MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD BOARD HEARING ROOM 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1998 9:30 A.M. Vicki L. Ogelvie, C.S.R. License No. 7871 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii MEMBERS PRESENT Barbara Riordan, Chairperson John D. Dunlap, III Joseph C. Calhoun Mark DeSaulnier Dr. William Friedman Lynne T. Edgerton Barbara Patrick Ron Roberts Staff: Michael Kenny, Executive Director Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Jim Schoning, Ombudsman PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii I N D E X --o0o-- Page Proceedings 1 Call to Order 1 Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Opening remarks by Chairperson Riordan 1 AGENDA ITEMS: Open Session to Provide an Opportunity for Members of the Public to Address the Board on Subject Matters within the Jurisdiction of the Board Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 6 Presentation by Steve Bimson of Pearson Ford, re: Regional Transportation Center 7 98-13-4 Public Meeting to Consider Research Proposals Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 25 Staff Presentation: John Holmes 25 98-11-4 Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to the State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide - Continuation from the October 22, 1998 Board Meeting Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 31 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 31 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv I N D E X (Continued) --o0o-- Page 98-13-1 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of ARB Modifications to ARB Method 310 to include the Determination of Low Vapor Pressure-Volatile Organic Compounds (LVP-VOC) in Consumer Products and Amendments to the Definition and Test Method Sections of the California Regulations to include the Determination of Low Vapor Pressure-Volatile Organic Compounds (LVP-VOC) in Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 34 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 35 Wendy Howard 36 Jim Schoning 43 Public Comment: Douglas Fratz 45 Scott Christensen 47 Janet Catanach 50 98-13-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coatings, Antiperspirants and Deodorants and Consumer Products Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 56 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 57 Paul Milkey 60 Kathleen Meade 67 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v I N D E X (Continued) --o0o-- Page Public Comment: Ken Trautwein 69 Bob Graham 77 Ron Ashby 79 98-13-3 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Certification Procedures for all Aftermarket Part and Conversion Systems for Off-Road Vehicles, Engines and Equipment Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 89 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 90 Subhadra Nathan 91 Nancy Steel 100 Public Comment: Paul Maurer 102 Michael Block 116 Terry Ellis 120 William Bergman 123 Robert Shepherd 125 98-13-5 Public Meeting to Consider an Update of the ICAT Program Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 133 Staff Presentation: Mike Scheible 133 Tony Andreoni 134 Robert Barham, Ph.D. 137 Manjit Ahuja 138 Closed Session, Litigation 140 Afternoon Session 141 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi I N D E X (Continued) --o0o-- Page Adjournment 141 Certificate of Reporter 142 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Good morning. I would like 4 to call the meeting to order. 5 This is the meeting of the California Air Resources 6 Board, it is November 19. 7 As is our custom, I would like to ask for the 8 Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Dr. Friedman. 9 Would you all rise, please. 10 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) 11 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Dr. Friedman. 12 Now, I would like to ask the Clerk to the Board to 13 call the roll. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: Joseph Calhoun. 15 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 16 MS. HUTCHENS: Mark DeSAULNIER. 17 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 18 MS. HUTCHENS: John Dunlap. 19 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Here. 20 MS. HUTCHENS: Lynn Edgerton. 21 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Here. 22 MS. HUTCHENS: Dr. Friedman. 23 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Here. 24 MS. HUTCHENS: Barbara Patrick. 25 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 MS. HUTCHENS: Ron Roberts. 2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 3 MS. HUTCHENS: Barbara Riordan. 4 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Here. 5 The First Item today, we are going to adjust the 6 Agenda a bit, again, in consideration of some timing we have 7 on behalf of Board Members and the need for quorum and for 8 votes. 9 So, I am going to, with the indulgence of the 10 Board, ask that we move some items, and I thought that I 11 would read them off to you so you will know that the first 12 item is going to be Open Comment Period, and the second will 13 be Research Proposals, and the SIP Revision will be the 14 third, Consumer Products fourth and Aerosol Coatings, 15 etcetera, fifth, sixth, Aftermarket Parts and Seventh, the 16 ICAT Update, and then we will do a Closed Session. 17 But it gives me great pleasure as the Acting 18 Chairman this morning to do something, and I am going to 19 present a Resolution to our Chairman Emeritus, and the joke 20 last night was, and it is an in-house joke, if you will give 21 me a minute, Mr. Chairman. 22 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I will take a minute. 23 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Now, I am going to do this 24 from my seat, if you do not mind. 25 I read better when I am seated I have decided. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: I will hover. 2 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Oh, you want to hover? 3 He is so good, he stands. 4 This is a Resolution from the Air Resources Board, 5 and it says: 6 Whereas, John D. Dunlap, III, was appointed by Pete 7 Wilson, in December of 1994, as a Member of the California 8 Air Resources Board and to serve as Chairman of the Board; 9 Whereas, John's appointment was unanimously 10 confirmed by the California State Senate in September of 1995 11 with the strong support of California's business and 12 environmental communities; 13 Whereas, John had previously demonstrated his 14 commitment to the environmental protection by serving as a 15 Public Advisor at the South Coast Air Quality Management 16 District and as Chief Deputy Director at the California 17 Department of Toxic Substances Control; 18 Whereas, John served with distinction as Chairman 19 of the Air Resources Board for four years, during which time 20 he worked with the Board's various stakeholder groups to 21 build a consensus for strategies to improve California's air 22 quality while remaining sensitive to the needs of its 23 economy; 24 Whereas, John enhanced California's position as the 25 world leader in improving air quality by heading the Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 and its staff during the implementation of the State 2 Implementation Plan, the Low Emission Vehicle and Cleaner 3 Burning Gasoline Program and the amendments to Zero Emission 4 Vehicle Regulation, the development of the Low Emission 5 Vehicle 2 Regulation and numerous other air quality 6 initiatives involving heavy duty diesel trucks and fuel, 7 Off-road equipment, lawn and garden equipment, consumer 8 products and environmental technology; 9 Whereas, John represented the State of California 10 in its work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to 11 ensure a smooth implementation of the Federal Fine 12 Particulate Standard and to improve integration of the 13 Federal Air Permitting and Toxic Programs with California's 14 Programs; 15 Whereas, John supported crafting progressive air 16 quality programs that require the regulated community to meet 17 high environmental standards but gave them the flexibility to 18 determine for themselves the most cost-effective ways to meet 19 those standards;. 20 Whereas, John placed renewed emphasis on the 21 Board's efforts to educate and inform the public about the 22 hazards of air pollution, the importance of pollution 23 prevention and the benefits of improved air quality; 24 Whereas, John has conducted the Board's business in 25 an atmosphere of congenitally, trust and respect for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 individual stakeholders and staff members; 2 Now, therefore, it be resolved that the Air 3 Resources Board expresses its heartfelt appreciation to John 4 for his four years of leadership on the Board and service to 5 the People of California as their principal advocate for 6 clean and healthful air. 7 It is signed by all of us, Mr. Dunlap, on this day, 8 and we wish you the best and hope this Resolution hangs 9 proudly in your new office. 10 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: It will. 11 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: You may have one minute, 12 except, let me have one more minute. 13 Mr. Cackette or Mr. Kenny said yesterday some very 14 important things. What was the tonnage that we accredited to 15 this gentleman for his tenure on the Board that we are so 16 proud of? 17 MR. KENNY: During John's tenure, the Board has 18 adopted regulatory programs that have resulted in the 19 reduction of 301 tons per day of hydrocarbons and NOx, or if 20 we put that in an annual basis, that is 110,000 tons per year 21 for each of the four years that John was the Chairman of the 22 Board, and that goes out in perpetuity. 23 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: We think that is pretty 24 important. 25 Now you may have your minute, Mr. Dunlap. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Can you hear me okay? 2 Is it on? 3 It is a humbling experience not to be there with 4 the controls, I can assure you that. 5 Thank you for the kindness as expressed in this 6 Resolution. I have been getting far too much attention for 7 my role here, but it has been a pleasure to be part of the 8 Board as Chairman, and I am grateful for the Governor leaving 9 me on the Board until the end of his tenure. 10 So, I am looking forward to behaving myself here as 11 a Member and letting you do your job, Madam Chairman. 12 Thank you. It has been a lot of fun, and I am 13 grateful for that. 14 The tons, Mike, that is a very nice statistic. I 15 appreciate you coming up with that. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. We are 17 delighted that you are here, too. 18 I do not have any other person wishing to speak 19 under public comment. 20 Is there anyone? 21 Seeing no one, we will move on to our next -- 22 pardon me. There is. 23 Of course there is a public comment. Of course. It 24 is a well-organized public comment, too. 25 Let me move back to that item, and ask Mr. Kenny to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 introduce it. 2 Actually, I was going to give it more credibility 3 than just public comment. It is a very special presentation. 4 MR. KENNY: This is a special presentation, so I do 5 want to thank you. 6 The Regional Transportation Center being discussed 7 by Mr. Bimson today will provide the opportunity to the 8 general public to drive alternative fuel vehicles, and we 9 will include an educational facility that emphasizes the 10 benefits of these vehicles. 11 It is important to recognize that despite the many 12 benefits of alternative fuel vehicles, they face an uphill 13 battle against gasoline powered vehicles that dominate the 14 current market place. 15 I believe a Center such as the one Ford is 16 proposing here today is the first step toward equity in the 17 market place for these vehicles. 18 I sincerely hope that this Center is first of many 19 of its kind, and these Centers help to bring alternative fuel 20 vehicles into the mainstream. 21 I believe these vehicles will not only benefit air 22 quality but also have the potential to provide economic 23 benefits to our State through advanced technology development 24 and global benefits through fuel diversification and reduced 25 greenhouse gas emissions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 I want to commend Pearson Ford and the Ford Motor 2 Company on their efforts on helping this Center. 3 Now, I would like to introduce Mr. Steve Bimson, of 4 Pearson Ford, who will fill us in on the details of this 5 unique idea. 6 Mr. Bimson. 7 MR. BIMSON: I am happy to be here to talk to you 8 about a project that brings great opportunities to all of us 9 who are all involved. 10 The Regional Transportation Center, better known as 11 the RTC, the RTC will be located in San Diego, at the corner 12 of El Cajon Boulevard and the soon to be completed 13 Interstate-15, making it visible by an estimated 160,000 14 travelers in a given 24-hour period. 15 As presently conceived, the RTC is a total service 16 center designed for AFV owners and potential owners. It will 17 occupy over 1.5 acres and is comprised of a number of very 18 important components; an education center, an AFV showroom, a 19 rental-demo operation, an AFV repair center and an AFV 20 fueling center. 21 The most exciting and revolutionary aspect of this 22 project is the education center. This part of the project is 23 very near and dear to my heart. 24 It will be designed to attract 35,000 middle and 25 high school students each year and will focus on teaching the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 latest in clean fuel technology. 2 The education center will also be utilized by the 3 higher education institutions in the San Diego region. All 4 new technology needs a strong educational base in order to be 5 accepted, so the educational process will be broken down into 6 a three-phase process. 7 First, preparation at school determined by a 8 curriculum presently being designed by the San Diego County 9 Office of Education, with input from Miramar College and 10 other colleges in the region. 11 Then a field trip to visit the RTC, and to start 12 the clean fuel experience, students will be transported in a 13 compressed natural gas bus. 14 The San Diego County Board of Education oversees 43 15 school districts in the San Diego region, which provides 16 education to over 215,000 middle and high school students. 17 Our program is administered by the Office of 18 Outdoor Education as a field trip. 19 Let me tell you a little bit about their field 20 trips. 21 They have five present field trips in existence in 22 San Diego, one of which has been going on for 51 years. This 23 is sixth grade camp where they take the sixth grade students 24 and take them out to the wilderness and teach them about 25 nature. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 So, they feel that this education center fits very 2 nicely in to their outdoor education program, and they 3 actually market to the teachers in these individual schools, 4 explaining the field trip, setting it up and coordinating it, 5 and then the transportation is provided where students will 6 actually get on the bus and come down to the educational 7 center. 8 We anticipate that the education center will be 9 booked up at least a year and a half in advance by the 10 science teachers through the various public schools and 11 private schools in San Diego. 12 In fact, during this past summer we have had 10 13 educators working, writing curriculum which is now being 14 completed on all the aspects of the training that is going to 15 go on for the middle and high school students. 16 So, the Curriculum Committee has been meeting 17 regularly throughout the summer, and we did this because the 18 teachers were unemployed in the summer, and we were able to 19 hand pick 10 good teachers who could meet on a regular basis 20 and develop curriculum. 21 So, that process has been done. They were paid 22 with funds from Ford Motor Company and the Department of 23 Energy State Education Grant Programs. So, that is the 24 monies that paid the Curriculum Committee. 25 Finally, the last phase of the education process, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 which probably is going to become the most important, is the 2 personal computer follow-up, and this is how the students can 3 continue their education process at home or at school or at 4 any other computer access location, and with special computer 5 websites, students will have the opportunity to actually log 6 on to the Website from the RTC and go into some competitive 7 gaming that revolves around clean air and clean air vehicles. 8 They will continue this education process, and we 9 view this to go on for a long time after the students leave 10 their actual trip to the RTC. They will log on with a 11 personal identification number which will identify them as a 12 player in an arena with competing children throughout San 13 Diego, and they will do such things as pick a vehicle of 14 choice and drive it on a prescribed course around San Diego, 15 calculate where the fueling sites are and how much mileage 16 they can get between fillups on the various types of fuel, 17 and tied in to all of that will be such things as we 18 envision as perhaps signing up and making a reservation to go 19 get their driver's license, perhaps purchasing tickets and 20 things for some of the environmental activities, such things 21 as Sea World and things like that. 22 They will be able to do this online. In the way I 23 view it, and I have a 14-year old son at home who is on the 24 computer and the Internet quite a bit, and when I look over 25 his shoulder and see what he is doing on there, if what he PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 were doing was involved in an educational type process 2 administered by the Office of Education, I would be quite 3 impressed. 4 I can envision that there would be specific games 5 at specific times where students throughout the area would 6 have to come on at four o'clock in the afternoon on Tuesday 7 to participate with other students, and it would kind of be a 8 round robin where they would compete with each other, and as 9 they work up in competition, they would eventually compete 10 with the computer on the various aspects of the alternative 11 fuels. 12 The winners I can see earning scholarship money or 13 perhaps new vehicles or whatever as they excel up, but the 14 idea is to be an umbilical cord between the students and RTC 15 so that we can continually educate them on the virtues of 16 alternative fuels and try to get them away from thinking that 17 the only type of fuel available is fossil fuel. 18 We are going to share ideas and concepts with the 19 students, and this will be locally, regionally and 20 nationally, and we are going to link to related sites all 21 over the world. 22 So that will all be tied in to the third phase of 23 the education, which is what I think is the coming of the 24 future. 25 San Diego is an ideal location for the RTC for many PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 reasons. It has all the main characteristics of a test 2 market. It has an educated population, a diverse population 3 and is somewhat geographically isolated. 4 It is a dynamic and thriving market where the 5 majority of the populace already recognizes, understands and 6 respects the environment, and they are concerned about clean 7 water and clean air, largely because of the ideal year-round 8 weather. The essence of San Diego lifestyle is outdoor and 9 mobile. 10 It takes five main entities to make a RTC of this 11 nature successful. We have to have a forward-thinking 12 university or college. 13 We have to have an active clean cities coalition. 14 We have to have an involved air pollution control district. 15 We have to have a proactive car dealership, and we have to 16 have a supportive municipality to make this come to be. 17 The place is right, and the timing is good, too, 18 because presently there is a high level of interest and 19 favorable congressional attitude towards the entire subject 20 of alternative fuels and vehicles that use them. 21 We also have favorable attitudes from the 22 Department of Energy. It is well-known that DOE policies 23 tend to favor the AFV concept and projects like the RTC, 24 because of it potential to favorably affect the future of oil 25 dependency, plus there is increasingly favorable public PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 interest on the entire subject of AFVs. 2 The public's desire to learn more makes this the 3 right time to put the AFV story and the RTC promise before 4 the public. 5 The place is right, and the time could not be 6 better, and now the third and the final piece, the people. 7 Partnerships have been formed and are still forming. 8 The complex and the involved partnerships forming 9 with the RTC includes some very important and influential 10 organizations. Pearson Ford, which has been around for over 11 50 years serving the area therein, Pearson Ford, Ford Motor 12 Company, the Department of Energy, the City of San Diego is 13 very enthusiastic about this project. 14 The El Cajon Business and Improvement Association, 15 although a small association, gives the blessing of the local 16 community to have the stellar facility in their location. 17 Mutual Propane has gotten involved with us since 18 the very beginning. California Energy Commission, we have 19 been involved with those folks. 20 Sempra, the new holding company of San Diego Gas 21 and Electric, the California Air Resources Board, why I am 22 here today, and the Air Pollution Control District. 23 The San Diego Regional Alternative Fuel Vehicle 24 Coalition, which presently I happen to be the Chairman of, 25 San Diego County Office of Education, San Diego State PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 University Foundation and US Congress. 2 You may ask, so when is RTC going to become a 3 reality? Our target date is February first, the year 2000. 4 That is exactly 438 days from today. 5 The future is now, and the opportunity is here. In 6 order to make this project happen, we have an estimated total 7 budget of just under $5.5 million. 8 The RTC funding is being provided by both private 9 and public sectors. Private contributors include Pearson 10 Ford, almost $3 million, Ford Motor Company, just over $1.3 11 million. They are already committed. 12 We are projecting just over 1.2 million from the 13 public sector coming from the following organizations: The 14 Department of Energy, who has already committed $250,000 from 15 their 1998 SEP Grant, as indicated, contributing an 16 additional $228,000 from the 1999 SEP Grant. 17 Other projected public contributors include the 18 Petroleum Violation Escrow Account, Community Development 19 Block Grant, Transportation Enhancement Activity, the 20 California Energy Commission and several other agencies who 21 we have not yet contacted. 22 Bringing us to a grand total of $5,438,612. This 23 pie chart of the funding shares gives you a better look. 24 Pearson Ford is contributing 51 percent of the 25 total project, just under $3 million. Ford Motor Company PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 representing 25 percent of the total, just over $1.3 million. 2 Public funding at 24 percent of the total, or just over $1.2 3 million. 4 All of the information that I have just covered, 5 the place, the time, the people and the budget brings us to 6 today. 7 I am here today to ask for CARB's support on this 8 very unique opportunity. We believe that the opportunity for 9 all the partners to bring the RTC into existence offers 10 everyone some extraordinary benefits. 11 Together, we can help preserve the environment for 12 future generations. It will be a great beginning, Ma'am 13 Chairman. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Bimson. 16 What a wonderfully exciting project, and let me 17 call on Supervisor Roberts, as obviously this is his area and 18 he is a very enthusiastic supporter of it. 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Madam Chairman, I am indeed. 20 This is something that I have watched grow from an 21 idea and a dream to close to a reality today. I have been 22 very involved on a number of levels. 23 I appreciate this as a redevelopment project, first 24 of all, and as you may be aware, it is part of my 25 supervisorial district in San Diego, and it is an area that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 is changing dramatically because of a new freeway that is 2 currently under construction, and it will be done in a short 3 time. 4 Pearson Ford has been a major auto dealer in San 5 Diego, with a long history of community involvement, and it 6 was nice to see these things start to come together. 7 As a redevelopment project and industry, I had a 8 strong interest in this one because of the nature of the 9 alternative fuels program with not only fuels being available 10 but servicing, training and sales all being available on one 11 site. 12 The infrastructure is so critical to making the 13 success, of assisting the success of these vehicles, but 14 mostly the educational component which I think is really 15 unique. 16 Steve and his colleagues have done a tremendous job 17 in working with the County Board of Education to develop a 18 curriculum and to develop a program that I think is going to 19 be, is really going to be a successful part in the long-term 20 in helping these, first students but then, young adults 21 understand the options that are out there, why they are 22 important, what is air pollution and understand more than any 23 of us was ever exposed to at those ages, and hopefully they 24 will be informed consumers as well as informed voters on the 25 issues that will help us to be able to continue the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 leadership in clean air in California. 2 This has not only set off a whole series of strong 3 interests throughout the community. I had not shared with 4 Steve, but I had been approached last week by a group from 5 the Environmental Health Coalition that wanted to know if we 6 could do the same thing for water what we are doing for air, 7 and I had not even thought about that, and they wanted to 8 know if maybe we should have a related sister program, if you 9 will, to this one, where the kids could learn about clean air 10 and clean water over the period of a few days, and that has 11 got me thinking about a whole different thing. 12 This is going to happen largely because of the 13 personal commitments, because of people like Steve, but also 14 because of strong commitments from Pearson Ford in San Diego 15 and the Ford Motor Company. 16 I cannot say enough about their willingness to get 17 involved. Several months ago we went to Ford, and we laid on 18 the table what we wanted to do, and they responded in a very, 19 very strong fashion. 20 I would like to see the day when we see these 21 located not only in San Diego but throughout this State and 22 perhaps have that curriculum be something in those programs 23 or something the kids can really log into from everywhere. 24 But I think as a key part of that basic 25 infrastructure to have the sales and the education together I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 think it is going to be important. 2 So, I think today really the issue for us is the 3 only thing we can do is refer this to staff and to ask staff 4 to work with them and to assist in any way we can, and if any 5 further action is needed, bring it back, but I had hopes that 6 with our creative staff there would be a way that the Air 7 Board could participate in this program. 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think that is most 9 appropriate. 10 I am sure there are going to be some other comments 11 by Board Members, but I think as Acting Chair I echo that and 12 just refer that to staff and ask them to work with you on 13 this very exciting project. 14 Dr. Friedman, did you have something? 15 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I feel this is terrific. 16 I just had a question. To me it is a no-brainier, 17 that if you need $80,000 from us, you should get it. 18 What I would like to know, though, is do you have a 19 projection of what the yearly operating cost may be and what 20 the sources of that funding will be? 21 MR. BIMSON: Yes. 22 The operating costs will be approximately $400,000 23 a year. That sounds like a lot of money, but if you look at 24 the number of students that are going to be coming through 25 the center and the high tech environment that is needed to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 make this all work and the source of funding that we are 2 going to be using on, the operating cost will actually be 3 coming from the -- we feel will be coming from the Federal 4 Government until we institutionalized the education, which 5 takes a couple of years to get it up to speed and get it 6 running, so we are anticipating a subsidy from the Federal 7 Government to offset the operating cost in the initial years 8 of operation, and it will also, because of the expense in 9 building the building and outfitting the building, we want to 10 utilize this building at other times other than during the 11 day, during the week, so there will be classes in the 12 evenings and on weekends. 13 It will be paid classes to pay for the operation. 14 That has been well thought out. 15 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Edgerton. 16 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I think it is an exciting 17 proposal, also. 18 I would expect, though, that one of the things to 19 look at in funding it would be the curriculum itself. The 20 development of curriculum is always often controversial or 21 somewhat controversial, and I think we want to be sure that 22 the curriculum developed is one that is 100 percent 23 consistent with Air Board policy for us to be putting it in 24 place. 25 So, that would be a caution that I would have. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 see here that you have the Department of Education preparing 2 the curriculum with input from Miramar College and other 3 colleges. We have a wonderful, which you probably know 4 already, a wonderful education component of the Air Resources 5 Board, and I would hope that would be a main source of 6 information for the colleges. 7 MR. BIMSON: Is that something we could request 8 that somebody from that organization be involved in our 9 curriculum development? 10 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Kenny, do you want to 11 respond to that? 12 MR. KENNY: We are more than willing to work with 13 Mr. Bimson in the Regional Transportation Center in trying to 14 put together as much of our curriculum effort as we can, and 15 we actually have a lot of ideas to share, and I think we are 16 very interested in furthering this partnership. 17 MR. BIMSON: What's happened with the curriculum 18 development, we determined that to keep our focus it needed 19 to be middle and high school. 20 Now, there are a lot of forces from outside that we 21 should offer other education, which we do, but the main focus 22 has got to be these kids that are excited by cars, and they 23 are interested in starting to drive, and that is really where 24 their interest lies, so that age level is what we focused on. 25 Originally, we had college professors built in to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 design the curriculum, and we determined that it would be 2 wiser to use teachers that are accustomed to teaching young 3 people at that age. 4 In other words, we wanted to stay focused. So, our 5 Curriculum Committee consisted of eight educators from 6 throughout San Diego, and it was organized, and they were 7 pulled in from the County Office of Education is where they 8 came from. 9 Then Ford wanted to have a presence there, and I 10 was a bit concerned about that, but it turned out that what 11 Ford was interested in was making sure that it was not 12 commercialized, and they were involved in it because it was 13 the right thing to do, not because they wanted to put their 14 name in front of the public, and so they were very, very 15 sensitive to that, which is something I did not expect, and 16 every time they started talking about Ford, they took it out. 17 They wanted it to be for the benefit of mankind and 18 future generations, and with our new Chairman of Ford, 19 William Calhoun, taking over the first of January, his views 20 are much different than his predecessors, and he is very much 21 an environmentalist, and so he is very excited about the fact 22 that what we are doing is the right thing to do in trying to 23 cleanup the environment. 24 So, we would certainly relish having somebody from 25 your organization to be involved with that curriculum from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 the very beginning so we can certainly do that. 2 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Bimson, I am going to put 3 you with the right person at the right time, and that is Mr. 4 Jim Fisher, who is about 10 feet from you, and so, after this 5 presentation, maybe you could get together and talk about 6 this. 7 Mr. Dunlap, did you have a comment? 8 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Sure. 9 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I want you to know, this is 10 as a result, I could not make my mike work last time, and 11 that is where I used to sit, and so now you have my problem. 12 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: I am sorry to keep asking you 13 if that is on. 14 The Chairwoman is right. Jim Fisher is the right 15 one, and it would be terrific if you could talk to him. 16 Mike, if I could ask, and I know you have always 17 done a good job of handling this, I know your team is very 18 good at it. 19 There are some opportunities for us, as I 20 understand it, on occasion, with settlements and things to be 21 able to do generous educational programs, and again, I know 22 the Board does not want to get into the details of those like 23 you and Kathleen and others do that so well, but I know there 24 are some areas that you are working on, and if it is at all 25 possible, I would encourage you to see if this is the quicker PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 avenue to be able to help them. 2 I think the folks that have these compliance issues 3 as we all know would appreciate the opportunity to 4 contribute to a worthy effort, and it is just kind of a 5 win-win and relationships are established. 6 So, I just wanted to note that and encourage you, 7 Mike, to follow that course, if you can. 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Again, thank you for such an 9 exciting opportunity, and staff will work with you and then 10 staff will report back to us, and Supervisor Roberts, if you 11 need something -- 12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Do we need a motion just 13 referring this to staff? 14 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I do not even think you need 15 a motion, because it is the open comment period, and it is 16 not agendized, but let us just make it a Board referral using 17 the act of the Chairman to do that. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That is fine. 19 MR. KENNY: And from the staff's perspective, we 20 clearly hear the incentive of the Board on this, and so we 21 will follow-up. 22 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Thank you so 23 much, and thank you for making the trip up here today. 24 We do appreciate that. 25 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Madam Chairman, just for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 the record, I wanted to make sure that fuel cells are part of 2 this. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Maybe they will invite you 5 down to make a speech or something about that. 6 She is our fuel cells expert. 7 Moving right along, because I had asked about other 8 speakers, and there were none, I would like to move to the 9 next Agenda Item, which is again perhaps out of order, I 10 would like to ask our Research Department to come forward, 11 and this is the item that contains six Research Proposals. 12 The Members have all had an opportunity to view the 13 proposals that are before us. Are there any additional 14 questions that you might have for the staff, and I know that 15 some of you have been speaking to the staff. 16 Are there any questions that you have at this time? 17 Yes, Dr. Friedman, and then Mr. Calhoun. 18 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Perhaps John's question and 19 mine are similar. 20 On 98-62, John, the high volume collection system 21 proposal, I guess I am just curious why industry is not 22 funding this entirely, why are we funding this? 23 DR. HOLMES: I guess what Dr. Friedman would be 24 looking at are chemical plants, oil refineries, and other 25 kinds of processing facilities, I do not think that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 industry itself would be applied to. 2 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: But the industry, there are 3 standards with respect to what escapes from all of those 4 facilities that you just mentioned, and we require that the 5 emissions be as trivial as possible, and you are talking 6 about leaking pipelines and valves and flanges and all the 7 rest of it, isn't that not what they are supposed to be 8 doing? 9 DR. HOLMES: There are requirements as I understand 10 to perform periodic maintenance on all of the sources of 11 potential leaks. 12 Now, whether that guideline or regulation is good 13 enough is another question. Part of what we are trying to 14 get here is the maintenance program sufficient? 15 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: You want a better testing 16 method, I suppose. 17 Is that what you are getting at? 18 DR. HOLMES: We need to get not just testing in the 19 sense of enforcement but rather testing to get a better 20 emission inventory for use in the ozone control program. 21 We estimate there are something in the range of 20 22 to 30 tons per day from refineries in the South Coast Air 23 Basin. That is a lot of -- I was talking to Mr. Calhoun 24 this morning, and I guess there is concern on his part that 25 the inventor or manufacturer of this device should be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 demonstrating it for us. 2 I do not disagree with that, but I think it would 3 be very hard for us to go to a manufacturer and ask for a 4 demonstration that would cover so many kinds of facilities 5 that last for months and months. 6 I do not think that the market for this device is 7 as large as it would need to be for the manufacturer of the 8 device to justify that kind of an expensive demonstration. 9 But I understand both of your concerns. I hope 10 that we can work with the contractor and get what you want 11 and get what we need out of it. 12 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Calhoun. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, just let me add a 14 couple of comments that are relevant to this. 15 I raised this issue with the staff, because I know 16 on many occasions that whenever a manufacturer has equipment 17 that he is trying to sell, they will come out and demonstrate 18 it themselves and benefit from the information that they get. 19 So, this is the concern that I have. The real 20 issue is whether or not we should be funding at all, but I 21 have talked with the staff, and I am not opposed to moving 22 ahead with the stipulation that we try to seek some 23 co-funding on it, because it is, just on the surface, it just 24 seems to me that though this is something that should be done 25 by a manufacturer who is trying to build a piece of equipment PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 to satisfy the requirements of an individual, if you have a 2 requirement, you specify what the requirements are, and there 3 will be people out there developing the equipment for that 4 purpose. 5 I am not opposed to moving ahead with it with the 6 stipulation that they try to seek some co-funding for this 7 purpose. 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. 9 Are there any other questions by any of the Board 10 Members? 11 What I thought might be good, then, Mr. Calhoun, is 12 I will entertain a motion, if the Board Members are 13 comfortable with having read it, I asked the staff to be 14 prepared to answer questions but not necessarily make any 15 presentations today. 16 If you would make the motion with that additional 17 request that there be made an effort to solicit some funding, 18 if that is possible, but if it is not possible, then maybe 19 the staff could bring it back to us under those 20 circumstances, and we could look at it again. 21 How would that be? Would that be okay, Mr. 22 Calhoun? 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: That would be fine. 24 DR. HOLMES: I understand that we would talk to the 25 potential contractors and see what we can do about that and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 not go ahead with the contract until we get a satisfactory 2 arrangement. 3 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. 4 And bring it back to the Board if it is anything 5 other than what Mr. Calhoun's motion is. 6 Mr. Calhoun, would you like to comment? 7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, Madam Chairman. 8 I move the adoption of Resolution 98-13-4 with the 9 stipulation that Research Project 98-62 be withheld until 10 such time as the staff has had an opportunity to seek 11 co-funding from the potential contractor. 12 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Is there a second to 13 the motion? 14 There is a second by Dr. Friedman. 15 Let me ask, does that Resolution take care of all 16 other Research Proposals? 17 Let me just clarify that, that the item number that 18 Mr. Calhoun identified, 98-13-4, includes Resolutions 98-57 19 in order through 98-62, so that is all six Resolutions. 20 MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is 21 understood by the seconder of the motion the item number 22 includes Resolution 98-57 in order to 98-62, that is all six. 23 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 24 It is understood by the seconder. 25 Discussion? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 Mr. Dunlap. 2 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: That is one thing, there 3 might be a way, Joe, if it is agreeable to you, to have Dr. 4 Holmes have approval, for example, for 50 percent of it or 5 something and go forward and work with the contractor and 6 then make them have to come back for the other 50 percent or 7 proceed if they get the other half paid for by industry, for 8 example, that would be a way to empower it to just be done. 9 In fact, if that works for you, it would be fine. I 10 guess the main thing that I think of is that we ought to get 11 some support from the equipment manufacturer. 12 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Then let us amend the motion, 13 not a formal amendment, but if that is an acceptable 14 adjustment to your motion, and it is acceptable to the 15 seconder, then we will have it moved forward with the 16 suggestion of Mr. Dunlap, which is 50-50, you said. 17 Any further discussion? Let me ask then, those who 18 favor this motion, signify by saying aye. 19 Opposed, no. 20 The motion is carried. 21 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. 22 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Dr. Holmes, and we 23 will move on to the next item, which is a very short one. 24 It is the SIP revision this is a continued item. 25 It simply needs a vote, and I am going to ask staff to come PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 forward. 2 This item is Agenda Item number 98-11-4. I would 3 like to remind those who would like to present testimony on 4 this particular item, and there seems to be none, but I will 5 acknowledge that you can sign up with the Clerk to the Board. 6 This is an item that is a continuation of a Public 7 Hearing to consider the revisions to the State Implementation 8 Plan for Carbon Monoxide, continuation from the October 22, 9 1998 Board meeting. 10 Mr. Kenny. 11 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of 12 the Board. 13 As you stated, this Item has been continued from 14 the October 22 Board meeting. Since staff made a 15 presentation about this Item on October 22, I will give you a 16 very brief summary. 17 In August of this year, the Board approved 18 amendments to the California Reformulated Gasoline 19 Regulations which removed wintertime oxygen requirements in 20 10 carbon monoxide attainment areas. The Federal Clean Air 21 Act requires maintenance demonstrations that the Federal 22 standard for CO cannot be met for at least 10 years after 23 redesignation to attainment by the U.S. EPA. 24 At the October meeting, staff presented a revision 25 to the State Implementation Plan, which shows that emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 levels will continue to remain well below the 1995 attainment 2 level. 3 With that short summary, I will ask staff to 4 discuss any public comments that we have received since the 5 October meeting, and at that point I think we will be ready 6 for any Board discussion. 7 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 8 MS. WALSH: We received no further public comments 9 on this Item. 10 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. We have no one signed 11 up to speak. 12 So, let me bring it back to the Board for 13 discussion, and I do not know if you have officially, Madam 14 Counsel, closed the record before the discussion, before or 15 after the discussion, remind me. 16 MS. WALSH: You can close the record now. 17 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Let me do that. 18 Since all testimony, written submissions and staff 19 comments for this Item have be entered into the record, I am 20 officially closing the record on this portion of the Agenda 21 Number 98-11-4. 22 Written or oral comments received after the comment 23 period has closed will not be accepted as a part of the 24 official record on this Agenda Item. 25 Now, for discussion, are there any questions for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 staff or any discussion? 2 The Resolution is before you. If you have read 3 that Resolution, the Chair will entertain a motion. 4 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I will so move, Madam 5 Chairman. 6 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Patrick moves the 7 staff recommendation. Seconded by Supervisor DeSaulnier. 8 MS. WALSH: Madam Chairman, since we are moving out 9 of order, let me just clarify again that the Resolution we 10 are talking about now is 98-52. Sorry. 11 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes, you are right, 98-52, 12 and I think that would be noted by both the maker and the 13 seconder of the motion. 14 Any discussion on that motion? 15 Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, 16 signify by saying aye. 17 Opposed, no. 18 The motion is carried. 19 Thank you very much. I wish they were all so quick 20 and fast. 21 Moving right along, this is the fourth Agenda Item, 22 and I ask staff to come forward on the Consumer Products 23 Item, this is Agenda Item 98-13-1. 24 I will give everyone a moment to get seated. While 25 they are being seated, I would like to remind those of you in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 the audience who would like to present testimony to the Board 2 on any of today's Agenda Items to please sign up with the 3 Clerk. She is to your right. 4 If you have a written statement, please give 20 5 copies to the Clerk of the Board, and they will be passed 6 out. 7 The next Item on the Agenda today is 98-13-1, a 8 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of ARB Modifications 9 to ARB Method 310 to Include the Determination of Low Vapor 10 Pressure Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and 11 Amendments to the Definition and Test Method Sections of the 12 California Regulations to include the Determination of Low 13 Vapor Pressure Volatile Organic Compounds in Antiperspirants 14 and Deodorants, Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating 15 Products. 16 State law authorizes the ARB to adopt regulations 17 to achieve reductions in volatile organic compounds emitted 18 by consumer products. In order to determine whether a 19 product complies with the emission standards set forth in 20 the regulations, it is important to have accurate testing 21 procedures. 22 In November 1996, the Board addressed this issue 23 with approval of Method 310 used to determine if a product 24 complies with the standards. The Board's action in 1996 did 25 not address low vapor pressure volatile organic compounds, a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 category of VOCs which are exempted in the Consumer Product 2 regulation. 3 Today the staff's presentation covers changes to 4 the definitions found in the Consumer Product regulation and 5 revisions to the Method 310 to include provisions for the 6 LVP-VOC determination. 7 After the staff's presentation, I have asked the 8 Office of Ombudsman to discuss the outreach efforts by the 9 staff, and at this point I would like to ask Mr. Kenny to 10 introduce the item and staff's presentation. 11 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members 12 of the Board. 13 Since 1989 the Board had adopted a number of 14 regulations to fulfill the requirements of the California 15 Clean Air Act as it pertains to Consumer Products, the 16 adopted regulations do not currently specify a procedure to 17 determine if a compound qualifies as a low vapor pressure 18 volatile organic compound. 19 The proposal before you today will clarify the 20 matter by revising a definition for LVP-VOCs and providing a 21 flexible and enforceable way of determining the LVP-VOC 22 status of a consumer product, in addition to this proposal, 23 to expand the ARB Method 310 to include test procedures based 24 on recognized analytical methodology to fully and accurately 25 quantify the LVP-VOC constituents that may be found in a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 consumer product, the staff has consulted interested parties 2 and some revisions were prompted by this outreach effort. 3 As a result of these efforts, staff is proposing 4 some minor clarifying language as it relates to Federal 5 enforceability. These proposals are not expected to increase 6 the cost of testing. 7 At this time, I would like to turn the presentation 8 over to Wendy Howard from our Monitoring Lab Division who 9 will make the staff recommendation. 10 Wendy. 11 MS. HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 12 Good morning, Madam Chairman and Members of the 13 Board. 14 The proposal before you will clarify the low vapor 15 pressure volatile organic compound, or LVP-VOC, exception of 16 the Consumer Product regulations. This will require amending 17 the regulations and modifying the Method 310 by adding test 18 procedures for determining LVP-VOC. 19 In addition, we are also proposing some minor 20 revisions to the regulations dealing with the test methods. 21 Under current regulations, the LVP-VOCs are exempt and are 22 defined as a compound with a vapor pressure less than 0.1 mm 23 Hg at 20 degrees C, or a compound with more than 12 carbon 24 atoms if the vapor pressure is unknown. 25 In practical terms, this means that the compound is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 not likely to evaporate at room temperature. 2 As written, the LVP-VOC exemption is not directly 3 enforceable since no test methods are specified in the 4 regulation. 5 In 1996, the Executive Officer sent out a letter 6 stating that the ARB would use enforcement discretion for 7 LVP-VOCs until test methods are adopted. 8 This slide shows our proposed changes to the 9 definition. We are not changing the vapor pressure for 10 carbon atom criteria. Rather we are proposing to add an 11 initial boiling point greater than 216 degrees C as a 12 criteria. 13 This temperature is based on the boiling point of 14 12 vapor pressure, a 12 atom carbon compound which has a 15 vapor pressure of .09 mm Hg at 20 degrees C. 16 Simply put, under this criteria any VOC which boils 17 above this temperature will qualify as a LVP-VOC. 18 In response to comments at our workshop, our 19 proposal allows for partial LVP-VOC exemptions. 20 Finally, we clarify the terms compound and mixture. 21 To make the LVP-VOC exemption enforceable, we are proposing 22 two procedures. 23 We will discuss these procedures in detail later. 24 In addition, we are proposing to update the procedures listed 25 in Method 310 to incorporate the latest revisions by U.S. EPA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 and the American Society for Testing and Materials or ASTM. 2 Finally, we are making a minor change in Section 3 94506.5 to make it identical with the other sections of the 4 regulation regarding Federal enforceability. 5 In previous updates, this change was inadvertently 6 left out. 7 This slide shows how the LVP-VOC determination is 8 integrated into Method 310 to determine compliance with the 9 regulation. When testing a consumer product, we often do not 10 know if it contains a LVP-VOC. 11 If testing cannot demonstrate compliance with the 12 regulations, the Executive Officer can request formulation 13 data. Once the formulation data is submitted, we can verify 14 the presence and quantity of LVP-VOC. 15 We are proposing two ASTM methods. ASTM-D-86-93 is 16 used to measure the boiling range for a compound or mixture 17 and provides the initial boiling point. 18 For example, for a compound like water, the initial 19 boiling point remains constant. For mixtures, this number 20 increases as the various components distill. 21 ASTM-D-2879-97 as modified specifies the use of a 22 Isoteniscope for vapor pressure measurements. Both of these 23 test methods have been evaluated by the staff and were the 24 subject of Round Robin testing that occurred in May of this 25 year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 I will now discuss each of these two methods. D-86 2 uses the instruments shown here to determine the boiling 3 point of the compound or mixture. 4 If the boiling point is greater than 216 degrees C, 5 the compound or mixture is a LVP. If the boiling point is 6 less than 216 degrees C, then we will determine if the sample 7 qualifies for partial LVP-VOC exception -- the fraction or 8 portion of the sample with a boiling point greater than 216 9 degrees C would be considered LVP-VOC. 10 The Isoteniscope directly determines the vapor 11 pressure of a compound or mixture. Basically a material is 12 heated and its vapor pressure is recorded at various 13 temperatures. 14 We then calculate the vapor pressure of that 15 compound or mixture at 20 degrees C. We plan to test 16 possible LVP-VOC compounds by D-86 initially since the 17 results are available faster than the Iosoteniscope. 18 We will run the Isoteniscope only if the results of 19 the D-86 are inconclusive. 20 This slide shows the public process used to develop 21 the revisions outline. The Office of the Ombudsman will 22 provide you with a more detailed discussion of the public 23 outreach of our item. 24 Staff's proposal will have minimal economic impact 25 on the industry, since it does not alter the VOC limits PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 already in place or impose any new requirements on the 2 industry from the previous regulations. 3 I will now summarize the written comments that we 4 have received in the 45-day public comment period. To date 5 we have received six comment letters, three of which I will 6 be summarizing and three will be covered during the 7 testimony. 8 Our first letter, Mr. Wayne Sorensen, of CONDEA 9 Vista, in a letter, dated November 9, requested that the 10 Board adopt the Isoteniscope method without the modification 11 proposed by staff. 12 This method notes that dissolved gases in mixtures 13 would produce erroneous vapor pressure measurements. 14 Staff has modified the ASTM method to allow 15 dissolved gases to be removed at lower temperatures, 16 minimizing this problem. 17 Mr. Sorenson requested adoption of the ASTM method 18 without the modification, because he believes that it is 19 consistent with the U.S. EPA rule and would not add 20 complexity with the analysis. 21 In addition, he states that the appropriate ASTM 22 committee has not reviewed the modification and it might be 23 inconsistent with the measurements currently being performed 24 by commercial laboratories. 25 Addressing each of these concerns, we have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 contacted the U.S. EPA and determined that since compliance 2 with the U.S. EPA regulations is based on recordkeeping and 3 formulation information only, the modified procedure is 4 consistent with U.S. EPA regulation. 5 The staff also contends that the modification is 6 necessary to accurately measure the vapor pressure mixtures, 7 many of which are currently being sold as LVP-VOC. The 8 unmodified method accurately measures only pure compounds. 9 Contrary to Mr. Sorensen's statement, we are 10 working with Dr. Arthur Krawetz, Chairman of the ASTM 11 Isoteniscope Committee. Dr. Krawetz will consider the 12 inclusion of our modifications into the next version of the 13 Isoteniscope method, but this process takes several years. 14 In conclusion, we believe that the modification is 15 necessary to make the method applicable over the wide range 16 of materials presently being marketed as LVP-VOC. 17 Our second letter, Mr. Joe Downey, in a letter 18 dated November 13, recommends the adoption of the 19 Ebulliometry method instead of the Isoteniscope method. 20 He based his recommendations on the results of the 21 Round Robin testing. We concur that Ebulliometry method 22 performed well, and we intend to evaluate the Ebulliometry 23 method. 24 We have confidence that our evaluation of 25 Ebulliometry will lead to its inclusion into Method 310 as a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 15-day change to today's action. 2 Mr. Downey suggested that materials be exempted 3 based on simple criteria, such as number of carbon or heavy 4 atoms, normal boiling points, solids, etcetera, and that the 5 vapor pressure criteria be reserved for those cases where 6 simple criteria are applicable. 7 As stated in our presentation, we are using a 8 simple procedure, boiling points, to determine if the 9 compound is LVP-VOC. If the boiling point determination is 10 inconclusive, then we will determine the vapor pressure. 11 The letter seeks clarification of non-subliming 12 solids. This refers to an earlier version of our proposal. 13 References to non-subliming solids have been deleted in the 14 proposal before you today. 15 Our third letter, Mr. Bob Hamilton, of Amway 16 Corporation, in a letter dated November 12, supports the 17 adoption of our proposed method and revised definition of 18 LVP-VOC. 19 He notes the Round Robin was well designed and 20 executed, providing acceptable precision and accuracy with 21 the exception of hygroscopic compounds. 22 However, he notes that other techniques will 23 account for this. Staff concurs and, as noted, will propose 24 a 15-day change to include Ebulliometry. 25 Mr. Hamilton commended MLD staff for the careful PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 review and revisions to proposed test methods which provide 2 Amway confidence that these methods provide a sound 3 scientific basis for identifying LVP-VOC. 4 In conclusion, staff recommends that the Board 5 adopt the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the California 6 Code of Regulations and the proposed modification to ARB 7 Method 310. 8 This concludes my presentation. 9 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 10 We will have the Ombudsman's Office give a 11 presentation, and I will open up to staff questions. 12 MR. SCHONING: Thank you, Madam Chairman. 13 As you heard from staff, the item before you today 14 amends the Consumer Products regulation and the test method 15 you adopted in November of 1996. The low vapor pressure 16 exception and its test method was not brought before you at 17 that time. 18 In order to enable uninterested parties to further 19 analyze and develop procedures and definitions, to develop 20 the proposal before you today, staff, as they indicated, 21 worked closely with independent and analytical labs in a 22 consumer products working group which includes 23 representatives from the Consumer Products Manufacturers, 24 retailers, trade association and public agencies. 25 The staff presented and discussed the proposals and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 development of the three working group meetings, on May 20, 2 and November 19, 1997 and on the fifth of May of this year. 3 To analyze the test procedures, staff, in 4 conjunction with nine independent laboratories, participated 5 in and conducted a Round Robin interlaboratory study of the 6 proposed test methods between December of 1997 and June of 7 the present year. 8 On July 22 of the same year, staff conducted a 9 workshop on the proposed low vapor pressure definition and 10 Round Robin test results. The draft staff report was mailed 11 and put on ARB's website one month prior to that workshop. 12 On October second, interested parties were notified 13 of the availability of the final staff report on ARB's 14 website and of today's Board hearing. 15 Notices of the work group meetings, the workshop 16 and today's Board hearing were mailed to more than 3,000 17 interested parties, including Exxon Chemical, CONDEA Vista, 18 Union Carbide, DuPont, Amway Corporation, the Chemical 19 Specialties Manufacturers Association, the Cosmetic 20 Toiletries and Fragrance Association, as well as other 21 manufacturers and distributors and environmental 22 organizations and governmental entities. 23 Staff held 15 telephone conferences and responded 24 to over 50 E-mails, faxes and letters from interested 25 parties. All workshop materials and the staff report were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 also made available on the ARB's website. 2 Because of these outreach efforts, staff has been 3 and is currently evaluating an additional methodology for 4 this item. 5 Today's proposal for this new methodology is 6 brought to you by staff as a proposed 15-day change. 7 In sum, we believe staff's excellent outreach 8 efforts gave all stakeholders ample opportunity to 9 participate in the development of the proposal that is now 10 before you. 11 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Schoning. 12 Are there any questions by any of the Board Members 13 and staff before I open it to public testimony? 14 Seeing none, let me first invite Douglas Fratz, 15 from the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, 16 followed by Scott Christensen, and followed by Janet 17 Catanach. 18 So, you are in that order. 19 Would you identify yourself for the record, please? 20 MR. FRATZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman and 21 Members of the Board. 22 I am Douglas Fratz. I am the Director of 23 Scientific Affairs, from the Chemical Specialties 24 Manufacturers Association, in Washington D.C. 25 The CSMA represents companies that manufacture all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 the categories of the consumer products that are currently 2 regulated by ARB. We also represent the manufacturers of the 3 ingredients in regulated VOC and those products. 4 CSMA and its members are committed to providing 5 products that help maintain a safe and healthy environment 6 for its consumers. 7 Two years ago when this Board adopted Method 310, 8 CSMA pledged to continue to work with ARB staff to complete 9 the method. We have honored that pledge and have worked the 10 past two years to develop and validate the changes being 11 proposed today. 12 CSMA supports the proposed modifications of Method 13 310 and the definition of LVP-VOC. We do urge, however, that 14 ARB maintain the flexibility and be open to new technologies. 15 In particular, we urge ARB to consider allowing 16 vapor pressure determinations by CSMA Ebulliometry. CSMA and 17 its members will continue to work with MLD to update and 18 improve these methods. 19 To assist communications in this area, CSMA plans 20 to initiate a LVP-VOC certification program. Our program 21 will develop and maintain a list of ingredients for which 22 adequate testing do exist and that they are LVP-VOCs. 23 We hope this program will help our industry and the 24 ARB to maintain a consensus in this area. 25 The staff which we have worked have been very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 cooperative. We commend them on their professional attitude 2 and capabilities. 3 Thank you very much for this opportunity to 4 comment. 5 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 6 It is always a pleasure when we hear such nice 7 comments about the working relationships between your 8 organizations and our staff, so thank you. 9 Thank you for being here. 10 Mr. Christensen. 11 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Scott Christensen, from Union 12 Carbide Corporation. 13 Union Carbide is concerned about the test method or 14 LVP exemption being restricted to the Isoteniscope method, 15 and we propose the inclusion of ASTM-E-1719, Vapor Pressure 16 of Liquids by Ebulliometry, as an additional method for 17 determination of vapor pressure at 20 degrees. 18 Vapor pressure data measured using Ebulliometry are 19 equivalent to those measured using the Isoteniscope method. 20 However, since it is a boiling method, Ebulliometry 21 eliminates the potential for developed gases giving 22 artificially high vapor pressure results. 23 Ebulliometry is widely used throughout the 24 petrochemical industry and in Government agencies. Inclusion 25 of Ebulliometry in the LVP-VOC test methods will allow many PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 companies to use the existing equipment for in-house testing 2 of chemicals. 3 Finally, the results of the Round Robin conducted 4 by ARB show that one of the Union Carbide products, 5 diethylene glycol ethyl ether, would fail the proposed 6 definition of LVP-VOC because of the unavailability of the 7 Isoteniscope method to accurately measure this chemical's 8 vapor pressure. 9 Union Carbide produces diethylene glycol ethyl 10 ether and sells it to formulators who use it in various 11 consumer products. Having a test method which incorrectly 12 labels this product as not meeting the LVP-VOC definition is 13 not acceptable and cannot be supported by Union Carbide. 14 We, therefore, request Ebulliometry be added to the 15 LVP-VOC test method so that measurement of vapor pressure at 16 20 degrees by either Isoteniscope or the Ebulliometry method 17 be sufficient for determination of LVP-VOC status, and we 18 support MLD's proposal that including Ebulliometry as a 19 15-day comment period change. 20 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 21 Mr. Kenny, comments? 22 Sorry. Dr. Friedman. 23 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I just have a question, I 24 just want to make sure I understand. 25 Has a direct comparison using known standards been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 done between the Ebulliometry and the Isoteniscope, and 2 shouldn't the data drive a determination of whether one is as 3 good as another? 4 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes. 5 We have been working with MLD staff, and 6 Ebulliometry was part of the Round Robin method so that the 7 chemicals in the Round Robin were measured by both the 8 Isoteniscope method and the Ebulliometry method. 9 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Is one superior to the 10 other, or are they the same? 11 MR. KENNY: If I could respond, as Scott pointed 12 out, we did include Ebulliometry in the Round Robin that we 13 did in May, and we have direct comparison between 14 Isoteniscope, the initial boiling point method, and the 15 Ebulliometry. 16 Now we, as Wendy, Ms. Howard indicated, we intend 17 to include Ebulliometry in the 15-day change proposal, and 18 that will give us three tools to evaluate low vapor pressure. 19 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I understand that. 20 I appreciate it and think it is a wise thing to do. 21 What I would like to know is which is the better method? 22 MR. CHRISTENSEN: It depends on what the mixture is 23 and whether or not you have a hygroscopic material or not. 24 So, it is really a combination of what are you 25 looking at and what method would be best for that particular PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 mixture. 2 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I understand. 3 Thank you. 4 MR. CHRISTENSEN: The comment I was making was that 5 in the Round Robin, Isoteniscope seemed to have trouble with 6 the hygroscopic compounds which included the specific 7 chemical that I mentioned. 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes, Mr. Calhoun. 9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Have you also suggested this 10 to EPA that they include it in their test procedures? 11 MR. CHRISTENSEN: No, but we will certainly do 12 that, yes. 13 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. 14 It sounds like everything has been accommodated in 15 the 15-day comment period. 16 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes. 17 I appreciate all the work by the ARB staff and 18 the MLD in particular. 19 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 20 Janet Catanach, from Exxon Chemical Company. 21 Good morning. 22 MS. CATANACH: Thank you. Good morning. 23 I am Janet Catanach, Environmental Planner, with 24 Exxon Chemical Company. 25 My verbal comments this morning are intended to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 supplement our written comments previously provided to the 2 Clerk. 3 Exxon Chemical Company began discussions with CARB 4 related to issues of low vapor pressure compound and 5 analytical methodology shortly after promulgation of the 6 Consumer Products regulations. 7 Before I continue, it is important that you 8 understand that Exxon Chemical Company is not a direct 9 supplier of consumer products in California, and therefore, 10 we have not been involved in nor monitored the original 11 development of California Consumer Products regulations. 12 However, for us to provide accurate representation 13 of products which may be used as ingredients in consumer 14 goods, and for that product representation to be consistent 15 long-term with CARB's interpretation, definitions and 16 criteria, we embarked on the series of discussions and 17 meetings with CARB to understand various language in the 18 regulations to clarify certification requirements of consumer 19 product ingredients and to open dialogue on industry 20 practices for assessing vapor pressure of complex ingredients 21 of regulated consumer products. 22 We are very pleased that the Agenda Item before the 23 Board today brings us to a point where low vapor pressure 24 materials have been defined in terminology that is 25 understandable to industry and that analytical methods PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 considered for adoption by the Board are those which may be 2 managed by our laboratories and incorporated into our quality 3 control processes. 4 This outcome is important, but we cannot overlook 5 the cooperative effort by CARB and industry that brought us 6 to this point, and this is the particular point that I would 7 like to emphasize. 8 The effort expended by CARB staff to understand 9 consumer products, and more importantly for us, for 10 specifically my company, is that they took the time to 11 understand the ingredients of these consumer products, and 12 that was essential so that the definitions and methods in the 13 regulations accurately reflect the product qualities and 14 properties for industry, likewise resources had to be made 15 available to facilitate information sharing and test method 16 review and validation. 17 CARB personnel have repeatedly involved industry 18 and solicited comments on the methods examination and 19 development process even to the extent of inviting us to 20 their laboratory to view equipment and procedures. 21 The CARB industry partnership, if you will, was 22 based on the joint interests of identifying methods which 23 were viable for the types of materials which they could be 24 used and having methods that would accurately assess the true 25 quality of these products. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 We recognize the difficulty of the task, and based 2 on our experience with the test methods, we wish to highlight 3 how we appreciate the significant technical effort by CARB 4 staff. 5 Having been involved at the beginning, I am able to 6 reflect on where we were and where we are now. I know with 7 certainty that joint interaction has been extremely valuable 8 in preventing unproductive efforts by both industry and CARB. 9 With this positive experience, I would hope that 10 this spirit of cooperation will continue in any future 11 programs. 12 Exxon Chemical Company supports the recommendations 13 to the Board of the additional two, Method 310 of the methods 14 which address the evaluation of the low vapor pressure 15 substances. 16 Additionally, we support the revised definition for 17 low vapor pressure volatile organic compounds, and we wish to 18 thank you for the opportunity to present these comments to 19 the Board. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much, and I 22 can assure you that the cooperation will continue. 23 MS. CATANACH: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Staff you are batting a 100 25 percent all three witnesses. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 Good. Thank you. 2 MS. CATANACH: It was a lot of work. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Those were all 5 the speakers that I have signed up. 6 So, I would like to move on to the issue of whether 7 or not any of the Board Members have any questions? 8 Any questions for staff? 9 I do not have a question, but I just have comment, 10 Madam Chairman, but that is how much I appreciate the 11 industry members coming today and sharing their positive 12 experiences with the staff. 13 We really appreciate that. I know the staff works 14 really hard, and I know they appreciate hearing it, and we 15 appreciate hearing it as well that all this extraordinary 16 effort to reach out to industry is appreciated. 17 Let me understand for sure, staff, that you have 18 noted all of the written efforts that people made on behalf 19 if they could not attend. 20 Mr. Kenny, any further comments? 21 MR. KENNY: Nothing further. 22 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. Let me officially 23 then close the record on this Agenda Item. 24 However, the record will be reopened when the 25 15-day notice of public availability is issued. Written or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 oral comments received after this hearing date but before the 2 15-day notice is issued will not be accepted as part of the 3 official record on this Agenda Item. 4 When the record is reopened for the 15-day comment 5 period, the public may submit written comments on the 6 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to in 7 the final Statement of Reasons for the regulation. 8 This Item has the requirement of ex parte. It is a 9 reminder to my colleagues that our policy concerning ex parte 10 communications, while we may communicate off the record with 11 outside persons regarding Board rulemaking, we must disclose 12 the names of our contacts and the nature of the contents on 13 the record. 14 This requirement applies specifically to 15 communications which take place after the Notice of the Board 16 Hearing has been published. 17 Are there any communications that any of us need to 18 disclose? 19 Seeing none, then will move on. We have a 20 Resolution that is in front of you, Resolution 98-54. 21 The Chair would entertain a motion. 22 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: So moved. 23 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Moved by Mr. Dunlap. 24 Seconded by Supervisor Patrick. 25 Any further discussion on the motion? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 2 Opposed, no. 3 The motion carries. 4 We will move on to the next Item, and I will give 5 the staff a minute to change seats. 6 Madam Reporter, I trust you are doing well? 7 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: That's only the second time 8 she's been asked that in four years. 9 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: This is Agenda Item 98-13-2. 10 I would like to again remind those of you in the 11 audience that would like to present testimony on any of 12 today's items, particularly this one, if you would come 13 forward and give your name to the Clerk of the Board, and if 14 you have written documents, please provide her 20 copies. 15 This is a Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to 16 the Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound 17 Emissions from Aerosol coatings, Antiperspirants and 18 Deodorants and Consumer Products. 19 State law required the Board to adopt an Aerosol 20 Coating regulation in 1995 that would achieve at least a 60 21 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the 1989 baseline 22 year. 23 To fulfill this requirement, the Board adopted an 24 Aerosol Coating regulation in March 1995 that included final 25 VOC limits that would achieve a 60 percent reduction in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 emissions. 2 However, the Board acknowledged at the time of 3 adoption that staff would need to reassess the final VOC 4 limits to determine if they were technologically and 5 commercially feasible. 6 At today's hearing, we will consider staff's 7 proposal to amend some of the existing final VOC limits based 8 on the staff's evaluation on their technologically and 9 commercial feasibility. 10 The Board will also consider a proposal to exempt 11 methyl acetate from the VOC definitions in our three Consumer 12 Products regulations. 13 The proposal would provide for consistency between 14 the State and Federal VOC definitions. 15 I understand that the staff has worked diligently 16 and cooperatively with the affected industries and has gone 17 to great lengths to assure that the proposed VOC limits for 18 the aerosol coatings are technologically and commercially 19 feasible. 20 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Kenny to 21 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation. 22 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members 23 of the Board. 24 The proposal before you today is designed to 25 satisfy statutory requirement for aerosol coatings and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 provide consistency between the State and Federal VOC 2 definitions. 3 State law specifies criteria for establishing VOC 4 limits for consumer products. Under State law, the VOC 5 limits must achieve the maximum feasibility reductions in 6 emissions, be technologically and commercially feasible, 7 based on adequate data and not result in the elimination of a 8 product form. 9 For aerosol coatings, State law defines the maximum 10 feasible reduction in emissions at a 60 percent reduction 11 from 1989 baseline year. 12 When the Board adopted the aerosol coating 13 regulations, it acknowledged that the final VOC limits which 14 were designed to achieve a 60 percent reduction in emissions 15 would need to be revisited to ensure that they are 16 technologically and commercially feasible. 17 In fact, State law requires the Board to hold a 18 hearing on the technological and commercial feasibility of 19 achieving compliance with the final VOC limits by the 20 December 31, 1999 effective date. 21 If the Board determines that the final VOC limits 22 are not technologically and commercially feasible, it may 23 extend the effective date up to five years and must establish 24 the most stringent feasible interim limits. 25 The staff has evaluated the technological and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 commercial feasibility of complying with existing final VOC 2 limits for aerosol coatings. Based on this evaluation, staff 3 is proposing less stringent VOC limits for some categories, 4 because the existing limits are not technologically and 5 commercially feasible, even with the maximum allowable 6 five-year extension. 7 Staff is also proposing more stringent VOC limits 8 for some categories because the existing limits do not 9 represent the most stringent feasible VOC limits for those 10 categories. 11 With regard to effective date for the final VOC 12 limits, staff is proposing to extend the existing December 13 31, 1999 effective date for two years, to January 1, 2002. 14 This extension is needed to provide sufficient time 15 for manufacturers to develop commercially viable products 16 that meet the consumer market demand. 17 Finally, the staff is proposing to exempt methyl 18 acetate from the VOC definitions in our Consumer Product 19 regulations. 20 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently 21 exempted methyl acetate from the Federal VOC definition. 22 In addition, the Board has received a petition 23 requesting that it amend the VOC definitions in its 24 regulation to provide consistency with the Federal VOC 25 definitions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 Methyl acetate is a low reactive compound and no 2 adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from its 3 exemption. The exemption of methyl acetate would provide 4 another reformulation option for manufacturers to comply with 5 our Consumer Product regulations. 6 Now, I will call upon Mr. Paul Milkey, of our 7 Stationary Source Division, to present the proposed 8 amendments to the Aerosol Coatings regulations and the 9 Consumer Products regulations. 10 MR. MILKEY: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 11 Good morning, Madam Chairman and Members of the 12 Board. 13 As Mr. Kenny mentioned, today we are proposing for 14 your consideration amendments to the Aerosol Coatings 15 regulations. These amendments are the primary focus of this 16 presentation. 17 However, we are also proposing amendments to the 18 VOC definition, the Antiperspirant and Deodorant regulations 19 and the Consumer Product regulations. 20 I will begin with a brief background of the Aerosol 21 Coatings regulation and then discuss our proposed amendments 22 and associated environmental and economic impacts. 23 I will then discuss how our proposal relates to our 24 State Implementation Plan, or SIP. 25 Finally, I will conclude with a summary of our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 future activities and a recommendation. 2 Aerosol coatings represented about 12 percent of 3 the emissions of all consumer products in 1990, or about 30 4 tons per day. 5 Aerosol coatings were the largest consumer products 6 category, next to hairspray. The Aerosol Coatings regulation 7 was adopted in March of 1995 and covers 35 categories of 8 aerosol coatings. 9 The regulation established two tiers of the VOC 10 limit. The first tier limits became effective on January 8, 11 1996, and the second tier limit was scheduled to become 12 effective December 31, 1999. 13 The 1999 VOC limits are designed to achieve a 60 14 percent emission reduction from the 1989 baseline at 30 tons 15 per day. However, when these standards were adopted, we did 16 not establish the commercial and technological ability. 17 Recognizing that these limits would be challenging 18 State law and regulation, we were required to hold a public 19 hearing on feasibility. Today's hearing satisfies that 20 requirement. 21 State law also allows us to extend the date of 22 these limits up to five years if necessary. 23 The existing 1999 limits are designed to achieve a 24 60 percent emission reduction specified in State law. 25 However, State law also requires that the limits be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 technologically and commercially feasible. 2 As we explain later, some of the proposed limits 3 are less stringent than the existing 1999 limits, because we 4 believe that those limits will not be feasible even with the 5 maximum allowable five-year extension. 6 I would now like to discuss our proposed 7 amendments. We are proposing modifications to some of the 8 1999 VOC limits in the Aerosol Coatings regulation. 9 We are also proposing some minor changes and 10 clarification in this regulation. In addition, we are 11 proposing to exempt methyl acetate in the VOC definition in 12 all the Consumer Products regulations. 13 In the Aerosol Coatings regulation, we are 14 proposing several changes to the 1999 limit to ensure they 15 are the most stringent feasible limits. 16 We are proposing to retain the limits for 12 17 categories and are proposing more stringent for 11 categories 18 and less stringent limits for 12 categories. 19 In addition, we are proposing to extend the 20 effective date on each proposal to January 1, 2002, to allow 21 manufacturers time to develop commercially viable products. 22 This slide compares the current 1999 VOC limits to 23 the proposed 2002 limits for four categories and shows the 24 initial reduction from our proposal. 25 This slide compares the same information for three PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 categories and collectively for the remaining 28 specialty 2 categories. The total at the bottom shows the overall 3 emission reduction from our proposed limits. 4 This emission reduction is about 3.2 tons per day 5 less than the reduction that would be achieved with the 6 existing 1999 limits. 7 Although our proposed limits achieve fewer 8 reductions, we believe that some of the current 1999 limits 9 are not technologically and commercially feasible. 10 We are also proposing to add a provision to allow 11 manufacturers to continue to make specialized high 12 temperature metallic products. 13 In addition, we are proposing to correct errors 14 made when the Aerosol Coatings regulation was prepared by the 15 Barclay's Law publishers for inclusion in the California Code 16 of Regulations. We are also proposing to delete some 17 outdated requirements. 18 We are also proposing to exempt methyl acetate from 19 the VOC definition and all the Consumer Products regulations. 20 This would make our VOC definitions consistent with the U.S. 21 EPA. 22 We do not expect any adverse environmental or 23 economic impact from this exemption. Our analysis shows that 24 methyl acetate is less reactive than acetones, which are 25 currently exempt from the VOC definition. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 Also, methyl acetate is not a toxic or a 2 contaminant. This exemption will provide manufacturers with 3 additional compliance flexibility. 4 Now I will discuss the environmental and economical 5 impacts to our proposed amendments to the Aerosol Coatings 6 regulation. 7 Our proposal achieves about 3.2 tons per day fewer 8 emission reductions than the 1999 limits. This is because we 9 are proposing less stringent limits than some of the larger 10 coating categories. 11 However, we believe that we have proposed the most 12 stringent feasible limits. 13 Since our proposal includes some less stringent 14 limits, it represents an overall cost savings to the 1999 15 limit. 16 However, we recognize that manufacturers will have 17 to reformulate their existing product to comply with the 18 proposed limits, based on the economic analysis, we expect 19 that most manufacturers will be able to absorb the increased 20 costs. 21 We also expect minimal impact on consumers to 22 increase by less than 20 cents per can. 23 Finally, we estimate the cost effectiveness of the 24 regulation to range from about 90 cents to about $3.20 per 25 pound reduced, which is similar to other Consumer Product PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 regulations. 2 Now, I will discuss how the proposal relates to the 3 State Implementation Plan. Although the initial reductions 4 from the aerosol coatings proposal is less than anticipated 5 in the SIP, we would still meet the 2002 SIP commitment. 6 However, we would achieve 5.4 times per day less 7 reductions than our SIP goal of a 18-ton per day reduction 8 this difference is due in part to the less stringent limits 9 we are proposing based on the commercial and technological 10 feasibility. 11 However, about two times per day of this difference 12 is due to unanticipated SIP to the VOC higher categories. 13 Our proposal would not meet the 2005 and the 2010 reduction 14 targets in the SIP. 15 We will adjust these commitments in a future update 16 to SIP which will include a comprehensive update to the 17 consumer products inventory. 18 Now, I will conclude with the future activities and 19 a summary of our presentation. 20 We are currently working with the industry to 21 develop voluntary equivalent level reactivity based limits 22 for aerosol coatings. We will also continue to track 23 emerging technology that may allow further reductions and 24 emissions from aerosol coatings. 25 If viable technologies emerge, we will return to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 the Board with a proposal to achieve further reductions. 2 In summary, we believe that the proposed amendments 3 to the Aerosol Coatings regulation represent the most 4 stringent limits that are technically and commercially 5 feasible. 6 The proposed amendments will also preserve the 7 commitments through 2002, and we will address shortfalls in 8 later emission targets in a future update to the SIP. The 9 exemption of Methyl acetate from the Consumer Products 10 regulations will provide compliance flexibility without 11 adverse environmental impacts. 12 We will continue to work with the industry to 13 develop voluntary equivalent reactivity base limits for 14 aerosol coatings, and we will continue to assess the emerging 15 technologies for aerosol coatings to determine if it is 16 feasible to achieve additional emission reductions before 17 2005 as well as after that date. 18 We recommend that the Board adopt the staff's 19 proposed amendments. This concludes our presentation, and at 20 this point, we would be happy to answer your questions. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 22 Maybe before the questions, though, I will go to 23 the other component, and that is the Office of Ombudsman, and 24 I would like you to comment on the process that the staff has 25 been through on this particular item. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 MS. MEADE: Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members 2 of the Board. 3 My name is Kathleen Meade, for the record. 4 As you heard from the staff, the Item before you 5 today began with the adoption of the original Aerosol 6 Coatings regulations in March of 1995. To prepare for 7 today's Item, staff conducted several outreach activities, 8 commencing in August 1997. 9 To collect information on the technological and 10 commercial feasibility of achieving compliance with the 11 December 31, 1999 effective date, staff worked with 12 representatives of the aerosol coating industry to develop a 13 survey. 14 The survey was mailed to all effected manufacturers 15 in November of 1997 and responding information was collected 16 through July of 1998. 17 Staff made numerous follow-up phone calls to 18 companies responding to the survey to clarify the information 19 collected. Staff also provided two survey response summaries 20 of the survey results for review and for further comment. 21 Staff published the draft regulatory proposal on 22 February 4, 1998. To obtain feedback on this proposal, three 23 public workshops were conducted, May 19, July 23 and August 24 19 of this year. 25 The May 19 workshop notices were mailed to 350 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 affected aerosol coatings manufacturers and trade 2 associations. 3 The July 23 and August 19 workshop notices were 4 sent to over 2,000 interested parties, including industrial 5 representatives, trade associations, environmental groups, 6 U.S. EPA, air districts and retailers. 7 Additional mailouts included work group meeting 8 announcements, the aerosol coating survey and subsequent 9 State summary. 10 Each workshop was attended by 30 to 60 individuals 11 representing industry, trade associations, U.S. EPA, 12 districts and retailers. 13 Staff held over 100 individual meetings and phone 14 conservations and met with the manufacturers as requested. 15 The final proposal of the regulatory language and 16 staff report were provided to all interested parties along 17 with the Board Hearing Notice on October 2 of this year. 18 All the above information was available on ARB's 19 website. As in the past, the Consumer Products team did an 20 excellent job in reaching out and participating with the 21 stockholders and those interested parties interests while 22 developing the proposal for you today. 23 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Very good. 24 It does sound like you have done a lot of outreach. 25 That is really very important. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 At this time, are there any questions for the staff 2 by the Board? 3 Okay. Let me move forward then. 4 We have three speakers, Ken Trautwein, Bob Graham 5 and Ron Ashby. 6 Mr. Trautwein, if you would come forward, please, 7 and Mr. Graham and Mr. Ashby, if would kind of cue up behind. 8 Good morning. If you would identify yourself for 9 the reporter and record, please. 10 MR. TRAUTWEIN: I will do that. 11 Madam Chairman and Members of the Board, I notice 12 in Mr. Dunlap's comments this morning that he stated that he 13 had received a lot of attention as Chair of this esteemed 14 body, and at times he felt like it was too much. 15 I am sure when it comes to regulatory process and 16 as a member of industry, that many of us feel the same. 17 We empathize. 18 We thank you for your work as Chairman, and good 19 luck to you, Madam Chairman. 20 My name is Ken Trautwein, and I am the Technical 21 Director for the Flecto Company, Incorporated, which is a 22 member of the RPM family of coatings companies. 23 The Flecto Company markets aerosol coatings both in 24 the State of California and throughout the country. We are 25 located in Oakland, California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 I am happy to submit these comments on behalf of 2 the Spray Paint Manufacturers Committee of the National Paint 3 Coatings Association, which I will refer to several times as 4 the NPCA. 5 The NPCA is a voluntary, nonprofit industry 6 association, originally organized in 1888 and comprised today 7 of over 400 member companies which manufacture consumer paint 8 products and industrial coatings or the raw materials used in 9 their manufacture. 10 The NPCA Spray Paint Committee has worked with 11 other California agencies and Federal agencies in the 12 development of reasonable aerosol regulations in the past. 13 Indeed, our Committee participated actively in the 14 rule that was originally adopted in March 1995. 15 Members of our Committee attended many workshops 16 that were conducted, communicated with CARB on specific 17 issues unique to their companies and worked through NPCA to 18 help CARB create a reasonable California regulation for our 19 industry. 20 We are delighted to have this opportunity to 21 comment. First of all, NPCA supports the general format and 22 the clarity of the proposed amendments to the aerosol rule. 23 The CARB staff have done a good job in preserving 24 the general format and the clarity of the aerosol rule. As 25 Paul commented, there have been several changes for the rule, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 the addition to some definitions and the deletions of several 2 sections that have become unimportant. 3 These changes really do maintain the clarity of 4 this rule, and we support them. 5 Secondly, the new VOC standards for aerosol 6 coatings are not commercially feasible. The final compliance 7 deadline should be extended from the year 2002 to the year 8 2003, and I will explain. 9 There is no doubt that these VOC limits will 10 require the spray paint industry to spend an enormous amount 11 of resources, that is time and money, towards refining the 12 research that has already been done, unexempt solvents and 13 alternative formulas. 14 This is particularly true for flat, primer and non 15 flat categories. There is very little indication that these 16 VOC limits can result in marketable products by the year 17 2002. 18 The 1998 survey indicated that there were no flat 19 spray paint products that currently complied with the 20 proposed 40 percent limit and less than 1 percent of the 21 primers complied with the 40 percent proposed limit. 22 For the non flat category, 33 out of 826 products 23 on the market currently meet the 45 percent proposed limit. 24 These product areas, that is flat, primer and non 25 flat categories, are different from all other categories in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 that they represent the majority of the products marketed 2 today, and most importantly because the available methods of 3 reformulating them are unreliable when the amount of VOCs 4 must be greatly reduced, for many products the solids content 5 is already at its highest level, the formula is already 6 supporting a high volume of exempt materials. 7 It is important to note that even though there are 8 several other exempt solvents currently available to the 9 spray paint industry, acetone is used almost exclusively. 10 The other exempt material, such as HFC-152a or 11 Oxsol 100 are not used by industry at this time. 12 Most importantly, the reason for this issue is the 13 technological problems which accompany the use of these other 14 exempt alternatives. To date industry has not been able to 15 incorporate these materials into their products because of 16 compatibility. 17 At this point in time, use of the exempt materials 18 in significant amounts compromises the products performance 19 to the point where the product is not marketable. 20 In other words, the alternative formulas are not 21 commercially feasible. Commercial feasibility is an 22 important aspect of technological and commercial feasibility, 23 and it is a standard that the Board is bound by law to 24 consider. 25 Commercial feasibility means that marketplace PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 factors, those characteristics of the product that make it 2 attractive to customers, must be considered. 3 The characteristics include product capabilities, 4 price, performance characteristics, like viscosity, ease of 5 application, gloss level, hide, durability, texture, 6 scrubability, to name a few. 7 Just because a product can be made a specific, 8 anti-specific VOC limit does not mean that it can be 9 successfully marketed. It does not mean that consumers will 10 accept the product and buy it over and over again. 11 Commercial feasibility, therefore, requires some 12 regulatory analysis and consumer acceptance of the product. 13 It also requires an analysis of the cost of production, 14 packaging, promoting and distributing the products after 15 imposition of the regulatory standard. 16 While consumers will pay more for a high level of 17 quality, they are unlikely to pay more for a product that is 18 less effective, less convenient or less safe. 19 Industry believes, however, that time will greatly 20 aid the research and evolution of technology to accommodate 21 these and other potentially exempt materials. 22 Additional time to achieve the proposed limits will 23 give industry the requisite amount of time to continue to 24 research and test new product formulations using combinations 25 of exempt and non exempt materials, additional time will also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 assist the supplier industries and their research efforts to 2 create new materials that can accommodate more varying 3 formulas. 4 Therefore, the NPCA requests that the final 5 compliance date of all of the aerosol categories be extended 6 for one additional year, from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 7 2003. 8 Let me state that at this point the number of 9 companies of NPCA believe that the stated limits are 10 achievable. We just feel that we need the time, additional 11 time to be able to meet those limits. 12 In conclusion, we do commend the staff for its 13 efforts to understand the aerosol coatings industry while 14 working on these proposed amendments. 15 While industry did not relish the task of 16 participating in the 1998 survey due to complexity and the 17 sheer volume of data requested, the ARB's patience and 18 diligence in refining and confirming the data is greatly 19 appreciated. 20 When voting on these amendments, the NPCA asks the 21 commissioners to carefully consider the industry's concerns 22 regarding commercial feasibility and the final compliance 23 deadline one year of extending that, please. 24 I want to thank you all very much for your 25 attention this morning, and if you have any questions, I will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 be happy to field them. 2 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Trautwein. 3 Are there any questions for the witness? 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Mr. Trautwein, the staff has 5 recommended that the effective date be in the year of 2002. 6 Your association is asking for an effective date 7 being 2003. 8 What makes you think that one additional year is 9 going to make a difference? 10 MR. TRAUTWEIN: Your Board is considering the 11 inclusion of methyl acetate in this particular meeting. 12 That is one additional material that has not been 13 explored in detail in aerosol coatings. There is one that 14 has potential use in aerosol coatings, that is one example. 15 New approaches in reactivity were mentioned by Mr. 16 Milkey, and we have been working with the staff along those 17 lines in order to implement that kind of regulation and to 18 consider that kind of regulation. 19 Thirdly, the number of people in laboratories and 20 the amount of work that goes into reformulation is extensive. 21 We look at some companies where there will be 22 thousands of formulas involved, and some companies may only 23 have a handful that are involved at this time. 24 So, the amount of effort that is dedicated to this 25 activity will vary greatly from company to company. In my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 mind, and this is a personal comment, it is not a good idea 2 to increase staff on the short term to meet the 3 characteristics of this regulation and then end up having to 4 lay them off because we are not meeting our customers 5 demands. 6 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. 7 Any other questions? 8 I do not know if staff wants to comment on that or 9 wait until the completion of all the testimony. 10 Yes, Mr. Calhoun. 11 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I listened to your 12 statement, Mr. Trautwein, and as one who has spent a lot of 13 time and effort on this in the past, success sometimes 14 depends on how much resources you want to devote to a given 15 effort. 16 So, I think that it is possible, I do not know 17 this, but it is possible that you could meet these 18 requirements. 19 You said that you believe that they are feasible. 20 Did I understand you to say that correctly? 21 MR. TRAUTWEIN: That is correct. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: If you think that they are 23 feasible, maybe the year 2002 might also be feasible. 24 MR. TRAUTWEIN: Well, we feel that the year 2003 is 25 feasible for the industry to comply, sir. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Mr. Graham from 2 Sherwin-Williams. 3 Thank you very much. 4 MR. GRAHAM: Good morning, Madam Chairman and 5 Members of the Board. 6 My name is Bob Graham. I am the Technical Director 7 for the Specialty Products Group of the Consumer Products 8 Division of Sherwin-Williams. Rather lengthy name, I'm 9 afraid. 10 Our division is the largest manufacturer of aerosol 11 coatings in the country, and we have been extremely active in 12 working with CARB on all the regulations effecting all 13 consumer products. 14 We are involved in Phase I, II and III of the 15 Consumer Products regulation. We were also instrumental in 16 the formation and adoption of the ACP and also the compliance 17 plan and the Aerosol Coating regulation, Phase 1. 18 Our division has also worked with the California 19 State Legislature to sponsor amendments to the Clean Air Act 20 on aerosol coatings. 21 We manufacture, sell and market products in 22 virtually every category of aerosol paints, And these 23 products are designed to beautify and protect the objects and 24 surfaces they are used on. 25 We have been working with the staff since the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 summer of 1997 on amendments to this regulation. The 2 regulation currently in effect is technically and 3 commercially infeasible. 4 However, the amendments in the aerosol coating 5 regulation Phase II as proposed reduce emissions in aerosol 6 coatings and appear to be technically and commercially 7 feasible given the additional time. 8 The staff should be commended for their dedication 9 to working on this issue. We have met with staff on numerous 10 occasions to provide information and data on aerosol 11 coatings. 12 The issues involved have often been difficult to 13 resolve, and the staff has always been receptive to our 14 position while remaining very firm on the achievement of 15 their goal. Also, our division has been extremely involved 16 in their relative reactivity regulation, and at this time we 17 support the theory of reactivity and have been a major 18 supporter of this regulation. 19 We also support the staff's position to postpone 20 this issue but strongly urge the Board and the staff to 21 continue working on regulation reactivity. 22 To conclude, we are here to support the adoption of 23 these amendments as proposed and again would like to thank 24 the staff for their very good work on these amendments. 25 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Graham, we thank you for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 being here. 2 Thank you for the comments about the staff. I 3 think it shows in the outreach that they have done. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Ashby. 7 MR. ASHBY: My name is Ron Ashby. I am here 8 representing myself as a technical service rep for Mohawk 9 Finishing Products Specialty, Liberon/Star Supply. 10 Germini-Mohawk Finishing Products Specialty is my 11 own technical retail service business. We sell a very 12 selected group of aerosols and distribute them to a very 13 selected group of aerosols and work closely with the industry 14 in touch-up and repair and restoring. 15 This is a specialty category. With the 16 reformulation of 1996 in this particular category, inventory 17 was lost, sales in the State of California was 16 percent. 18 That has never recovered. 19 Businesses, due to the stringent nature of the 20 regulations, moved out of state. Some closed. 21 In this particular area of touch-up and repair and 22 restoration, a very high VOC is required to do the type of 23 touch-up and repair required by service technicians. 24 If you have furniture delivered to your home that 25 has a blemish on it, this allows technicians to use repair PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 techniques to work on new and old and even antique finishes. 2 You have a very willing and open minded staff. 3 They were a delight to work with. 4 We had several individual meetings. We extensively 5 support the current regulation as it is proposed. 6 There are a few categories as this regulation is 7 proposed that would be outlawed in the State of California. 8 Very important tools, unlike the rest of the wood cuttings 9 that we are talking about in aerosol cans. 10 These are in fact not coatings. They are more 11 tools used by the service technician. 12 We would support extending the compliance date to 13 2003, or in the wood coatings touch-up and repair, a 92 14 percent VOC to allow implementation and use of these 15 particular restorative and repair coatings. 16 The current work at the labs in three different 17 companies say that for the particular products that we 18 currently have, we would have to go with alternate compliance 19 procedures to include some of these or, as I say, they think 20 that's possible with new technology coming along that some of 21 these might be possible to comply with by 2003 if the 92 22 percent is not available. 23 It was a staff recommendation that the 90 percent 24 would include most of the products that currently would not 25 fall under that category could be brought into the State PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 under an alternate compliance procedure. 2 It is the feeling of the people at Germini and at 3 Mohawk Manufacturing that 2003 would be a more reasonable 4 date to comply with the 90 percent VOC, and from my own point 5 of view, we are facing a daily situation where the 6 technicians in the field are refusing to use the current 7 compliant products, because they do not work, and in this 8 particular field, what you are looking at is then picking up 9 a desk out of your office, moving it across town, stripping 10 all the finish off of it and totally refinishing it with much 11 more exposure of VOC to the air than if these products are 12 made functional for the technicians. 13 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you. 14 We will have staff comment on your request. 15 Before that, let me ask if there are any questions 16 for this witness? 17 Thank you very much, Mr. Ashby, and thank you for 18 the comments about the working relationships with our staff. 19 Mr. Kenny, you and your staff have, I think, there 20 were two of the witnesses that have some requests, and I 21 would like a response maybe. 22 MR. KENNY: I think there were two issues that we 23 will try to respond to. 24 One was 2002-2003, and one was wood furniture 25 coatings, and with that I will ask Mr. Venturini to provide a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 response. 2 MR. VENTURINI: Madam Chairman, for the record this 3 is Peter Venturini. 4 Let me initially respond, and then I will ask staff 5 if they would like to amplify. 6 Regarding the compliance date, the staff is 7 proposing a two-year extension, but it really means there are 8 three years, because this could be in effect starting at the 9 end of this year. 10 So, in effect it gives the companies three years to 11 comply. Also, as part of the development of these 12 regulations we received from individual companies what we 13 call the research and development reports that provided us 14 with information on what individual companies have been doing 15 and the efforts they have been making to achieve some of 16 these limits and the research that they are doing. 17 Based collectively on that information, it is our 18 judgment that we believe that three years should be 19 sufficient to come into compliance with these regulations, 20 and as always, we will continue to follow the activities of 21 these companies very closely and with their development 22 efforts. 23 With respect to the wood touch-up, staff has had 24 extensive dialogues with Mr. Ashby. 25 I just want to point out in the discussions one of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 the things that we take a look at is how many products 2 currently are complying with the proposed emission limits, 3 and this is one of those categories that is one of the 4 specialty categories, and just note for the Board that the 5 complying market share for that category is 96 percent. 6 So, virtually the whole market currently complies. 7 As Mr. Ashby mentioned, he does have the option, and we have 8 talked to him about this, and we would be willing to work 9 with him on the alternative control plan which would allow 10 him to basically adjust that one product by making up for it 11 with other products, and that has worked very well for other 12 companies. 13 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: So, there is some 14 flexibility? 15 MR. VENTURINI: Yes. 16 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Very good. 17 This is all in terms of public testimony. So, for 18 the record, let me ask if there are any written submissions 19 that we should enter into the record? 20 MS. FRY: Yes, Madam Chairman and Members of the 21 Board. 22 There are four letters I would like to discuss. I 23 am Barbara Fry. 24 The first is from the Natural Resources Defense 25 Council and the Coalition for Clean Air. They are commenting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 that we are not meeting the requirements of State law because 2 our proposal would not achieve 60 percent reduction in 3 emissions. 4 We disagree with this interpretation of State law, 5 and we believe that our proposal does meet the requirements, 6 because it would establish the most stringent limits that are 7 technologically and commercially feasible. 8 They also comment that we should maintain existing 9 1999 limits or propose more stringent limits and maintain the 10 existing effective date in 1999. 11 As we discussed, based on our discussions with 12 industry and the research and the development reports, we 13 believe that we are proposing the most stringent limits 14 feasible and that an additional two years are needed in order 15 for manufacturers to develop commercially viable products. 16 We also received a letter from the Automotive 17 Chemical Manufacturers Council, which provides overall 18 support for our proposal but requests a one-year extension 19 for the flat, non flat and primer categories, and as I 20 mentioned, we believe that is not necessary. 21 We believe that two years is sufficient time. 22 In addition, we received a letter from the National 23 Aerosol Association, supporting our proposal and encouraging 24 us to pursue the development of a reactivity based regulation 25 for aerosol coatings. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 As we indicated in our presentation, we plan to 2 present the Board with a reactivity regulation in the next 3 calendar year. 4 The final letter came from Clean Air Action 5 Corporation, and they are offering their services in 6 providing emission reduction credits in the event that a 7 manufacturer needs to seek a variance from the proposed 8 limit. 9 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 10 Dr. Friedman. 11 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I noticed in the letter 12 from the NRDC the direct disagreement about feasibility. 13 Have they attended any of the workshops or meetings 14 to learn the facts about feasibility? 15 MR. VENTURINI: Dr. Friedman, this is Peter 16 Venturini, as to my recollection and staff, they did not 17 participate in any the workshops, the meetings and since the 18 report was issued in the 45-day period, there was no contact 19 or expression of concern until we received the letter 20 yesterday. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. 22 That will be made part of the record. 23 Mr. Kenny, any further comments? 24 MR. KENNY: Nothing further to add to what the 25 staff has provided. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Since all testimony, written 2 submissions and staff comments for the Item have been entered 3 into the record, the Board has not granted an extension of 4 that period, and I am officially closing the record on this 5 portion of Agenda Number 98-13-2 written or oral comments 6 received after the comment period has been closed and will 7 not be accepted as part of the official record on this Agenda 8 Item. 9 We have on this item ex parte communications to 10 acknowledge. Let me ask if there are any Board Members that 11 have any ex parte communications? 12 Seeing or hearing none, we will move on to 13 Resolution and discussion. 14 Yes, Ms. Edgerton. 15 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I would like to make the 16 comment that, as I did with staff when I was briefed, I 17 actually remember the 1995 adoption of the hearings of the 18 regulation, and I remember very clearly that there was with 19 respect to the possibility of this being technologically 20 feasible in the second stage, it was hanging by a fingernail. 21 There was the greatest skepticism that I can 22 imagine about whether that could happen. 23 In the spirit of trying to get every possible 24 emission reduction, and to continue our technology forcing, 25 we went forward and did adopt the target that we had hoped PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 for. 2 So, it is no surprise to me that the staff has come 3 in and said or made this proposal, and I do not think, for 4 the record, there never was a showing that it was 5 technologically feasible in 1995. 6 So, there is no such thing as a backing off today, 7 except from the finding that it was technologically feasible. 8 It was a goal, as my recollection. 9 It was a goal. It was not ever established as 10 technologically or commercially feasible. 11 I just wanted to say that for the record, and what 12 I hear today is that it is still not established that the 13 other possibility was there. 14 It seems to me the only way that the SIP process 15 can work is if we honestly address the issues. We go out 16 ambitiously and we try to get everything we can, and I must 17 say here, here, hats off to the staff, and I know it is hard 18 to come back, particularly in an atmosphere where the Board 19 is constantly saying, please, more emissions, more emissions, 20 so that we can make this staff whole, not make the staff 21 whole, make the SIP whole, maybe we can make the staff whole, 22 too. 23 I am as desirous of leaving a full, as having a SIP 24 that has every I dotted and T crossed, but I support this 25 regulation, and I support it strongly. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 I regret that perhaps that the NRDC and the 2 Coalition for Clean Air did not contact us earlier, because I 3 think perhaps we could have advised them, and they could have 4 looked at the record of the hearing in 1995 and see there is 5 no backing off of a finding of technological feasibility and 6 economic feasibility, because it was never there. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Ms. Edgerton. 9 I recall that hearing, also, and agree with you 100 10 percent. 11 Mr. Calhoun. 12 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, I would like to make 13 one comment concerning the effective date. 14 I would really like to emphasize something that Mr. 15 Venturini said. If the Board decides to buy into the 2002 16 year date as opposed to the 2003 as recommended by the 17 industry, I thought I heard in Peter Venturini's comments 18 that they would continue to evaluate the status of 19 technology, and I assume they will do what they have 20 consistently done in the past, if it turns out that is not 21 feasible, that they will come back and make their appropriate 22 changes; is that correct? 23 MR. KENNY: That is correct. 24 Actually, we view that as essentially what the 25 Board has directed us to do, and that is our statutory PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 mandate, also. 2 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And I agree. 3 Thank you, Mr. Calhoun, for underscoring that. 4 That is important. 5 You have before you Resolution 98-55. It contains 6 the staff's recommendations. 7 Is there a motion? 8 Moved by Calhoun, and seconded by Dr. Freidman. 9 Any further discussion? 10 Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying 11 aye. 12 Opposed, no. 13 The motion carries. 14 Thank you very much. 15 We will continue to work on that. I will give you 16 a minute for the staff to change places. 17 We will continue on, with the Aftermarket Parts for 18 Off-road Vehicles. 19 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) 20 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I will ask that we all come 21 back into session for the next item. 22 The next Item is 98-13-3. I would remind those of 23 you out there in the audience that wish to present testimony 24 to the Board that you sign up with our Clerk, who is on the 25 right-hand side of the room here, and if you have a written PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 testimony that you have 20 copies for her. 2 I wonder what would happen if you had 19? 3 She would let it go. 4 Okay. 5 The next item on the Agenda is, as I say, 98-13-3, 6 a Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the 7 Certification Procedures for All Aftermarket Parts and 8 Conversion Systems for Off-Road Vehicles, Engines and 9 Equipment. 10 Manufacturers of aftermarket parts that want to 11 market their products to on-road vehicles have had 12 established criteria for many years. However, analogous 13 criteria do not exist for off-road vehicles, engines and 14 equipment. 15 Consequently, to protect the emissions control 16 system of regulated equipment from negative impact of 17 unregulated aftermarket parts, the use of these parts are 18 currently prohibited. Evaluation criteria for off-road 19 aftermarket parts is being proposed today. 20 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Kenny to 21 introduce the Item and the staff's presentation. 22 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members 23 of the Board. 24 Staff has worked to develop appropriate 25 certification procedures for aftermarket parts and conversion PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 systems for off-road mobile sources. 2 These procedures will allow aftermarket part 3 manufacturers to demonstrate that their parts do not increase 4 emissions. 5 In addition, staff is proposing anti-tampering 6 provisions and amending the warranty regulations to allow 7 sale, offer for sale and installation of add-on and modified 8 parts. 9 The regulations will allow many aftermarket part 10 manufacturers to participate in a market that has been 11 previously closed to them and will assure that the 12 aftermarket parts do not compromise the effectiveness of the 13 off-road regulatory program. 14 I would now like to turn the presentation over to 15 Ms. Su Nathan of the Mobile Source Controls Division, who 16 will now provide you with an overview of its findings and 17 present the staff's recommendations. 18 Ms. Nathan. 19 MS. NATHAN: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 20 Good morning, Madam Chairman and Members of the 21 Board. 22 Today I will present the proposals to consider the 23 adoption of certification procedures for all aftermarket 24 parts and conversion systems for off-road vehicles, engines 25 and equipment. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 In 1977 the Board adopted regulations implementing 2 certification programs for aftermarket parts intended for use 3 in cars and trucks. This process allowed the sale of 4 certified parts which otherwise would be prohibited by the 5 anti-tampering statues. 6 Since then a wide array of parts, ranging from 7 exhaust headers to superchargers, have been certified by ARB 8 based on showing that their use does not increase emissions. 9 The proposed regulations you are considering today 10 are designed to establish certification procedures for 11 aftermarket parts used in off-road vehicles, engines and 12 equipment. 13 Like the existing on-road regulations, they will 14 help assure that emissions from off-road vehicles are not 15 compromised by installation of aftermarket parts. 16 Also, since in most cases these parts are currently 17 prohibited, the proposal before the Board today will allow 18 aftermarket part manufacturers to participate in a market 19 that is now closed to them. 20 In addition, staff proposes the Board adopt 21 regulations that would provide consistent anti-tampering 22 requirements to offer engines currently not subjected to 23 Vehicle Code Anti-Tampering regulations. 24 Finally, staff proposes the Board amend the 25 warranty regulations for currently regulated off-road sources PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 to allow the sale, offer for sale, installation of add-on and 2 modified parts, provided such parts have been exempted in 3 accordance with the proposed procedures. 4 I will first provide a brief background on the 5 On-Road Aftermarket Parts Certification Program as well as 6 Off-Road Mobile Source Program. 7 These on-road aftermarket procedures are important 8 because we have had many years of experience with these 9 procedures, and the proposed procedures are designed to be 10 consistent with these existing requirements. 11 Following the background, I will discuss the 12 proposed aftermarket certification requirements. 13 Finally, I will summarize the staff's 14 recommendations for the proposed Aftermarket Certification 15 Program. 16 Since 1966, the ARB has regulated emissions for 17 motor vehicles by adopting and implementing emissions 18 standards for new vehicles. 19 Motor vehicle manufacturers have been able to 20 comply with stringent emissions standards by developing and 21 incorporating emissions control systems, such as exhaust-gas 22 recirculation systems, air injection systems, catalytic 23 converters and computer controls. 24 The proper function of these systems throughout 25 their entire life is essential in reducing motor vehicle PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 emissions. 2 California Vehicle Code Section 27156 prohibits any 3 modifications to any required motor vehicle pollution control 4 device, including the installation of aftermarket parts in 5 motor vehicles. 6 An aftermarket part is simply any emission-related 7 device used on a vehicle that was not part of the vehicle 8 when it was originally sold. 9 Because an aftermarket part could reduce the 10 effectiveness of a vehicle's emissions control system, 11 Vehicle Code Section 27156 prohibits the sale, offer for sale 12 or installation of aftermarket products unless such parts 13 have been exempted from this prohibition by the ARB. 14 Generally, ARB requires aftermarket parts 15 manufacturers to demonstrate through vehicle testing that an 16 aftermarket part will not increase vehicle emissions. 17 These aftermarket part requirements have been in 18 place and have worked effectively for on-road vehicles for 19 over 20 years. 20 The 1988 California Clean Air Act directs the ARB 21 to reduce emissions from off-road mobile sources in order to 22 attain State ambient air quality standards. 23 The first off-road standards were adopted for small 24 engines, for example, lawn mowers and chain saws. They were 25 adopted by the ARB in 1990 and were implemented beginning in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 1995. 2 In 1994, the ARB adopted the State Implementation 3 Plan, or SIP, for ozone. The SIP is heavily dependent on 4 emissions reductions from a wide variety of off-road mobile 5 sources in order to achieve the Federal ambient air quality 6 standard for ozone. 7 Off-road mobile sources include everything from 8 small lawn mowers to large construction equipment and 9 locomotives. 10 They include jet skis and small outboard engines, 11 as well as large ocean-going marine vessels. They include 12 motorcycles, forklifts and even aircraft. 13 To date the ARB has adopted regulations specifying 14 emissions standards and test procedures for small off-record 15 engines, heavy-duty diesel engines, recreational vehicles and 16 engines, large spark-ignited industrial engines and 17 spark-ignited marine engines. 18 Next month the Board will also consider regulations 19 for spark ignited marine engines. These are the off-road 20 engines and vehicle categories that would be affected by the 21 emissions related parts certification program that you are 22 considering today. 23 Now, I will discuss the certification requirement 24 for aftermarket parts for off-road engines. 25 Aftermarket parts are either replacement parts or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 add-on modified parts. A replacement part means any 2 aftermarket part intended to replace an original equipment 3 emissions-related part and which is functionally identical to 4 the original equipment part in all respects which in many 5 ways effect emissions, including durability. 6 Examples are fuel injectors, EGR valves, oxygen 7 sensors and air pumps. 8 A modified part means any aftermarket part intended 9 to replace an original equipment emissions-related part and 10 which is not functionally identical to the original equipment 11 part in all respects that effect emissions. 12 Examples are cam shaft and cylinder heads. 13 An add-on part means any aftermarket part which is 14 not a modified or a replacement part. 15 Examples are turbochargers, superchargers and 16 headers. 17 Add-on and modified parts include alternative fuel 18 conversion systems and catalytic converters, for which 19 specialized test procedures exist. 20 The first step for an aftermarket part manufacturer 21 is to determine if the part is a replacement part or an 22 add-on or modified part. 23 A manufacturer of a replacement part does not need 24 to submit an application to the ARB but must maintain records 25 of the information used to determine its equivalence for a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 period of four years. 2 The ARB can assist in this determination and has 3 the right to inspect these records and may perform emissions 4 testing to validate the determination. 5 Now, I will discuss the add-on and modified parts. 6 Manufacturers of add-on and modified parts that 7 intend to sell the products for use on California vehicles, 8 engines and equipment contact the ARB staff for an 9 application for certification. 10 Based upon an engineering evaluation of the 11 completed application, staff determines if emissions testing 12 is required to demonstrate that there is no adverse impact on 13 emissions. 14 If testing is required, staff guides the 15 manufacturer to the appropriate certifications procedure and 16 test cycle. 17 After review of the emissions test results, the 18 certification is either granted or denied, based upon whether 19 or not emissions increase above the applicable standards. 20 As part of this process, the applicant is also 21 informed of Cal EPA's environmental technology certification 22 program. 23 The applicant who chooses to pursue environmental 24 technology certification usually must conduct additional 25 testing to go quantify the exhaust emissions reductions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 achieved by use of the aftermarket part. 2 Staff believes that there are positive benefits of 3 the proposed regulations. The proposal assures that 4 modifications made to emissions control systems of certified 5 off-road vehicles, engines and equipment would be durable and 6 reliable and would not adversely affect vehicle engine and 7 equipment emissions. 8 As for the potential economic impact, the 9 aftermarket industry is currently prohibited from installing 10 add-on and modified parts on most regulated off-road 11 vehicles, engines and equipment. 12 The proposed regulations allow off-road aftermarket 13 part manufacturers to obtain certification for their 14 products, thereby legalizing their sale. 15 The certification procedures for aftermarket parts 16 for off-road vehicles, engines and equipment are recommended 17 by the staff. 18 In addition, the regulations that would provide 19 consistent anti-tampering provisions are also recommended, 20 and finally, the amended warranty regulations to allow for 21 the sale, offer for sale and installation of aftermarket 22 parts on off-road sources are also recommended by the staff. 23 Before I conclude, I would like to mention several 24 clarifications that the staff is proposing to the proposed 25 regulations following recent discussions with manufacturers. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 First, the existing provisions allowing for 2 remanufactured and rebuilt engines and the family emissions 3 limit option will not be superseded by these proposed 4 regulations. 5 Also, staff will clarify that vehicle and engine 6 manufacturers would not be liable for replacing warranted 7 parts that are damaged due to the failure of an aftermarket 8 part. 9 In addition, staff is proposing language to ensure 10 that replacement catalytic converters have back pressures 11 comparable to the OEM converter. 12 Finally, staff has had some recent discussions with 13 the Motorcycle Industry Council regarding the use of 14 alternate test procedures that would allow parts to be 15 exempted more cost-effectively, and in cases of low sales 16 volume on the order of one hundred units per year in 17 California, where the aftermarket parts would not have a 18 significant impact on cold-start emissions, staff believes a 19 loaded transient test, such as IM 240, could be effectively 20 used in place of the FTP. 21 The Motorcycle Industry Council believes in an even 22 lower cost test, such as the ASM test, could be used. 23 Although staff has concerns about the applicability 24 of the ASM test, we have committed to working with the 25 Motorcycle Industry Council in the coming months. We are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 discussing a possibility of imposing sales limits on 2 components, components using abbreviated procedures depending 3 on the confidence we have in the product. 4 Current experimental variability criteria used for 5 on-road certification will be included in these efforts. 6 If additional testing can demonstrate the validity 7 of the ASM test with or without sales limits, we believe that 8 the current flexibility within these proposed regulations 9 would allow this test to be used. 10 This concludes the staff's presentation. We would 11 be happy to answer any questions. 12 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 13 I think what I would like to do is have the 14 Ombudsman's Office make their presentation, and then we will 15 open it up for questions from the Board Members. 16 MS. STEEL: For the record, my name is Nancy Steel. 17 Staff has made sure that interested stakeholders 18 have input into this proposed regulation. 19 Through the following outreach activities, which I 20 would like to list first, because it is a new regulation, 21 there was no applicable mailing list. Staff, therefore, used 22 14 or 15 different lists comprising over 2,000 individuals to 23 locate interested stakeholders. 24 Second, staff then called the associations that 25 represent potential stakeholders to alert them to the rule in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 development. The associations contacted included the 2 Automotive Parts and Service Alliance, California Motorcycle 3 Dealers Association, Engine Manufacturers Association, 4 Equipment Manufacturers Institute, Far West Equipment 5 Association, International Jet Sport Boat Association, 6 Motorcycle Industry Council, National Marine Manufacturing 7 Association, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Industrial 8 Truck Association and the Speciality Equipment Manufacturers 9 Association. 10 Third, when staff issued its first mailing on July 11 30 of this year, it also placed the Notice on the ARB 12 Internet site. 13 The paper mailing included a facts sheet with back 14 for comments and the Internet site included an E-mail 15 address. Only one request at that time was made for a 16 workshop by the Motorcycle Industry Council. 17 Instead of holding a workshop, staff met with the 18 MIC representatives and spoke with them by telephone on 19 several occasions, as you have heard, resulting in some 20 proposed modifications. 21 Staff met with the interested association 22 representatives and with manufacturers and distributors who 23 indicated an interest in the proposal, and as staff has told 24 you, they have continued meeting with interested stakeholders 25 following the issuance of the staff report. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 In conclusion, the Ombudsman's Office finds that 2 staff made a good faith effort to contact all stakeholders 3 and meet with those stakeholders who are interested in the 4 proposal, and therefore, their outreach appears satisfactory. 5 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 6 Are there any questions from the staff at this 7 time? 8 Then let's move on to the witnesses. We have five, 9 and I would like to ask Mr. Maurer to come forward, and the 10 other four, Mr. Block, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Bergman and Mr. 11 Shepherd, to cue up behind him and come up to the front of 12 the room and sit in those front seats. 13 If you will identify yourself and who you 14 represent, on whose behalf. 15 MR. MAURER: Good morning. My name is Paul Maurer. 16 I am here on behalf of my own company, Maurdyne Industry. 17 We are located in Parker, Colorado, about 32 miles 18 southeast of Denver. Maurdyne has developed a highly 19 effective emission reduction system for single -- four-stroke 20 utility engines of the class that we are talking about here 21 today. 22 The system provides a means of injecting secondary 23 air in the engines exhaust to supply the oxygen needed for 24 the catalytic converter to achieve maximum efficiency. 25 The air injection pump supplies air to the engine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 exhaust in proportion to engine speed, with no power loss to 2 the engine or increase in fuel consumption. 3 This system is maintenance free and low cost, and 4 we have developed it from the outset to be an aftermarket 5 system which can be easily fitted to the small engine without 6 disassembly or modifications of the basic engine. 7 The sole purpose of our system is to reduce 8 emissions to levels well below mandated standards. Our 9 initial development effort show that our air injection system 10 and catalytic converter could reduce regulated emissions to 11 more than 90 percent below Tier 1 standards. 12 However, our more recent development efforts have 13 been focused on durability to ensure that the durability of 14 our aftermarket system is equal to or greater than the 15 durability period of useful life period to which the host 16 engine has been certified, our field test results today have 17 been very encouraging and are ongoing. 18 I encourage and support the general purpose of 19 scope of the certification procedures as proposed by the ARB 20 staff. My goal here is to convince the ARB to adopt an 21 aftermarket certification program for the off-road segment 22 which not only ensures that the aftermarket cars do not 23 adversely affect emissions but also encourages and rewards 24 the development of aftermarket emissions reducing innovations 25 by creating a more receptive market in California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 To this end, I suggest that the primary or highest 2 priority suggestion is that this aftermarket certification 3 program include provisions for voluntarily green labeling 4 process, emphasis on voluntary, and equipment manufacturers 5 which voluntarily incorporates the aftermarket emission 6 reduction technologies, whether it is from -- or some other 7 source could demonstrate to the ARB through the aftermarket 8 certification procedure, the low emissions capability of the 9 equipment, thereby entitling the equipment manufacturer to 10 apply an approved green label to the equipment for sale. 11 I suggest, and I previously suggested to ARB, that 12 such a green label program would recognize possibly two 13 levels of superior emissions performance. 14 Emissions which fall in the range of 40 to 60 15 percent of the mandated standards would qualify for low 16 emissions labeling, and below 40 percent of mandated 17 standards would entitle a manufacturer to represent the 18 equipment of ultra low emission. 19 Such a label and program would reward the research 20 and development efforts in reducing small engine emissions by 21 providing a defined means of public recognition for small 22 engine equipment producing emissions below mandated 23 standards. 24 Such a program would be a major step toward 25 creating a receptive market in California for such PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 aftermarket technologies by helping consumers make further 2 purchases of low emissions equipment. 3 The next two suggestions that I have refer more 4 specifically to the proposed procedures. 5 First, I refer to the exemption application which 6 is attached to the proposed document by the CARB staff. The 7 exemption application is Appendix A. 8 The problem that I have with that exemption 9 application is the very last sentence of the document. It 10 reads, I further understand that no claims of any kind 11 concerning anti-pollution benefits can be made for any kind 12 of device. 13 Well, if an aftermarket component can be shown 14 through applicable test procedures to produce verifiable and 15 durable emissions reductions below mandated standards, why 16 should the aftermarket manufacturer not be able to truthfully 17 represent those emissions benefits? 18 As I said, the sole purpose of our system has been 19 to reduce the emissions below mandated standards. If we can 20 not extol virtues of that system that is fit into equipment, 21 frankly we have no incentive to market it in California. 22 I also suggest that this kind of provision is 23 unnecessarily discriminatory against the aftermarket. 24 The OEM engine manufacturers will certainly tell 25 the emissions benefits of their newer, lower emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 engines, when such engines are merely meeting the mandated 2 standards to be sold in the State. 3 So, if the exempted aftermarket device produces 4 verifiable and durable emissions levels below mandated 5 standards, then I propose a truthful claims to that effect 6 should be allowed. 7 The final suggestion concerns the section of the 8 procedures, Section 6, specifically entitled, Test Procedures 9 and Standards, Subsection B, Vehicle Engine Equipment Exhaust 10 Emission Standards, here the staff is proposing that the 11 deterioration factor used by the OEM engine manufacturer be 12 applied to the test results for the aftermarket component. 13 I would suggest that if an aftermarket manufacturer 14 can demonstrate through the appropriate test procedures that 15 installation of its aftermarket system or component can 16 support a deterioration factor lower than the deterioration 17 factor used by the OEM engine manufacturer, then the higher 18 OEM deterioration factor should not be used. 19 That is the extent of my suggestions. Thank you 20 for your attention. I will answer any questions. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Maurer. 22 Maybe staff could respond. There seemed to be 23 three issues. 24 MR. CACKETTE: Madam Chairman, we have just 25 implemented a parallel program called environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 technology certification that is available to both on-road 2 and off-road vehicles aftermarket parts, and what that 3 program does and how it is distinguished from the basic 4 program we are proposing today, it really has to do with the 5 burden of testing. 6 The program that we have today for on-road and the 7 one that you are considering for off-road for aftermarket 8 parts is designed to be bare bones, minimum effort testing, 9 to meet the statutory requirements which basically says prove 10 that this does not make things worse because that is the 11 criteria that allows you to say, sell the parts. 12 The reason the statement is in there is because 13 consistent with that if you only go through the effort to 14 prove that you are not making anything worse you probably 15 have not gone through the effort to actually quantify the 16 actual emission reductions. 17 We do these with a simple, one, back-to-back test 18 on one piece of equipment often. The environmental 19 technology certification program is designed to have a 20 testing regime that actually quantifies, statistically 21 quantifies what the emissions reductions are. 22 If you choose to go through that loop, you get a 23 little bit more testing than is otherwise required and is 24 strictly a choice on the applicant, but then you would be 25 able to claim the emissions reductions, do the advertising, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 and the statement would not apply, and if you have evidence 2 of deterioration, you do not have the use the standard DF or 3 rate of deterioration, but you can use a lower one in either 4 case if you have the evidence to back it up. 5 The reason we go with the standard DF is it takes 6 quite a bit of testing to develop that, and it is more than 7 we think is warranted for this program. 8 So, I think that all of Mr. Maurer's concerns are 9 addressed by either an environmental technology certification 10 labeling program or by just the information that he can use a 11 different deterioration if he so chooses to develop the 12 information to support it. 13 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. I appreciate that. 14 Ms. Edgerton. 15 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Maybe I do not understand 16 this. 17 It seems to me what I heard was there were three 18 categories. There is sort of an intermediate category that 19 seems to have been developed by this regulation which 20 prohibits the afterparts manufacturers. 21 I am even saying, what is true, and that worries 22 me, because it seems to be overbroad in terms of prohibiting 23 any representations at all. 24 MR. CACKETTE: It is statutory. 25 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Well, that would make a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 difference. 2 What is statutory? 3 MR. CACKETTE: Vehicle Code 27156 basically says 4 that if you have an emissions certified system, a OEM system, 5 you cannot do anything to change it. 6 You cannot add a part. You cannot add a modified 7 part. All you can do is replace parts that are functionally 8 equivalent to what was there, by, in this case, maybe Briggs 9 and Stratton, in building a single cylinder engine, and what 10 these aftermarket parts programs regulations do is provide a 11 way that you can modify the system, but there is a burden of 12 proof required, which is some testing or evaluations saying 13 that modification or that add-on part will not decrease the 14 effectiveness of what the original manufacturer produced in 15 emissions reduction effectiveness. 16 So, by statue, you cannot put anything on the car. 17 By regulation, you can put it on if you prove that 18 it does not make emissions worse. 19 The next step is if you want to prove it makes it 20 better and claim a number, hang a moniker on there saying, 21 this is 30 percent better than what the original manufacturer 22 had, and you can go through the environmental technology 23 certification process and get the right to do that, but it 24 takes more testing. 25 It takes more testing to prove that you have a 30 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 percent reduction than it does to prove that you did not make 2 things worse. 3 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Well, I want to stick to 4 this a little bit, and maybe Mr. Dunlap also can help on this 5 a little bit, but I am just reflecting on my experience with 6 the environmental technology certification program of which 7 is a program that I am very supportive of. 8 It was designed, I think, to preform a lot of 9 functions but very often to facilitate a manufacturer being 10 able to make claims on a broad way, maybe with the South 11 Coast or with some major installations across the state 12 lines, I mean county lines and things like that. 13 I think it could work certainly for these 14 companies, but there is an expense in getting that, and there 15 is a value added in getting it. 16 So, I am comfortable with what you say about going 17 to get that, but I did not have the impression that it meant 18 that you could not say what was true about your product. 19 I do not hear what you said about the statute that 20 it says that they could not say that they did better than the 21 emissions of the OEM. 22 My understanding is that you cannot do worse. 23 MS. WALSH: The statute says that you cannot modify 24 the vehicle or system unless you have got a certified part. 25 We issue executive orders saying the parts are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 certified when they have gone through this minimal testing to 2 show that the parts are not going to degrade emissions 3 performance of equipment that the part is going to be used 4 on, and what we are saying is that executive order which 5 reflects that testing, that bare bones testing, cannot be 6 used to establish that this is a piece of equipment or part 7 that will improve emissions. 8 MR. KENNY: If I could add on to that for just very 9 briefly, one of the things we are trying to do is essentially 10 preserve the credibility of the Air Resources Board 11 certification, and when we basically do these certifications 12 pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 27156, all we are saying is 13 essentially that this is no harm. 14 So, if someone wants to put something on there that 15 does no good but also does no harm, we did not want them 16 going out there saying the Air Resources Board says this is a 17 great product and here is the proof, they certified it. 18 So, that is why we provided this two-step that Tom 19 talks about, which after the initial step you get a no harm 20 certification, but you cannot go out and market that as 21 something the Air Resources Board is saying this is a great 22 product. 23 If you want to go to the second step to prove that 24 in fact your product does good, not only does it do no harm 25 but it does good, they will not let you market it unless you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 market it with the Air Resources Board approval on that, but 2 that is kind of the way we basically try to preserve the 3 credibility of what ARB does. 4 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Well, I understand that, 5 but I have sort of a free speech, even commercial speech kind 6 of issue about this. 7 MR. CROSS: Bob Cross. 8 The language that is concerning him is on the 9 specifically no harm application form. 10 The constraint is no broader than that, than on the 11 no harm application form. They cannot misuse the information 12 that is generated from going through the no harm process. 13 Since it is on that form, it is a pretty narrow 14 thing. 15 MR. CACKETTE: But he has the other path where if 16 there is a little more testing done he can quantify results. 17 He can ultimately do whatever he wants with those 18 results. 19 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I am just saying, he can 20 not sell it. 21 It is a prohibition of selling it with that bit of 22 information on it. 23 MR. CROSS: I am saying that on the no harm 24 application form, when he receives the no harm certification, 25 he can then go out with the no harm certification and claim PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 based on the data that he actually produced an emissions 2 benefit. 3 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I understand. I understand 4 that is an Air Board issue of our credibility. 5 But if I understood what he is saying, he is saying 6 he could put on there the Air Board says it is a no harm 7 issue, and by the way, we also say that we are better, but 8 the whole legislative and statutory and regulatory measures 9 taken together have the result that he is not going to be 10 allowed, it sounds like, to sell his products saying that 11 they do better, and I am not going to take more time. 12 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think there is a route for 13 him to be able to do that. 14 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: That costs a lot of money. 15 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: But you said it yourself 16 there are such benefits to that additional effort in 17 particular if there is a buying public out there that wants a 18 cleaner product. 19 MR. KENNY: If I could take 10 seconds, I believe 20 maybe I can incorporate a little bit,. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes, 10 seconds, and we are 22 moving on. 23 MR. KENNY: There is nothing that prevents someone 24 from saying they think their product does something positive. 25 What we are basically saying is that we do not want PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 the ARB approval on that. If they say it is positive and in 2 fact it is not, then there is consumer fraud aspects to it. 3 But we do not basically say we do not limit your 4 free speech with regard to anything as to what ARB says. 5 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: That was my -- I think 6 that your description of this is overbroad. 7 I do not think we have really said you can go out 8 and say on your own. 9 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Dunlap has the final, 10 final, final comment. 11 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Is the mike on? 12 One of the things that I have learned, and I 13 appreciate the comment about my role in pushing environmental 14 technology, because that is true. 15 Some of the things that Cal EPA has desired to do 16 here at the Air Resources Board is to have a technology 17 certification program, a program of all the Cal EPA, which is 18 housed here. 19 It is in Mr. Cackette's shop. Mr. Cackette also 20 has a certification program that he works with Mr. Cross and 21 the team down south to look at the technologies. 22 I have found that the attitude of this staff is the 23 right attitude relative to wanting to recognize and certify 24 new technologies and maybe technologies that are not new but 25 for the purpose of providing for cleaner use of motor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 vehicles. 2 So, what I would suggest we do is encourage through 3 you, as the Chair, Barbara, to have the staff do all that 4 they can to be encouraging and certifying technology for the 5 broadest possible use whenever you can. 6 Mike, I know you and Kathleen will make sure we 7 preserve our legal responsibility so that we do not commit or 8 give one license to go market things that do not work. We 9 expect that to continue. 10 Tom, I know you are doing all you can with the 11 program. You have good people that are trying to do this, 12 but obviously there is a gentleman here that has the same 13 goals that appears to me that we have and you just need to 14 find common grounds whenever you can, and some of that is 15 going to involve, in my opinion, some hand-holding and 16 educating them as well. 17 I see this as an issue, but I think our team is 18 trying to do all the right stuff in this area, and maybe, 19 Tom, I guess if I could have any criticism it would be, do it 20 quicker. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think also the point that I 22 would like to conclude with, for Mr. Maurer, is that if you 23 are willing to wait a few moments until we finish our Agenda, 24 I will have one of the staff members, Mr. Cross, I am kind of 25 looking at you because I know you, would you have somebody PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 meet with Mr. Maurer, and we will work with you. 2 Next is Mr. Block. 3 MR. BLOCK: I am Michael Block, and I am the 4 Technical Director of the Engine Manufacturers Association. 5 I will make my comments reasonably brief. First of 6 all, a couple of preliminary comments, the comments that I 7 will be talking about apply essentially to the small 8 spark-ignited and diesel portion of the regulation, really 9 that there are other products in the regulation that are 10 off-road motorcycles that are not really available to our 11 members. 12 The other comment I wanted to make as an 13 introductory comment is that I realize that this rule may not 14 directly regulate our members but it does regulate 15 aftermarket manufacturers who supply products or components 16 to our members that could effect their engines, so therefore, 17 it is of interest to us. 18 That is kind of why I am here. Let me start off by 19 saying that we have worked, EMA, with ARB staff, and they 20 have listened to a lot of what our concerns were, and I want 21 to thank them for incorporating a lot of those concerns, not 22 only into the final staff report but also to the 15-day 23 notice that was just read, and I appreciate that. 24 So what I am going to do is limit my comments to 25 three other issues that I would like to see incorporated as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 part of the 15-day notice. That is the reason why I am here. 2 The first of those issues is warranty. I know 3 there is a warrant provision on the 15-day notice. 4 What we would like to see added as an additional 5 warranty provision is an emissions defect warranty on the 6 aftermarket part itself. 7 This is a requirement for the original engine 8 manufacturer as part of their certification process to defect 9 warranties specific components of theirs, and we would like 10 to see the aftermarket parts manufacturer to be subject to 11 the same regulation. 12 It is precedent for this in this regulation in that 13 there is a defect warranty for the alternative fuel 14 aftermarket parts, catalyst aftermarket parts, so we would 15 then just like it expanded to all their aftermarket parts, 16 because they do effect engine emissions. 17 The second issue is replacement parts and the 18 process of determining whether the replacement part is 19 functionally identical. 20 That process essentially is a self-process by an 21 aftermarket manufacturer. They can essentially make it an 22 engineering judgment that their replacement part is 23 functionally identical to the original part that it replaces 24 with essentially no reporting requirement to ARB. 25 The only reporting requirement is that they have to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 maintain the records for a number of years, and ARB can go 2 back and look at those records. 3 What it seems to us, to the Engine Manufacturers, 4 that someone open up the process that they can essentially on 5 their own determine the part is functionally identical and 6 put it on the market for sale without at least some prior 7 review from ARB. 8 So, we would like to consider some provision in the 9 15-day notice for that review. 10 The last issue is the issue of replacement engines, 11 not replacement parts but replacement engines. There are 12 replacement engine regulations in California and also a 13 replacement engine regulation for EPA. 14 This effects replacement engines just for diesel 15 engines, not spark-ignited. Those replacement engine 16 regulations have a different set of specific certification 17 requirements. 18 I think what we would like to see at this point is 19 just something in this regulation that clarifies that 20 replacement part is not a replacement engine and is subject 21 to a different set of requirements. 22 That is the extent of our comments. 23 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Block. 24 Staff, comments to these issues? 25 MR. KITOWSKI: I'm sorry. My name is Jack PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 Kitowski, with the staff. 2 We worked with Mr. Block quite a bit over the past 3 week, and actually we sorted through a lot of the issues 4 through clarification, and these are the issues that we sort 5 of reached an impasse on. 6 The emissions defect warranty, the reason we had a 7 challenge with it is because of the class of the vehicles we 8 are talking about. We do not do this on the on-road side. 9 We do it for very critical components, catalyst and 10 alternative fuel conversion systems, which are often 11 installed new, but for the most part these systems of the 12 aftermarket parts are installed many times late in the useful 13 life of the vehicle, and putting a warranty on low sales 14 volume parts that are installed late in the life of the 15 vehicle might easily out last the life of the vehicle did not 16 seem an appropriate trade off for staff. 17 That was our reasoning there. 18 The replacement part is an issue we have dealt with 19 for many years. This is the way that we have done it for 20 20 years on the on-road, and it's worked very well for us. 21 Basically the issue is if a manufacturer makes a 22 part and it is identical to the part, our terms are 23 functionally identical, maybe it is chrome plated, so it 24 doesn't look the same, but it is functionally identical to 25 the part it is replacing, we do not want to be the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 bureaucrats that require data and require an application and 2 require submittals. 3 They need to maintain records so that we can check 4 up on them if we suspect an issue, but quite frankly, we 5 think that is being a little overly bureaucratic, and with 6 regards to replacement engines, there, the issue appears to 7 be that California policy is different from the Federal 8 policy with regard to replacement engines, and this 9 regulation in no way takes into account replacement engines, 10 and I think that is the point being made. 11 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. When we deal with 12 this, Mr. Block, we will weigh both sides. 13 I assume one could say we are kind of down to some 14 details here, and we will take your testimony into 15 consideration, and we thank you for being here. 16 MR. BLOCK: Okay. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Let me move on to Mr. Ellis, 18 Mr. Terry Ellis. 19 MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon. I am Terry Ellis, 20 Regulatory Affairs Manager for Clean Cam Technology Systems. 21 I came up here last night thinking about one thing, 22 but I have had my opinions changed this morning in looking at 23 the regulations and what they include. 24 My company has eight CARB certifications through 25 the Environmental Technology Certification Program and has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 worked directly with both Mobile and Stationary staffs and 2 have created certifications on categories of equipment and 3 accessories, add-on parts that did not exist. 4 The description here in the Agenda says that this 5 is a public hearing to consider adoption of certification for 6 all aftermarket parts, so I was somewhat at a loss for 7 comments this morning, because basically this is not what it 8 says it is. 9 There are two programs. They are not clearly 10 identified in here, and I do support the Engine Manufacturers 11 claim as to warranty and durability from an emissions 12 standpoint, because if in fact you are going to put a 13 mechanical piece of equipment, which all of our 14 certifications are on mechanical pieces, they are not 15 catalylic technology, they are not electronic components, but 16 they are mechanical technologies that in fact do create 40 17 and 50 year old diesel engines and require them to meet 18 specific standards to operate, we can achieve those levels, 19 but we also have to with these mechanical devices adhere to 20 the emissions durability DF studies that are quite costly 21 under the ETC program to allow aftermarket parts to enter 22 into or be added on to emissions systems without that 23 requirement. 24 I think I cannot support that in any way. The 25 millions of dollars of testing that my company had to do to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 get to the certification points, I understand. I would like 2 to see the clarification in between the two programs. 3 One I believe this is the certification that is a 4 no harm. I know it has been certification, because I had 5 CARB certifications, and we spent millions of dollars that 6 went through it. 7 MR. CROSS: I think we use the word exemption quite 8 often. 9 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Good, I am glad you found the 10 word. 11 MR. ELLIS: Those of us with CARB certifications 12 have spent the time and the money and the years working 13 through the process that does not even exist to get to this 14 point, and to be labeled as a certified product to have 15 sold the virtues of our emissions reductions and be put on a 16 piece of paper in tandem with something that only does no 17 harm to an existing system, I think there needs to be 18 differentiation. 19 That is all my comments other than we have enjoyed 20 the four or five years. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Ellis, and I 22 will let Mr. Kenny respond. 23 MR. KENNY: I think the easy response to Mr. 24 Ellis's comments, there are distinctions between the 25 certifications. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 We essentially do have a no harm certification and 2 then we have an essentially sort of higher level 3 certifications for those that actually do a positive benefit 4 towards emissions reductions, and that is the reference in 5 terms of the different types of certification orders that are 6 issued. 7 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think there is a 8 difference. 9 MR. ELLIS: I do not have the other one. 10 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I will tell you what, after, 11 if you are willing to wait also, maybe Mr. Cross can have 12 staff just sort of meet with you and show you the difference. 13 Next on the list of witnesses, Mr. Bergman, if you 14 would just give us your name for the record and who you 15 represent, please. 16 MR. BERGMAN: Good afternoon, Chairwoman, my name 17 is William Bergman. I am the Executive Vice President for 18 the Outdoor Power Equipment Aftermarket Association. 19 Our members are manufacturers, importers or 20 distributors of quality replacement parts for all types of 21 outdoor power equipment. We estimate that the members of 22 OPEAA are responsible for approximately 30 percent of all 23 aftermarket parts sold in North America. 24 Let me say at the outset, my use of the term 25 replacement parts is with the understanding of that term as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 used in explanation of replacement parts found in staff 2 recommendations on page 2. 3 Many of our members manufacture original equipment 4 parts used by OEM in production of their items and 5 manufacture that same part for the aftermarket business. 6 Because OPEAA members produce replacement parts 7 that beat or exceed OEM's specifications, we believe that the 8 staff proposal to exempt replacement parts that have received 9 OEM exemptions are fair and will cause no disruption to the 10 market place. 11 We are generally familiar with ARB's mandated 12 procedures for on-road aftermarket parts and believe that 13 similar procedures for off-road aftermarket parts will 14 enhance the air quality while continuing to give consumers 15 the choice of replacement parts. 16 Obviously the issue of choice of replacement parts 17 in the market place is critical to our members. Unlike the 18 automobile industry, our members are still sorting out the 19 issues of OEM replacement parts versus replacement parts. 20 As a result of dealers being subjected to improper 21 intimidation of some OEMs, we use their economic power to 22 stop dealers from carrying the generic parts, is another 23 reason why we support the staff recommendation with respect 24 to replacement parts. 25 We know we can and do manufacture parts that are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 functionally identical to original equipment parts, and we 2 all welcome the opportunity to say to our distributors, to 3 our dealers and to the public at large in California and all 4 over North America, our parts meet the criteria of the 5 California Air Resources Board. 6 One final point deals with the section dealing with 7 the requirement that aftermarket manufacturers must provide 8 warranties covering their parts. 9 I am pleased to say as a conditional membership of 10 OPEAA, all of our members are required to warranty their 11 parts. 12 Thank you for the opportunity to share our views 13 with you, and I will be happy to answer any questions. 14 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Bergman. 15 Are there any questions for this witness? 16 Seeing none, we thank you for being here. 17 Our final witness today is Robert Shepherd. If you 18 would give us your name and who you represent for the record, 19 please. 20 MR. SHEPHERD: Madam Chair and Members of the 21 Board, I am Bob Shepherd, Power System Associates. I 22 represent a manufacturer that has a diesel, heavy duty, low 23 NOx engine. 24 We also represent low EM for aftermarket parts for 25 that same type of engine. It is one of the same and a little PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 bit unique in that. 2 I have discussed some of my comments. They are 3 before you. I have discussed those with staff. 4 There are three definitions, alternative fuel, 5 alternative fuel conversion system and conversion systems 6 that are within the proposed regulation that seem to suggest 7 that by going to alternative fuel that it will have lower 8 emissions than a diesel or gasoline engine and that will turn 9 into a conversion that will not cause the higher 10 deterioration in the engine. 11 That is not fully true, because they are two 12 distinct operating engines. Yes, it will have lower NOx. It 13 may have a bit higher hydrocarbons or CO if it is dependent 14 upon the characteristics of the engine. 15 In talking with staff, I do understand that this is 16 just an exemption rule and that you are not looking at the 17 baseline engine, that you do not have to be as the engine is 18 and the levels of emissions are simply that you have to make 19 sure that you are certifying your equipment will not exceed 20 the mandatory standards. 21 That is how I understand it. That is comment one. 22 The next comment that I would have in 13 there is a provision 23 for being able to take a new on-road engine and be able to 24 use it in off-road engine technology applications with 25 Executive Officer approval. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 I would like to see something in the off-road 2 portion that at least recognizes that on-road aftermarket 3 conversions can be utilized, and I have been told by staff 4 there is an alternate test portion of the regulation that 5 could possibly be used there, but staff would probably still 6 need to clarify that. 7 Third, I would like to see that there is some 8 assurance, whether it be in this regulation or whether it be 9 in a following regulation, that funding will still be 10 provided for aftermarket conversions under the Carl Moyer 11 Memorial program. 12 One of the concerns that I do have is in the 13 current certification you will use this term certification 14 system exemption this time, but in the certification 15 procedures and credit procedures under the on-road program, 16 if you come in with a technology that may lower NOx but if 17 you raise say the CO or hydrocarbons, spend more than 10 18 percent, you are not allowed the credits, unfortunately, 19 under the Carl Moyer program that may preclude some 20 alternative fuel conversions, so I would encourage staff to 21 work to develop the certification and credit procedures for 22 the aftermarket, and I would also work with them on the Carl 23 Moyer program that is coming before the Board in February to 24 assure that alternative fuel conversions can be used as well 25 for that funding. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd. 3 Are there any questions for the witness? 4 Seeing none, staff, I think you noted, I do not 5 know if you have any comments? 6 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shepherd, for being here. 7 That concludes our witness list. Let me ask the 8 staff if we have entered into the record all the written 9 submissions? 10 We need to do that. 11 MR. KITOWSKI: Yes, we do we need to enter 12 something into the record. 13 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Please do. 14 MR. KITOWSKI: Thank you. 15 We received a comment from the California Trade and 16 Commerce Regulatory Review Unit, primarily of a legal 17 referencing, comments that we will incorporate into the 18 15-day notice. 19 We received comments from the Motorcycle Industry 20 Council as we mentioned earlier today, related to alternative 21 test procedures that might be more cost-effective in certain 22 cases, and this will also be part of our 15-day notice. 23 Finally, we received a submittal from Dunaway and 24 Cross, which contained numerous comments and related in a 25 couple of areas, one, numerous related to the quality of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 proposal, comments related to the generality of many of the 2 specifications and comments related to technical comments to 3 large spark-ignited engines. 4 I should note that these comments were a 5 resubmittal of comments that came in earlier under the draft 6 procedures that were mailed out to them. 7 So, we have corrected some of these. Other 8 comments we believe are valid. Some clarification should 9 take place in a few cases, and we will correct those in the 10 15-day notice as well. 11 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 12 Staff, Mr. Kenny, do you have any further comments? 13 Okay. Let me then officially then close the record 14 on the Agenda Item. However, the record will be reopened 15 when the 15-day Notice of public availability is issued. 16 Written or oral comments received after this 17 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not 18 be accepted as a part of the official record on this Agenda 19 Item. 20 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 21 period, the public may submit written comments on the 22 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to in 23 a final Statement of Reasons for the regulation. 24 This is an ex parte item. Are there any Board 25 Members that have any ex parte communications to declare? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 None. Seeing none, we will then move on to look at 2 the Resolution, and the Resolution is before you. 3 This is 98-56. 4 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Would the Chair entertain a 5 motion? 6 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. 7 Mr. Calhoun. 8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I would like to ask the 9 staff a couple of questions. 10 A couple things came up that surprised me a little 11 bit, and I gather from what you said, Jack, that this is the 12 self-certification by a manufacturer and there is no policing 13 at all. 14 MR. KITOWSKI: No. I am sorry for the 15 misclarification. 16 It is a self-certification in a sense only if it is 17 a replacement part, only if the part is functionally 18 identical, the manufacturer can make that determination, and 19 he can contact us, and we can help him make that 20 determination. 21 But the example I used was if everything is the 22 same, but they chrome plated it to make it look nice, but all 23 the specifications of that part are the same, they would not 24 need to come to us in that case, correct. 25 If, however, that part is not functionally PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 identical, if it could in any way effect emissions, they 2 would need to come to us, and we would go through the 3 application process. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Didn't the staff at one time 5 have part of the procedure going out and purchasing various 6 pieces of equipment and performing some kind of evaluations? 7 I do not recall. I'm just thinking in terms of -- 8 MR. KITOWSKI: That has been a longstanding policy. 9 This replacement part policy, this has been 10 longstanding. At one time we had concerns that in fact 11 people were potentially abusing it. 12 When we had those concerns, we proactively went out 13 there. It was with carburetors where they were calling them 14 replacement parts. We proactively went out there, had an 15 extensive program and basically cleaned up the situation, for 16 lack of a better term. 17 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess I would like to make 18 one additional comment relative to Mr. Maurer's comment, his 19 suggestion that there ought to be provisions for 20 acknowledgment of technology that is essentially better than 21 the OEM certified. 22 I believe I heard you say that there is nothing to 23 prevent that except that you cannot use the Board's name. 24 Now, let me add one additional thing to that, in 25 the event that he should choose to do that, he runs the risk PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 of having to develop the necessary data to support whatever 2 the claim is. He should understand that. 3 MR. KENNY: That is all correct. 4 In fact, that process exists right now. He has his 5 choice of going two routes, and if goes that second route, 6 which is the one he wants to really promote his product as 7 being the emissions beneficial, he can do so and will provide 8 the certification to that effect, and then he could then use 9 it. 10 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: I would make the motion to 11 move the Resolution, and the number is 98-13-3. 12 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And there is a second by Mr. 13 Calhoun. 14 Any further discussion? All those in favor, 15 signify bt saying aye. 16 Opposed, no. 17 The motion carries. 18 Thank you all very much. Thank you staff for 19 meeting with the individuals that I have asked you to, and I 20 appreciate the work on this particular item. 21 We have one more item before the Closed Session. 22 So, I will give a moment for the staff to change places. 23 This is the ICAT update. 24 I would like to move on to the Agenda because it is 25 an aggressive one. I like to remind those in the audience PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 who would like to present testimony on this particular item 2 that you may sign up with our Clerk of the Board, Ms. 3 Hutchens, and this Item is 98-13-5, Public Meeting to 4 Consider an Update the ICAT Program. 5 A brief status report of this item will now be 6 given. The project is currently being co-funded by the Air 7 Resources Board under the Innovative Clean Air Technology or 8 ICAT program. In June, the staff updated us on the ICAT 9 program. 10 This update included a presentation by three 11 technology developers. Today staff is going to update us on 12 another ICAT project that's approaching commercialization, 13 and this is an exciting thing. 14 Let me ask Mr. Kenny or Mr. Cackette or Mr. 15 Scheible who is going to introduce this? 16 MR. CACKETTE: We will just start. 17 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Let me move on and back to 18 the staff. 19 Dr. Holmes, it's your call. 20 DR. HOLMES: Madam Chair, thank you very much. 21 Members of the Board, I would like to introduce one 22 of my staff, Mr. Tony Andreoni. 23 Tony is the lead on the ICAT program, and he has 24 put together a short presentation that I think you will find 25 interesting. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Well, have him begin. 2 Thank you, Dr. Holmes. 3 MR. ANDREONI: Good morning, Madam Chairman and 4 Members of the Board. 5 My presentation will highlight an ICAT project that 6 began last year with a catalytic company, Catalytica, 7 recently sponsored a ribbon-cutting event in Santa Clara to 8 celebrate the first demonstration of their technology which 9 allows the turbines to operate with lower emissions of 10 nitrogen oxides, NOx. 11 Most of the electricity generated in California is 12 produced from natural gas fired turbines. This slide shows 13 an electrical generation facility in Santa Clara with an 14 arrow pointing to the area that includes the turbine and 15 Catalytica's Xonon operation. 16 The burning of natural gas creates hot exhaust 17 gases which are used to dry the turbine blades to turn the 18 generator. 19 Unfortunately, the high temperature burning creates 20 significant levels of NOx. Because of the need to reduce NOx 21 emissions, increasingly stringent emissions control systems 22 are being installed on these turbines. 23 These add-on control systems, such as selected 24 catalytic reduction, or SCR, are quite expensive and complex. 25 This slide is a schematic representation of how NOx PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 is formed in a conventional turbine. After the air is 2 compressed, the fuel is introduced and burned. 3 To maintain a good flame, the temperature must 4 exceed 3000 degrees farenheit. However, considerable levels 5 of NOx are produced at this temperature. 6 The turbine blades cannot tolerate such a high 7 temperature. So, the exhaust is cooled to 2300 degrees 8 before contacting the turbine. 9 We now are passing around a mock-up of Catalytica's 10 Xonon catalyst. It contains a platinum coating on a metal 11 mesh. 12 It is designed to allow combustion without creating 13 NOx. The next slide shows how the Xonon combustion works. 14 Instead of burning the fuel, a small amount of the pre-burner 15 fuel is burned to raise the temperature, at which point the 16 main fuel is produced. 17 This air fuel mixture is combusted without a flame 18 by passing through the Xonon catalyst units. The temperature 19 of the exhaust gas never rises above 2300 degrees, and at 20 this temperature, virtually no NOx is generated. 21 Shown here is an indoor view of the Xonon system in 22 Santa Clara at the Santa Clara facility. 23 The three parts per million NOx level in the 24 exhaust is about as low as can be achieved with use of add-on 25 controls and can be achieved at a lower cost. Without PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 controls, the NOx emissions would be about 150 parts per 2 million. 3 Now, I would like to turn your attention to a short 4 videotape that provides an overview of Catalytica's 5 demonstration at the Santa Clara facility. This video 6 consists of broadcasts from two Bay Area TV stations. 7 (Thereupon a video was shown.) 8 MR. ANDREONI: Upon completion of this small scale 9 demonstration in Santa Clara, Catalytica will retrofit the 10 Xonon system into a full-sized electrical generating facility 11 in Glendale. 12 Assuming a successful demonstration there, we 13 anticipate significant commercial sales to retrofit other 14 turbines around the State and elsewhere. 15 The result will be considerable revenue for 16 Catalytica, lower NOx emissions at more reasonable cost for 17 operators of turbine generators and cleaner air. 18 This project shows how public and private resources 19 can be used to develop a new technology for cleaner air in 20 California. 21 This concludes my presentation. I will be happy to 22 answer questions that you may have. 23 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Are there any questions for 24 staff. 25 Yes, Mr. Calhoun. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: What is the coating on the 2 catalyst? 3 MR. ANDREONI: It's a platinum. It is the coating. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: And where do we get that 5 from, most of it? 6 MR. ANDREONI: Well, platinum has been used 7 primarily in automobile catalysts. 8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I understand that, but is it 9 something that we bring in from some foreign country, most of 10 it? 11 MR. CACKETTE: Yes. 12 It is the same place as we get most of our catalyst 13 for catalytic processing in industry and cars, that's South 14 Africa, Russia and a number of other countries that produce 15 it. 16 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Very interesting. 17 DR. BARHAM: Bob Barham, with the Research 18 Division. 19 We also had another unveiling that Supervisor 20 DeSaulnier was able to attend. It was earlier this week. 21 It was another project having to do with cleaner 22 diesel buses, in essence, fuel injection systems that allows 23 the diesel buses to burn natural gas along with the diesel. 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: But I will say that my 25 event was not picked up by any media in the Bay Area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 John, congratulations. You are the most articulate 2 CARB spokesperson in the Bay Area. 3 I do not know if he is here or not. 4 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I am sorry, Supervisor 5 DeSaulnier. That is too bad. We will try again. 6 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Could I ask a question? 7 What facility is that in Glendale? 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: That is a good question. 9 I was going to ask the same. 10 MR. AHUJA: My name is Manjit Ahuja. 11 Glendale has a utility, their own utility, and they 12 would install this particular technology at one of their 13 facilities. 14 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Is anyone going to go look 15 at it? 16 I would like to go look at it. 17 MR. AHUJA: Absolutely. 18 We have had several meetings with the Glendale 19 people, because we are apprehensive if they were going ahead 20 with the technology and be assured that if this technology is 21 approved in the facility that -- and they have invited us to 22 visit their facility during the construction phase so that we 23 can see how it is being installed and after installed to see 24 the results. 25 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Just to follow-up, most of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 you probably know that the Los Angeles City Council was 2 voting on a green power plan this week and passed it, or at 3 least I heard it was passed. 4 I have not seen the actual document. For Los 5 Angeles, the goal is making its power the greenest in the 6 world. 7 So, this might be something we could also leverage 8 and carry out with Mr. Dave Friedman. 9 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: If you will put Ms. Edgerton 10 on the invitation list. 11 We do not have public testimony. 12 Does staff have any other comments for this Item? 13 Any written submissions to enter into the record? 14 Will you enter this video into the record? That is 15 much more exciting. 16 Then let me indicate that this is not a regulatory 17 item. It's for information. 18 We will close on this particular item and move to 19 the final item on our Agenda, which is a Closed Session. 20 It will be in the Jim Boyd Conference Room, and let 21 me read the appropriate comments for that. 22 We will adjourn to a Closed Session of the Board as 23 indicated in the Public Notice for today's meeting. The 24 Board will hold a Closed Session as authorized by Government 25 Code 11126, Subdivision e 1 and e 2, a, to confer with or to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 receive advice from legal counsel regarding the Coalition 2 for Clean Air, Incorporated, et. al., versus the South Coast 3 Air Quality Management District, et. al., litigation. 4 We will reconvene afterwards. I do not anticipate 5 any action on this Item, and I will come down and do the 6 reconvening, and we will be ready to go home and adjourn. 7 So, we will go up to the Jim Boyd Conference Room, 8 and that is where lunch is, and we will have lunch and a 9 Closed Session at the same time. 10 Thank you all very much. 11 (Thereupon the lunch recess was taken and 12 the Board met in Closed Session.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I'd like to call the meeting 4 back to order and report no items from Closed Session were 5 acted upon, and I will adjourn the meeting. 6 Thank you very much. 7 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting was 8 adjourned at 1:17 p.m.) 9 --o0o-- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 I, VICKI L. OGELVIE, a Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Vicki L. 7 Ogelvie, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of 8 California, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 10 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 11 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 13 this twenty-seventh day of November, 1998. 14 15 16 VICKI L. OGELVIE 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter License No. 7871 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345