest
standards
8
possible
obviously
helps
us
enormously,
but
also
we
9
realize
that
it's
a
challenge
for
you.
But
you've
always
10
come
through.
11
Any
other
questions
from
the
Board?
12
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.
13
Thank
you,
colleagues.
14
MR.
RANEY:
Chairman
Lloyd,
I
will
do
that.
And
15
if
I
could
violate
protocol
a
bit
as
well
and
ask
for
15
16
more
seconds.
I'd
like
to
do
the
same
thing
that
Jed
17
Mandel
said
on
behalf
of
our
executive
team
at
Honda.
18
You're
going
to
miss
Kathleen
Walsh.
We
really
19
do
appreciate
the
access
that
she's
given
to
us
in
the
20
industry,
clarifying
questions
and
so
forth.
And
I
really
21
don't
envy
the
person
at
the
California
Air
Resources
22
Board
that's
got
to
make
the
decision
to
fill
her
shoes.
23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
24
MR.
RANEY:
So
thank
you,
Kathleen.
25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That's
very
nice.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
298
1
Bill
Guerry,
Joe
Kubsh,
and
Rick
Bell.
2
MR.
GUERRY:
Good
afternoon.
My
name's
Bill
3
Guerry.
I
serve
as
counsel
for
the
Outdoor
Power
4
Equipment
Institute.
5
OPEI
has
a
broad
membership.
We
have
78
members.
6
American
Honda
is
one
of
our
important
members.
And
we
7
are
very
diverse
in
our
membership.
We
have
sophisticated
8
world
leaders
like
Honda
that
produce
integrated
products.
9
For
the
most
part
though
the
OPEI
membership
is
comprised
10
of
smaller
and
midsized
companies
who
are
non­
integrated,
11
meaning
that
the
large
group
of
OPEI
members
are
equipment
12
manufacturers
that
receive
engines
from
separate
13
independent
suppliers.
And
it's
important
to
recognize
14
that
those
non­
integrated
equipment
manufacturers,
15
particularly
the
small
ones,
are
in
a
very,
very
different
16
place
in
terms
of
companies
such
as
Honda.
17
And
in
that
regard,
it's
the
small
members
of
18
OPEI,
many
who
are
mom
and
pop
operations
with
less
than
19
50
employees,
that
critically
rely
on
the
association
to
20
represent
their
interests.
And
they
critically
rely
on
21
the
CARB
Board
to
ensure
their
procedural
due
process
22
rights
are
adequately
represented.
23
In
this
regard,
over
the
last
15
years
OPEI
takes
24
great
pride
in
working
proactively
with
CARB
staff
in
the
25
development
of
numerous
regulatory
proceedings
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
299
1
resulted
in
success
in
providing
cost
effective
and
2
practical
emission
reductions.
3
In
this
vein,
OPEI
has
succeeded
resolving
the
4
most
significant
compliance
issues
for
our
separate
and
5
distinct
handheld
members.
And
there
is
a
separate
6
statement
in
the
record
for
the
OPEI
handheld
membership
7
that
have
come
very
close
to
working
out
to
an
acceptable
8
solution
in
this
proceeding.
9
OPEI
also
recently
submitted
earlier
this
month
10
an
industry
counterproposal
along
with
the
Engine
11
Manufacturers
Association.
And
as
the
staff
presentation
12
showed,
the
industry
counterproposal
will
achieve
13
California's
air
quality
goals
in
a
much
more
cost
14
effective
and
practical
manner.
15
During
the
last
few
months
OPEI
has
expressed
and
16
shared
its
concerns
­­
and
you
heard
Honda
raise
some
of
17
the
concerns
­­
on
safety
and
cost
effectiveness
with
CARB
18
staff.
And
we
share
the
safety
problems
that
have
been
19
raised
­­
and
I
know
that
Mr.
Friedman
raised
­­
from
20
various
safety
organizations,
particularly
with
regard
to
21
pressurization
of
fuel
systems
and
with
regard
to
very
22
large,
very
hot
catalyst
systems;
which
given
the
23
nonintegrated
nature
of
our
industry
and
the
fact
that
we
24
have
many
small
equipment
manufacturers
who
are
relatively
25
unsophisticated,
those
safety
issues
take
on
added
and,
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
300
1
think,
unique
dimensions
that
perhaps
California
and
CARB
2
have
not
dealt
with
in
other
scenarios.
3
OPEI
very
much
appreciates
CARB
staff's
recent
4
recognition
to
basically
­­
you
know,
fundamentally
5
restructure
the
August
8th
proposal
and
to
work
to
develop
6
a
framework
for
more
cost
effective
regulations.
7
Unfortunately,
we
did
not
receive,
in
the
OPEI
8
the
framework
on
the
evap
program
until
late
Monday
night
9
of
this
week.
It
will
take
additional
time
for
OPEI
to
10
receive
meaningful
input
and
questions
back
from
its
78
11
members
who
are
located
around
the
world.
12
At
this
time,
we
strongly
feel
that
neither
the
13
Board
nor
the
public
nor
all
these
small
OEMs
have
had
14
enough
information
about
the
new
fundamentally
different
15
approach
that's
been
set
forth
in
the
three
or
four
page
16
concept
piece
to
determine
how
that
document
would
be
17
implemented.
For
this
reason,
to
ensure
a
meaningful
18
notice
and
comment
process
and
to
ensure
a
meaningful
19
Board
review,
OPEI
urges
the
CARB
Board
to
reschedule
this
20
matter
for
final
adoption
at
a
future
public
board
21
hearing.
22
We
also
ask
that
the
Board
specifically
instruct
23
CARB
staff
to
work
very
closely
with
the
independent
24
safety
and
fire
stakeholders
who
have
submitted
25
correspondence
in
this
matter
in
drafting
a
new
regulatory
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
301
1
package
that
would
be
subject
to
the
required
45­
day
2
notice
and
comment
period.
3
Finally
­­
and
this
is
set
forth
in
Section
6
of
4
the
written
comments
that
OPEI
has
submitted
­­
because
of
5
the
inherent
production,
distribution,
and
cost
6
limitations
associated
with
relatively
inexpensive
lawn
7
garden
products,
most
lawn
and
garden
manufacturers
simply
8
could
not
produce
for
the
national
market
the
very
9
expensive
CARB­
compliant
products
with
catalysts
and
10
carbon
canisters.
11
I
think
you
saw
staff
numbers
that
are
exceeding
12
a
hundred
dollars
a
unit.
And
we've
submitted
a
cost
13
study
from
that
indicates
much
higher
numbers,
even
14
associated
with
the
­­
with
basically
all
the
alternatives
15
before
the
Board.
16
Consequently,
OPEI
requests
the
Board
to
limit
17
the
Tier
3
new
program
at
a
final
Board
hearing
to
18
products
sold
in
California.
CARB
has
effectively
done
19
this
and
structured
several
other
programs
to
focus
on
the
20
California
market
and
not
to
create
the
likelihood
of
de
21
facto
national
standards.
In
fact,
the
current
Tier
2
22
exhaust
standards
for
lawn
and
garden
industry
products
23
are
on
the
wheel­
product
side
limited
to
the
California
24
market.
25
In
summary,
OPEI
remains
committed
to
working
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
302
1
with
the
CARB
staff
to
expeditiously
bring
back
to
this
2
Board
a
comprehensive
cost
effective,
safe,
and
practical
3
regulatory
package.
4
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
6
Professor
Friedman.
7
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
don't
know
so
8
much,
Mr.
Guerry,
whether
my
question
is
to
you
or
to
9
staff
or
both.
But
I
understood
that
staff
was
in
large
10
measure
responding
to
or
adopting
the
industry
proposals
11
in
modifying
the
original
proposal
of
the
staff
and
giving
12
us
what
we
have
before
us
today,
whatever
the
time
line.
13
And
is
that
correct?
Was
­­
is
OPEI
part
of
14
the
­­
15
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes,
16
that's
correct.
We
received
two
different
alternatives
in
17
the
process
here.
And
the
­­
or
two
different
proposals.
18
And
the
two
alternatives
that
you
saw
on
our
proposal
to
19
you
today
reflect
those
­­
in
large
sense
reflect
those
20
two
industry
proposals.
21
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
And
is
OPEI
part
of
22
the
industry?
23
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes.
24
One
of
them
was
EMA,
OPEI,
Briggs
and
Stratton
proposal.
25
MR.
GUERRY:
If
you
look
at
Exhibit
8
to
my
­­
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
303
1
the
OPEI
written
statement,
that
is
the
OPEI/
EMA
2
counterproposal
that
was
submitted
on
September
9th.
If
3
you
look
on
the
first
page
of
that,
the
bottom
bullet
says
4
that
a
core
element
of
the
counterproposal,
quote,
"
limit
5
the
scope
of
the
program
to
California
only."
6
So
we've
been
very
clear
throughout
this
process
7
of
one
of
the
fundamental
core
elements
because
of
the
8
problems
with
infrastructure,
production,
distribution
has
9
been
a
California
program.
I
know
the
Board,
at
least
10
looking
at
the
public
staff
report,
that
information
and
11
that
­­
and
the
importance
of
that
program
of
course
we
12
don't
believe
has
been
adequately
fleshed
out
for
you
guys
13
to
make
a
decision
today.
And
that's
one
of
the
critical
14
reasons
we
feel
this
is
an
important
Board
decision
with
15
significant
policy
implications,
and
that
­­
that
you
need
16
more
time
and
you
need
clear
options
presented
to
evaluate
17
how
to
structure
and
how
it
could
be
structured
in
various
18
ways.
19
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
If
I
might
20
respond
to
the
travel
issue
head
on,
because
Mr.
Cackette
21
responded
to
the
technical
aspects
of
the
22
counterproposals.
Travel
is
a
fundamental
policy
issue.
23
Whether
or
not
this
Board
wishes
to
deny
other
24
states
the
benefits
of
our
work
­­
we
do
collaborate
with
25
other
states,
most
notably
Texas
and
New
York,
and
other
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
304
1
states
on
the
eastern
seaboard,
who
join
with
us
on
motor
2
vehicle
regulations,
for
heavy
duty
­­
for
example,
the
3
NTE
issue
we
worked
on
together.
We've
had
states
adopt
4
our
low­
emission
vehicle
regulations.
And
so
as
a
policy
5
matter,
we
try
not
to
draw
a
moat
­­
or
create
a
moat
6
around
California
and
say,
"
Well,
we're
figuring
out
our
7
problem,
but
you're
stuck
alone
with
yours."
We
like
to
8
export
our
knowledge
around
the
world.
9
But
since
the
time
that
the
question
was
first
10
raised
to
us
and
rebuffed
it
at
a
policy
level,
of
course
11
to
ultimately
your
decision,
we
have
been
engaged
in
a
12
fight
in
Congress
with
­­
brought
by
one
of
the
members
of
13
OPEI,
Briggs
and
Stratton,
through
an
amendment
introduced
14
by
Senator
Kit
Bond
to
the
VA
HUD
appropriation,
which
15
would
take
away
all
states'
ability
to
regulate
this
16
category
and
other
categories
of
off­
road
engines.
And
17
states
throughout
the
nation
have
rallied
to
our
side
to
18
defend
the
importance
of
these
regulations.
19
And
so
at
this
time,
given
all
that
has
gone
on,
20
it
would
be
most
improper
in
our
view
to
turn
our
back
on
21
our
allies
in
that
fight
and
say,
"
We're
going
to
22
construct
a
measure
that
California
and
California
alone
23
can
implement,"
even
if
in
return
for
doing
that,
Briggs
24
and
Stratton
agreed
to
drop
the
Kit
Bond
amendment.
It's
25
just
simply
not
a
possibility
anymore
because
of
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
305
1
battle
that's
been
joined
and
the
way
that
the
lines
were
2
drawn.
3
So
it's
correct
to
say
we've
made
that
4
distinction
before.
We've
created
optional
compliance
5
paths
that
don't
export.
We've
done
memorandas
of
6
understanding
that
don't
export.
But
generally
we
wish
to
7
work
with
our
colleagues
in
air
pollution
control
around
8
the
world
and
share
our
expertise
and
experience
rather
9
than
only
look
out
for
our
own
interest.
10
MR.
GUERRY:
Can
I
address
that?
Because
my
11
client,
the
Outdoor
Power
Equipment
Institute,
has
not
12
been
a
sponsor
of
the
rider
she
mentioned.
13
However,
having
said
that
­­
and
I've
had
this
14
conversation
with
Tom
and
others
­­
it
seems
to
me
that
15
the
objective
and
purpose
of
the
CARB
Board
should
be
to
16
focus
on
the
air
quality
for
the
breathers
in
California.
17
And
to
the
extent
that
you
create
the
likelihood
of
a
de
18
facto
national
standard,
you
raise
the
bar
significantly
19
in
terms
of
scrutiny
of
national
interest
groups,
20
including
national
safety
interest
groups
and
other
21
stakeholders.
22
And
it
makes
it
a
much
harder
pill
for
industry
23
to
swallow
because
you're
­­
I
think
a
lot
of
my
members
24
would
be
willing
to
provide
extremely
clean,
extremely
25
expensive
­­
the
testing
ground
in
California
have
serious
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
306
1
reservations
if
you
multiply
that
by
a
national
market
for
2
a
product
such
as
this.
And,
therefore,
you
create
a
much
3
greater
burden
and
much
greater
difficulty
for
industry
4
and
staff
to
reach
a
solution
that
would
be
in
the
best
5
interests
of
the
public
of
California.
6
So
by
­­
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Is
Briggs
and
Stratton
a
8
member
of
your
­­
9
MR.
GUERRY:
Briggs
and
Stratton
is
a
member
of
10
ours,
as
is
­­
11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
let
me
also
add
to
what
12
Ms.
Witherspoon
said,
because
I
was
also
approached.
13
Because,
as
she
said,
this
is
a
policy
issue
on
travel.
14
And
the
feedback
I
gave
was
that
I'm
not
high
on
travel.
15
But
I
don't
know
where
my
colleagues
stand,
and
I
would
16
entertain
what
was
going
on.
17
Before
anything
proceeded,
then
in
fact
one
of
18
your
members
went
to
Washington.
And
the
whole
complexity
19
of
the
game
changed.
And
I
stand
100
percent
behind
staff
20
on
this
issue.
Because
talking
about
good
faith,
we
were
21
operating
in
good
faith.
The
rules
were
changed,
not
by
22
us.
Staff
continued
to
work
in
spite
of
that,
continued
23
to
work
to
bring
a
proposal
before
us.
24
And
to
say
that
we
­­
our
obligation
here
is
­­
25
that
we
are
somehow
doing
something
wrong,
I
think
it
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
307
1
really
relates
to
the
facts
and
it
skews
the
facts.
When
2
I
see
one
of
the
members,
as
you
saw
earlier,
providing
3
products
to
us,
and
when
I
see
another
member
coming
4
forward
and
saying
they
can
live
with
this,
and
that
their
5
products
clearly
are
cleaner,
our
obligation
to
clean
air
6
in
California
is
very
clear.
7
We
didn't
start
the
game
in
California
­­
in
8
Washington.
We
would
not
wish
to
do
that.
We
would
like
9
to
work
with
you.
We've
demonstrated
we
have
by
a
hundred
10
percent.
We
cannot
turn
our
backs
on
our
allies
and
the
11
rest
of
this
country
and
our
representatives
in
12
Washington.
We
cannot
do
that.
13
So
then
let's
make
it
clear.
Our
obligation
is
14
to
the
citizens
of
California,
to
protect
air
quality.
15
We've
done
that
throughout
the
years,
no
matter
what
the
16
administration.
17
And
in
fact
we
can
go
out
and
drive
cars
today
­­
18
we've
seen
the
results
of
that.
And
we
have
a
very
proud
19
record.
And
we're
not
going
to
go
down
and
play
the
game
20
that's
being
played.
21
So
it's
very
clear
to
us
the
message
you're
22
getting.
We
may
lose,
but
we
will
lose
with
honor.
And
23
we
will
lose
trying
to
protect
the
rights
of
the
citizens
24
of
California
and
every
other
state.
25
That's
all
to
be
said
on
this
issue.
I
would
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
308
1
like
to
move
on.
2
And
I
sympathize
with
you,
by
the
way,
because
3
all
of
us
would
not
like
to
be
in
this
place.
4
Professor
Friedman.
5
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
So
I
guess
except
6
for
the
travel
issue,
which
you've
raised,
the
proposals
7
that
are
in
­­
you
also
said
you
needed
more
time
­­
8
MR.
GUERRY:
Well,
I
­­
9
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
­­
to
evaluate
the
10
cost
elements.
11
MR.
GUERRY:
No,
no.
Let
me
be
very
clear.
12
Travel
was
one
of
the
core
elements
in
the
13
counterproposal
that
I
wanted
­­
I
was
responding
to
your
14
question
that
has
not
been
addressed.
15
There
are,
we
believe,
numerous
Board
policy­
type
16
issues
that
have
also
not
been
addressed
in
the
four­
page
17
outline
that
we
got
for
the
first
time
shortly
before
this
18
meeting
and
that
we
saw
in,
I
guess,
a
two­
page
outline
19
late
Monday
night.
And
we
believe
that
there
are
major
20
significant
issues
­­
21
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
What
are
they,
22
please,
besides
travel
and
cost?
23
MR.
GUERRY:
I
mean
some
of
it
has
to
do
with
the
24
framework
of
the
new
alternatives
that
have
been
added
25
that
have
not
been
part
of
any
discussion
with
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
309
1
associations
and
CARB
staff,
including
there
appears
­­
2
there
apparently
is
now
an
entirely
new
alternative
with
3
an
averaging
program
that
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
even
be
4
able
to
get
approval
from
my
membership
as
to
what
that
5
even
means
and
how
that
will
come
unfold.
6
There
are
also
significant
issues
in
terms
of
7
executive
office
approval
of
some
sort
of
equivalent
8
running
loss
controls.
And
that's
something
that's
a
9
promising
option,
but
it's
something
that
needs
to
have
10
greater
clarity
and
Board
review.
And
I
guess
we
see
­­
11
and
I
think
talking
to
some
of
the
CARB
staff,
I
think
12
every
­­
I
think
CARB
staff
is
in
an
untenable
position
13
that
in
the
time
that
we've
made
this
progress,
they're
14
put
with
having
to
not
get
the
ultimate
Board
approval
15
that
I
would
certainly
want
if
I
was
in
their
shoes.
16
And
I
think
you
guys
need
to
stay
involved
in
17
overseeing
the
process.
And
I
don't
see
a
downside
in
18
doing
that.
And
all
we're
asking
for
is
to
have
­­
let
us
19
continue
to
work
this
out,
get
it
to
a
more
refined
clear
20
notion,
fill
in
some
of
the
big
holes,
and
have
greater
21
comfort
that
at
the
Board
level
there's
been
a
review
and
22
approval,
as
I
think
it
was
intended
for
the
CARB
to
23
operate
in
a
meaningful
review
role.
24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
I
think
we
can
do
this.
25
We
have
the
15­
day
comment
period.
We
could
do
this.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
310
1
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We
do
believe
2
except
for
travel
that
the
issues
are
mostly
ministerial.
3
If
we're
wrong
about
that
and
something
major
were
to
4
arise,
we
would
of
course
return
to
the
Board.
But
we
5
don't
think
you
need
to
make
a
presumption
today
that
6
that's
going
to
occur.
You
can
trust
us
to
bring
it
back
7
and
seek
your
policy
direction
if
in
fact
a
major
policy
8
issues
erupts.
9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
we
have
checked
with
our
10
legal
staff.
And
we
feel
confident
about
going
ahead.
11
But,
again,
I
wish
we
were
not
in
this
position.
12
But
that's
where
we
find
ourselves.
13
MR.
GUERRY:
Thank
you
very
much.
14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
15
Joe,
Rick
Bell,
Don
Anair.
16
MR.
KUBSH:
Good
afternoon
again,
Chairman
Lloyd
17
and
members
of
the
Board.
Joe
Kubsh,
Deputy
Director
of
18
the
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association.
19
I'm
proud
to
stand
here
to
strongly
support
the
20
proposal
as
put
forward,
even
with
the
modifications
as
21
presented
by
staff
this
afternoon.
22
We
commend
the
Board
for
its
continuing
efforts
23
to
develop
and
implement
effective
control
programs
for
24
major
sources
of
air
pollution,
including
small
off­
road
25
engines.
We
believe
that
the
proposed
amendments
are
an
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
311
1
important
step
forward
in
further
reducing
emissions
from
2
small
off­
road
engines.
3
We
also
commend
the
ARB
staff
for
its
technical
4
report
that
reflects
a
comprehensive
and
balanced
analysis
5
of
the
issues
presented
by
this
proposed
rulemaking
and
6
for
staff's
willingness
to
work
cooperatively
with
all
7
interested
stakeholders.
8
I'd
like
to
specifically
talk
about
the
issue
of
9
applying
catalysts
to
non­
handheld
applications
as
covered
10
by
the
staff
presentation.
11
MECA
strongly
concurs
with
the
staff
analysis
and
12
conclusion
that
the
proposed
hydrocarbon
and
NOx
emission
13
standards
for
these
engines
are
technologically
feasible.
14
In
fact,
we
were
ready
to
stand
here
and
say
that
they
15
were
technologically
feasible
even
with
the
proposal
that
16
was
contained
in
the
original
staff
report
at
the
8
and
6
17
grams.
18
And
I
think
the
test
results
that
were
generated
19
at
Southwest
Research
Institute
also
indicate
that
even
20
those
lower
levels
are
technologically
feasible
and
can
be
21
reached
with
the
application
of
catalyst
technology
to
22
non­
handheld
engines.
23
I'd
also
like
to
take
a
minute
to
talk
about
the
24
issue
of
thermal
management
or
the
safety
issues
around
25
dealing
with
high
exhaust
temperatures.
This
issue
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
312
1
heat
management
that
has
been
raised
by
the
industry
is,
2
as
Mr.
Cackette
indicated
in
his
remarks,
a
3
straightforward
engineering
challenge
that
is
well
4
understood
and
can
be
readily
addressed.
These
types
of
5
issues
have
been
raised
virtually
every
time
the
use
of
a
6
catalyst
technology
has
been
proposed
for
use
on
a
7
spark­
ignited
engine,
whether
it
be
30
years
ago
when
8
catalysts
were
first
talked
about
on
cars
or
more
recently
9
with
catalysts
on
applications
such
as
motor
cycles
or
10
mopeds
or
forklift
trucks
or
small
handheld
engines.
11
In
each
case,
all
of
these
issues
were
12
successfully
addressed
for
each
application.
The
13
situation
we
feel
is
no
different
here
for
these
14
non­
handheld
engines.
15
Indeed,
30
years
of
catalyst
experience
in
16
general
and
over
10
years
experience
with
applying
17
catalysts
to
small
engines
provide
an
experience
base
that
18
has
enabled
catalyst
technology
to
continue
to
be
improved
19
and
has
provided
an
increasing
understanding
of
how
to
20
optimize
the
engine
catalyst
exhaust
system
to
work
21
effectively
in
these
situations.
22
Two
striking
examples
of
this
type
of
success
in
23
dealing
with
thermal
issues
can
be
gleaned
from
the
fact
24
that
more
than
15
million
two­
stroke
motorcycles
and
25
mopeds
worldwide
have
been
successfully
equipped
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
313
1
catalysts
and
dealt
with
thermal
management
issues.
As
2
well
as
more
than
a
million
small
handheld
pieces
of
3
equipment
using
two­
stroke
engines,
that
again
have
been
4
successfully
integrated
with
catalysts
without
causing
any
5
safety­
related
issues.
6
So,
again,
I'd
just
like
to
commend
the
staff
for
7
the
fine
work
they've
done
here.
I'd
also
like
to
commend
8
the
engineers
at
Southwest
Research
Institute
for
the
fine
9
job
that
they
did
in
completing
this
test
program.
10
And
in
closing,
again
I
would
like
to
commend
the
11
Board
for
its
leadership
in
reducing
emissions
from
these
12
small
engines.
13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks
very
much.
14
No
questions?
15
Thank
you.
16
Rick
Bell,
Don
Anair,
Jeff
Arnold.
17
MR.
BELL:
If
it's
acceptable
for
the
Board,
I
18
have
approximately
six
slides
I'd
like
to
present
to
help
19
substantiate
some
of
the
information
I'll
be
discussing.
20
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
21
Presented
as
follows.)
22
MR.
BELL:
My
name
is
Rick
Bell.
I'm
a
23
development
manager
with
the
Dupont
Company.
24
Dupont
is
a
polymer
and
elastomer
supplier.
We
25
supply
a
lot
of
the
­­
excuse
me
just
a
second.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
314
1
(
Thereupon
a
discussion
was
held
off
2
the
record.)
3
MR.
BELL:
Should
I
take
a
­­
should
I
let
the
4
next
person
go
ahead
of
me,
and
then
I'll
­­
5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
long,
Victoria,
is
this
6
going
to
be?
7
Does
anybody
not
have
overheads
here?
What
about
8
Don?
9
Yeah,
maybe
Don
can
fill
in
while
­­
10
MR.
BELL:
I
was
considering
it
more
for
the
11
audience
rather
than
the
staff,
because
some
of
these
12
technologies
­­
13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Then
let's
hold
on
then.
14
Maybe
Don
can
come
up
and
­­
yeah.
And
when
we
15
get
this
fixed,
we'll
­­
16
MR.
ANAIR:
Good
afternoon.
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
afternoon.
18
MR.
ANAIR:
My
name
is
Don
Anair
and
I'm
with
the
19
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists.
And
I'd
like
to
express
20
our
support
of
the
rule
proposed
by
the
staff.
21
Off­
road
engines
in
California
are
becoming
a
22
significant
source
of
air
pollution,
as
on­
road
cars
and
23
trucks
are
required
to
meet
tighter
emission
standards.
24
With
existing
regulations,
off­
road
hydrocarbon
and
25
nitrogen
oxide
emissions
in
California
are
expected
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
315
1
become
60
percent
of
total
California
mobile
source
2
emissions
by
2020,
compared
to
37
percent
in
the
year
3
2000.
4
Cleaning
up
smaller
engines
that
have
high
5
emissions
is
critical
to
meeting
California
clean
air
6
goals
and
SIP
commitments.
The
potential
savings
from
7
this
rule
are
quite
significant.
According
to
the
staff's
8
estimates
­­
original
estimates,
the
reductions
of
9
hydrocarbons
and
nitrogen
oxide
achieved
by
2020
would
be
10
equivalent
to
removing
1.8
million
cars
from
California's
11
roads.
These
are
the
pollutants
that
are
directly
12
responsible
for
producing
urban
ozone.
Nine
out
of
ten
13
Californians
live
in
areas
that
do
not
obtain
the
national
14
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
ozone.
15
California
has
the
authority
to
clean
up
small
16
off­
road
engines
and
should
do
so
for
the
health
of
all
17
Californians.
18
While
we
support
this
rule
as
proposed
by
the
ARB
19
staff
and
agree
that
it
will
achieve
significant
emissions
20
reductions,
zero­
emissions
equipment
should
be
more
21
strongly
encouraged.
Electrical
equipment
in
this
22
category
can
be
and
is
used
in
many
applications
and
23
offers
clear
emissions
benefits
over
combustion
engine
24
equipment.
A
strong
zero
emission
component
will
achieve
25
emissions
benefits
above
and
beyond
the
proposed
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
316
1
regulation.
2
We
urge
the
Board
to
adopt
the
proposed
3
strengthened
emissions
requirements
proposed
today
by
the
4
staff
for
small
off­
road
engines
to
benefit
the
health
of
5
all
Californians.
We
also
urge
the
Board
to
direct
ARB
6
staff
to
investigate
and
propose
a
future
amendment
to
the
7
regulation
that
strongly
promotes
the
manufacture
and
use
8
of
zero­
emissions
equipment.
9
I'd
like
to
thank
the
Board
for
the
great
job
10
they've
done
in
proposing
the
original
and
the
amended
11
proposal.
12
Thank
you.
13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks
very
much.
14
We're
still
out
of
action,
I
guess.
15
We're
not.
Okay.
16
So
maybe,
Rick,
you
could
come
back.
17
And
then
we'll
have
Jeff
Arnold
and
Tom
Addison.
18
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
19
Presented
as
follows.)
20
MR.
BELL:
I
guess
sometimes
new
technology
21
doesn't
always
work
well.
22
But,
again,
I'm
Rick
Bell.
I'm
a
development
23
manager
with
Dupont.
And
Dupont
is
a
polymer
and
24
elastomer
supplier
for
this
supply
chain,
small
off­
road
25
engines.
We
supply
materials
that
are
commercially
used
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
317
1
today.
We
also
supply
materials
and
technology
that
could
2
be
part
of
a
solution
to
meet
the
new
proposed
3
recommendations.
4
Really
my
testimony
here
today
is
to
help
5
validate
a
lot
of
the
information
that
Jim
Watson
6
presented.
But
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
add
a
few
more
7
comments
to
some
of
that,
addressing
some
of
the
concerns
8
that
have
come
up
in
past
workshops
around
some
of
these
9
new
materials
or
ways
of
meeting
lower
evap
limits.
10
­­
o0o­­
11
MR.
BELL:
The
area
where
Dupont
has
expertise
is
12
in
fuel
tanks
­­
plastic
fuel
tanks,
excluding
the
13
diurnal.
Although
when
you
look
at
the
diurnal,
Dupont
14
does
also
supply
nylon
for
the
canisters,
fuel
lines,
and
15
engine
seals.
So
I'm
specifically
going
to
discuss
these
16
components.
I
am
not
going
to
talk
about
exhaust
17
emissions.
18
­­
o0o­­
19
MR.
BELL:
One
of
the
potential
solutions
we
see
20
for
blow
molded
polyethylene
fuel
tanks
is
a
technology
21
called
Selar
RB.
It's
a
very
simple
solution
to
make
a
22
low
permeable
polyethylene
fuel
tank.
23
Basically
Selar
is
an
additive
which
is
added
to
24
polyethylene.
It's
used
extensively
today
in
the
25
automotive
industry
and
for
packaging
industry,
for
things
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
318
1
like
hazardous
chemicals.
It's
approved
also
by
CARB
as
a
2
low­
perm
technology
barrier
resin
for
portable
or
jerry
3
can
plastic
fuel
tanks.
4
­­
o0o­­
5
MR.
BELL:
Again,
this
is
­­
it's
patented
6
technology.
But
basically
it
involves
just
adding
7
7
percent
of
a
barrier
resin
to
your
polyethylene
and
you
8
would
blend
it
in­
line.
And
it
can
reduce
permeation
over
9
the
straight
polyethylene
by
a
factor
of
95
percent.
It
10
requires
very
little
capital
investment.
Basically
a
new
11
screw
is
required
in
your
blow
molding
machine,
but
that's
12
all
the
investment
requires.
13
We're
looking
at
the
upcharge
for
this
type
of
14
technology
as
being
less
than
75
cents
per
tank
for
a
tank
15
on
the
size
of
approximately
one
and
a
half
liters,
which
16
is
roughly
one
and
a
half
quartz.
So
this
is
very
easy
17
technology
to
implement.
18
Some
of
the
concerns
raised
at
past
workshops
19
have
been
that
this
technology
will
reduce
the
impact
20
strength
of
a
polyethylene
fuel
tank.
And
while,
in
fact,
21
that
is
true,
when
you
look
at
the
other
applications
22
where
this
is
used,
such
as
automotive
fuel
tanks
and
23
hazardous
chemicals,
these
applications
require
an
impact
24
test
where
you
drop
a
tank
from
six
meters
at
minus
40
25
degrees
C
filled
with
water
and
glycol,
and
these
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
319
1
polyethylene
tanks
will
bounce
off
concrete
at
those
2
conditions.
So
while
there
is
a
small
reduction
in
impact
3
strength,
that
reduction
can
be
managed
by
a
modification
4
of
the
pinch
off.
Again,
these
are
relatively
simple
5
things
that
can
be
done
to
be
in
compliance.
6
­­
o0o­­
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That's
it?
8
MR.
BELL:
No.
9
And
this
just
shows
here
a
comparison
of
Selar
10
versus
other
alternatives
to
reduce
permeation.
Again,
11
what
this
is
highlighting
is
Selar
is
one
solution.
You
12
also
have
a
solution
using
fluorination
or
sulfonation
or
13
core
extrusion.
These
are
all
viable
technologies.
14
We
believe
though
that
one
area
we
don't
directly
15
address
here
is
rotomolded
polyethylene
fuel
tanks.
For
16
that
specific
application
we
believe
a
fluorination
or
a
17
sulfonation
process
would
be
a
very
practical
solution.
18
­­
o0o­­
19
MR.
BELL:
And
I
don't
think
I'm
pointing
the
20
clicker
at
the
right
machine
to
get
it
to
­­
just
point
up
21
here?
22
Okay.
The
other
solution
for
plastic
fuel
tanks
23
is
to
simply
look
at
a
different
base
resin.
CARB
has
24
done
a
lot
of
testing
with
nylon.
And
that's
because
25
nylon
plastic
fuel
tanks
for
small
off­
road
engines
are
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
320
1
used
today.
So,
again,
this
is
commercial
technology
that
2
already
is
in
compliance
with
low
evap
requirements.
3
In
addition
to
nylon,
you
could
also
look
at
4
acetone
as
an
alternative
material.
5
Again,
these
products
will
tend
to
have
lower
6
impact
strength
versus
polyethylene.
But
they
will
also
7
tend
to
strengthen
and
stiffen
the
tank.
So
if
you're
8
looking
at
situations
where
you
might
have
slight
9
pressurization,
a
change
of
material
will
help
in
10
preventing
too
much
ballooning
of
the
tank.
11
There
could
be
some
questions
with
shrinkages.
12
You
may
need
some
new
tooling.
But,
again,
we
look
at
13
this
for
a
one
and
a
half
liter
tank
as
the
upcharge
being
14
less
than
$
2.25
to
have
a
low­
perm
solution.
15
­­
o0o­
­
16
MR.
BELL:
Another
area
I'd
like
to
address
is
17
low­
perm
plastic
fuel
lines.
We
­­
18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
long
are
you
going
to
go
19
on?
20
MR.
BELL:
Five
minutes.
21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You
mean
­­
you've
already
22
had
ten.
23
MR.
BELL:
Okay.
24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
­­
let's
cut
it.
25
MR.
BELL:
Okay.
Again,
I
don't
think
there's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
321
1
any
question
around
low­
perm
plastic
fuel
lines.
One
2
point
I
would
like
to
add
is
the
new
proposal
looked
at
a
3
15­
gram­
per­
square­
meter
limit.
There
are
technologies
4
out
there
such
as
F­
200
from
Moldex
which
can
actually
5
reduce
that
below
5.
So
there
are
even
lower
perm
6
alternatives
commercially
used
today.
7
­­
o0o­­
8
MR.
BELL:
Again,
engine
seals,
there
are
9
low­
cost
solutions.
This
is
commercial
technology
which
10
is
used
in
other
applications
today,
easily
appliable
to
11
this
market.
12
­­
o0o­­
13
MR.
BELL:
So
that
is
in
brief
I
guess
all
we
14
wanted
to
present.
Again,
just
substantiating
the
numbers
15
we
see
that
CARB
has
presented,
we
do
believe
those
are
16
valid
numbers
and
this
is
technology
easily
implemented.
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Oh,
that's
the
measure.
18
That's
excellent.
Again,
thank
you
very
much.
19
Any
questions
from
the
Board?
20
Thank
you
very
much.
21
We're
going
to
take
a
five­
minute
break
for
the
22
court
reporter
before
we
get
to
the
home
stretch
here.
23
So
let's
get
back
at
5:
15
by
that
clock
there.
24
(
Thereupon
a
recess
was
taken.)
25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
commence
with
Jeff
Arnold,
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
322
1
Tom
Addison,
Todd
Campbell.
2
MR.
ARNOLD:
Good
afternoon.
3
Chairman
Lloyd
and
Board
members,
thank
you
for
4
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
this
group.
My
name
5
is
­­
6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
we've
got
a
couple
of
7
Board
members
listening
in
the
back,
by
the
way.
There
8
are
­­
you
can
hear
them
back
there
­­
they
can
hear
you.
9
MR.
ARNOLD:
Thank
you.
10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
There's
speakers
back
there.
11
MR.
ARNOLD:
So
I
don't
have
to
talk
real
loud
12
then,
right?
13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
you
still
have
to
talk
14
loud.
No,
not
loud
though.
15
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Just
don't
have
your
16
cell
phone
go
off.
17
(
Laughter.)
18
MR.
ARNOLD:
No,
it
plays
a
different
tune,
I
19
play,
than
hers,
so
we're
okay.
20
(
Laughter.)
21
MR.
ARNOLD:
My
name
is
Jeff
Arnold,
and
I
am
the
22
Executive
Director
and
CEO
of
the
Association
of
23
Rotational
Molders
International,
which
is
based
in
Oak
24
Brook,
Illinois,
outside
suburban
Chicago.
Our
25
association
represents
over
350
rotomolders
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
323
1
rotomolding
material
and
equipment
suppliers
in
60
2
countries
around
the
world,
with
15
rotomolders
in
3
California
alone.
4
The
vast
majority,
around
90
percent,
of
U.
S.
5
rotomolders
are
small,
privately­
held
companies
with
a
6
single
plant
and
four
to
five
rotational
molding
machines.
7
Most
of
our
members
fall
in
to
the
Category
2
or
225
cc
8
greater
category.
9
I'd
like
to
address
my
comments
briefly
to
two
10
issues
that
arise
in
connection
with
CARB's
proposed
11
regulation,
keeping
them
specifically
to
limiting
12
evaporative
emissions
from
small
off­
road
equipment
fuel
13
tanks.
14
The
exhaust
issue
is
not
applicable
to
our
15
industry.
We
are
in
the
plastics
field.
16
One
is
CARB's
contention
that
rotomolded
fuel
17
tanks
on
SORE
can
be
cost
effectively
and
safely
replaced
18
with
units
made
from
metal
or
alternative
plastic
19
processing
methods.
And,
two,
the
damage
to
the
U.
S.
20
rotomolding
industry
on
their
material
and
equipment
21
suppliers
if
this
important
market
were
to
be
limited
or
22
lost
due
to
these
proposed
regulations.
23
The
study,
conversion
from
steel
to
plastic
fuel
24
tanks
over
the
recent
past,
satisfies
a
number
of
economic
25
mandates
from
the
marketplace
as
well
as
the
environmental
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
324
1
mandates
coming
from
federal
and
state
agencies,
to
wit:
2
Longer
life
expectancy,
enhanced
safety,
enhanced
3
flammability
resistance,
parts
consolidation,
greater
4
design
freedom,
weight
savings,
corrosion
resistance,
and
5
sound
dampening.
6
The
reason
why
rotomolding
is
preferred
in
small
7
scale
SORE
fuel
tanks
relates
to
rotomoldable
plastic
8
material
options,
the
nature
of
the
process,
and
the
total
9
cost
burden
of
the
process.
10
Rotomolders
can
utilize
cross­
linked
11
polyethylene,
which
as
a
thermal
setting
plastic,
is
quite
12
rigid
and
its
mechanical
properties
are
not
heat
13
sensitive.
14
Second,
rotomolding
yields
a
part
with
uniform
15
thickness.
Third,
machine
and
cast
rotomolds
and
16
rotomolding
machines
are
lower
in
cost.
And,
fourth,
17
rotomolding
is
the
ideal
process
for
low­
volume
hollow
18
part
production,
and
has
a
significant
presence
in
SORE
19
fuel
tank
businesses.
20
In
closing,
since
2000
the
U.
S.
economy
has
21
suffered
through
economic
conditions.
Here
in
2003
there
22
are
signs
of
economic
recovery,
yet
it
is
turning
out
to
23
be
a
jobless
recovery.
It
would
be
both
untimely
and
24
unfortunate
if
these
proposed
regulations
impact
adversely
25
on
a
sector
of
the
plastics
industry
that
provides
jobs
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
325
1
and
plants
here
in
California,
especially
southern
2
California.
3
Rather
than
contemplating
the
replacement
of
4
rotomolded
SORE
fuel
tanks,
we
feel
that
CARB
should
5
consider
providing
incentives
to
regional
rotomolders
to
6
explore
technological
changes
in
material,
machinery,
and
7
processing
methods,
would
make
a
highly
cost­
effective
8
product
even
better.
9
And
I'd
like
to
add
just
at
the
very
end
of
the
10
comments
that
historically
­­
our
association
is
28
years
11
old
this
year.
And
historically
we
have
been
­­
our
main
12
mission
is
to
promote
the
industry
in
the
process.
So
we
13
are
not
typically
involved
in
this
type
of
process.
And
14
we
would
be
happy
to
work,
you
know,
with
the
CARB
Board.
15
This
came
to
our
attention
from
a
couple
of
our
members
16
just
within
the
last
30
days.
And
that
is
why
we
have
not
17
been
here
previously.
18
So
thank
you
very
much.
19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
for
coming.
And
20
I'm
sure
staff
will
work
with
you
on
these
issues.
21
MR.
ARNOLD:
All
right.
Thank
you.
22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
23
Tom
Addison.
24
I
didn't
see
Tom.
That's
okay.
25
Todd
Campbell.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
326
1
No
Todd.
2
Jim
Medich.
3
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
For
Tom
Addison.
After
4
five
Bay
Area
Air
Districts,
the
employees
don't
work.
5
So
­­
6
(
Laughter.)
7
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
­­
he'll
be
happy
to
8
hear
that.
They're
out
watching
the
sunset
in
the
hot
tub
9
or
something.
10
(
Laughter.)
11
MR.
MEDICH:
Chairman
Lloyd,
members
of
the
12
Board.
I'm
Jim
Medich.
I'm
a
fire
division
chief
with
13
the
West
Sacramento
Fire
Department.
14
I'm
here
today
representing
the
California
Fire
15
Chief's
Association.
That
organization
is
comprised
of
16
fire
Chiefs
from
over
1,100
fire
departments
in
17
California.
18
The
California
Fire
Chiefs
Association
is
19
concerned
that
the
California
Air
Resources
Board's
plan
20
to
require
installation
of
high
efficiency,
hot
catalytic
21
exhaust
systems
on
lawn
and
garden
equipment
could
22
increase
the
risk
and
severity
of
operator
burns
and
wild
23
land
fires.
Also,
they
could
have
associated
problems
24
with
refueling
fires
and
fires
in
garages
after
the
hot
25
equipment
is
stored
after
use.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
327
1
It
appears
that
most
of
our
concerns
from
the
2
July
2nd
meeting
that
I
attended
have
been
addressed
in
3
the
alternative
standards
that
were
presented
today.
Cal
4
Chiefs
would
like
more
time
to
study
the
new
changes
to
5
see
how
their
impacts
would
affect
fire
safety.
6
As
we
have
stated
before,
the
California
Fire
7
Chiefs
Association
would
welcome
the
opportunity
to
work
8
with
other
safety
experts
to
address
the
unresolved
safety
9
issues
to
ensure
that
the
citizens
of
California
are
10
getting
not
only
the
best
environmental
policy,
but
also
11
the
best
safety
policy
we
can
give
them.
12
I'd
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Professor
Friedman.
14
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
We
­­
I
don't
know
15
if
you're
familiar
with
our
process.
But
if
we
adopt
this
16
proposal
today,
with
some
modifications,
there's
still
a
17
15­
day
period
in
which
we
receive
additional
information
18
and
comment.
And
I'm
wondering
if
you
can't
give
us
19
further
input
if
there
is
any
additional
concern
or
20
further
concern
in
that
period
of
time.
21
MR.
MEDICH:
I
think
that'd
be
reasonable.
22
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Am
I
correct
on
23
that?
24
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
You're
quite
25
right.
It
also
takes
as
an
amount
of
time
to
put
together
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
328
1
the
package
for
15­
day
changes.
So
there
is
a
month
or
so
2
of
time
even
before
that
goes
out
where
we
can
be
talking
3
and
meeting
and
the
fire
chiefs
can
do
their
evaluation.
4
And
then
we'll
have
actual
regulatory
language
for
them
to
5
look
at.
6
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Yeah,
these
rules
7
don't
go
into
effect
themselves
by
their
own
terms
for
a
8
while.
So
there's
a
lead
time.
But
we
don't
want
to
9
unduly
delay.
On
the
other
hand,
I
for
one
want
to
be
10
sure
that
we
have
got
the
full
benefit
of
the
11
professionals
on
this
safety
question.
12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
And,
again,
your
13
comments
are
very
helpful.
And
I
think
staff
has
looked
14
through
and
addressed
the
safety
issue
as
far
as
we
could
15
see
very
well.
And
the
fact
that
Honda
indicated
they
16
don't
see
a
major
issue
there,
also
that's
very
helpful.
17
But
we
really
appreciate
your
comments.
Look
18
forward
to
working
with
you
to
make
sure
that
we
do
19
everything
we
can
to
mitigate
that.
20
MR.
MEDICH:
Thank
you,
sir.
21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks
very
much
for
coming.
22
Dave
Modisette
and
Jed
Mandel.
23
MR.
MODISETTE:
Yes,
thank
you,
Chairman
Lloyd,
24
members
of
the
Board.
I'm
Dave
Modisette.
I
represent
25
the
California
Electric
Transportation
Coalition.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
329
1
Although
I'm
here
to
present
a
position
statement
that
2
includes
seven
other
organizations:
The
American
Lung
3
Association
of
California,
the
Center
for
Energy
4
Efficiency
and
Renewable
Technologies,
the
Coalition
for
5
Clean
Air,
the
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council,
the
6
Steven
and
Michele
Kirsch
Foundation,
the
Sierra
Club,
and
7
the
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists.
8
We
strongly
support
CARB's
proposed
rulemaking
to
9
strengthen
exhaust
and
evaporative
emission
control
10
requirements
for
small
off­
road
equipment
and
engines.
11
The
proposed
measure,
if
adopted,
would
be
a
significant
12
step
towards
achieving
California's
clean
air
goals
and
13
would
provide
essential
public
health
benefits
for
all
14
Californians.
In
addition
to
supporting
the
adoption
of
15
the
regulation,
we
urge
the
Board
to
commit
to
a
future
16
rulemaking
that
would
encourage
the
sale
of
zero
emission
17
equipment
in
this
category.
18
Off­
road
engines
in
California
are
responsible
19
for
a
significant
amount
of
air
pollutants
and
20
traditionally
have
not
been
held
to
the
same
emission
21
standards
as
on­
road
engines.
22
Under
the
current
regulations,
off­
road
engines
23
are
expected
to
account
for
more
than
60
percent
of
24
California's
total
mobile
source
hydrocarbon
and
nitrogen
25
oxide
emissions
by
2020,
compared
to
only
37
percent
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
330
1
the
year
2000.
2
There
is
a
clear
need
to
address
the
increasing
3
significance
of
off­
road
engine
pollution
in
California.
4
The
proposed
regulation
for
reducing
exhaust
and
5
evaporative
emissions
from
small
offroad
engines
and
6
equipment
is
the
necessary
step
in
reducing
air
pollution
7
from
these
engines.
8
While
we
support
the
adoption
of
the
rule
as
9
proposed
by
the
staff,
we
would
also
like
a
commitment
by
10
the
Board
to
promote
the
adoption
of
zero
emission
11
equipment
in
a
future
rulemaking.
The
current
regulation
12
has
no
provision
for
either
encouraging
the
use
or
sale
of
13
electric
powered
zero
emission
equipment.
And
maybe
just
14
as
a
footnote
I
should
say
that
this
is
based
on
the
15
August
8th
staff
proposal.
It
does
not
include
any
16
changes
that
were
presented
today.
I
did
see
a
reference
17
to
zero
emission
equipment
in
the
staff
presentation
18
today,
and
I
think
we'd
like
to
learn
more
about
that.
19
The
August
8th,
2003,
CARB
staff
report
describes
20
the
benefits
of
zero
emission
technology
in
this
category.
21
I
won't
repeat
that
here.
The
staff
report
also
states
22
that
electric
powered
handheld
equipment
was
readily
23
available
for
the
residential
user
market.
This
equipment
24
includes
both
cordless
and
corded
models
of
line
trimmers,
25
hedge
trimmers,
leaf
blowers,
chain
saws,
tillers,
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
331
1
lawnmowers.
2
Markets
for
much
of
this
electrical
equipment
are
3
already
well
established.
For
example,
electric
mowers
4
are
estimated
to
be
about
10
percent
of
the
California
5
market
according
to
the
staff
report.
6
Manufacturers
should
be
encouraged
and
rewarded
7
for
increasing
their
proportionate
sales
of
zero
emission
8
equipment
in
California.
This
could
be
accomplished
in
9
several
ways.
But
the
use
of
a
manufacturer's
fleet
10
average
standard
that
includes
zero
emission
equipment
11
sold
by
manufacturers
in
California
may
provide
the
best
12
combination
of
additional
emissions
reductions
and
13
compliance
flexibility.
14
This
fleet
average
concept
is
not
included
in
the
15
rulemaking
that
is
before
you
today,
and
will
take
16
additional
work
to
develop.
Further,
the
fleet
average
17
concept
is
not
incompatible
with
the
minimum
ICE
standards
18
proposed
by
staff
in
the
rulemaking
before
you.
19
We
urge
the
Board
to
direct
staff
to
begin
work
20
to
develop
a
fleet
average
construct
or
other
mechanism
21
that
includes
and
encourages
zero
emission
equipment
in
22
these
small
off­
road
categories.
This
construct
would
be
23
subject
to
the
rulemaking
process
and
should
have
an
24
appropriate
implementation
lag
to
provide
compliance
25
flexibility.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
332
1
In
order
to
develop
the
fleet
average
construct,
2
staff
needs
to
have
information
on
the
annual
sales
of
3
zero
emission
equipment
and
on
the
existing
inventory
of
4
the
equipment.
We
do
not
know
if
staff
has
this
5
information
or
has
a
current
means
of
getting
it.
It
may
6
be
that
a
reporting
requirement
is
needed
whereby
7
manufacturers
report
their
annual
sales
of
zero
emission
8
and
other
equipment
within
the
small
off­
road
category.
9
The
Board
should
consider
this
issue
today.
10
In
conclusion,
the
proposed
rules
are
11
technologically
feasible,
as
shown
by
the
staff,
and
will
12
achieve
cost
effective
emissions
reductions
from
small
13
off­
road
equipment.
We
urge
the
Board
to
adopt
the
rules
14
as
proposed
for
the
benefit
of
all
Californians.
We
also
15
urge
the
Board
to
direct
staff
to
begin
work
to
include
16
zero
emission
equipment
in
the
regulatory
framework
for
17
small
off­
road
equipment
in
a
way
that
encourages
and
18
rewards
manufacturers
for
increasing
their
proportionate
19
sales
of
this
equipment
and
reducing
emissions
even
20
further
than
required
by
the
currently
proposed
21
regulations.
22
Thank
you.
23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Dave.
And
I
think
24
we
would
support
that.
Maybe
staff
can
look
at
the
zero
25
emission.
And
that
would
include
push
mowers,
too.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
333
1
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We
did
evaluate
2
the
issue
of
electric
power
equipment
to
as
much
as
we
3
could
during
the
process
of
this
rulemaking.
And
we
were
4
unable
to
arrive
at
either
a
regulatory
approach
­­
well,
5
we
were
unable
to
arrive
at
a
regulatory
approach
that
we
6
believed
would
work.
7
And
the
fleet
average,
which
sounds
so
8
compellingly
simple,
does
not
work
easily
in
this
market
9
where
there's
both
integrated
and
nonintegrated
equipment
10
and
against
whom
is
the
fleet
average
levied
and
who's
11
held
responsible
for
that.
12
So
we
also
encountered
a
barrier
with
the
13
difference
between
residential
and
commercial
users
going
14
to
the
same
retail
site,
and
could
not
think
of
a
way
to
15
prevent
a
residential
user
from
walking
away
from
that
16
site
with
a
fuel­
power
piece
of
equipment
that
when
they
17
arrive
there
they're
only
allowed
to
purchase
an
electric.
18
So
our
tentative
conclusion
is
that
an
19
incentive­
based
strategy
on
electric
is
ultimately
going
20
to
be
more
successful.
And
to
the
extent
the
Board
wants
21
us
to
keep
endeavoring
in
this
area,
we
would
hope
you
22
would
say
not
to
come
back
certainly
with
a
regulation
23
because
we're
still
not
sure
that's
feasible,
but
instead
24
to
come
back
with
recommendations
on
how
it
is
we
should
25
increase
the
penetration
of
electric
equipment.
It's
just
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
334
1
a
very
complicated
issue.
2
And
we
support
completely
the
goal
of
doing
it.
3
But
we
couldn't
figure
out
how
in
this
regulation,
and
4
that's
why
it
isn't
here.
And
it
wasn't
just
a
matter
of
5
time.
Give
us
six
more
months
and
we'll
tell
you
how
we
6
think
there's
some
fundamental
issues
about
trying
to
do
7
it
through
a
regulatory
method.
8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Professor
Friedman.
9
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
Ms.
D'Adamo
10
mentioned
it
earlier.
And
I
whispered
to
her,
"
I
like
the
11
idea."
I
wonder
if
it
wouldn't
be
productive
for
Mr.
12
Modisette
to
meet
with
staff
and,
as
staff
continues,
to
13
see
what
could
incentivize
zero
emission
equipment
of
this
14
sort,
and
whatever
else
you
can
come
up
with.
15
I
don't
know
that
it
should
be
then
part
of
this
16
rulemaking.
But
it
could
always
be
a
separate
but
related
17
proposal
later.
18
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We'd
be
happy
to
19
talk
to
him
about
it.
Maybe
he's
got
some
­­
20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Could
we
put
some
21
time
on
it?
Six
months?
22
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Sure,
for
a
23
report
back.
I
just
didn't
want
to
promise
you
we
could
24
get
back
here
with
a
regulation.
25
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
No,
I
understand.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
335
1
But
a
concept
and
a
recommendation
that
­­
2
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Sure.
3
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
We
have
a
model.
4
Go
ahead,
Didi.
5
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
So
do
we
keep
it
on
6
our
agenda?
7
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
No,
no.
We
were
8
thinking
about
maybe
an
MOU
that
would
just
be
required.
9
They'd
agree
to
sell,
say,
10
percent,
20
percent
of
10
their
­­
11
(
Laughter.)
12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
I
think
Dave
has
13
been
­­
14
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Worked
so
well
last
15
time.
16
(
Laughter.)
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dave
has
been
very
helpful,
I
18
think,
in
creative
­­
in
bringing
stuff
before
the
Board.
19
So
that
would
be
very
good.
20
And,
Didi,
you've
got
a
better
suggestion?
21
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Well,
no,
not
that
I
have
22
a
better
one.
But
I
just
think
­­
you
know,
we
push
so
23
hard
on
cars,
which
was
so
much
more
difficult.
The
24
technology
is
definitely
there.
We
know
it.
And
I
can
25
see
why
there
would
be
issues
with
a
fleet
average
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
336
1
concept.
But
I'm
kind
of
thinking
that
the
2
incentive­
based
program
is
not,
you
know,
far
enough.
3
So
we'd
just
be
hopeful
that
staff
could
remain
4
open
to
some
of
these
other
concepts,
and
flexible.
And,
5
again,
I
suggest
that
you
work
with
Dave's
groups.
I'd
be
6
happy
to
join
in
the
effort
as
well.
I
feel
pretty
7
strongly
about
this.
8
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
In
terms
of
9
timing
­­
I
just
chatted
with
Mr.
Cackette
­­
six
months
10
seems
like
about
the
right
amount
of
time
to
report
back
11
to
you
on
where
that
stands,
if
that's
amenable
to
you
12
all.
13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
we
offer
any
incentives
14
to
shorten
that?
15
(
Laughter.)
16
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Three
17
more
staff.
18
(
Laughter.)
19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
call.
20
And,
by
the
way,
I
realize
how
tough
it's
been
21
and
how
much
there
is
on
the
staff's
plate.
So
I
respect
22
that.
And
I
was
only
kidding.
23
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
And
I
24
didn't
mean
to
be
­­
adjust
either.
But,
you
know,
25
there's
quite
a
bit
of
work
following
up
on
this
Board
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
337
1
meeting
should
you
approve
this
regulation.
And
they
have
2
to
do
that
work
first
to
make
sure
we
get
through
the
3
process,
so
­­
4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
agree.
5
Thanks
very
much,
Dave.
6
MR.
MODISETTE:
That
sounds
very
good.
I've
7
already
had
­­
you
know,
Tom
and
I
and
Bob
Cross
have
8
already
had
some
discussions
on
this.
So,
yes,
I'd
very
9
much
like
to
work
with
staff
on
this.
10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Great.
We
really
appreciate
11
your
offer
to
help
there.
12
Jed
is
now
so
much
smarter
than
he
was
earlier
13
on.
So
we've
got
the
benefit
of
that
wisdom.
14
MR.
MANDEL:
Of
course
that's
not
saying
very
15
much.
16
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Clean­
up
batter.
17
MR.
MANDEL:
What
I
was
going
to
say
is
the
real
18
reason
why
I
wanted
to
go
last
was
for
once
you'd
be
19
pleased
to
see
me
come
up
here.
20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
By
the
way,
I
didn't
like
21
your
suggestion
to
address
this
safety
issue
a
little
more
22
is
that
in
fact
we
require
your
operators
to
provide
23
asbestos
gloves
for
the
operation
of
the
equipment.
24
MR.
MANDEL:
Well,
I'm
investing
my
stock
­­
25
maiden
stock
in
that
asbestos
company
right
now.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
338
1
Good
afternoon,
almost
good
evening.
2
Again,
my
name
is
Jed
Mandel.
I'm
here
today
on
3
behalf
of
the
Engine
Manufacturers
Association.
And
as
I
4
think
you
know,
EMA's
members
include
the
principal
5
manufacturers
of
the
Class
1
and
Class
2
non­
handheld
6
spark­
ignited
engines
for
the
subject
of
today's
proposal.
7
We
believe
that
further
exhaust
and
evaporative
8
emission
reductions
can
and
should
be
implemented
in
9
California.
And
we
are
committed
to
do
so.
But
we
cannot
10
support
the
original
staff
proposal
that
was
incorporated
11
in
the
mail­
out.
12
Instead,
we
developed
an
alternate
proposal
that
13
would
provide
California
the
same
benefits
as
it
would
14
have
achieved
under
the
staff's
proposal
at
a
far
lesser
15
cost,
with
substantially
less
burden
and
disruption
to
the
16
industry,
in
a
manner
that
is
practical,
realistic,
and
17
enforceable.
18
Two
days
ago
the
staff
provided
us
with
the
19
outline
of
an
alternative
program
that
is
similar
but
not
20
identical
to
what
we
proposed.
In
fact,
it
proposes
some
21
programs
that
go
beyond
what
we
asked
for.
And
I
might
22
add,
it
is
completely
different
from
and
not
within
the
23
scope
of
the
original
staff
proposal
that
was
part
of
the
24
mail­
out
package.
25
No
details
have
yet
been
developed
on
how
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
339
1
staff's
alternate
program
would
work
and
no
draft
2
regulatory
language
has
yet
been
developed.
3
There
are
complex,
innovative,
and
challenging
4
aspects
of
the
staff's
proposal
that
cannot
fully
or
5
properly
be
assessed
without
a
modest
amount
of
additional
6
time.
Based
on
the
staff's
representations,
we
think
we
7
might
be
close.
But
we
do
not
yet
have
enough
of
the
8
critical
details
to
know
whether
we
can
reach
an
agreement
9
for
sure.
10
The
failure
to
reach
an
agreement
today,
that
we
11
can
stand
up
here
and
represent
we
already
have,
is
simply
12
the
result
of
running
out
of
time.
Admittedly,
the
13
industry
originally
advocated
regulatory
concepts
quite
14
different
from
that
which
we
proposed
to
the
staff.
And
15
the
staff
only
had
a
few
weeks
to
assess
our
recent
16
proposal.
17
Now,
we
only
have
really
a
couple
of
days,
and
in
18
some
detail
only
a
couple
of
hours,
to
assess
the
staff's
19
outline
of
its
proposal,
and
without
knowing
the
critical
20
details.
21
I
know
Professor
Friedman
asked
earlier
­­
and
22
I'm
going
to
try
and
anticipate
your
question
­­
as
what
23
some
of
the
examples
are
of
where
they're
not
necessarily
24
aligning
up.
25
I
represented
to
you
that
in
one
case
the
staff's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
340
1
proposal
provides
more
than
what
the
industry
asked
for.
2
And
when
I
say
the
industry,
I'm
talking
about
the
3
EMA/
OPEI
proposal.
And
the
area
of
concern
there
is
the
4
fleet
averaging
program.
As
many
of
you
know,
and
I
know
5
as
the
staff
knows,
because
we've
worked
on
these
programs
6
over
the
years,
EMA
and
its
members
historically
are
7
advocates
of
averaging
programs.
And,
in
fact,
we're
8
interested
in
exploring
this
averaging
program.
9
But
one
of
the
things
that
we've
always
found
10
interesting
in
our
internal
discussions
and
interesting
in
11
some
of
our
discussions
with
regulators
is
that
averaging
12
programs
have
the
potential
for
creating
an
unlevel
13
playing
field
if
they're
not
very
carefully
developed.
14
This
is
an
averaging
program,
or
at
least
a
concept,
that
15
developed
without
any
input
from
any
of
the
Engine
16
Manufacturers
Association's
members
or
obviously
from
the
17
Association
itself.
And,
candidly,
we're
a
little
18
concerned
that
it
doesn't
play
out
in
a
way
that
creates
19
an
unlevel
playing
field
between
competitors.
20
I'm
also
­
­
was
mindful
of
the
comment
about
the
21
interest
in
electric
mowers
and
in
push
mowers.
And
it
22
strikes
me
that
it
would
not
be
in
the
Board's
best
23
interests
if
at
the
end
of
the
day
the
fleet
averaging
24
program
would
allow
an
engine
manufacturer
and
equipment
25
manufacturer
to
package
up
a
relatively
inexpensive
push
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
341
1
mower
in
with
their
regular
spark­
ignited
internal
2
combustion
engine
and
claim
on
average
it
was
not
having
3
very
many
exhaust
or
evaporative
emissions.
4
So
I
think
averaging
programs,
while
they're
5
interesting,
have
a
lot
of,
as
the
classic
phrase
goes,
6
"
Devil
in
the
Details"
that
we're
very
concerned
about,
7
and
we
think
you
as
a
Board
ought
to
be
concerned
about.
8
Another
area
that
was
new
to
us
is
the
compliance
9
validation
plan
that's
just
referenced
again
at
the
end
of
10
the
staff's
proposal.
We
don't
know
what
that
means.
We
11
don't
know
how
it
will
work.
Obviously,
we
have
an
12
opportunity
through
the
15­
day
notice
process
to
work
out
13
those
issues.
But
we
are
very
concerned
that
in
fact
when
14
the
staff
represents
to
us
that
their
proposal
is
exactly
15
what
we've
asked
for,
then
in
fact
we
may
be
talking
past
16
each
other
since
that
program
starts
to
look
like
an
17
individual
manufacturer's
year­
by­
year,
sort
of
zero
­­
of
18
summing
to
zero
individual
compliance
program
as
opposed
19
to
an
alternate
industry­
wide
program
not
requiring
20
individual
engine
manufacturer
demonstrations
of
21
compliance
for
the
manufacturer
as
opposed
to
the
22
industry.
Again,
we
may
be
talking
past
each
other.
I
23
don't
know.
24
There's
also
a
very
important
requested­
for
25
requirement
of
demonstrating
equivalents
on
the
running
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
342
1
loss
cannister
issue.
We
totally
support
that.
We're
2
very
appreciative
of
the
staff's
proposal.
We
just
don't
3
know
how
it's
going
to
work.
And,
again,
a
very,
very
4
important
detail.
5
There
are
also
other
areas
that
provide
some
6
uncertainty
or
where
it
doesn't
appear
yet
that
what
the
7
staff
has
represented
as
their
alternative
proposal
is
8
exactly
what
the
industry
asked
for.
You've
already
heard
9
about
the
issue
of
defining
the
program
in
such
a
way
that
10
its
limits
are
only
for
the
benefit
of
the
State
of
11
California.
I'm
not
going
to
raise
that
up
early,
except
12
it
is
a
point
of
some
difference.
13
There's
also
a
very
important
difference
on
the
14
enforcement
side
of
the
program.
We
very
carefully
15
suggested
to
the
staff,
as
I
think
the
staff
acknowledged
16
earlier
in
their
own
report,
that
the
practicality
of
a
17
mandatory
recall
for
a
consumer
product
like
lawnmowers,
18
unregistered
in
many
cases
at
least
in
the
high
volume
19
cases,
considered
a
throwaway
product,
it's
just
not
a
20
very
practical
way
to
enforce
the
program.
21
Right
now
that's
the
only
authority
that's
22
provided
in
the
package.
And
we
have
suggested
that
23
EPA
­­
excuse
me
­­
that
ARB
align
itself
more
in
the
way
24
EPA
does
the
enforcement
program,
which
does
suggest
a
25
whole
realm
of
enforcement
options,
with
recall
being
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
343
1
recognized
as
one
that
is
not
practical.
2
I'm
also
frankly
a
little
concerned
in
terms
of
3
the
staff
proposal,
in
understanding
it,
in
that
there's
4
an
exhaust
component
­­
which,
by
the
way,
we
support.
5
Those
are
the
numbers
that
we
asked
for.
And,
by
the
way,
6
a
perfect
example
of
changes
that
would
be
easily
handled
7
in
a
15­
day
notice.
They're
not
very
complex,
very
8
understandable,
and
ones
that
we
support.
9
As
I
understand
the
way
it's
being
proposed
10
though,
those
exhaust
numbers
would
now
be
paired
with
11
three
options
for
compliance
with
the
evaporative
side:
12
The
original
staff
proposal,
Alternate
1,
and
Alternate
2;
13
with
Alternate
1
and
Alternate
2
being
evaporative
14
proposals
specifically
designed
to
provide
15
over­
achievements
on
the
hydrocarbon
evaporative
emission
16
side
to
balance
out
some
of
the
shortfall
on
the
exhaust
17
side.
18
But
the
original
staff
proposal
doesn't
have
any
19
overexceedance
on
the
evaporative
emission
program.
And
20
I
believe
that
the
August
8th
mail­
out,
that
evaporative
21
emission
program,
paired
with
the
exhaust
proposal
that
we
22
heard
from
the
staff
today,
in
fact
would
result
in
a
23
significant
ton
shortfall
for
California.
And
I
believe
24
if
you
adopt
that
today,
that
becomes
the
law,
and
25
manufacturers
could
choose
that
route.
I
don't
think
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
344
1
that's
what
the
Board
intends.
2
We
are
committed
to
working
with
you
and
the
3
staff
to
assure
that
real
emission
reductions
are
achieved
4
in
a
cost­
effective
and
timely
manner.
I
am
requesting
5
that
we
have
modest
additional
time
that
would
be
required
6
for
us
to
address
these
issues
that
I've
noted
today,
7
issues
that,
by
the
way,
I'm
very
optimistic
can
be
8
addressed.
And
we'd
like
to
do
so
in
a
process
that
9
assures
openness
in
a
board
hearing
so
that
we're
not
10
surprised
as
part
of
a
final
15­
day
rule
­­
the
rule
11
finalized
as
a
result
of
the
15­
day
process,
that
other
12
new
issues
have
surfaced
that
we
never
really
had
a
chance
13
to
comment
on
or
report
back
to
you
on.
14
I
do
know
because
I've
had
a
chance
to
talk
to
15
staff
throughout
the
course
of
the
day,
and
I've
had
a
16
chance
to
talk
briefly
with
Dr.
Lloyd
today,
that
there
is
17
a
great
deal
of
obvious
interest
on
the
part
of
the
Board
18
of
adopting
a
rule
today.
I
understand
that.
19
I
do
think
that
the
process
issues
and
the
real
20
issues
that
I've
noted
today
do
suggest
that,
again,
21
putting
this
over
to
December
­­
I
might
add,
by
the
way,
22
that
this
industry
has
a
history
of
having
rulemakings
at
23
Christmas
time
with
the
Board.
We'd
love
to
come
back
out
24
here
when
it's
cold
in
the
midwest.
But
putting
this
off
25
to
December
we
don't
think
will
put
any
delay
in
terms
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
345
1
implementation
of
the
rules.
2
And
the
only
other
thing
I'd
say,
in
anticipation
3
perhaps
of
the
Board's,
as
I
said,
reluctance
to
do
4
that
­­
although
that
is
what
we're
asking
for
­­
is
5
perhaps
as
an
alternative
to
think
about,
first
of
all,
6
providing
more
than
15
days.
The
15­
day
process,
as
I
7
understand
California
law,
only
says
15
days
minimum.
You
8
can
provide
more
time.
And
also
to
put
on
your
calendar
9
for
December
this
item
so
that
if
it
turns
out
that
there
10
is
difficulty
in
trying
to
get
this
rule
resolved
through
11
a
staff
process,
that
we
have
an
opportunity
in
a
timely
12
fashion
without
delay
and
without
turning
to
any
13
acrimonious
process
to
come
back
to
the
Board
so
we
can
14
get
closure
on
this
and
start
producing
product
to
the
15
clean
standards
that
you
will
have
adopted.
16
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much,
Jed.
18
You
raised
a
number
of
issues
there.
19
Professor
Friedman.
20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
think
I
heard
21
earlier
the
need
for
certainty.
And
I'm
wondering
if
this
22
isn't
­­
to
me
it
sounds
very
familiar,
the
list
of
open
23
questions
about
how
it
would
work,
precisely
what
the
24
details
are,
which
is
typically
what
we
have
our
15­
day
25
notice
for
as
long
as
the
basic
principles
and
concepts
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
346
1
are
the
policy,
as
opposed
to
all
the
procedures.
And
I
2
know
that
the
Devil
is
in
the
details
sometimes.
But
we
3
rarely
have
ever
adopted
a
rulemaking
that
is
finished
4
with
every
comma
and
every
period
when
we
act,
as
opposed
5
to
under
the
15­
day
notice.
And
that
allows
some
time,
6
weeks,
for
such
as
the
interested
parties
to
work
with
7
staff
and
thrash
all
this
out
without
our
having
to
do
8
that.
And
then
they
report
back
to
us.
And
if
amendments
9
are
needed
or
something,
that's
a
different
matter.
10
But
is
15
days
notice
adequate?
11
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We're
happy
to
12
give
them
30.
We
just
did
that
on
the
15­
day
process
for
13
the
ZEV
regulatory
changes,
the
full
30,
recognizing
the
14
complexity
and
how
the
pieces
of
the
reg
interacted
with
15
one
another.
So
there's
no
problem
doing
that.
16
We
would
not
like
to
notice
this
again
for
17
December
though
because
it
implies
that
it's
coming
back
18
to
the
Board.
And
I
think
you
can
let
us
determine
if
the
19
issues
are
sufficient
enough
to
bring
them
back.
20
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman?
21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.
Ms.
Riordan.
22
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
If
I
heard
the
staff
a
23
little
bit
earlier,
you
actually
have
usually
a
lead
time
24
to
the
15­
or
30­
day
period.
So
you're
actually,
Jed,
25
getting
many
more
days
than
the
30
days.
And
hopefully
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
347
1
that
would
accommodate
your
organization
and
others
that,
2
you
know,
want
to
work
with
the
staff
through
the
details.
3
So
it
seems
to
me
a
30­
day
period
is
a
very
realistic
4
period
because
we
know
it's
actually
many
more
days
than
5
appears.
6
MR.
MANDEL:
If
I
could,
I
certainly
want
to
7
acknowledge
that
­­
both
with
Mrs.
Riordan's
comment
about
8
how
the
process
really
works
and
with
the
possibility
of
9
that
15­
day
notice
in
fact
being
extended.
It
addresses
a
10
significant
part
of
my
concerns,
which
is
just
having
the
11
time
to
address
complex
issues.
12
But
in
response
to
Professor
Friedman's
comment,
13
I
also
want
to
remind
you
one
of
my
concerns
isn't
just
14
having
the
time
to
respond
to
it,
but
having
an
15
understanding
of
what
this
really
means
in
an
open
process
16
that
ultimately
has
everyone
coming
before
a
public
17
hearing
and
airing
the
issues.
18
The
two
proposals
that
came
to
the
Board
today
19
really
did
not
spring
out
of
the
original
staff
proposal.
20
They
were
quite
different.
And
I
have
particular
concern,
21
as
I
said,
about
an
averaging
program,
which
may
be
the
22
solution
to
the
world's
problems,
but
we
have
not
had
the
23
chance
to
work
it
out.
And
it's
very
different
than
­­
24
and
I
should
interrupt
myself
and
say
we've
done
I
can't
25
remember
how
many
15­
day
notice
issues
with
this
Board
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
348
1
with
this
staff
very
successfully.
It's
a
process
that
2
works.
3
My
concern
is
that
we
have
not
even
begun
to
4
think
about
it.
This
isn't
like
changing
a
10
to
an
8.
5
This
is
in
developing
a
whole
new
program,
that
I
think
in
6
fairness
should
come
back
to
all
stakeholders
to
hear
what
7
it
is
and
comment
on
it
to
you.
8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Short
of
that,
what
would
be
9
optimum?
10
MR.
MANDEL:
Well,
I
thought
the
optimum
sort
of
11
middle
ground,
besides
the
additional
time,
would
be
to
12
have
a
real
opportunity,
if
necessary,
to
avail
ourselves
13
of
the
Board's
hearing
in
December.
And,
again,
I
14
understand
­­
I
saw
Catherine's
head
move
and
I
heard
her
15
loudly
before
­­
but
I
understand
it's
not
the
staff's
16
goal.
But
I'm
concerned
that
if
the
staff
unilaterally
17
should
decide
it
needs
to
come
back
to
you,
it
takes
a
18
while
to
get
back
on
your
agenda.
We
can
always
pull
it
19
off
easily.
20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
All
right.
But
the
other
21
thing,
I
think
if
you
come
back
as
an
information
item
to
22
see
whether
we
want
to
go
ahead,
that's
one
thing.
But
I
23
also
share
staff's
concern
that
we've
got
to
bring
this
to
24
some
closure.
And
I
think
we're
trying
to
meet
you
the
25
way
­­
and
I
have
a
lot
of
faith,
and
also
as
long
as
I'm
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
349
1
here
working
with
staff
to
monitor
what's
going
on
and
sit
2
in
on
some
of
these
meetings,
and
my
colleagues
would
be
3
happy
to
do
that
also,
to
make
sure
that
if
these
are
real
4
issues,
then
we
will
address
them.
5
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
if
I
might,
6
and
Mr.
Mandel.
7
It
seems
to
me
you
always
have
access
to
our
8
Chairman.
And
I'm
certainly
willing
to
defer
to
him
and
9
his
good
judgment,
that
if
at
the
end
of
all
of
this
10
period
that
there
are
some
remaining
issues,
at
some
time
11
in
the
very
near
future
we
could
maybe
undertake
some
of
12
those.
But
I
trust
his
judgment,
and
I
think
it
would
be
13
very
appropriate
for
him
to
hear
the
issues
if
you
feel
14
there
are
some
left.
You
may
be
able
to
resolve
all
of
15
them
in
this
almost
60­
day
period.
16
MR.
MANDEL:
Well,
we
hope
that.
And
obviously,
17
not
only
with
all
the
Board
members,
but
in
particular
18
with
Dr.
Lloyd,
we
do
know
that
we
have
access
and
we
19
would
take
advantage
of
that.
20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And,
again,
I
think
it's
our
21
obligation.
And
I
think,
as
I
said
before,
we've
been
22
trying
to
work
in
good
faith
with
the
industry.
And
staff
23
has
worked,
I
know,
very
hard
and
diligently.
And
as
you
24
say,
it
seems
a
little
bit
ironic
today
when
staff
has
25
tried
to
incorporate
some
of
those,
people
saying,
well,
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
350
1
we
haven't
got
­­
and
I
understand
the
details.
But
I
2
think
you've
got
to
also
recognize
the
tremendous
effort
3
that's
gone
on,
to
recognize
the
concerns
to
ameliorate
4
those,
to
come
from
where
I
understood
we
were
just
5
several
months
ago,
to
come
this
close
and
then
have
one
6
of
the
major
manufacturers
also
say
that
they
can
live
7
with
this
provided
some
of
those
issues
are
addressed
in
8
that
time
period.
And,
again,
that's
the
same
thing
we'll
9
hold
there
as
we
work
together.
I
think
that's
a
10
tremendous
accomplishment
and
I
think
staff
has
done
a
11
really
excellent
job.
12
MR.
MANDEL:
And
obviously
you
should
say
that,
13
and
I
think
I
should
take
the
time
as
well.
Because
in
14
the
heat
of
trying
to
focus
our
concerns
to
the
Board's
15
attention,
sometimes
we
neglect
to
remind
ourselves
of
how
16
far
the
staff
has
come.
17
And
also
the
industry.
The
industry
proposal
18
moved
substantially
from
where
we
were.
But
I
do
want
to
19
acknowledge
the
staff's
hard
work
in
working
with
us.
I
20
wish
we
had
had
more
time.
I
blame
some
of
that
on
21
ourselves
in
terms
of
working
it.
I'm
hoping
that
we
can
22
get
closure
and
get
closure
quickly.
23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
you
understand,
Jed,
the
24
same
as
we
were
talking
this
morning
or
earlier
this
25
afternoon,
about
the
item
we
have
next
month
going
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
351
1
South
Coast
and
seeing
all
the
pressures
down
there
to
do
2
something.
I
think
we
would
be
neglecting
our
duty
to
try
3
to
keep
these
on
track.
But
if
there
is
again
­­
those
4
concerns
are
not
being
worked
out,
then
we
will
surely
5
take
those
in
to
account.
6
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
There
will
also
7
be
a
vote
on
the
Senate
floor
as
to
whether
the
bond
8
amendment
in
the
VA
HUD
measure
should
pass.
And
I
think
9
it's
important
for
Congress
to
understand
what
the
nature
10
of
the
rule
adopted
by
the
Air
Resources
Board
is
when
11
they're
considering
the
necessity
or
not
of
overruling
it
12
through
that
amendment.
13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
14
Thank
you
very
much,
Jed.
And,
again,
as
always,
15
we
appreciate
your
wisdom
and
comments
there.
And
we
look
16
forward
to
working
with
you
and
your
colleagues.
17
MR.
MANDEL:
Thank
you,
Doctor,
very
much.
Thank
18
you,
Board
members.
19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
With
that,
I
guess
20
it's
the
end
of
the
public
testimony.
21
Maybe
here
we'll
have
some
discussion,
and
before
22
we
go
in
to
ex
parte.
23
Yeah.
Well,
maybe
I'll
take
ex
partes.
24
First
of
all
­­
well,
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
25
close
the
record
on
this
agenda
item.
However,
the
record
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
352
1
will
be
reopened
when
the
15­
day
notice
of
public
2
availability
is
issued.
3
And
will
that
be
30
days?
4
Is
that
right?
5
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Yes.
6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thirty
days.
7
So
when
the
30­
day
notice
of
public
availability
8
is
issued.
Written
or
oral
comments
received
after
this
9
hearing
date
but
before
the
30­
day
notices
are
issued
will
10
not
be
accepted
as
part
of
the
official
record
on
this
11
agenda
item.
12
When
the
record
is
reopened
for
a
30­
day
comment
13
period,
the
public
may
submit
written
comments
on
the
14
proposed
changes,
which
will
be
considered
and
responded
15
to
in
the
final
statement
of
reasons
for
the
regulation.
16
And,
again,
just
a
reminder
to
my
colleagues
17
about
policy
concerning
ex
parte
communications.
While
we
18
may
communicate
off
the
record
with
an
outside
person
19
regarding
Board
rulemaking,
we
must
disclose
the
names
of
20
our
contacts
and
the
nature
of
contents
on
the
record.
21
This
requirement
applies
specifically
to
communications
22
which
take
place
after
notice
of
the
Board
hearing
has
23
been
published.
24
And,
therefore,
are
there
any
communications
we
25
need
to
disclose?
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
353
1
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.
2
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
I
had
one.
Tim
3
Flannegan
representing
the
Outdoor
Power
Equipment
4
Institute
met
with
me
yesterday
at
my
office
in
Concord,
5
California.
The
discussion
was
largely
consistent
with
6
the
testimony
from
Mr.
Guerry
today.
But
it
was
related
7
specifically
to
the
issues
of
safety.
8
That
was
it.
9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Ms.
D'Adamo,
while
you're
­­
10
oh,
okay.
11
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Yes,
on
September
23rd
I
12
had
a
conference
call
with
Todd
Campbell,
Coalition
for
13
Clean
Air;
Bonnie
Holmes­
Gen,
American
Lung
Association;
14
Diane
Bailey,
NRDC;
Patricia
Monahan,
Union
for
Concerned
15
Scientists.
16
And
the
testimony
was
consistent
with
the
17
testimony
by
Dave
Modisette
this
afternoon.
18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
19
Mrs.
Riordan.
20
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
also
had
a
21
meeting
with
Tim
Flannegan
representing
the
Outdoor
Power
22
Equipment
Institute
in
mid­
September.
And
the
discussion
23
revolved
around
the
safety
issues
and
their
submittal
of
a
24
plan
to
staff.
I
did
not
see
that
plan,
nor
was
it
25
discussed.
It
was
just
simply
mentioned.
And
he
provided
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
354
1
me
with
two
letters,
one
from
the
National
Association
of
2
Fire
Marshals,
which
we
have
today,
and
also
a
letter
from
3
the
California
Fire
Chiefs
Association.
4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
Calhoun.
5
On
September
27th
­­
September
22nd
and
September
6
23rd
I
had
discussions
­­
telephone
discussions
with
John
7
Dunlap,
who
was
assisting
Tim
Flannegan
on
behalf
of
the
8
Outdoor
Power
Equipment
Institute.
9
And
August
25th,
28th,
and
September
4th,
I
had
a
10
meeting
with
Kirk
Markwald
with
the
California
11
Environmental
Associates
representing
Briggs
and
Stratton
12
to
discuss
this
issue
along
the
lines
we
had
today,
13
discussing
the
desire
of
the
industry
to
look
at
a
14
counterproposal
and
also
to
look
at
some
of
the
­­
address
15
the
travel
issues.
16
And
on
September
the
8th
I
had
a
meeting
with
17
Kirk
Markwald
and
Bob
Wyman,
Attorney
at
Law
with
Latham
&
18
Watkins,
representing
Briggs
and
Stratton.
And
that
was
19
also
to
address
the
issue
of
a
counterproposal
to
address
20
the
issue
of
travel.
And
it
was
after
the
introduction
of
21
the
bond
amendment.
22
So
with
that,
let's
throw
it
open
for
discussion.
23
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
if
I
might.
24
It
seems
to
me
that
we
had
staff
accommodate
many
of
the
25
issues
that
were
in
the
plan.
Obviously
details
need
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
355
1
be
worked
out.
I
certainly
would
support
the
30­
day
2
review
period
in
recognition
of
those
items
that
need
to
3
be
discussed
in
final
detail;
and
then
certainly
allow
you
4
the
discretion
if
you
think
this
Board
should
ever
be
5
involved
with
any
of
the
issues
following
that
6
approximately
60­
day
period.
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
Other
comments?
8
Ms.
D'Adamo.
9
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Oh,
I'm
sorry.
I
took
it
10
to
mean
it
was
a
motion.
I
was
just
going
to
add
to
it.
11
No
comments.
12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
Please
do.
13
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
If
that
could
be
offered
14
as
a
motion
­­
15
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I'll
put
that
in
the
form
16
of
a
motion.
17
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
­­
for
the
resolution
18
that's
before
us
with
that
addition.
19
Then
in
addition,
I'd
like
to
make
certain
that
20
the
zero
emission
component
is
reviewed
by
staff
with
21
regard
to
a
number
of
different
options,
incentive
or
a
22
fleet
concept
or
other
mechanisms,
and
that
staff
report
23
back
to
the
Board.
I
don't
recall
if
we
­­
24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Six
months.
25
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Six
months?
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
356
1
All
right.
Within
six
months.
2
With
that,
I'd
second
it.
3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Sounds
good.
4
So
if
there's
no
other
discussion,
again
I
­­
5
Professor
Friedman.
6
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Just
to
make
the
7
record
clear.
I
don't
think
that
­­
we're
acting
on
this
8
proposal
and
resolution,
and
then
as
a
follow­
on
we're
9
asking
the
staff
to
look
in
to
this
other.
I
don't
want
10
to
­­
this
is
not
part
of
this
action.
11
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
No.
12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No,
no,
no,
no.
13
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
It's
related
14
obviously.
15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
that's
right.
16
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
It's
not
dependent
17
on
it
and
it's
not
part
of
it
so
that
­­
18
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you
for
19
clarifying
that.
20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And,
again,
I
think
it's
­­
21
you
know,
as
I
said
earlier,
this
puts
us
in
a
somewhat
22
uncomfortable
position.
But
I
feel
we
have
to
bring
this
23
to
conclusion
and
send
a
signal.
24
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
just
wanted
to
add
25
that
I
think
we
are
scrambling
desperately
to
find
every
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
357
1
pound,
every
ounce,
every
ton
of
emission
reduction
in
2
this
state.
We're
seeing
that
we're
losing
ground
in
3
South
Coast
and
elsewhere.
We
have
a
federal
mandate.
We
4
have
our
own
needs
for
the
health
of
people.
And
we
have
5
obviously
a
direct
legitimate
and
important
interest
in
6
reducing
emissions.
And
this
is
another
area
where
we
can
7
reduce
them,
and
we've
known
that
for
a
long
time.
And
8
we've
tried
to
work
out
a
reasonable,
rational
plan
for
9
it.
10
The
original
proposal
met
with
opposition
from
11
those
who
would
be
regulated,
and
they
responded.
And
12
they
proposed
alternatives,
which
I
understand
we
have
13
pretty
much
accepted
as
alternatives,
which
appear
to
me
14
to
respond
to
and
adequately
address
and
take
care
of
the
15
principal
concerns
that
were
raised
in
terms
of
safety
on
16
the
temperature
issue,
the
exhaust
reductions.
17
And
at
the
same
time
we
get
a
bigger
­­
as
much
a
18
bang
or
bigger
bang
through
increasing
the
evaporative
19
emissions,
which
was
part
of
the
industry's
proposal
as
I
20
understand
it,
including
Briggs
and
Stratton
and
others.
21
So,
again,
I
think
this
is
a
collaborative
22
effort.
And
there
are
details
to
be
ironed
out,
23
clarifications
to
be
made
that
are
sought
by
industry.
24
And
that's
the
reason
we
have
this
15­
or
now
30­
day
25
process
for
notice.
And
I
feel
we're
doing
what
we
need
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
358
1
to
do.
It's
important
that
we
do
it
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
2
And
so
I
­­
if
it
was
seconded,
I
third
it.
If
3
not,
I'm
ready
to
vote.
4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
5
And
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.
6
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Just
briefly.
I
do
7
think
it's
important,
although
it's
separate,
to
reiterate
8
going
after
the
zero.
There's
lots
of
potential
there.
9
And
all
kidding
aside,
I
think
staff
can
come
up
with
10
something.
11
I
also
wanted
to,
in
terms
of
something
­­
in
12
regards
to
Jed's
comments.
I
remember
last
time
the
13
Board,
and
some
of
us
who
were
here,
dealt
with
this
14
source
and
it
was
very
contentious.
And
I
remember
a
15
quote
in
the
Wall
Street
Journal
about
that
directed
at
16
the
manufacturers.
And
unfortunately
those
­­
and
some
of
17
my
colleagues
remember
­­
unfortunately
broke
in
to
the
18
Japanese
manufacturers
and
the
American
manufacturers.
19
And
the
quote
in
the
Journal
story
was
critical
20
of
the
American
manufacturers
­­
and
I
can't
remember
who
21
said
it,
it
wasn't
me,
I
wish
I
had
­­
was
that
Japanese
22
companies
had
spent
more
time
on
research
and
development
23
and
the
American
companies,
unfortunately,
spent
too
much
24
time
on
lawyers
and
lobbyists.
And
I
think
that's
changed
25
dramatically
this
time.
We
obviously
have
one
unfortunate
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
359
1
situation.
But
I
did
want
to
acknowledge
to
Jed
that
I
2
think
the
industry
has
come
a
long
way
and
hopefully
we
3
can
close
those
last
remaining
obstacles.
4
And
then,
lastly,
I
can't
help
but
make
a
comment
5
about
how
many
times
I've
heard
the
word
"
recall"
in
the
6
last
couple
hours.
And
it's
nice
to
hear
it
in
a
7
different
context.
Although
I
can't
help
but
say
it
may
8
be
harder
to
recall
one
lawnmower
than
it
is
to
recall
the
9
Governor
of
California.
10
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.
11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
I
think
we
need
to
fix
12
that.
And
so
I
will
definitely
­­
13
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Do
we
have
the
14
authority?
15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No,
I
would
definitely
like
16
on
the
lawnmower
side
­­
I
think
included
in
our
17
resolution
I
would
like
to
follow
up
my
earlier
comments
18
about
looking
at
an
effective
program
to
monitor
end­
use
19
emissions.
And
that's
enough
said.
So
we
may
have
20
opportunities
there.
21
So
with
that
I
think
­­
no
more
comments.
I'd
22
ask
for
a
vote.
We've
got
the
resolution
seconder.
23
All
in
favor
say
aye.
24
(
Ayes.)
25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Anyone
against?
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
_
360
1
No.
2
Thank
you.
3
And,
again,
thank
you
very
much,
staff,
for
a
4
great
job
as
usual
there.
And
I
really
appreciate
it
very
5
much.
6
And
thank
you
for
coming
­­
for
the
industry
7
coming
to
testify.
Hopefully
we
can
get
to
a
better
spot.
8
But
I
think
we've
come
a
long
way
to
answer
that.
9
And,
Jed,
we
can
assure
you
you
will
have
­­
we
10
can
keep
you
busy
between
now
and
Christmas.
11
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
All
right,
Jed.
We've
got
12
a
­­
you
know,
so
60
days
from
today,
figure
that
all
out.
13
You'll
be
here
at
the
right
time.
14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We'll
take
just
a
five­
minute
15
break.
And
then
we'll
go
in
to
the
last
item
for
the
day.
16
(
Thereupon
a
recess
was
taken.)
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Final
item
on
today's
agenda
18
is
03­
7­
4,
informational
report
on
supplementary
19
activities
related
to
the
zero
emission
vehicle
Program.
20
When
we
adopted
modifications
to
the
ZEV
program
21
in
April
of
this
year,
we
made
difficult
decisions
about
22
the
direction
and
structure
of
the
regulation.
By
the
end
23
of
the
hearing
I
believe
this
Board
crafted
a
delicate
24
balance
that
takes
advantage
of
the
strides
made
by
25
extremely
clean
gasoline
vehicles
and
the
full
potential
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345