Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0133-0041
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-07-24T04:00Z

1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1
2
PUBLIC
HEARING
ON
CARB
AUTHORIZATION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
N.
W.
10
Washington,
D.
C.
11
Thursday,
June
29,
2006
12
10:
00
a.
m.
13
14
15
16
17
18
REPORTED
BY:
19
DONALD
R.
THACKER
20
21
22
2
A
P
P
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
S
1
PANEL
MEMBERS:
2
Margo
Oge,
Director
3
Michael
Wolfe
4
Karl
Simon
5
David
Dickinson
6
Michael
Horowitz
7
Robert
Doyle
8
PRESENTERS:
9
Robert
Sawyer,
California
Air
Resources
Board
10
Thomas
Jennings,
California
Air
Resources
Board
11
Michael
Carter,
California
Air
Resources
Board
12
William
Guerry,
OPEI
13
David
Raney,
American
Honda
Motor
Company
14
Todd
Gerhardt,
Kohler
Company
15
Joseph
Kubsh,
MECA
16
Eric
Skelton,
NESCAUM
17
Blake
Early,
American
Lung
Association
18
Frank
O'Donnell,
Clean
Air
Watch
19
Bill
Becker,
STAPPA­
ALAPCO
20
21
22
3
ATTENDEES:
1
Catherine
Witherspoon,
CARB
2
James
Watson,
CARB
3
Susan
Bathalon,
US
CPSC
4
Mark
Kumagai,
US
CPSC
5
David
Wetmore,
Office
of
Governor
Schwarzenegger
6
Karen
Suhr,
National
Association
of
State
7
Fire
Marshals
8
Peter
Sparber,
National
Association
of
State
9
Fire
Marshals
10
Brenda
Northcutt,
CAYEPA
11
Bill
Charmley,
US
EPA
12
Khesha
Jennings,
US
EPA
13
Justin
Cohen,
US
EPA
14
Rasto
Brezny,
MECA
15
Zachary
Coile,
SF
Chronicle
16
Erica
Werner,
AP
17
Pat
Phibbs,
BNA
18
19
20
21
22
4
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
1
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Good
morning.
My
2
name
is
Margo
Oge,
Director
of
the
Office
of
3
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
of
the
Environmental
4
Protection
Agency.
I
will
be
the
presiding
officer
5
for
this
hearing.
6
On
behalf
of
EPA
we
would
like
to
welcome
7
you
to
the
public
hearing
this
morning.
And
as
I
8
said,
we
had
the
rain
and
we
are
glad
you
didn't
9
have
to
take
a
boat
to
the
hearing
this
morning.
10
The
hearing
we
are
holding
this
morning,
11
it
is
to
evaluate
small
off­
road
spark­
ignition
12
engine
exhaust
emission
regulations
and
for
a
full
13
waiver
of
its
small
off­
road
engine
evaporative
14
emission
regulations.
We
are
also
providing
a
15
separate
opportunity
to
submit
written
comment
by
16
August
1st,
2006.
17
On
the
panel
today
with
me
on
my
right
is
18
Karl
Simon
who
is
director
of
the
Compliance
and
19
Innovative
Strategies
Division.
20
On
my
left
is
­­
who
is
­­
on
my
right
is
21
Mike
Wolfe
who
is
an
engineer
with
the
Compliance
22
5
and
Innovative
Strategies
Division.
1
On
the
left
is
David
Dickinson
and
Robert
2
Doyle,
both
attorney
advisors.
3
Next
to
them
is
Mike
Horowitz,
who
is
an
4
attorney
from
the
Office
of
General
Counsel.
5
And
finally,
CARB
has
requested
EPA
to
6
confirm
that
amendments
to
its
exhaust
emission
7
standards
for
the
small
off­
road
engine
category
are
8
within
the
scope
of
previously
granted
9
authorizations.
In
addition,
CARB
requested
a
full
10
authorization
for
the
exhaust
emission
stands
if
EPA
11
finds
that
the
amendments
do
not
fall
within
the
12
scope
of
previous
authorizations.
13
And
finally,
CARB
has
requested
EPA
grant
14
a
full
authorization
for
its
new
evaporative
15
emission
standards
applicable
to
this
category.
EPA
16
is
seeking
comment
on
these
issues.
17
EPA
is
guided
primarily
by
the
Clean
Air
18
Act
in
its
review
of
CARB's
request.
Under
Section
19
209(
e)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
EPA
review
of
the
CARB
20
request
is
limited
solely
to
the
specific
criteria
21
identified
with
this
section
of
the
act.
22
6
EPA
has
issued
regulations
implementing
1
Section
209(
e).
In
addition,
Section
428
of
Public
2
Law
108­
199,
dated
January
23,
2004,
that
was
3
introduced
into
Congress
by
Senator
Bond
and
often
4
referred
to
as
the
Senator
Bond
Amendment,
further
5
specifics
what
EOA
must
consider
before
authorizing
6
certain
California
requirements.
We
encourage
7
interested
parties
here
today
to
focus
their
8
comments
on
California's
request
for
context
of
the
9
two
authorities.
10
The
first
issue
is
whether
EPA
should
11
consider
such
exhaust
emission
standards
under
the
12
criteria
for
a
within
the
scope
determination
or
13
under
the
criteria
for
a
full
authorization.
14
As
part
of
the
scope
of
review
there
are
15
three
criteria
that
we
must
determine.
First
16
whether
the
standards
undermine
California's
17
previous
determination
that
its
standards,
in
the
18
aggregate,
are
at
least
as
protective
of
public
19
health
and
welfare
as
comparable
federal
standards.
20
Second
criteria,
whether
the
standards
21
affect
the
consistency
of
California's
requirements
22
7
with
Section
209
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
1
And
the
third
criteria,
whether
the
2
standards
raise
new
issues
affecting
EPA's
previous
3
authorization.
4
The
second
issue
is
whether
the
exhaust
5
emission
standards
should
be
considered
along
with
6
the
evaporative
emission
standards
under
the
full
7
waiver
criteria.
We
request
comments
on
the
8
criteria
that
also
applies
to
the
California
9
evaporative
emission
standards.
10
Again
there
are
three
criteria
in
response
11
to
the
California
request.
12
First,
whether
CARB's
determination
that
13
its
standards,
in
the
aggregate,
are
protective
of
14
the
public
health
and
welfare
as
applicable
federal
15
standards
is
arbitrary
and
capricious.
16
Second,
whether
California
needs
these
17
standards
to
meet
the
compelling
and
extraordinary
18
circumstances
in
the
State.
19
And
third,
whether
the
California
20
standards
and
accompanying
enforcement
procedures
21
are
consistent
with
Section
209
of
the
Clean
Air
22
8
Act.
1
EPA
has
interpreted
the
requirement
of
2
California
standards
and
accompanying
enforcement
3
procedures
are
consistent
with
Section
209
to
mean
4
that
California
standards
and
accompanying
5
enforcement
procedures
must
be
consistent
with
6
Subsection
209(
a),
209(
e)(
1),
and
209(
b)(
1)(
c).
7
Under
Subsection
209(
b)(
1)(
c)
the
administrator
8
shall
not
grant
California
a
motor
vehicle
waiver
if
9
he
finds
that
California
standards
and
accompanying
10
enforcement
procedures
are
not
consistent
with
11
Section
202(
a)
of
the
Act.
Previous
decisions
12
granting
waivers
of
federal
preemption
for
motor
13
vehicles
have
stated
that
state
standards
are
14
inconsistent
with
Section
202(
a)
if
there
is
15
inadequate
lead
time
to
permit
the
development
of
16
the
necessary
technology
giving
appropriate
17
consideration
to
the
cost
of
compliance
within
that
18
time
period
or
if
the
federal
and
state
test
19
procedures
impose
inconsistent
certification
20
requirements.
21
Finally,
we
ask
for
comment
as
how
the
22
9
Senator
Bond
amendment,
specifying
safety
factors,
1
should
be
considered
by
EPA
in
reviewing
the
2
California
small
off­
road
engine
standards.
3
The
hearing
will
be
conducted
informally
4
and
it
will
be
for
the
record
and
formal
rules
of
5
evidence
will
not
apply.
However,
as
the
presiding
6
officer,
I
am
authorized
to
strike
from
the
record
7
statements
which
are
deemed
irrelevant
or
8
unreasonable
in
connection
with
the
statements
of
9
any
witness.
10
Witnesses
are
requested
to
state
their
11
name
and
affiliation.
Members
of
this
panel
may
ask
12
the
witness
questions
concerning
the
issues
raised
13
in
the
testimony.
Today
we
are
not
going
to
allow
14
questions
from
the
audience
of
the
witness.
15
We
are
having
the
hearing
recorded
and
the
16
transcript
will
be
available
for
public
inspection
17
and
copying
in
EPA
Air
Docket
at
docket
number
18
OAR­
2005­
0133.
The
transcript
will
also
be
19
available
for
Internet
access
on
the
new
federal
20
government
web
site
at
www.
regulations.
gov.
21
Anyone
requesting
to
purchase
a
transcript
22
10
may
do
so
directly
from
the
court
reporter.
1
We
will
begin
today
with
a
presentation
by
2
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.
Additionally,
3
we
have
received
requests
to
present
oral
testimony
4
from
the
following
organizations
and
companies:
5
The
Outdoor
Power
­­
and
I
believe
they
6
are
here
­­
Dick.
7
Okay.
8
Second,
several
manufacturers,
including
9
American
Honda
Motor
Company
and
Kohler.
10
Third,
the
manufacturers
of
the
Emission
11
Controls
Association.
12
Fourth,
the
American
Lung
Association.
13
Fifth,
the
Clean
Air
Watch.
14
Sixth,
NESCAUM.
15
And
finally
but
not
least,
representing
16
state
and
local
officials.
If
any
other
party
in
17
attendance
today
wishes
to
present
oral
testimony
at
18
this
hearing,
please
inform
us
now
and
we
will
be
19
glad
to
accommodate
the
testimony.
At
the
20
conclusion
of
all
oral
presentations,
by
CARB
­­
21
from
the
others
testifying
today,
so
we
will
give
22
11
those
the
same
time
to
respond.
1
With
that
I
would
like
to
invite
Dr.
Bob
2
Sawyer
from
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
to
3
present
his
testimony.
4
Thank
you.
5
Anybody
testifying,
Peter?
6
MR.
SAWYER:
Good
morning.
I
am
Robert
7
Sawyer,
chair
of
the
Air
Resources
Board.
Thank
you
8
for
holding
this
hearing.
9
I
have
come
across
the
country
for
one
10
reason,
to
convince
you
to
grant
California
a
waiver
11
of
federal
preemption
for
small
off­
road
engines
12
emission
regulations
adopted
by
the
Air
Resources
13
Board
in
the
fall
of
2003.
These
regulations
go
14
into
effect
January
1,
2007,
so
timely
action
on
15
your
part
is
necessary.
16
We
have
a
three­
part
presentation
today.
17
I
will
begin
by
making
our
case
why
you
should
grant
18
us
the
waiver.
I
will
establish
the
need
for
19
achieving
the
emission
reductions
from
small
20
engines.
Although
this
regulation
was
adopted
21
before
I
became
chair
of
the
Air
Resources
Board,
I
22
12
have
personally
reviewed
the
regulations
supporting
1
documentation
and
will
share
with
you
why
I
have
2
concluded
it
is
technically
sound
and
economically
3
reasonable.
I
will
also
address
the
safety
issues
4
that
have
been
raised
and
confirm
what
you
and
most
5
involved
in
producing
engines
already
know,
6
catalytic
converters
can
be
used
safely
on
these
7
types
of
engines.
8
Then
Tom
Jennings,
our
general
counsel,
9
will
demonstrate
why
we
meet
the
legal
criteria
for
10
granting
the
waiver.
There
is
a
long
history
of
EPA
11
granting
California
waivers
for
its
regulations.
12
There
is
no
doubt
we
meet
all
of
the
waiver
criteria
13
and
timely
issuance
of
waiver
is
appropriate.
14
Mike
Carter,
who
developed
the
exhaust
15
regulations
for
these
engines,
will
provide
more
16
detail
on
the
feasibility
of
this
regulation
and
its
17
implementation.
18
In
the
audience
is
Jim
Watson
who
19
developed
the
evaporative
requirements
for
these
20
engines.
He
is
available
to
answer
any
questions
21
you
may
have
on
evaporative
emissions.
22
13
For
context
I
will
provide
a
quick
summary
1
of
the
regulation
for
which
we
are
requesting
a
2
waiver.
3
It
establishes
exhaust
and
evaporative
4
emission
standards
for
new
off­
road
engines
under
19
5
kilowatts.
6
These
engines
are
typically
used
in
lawn
7
and
garden
equipment.
8
For
the
smallest
engines
typically
used
in
9
hand­
held
equipment
we
established
more
stringent
10
exhaust
standards
that
match
those
recently
adopted
11
by
the
EPA.
A
permeation
standard
also
applies
to
12
fuel
tanks.
Mike
Carter
will
address
these
engines
13
later
in
our
presentation.
14
For
larger
engines
typically
used
in
lawn
15
mowers
and
portable
generators,
new
standards
for
16
exhaust
and
evaporative
emissions
are
established.
17
The
exhaust
standards
are
based
on
the
use
of
the
18
catalytic
converter,
and
the
evaporative
standards
19
will
control
running
loss
emissions
through
use
of
20
the
canister
as
well
as
permeation.
21
Next
I
will
address
the
need
for
and
22
14
feasibility
and
safety
of
the
regulation.
1
Protecting
public
health
is
why
we
need
to
2
reduce
emissions
of
small
engines
and
many
other
3
sources.
Although
air
quality
is
improving,
much
of
4
urbanized
California
still
exceeds
the
national
5
ambient
air
quality
standards.
Those
areas
include
6
the
highly
urbanized
South
Coast
Air
Basin
and
the
7
agricultural,
but
rapidly
urbanizing,
San
Joaquin
8
Valley.
In
2005
more
than
19
million
people
in
9
those
areas
were
exposed
to
adverse
health
effects
10
of
ozone
air
pollution
often
for
up
to
a
quarter
of
11
the
year.
To
put
this
into
perspective,
the
number
12
of
Californians
exposed
to
unhealthy
air
is
roughly
13
equivalent
to
three
and
a
half
times
the
total
14
population
of
the
state
of
Missouri.
15
This
map
of
the
United
States
emphasizes
16
the
excessive
ozone
levels
which
are
faced
by
the
17
citizens
of
California.
18
Our
existing
control
program
will
not
be
19
enough
to
meet
federal
clean
air
standards.
Air
20
quality
modeling
for
the
South
Coast
and
San
Joaquin
21
Valley
indicates
that
we
will
need
to
reduce
both
22
15
reactive
organic
acids
and
oxides
of
nitrogen
by
1
more
than
50
percent
to
meet
the
federal
ozone
and
2
PM2.5
air
quality
standards.
We
must
achieve
3
emission
reductions
from
small
engines,
and
many
4
other
sources.
5
The
small
off­
road
engine
category
is
6
currently
the
third
largest
source
of
reactive
7
organic
gas
emissions
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin.
8
It
is
dwarfed
only
by
passenger
cars
and
consumer
9
products.
At
almost
44
tons
a
day,
it
exceeds
such
10
sources
as
architectural
paints
and
recreational
11
boats.
This
is
why
we
have
focused
considerable
12
effort
on
reducing
small
engine
emissions.
13
Shown
here
are
the
emissions
reductions
14
which
we
will
achieve
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
15
as
the
result
of
implementing
this
regulation.
To
16
give
you
a
context,
many
regulations
we
consider,
17
and
adopt,
achieve
less
than
10
tons
per
day
18
statewide.
The
small
engine
regulation
will
reduce
19
emissions
by
more
than
20
tons
per
day
in
the
South
20
Coast
Air
Basin
in
2020,
and
by
50
tons
per
day
21
statewide.
I
consider
this
a
regulation
of
major
22
16
importance
to
our
effort
to
achieve
clean
air.
1
Catalysts
are
used
on
millions
of
small
2
engines
worldwide.
They
are:
Used
on
some
3
hand­
held
engines
to
meet
current
emission
4
standards;
used
on
millions
of
scooters;
used
on
5
hundreds
of
thousands
of
lawn
mowers
sold
in
Europe
6
for
green
recognition;
used
on
some
small
generators
7
to
meet
current
emission
standards;
experience
is
8
catalysts
can
be
used
safely
and
do
reduce
9
emissions.
10
Air
Resources
Board's
demonstration
of
11
catalyst
use
on
lawn
mowers
completed
in
2003
showed
12
catalysts
were
effective
and
durable.
EPA's
recent
13
study
confirms
the
efficacy
of
the
catalysts.
In
14
fact,
both
studies
showed
catalysts
used
on
lawn
15
mowers
could
reduce
smog­
forming
emission
by
at
16
least
50
percent,
and
as
much
as
70
percent.
17
It
is
noteworthy
that
the
standards
18
adopted
by
the
Air
Resources
Board
require
33
to
19
38
percent
exhaust
emission
reduction
depending
on
20
the
engine
size.
It
is
my
conclusion
that
without
21
question
small
catalysts
can
reduce
emissions
22
17
effectively,
and
will
do
so
when
engines
using
them
1
to
meet
California
standards
are
introduced
next
2
year.
3
Catalysts
are
safe.
4
While
many
of
you
know
me
as
a
combustion
5
specialist,
I
am
also
registered
as
a
fire
6
protection
engineer
in
the
state
of
California
so
I
7
have
experience
and
insight
regarding
safety
issues
8
that
have
been
raised.
I
have
reviewed
both
the
Air
9
Resources
Board
and
EPA
studies
of
catalyst­
equipped
10
lawn
mowers
based
on
my
knowledge
of
combustion
and
11
safety.
12
The
studies
confirm
that
the
exhaust
13
systems
of
current
noncatalyzed
engines
get
very
14
hot,
hot
enough
to
burn
skin
and
cause
debris
fires.
15
So
the
question
related
to
safety
is
will
the
16
properly
designed
catalyst
muffler
increase
17
temperatures
and
increase
the
risk
of
fires
and
18
burns?
19
Both
studies
show
that
engines
with
20
properly
designed
catalytic
mufflers
do
not
increase
21
surface
temperatures.
The
EPA
study
goes
on
to
22
18
demonstrate
this
with
multiple
engine
applications,
1
field
testing
and
failure
mode
analysis
and
2
demonstration.
3
In
my
professional
opinion,
the
results
4
are
compelling.
Catalytic
converters
can
be
safely
5
applied
to
small
engines.
6
My
final
point
is
the
cost
increase
of
7
equipping
small
engines
with
exhaust
and
evaporative
8
control
equipment
is
reasonable
and
cost
effective,
9
as
shown
in
this
chart.
10
Now
Mr.
Tom
Jennings,
the
Air
Resource
11
counsel,
will
discuss
the
legal
issues
that
must
be
12
addressed
when
considering
our
request.
13
Tom.
14
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
15
MR.
JENNINGS:
Thank
you.
16
Good
morning.
At
a
September
2003
17
hearing,
CARB's
governors
board
approved
the
new
18
source
standards
that
are
before
you
today.
Since
19
they
differ
somewhat
from
the
staff
proposal
there
20
was
opportunity
for
comment
on
the
modification
21
before
our
executive
officer
formally
adopted
the
22
19
board
approved
standards
in
July
2004.
1
CARB
submitted
its
observation
request
in
2
April
11th,
2005.
Since
the
evaporative
standards
3
were
altogether
new,
we
requested
that
EPA
issue
a
4
new
authorization
for
them.
On
the
exhaust
side,
5
since
we
were
amending
previously
authorized
6
standards,
we
requested
confirmation
that
the
7
regulation
was
within
the
scope
of
previous
8
authorization.
In
the
alternative,
we
requested
a
9
new
authorization
if
EPA
deemed
that
necessary.
EPA
10
noted
its
comments
on
both
options.
11
On
June
20th
we
submitted
a
letter
12
confirming
that
our
request
provided
for
all
their
13
documentation
to
support
a
new
authorization.
And
14
our
demonstration
today
focuses
on
the
issues
15
pertinent
to
a
new
authorization.
However,
we
will
16
still
urge
EPA
to
consider
confirming
its
amendment
17
on
the
language
it
documented
for
engines
it
grouped
18
as
hand­
held
equipment
with
the
EPA
standards
19
starting
in
2005,
are
within
the
scope
of
previous
20
waivers.
21
This
slide
shows
the
two
elements
of
22
20
off­
road
engine
standards
already
discussed
in
the
1
opening
remarks.
Under
Section
209(
e)(
2)
EPA
is
2
directed
to
issue
a
requested
authorization
unless
3
it
makes
one
of
three
specified
findings.
4
The
first
issue
for
EPA
is
whether
CARB's
5
protectiveness
issue
is
arbitrary
and
capricious.
6
The
board
made
its
protecting
determination
in
7
Resolution
03­
24,
which
is
in
the
record.
8
California
stored
evaporative
standards
9
are
clearly
more
effective
than
the
federal
10
standards
because
there
are
no
comparable
federal
11
emissions
standards.
On
the
exhaust
side,
in
all
12
displacement
categories,
the
California
standards
13
are
either
as
stringent
as
or
more
stringent
than
14
the
federal
standards.
We
did
not
expect
any
15
authorization
opponent
to
challenge
CARB's
16
protective
determination.
17
Secondly,
the
administrator
may
deny
18
authorization
if
she
finds
or
he
finds
that
19
California
does
not
meet
state
emissions
standards
20
to
meet
compelling
and
extraordinary
conditions.
21
Since
1984,
EPA
has
indicated
that
compelling
and
22
21
extraordinary
conditions
does
not
incur
a
level
of
1
pollution
directly
but
primarily
the
factors
that
2
tend
to
produce
them,
geographical
and
climatic
3
conditions
that
when
combined
with
the
large
number
4
of
vehicles
and
the
high
population
in
Southern
5
California
creates
serious
air
pollution
problems.
6
California
continues
to
meet
this
criterion.
7
Moreover,
Dr.
Sawyer
has
noted
that
California
8
continues
to
have
the
worst
ozone
air
quality
in
the
9
nation.
10
Finally,
the
administrator
may
deny
11
authorization
if
the
California
standards
and
12
accompanying
enforcement
procedures
are
inconsistent
13
with
Section
209.
In
this
proceeding,
the
only
14
significant
consistency
issue
is
whether
the
15
regulation
is
consistent
with
Section
209(
a)
under
16
the
two­
prong
test
that
California
has
long
applied.
17
Under
the
first
prong
of
EPA
test,
the
18
regulation
under
review
must
provide
sufficient
lead
19
time
to
present
relevant
application
of
the
20
requisite
technology
giving
appropriate
21
consideration
to
the
cost
of
compliance.
A
good
22
22
deal
of
our
remaining
presentation
will
address
this
1
criterion.
2
In
the
seminal
1973
International
3
Harvester
case,
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
agreed
4
with
the
administrator's
conclusion
that
the
5
technological
capability
does
not
require
that
all
6
vehicle
models
and
engines
be
able
to
meet
the
7
standards
as
long
as
basic
market
demand
is
8
satisfied.
That
same
principle
applies
in
the
9
nonroad
engine
concept.
10
When
EPA
calculated
the
years
of
lead
time
11
provided
for
California
standards
for
heavy­
duty
12
engines,
it
is
measured
from
the
date
CARB
adopted
13
the
regulation.
At
the
September
2003
hearing
our
14
board
put
the
public
on
notice
of
the
standards
15
being
adopted,
and
final
action
followed
in
16
July
2004.
This
was
2­
1/
2
to
over
three
years
17
before
the
beginning
of
2007,
and
3­
1/
2
to
over
four
18
years
before
the
beginning
of
2008.
19
The
second
prong
of
the
consistency
test
20
requires
that
federal
and
state
test
procedures
may
21
not
be
so
inconsistent
that
a
manufacturer
cannot
22
23
conduct
one
set
of
tests
to
determine
compliance
1
with
the
federal
and
state
standards.
This
is
not
2
an
issue
for
the
evaporative
emissions
standards
3
because
EPA
has
not
adopted
those
evaporative
4
emissions
standards.
We
do
not
believe
there
are
5
any
test
procedures
consistency
issues
on
the
6
exhaust
emission
side
as
well.
7
When
it
enacted
the
fiscal
year
2004
8
Omnibus
Appropriations
Act,
Congress
included
a
9
provision
on
regulation
of
small
engines
that
had
10
been
sponsored
by
Senator
Kit
Bond
of
Missouri.
The
11
pertinent
part
for
purposes
of
this
proceeding
is
12
Section
428(
a)
which
is
shown
on
the
slide.
It
13
directs
the
administrator
to,
quote,
to
give
14
appropriate
consideration
to
the
safety
factors,
15
including
the
potential
increased
risk
of
burn
or
16
fire,
associated
with
compliance
with
the
California
17
standard.
18
We
believe
that
this
provision
does
not
19
materially
change
the
factors
that
EPA
is
evaluating
20
in
this
authorization
proceeding.
Safety
has
always
21
been
an
element
of
EPA
would
where
relevant
take
22
24
into
account
when
evaluating
technology,
feasibility
1
and
lead
time.
2
CARB
fully
considers
its
safety
issues
to
3
be
­­
and
CARB
will
continue
to
follow
safety
4
developments.
Most
importantly,
in
the
technical
5
study
released
by
EPA
this
past
March.
The
6
remainder
of
our
presentation
will
include
an
7
examination
of
the
data
requests.
8
Finally,
I
would
like
to
highlight
three
9
key
principles
in
authorization
of
waiver
10
proceedings.
First
as
we
mentioned,
EPA
may
only
11
consider
the
three
statutory
criteria,
here
12
expressly
including
consideration
of
safety
factors.
13
For
instance,
although
CARB
carefully
considers
the
14
cost
of
compliance
with
control
measures
and
will
be
15
describing
the
cost
effectiveness
of
the
regulation
16
for
you
today,
relative
cost
effectiveness
cannot
be
17
used
to
support
denial
of
the
authorization.
18
Second,
EPA
is
to
give
substantial
19
deference
to
California's
policy
judgment.
This
20
applies
with
respect
to
CARB's
findings
on
safety
as
21
well
as
other
items.
22
25
The
third
key
principle
is
that
the
burden
1
is
on
those
who
oppose
the
authorization
to
show
why
2
it
should
not
be
granted.
3
Michael
Carter
will
now
describe
the
4
technical
aspects
of
the
program,
the
history
behind
5
the
rule­
making
activity,
and
CARB's
determinations
6
regarding
lead
time,
capability
and
safety.
7
Thank
you.
8
MR.
CARTER:
My
name
is
Michael
Carter,
I
9
am
chief
of
CARB's
Emission
Research
and
Regulatory
10
Development
Branch.
My
staff
and
I
have
been
11
involved
in
study
and
regulating
of
small
off­
road
12
engines
since
1989.
13
The
small
off­
road
engine
regulation
for
14
which
we
are
seeking
a
waiver
was
developed
with
15
extensive
public
input.
We
demonstrated
that
16
available
technologies
could
significantly
reduce
17
emissions.
The
regulation
provides
sufficient
lead
18
time
for
product
development.
It
is
cost
effective,
19
and
we
showed
compliant
products
will
be
safe.
This
20
latter
point
has
been
verified
by
EPA's
recent
study
21
and
by
statements
of
manufacturers.
22
26
I
will
begin
with
a
summary
of
the
element
1
of
the
regulation
and
then
address
each
of
the
above
2
points.
3
The
specifics
of
the
regulation
were
4
developed
over
a
more
than
three­
year
period.
This
5
control
measure
was
developed
with
input
from
the
6
individual
engine
manufacturers,
the
Engine
7
Manufacturers
Association,
the
Outdoor
Power
8
Equipment
Institute,
or
OPEI,
the
Portable
Power
9
Equipment
Manufacturer
Association,
the
10
Manufacturers
of
Emissions
Controls
Association
and
11
safety
officials.
12
Four
public
workshops
were
held.
Staff
13
also
had
approximately
40
meetings
with
the
trade
14
associations
and
nearly
20
one­
on­
one
meetings
with
15
individual
companies.
16
First,
the
exhaust
emission
standards.
17
For
the
smallest
engines,
of
the
type
used
in
18
hand­
held
equipment
such
as
string
trimmers,
the
19
regulation
aligns
with
the
EPA
exhaust
standards
as
20
of
the
2005
model
year.
21
For
the
engines
typically
used
in
lawn
22
27
mowers,
the
regulation
set
emissions
standards
for
1
the
2007
and
later
model
years
that
are
based
on
use
2
of
catalytic
converters.
These
standards
are
more
3
stringent
than
EPA
standards
for
these
engines.
4
For
the
largest
engine
categories,
those
5
used
in
riding
mowers
and
similar
equipment,
the
6
regulation
provides
an
additional
year
to
comply.
7
Our
regulation
also
establishes
8
evaporative
standards
for
this
equipment
for
the
9
first
time.
10
Again,
the
requirements
vary
by
engine
11
size
and
application.
For
hand­
held
equipment,
the
12
standard
consists
of
a
fuel
tank
permeation
standard
13
only.
For
the
other
engines,
both
a
permeation
and
14
diurnal
requirement
applies,
with
fuel
hose
15
permeation
control
required
first,
followed
by
16
diurnal
controls
a
year
or
two
later.
17
These
next
few
slides
show
the
evaporative
18
emissions
standards
in
greater
detail.
Note
there
19
is
no
diurnal
standard
for
hand­
held
equipment
20
because
sealed
gas
tanks
are
typically
used.
21
For
Class
I
engines
used
in
walk­
behind
22
28
mowers,
compliance
with
a
diurnal
standard
based
on
1
emission
testing
is
required.
The
diurnal
standard
2
begins
in
2007
and
becomes
more
stringent
in
2009.
3
In
addition
to
use
of
low
permeation
hoses,
4
evaporative
canisters
are
expected
to
be
used
to
5
capture
diurnal
and
running
loss
emissions.
These
6
control
techniques
are
well
established,
and
7
emission
control
requirements
are
available.
8
The
standards
shown
here
are
for
Class
I
9
engines
using
equipment
other
than
walk­
behind
10
mowers.
This
equipment,
such
as
tiller
and
pressure
11
washers,
is
often
produced
in
low
volume
and
thus
12
emission
testing
for
evaporation
emissions
can
be
a
13
burden.
To
address
this
we
have
provided
an
option
14
to
demonstrate
compliance
using
components
that
have
15
been
precertified
to
meet
design
standards.
Carbon
16
canisters
that
can
collect
and
store
gasoline
vapors
17
will
typically
be
used.
18
A
similar
approach
is
provided
for
Class
19
II
engines,
such
as
those
used
in
riding
mowers
and
20
generators.
The
diurnal
standard
design,
or
its
21
design
equivalent,
is
implemented
a
year
later
than
22
29
for
Class
I
equipment.
1
2006
engines
are
using
low
permeation
2
hoses,
resulting
in
lower
emissions
and
improved
3
safety.
4
We
have
issued
over
30
executive
orders
to
5
companies
providing
design
compliant
hardware
that
6
can
be
used
to
demonstrate
evaporative
compliance
7
for
nonwalk­
behind
mower
Class
I
equipment,
and
8
Class
II
equipment.
There
are
no
significant
issues
9
remaining,
and
so
this
aspect
of
our
program
has
not
10
ignited
controversy.
11
Next
I
will
address
the
exhaust
emission
12
standards.
For
engines
used
in
hand­
held
equipment,
13
we
have
aligned
with
EPA
standards,
that
went
into
14
effect
in
2005.
Complying
engines
are
being
15
produced.
So
no
controversy
here.
16
This
chart
illustrates
exhaust
emission
17
standards
for
nonhand­
held
equipment,
such
as
lawn
18
mowers.
The
larger
Class
II
engines
standards
are
19
implemented
a
year
after
the
Class
I
standards.
The
20
new
standards
represent
30
to
40
percent
reduction
21
from
current
hydrocarbon
plus
emissions
standards.
22
30
We
expect
a
compliance
with
the
exhaust
1
standards
will
result
in
use
of
a
small,
inexpensive
2
catalytic
converter.
However,
the
standard
is
based
3
on
emissions,
and
is
not
prescriptive,
thus
any
4
method
of
compliance
may
be
used.
5
As
part
of
our
development
and
evaluation
6
of
the
standards,
we
investigated
catalysts
7
thoroughly,
including
the
potential
safety
issues.
8
Included
in
our
report
to
the
board
in
2003
was
a
9
summary
of
a
test
program
conducted
by
the
Southwest
10
Research
Institute
that
was
designed
to
show
proof
11
of
the
concept.
The
study
was
conducted
with
12
participation
by,
among
others,
Briggs
&
Stratton,
13
Tecumseh,
Honda,
Kawasaki,
OPEI,
and
the
14
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association.
The
15
study
included
both
emissions
and
durability,
with
16
temperatures
monitored
during
the
tests
to
ensure
17
safety.
At
the
end,
four
out
of
five
engines
tested
18
were
successfully
modified
to
meet
the
emissions
19
targets.
Those
targets,
by
the
way,
were
more
20
stringent
than
the
standards
ultimately
adopted
and
21
presented
here
today.
22
31
This
slide
shows
emission
levels
achieved
1
by
engines
in
the
Southwest
test
program.
As
2
previously
mentioned,
the
testing
at
Southwest
was
3
designed
to
be
a
proof
of
concept
project
which
4
ultimately
demonstrated
that
small
engines
can
be
5
designed
to
meet
the
Tier
3
standards
over
the
6
useful
life
of
the
engine.
One
engine,
Briggs
&
7
Stratton
Number
1,
on
the
left
side,
was
removed
8
from
the
program
due
to
extreme
engine
deterioration
9
unrelated
to
the
catalyst
installation.
Of
the
five
10
remaining
engines,
four
were
successfully
brought
11
into
compliance.
12
Although
the
focus
of
the
Southwest
study
13
was
not
to
optimize
temperatures,
they
found
that
in
14
some
cases,
the
muffler
surface
temperatures
were
15
actually
reduced
slightly
with
the
addition
of
a
16
catalyst,
as
shown
here
by
the
two
engines
on
the
17
left
side
of
the
chart.
In
other
cases,
18
temperatures
increased
with
addition
of
a
catalyst,
19
as
shown
by
the
three
right
engines.
However,
the
20
addition
of
the
heat
shield
brought
the
exposed
21
surface
temperature
well
below
the
temperature
of
22
32
the
uncatalyzed
system,
as
shown
on
the
far
right.
1
Thus,
even
in
those
cases
where
temperatures
do
2
increase,
a
simple
solution
existed
to
actually
3
improve
the
situation
beyond
the
status
quo.
4
At
the
time
our
regulations
were
being
5
considered
by
the
board,
several
organizations
fully
6
supported
our
efforts,
including
Honda,
the
7
California
State
Fire
Marshal
and
the
California
8
Fire
Chiefs'
Association.
9
Since
that
time,
industry
continues
to
10
support
the
standards.
A
strong
indication
of
the
11
confidence
held
by
much
of
industry
regarding
the
12
technical
feasibility
and
safety
of
the
ARB
13
standards
can
be
found
in
EPA's
own
small
engine
14
docket.
Several
manufacturers
submitted
letters
15
asking
for
national
implementation
of
the
California
16
standards
even
before
EPA's
own
safety
study
was
17
finalized.
18
Following
the
completion
of
the
Southwest
19
research
study
and
adoption
of
our
small
20
off­
road
engine
regulations
in
2003,
EPA
conducted
21
its
own
study,
as
required
by
congressional
mandate.
22
33
As
you
know,
EPA's
study
focused
on
safety
1
and
was
much
more
comprehensive
than
ARB's
Southwest
2
Research
Study
in
that
it
optimized
catalyst
3
performance
for
low
temperature,
evaluated
abnormal
4
conditions,
and
included
field
evaluation.
EPA's
5
study
also
included
input
from
a
number
of
groups,
6
including
the
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission,
7
OPEI,
the
National
Association
of
State
Fire
8
Marshals,
and
the
National
Institute
of
Standards
9
and
Testing.
10
EPA
staff
reviewed
all
the
submitted
11
information
from
these
groups,
including
data
on
12
emergency
room
visits
from
the
Consumer
Product
13
Safety
Commission
National
Electronic
Injury
14
Surveillance
System
and
data
from
the
National
Fire
15
Incident
Reporting
System,
based
on
firefighter
and
16
first
responder
reports.
They
then
determined
seven
17
scenarios
that
needed
to
be
investigated,
covering
18
everything
from
contact
burns
to
debris
fire,
19
to
storage­
related
fire.
20
They
then
proceeded
to
conduct
emissions
21
testing,
temperature
testing
in
both
the
laboratory
22
34
and
in
the
field.
And
asked
an
independent
1
contractor
to
conduct
failure
mode
and
effects
2
analyses
to
determine
how
the
addition
of
catalysts
3
may
affect
risk.
4
The
study
was
then
reviewed
by
experts
in
5
safety,
small
engines,
and
catalysts,
and
by
the
6
staff
of
the
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission,
who
7
indicated
agreement
with
EPA's
conclusions.
8
Several
specific
issues
related
to
9
catalyst
safety
on
lawn
mowers
have
generated
the
10
greatest
concern,
before
and
since
the
adoption
of
11
the
SORE
regulation.
The
concerns
are
presented
in
12
this
slide
as
questions,
with
the
answer
derived
13
from
the
numerous
safety
studies
and
reviews.
14
Will
exposed
surface
temperatures
increase
15
and
cause
an
increased
risk
to
operators
of
fire
or
16
burns?
17
No.
Properly
designed
catalysts
do
not
18
increase
surface
temperatures
exposed
to
debris
or
19
the
operator.
20
Is
fire
likely
to
occur
during
refueling
21
or
a
fuel
leak,
or
due
to
collection
of
debris
or
22
35
nearby
storage
of
combustible
material?
1
No,
as
shown
in
EPA's
safety
study,
with
2
properly
designed
equipment,
temperatures
can
3
actually
be
reduced,
so
it
reduces
the
likelihood
of
4
a
fire
occurring.
The
EPA
safety
study
also
5
concluded
that
the
surface
cool
down
time
of
a
6
properly
designed
catalyst
muffler
is
comparable
to
7
existing
uncatalytic
mufflers.
8
Are
failure
modes,
such
as
ignition
9
misfire,
a
problem?
10
No.
The
risk
of
misfire
can
be
easily
11
addressed
with
properly
designed
catalysts.
The
EPA
12
study
showed
other
abnormal
conditions
can
be
13
managed.
14
Will
failure
modes,
such
as
ignition
15
misfire,
damage
the
catalyst?
16
No.
Again,
EPA
safety
study
also
showed
17
that
with
relatively
simple
baffling
and
internal
18
catalyst
passages,
ignition
misfire
was
not
an
19
issue.
20
Anecdotally
it
should
also
be
noted
that
21
it
is
difficult
to
believe
that
misfire
is
a
common,
22
36
unresolvable
issue,
since
catalytic
lawn
mowers
1
already
exist
in
Europe.
2
The
EPA
study
also
showed
other
abnormal
3
conditions
that
can
be
managed
with
relatively
4
simple
conclusion,
for
instance,
a
properly
designed
5
catalyst
incorporating
a
flame
arrester,
relatively
6
simple
baffling
and
internal
passages
as
well
as
7
limiting
the
return
of
air
readily
addressed
the
8
issues
of
operation.
9
So
what
were
the
conclusions
of
EPA's
10
safety
study?
To
quote,
"
New
emission
standards
11
would
not
cause
an
incremental
increase
in
risk
of
12
fire
or
burn
to
consumers
in
use.
Instead,
13
compliance
with
the
new
standards
should
reduce
14
certain
safety
concerns
presented
by
current
15
technologies."
16
And
if
I
can
put
it
in
plain
English,
17
catalysts
are
safe.
18
Which
is
no
surprise,
as
catalysts
have
19
been
used
successfully
to
safety
and
inexpensively
20
reduce
emissions
for
years
and
even
decades
on
21
automobiles,
forklifts,
motorcycles,
string
22
37
trimmers,
chain
saws,
and
actually,
even
lawn
1
mowers.
2
Yes,
as
previously
mentioned,
lawn
mowers
3
are
offered
with
catalytic
converts
already,
at
4
least
in
other
countries
like
Germany
and
the
UK.
5
The
one
pictured
here
is
equipped
with
a
catalyst.
6
While
it
may
not
fully
meet
our
emissions
standards,
7
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
any
safety
issues
8
related
to
so­
called
off­
nominal
conditions
such
as
9
loose
spark
plug
wire,
air/
fuel
variations,
improper
10
fuel,
and
excess
air
were
addressed
before
the
11
manufacturer
offered
this
product
for
sale
to
the
12
public.
Obviously,
the
manufacturer
of
this
mower
13
engine,
which,
by
the
way,
is
Briggs
&
Stratton,
14
wouldn't
sell
a
product
it
considers
unsafe.
15
Despite
the
overwhelming
evidence
clearly
16
demonstrating
that
there
is
no
incremental
risk
17
associated
with
catalysts,
some
still
argue
that
18
there
should
be
additional
safety
studies
before
the
19
standards
should
be
authorized.
ARB
does
not
oppose
20
these
recommendations
for
further
study.
Safety
can
21
always
be
improved.
However,
the
possibility
of
22
38
other
studies
should
not
be
used
as
an
excuse
to
1
delay
this
waiver.
2
The
international
Consortium
for
Fire
3
Safety,
Health
and
the
Environment
is
sponsoring
one
4
such
safety
study.
On
the
face
of
it,
that
sounds
5
like
a
good
idea.
Unfortunately,
that
study
would
6
not
add
any
useful
information
to
the
record.
7
The
study
would
be
redundant
with
regard
8
to
most
of
its
testing.
The
bulk
of
the
plan
is
to
9
look
at
off­
nominal
conditions,
just
like
the
EPA
10
study
­­
just
as
the
EPA
study
did.
11
One
of
the
off­
nominal
conditions
12
identified
would
require
that
air
be
pumped
into
the
13
exhaust
stream
at
a
location
upstream
of
the
14
catalyst.
As
mentioned
at
the
May
meeting
in
15
Ann
Arbor,
in
the
real
world
air
cannot
enter
the
16
system
unless
it
is
artificially
pumped
in.
So
what
17
is
there
to
gain
from
such
an
experiment?
The
18
answer,
nothing.
19
The
study
also
proposes
to
compare
how
20
readily
a
catalyst
and
noncatalyst
equipped
21
engine
would
ignite
debris,
spilled
fuel,
and
stored
22
39
material
near
a
lawn
mower.
But
this
kind
of
1
experiment
is
fundamentally
flawed
in
that
the
2
researchers
are
assuming
a
conclusion
that
the
3
catalyst­
equipped
engines
would
necessarily
have
4
higher
surface
temperatures.
This
is
a
bad
5
assumption,
since
EPA's
study
showed
just
the
6
opposite,
that
a
catalyst­
equipped
engine
can
7
be
easily
designed
such
that
surface
temperatures
8
are
equal
to
or
lower
than
today's
9
noncatalyst­
equipped
engines.
10
Again,
the
possibility
of
other
studies
11
purporting
to
evaluate
safety
should
not
be
used
as
12
an
excuse
to
delay
this
waiver.
13
Waiting
for
voluntary
safety
standards,
14
such
as
might
be
considered
by
ANSI,
would
also
be
a
15
mistake,
as
there
would
be
no
deadline
for
16
completion
and
no
teeth
for
enforcement.
If
17
industry
wants
voluntary
safety
standards,
there
was
18
nothing
preventing
their
development
years
ago.
In
19
discussions
with
the
EPA,
all
engine
and
equipment
20
manufacturers
indicated
that
they
have
various
21
proprietary
safety
tests.
Obviously,
the
22
40
manufacturers
could
have
instituted
voluntary
1
industry
standards
many
years
ago,
but
saw
no
need,
2
even
when
offering
products
with
catalysts.
3
If
safety
standards
specific
to
these
4
products
are
necessary,
the
EPA
is
the
logical
party
5
to
set
them,
not
industry.
EPA's
study
shows
that
6
they
have
the
expertise,
and
more
importantly,
the
7
will,
to
ensure
that
safety
would
be
looked
at
in
a
8
logical
and
scientific
manner.
Furthermore,
we
9
believe
that
any
safety
standards
developed
for
10
small
off­
road
engines
should
apply
to
all
the
11
products
regardless
of
whether
they
have
catalysts
12
or
not,
and
should
carry
strict
penalties
to
prevent
13
unsafe
products
from
entering
commerce
or
remaining
14
in
service.
These
penalties
should
also
apply
to
15
any
violation
of
the
emissions
standards,
for
16
heavily
polluting
engines
are
also
unsafe.
17
Having
addressed
technical
feasibility
and
18
safety
issues,
let
me
review
the
lead
time
given
to
19
the
regulation.
As
mentioned
before,
the
smaller
20
engines
used
in
hand­
held
equipment
are
already
21
meeting
the
standards
in
this
regulation,
because
22
41
they
are
the
same
standards
EPA
has
implemented.
1
For
the
nonhand­
held
engines,
the
regulation
sets
2
implementation
at
approximately
four
years
after
the
3
board's
decision.
The
lead
time
period
is
4
considered
typical
for
a
mobile
source
regulation,
5
giving
engine
and
equipment
manufacturers
time
to
6
adjust
their
product
mix
and
production
lines
as
7
needed.
8
Looking
at
the
history
more
closely,
9
however,
one
notices
that
we
and
EPA
have
been
10
talking
with
industry
for
several
years
about
the
11
need
to
clean
up
engines
to
catalyst­
based
emission
12
levels.
In
fact,
in
1990
the
ARB
adopted
13
catalyst­
based
standards
to
go
into
effect
in
1999.
14
EPA
granted
authorization
for
those
standards
in
15
1995.
In
1998,
after
approximately
eight
years
of
16
advance
notice,
industry
asked
for
more
time.
Our
17
board
was
responsive,
and
modified
the
regulations
18
to
allow
more
time,
in
return
for
getting
more
19
durable
engines.
It
has
now
been
an
additional
20
eight
years,
and
we
now
have
standards
that
are
less
21
stringent
than
those
for
which
we
have
already
been
22
42
granted
a
waiver.
1
The
lead
time,
in
terms
of
this
particular
2
regulation,
and
in
terms
of
notice
given
to
industry
3
that
catalyst­
based
standards
were
on
their
way,
has
4
been
more
than
sufficient.
5
The
remaining
issue
is
whether
the
6
standards
are
cost
effective
in
reducing
emissions.
7
The
figures
here
show
the
average
cost
for
hand­
held
8
and
nonhand­
held
engines
in
dollars
per
pound.
9
Although
higher
than
for
some
regulations
that
were
10
adopted
years
ago,
the
cost
effectiveness
compares
11
favorably
to
other
emissions
control
regulations
12
adopted
by
our
board,
including
reformulated
13
gasoline,
personal
watercraft
and
outboard
engines,
14
and
on
board
­­
I
am
sorry,
on­
road
motorcycles.
15
The
ultimate
proof
of
feasibility,
lead
16
time
cost
effectiveness
is
that
engines
meeting
17
those
standards
have
already
been
certified.
18
For
engines
in
the
size
class
typically
19
used
for
walk­
behind
lawn
mowers,
11
engine
families
20
meet
the
10
gram
per
kilowatt
hour
hydrocarbon
21
exhaust
standard
already.
22
43
For
the
larger
engines,
of
the
type
used
1
in
riding
mowers
and
generators,
60
engine
families
2
comply
with
the
8
gram
per
kilowatt
hour
hydrocarbon
3
exhaust
standard.
4
It
is
worth
noting
that
not
all
of
these
5
engine
families
needed
catalysts
to
reach
those
6
levels.
7
To
summarize,
the
regulation,
which
was
8
developed
with
abundant
opportunity
for
public
9
comment
and
feedback,
is
both
technologically
10
feasible
and
safe,
has
sufficient
lead
time,
and
is
11
a
cost
effective
means
to
reduce
ozone
precursors.
12
And
these
conclusions
are
not
just
of
the
13
ARB
staff.
Several
manufacturers
have
gone
on
14
record
with
what
they
think,
that
they
think
the
15
standards
should
be
applied
nationwide.
And,
in
16
fact,
a
number
of
manufacturers
support
our
17
regulations
and
have
stated
so
repeatedly.
18
With
that
I
would
like
to
turn
the
19
presentation
over,
back
over
to
Dr.
Sawyer.
20
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
21
MR.
SAWYER:
This
is
Mr.
Sawyer
again.
22
44
In
summary,
we
believe
we
meet
all
the
1
requirements
for
the
waiver
and
request
that
you
2
give
us
the
waiver
and
are
available
to
answer
any
3
questions
that
you
have
at
this
time.
4
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
5
For
the
zone
emission
standards
for
later,
6
was
to
be
considered
within
the
scope
of
previous
7
granted
waivers
from
EPA.
At
the
same
time
when
the
8
standards
for
the
request
CARB
stated
that
should
we
9
find
the
amendment,
and
not
within
the
scope,
you
10
felt
that
there
was
sufficient
information
to
11
consider
it.
12
And
so
when
California
sent
us
the
initial
13
authorization
request
for
the
exhaust
emissions
14
standards
for
moderately
and
later,
you
asked
us
to
15
consider
that
within
the
scope
of
the
previous
16
granted
waivers.
At
the
same
time,
the
answer
to
17
the
request
California
stated
that
you
felt
18
confident
that
the
information
in
the
request
is
19
such
that
if
it
is
decided
to
proceed
we
could
20
address
this
request
as
a
full
waiver.
21
On
June
20th
of
this
year
we
received
a
22
45
letter
from
your
staff
clarifying
that
the
initial
1
request
provided
adequate
basis
to
grant
a
full
2
waiver,
was
an
additional
clarification
from
CARB.
3
Could
you
explain
California's
position
or
4
within
the
scope
issue
before
the
public
hearing,
5
please.
6
MR.
SAWYER:
I
may
need
some
help
on
this
7
but
we
would
like
to
go
ahead
with
a
full
waiver.
8
We
feel
that
that
would
give
us
the
authority
we
9
need
to
implement
our
­­
10
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Anybody
else
from
the
11
CARB
team?
12
MR.
JENNINGS:
I
want
to
second
what
13
Dr.
Sawyer
said.
I
will
mention
that
we
suggested
14
that
in
one
limited
area
it
could
be
appropriate
for
15
EPA
to
act
on
within
the
scope
request
and
that
was
16
the
hand­
held
engine
standards
that
are
aligned
with
17
EPA
starting
in
2005.
We
think
that
obviously
that
18
doesn't
undermine
the
protectiveness
decision,
it
19
doesn't
present
consistency
issues,
it
is
simply
20
aligning
with
EPA,
there
are
no
new
issues.
21
Any
questions
for
the
CARB
team?
22
46
MR.
SIMON:
Yes.
Your
presentation
today
1
showed
that
the
feasibility
question
and
that
you
2
supported
the
lead
time,
I
am
wondering
what
other
3
regulations
or
mechanisms
exist
for
California
to
4
help
us
to
transition,
particularly
the
2008
5
standards.
6
MR.
JENNINGS:
Well,
one
issue
that
has
7
been
presented
by
some
manufacturers
is
what
do
we
8
do
with
engines
that
are
manufactured
in
2007
but
9
may
not
be
able
to
be
put
on
equipment
until
2008?
10
And
it
is
our
position
that
in
cases
like
that
as
11
long
as
the
engine
is
manufactured
in
2007
and
meets
12
the
2007
standards
then
it
is,
the
equipment
13
manufacturer,
with
a
certified
2008
for
instance
14
could
use
the
2007
engine
on
the
2008
equipment
and
15
that
would
be
consistent
with
our
regulation.
16
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Okay.
17
MR.
HOROWITZ:
Is
that
also
true
for
the
18
2007
exhaust
standards?
19
MR.
JENNINGS:
Yes,
it
is.
20
MR.
DOYLE:
Bob
Doyle.
Tom,
the
21
manufacturers
supporting
regulations
seem
to
be
22
47
very
­­
is
there
any
sort
of
special
need
or
any
1
sort
of
small
manufacturers?
2
MR.
JENNINGS:
I
am
not
­­
I
don't
believe
3
there
is,
I
could
be
corrected.
4
Jim?
This
is
Jim
Watkins,
the
person
who
5
wrote
the
evap
element
of
the
regulation.
6
MR.
WATKINS:
Yes,
there
is
some
relief
7
for
small
production
volume
manufacturers
that
8
produce
less
­­
for
evap
standards,
the
focus
was
9
not
on
rotation
modes,
but
not
having
a
cost
10
effective
alternative
available.
So
basically
they
11
get
a
bye
for
the
regulations
until
2010
and
then
12
after
that
they
have
to
use
low
permeation
fuel
13
loads
and
carbon
canisters.
So
those
applied
to
14
manufacturers
that
produced,
that
sell
less
than
15
400
units
within
an
X
time
span
in
California.
16
MR.
DOYLE:
I
guess
in
the
final
statement
17
recently
submitted
to
us
there
was
some
question
18
about
catalyst
efficiency
which
would
effect,
might
19
have
some
effect
on
the
heat
and
safety.
Is
this
20
still
an
issue
and
was
this
addressed
in
the
EPA
21
setting?
22
48
MR.
CARTER:
Mike
Carter
again.
In
our
1
study
that
we
had
Southwest
do
for
us,
our
target
at
2
that
time
was
a
50
percent,
and
there
was
concern
3
that
at
that
level
50
percent
there
would
or
could
4
be
some
excessive
heat
problems.
So
we
ultimately
5
adopted
by
our
board
­­
did
not
adopt
or
propose
a
6
50
percent,
we
got
about
33
percent
of
it.
So
with
7
that,
with
the
less
efficient
catalyst
there
was
8
less
of
a
concern
of
heat
and
the
manufacturers
of,
9
most
of
the
manufacturers.
10
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Any
more
questions
11
from
the
board?
12
Well,
I
would
like
to
thank
Mr.
Sawyer
and
13
his
team,
and
­­
as
stated
earlier,
after
everybody
14
testifies
we
would
like
to
hear
back
from
you
to
the
15
extent
you
have
any
response.
16
With
that
I
would
like
to
ask
the
17
representative
from
the
power
equipment
interview.
18
You
are
next,
please.
State
your
full
name.
19
MR.
GUERRY:
Thank
you
very
much.
My
name
20
is
Bill
Guerry.
I
am
counsel
for
the
Outdoor
Power
21
Equipment
Institute.
22
49
I
like
to
see
so
many
familiar
faces
this
1
morning.
I
guess
I
should
just
start
by
noting
I
2
was
impressed
with
CARB's
slides,
I
was
impressed
3
with
the
questions
from
the
panel.
OPEI
thinks
that
4
questions
like
this
are
critical
and
offer
5
opportunities
to
sincerely
improve
the
operations
of
6
the
federal
and
state
governments
on
board,
so
in
7
that
spirit
of
constructive
improvement,
I
just
want
8
to
applaud
two
things
I
heard.
CARB
indicating
this
9
would
be
a
full
waiver
across
the
board,
we
10
generally
think
that
the
Section
209
provisions
of
11
the
Clean
Air
Act
were
submitted
to
provide
a
12
meaningful
level
of
reviewing,
and
we
think
that
13
everybody
is
best
served
by
having
a
full,
14
meaningful
EPA
review,
including
the
input
that
we
15
think
is
brought
by
having
the
independent
fire
16
experts
involved
in
the
process.
17
I
also
was
pleased
to
hear
the
18
confirmation
of
some
of
the
flexibilities
that
Tom
19
referred
to
and
I
will
get
to
that
in
my
remarks.
20
If
I
could
start
to
the
next
slide,
OPEI's
21
representation
includes
manufacturers
of
catalysts,
22
50
includes
manufacturers
of
exhaust
that
rely
on
1
catalysts.
So
in
no
way
is
OPEI
­­
we
have
catalyst
2
manufacturers,
our
primary
focus
is
on
equipment
3
manufacturers.
We
also
represent
all
of
the
major
4
engine
manufacturers,
and
we
are
proud
to
support
5
hand­
held
products.
6
OPEI's
principal
mission
­­
and
7
independent
safety
organizations
are
part
of
the
8
input
into
the
process.
There
is
a
broad
input
and
9
the
principal
goal
there
is
to
make
sure
that
our
10
products
are
as
safe
as
possible
and
particularly
11
the
smaller
items
have
some
assistance
guiding
as
12
they
develop
nonintegrated
equipment.
13
Next
slide
shows
a
circle
of
the
different
14
types
of
power
equipment,
and
they
include
again
15
hand­
held
ground
support
and
riding
mowers,
16
walk­
behind
mowers,
generators,
products
like
that.
17
Next
slide
I
will
just
quickly
hit.
One
18
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
highlight
that
we
would
19
be
­­
different
from
a
lot
of
other
factors,
you
20
have
got
a
core
group
of
50
engine
suppliers.
There
21
you
can
see
roughly
a
thousand
basic
engine
models,
22
51
those
things
go
out
to
50
and
100,
at
least
OEMs,
1
that
1,500
OEMs,
which
this
is
the
order
of
over
2
1,400
are
small,
very
small,
and
most
of
those,
or
3
many
of
them
display
products
at
the
OPEI
expo.
But
4
it
is
clearly
a
­­
when
you
go
beyond
the
OEMs
you
5
are
getting
over
2,000
different
applications.
And
6
in
those
applications
you
typically,
particularly
7
from
the
riding
mower
segment,
have
the
need
for
8
customized
exhaust
systems
meaning
that
there
is
not
9
a
stock
exhaust
system
supplied
by
the
engine
10
manufacturer.
The
OEM
has
to
design
and
customize
11
separate
exhaust
system.
As
you
can
see
from
this,
12
those
applications
are
very
complicated
distribution
13
process.
14
One
of
the
points
that
I
think
Bob
Doyle
15
made
earlier
that
I
wanted
to
highlight
in
this
16
system
here
you
have
got
a
wide
continuum
of
premium
17
products
that
are
going
typically
for
the
commercial
18
sector
and
I
think
you
have
already
seen
and
we
have
19
noted
this
morning
that
there
are
premium
engines
in
20
those
commercial
applications
that
are
less
than
ten
21
percent
of
the
overall
market
segment
but
the
high
22
52
volume
products
that
dominate
the
mass
merchants,
1
that
is
where
90
percent
or
80­
90
­­
in
those
big
2
box
stores
you
see
150
to
200
dollars
range
and
the
3
riders
are
selling
as
low
now
as
in
the
700s.
So
4
there
is
a
lot
of
diversity
and
it
is
certainly
not
5
a
one­
sided
result.
6
The
next
slide
is
to
highlight
once
again,
7
there
are
over
we
think
1500
small
OEMs.
They
8
typically
lack
experience
and
they
don't
have
the
9
engineering
expertise
to
deal
with
some
of
the
10
heat­
related
challenges.
And
in
a
stewardship
role
11
OPEI
is
trying
to
work
with
all
the
stakeholders
to
12
make
sure
that
they
are
as
knowledgeable
and
as
13
prepared
as
possible.
14
The
next
group
of
slides
I
would
like
to
15
talk
about
OPEI's
history
and
it
is
proposed
­­
is
16
to
be
a
leadership
in
safety.
17
And
I
would
like
to
comment
on
a
remark
I
18
think
I
heard
my
friend
Mike
Carter
say
regarding
19
development
process
for
heat­
related
standards.
20
Roughly
commensurate
with
the
development
of
the
21
CARB
Tier
II
standards,
OPEI
initiated
a
process
22
53
under
which
Dr.
Sahu,
who
is
a
Ph.
D.
in
combustion
1
engineering
from
Cal
Tech,
initiated
dialogue
with
2
all
the
major
engine
and
equipment
manufacturers
and
3
exhaust
system
suppliers
to
start
preparing
the
4
infrastructural
knowledge
for
the
CARB
Tier
II
5
regulations.
As
part
of
Dr.
Sahu's
analysis,
which
6
has
been
submitted
to
and
is
part
of
the
Phase
I
7
report
by
the
International
Consortium
for
Fire
8
Safety,
Health
and
Environment,
that
process
9
identifies
the
industry's
principal
off­
nominal
or
10
real­
world
conditions
that
we
believe,
or
that
the
11
experts
that
developed
these
products
believe
that
12
catalyzed
products
are
likely
to
behave
13
fundamentally
differently
in
certain
areas
than
our
14
current
noncatalyzed
engines
and
in
certain
areas
15
that
there
may
be
increased
risk
that
we
want
to
16
understand
better
and
we
want
to
develop
the
test
17
procedures
needed
to
best
predict
what
could
occur
18
under
off­
nominal
or
consumer
misuse
or
other
19
problematic
scenarios.
20
OPEI
has
commenced
developing
ANSI
21
standards
for
heat­
related
hazard
mitigation
from
22
54
catalytic
exhaust
systems.
We
are
going
to
rely
on
1
the
work
that
Dr.
Sahu
has
done
in
the
last
two
2
years.
We
are
going
to
rely
on
some
helpful
3
information
that
came
out
of
the
EPA
safety
study.
4
We
are
going
to
rely
on
the
ongoing
work
that
is
5
being
done
through
the
International
Consortium
and
6
well
rely
on
any
other
helpful
input.
We
believe
7
that
more
knowledge
is
a
good
thing
and
you
can't
8
have
too
much
when
it
comes
to
development
of
safe
9
products.
10
Now
I
should
also
note
the
importance
of
11
lead
time,
as
crucial
in
design
and
in
testing
in
12
the
field
about
the
power
equipment,
and
I
should
13
note
that
just
in
the
last
few
months
we
have
14
already
seen
a
problem
that
has
led
to
a
recall
with
15
permeation,
with
the
low
permeation
fuel
lines
on
16
one
of
our
members
product
lines
and
I
want
to
17
highlight
that
within
weeks
of
finding
that
problem
18
the
OPEI,
through
the
ANSI
process,
modified
and
19
expanded
its
current
ANSI
standards
for
fuel
tanks
20
and
fuel
lines
to
include
a
fuel
line
pull
off
test
21
which
should
predict
this
problem
and
prevent
it
in
22
55
the
future.
1
Unfortunately,
though,
we
didn't
have
that
2
procedure
in
place,
we
didn't
anticipate
that
the
3
new
permeation
fuel
line
would
be
somewhat
more
4
stiff
and
brittle,
would
possibly
require
a
5
different
evaluation
to
predict
the
hook
link
with
6
the
engine.
And
I
think
that
is
an
important
lesson
7
for
us
to
see
that
new
emission
control
technology
8
can
raise
different
risks
and
it
is
best
to
predict
9
and
have
the
time
to
understand
that.
10
Now
in
the
next
slide
I
would
like
to
just
11
briefly
highlight
that
OPEI
profoundly
values
its
12
long­
standing
and
close
working
relationship
with
13
all
the
government
regulatory
agencies
including
14
EPA,
CARB
and
EPSE.
15
OPEI
worked
constructively
with
the
CARB
16
team
to
develop
the
framework
for
the
technology
17
force
Tier
III
evaporative
and
exhaust
regulations.
18
We
actually
came
up
with
some
creative
solutions
to
19
provide
greater
evap
emissions
than
CARB's
original
20
proposals.
OPEI
members
continue
to
make
21
extraordinary
investments
to
develop
existing
22
56
Tier
II
compliance
products
and
Phase
II
compliance
1
products
as
well
as
the
new
Tier
III
compliance
2
exhaust
and
evaporative
systems.
And
today
I
think
3
following
my
remarks
you
will
hear
from
two
of
4
OPEI's
most
sophisticated
engine
manufacturers
about
5
their
technological
achievements.
OPEI
is
very
6
proud
of
the
achievements
of
its
members.
In
fact,
7
since
1990
the
small
engine
equipment
industry
has
8
reduced
small
emissions
by
over
74
percent.
9
The
next
slide
shows
a
breakdown
based
on
10
2006
EPA
emission
data,
looking
at
both
hydrocarbons
11
and
nitrogen
oxides,
and
you
can
see
that
the
entire
12
sector
of
four­
cycle
small
gasoline
engines
on
a
13
national
basis
is
around
three
percent
for
AC
and
14
NOx,
and
somewhat
lower
than
three
percent
in
15
California
inventories
that
our
experts
have
been
16
looking
at.
17
All
right,
next
slide
I
am
going
to
18
discuss
briefly
some
of
the
suggested
improvements
19
to
the
EPA
waiver
process.
And
again,
I
want
to
20
highlight,
I
think
that
there
are
great
public
21
policy
issues
before
us
this
morning,
I
think
this
22
57
is
the
very
sort
of
thing
that
materials
and
issues
1
that
the
federal
government
and
CARB
and
others
2
should
be
constructively
evaluating
and
we
should
3
always
be
trying
to
improve
the
system.
I
was
4
honored
to
be
asked
several
years
ago
to
testify
5
before
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
on
similar
6
issues
and
I
encourage
all
those
to
review
and
I
am
7
going
to
cite
later
some
of
the
study's
conclusions.
8
But
one
of
those
points
that
I
think
all
9
of
us
are
in
agreement
and
I
think
the
national
10
academy
also
recognizes
that
currently
the
latest
in
11
the
waiver
review
and
approval
process
has
the
12
potential
to
create
significant
unfairness
in
the
13
process.
My
members
in
OPEI
are
the
good
guys.
We
14
produce
and
supply
products.
Every
day
there
is
15
dramatic
increase
in
noncompliant
products
that
are
16
coming
in
often
from
China
and
other
Asian
companies
17
that
are
knock
offs.
And
our
members
are
troubled
18
that
in
this
model
year
they
are
building
low
19
permeation
fuel
lines
and
products
for
CARB.
And
of
20
course
CARB
does
not
have
waiver
authority,
and
I
21
think
as
we
go
forward
there
is
a
greater
risk
of
22
58
the
knock
offs
and
noncompliant
products
coming
in.
1
It
is
ever
more
important
that
there
be
clear,
2
absolute
certainty
before
CARB
starts
acquiring
3
manufacturers
to
certify
products
and
to
spend
money
4
on
new
technology
that
they
know
for
sure
that
5
everyone
will
be
held
to
the
same
standard
and
there
6
is
a
fairness
in
the
competitive
markets.
7
And
I
should
note
that
OPEI
has
had
recent
8
meetings
with
EPA
and
with
CARB's
leading
9
enforcement
officials
over
air
and
we
want
to
work
10
with
those
organizations
to
enforce
problems
with
11
knock
offs.
12
Another
area
that
OPEI
has
suggested
13
improvement
­­
and
that
is
the
next
slide,
if
you
14
could
­­
deals
with
trying
to
as
much
as
practical
15
where
CARB
and
EPA
have
similar
programs
in
place,
16
that
require
similar
designs
and
features,
it
would
17
sure
be
helpful
for
all
parties
to
have
and
allow
18
consistent,
harmonious
test
procedures.
And
I
know
19
Tom
Jennings
remarked
this
morning
that
he
didn't
20
know
of
any
disconnects,
and
maybe
that
is
because
21
EPA's
Phase
III
evap
rules
are
not
yet
proposed
but
22
59
we
know
that
EPA's
basis
of
Phase
III
evap
1
requirements
on
its
current
recreational
vehicle
2
rules
and
the
rec
vehicle
rules
has
a
different
fuel
3
and
a
different
temperature
for
all
the
evaporative
4
components
supplying
of
fuel
tanks.
And
we
are
very
5
hopeful
that
through
this
process
we
can
talk
6
candidly
about
let's
make
sure
that
either
the
7
harmonized
test
procedures
­­
and
we
don't
have
to
8
retest
exact
same
product
with
exact
same
features
9
for
the
same
programming
standards,
and
yet
go
10
through
like
we
have
had
historically
duplicative
11
process
where
we
have
to
retest
everything.
And
12
what
we
would
really
like
to
have
is
some
reciprocal
13
agreement
when
you
have
got
the
same
essential
14
programs
and
materials
and
designs
to
have
a
15
reciprocal
agreement
that
CARB
and
EPA
accept
each
16
other's
certifications
so
manufacturers
don't
have
17
to
and
CARB
don't
have
to
spend
the
additional
18
resources
to
looking
at
the
same
test
for
the
same
19
product.
20
I
want
to
very
briefly
talk
about
safety.
21
I
think
it
has
been
teed
up
pretty
thoroughly
in
22
60
this
morning's
presentation.
OPEI's
main
1
constructive
suggestions
to
EPA
and
CARB
is
we
2
understand
that
other
industries'
programs
simply
3
look
at
a
bare
engine,
operating
under
ideal
4
conditions
in
a
laboratory.
5
But
in
this
industry
that
doesn't
work.
6
We
have
extreme
unpredictable
environmental
7
operational
conditions
with
swirling
dry
grass,
with
8
unsophisticated
consumers
that
refuel
products
9
shortly
after
they
are
operated.
Those
relatively
10
hot
products
after
operating
go
into
people's
11
garages,
the
nonintegrated
nature,
the
small
OEMs,
12
unsophisticated
users
all
add
up
to
we
believe
a
13
different
calculus
than
what
has
been
historically
14
applied,
and
all
we
are
asking
is
please
evaluate
15
the
impact
of
these
regulations,
not
just
on
the
16
engine
manufacturer
but
on
the
nonintegrated
OEMs,
17
the
small
businesses
that
build
and
operate
our
18
equipment,
and
consumers.
And
we
think
that
that
is
19
a
laudable
goal
that
we
should
all
embrace,
and
it
20
comes
down
to,
you
need
to
look
at
the
real
world's
21
operating
conditions
in
which
the
equipment
is
used.
22
61
And
that
promotes
sound
public
policy.
1
Okay.
Now
the
next
slide,
OPEI
2
conditional
support
for
the
Tier
III
program.
I
3
would
like
to
commend,
we
had
a
meeting
with
Mr.
Tom
4
Cackette
and
his
staff
last
Monday,
and
based
on
5
that
dialogue
OPEI
is
conceding
many,
many
of
its
6
prior
positions
in
the
spirit
of
cooperation
to
move
7
ahead.
And
I
have
been
authorized
to
support
the
8
expedited
EPA
approval
of
all
the
Tier
III
9
requirements
and
those
apply
across
the
board,
all
10
classes
of
engines,
hand­
held,
in­
ground
support
in
11
classes
I
through
V.
We
also
support
the
Tier
III
12
exhaust
standards
from
the
last
one
­­
I
appreciate
13
the
comments
from
Tom
this
morning
that
those
will
14
have
the
same
phase
in
flexibility
with
15
grandfathered
engine
dates
that
I
will
get
into
in
a
16
little
more
detail.
17
I
would
like
to
state
I
am
pleased
to
18
report
that
OPEI
plans
to
conditionally
support
19
Class
II
exhaust
standards
for
riding
mowers
based
20
on
the
flexibility
that
Tom
Jennings
spoke
of.
21
Now
I
want
you
to
appreciate
the
pains
and
22
62
the
challenges
that
OPEI's
members
are
stepping
up
1
to
in
making
this
statement.
OEMs
will
need
to
rely
2
on
2007
model
year
Tier
II
certified
engines
in
3
their
2008
eight
equipment
model
year,
and
I
­­
I
am
4
going
to
quickly
explain
here,
in
the
next
slide,
5
the
basis
of
the
flexibility
that
we
appreciate
CARB
6
working
with
us,
but
I
want
to
highlight,
I
had
7
clear
direction
from
my
client
that
it
was
essential
8
that
we
get
another
year
effective
date
and
without
9
that
there
would
be
a
dramatic
reduced
products
over
10
in
California.
And
I
am
concerned
that
may
still
be
11
the
case,
but
I
have
also
­­
OPEI
is
trying
to
get
12
this
issue
behind
us.
In
the
spirit
of
cooperation
13
we
are
making
major
concession
here
today.
14
If
you
could
go
to
the
next
­­
15
There
are
roughly
a
thousand
different
16
exhaust
systems
for
Class
II
engines,
which
may
be
17
substantially
redesigned
to
accommodate
catalysts.
18
What
is
remarkable
right
now
is
that,
and
19
I
am
hoping
you
are
going
to
hear
some
further
20
explanation
from
the
OEMs,
I
am
sorry,
the
engine
21
manufacturers
comments
today,
but
despite
the
fact
22
63
that
we
have
world­
class
leaders
that
are
making
1
tremendous
investments
and
doing
everything
they
2
possibly
can
to
develop
the
cleanest
engines
3
including
catalyst
engines,
the
bottom
line
is
that
4
the
nonintegrated
OEMs,
the
­­
even
the
largest
5
ones,
not
the
1400
small
OEMs,
I
am
talking
about
6
the
ten
largest
OEMs.
They
still
have
not
received
7
the
first
catalyzed
engines
to
start
their
very
8
complicated
engineering
redesign
of
the
exhaust
9
system.
10
We
have
submitted
to
CARB,
and
I
am
going
11
to
put
it
in
copies
of
papers
to
Margo
and
to
others
12
today,
a
schematic
that
shows
under
essentially
a
13
best­
case
condition,
once
the
OEMs
starts
to
receive
14
catalyzed
exhaust
systems
from
their
engine
15
suppliers,
they
will
need
a
minimum
of
600
days
to
16
start
building
the
very
first,
the
very
first
17
prototype
and
go
to
production
with
the
very
first
18
catalyzed
equipment
for
a
rider.
19
Now
as
you
can
imagine,
many
of
our
OEMs
20
support
­­
they
have
more
than
34
exhaust
systems.
21
There
is
no
way
that
they
can
do
all
the
work
that
22
64
needs
to
be
done
both
in
terms
of
emissions,
in
1
terms
of
durability,
in
terms
of
heat­
related
2
challenges
on
34
products
at
the
same
time.
So
I
3
appreciate,
I
think
it
was
Bob
Doyle's
comments
4
earlier
that
the
schematic
really
only
addresses
the
5
tip
of
the
iceberg.
We
are
hoping
we
will
get
a
few
6
to
the
larger
volumes
done
in
time
with
the
7
flexibility
we
have
been
discussing
with
CARB,
but
8
it
doesn't
get
to
your
point
that
the
small
9
businesses
and
the
small
volumes
do
not
quite
fit
10
within
the
time
lines
that
we
are
accepting
with
or
11
working
with
CARB.
We
are
recognizing
there
is
12
going
to
be
dramatically
reduced
market
offerings
13
and
there
probably
won't
be
products
from
the
small
14
OEMs.
They
are
relatively
at
the
end
of
the
list,
15
the
engine
guys
only
have
so
many
resources,
larger
16
volume
OEMs
first.
17
The
next
line,
I
just
want
to
­­
I
am
not
18
going
to
go
through
this
in
great
detail,
but
the
19
difficulty
of
catalyst
on
Class
II
engines
is
rooted
20
in
the
fact
that
you
have
got
multiple
players,
you
21
have
got
separate
and
distinct
engine
suppliers,
22
65
equipment
manufacturers,
catalyst
suppliers
and
1
exhaust
system
suppliers.
They
go
through
the
2
process,
and
the
top
schematic,
those
bullets
are
3
basically
dealing
just
with
the
prototype
4
development
and
you
can
see
there
is
a
sequence
of
5
events
where
everyone
is
having
to
interface
and
6
they
are
trying
to
pull
together
a
system
that
then
7
meets
all
the
requirements.
And
anytime
that
there
8
is
a
problem
and
you
can
see,
if
the
OEM
rejects
9
samples
then
the
process
restarts.
And
you
get
the
10
propensity
for
lots
of
recircled
to­
do
loops
to
go
11
back
and
every
time
that
happens,
and
if
it
doesn't
12
happen
until
late
in
the
durability
testing,
you
13
really
are,
it
drives
the
lead
time
process
out
14
further.
15
And
I
have
a
schematic
and
for
the
record
16
it
shows
the
basis
of
our
600
days
and
that
is
17
assuming
everything
goes
right.
18
If
you
could
go
to
the
next
slide.
19
What
I
would
really
like
to
promote
now
is
20
the
most
cogent
explanation
of
why
a
full
21
understanding
of
heat­
related
hazards
is
critical
22
66
for
this
industry,
and
what
OPEI
is
doing
to
promote
1
this
understanding.
I
first
want
to
highlight
that
2
OPEI
looks
forwards
to
working
with
EPA
in
this
3
Phase
III
regulation
like
we
have
in
other
process
4
to
make
sure
that
the
heat
hazards
and
fuel
leak
5
risks
are
best
understood
by
all
parties.
And
6
meet
­­
we
believe
that
the
EPA
safety
study
does
7
add
a
lot
of
value
to
the
existing
­­
the
relatively
8
limited
understanding
that
existed
back
in
2002
when
9
CARB
was
developing
it
is
regulations.
We
think
10
there
is
a
lot
more
information
and
that
information
11
has
been
helpful
and
we
still
think
there
is
more
12
information
that
would
be
helpful,
there
are
13
additional
data
gaps
to
fill,
and
I
think
one
of
the
14
things
I
want
to
highlight
here
is
that
programs
15
that
might
be
appropriate
for
California
we
believe
16
that
there
are
dramatically
additional
issues
that
17
rise
on
a
national
basis
both
in
terms
of
cost,
in
18
terms
of
small
business
impact,
and
in
terms
of
lead
19
time.
Because
again
there
is
a
lot
of
manufacturers
20
who
will
not
make
products
or
don't
now
for
the
21
California
market
but
they
are
dependent
on
markets
22
67
in
the
United
States.
1
If
I
could
now
go
into
the
safety
studies,
2
and
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what
I
heard
from
my
3
well­
respected
colleagues
at
CARB
this
morning,
but
4
I
have
to
say
that
the,
my
friend
Mike
Carter,
who
I
5
respect,
indicated
that
the
additional
catalyst
6
studies
that
is
being
done
with
the
Consortium
was
7
redundant.
And
I
guess
my
first
reply
to
that
is
8
you
can't
have
too
much
information
to
help
small
9
manufacturers
in
particular
design
and
test
safe
10
products.
11
I
mean
the
bottom
line
is
I
don't
know
who
12
can
disagree
that
improved
understanding
through
13
multiple
studies
can
only
improve
industry's
ability
14
to
produce
the
very
safest
products.
And
I
also
15
would
like
to
highlight
that
what
OPEI
is
doing
16
right
now,
we
had
a
constructive
meeting
with
Margo
17
and
her
staff
in
the
last
month.
We
are
trying
to
18
get
as
much
information
as
we
can
on
exactly
19
everything
EPA
did
to
better
inform
what
we
need
as
20
the
foundation
as
to
develop
our
ANSI
standards
and
21
our
first
goal
we
had,
we
had
a
meeting
on
22
68
July
11th,
is
to
best
understand
where
we
should
be
1
focusing
the
next
phase
of
the
International
2
Consortium
studies
to
make
sure
that
we
are
3
prioritizing
and
building
on
the
blocks
that
exist
4
and
going
to
the
next
level.
5
There
is
a
letter
that
we
have
a
6
compilation
of
issues
listed
and
we
appreciate
EPA
7
responded
to
most
of
our
questions.
I
know
we
have
8
maybe
six
or
seven
questions
that
are
outstanding
9
that
we
look
forward
to
getting
EPA's
response
from,
10
and
Margo
has
committed
to
give
to
OPEI
all
the
20
11
questions
that
were
submitted
in
the
May
24th
12
letter,
get
a
response
to
all
those
issues.
And
we
13
need
that
before
our
July
11th
ANSI
meeting
so
we
14
can
start
focusing,
and
some
of
the
issues
we
are
15
going
to
be
focusing
on
are
problematic
designs
like
16
V­
twin
engines
during
misfires.
And
I
am
happy
to
17
make
that
part
of
the
record,
but
these
issues
are
18
explained
more
in
our
compilation
of
issues
19
following
up
on
the
EPA
May
15th
safety
study.
20
The
bottom
line
is
there
are
certain
21
problematic
engineering
designs
like
a
V­
twin
engine
22
69
and
there
are
certain
problematic
operating
1
conditions
like
spark­
ignited
misfires
that
EPA
2
studies
did
not
fully
evaluate.
And
the
EPA
study
3
principally
focused
on
the
external
surfaces
of
the
4
outermost
guards
rather
than
the
internal
exhaust
5
gas
or
muffler
skin
temperatures.
6
The
International
Consortium
study
will
7
focus
on
those
areas
where
we
believe
and
where
our
8
members
believe,
including
the
members
that
make
9
sophisticated
equipment
models
and
exhaust
systems,
10
we
are
going
to
focus
on
expanding
the
knowledge
11
base,
looking
at
the
temperatures
of
exhaust
gases
12
and
muffler
surfaces,
through
thermocouplers
as
well
13
as
the
studies
EPA
focused
on,
and
we
are
going
to
14
look
at
the
worst
case
or
reasonable
worst
case
15
design
features
like
a
twin
engine
where
we
know
you
16
can
get
one
spark
plug
in
the
twin
starting
to
17
misfire
while
the
other,
the
engine
keeps
running
on
18
the
other
cylinder.
And
that
has
the
propensity
to
19
have
raw
fuel
dumped
into
a
catalyst
which
can,
and
20
we
have
documented,
result
in
over
2,000
degrees
21
Fahrenheit
temperatures.
22
70
OPEI
appreciates
EPA's
recent
indication
1
that
they
will
technically
participate
and
help
2
educate
us
as
we
move
to
the
second
phase
of
that
3
study.
I
should
note
that
that
study,
we
are
on
4
track,
we
have,
and
we
are
proud
of
this,
we
have
5
three
of
the
major
engine
manufacturers,
three
of
6
the
major
equipment
manufacturers,
a
major
catalyst
7
supplier
and
a
major
exhaust
system
supplier
all
8
working
together
to
develop
three
different
9
catalyzed
riding
mowers
that
reflect
mid
grade
and
10
premium
product
lines
to
be
developed
by
this
August
11
and
to
be
tested
through
the
International
12
Consortium
by
the
end
of
this
year.
13
Again,
the
next
test,
the
next
testing
14
evaluation
will
focus
on
how
the
catalyzed
V­
twins
15
and
other
challenging
designs
respond
under
all
the
16
expected
real­
world
and
off­
nominal
conditions,
17
number
one.
18
Number
two,
what
practical
safeguards
and
19
devices
can
most
effectively
mitigate
and
address
20
the
increased
heat
without
creating
additional
new
21
hazards?
22
71
In
this
regards
I,
in
my
written
1
materials,
I
have
a
one­
pager
which
includes
circled
2
quotes
from
the
very
thorough
job
done
by
the
3
National
Academy
of
Science,
and
based
on
the
input
4
from
OPEI
and
CARB
and
other
leading
experts,
I
5
would
just
like
to
quote
the
challenge,
the
6
conundrum
of
OEMs
addressing
the
different
exposures
7
of
how
do
you
protect
the
operator
to
keep
the
outer
8
surface
cool
but
at
the
same
time
not
create
a
9
system
that
contains
and
holds
the
heat
inside
the
10
muffler
system
longer
is
clearly
one
that
I
think
11
the
National
Academy
was
concerned
about.
And
I
12
will
quote,
this
is
on
page
252
of
their
report,
13
Debris
build
up
from
grass
clippings,
leaves,
and
14
other
vegetative
materials
can
become
dry
and
15
combustible
during
equipment
storage
posing
a
danger
16
when
the
equipment
is
next
used.
Some
equipment,"
17
and
I
should
note
here,
this
is
not
a
quote,
but
it
18
is
principally
what
EPA
said
in
its
safety
study,
19
might
include
shielding
devices
or
insulation
to
20
protect
against
high
surface
temperatures.
However,
21
insulation
can
prolong
cool
down
time
resulting
in
22
72
the
equipment
being
at
higher
temperatures
when
1
placed
in
storage.
2
The
point
is
the
more
heat
you
contain
to
3
protect
the
operator
it
has
got
to
go
somewhere
and
4
our
concern
is
how
do
you
make
sure
that
there
is
5
not
going
to
be
a
risk
of,
increased
risk
of
debris
6
emission
or
gasoline
fumes
being
sucked
into
a
hot
7
chamber
where
you
can
have
a
muffler
ignition.
I
am
8
going
to
enter
into
the
record
­­
other
things
that
9
surprises
me
about
CARB's
suggestion
today
in
this
10
study
there
is
a
quote
from
page
255
that
says
CARB
11
participates
in
a
preimplementation
cooperative
12
safety
study
with
manufacturers
and
fire
officials,
13
and
that
is
really
what
we
are
doing
with
the
14
Consortium
is
exactly
what
we
had
proposed
back
15
three
years
ago
to
CARB
and
EPA
and
others
and
that
16
is
to
let
us
develop
the
best
engineered
products
17
and
test
them
under
real­
world
conditions.
18
Finally,
page
3,
moving
forward,
we
want
19
to
work
with
all
the
stakeholders
from
CARB
and
EPA
20
through
the
Consortium
process
and
any
other
21
information
to
develop
performance
standards
and
22
73
procedures
that
OEMs
can
apply
to
test
and
evaluate
1
the
heat­
related
exhaust.
2
Final
slide.
3
My
final
slide
is
focusing
on
OPEI
4
continuing
to
work
constructively
with
all
the
5
stakeholders.
First
and
foremost
we
look
forward
to
6
working
with
CARB
at
all
levels
to
improve
the
OEMs.
7
We
appreciate
CARB's
allowing
that
recognition
that
8
there
is
an
inner
and
model
year
disalignment
with
9
engines
and
OEMs.
We
are
also
looking
forward
to
10
working
with
CARB
to
ensure
certification
process
11
given
the
fact
that
we
don't
believe
without
12
streamlined
and
efficient
certification
process
13
including
catalyzation
mechanisms
that
the
different
14
exhaust
systems
in
Class
II
will
get
certified
on
15
time
just
given
the
administrative
log
jam
that
will
16
occur.
17
Second,
OPEI
looks
forward
to
working
with
18
stakeholders
to
improve
the
understanding
across
the
19
board
particularly
for
our
small
OEMs
of
all
the
20
heat­
related
risks
through
the
very
valuable
21
International
Consortium
study.
22
74
Third,
based
on
that
study
and
based
on
1
the
EPA
safety
study,
we
look
forward
to
developing
2
an
ANSI
process
and
look
forward
to
having
EPA's
3
suggestions
to
develop
the
needed
heat­
related
4
documents
and
procedures.
5
Finally,
like
all
other
rules,
OPEI
looks
6
forward
to
working
with
EPA,
OMB
and
all
the
other
7
related
governmental
entities
that
will
be
involved
8
in
the
Phase
III
regulation
also.
9
Thank
you.
10
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you
very
much
11
for
your
willingness
to
slow
down.
12
I
have
a
question
for
you.
13
You
obviously
are
stating
here
that
you
14
support
the
CARB
waiver
request
for
the
Class
I,
and
15
OPEI
plans
to
conditionally
support
that.
Could
you
16
explain
a
little
bit
more
what
you
mean
by
condition
17
numbers
being
tied
specifically
very
closely
with
18
your
discussions
with
CARB.
19
MR.
GUERRY:
I
just
want
you
to
know
I
20
spoke
with
Tom
Cackette,
whom
I
admire,
and
we
both
21
have
a
good
faith
commitment
to
get
a
short
22
75
clarification
on
capturing,
he
told
me
he
talked
to
1
Tom,
to
capture
the
compliance
flexibilities
in
a
2
simple
document
that
confirms
that
the
equipment
3
manufacturers,
their
model
year
production
typically
4
starts
in
September,
and
engine
manufacturers
model
5
year
typically
don't
start
until
four
months
later,
6
January.
That
there
will
be
a
clear
written
7
statement
that
says
CARB
understands
that
in
the
8
market
it
will
be
a
normal
for
OEMs,
especially
in
9
the
phasing
years,
to
use
for
one
model
year
of
10
their
equipment
the
prior
model
year
engine.
11
That
confirmation,
all
I
am
suggesting,
is
12
that
we
get
that
done
and
we
agree
to
it
before
the
13
August
1st
deadline.
And
then
OPEI
plans
on
submit
14
comments
August
1st.
And
I
envision,
and
I
am
15
planning,
sticking
my
neck
out
a
little
bit,
I
trust
16
Tom,
both
Toms,
and
I
am
confident
we
will
be
able
17
to
do
that
and
then
we
will
be
able
to
make
comments
18
by
August
1
and
say
we
can
move
forward.
19
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
You
have
20
raised
a
couple
issues
about
the
EPA's
fire
safety
21
study.
I
am
not
the
expert
but
I
clearly
believe
22
76
that
we
have
addressed
what
you
are
calling
1
problematic
designs
like
V­
twin
engines
during
2
misfire.
I
would
suggest
we
continue
the
dialogue
3
with
your
group
on
the
remaining
issues
with
the
4
agency
and
I
will
ask
Mr.
Bill
Charmley
here
to
5
follow
up
and
make
sure
we
discuss
those
issues.
6
MR.
GUERRY:
Yes,
I
should
also
commend
7
Margo,
we
appreciate
Margo
and
Bill
and
Chet,
and
I
8
think
we
have
been
having,
I
think,
a
very
9
constructive
technical
dialogue
in
the
wake
of
the
10
meetings
and
we
have
been
getting
helpful
responses
11
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
that
process.
12
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
13
Any
questions
for
Bill?
14
MR.
DICKINSON:
Thank
you
for
the
15
conditional
support
that
you
have
provided.
I
am
16
not
sure
­­
you
mentioned
the
consistency
issue
and
17
I
just
want
to
be
on
the
record
that
there
are
no
18
current
consistent
procedures,
any
inconsistent
test
19
procedures
between
California
and
EPA.
I
think
20
California's
current
regulations,
you
are
talking
21
prospectively
or
future,
you
are
hoping
that
we
22
77
harmonize.
1
MR.
GUERRY:
I
know,
David,
the
main
point
2
here
­­
and
we
have
been
working
with
the
issue
and
3
quite
frankly
we
actually
get,
on
a
principal
4
matter,
support
from
the
technical
folks
at
CARB
and
5
EPA
and
they've
recently
said
you
should
have
a
hard
6
copy
procedure
for
facts
on
the
report
and
then
they
7
usually
say,
yes,
other
governmental
agency
should
8
modify
their
procedures
and
make
it
consistent
with
9
ours.
10
And,
you
know,
in
some
cases
our
guys,
11
they
don't
care
which
procedure,
they
just
want
to
12
have
the
ability,
and
I
am
looking
down
the
road,
in
13
the
Phase
III
evap
rule
principally,
to
be
able
to
14
make
150,
state
line,
and
where
it
is
standards
15
basically
more
or
less
harmonious,
can't
we
get
to
a
16
place
that
it
is
reciprocal?
17
There
may
be,
David,
and
I
am
not
the
guy
18
who
does
the
engines,
I
hear
grumblings
at
times
19
that
there
are
times
that,
you
know,
the
useful
life
20
period
for
example,
CARB
has
different
useful
life
21
periods
than
EPA.
So
I
think
there
are
some
things
22
78
there
that
have
to
go
through
a
different
1
reliability.
Sometimes
the
folks
are
saying,
and
2
the
label
­­
there
is
states,
there
are
different
3
designations
on
the
labels
ABC,
versus
­­
there
are
4
small
distinctions
and
when
you
try
to
work
around
5
them
on
the
current
programs,
but
it
just
seems
like
6
a
lot
of
times
the
differences
do
not
justify
the
7
substantial
expense
of
having
to
not
only
build
49
8
state
and
50
state
products,
even
where
they
are
the
9
same
you
go
through
different
­­
10
MR.
DICKINSON:
I
think
we
understand,
we
11
welcome
your
comments.
12
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
13
I
would
like
to
take
a
ten­
minute
break.
14
We
will
be
back
in
ten
minutes.
15
(
A
recess
was
taken.)
16
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Our
next
person
to
17
testify
from
Honda
Motor
Company.
18
MR.
RANEY:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
19
David
Raney.
I
am
the
senior
manager
of
20
Environmental
and
Energy
Affairs
with
American
Honda
21
Motor
Company,
Incorporated.
I
am
based
at
our
22
79
headquarters
in
Torrance,
California.
1
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
the
2
opportunity
to
comment
today
and
your
consideration
3
of
the
CARB
request
for
authorization
to
adopt
and
4
enforce
revised
small
off­
road
engine
emissions
5
regulations
in
California.
6
Initially,
three
points
that
I
will
talk
7
about
today.
We
believe
that
CARB's
request
is
8
within
all
the
scopes
of
its
requirement,
we
9
strongly
support
EPA's
granting
the
request.
And
as
10
I
will
explain,
we
also
view
that
EPA
has
met
all
11
the
requirements
that
have
been
thrown
at
it
during
12
the
past
couple
of
years
and
that
nothing
should
13
stand
in
the
way
of
EPA's
moving
forward
with
its
14
own
regulations
for
all
over
the
country.
15
I
know
you
are
aware
that
Honda
testified
16
at
the
California
Air
Resources
board
hearing
on
17
September
25,
2003,
that
we
supported
its
proposed
18
exhaust
and
evaporative
emission
standards.
We
19
publicly
stated
our
support
and
also
said
at
that
20
time
we
did
not
believe
those
standards
would
have
21
any
significant
impact
on
the
safety
of
our
22
80
future
engines
in
comparison
to
Honda's
current
1
engines
or
products.
2
We
made
that
statement
with
confidence
3
following
our
input
to
CARB
staff
in
the
2002
and
4
2003
time
frame
leading
up
to
the
board
hearing.
5
For
we
had
expressed
our
concerns
regarding
the
6
level
of
exhaust
emission
reduction
originally
7
considered.
8
CARB's
staff
recognized
and
responded
to
9
those
concerns,
which
were
not
frankly
much
10
different
than
those
expressed
by
other
industry
11
members,
and
they
subsequently
reduced
the
12
stringency
of
the
exhaust
standards
to
a
level
under
13
consideration
by
you
today.
14
We
have
a
similar
statement
of
support
in
15
the
docket
on
similar
emissions
standards
being
16
considered
federally
by
EPA.
I
have
also
forwarded
17
to
the
EPA
docket
a
copy
of
Honda's
statement
at
the
18
California
board
hearing
on
September
25,
2003.
19
A
lot
has
transpired
since
that
date.
We
20
have
all
undoubtedly
learned,
through
our
individual
21
development
programs,
a
lot
more
about
what
is
22
81
required
to
meet
the
CARB
proposed
exhaust
1
standards.
With
our
research
and
development,
Honda
2
is
convinced
even
more
today
that
the
CARB
standards
3
for
exhaust
are
technically
feasible.
We
still
4
believe
no
significant
risks
will
be
introduced
to
5
Honda
products
directly
associated
with
these
6
standards,
relative
to
today's
products.
7
Additionally,
we
believe
that
compliance
with
the
8
proposed
standards
can
be
met,
and
any
risk
managed
9
effectively
by
all
of
our
OEM
customers
in
10
partnership
with
us
through
proper
engine
11
application
guidance,
technical
evaluation,
and
good
12
engineering
judgment.
13
Associated
with
our
interest
in
reasonable
14
and
feasible
standards
similar
to
those
being
15
requested
for
authorization
today,
is
a
primary
16
interest
at
Honda
in
having
identical
unified
17
standards
established
nationwide
for
these
products.
18
This
industry,
and
Honda,
sells
products
and
engines
19
through
a
multiple
step
distribution
process
that
20
includes
domestic
and
foreign
OEM
21
equipment
manufacturers,
distributors
and
both
22
82
national
and
regional
retailers.
1
It
is
challenging
but
not
impossible
to
2
control
commerce
so
that
only
California
receives
3
the
cleanest
products.
Managing
the
production
and
4
distribution
of
engines
and
products
with
proper
5
labeling
and
emission
control
application
are
6
challenging
considering
the
complex
nature
of
this
7
industry.
With
significant
differences
between
49
8
state
and
California
emission
regulations
this
9
complexity
is
increased,
in
turn
increasing
the
10
likelihood
of
possible
mistakes
in
the
marketplace.
11
Accordingly,
we
strongly
urge
EPA
and
12
California
to
work
cooperatively
toward
a
completely
13
harmonized
standard
for
the
small
spark­
ignited
14
engine
and
equipment
category
for
the
Tier
III
and
15
Phase
III
programs
and
to
work
together
on
any
16
future
changes.
Honda
also
recognizes
that
17
California
is
not
the
only
state
or
city
in
18
the
nation
where
air
quality
would
be
improved
by
19
cleaner
small
spark­
ignited
engines
and
products.
20
Honda
will,
whenever
economically
feasible,
sell
21
engines
meeting
the
lower
California
exhaust
and
22
83
evaporative
emission
standards
to
all
50
states
1
before
there
are
even
more
stringent
EPA
federal
2
requirements.
As
soon
as
CPA
can
finalize
and
3
implement
the
federal
standard
harmonized
with
CARB
4
there
will
be
a
fair
and
equitable
playing
field
for
5
all
manufacturers
and
cleaner
air
in
the
rest
of
6
this
country.
7
With
this
said,
Honda
supports
EPA's
8
authorization
of
California
adopting
and
enforcing
9
the
new
standards
for
these
engines
and
products,
10
and
we
encourage
EPA
to
move
forward
quickly
with
11
this
authorization.
As
stated
earlier,
we
believe
12
that
identical
nationwide
standards
are
important
13
for
these
products
and
for
all
states
that
need
air
14
quality
improvements.
So
we
encourage
EPA
to
move
15
forward
as
quickly
as
possible
with
the
adoption
of
16
its
own
standards.
17
We
sincerely
hope
that
EPA
and
CARB
will
18
work
together
on
these
new
standards
being
19
considered
for
authorization
today
and
any
further
20
standards
to
ensure
that
unified
50­
state
standards
21
will
be
the
norm
for
the
future.
22
84
That
concludes
my
remarks
and
I
will
be
1
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
2
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
Any
3
questions?
4
MR.
DICKINSON:
Thank
you,
David.
5
Appreciate
you
coming
all
the
way
out
6
here.
I
know
it
has
been
a
tough
week
for
all
of
us
7
but
thank
you
for
traveling
out
today.
8
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
EPA
9
understood
the
position,
there
are
2007
and
2008
10
implemented
dates,
responsibly
suggest
that
EPA
look
11
at
March
harmonizing
our
standards
with
California
12
and
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
are
still
13
comfortable
with
the
adoption
of
the
dates
and
14
concur
with
EPA
to
authorize
those
standards.
15
MR.
RANEY:
As
far
as
the
dates,
yes,
I
16
think
we
read
between
the
lines.
Do
we
think
there
17
is
a
need
for
delay,
and
the
answer
is
no.
18
MR.
DICKINSON:
Okay.
19
MR.
RANEY:
I
think
we
would
echo
what
20
Bill
Guerry
said
earlier,
that
the
flexibility
is
21
being
clarified
by
the
ARB
management
staff
and
22
85
board
is
sending
a
strong
signal
to
us
that
1
flexibility
for
complying,
there
is
no
need
for
2
delay
in
our
minds.
3
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you,
Dave.
4
MR.
RANEY:
Thank
you.
5
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Next
is
the
6
representative
from
Kohler,
good
morning.
7
MR.
GERHARDT:
Good
morning,
I
am
Todd
8
Gerhardt,
director
of
current
product
engineering
9
for
the
Kohler
Company
Engine
business
located
in
10
Kohler,
Wisconsin.
On
behalf
of
Kohler
Engines
I
11
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
EPA's
12
request
for
input
as
they
consider
the
California
13
Air
Resources
Board
request
for
authorization
to
14
enforce
the
new
Tier
III
exhaust
and
evaporative
15
regulations.
16
As
Michael
Carter
mentioned
earlier
in
a
17
letter
to
EPA
dated
August
25th
of
2005,
Kohler
18
Company
stated
that
it
believes
that
harmonizing
19
with
CARB
Tier
III
standards,
resulting
in
a
20
50­
state
regulation,
is
in
the
best
interests
of
the
21
small
engine
industry
and
the
environment.
This
22
86
harmonization
would
also
provide
a
reasonable
1
balance
among
the
cost
increases,
environmental
2
benefits
and
technical
issues
that
may
arise
due
to
3
the
new
technologies
being
introduced
to
the
4
engines.
We
further
stated
that
Kohler
Company
is
5
confident
that
the
resulting
compliant
products
will
6
perform
safely
and
satisfactorily
in
the
7
marketplace.
8
Based
on
Kohler
Company's
development
and
9
engineering
work
completed
since
August
of
2005,
we
10
can
confirm
with
confidence
that
our
position
11
remains
the
same.
And
therefore,
Kohler
Company
12
supports
the
EPA
granting
the
waiver
for
CARB
for
13
Tier
III
emission
regulations.
14
We
recognize
that
Class
II
engines
are
15
primarily
used
in
nonintegrated
applications
in
16
which
there
are
numerous
exhaust
systems
provided
by
17
the
original
equipment
manufacturers.
18
Implementation
issues
can
arise
if
after­
treatment
19
is
used
as
the
technology
to
comply
with
the
Tier
20
III
regulation.
As
a
member
of
the
Outdoor
Power
21
Equipment
Institute,
Kohler
supports
the
ongoing
22
87
dialogue
between
OPEI
and
CARB
on
achieving
1
compliance
flexibility
for
Class
II
engines
and
2
equipment
under
the
existing
Tier
III
regulations,
3
as
long
as
the
level
playing
field
is
maintained.
4
This,
along
with
solid
OEM
relationships
and
5
cooperative
engineering,
will
provide
the
best
6
platform
to
manage
and
implement
the
required
7
changes.
8
Although
it
is
not
directly
relevant
to
9
the
waiver
hearing,
I
would
like
to
request
EPA's
10
Compliance
and
Innovative
Strategies
Division
11
require,
as
part
of
the
waiver
approval,
the
EPA
and
12
CARB
staff
work
together
to
harmonize,
to
the
13
fullest
extent
possible,
standards
and
test
14
procedures
in
the
CARB
Tier
III
and
future
EPA
Phase
15
III
regulations.
It
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
16
environment
and
the
industry
to
have
50­
state
17
standards
and
test
procedures.
Harmonized
standards
18
and
test
procedures
will
allow
all
small
engine
19
manufacturers
and
OEMs
to
focus
their
respective
20
engineering
resources
on
technology
to
meet
21
regulations,
rather
than
spend
resources
on
22
88
redundant
testing.
1
Kohler
Company
is
committed
to
2
participating
with
the
government
and
regulatory
3
agencies
in
the
development
of
responsible
4
environmental
laws
and
regulations.
As
a
5
responsible
steward
of
the
environment,
Kohler
6
Company
will
continue
to
be
creative
and
innovative
7
in
our
design,
engineering
and
manufacturing
8
efforts.
9
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
10
at
this
time.
11
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
12
Any
questions?
13
Thank
you,
and
Dave,
for
your
ongoing
14
support
for
the
last
three
years
and
your
productive
15
dialogue
and
support
you
have
given
to
our
efforts.
16
MR.
GERHARDT:
Thank
you,
it
has
been
a
17
pleasure
working
with
the
EPA
and
the
ARB.
18
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Next
the
19
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association.
20
MR.
KUBSH:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Joe
21
Kubsh,
K­
u­
b­
s­
h,
executive
director
of
the
22
89
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Control
Association,
and
I
1
am
also
pleased
to
be
here
this
morning
to
provide
2
testimony
in
support
of
ARB's
waiver
request.
3
Our
association
represents
the
world's
4
leading
manufacturers
of
emissions
control
5
technology
for
mobile
sources,
including
catalyst
6
manufacturers,
substrate
manufacturers,
exhaust
7
component
manufacturers,
and
exhaust
system
8
integrators.
And
our
members
have
extensive
9
technical
and
manufacturing
experience
with
the
safe
10
application
of
catalysts
to
a
wide
variety
of
both
11
on­
road
and
off­
road
small
displacement
12
spark­
ignited
engines
including
the
kind
of
engines
13
we
are
speaking
about
here
this
morning,
or
I
guess
14
this
afternoon.
15
MECA
believes
that
the
standards
that
ARB
16
has
put
in
place
are
technically
feasible.
One
of
17
the
reasons
that
we
can
make
that
statement
is
based
18
on
the
large
experience
base
that
exists
with
the
19
application
of
catalysts
for
small
spark­
ignited
20
engines.
Literally
tens
of
millions
of
small
21
two­
stroke
and
four­
stroke
spark­
ignited
engines
22
90
have
been
engineered,
manufactured
and
produced
with
1
catalysts
for
a
wide
variety
of
world
markets
since
2
the
early
1990s.
These
catalysts
have
proven
to
be
3
effective
and
durable,
and
all
of
these
small
engine
4
applications
that
employ
catalysts,
safe
operation
5
has
been
an
important
design
feature.
6
Next
slide.
7
This
slide
actually
speaks
in
some
8
specific
numbers
about
that
experience
with
9
catalysts
on
small
engines.
There
is
extensive
10
experience
with
hand­
held
equipment.
In
fact,
by
11
our
estimates,
four
to
five
million
pieces
of
12
catalyst
equipment,
hand­
held
equipment
was
sold
in
13
the
U.
S.
just
in
the
year
2005.
14
As
Dr.
Sawyer
and
his
ARB
team
mentioned
15
this
morning,
there
is
also
experience
on
16
nonhand­
held
equipment,
including
four­
stroke
lawn
17
mowers
that
have
been
sold
in
Europe
and
by
our
18
estimates
more
than
half
a
million
of
these
19
catalyst­
equipped
lawn
mowers
have
been
sold
in
20
Europe
since
the
late
1990s.
21
In
addition,
there
have
been
tens
of
22
91
millions
of
small
displacement
motor
scooters,
1
mopeds
and
other
small
engine
motorcycles
that
have
2
been
produced
in
catalysts
in
many
world
markets
in
3
the
last
ten
years.
4
There
are
a
wide
variety
of
catalyst
5
technologies
to
control
emissions
from
these
small
6
off­
road
engines.
In
the
next
two
slides
show
a
7
couple
pictures
of
these
kinds
of
catalyst
8
suggestions.
They
include
catalyzed
metal
9
substrates,
they
include
catalyzed
ceramic
10
substrates
and
they
include
catalyzed
exhaust
11
components,
putting
catalysts
on
nine
inner
surface
12
of
end
cones
or
applying
catalysts
to
wire
meshes
or
13
perforated
plates
that
are
incorporated
into
14
catalyzed
mufflers.
15
The
application
of
the
catalyst
in
Class
I
16
and
Class
II
engines
we
believe
is
technically
17
feasible
as
demonstrated
by
test
programs
conducted
18
by
ARB
and
EPA,
and
based
on
the
extensive
19
commercial
experience
I
spoke
of,
but
by
the
results
20
that
were
produced
in
both
the
ARB
and
EPA
test
21
programs
that
address
the
application
of
catalyst
on
22
92
these
engines.
1
Both
of
these
test
programs
ARB
and
EPA
2
showed
evidence
that
these
catalysts
can
be
applied
3
without
increasing
safety
risks
associated
with
4
exhaust
component
surface
temperatures.
And
as
I
5
stated
at
the
May
15th
ARB,
or
excuse
me,
EPA
6
workshop
in
Ann
Arbor,
we
believe
that
EPA's
test
7
program
in
particular
is
the
most
comprehensive
8
safety
study
associated
with
the
catalyst
9
applications
on
small
spark­
ignited
engines
that
has
10
been
ever
completed
to
date.
And
we
believe
that
11
they
correctly
focus
on
incremental
risks
produced
12
with
the
application
of
catalysts
to
these
small
13
engines.
14
We
also
believe
that
EPA's
and
ARB's
15
assessment
of
the
various
exhaust
catalyst
design
16
elements
that
are
available
to
control
catalyst
heat
17
release
and
surface
temperatures
are
consistent
with
18
our
members
experience
with
the
application
of
19
catalysts
to
these
kinds
of
engines.
There
are
a
20
variety
of
these
design
parameters,
include
the
21
size,
substrate
type,
precious
metal
loading
of
the
22
93
catalyst,
muffler
design,
use
of
heat
shielding,
use
1
of
passive
air
injection
and
convection
cooling.
2
All
of
these
tools
are
available
to
deal
with
not
3
only
the
emission
performance
but
the
temperature
4
profile
of
the
exhaust
systems
associated
with
these
5
small
engines.
6
ARB
and
EPA's
test
program
confirms
that
7
known
and
proven
exhaust
catalyst
design
principles
8
for
small
engines
can
be
used
to
manage
exhaust
9
temperatures
under
both
nominal
and
off­
nominal
10
conditions
without
any
incremental
increase
in
risk
11
of
fire
or
burns
compared
to
uncatalyzed
systems.
12
Integration
of
catalysts
into
small
engine
13
mufflers
utilized
uncomplicated
manufacturing
14
techniques
that
should
allow
for
the
design
and
15
validation
of
compliant
engines
within
the
lead
time
16
provided
by
the
ARB
regulations.
17
We
also
believe
that
the
catalyst
18
applications
are
cost
effective,
and
we
provided
19
information
to
ARB
back
in
April
of
2003,
with
our
20
own
estimate
of
what
catalysts
for
both
Class
I
and
21
Class
II
engines
would
cost
to
comply
with
22
94
California's
Tier
III
requirement,
and
our
estimates
1
were
at
that
time
that
for
Class
I
engines
the
cost
2
of
catalyst
would
be
in
the
range
of
$
1.50
to
$
2.50
3
per
horsepower,
and
for
Class
II
engines
in
the
4
range
of
$
2.00
to
$
3.50
per
horsepower.
5
Finally,
I
would
like
to
conclude
by
6
saying
Mecca
supports
the
current
request
by
ARB
for
7
this
waiver,
we
believe
these
standards
are
8
technically
feasible,
and
that
catalysts
can
be
9
applied
to
these
engines
in
a
safe
manner.
10
Thank
you
for
your
attention.
I
would
be
11
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
12
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
13
Any
questions?
14
Thank
you
very
much.
15
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
we
hear
16
from
­­
back
to
the
airport?
17
MR.
KUBSH:
Actually
back
to
Amtrak
but
I
18
appreciate
the
opportunity.
19
MR.
SKELTON:
My
name
is
Eric
Skelton.
I
20
am
a
senior
policy
analyst
with
NESCAUM,
which
is
21
the
Northeast
States
for
Coordinated
Air
Use
22
95
management.
NESCAUM
is
the
Clean
Air
Association
1
that
serves
the
eight
northeast
states
in
developing
2
policies
and
providing
information
and
technical
3
support
for
states
efforts
to
provide
clean
air
for
4
their
citizens.
5
I
am
here
today
to
support
California's
6
request
for
authorization
to
enforce
its
state
7
emissions
standards
for
small
off­
road
engines.
And
8
my
testimony
was
going
to
be
brief
anyway,
and
now
9
it
is
going
to
be
even
more
brief
because
a
lot
of
10
what
I
was
going
to
say
has
already
been
covered
11
today.
12
So
I
was
going
to
talk
about
the
Clean
Air
13
Act
a
little
bit
and
narrow
the
focus
in
the
act,
14
that
EPA
must
look
at
in
considering
a
waiver,
but
15
that
has
already
been
talked
about
by
Ms.
Oge
and
16
Mr.
Jennings
and
others
so
I
won't
go
into
that.
17
We
believe
that
California
meets
all
of
18
the
prescribed
tests
and
should
receive
expeditious
19
authorization
from
EPA
to
enforce
these
standards.
20
California
has
gone
through
its
own
21
rule­
making
procedures
which
you
have
already
heard
22
96
about
today
from
Mr.
Carter
and
from
others,
so
I
1
won't
elaborate
on
that.
2
California
is
once
again
leading
the
3
nation,
setting
stringent
limits
for
a
significant
4
emissions
category,
and
clearly
these
standards
will
5
be
more
health
protective
than
current
federal
6
standards
and
will
serve
as
a
model
for
subsequent
7
federal
efforts
to
address
emissions
nationally
in
8
the
same
category.
9
And
I
was
also
going
to
make
the
point
10
about
this
is
not
new
technology,
it
is
out
there
11
and
in
use,
but
others
have
made
that
point
already.
12
I
did
want
to
offer
one
quote,
though,
and
13
this
was
from
ARB's
August
2004
revised
final
14
statement
of
reasons
as
part
of
the
rule­
making
15
process
that
I
thought
was
very
compelling.
They
16
say
in
their
report,
"
External
heat
management
17
issues
are
not
new.
Every
engine
that
has
been
18
equipped
with
a
catalytic
converter
starting
in
1975
19
when
the
device
was
first
applied
to
passengers
cars
20
had
to
address
the
issue
of
increased
exhaust
system
21
temperatures
and
concerns
of
potential
burns
and
22
97
fires.
The
engineering
techniques
to
deal
with
1
these
hot
surfaces
also
continue
to
progress
but
2
they
are
straight
forward,
reduce
the
heat
load,
3
insulate
the
heat
source,
isolate
the
heat
source,
4
and
actively
cool."
5
We
are
confident
that
the
engine
equipment
6
manufacturers
will
be
able
to
address
the
challenge
7
of
hot
surfaces
using
similar
approaches
as
others
8
who
have
faced
the
same
challenges
three
decades
9
ago.
10
And
then
of
course
EPA
has
done
its
own
11
study
as
well,
and
frankly,
I
was
a
bit
surprised
12
that
as
part
of
this
process
that
the
safety
issues
13
were
going
to
be
heard
once
again,
it
is
kind
of
14
like
the
third
bite
at
the
apple.
I
think
ARB
has
15
done
a
very
effective
job
of
addressing
the
safety
16
issues,
I
think
the
EPA
study,
and
incidentally
I
17
attended
the
hearing
in
Ann
Arbor
in
May,
was
very
18
comprehensive.
And
so
I
think
those
issues
have
19
been
addressed
and
it
is
time
to
move
on.
20
So,
some
of
you
may
be
wondering,
though,
21
why
the
northeast
states
care
whether
California
is
22
98
authorized
to
enforce
its
state
standards
especially
1
considering
that
the
opportunity
for
other
states
to
2
operate
into
these
standards
was
taken
away
by
3
recent
federal
legislation.
4
But
I
would
like
to
point
out
just
a
5
couple
of
reasons
as
to
why
this
is
important
to
the
6
northeast
states.
And
first
of
all,
federal
7
regulations
that
will
reduce
emissions
nationally
in
8
the
same
engine
categories
are
long
overdue.
We
9
expect
that
if
there
were
to
be
a
finding
against
10
California's
regulations
that
that
would
have
a
11
negative
effect
on
EPA
moving
forward
with
Phase
III
12
federal
regulations,
thus
further
postponing
the
13
emissions
benefits
that
can
be
realized
through
the
14
regulations.
So
it
is
important
to
us
that
that
15
federal
process
be
completed
expeditiously.
16
And
then
I
was
going
to
quote
a
statement
17
that
Todd
Gerhardt
from
Kohler
made
at
the
May
18
hearing
but
Mr.
Gerhardt
and
Mr.
Raney
from
Honda
19
have
really
kind
of
made
the
same
point
again
today
20
and
that
is
they
are
calling
for
a
harmonization
of
21
standards
between
EPA
and
California.
22
99
Therefore,
I
would
expect
the
federal
1
standards
ultimately
to
mirror
the
California
2
standards,
and
if
there
were
to
be
a
finding
by
the
3
EPA
against
the
California
standards,
the
adverse
4
impact
that
that
may
have
on
the
stringency
of
those
5
standards
would
also
affect
the
ultimate
stringency
6
of
the
federal
standards,
and
so
for
those
reasons
I
7
think
it
is
important
to
all
states
that
EPA
grant
8
California
its
authorization
to
enforce
state
9
standards.
10
I
would
like
to
close
with
just
a
few
11
statistics.
EPA
estimates
there
are
over
52,000,000
12
residential
and
commercial
walk­
behind
lawn
mowers
13
and
ride­
on
garden
and
turf
equipment
in
use
in
the
14
U.
S.
today.
In
New
Jersey,
which
is
one
of
the
15
NESCAUM
states,
small
spark­
ignition
engines
16
collectively
emit
136
tons
of
hydrocarbon
on
a
17
summer
day.
This
accounts
for
just
over
ten
percent
18
of
the
statewide
summer
day
hydrocarbon
emissions
19
contributing
to
smog
formation.
20
The
NESCAUM
states
need
emission
21
reductions
from
this
very
large
source
category
as
22
100
part
of
the
regional
ozone
attainment
strategy.
We
1
urge
EPA
to
take
the
important
first
step
of
2
authorizing
California
to
enforce
its
state
3
standards
and
then
move
expeditiously
to
adopt
4
similar
federal
standards.
5
Thank
you,
and
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
6
any
questions.
7
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
8
Any
questions?
9
MR.
DICKINSON:
Thank
you.
10
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you
very
much.
11
Now
we
will
hear
from
the
American
Lung
12
Association.
13
MR.
EARLY:
Good
afternoon,
I
am
Blakeman
14
Early.
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
the
American
Lung
15
Association.
16
American
Lung
Association
supports
the
17
request
of
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.
18
These
regulations
follow
in
a
long
series
of
19
regulations
of
motor
vehicles
and
their
fuels
that
20
have
been
adopted
by
CARB
over
the
past
two
decades
21
that
have
consistently
exceeded
federal
requirement,
22
101
the
resulting
additional
emissions
reductions
have
1
contributed
significantly
to
reducing
ozone
and
2
particulate
levels
in
California,
but
just
as
3
importantly
many
of
these
regulations
have
promoted
4
changes
in
emissions
control
technology,
engine
5
design,
and
fuel
formulation
that
have
been
adopted
6
by
regulation
in
other
states
and
by
EPA
to
help
7
reduce
air
pollution
and
protect
public
health
8
nationwide.
9
The
authorizing
of
the
small
off­
road
10
exhaust
and
evaporative
emissions
regulations
under
11
Section
209(
e)
will
allow
this
highly
successful
12
process
to
be
extended
to
a
relatively
unregulated
13
sector
of
emissions
compared
to
motor
vehicles.
For
14
instance,
running
a
lawnmower
for
an
hour
without
15
the
subject
regulations
generates
approximately
the
16
same
amount
of
hydrocarbons
and
NOx
emissions
as
17
driving
13
motor
vehicles
with
California
Air
18
Resources
Board
equipment
required
in
2006
model
19
year.
According
to
CARB,
the
application
of
the
20
subject
regulations
will
achieve
an
estimated
21
reduction
in
hydrocarbon
emissions
of
18.5
tons
per
22
102
day
statewide
in
2010
and
a
reduction
of
NOx
of
1
approximately
3.2
tons
per
day.
And
that
level
of
2
emission
reductions
doubles
by
the
year
2020,
as
3
Dr.
Sawyer
presented
in
his
presentation.
4
We
believe
these
reductions
are
sorely
5
needed
to
meet
compelling
and
extraordinary
6
circumstances
that
threaten
public
health
in
7
California.
The
American
Lung
Association
recently
8
released
its
annual
State
of
the
Air:
2006
report
9
assessing
air
pollution
levels
nationwide.
Once
10
again
California
contained
more
areas
with
high
11
levels
of
air
pollution
than
any
other
state.
12
Indeed,
six
of
ten
most
ozone
polluted
cities
are
13
found
in
California.
In
addition
eight
of
ten
14
counties
most
polluted
by
long­
term
particle
15
pollution
in
our
study
were
found
in
California.
16
It
is
well
known
that
air
pollution
17
affects
children
and
adults
with
lung
disease
and
18
other
vulnerable
people
first
and
most
19
significantly.
It
is
estimated
that
these
top
ten
20
polluted
areas
in
California
are
home
to
over
21
500,000
children
with
asthma,
over
750,000
adults
22
103
with
asthma,
and
500,000
adults
with
chronic
1
bronchitis
and
emphysema.
In
addition,
an
estimated
2
3,000,000
with
cardiovascular
disease
and
500,000
3
with
diabetes
live
in
these
areas.
And
there
are
of
4
course
many
other
areas
in
California
with
high
5
levels
of
air
pollution.
California
has
28
counties
6
with
monitors
that
measured
many
days
of
unhealthy
7
levels
of
ozone
or
particle
pollution
or
both.
8
It
is
clear
that
while
California
has
made
9
important
progress
in
reducing
air
pollution,
much
10
more
needs
to
be
done
to
protect
the
public
health.
11
The
small
off­
road
exhaust
and
evaporative
emissions
12
standards
adopted
by
CARB
will
make
a
significant
13
additional
contribution
to
an
ongoing
effort
to
14
obtain
more
emission
reductions
from
more
sources.
15
It
is
also
clear
that
these
regulations
are
16
consistent
with
the
regulations
previously
17
authorized
under
Section
209(
e)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
18
and
we
urge
EPA
to
confirm
the
authorization
of
19
these
regulations.
20
That
concludes
my
remarks,
I
will
be
happy
21
to
answer
any
questions.
22
104
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
1
Any
questions?
2
Thank
you
very
much.
3
MR.
EARLY:
Thank
you.
4
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Now
I
will
ask
Clean
5
Air,
would
you
come
forward?
6
MR.
O'DONNELL:
Thank
you
very
much.
My
7
name
is
Frank
O'Donnell,
and
I
am
president
of
Clean
8
Air
Watch,
which
is
a
nonpartisan,
nonprofit
clean
9
air
watchdog
group.
And
I
thank
you
very
much
for
10
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
Thank
you
for
your
11
persistence
in
proceeding
with
this
despite
all
the
12
bad
weather
and
other
things
we
have
had
this
week.
13
Aside
from
the
fact
that
California
has
14
met
all
the
appropriate
legal
requirements
to
obtain
15
this
waiver,
there
are
two
very
big
simple
reasons
16
why
EPA
should
grant
this
waiver.
One
is
the
small
17
engines
are
big
sources
of
pollution
and
they
can
18
harm
people's
health.
California
kids
would
have
19
fewer
asthma
attacks
and
fewer
emergency
room
visits
20
with
these
standards
take
effect.
21
Second,
this
is
the
a
state's
right
issue.
22
105
By
law
California
has
the
right
to
protect
its
1
citizens
from
dirty
air.
And
it
should
be
permitted
2
to
exercise
that
right.
3
On
the
first
point,
as
you
know
smog
is
a
4
serious
public
health
problem.
It
can
cause
asthma
5
attacks
among
children
and
adults,
send
people
to
6
emergency
rooms,
reduce
a
person's
lung
capacity
and
7
it
has
even
been
linked
to
premature
death.
8
And
as
you
have
heard
earlier
today,
small
9
engines
are
an
increasingly
large
part
of
the
smog
10
problem.
11
I
was
struck
by
the
statistics
that
12
California
officials
came
up
with
that
on
a
13
106
gallon­
for­
gallon
basis
small
engines
pump
out
93
1
times
more
smog
forming
emissions
than
new
cars
do
2
today.
That
is
a
shocking
statistic.
And
as
we
3
know
as
cars
get
cleaner
and
cleaner
small
engines
4
are
becoming
a
bigger
part
of
the
remaining
5
pollution
problem.
6
I
believe
these
standards
are
absolutely
7
necessary
for
California
to
make
needed
progress
8
towards
meeting
national
health
standards
for
ozone.
9
These
standards
are
needed
to
meet
compelling
and
10
extraordinary
conditions,
and
I
think
that
is
one
of
11
the
legal
tests
at
stake
here.
12
And
on
my
second
point
where
about
the
13
state's
rights
things,
in
the
past
EPA
has
granted
14
waivers
to
permit
California
to
set
better
standards
15
for
motor
vehicles
including
cars,
SUVs
and
trucks,
16
and
the
same
thing
should
happen
here.
17
Now
in
the
course
of
EPA's
review
of
18
issues
related
to
this
issue,
questions
have
been
19
raised
about
safety
and
indeed
EPA
was
given
the
20
direction
to
give,
quote,
appropriate
consideration
21
to
safety
factors.
We
have
long
believed
this
is
a
22
107
total
red
herring,
a
phony
argument
concocted
by
a
1
politically
wired,
special
interest
polluter
that
2
apparently
would
rather
spend
money
on
lobbyists
and
3
lawyers
than
on
pollution
controls
that
would
4
improve
people's
health.
Perhaps
that
polluter
is
5
just
afraid
to
compete
with
other
engine
companies
6
such
as
Kohler
and
Honda
who
have
reiterated
today
7
that
they
can
meet
these
standards
without
8
compromising
safety.
9
We
believe
that
EPA
has
indeed
given
10
appropriate
consideration
to
this
issue
and
put
that
11
red
herring
to
rest
in
its
March
2006
report
on
12
safety
which
concluded
that
compliance
with
the
13
anticipated
emission
standards
could
somewhat
reduce
14
the
risk
to
consumers,
so
cleaner
air
and
safer
15
engines
is
a
win­
win.
16
So
let
me
conclude
with
just
one
simple
17
thought.
Please
grant
this
waiver
so
that
18
California
can
do
the
responsible
thing
that
its
19
governor
and
its
air
pollution
control
officials
are
20
trying
to
do,
and
that
is
to
protect
its
citizens
21
from
dirty
air.
In
the
words
of
the
immortal
Larry
22
108
the
Cable
Guy,
"
Git
'
er
done."
1
Thank
you
very
much.
2
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
3
Any
questions?
No,
thank
you.
4
I
believe
the
last
one
to
testify
is
­­
5
MR.
BECKER:
STAPPA/
ALAPCO.
First
my
name
6
is
Bill
Becker.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
7
S­
T­
A­
P­
P­
A
and
ALAPCO,
A­
L­
A­
P­
C­
O,
which
are
two
8
national
associations
of
clean
air
agencies
around
9
the
country.
We
represent
54
states
and
territories
10
and
over
165
major
metropolitan
areas
around
the
11
country.
12
Now
I
am
prepared
to
speak
for
probably
13
50
minutes,
but
I
hear
some
stomachs
rumbling
so
I
14
will
speak
for
about
two
minutes
then.
15
MR.
DICKINSON:
You
are
welcome
to
submit
16
anything
you
like
for
the
written
record.
17
MR.
BECKER:
And
I
think
I
have
submitted
18
a
statement.
19
I
first
want
to
echo
what
many
have
said
20
this
morning,
what
the
California
Air
Resources
21
Board
has
said,
eloquently,
and
has
said
with
22
109
complete
significance
backing
up
legal
and
technical
1
information.
And
I
want
to
applaud
the
industry
who
2
have
shown
leadership
and
have
come
forward
and
have
3
supported
the
approval
of
the
California
waiver
4
because
I
think
that
is,
that
shows
real
leadership,
5
not
just
by
California
but
by
the
industry
who
6
thinks
that
they
can
live
with
this
and
we
really
7
appreciate
that.
8
I
was
prepared
in
my
written
statement
to
9
get
into
why
EPA
should
grant
this
waiver
for
10
California,
but
I
can't
improve
upon
what
Dr.
Sawyer
11
and
his
staff
have
said
so
I
won't
even
try.
12
But
I
do
want
to
underscore
why
granting
13
this
waiver
is
so
important
because
that
is
the
14
first
step
of
what
states
and
localities
around
the
15
country
believe
is
an
equally
important
second
step,
16
and
that
is
to
expeditiously
propose
and
finalize
a
17
national
regulation
that
will
help
the
rest
of
the
18
country
reduce
emissions
of
smog­
forming
emissions
19
and
fog­
forming
particulates.
And
as
has
been
20
mentioned
earlier
by
Frank
O'Donnell
and
Blake
21
Early,
these
conditions
are
contributing
to
22
110
respiratory
illness
and
even
premature
mortality.
1
Oftentimes
we
who
are
technicians
talk
2
about
nonattainment
areas
and
talk
about
all
of
3
these
technical
issues
and
we
need
to
step
back
and
4
understand
what
this
means
in
terms
of
public
5
health.
What
this
means
in
terms
of
people's
6
quality
of
life.
And
that
is
enormously
important.
7
Now,
the
reason
that
it
is
important
to
8
grant
California
its
waiver
is
as
a
first
step,
is
9
because
as
has
been
mentioned,
and
I
can't
not
10
reinforce
this
issue,
the
state
was
stripped
of
11
their
authority
to
opt
into
California
standards
two
12
years
ago
and
there
are
still
some
very
13
disappointing
agencies
who
have
borne
the
brunt
of
14
that
amendment
that
stripped
them
of
their
15
authority.
The
only
thing
the
state
had
left
was
16
hope
that
EPA
would
issue
a
national
rule,
a
quid
17
pro
quo
for
stripping
states
authority
in
a
timely
18
manner.
And
as
has
been
mentioned,
EPA's
19
requirement
to
propose
those
regulations
was
20
18
months
ago
and
counting.
And
while
California
21
hopefully
will
get
its
waiver
authority
quickly,
the
22
111
states
are
still
waiting
for
the
Environmental
1
Protection
Agency
to
act
and
to
provide
them
with
2
the
regulatory
tools
that
they
need
to
reduce
these
3
emissions.
4
And,
I
want
to
put
this
into
some
more
5
national
perspective.
Eric
Skelton
did
for
NESCAUM
6
but
let
me
put
this
into
more
stark
terms.
These
7
emissions
from
the
sources
we
are
talking
about
8
today
represent
50
percent
in
the
year
2020,
five­
oh
9
percent
of
the
total
emissions
inventory
from
10
nonroad
engines.
These
are
huge,
that
is
a
huge
11
impact.
And
15
percent
of
the
total
motor
vehicle
12
inventory
in
2020.
And
that
is
significant.
13
You
ask
why
is
it
so
high?
And
that
is
14
because
to
the
EPA's
credit,
Margo,
to
your
agency's
15
credit,
particularly
to
you,
you
have
been
16
tremendously
successful
all
of
you
in
helping
bring
17
down
emissions
from
fuels
and
other
important
air
18
pollution
problems
and
I
think
you
deserve
a
lot
of
19
credit
for
that.
20
So
what
we
are
asking
is
that
you
take
21
quick
action
to
adopt
California's
waiver,
and
that
22
112
you
immediately
thereafter
develop
a
role
1
commensurate
with
the
successful
emissions
reduction
2
strategies
you
have
been
successful
for
in
all
of
3
the
other
motor
vehicle
standards,
at
least
as
4
stringent
as
what
California
is
doing.
We
feel
you
5
have
answered
ever
safety
issue,
we
feel
you
have
­­
6
California
has
answered
every
technical
and
legal
7
issue.
And
thank
you
for
your
attention.
8
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
9
Now,
I
should
ask
­­
are
there
any
closing
10
remarks,
any
rebuttal?
Any
statements,
Mr.
Sawyer?
11
MR.
SAWYER:
Let
me
say
that
I
am
just
12
delighted
to
be
here
and
I
certainly
appreciate
the
13
support
we
have
received
from
our
sister
agencies
14
and
from
the
industry
which
is
effective.
It
is
not
15
usual
that
we
get
such
strong
support
from
the
16
industry
and
I
think
that
is
a
credit
to
my
staff
17
who
has
been
working
with
them,
and
once
again
I
ask
18
you
to
approve
our
waiver
request.
19
If
there
are
questions
I
can
answer
them
20
at
this
time.
21
DIRECTOR
MARGO
OGE:
Thank
you.
22
113
We
are
closing
this
public
hearing,
I
want
1
to
thank
everybody
for
attending.
I
would
remind
2
everybody
that
the
comments
will
be
remain
open
3
until
August
1st.
4
The
agency
intends
to
move
forward
5
reviewing
the
comments
presented
today
in
evaluating
6
the
California
waiver,
and
also
in
response
to
7
comments
made
by
EPA's
federal
standard
agency
it
8
believes
we
are
committed
to
have
the,
have
it
9
finished
at
the
federal
level.
With
that,
thank
you
10
very
much.
11
(
Whereupon,
at
12:
37
p.
m.
the
public
12
meeting
was
concluded.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
114
CERTIFICATE
OF
NOTARY
PUBLIC
&
REPORTER.
1
2
I,
DONALD
R.
THACKER,
the
officer
before
whom
the
3
foregoing
deposition
was
taken,
do
hereby
certify
4
that
the
witness
whose
testimony
appears
in
the
5
foregoing
deposition
was
duly
sworn;
that
the
6
testimony
of
said
witness
was
taken
in
shorthand
and
7
thereafter
reduced
to
typewriting
by
me
or
under
my
8
direction;
that
said
deposition
is
a
true
record
of
9
the
testimony
given
by
said
witness;
that
I
am
10
neither
counsel
for,
related
to,
nor
employed
by
any
11
of
the
parties
to
the
action
in
which
this
12
deposition
was
taken;
and,
further,
that
I
am
not
a
13
relative
or
employee
of
any
attorney
or
counsel
14
employed
by
the
parties
hereto,
nor
financially
or
15
otherwise
interested
in
the
outcome
of
this
action.
16
17
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
18
Notary
Public
in
and
for
the
19
District
of
Columbia
20
21
My
Commission
Expires:
MAY
14,
2011
22