State of California

Summary of Board Meeting
January 25, 1996

Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
Sacramento, California

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Hons. John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
                                                 Eugene A. Boston, M.D.
                                                 Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
                                                 Lynne T. Edgerton, Esq.
                                                 M. Patricia Hilligoss
                                                 John S. Lagarias, P.E.
                                                 Jack C. Parnell
                                                 Barbara Riordan
                                                 Ron Roberts
                                                 James W. Silva
                                                 Doug Vagim



Public Meeting to Consider Progress Toward Complying with the 1999 Utility Engine Regulations


The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) as codified in Health and Safety Code Sections 43013 and 43018 grants the ARB authority to regulate emissions from off-road vehicles and other mobile sources. On December 14, 1990, the Board approved emission control regulations for new utility engines. The regulations were implemented in 1995 with more stringent standards taking effect in 1999.

In addition to approving the standards and procedures, the Board directed staff to present progress reports prior to the implementation of the 1999 standards. The reports were intended to inform the Board of industry's progress toward complying with the 1999 Tier II emission standards. This was the first utility engine status report to the Board.

Since the regulations were adopted, utility engine manufacturers have developed and tested many engines with a variety of modifications and add-on technologies for compliance with the emission standards. There have been numerous demonstrations of engines that comply with the 1999 emission standards. However, additional effort is required to ensure compliance with the standards for the full range of engine sizes and applications.

The staff recommended that the Board maintain the utility engine regulations. Staff would continue to work with industry over the next year to assess continuing progress toward compliance with the 1999 standards.

The Board directed staff to return in the fall of 1996 with another assessment of the progress made by industry, with special attention paid to diesel and hand-held engines.


Jed Mandel                                       Engine Manufacturers Association/Outdoor
                                                         Power Equipment Institute

Norman Weir                                    Yanmar Diesel America Corporation

Mac Dunway                                     Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers

Thomas H. Griswold                          Homelite

Bruce Bertelsen                                  Manufacturers of Emission Controls

Singh Suchdev                                    Ryobi North America



STAFF REPORT:  Yes (52 pages)

96-1-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Emission Control Regulations For 1995 and Later Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

The utility and lawn and garden equipment engines (utility engines) regulations were originally approved by the ARB on December 14, 1990, and were formally adopted on March 20, 1992. The utility engine regulations included two levels of exhaust emission standards, Tier I and II, and provisions for emission test procedures, labeling, warranty, and compliance programs. Tier I standards applied to engines produced on or after January 1, 1994, while Tier II standards applied to engines produced on or after January 1, 1999. Among other things, the Tier I carbon monoxide (CO) standard of 300 gram per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) was established. The ARB requested and received authorization to adopt and enforce the utility regulations pursuant to section 209(e) of the Federal Clean Air Act.

In July 1995, the Briggs & Stratton Corporation petitioned the ARB to modify the Tier I 300 g/bhp-hr CO standard in the Class I and II categories to 350 g/bhp-hr. In the petition, the company contended that the modification is necessary because the present CO standard is not technologically feasible for the engines in Class I and II engine families, and that if the standard were not changed, Briggs and Stratton would not certify their low-cost, high-volume lawnmower engine models in California, due to performance problems when these engine models are calibrated to operate at the 300 g/bhp-hr CO standard. Therefore, a number of California businesses would be adversely affected by the unavailability of a full range of utility engines. While staff did not agree that the 300 g/bhp-hr CO standard is technically infeasible, it did concur that warranty claims resulting from poorly operating new lawnmower engines operating too closely to the acceptable performance limit may have a significant economic impact on the manufacturer. The lack of available lawnmower engines could have a negative impact on many California small businesses such as landscaping and garden care businesses. Consequently, staff proposed that the Class I and II utility engine CO standard be amended from 300 g/bhp-hr to 350 g/bhp-hr.

The U.S. EPA has established a 350 g/bhp-hr CO standard for Class I and II utility engines. The U.S. EPA test procedures require that a non-reformulated gasoline test fuel, referred to as Indolene, be used for certification. California certification test procedures allow the use of either Indolene or reformulated gasoline referred to as Phase II reformulated gasoline. With the relaxation of the CO standard from 300 g/bhp-hr to 350 g/bhp-hr, the California CO standard is less gasoline, a cleaner burning fuel, for certification. The amendment herein modifying the CO standard for Class I and II engines, therefore, does not parallel the CO standard in the final federal rule for the same classes of engines. However, the environmental impact of relaxing the California CO standard for utility engines is minor in comparison to the adverse economical impact of retaining the 300 g/bhp-hr CO standard.


Robert Wyman                                  Latham and Watkins

Peter Hotz                                         Briggs and Stratton Corporation

Frank McLane                                   McLane Manufacturing, Inc.

Jack Plutte                                         Power Equipment Company

Jed Mandel                                        Engine Manufacturing Association

Edward Routery                                 Controlled Volume Technology

Greg Tomlinson                                  Citizen

William Platz                                       Western Propane Gas Association


Adopted Resolution 96-1 by a vote of 9-0.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (25 pages)

96-1-3 Public Meeting to Consider Appointments to the Research Screening Committee


The staff recommended appointments to the Board's Research Screening Committee. This Committee reviews and recommends air pollution research projects to the Board. These appointments will fill current vacancies on the Committee.



The Board approved the staff recommendations for appointments to the Research Screening Committee by a unanimous vote.



96-1-4 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Fee Regulation


The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (the Act) requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a regulation which recovers costs incurred by the ARB, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the Air Pollution Control Districts (districts) in implementing the Act. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Fee Regulation (Fee Regulation) was first adopted in 1988. Each year it has been reviewed and amended to reflect changes in State and district costs and in the method used to calculate fees.

The ARB staff proposed a two-phased approach to streamline the Hot Spots Program (Program). Phase I of the proposal is to develop exemptions from fees for lower risk facilities in fiscal year 1995-96. Phase II of the proposal, to be considered by the ARB in June 1996, is to develop more comprehensive exemptions from the Program's reporting requirements and fees in fiscal year 1996-97.

The focus of this hearing was the Phase I proposal, the amendments to the Fee Regulation for fiscal year 1995-96. The staff proposed exemptions from fees for certain lower risk facilities. Facilities not qualifying for an exemption will realize a 19 percent reduction in their State fee.

Other amendments proposed included adding a fee-for-service provision for risk assessment review, amendments to help ensure consistent facility counts among the districts, and miscellaneous administrative changes to the Fee Regulation. The State's proposed cost of $2.65 million is 37 percent lower than last year, and 52 percent lower than the State's cost two years ago.

Staff also proposed adoption of fee schedules for 12 districts. Twenty-two districts will be adopting their own fee rules using a cost allocation method that meets local needs.

The modifications presented at the hearing and changes to district facility counts and costs will be circulated for public review and comments for 15 days in a Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text.

Testimony was provided in support of the Phase I proposal and suggestions were offered for ARB to consider as further streamlining of the Program is carried out in Phase II.


Manuel Cunha                               Nisei Farmers' League

Benjamin Shaw                              South Coast Air Quality Management District

David Arrieta                                 Western States Petroleum Association


Approved Resolution 96-2 by a vote of 10-0.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (93 pages)

96-1-5 Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Variance Provisions of the California Cleaner-Burning Gasoline Regulations


The staff proposed to the Board a set of amendments to section 2271, Title 13, CCR, which controls the granting of variances from the standards in the cleaner-burning gasoline regulations. The proposal included: a fee of $0.15 per gallon for all variance gasoline; fees to accompany variance applications to offset the Board's costs of administration; criteria for identifying hardship beyond the applicant's control; a maximum of 120 days for most variances; a provision to extend the duration of a variance; a provision to ensure the Executive Officer's ability to consider confidential information in making variance decisions; elements to be required in a variance compliance plan; specification of the Predictive Models and true vapor pressures for estimating the effect of a variance on emissions; and various other adjustments and clarifications to section 2271. Most of the amendments are either required or authorized by Senate Bill 709.

The Board approved, as emergency regulations, the amendments proposed in the staff report, with changes presented at this hearing, and directed the Executive Officer to forward the approved emergency regulations to the Office of Administrative Law. The Board also directed the Executive Officer to make the approved regulations available to the public for a supplemental comment period of 15 days and to adopt the amendments with such additional modifications as may be appropriate in light of comments received, or to present the regulations to the Board for further consideration, if warranted in light of the comments.


Steven Smith                                            76 Products Company

Al Jessel                                                   Chevron USA


The Board approved Resolution 96-3 by a vote of 10-0.

96-1-6 Consideration of Research Proposals

The Board approved Resolutions 96-4, 96-5, 96-6, 96-7, 96-8, 96-9 by a vote of 11-0.