BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 724
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 724
AUTHOR: Dutton
AMENDED: April 25, 2011
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: May 2, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Caroll
Mortensen
SUBJECT : MOBILE SOURCE CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Grants the Air Resources Board (ARB) with primary
responsibility for the control of mobile source air
pollution, and broadly authorizes ARB to adopt rules for
the reduction of emissions and the specification of fuel
composition. (Health and Safety Code �43000 et seq.).
2) Authorizes the Air Resources Board (ARB) to certify new
motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. (�43100).
3) Requires ARB to adopt and implement emission standards for
new motor vehicles and engines for the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles that ARB finds to be necessary and
technologically feasible. (�43101).
This bill :
1)Requires ARB, within 30 working days of receipt of an
application for certification of a new, a carryover, or a
partial carryover vehicle, engine, or equipment family, to
inform the applicant in writing if the application is
complete or, if it is not complete, the specific
information required to make it complete.
2)Requires ARB, within 15 working days of receipt of
additional requested information, to inform the applicant
either that the additional information is sufficient to
SB 724
Page 2
make the application complete or that the application
remains deficient, specifying the information required to
make it complete.
3)Requires ARB to approve or disapprove an application for
certification of a new on- or off-road vehicle, engine, or
equipment family within 90 calendar days after it deems an
application to be complete.
4)Requires, for carryover on- or off-road vehicles, engines,
or equipment families, ARB to approve or disapprove an
application within 30 calendar days after it deems an
application to be complete. A carryover vehicle, engine,
or equipment family refers to a vehicle, engine, or
equipment family whose application for certification
differs from that which was certified in the previous model
year in model-year designation only.
5)Requires, for partial carryover on- or off-road vehicles,
engines, or equipment families, ARB to approve an
application within 60 calendar days after it deems an
application to be complete. A partial carryover vehicle,
engine, or equipment family refers to a vehicle, engine, or
equipment family that is certified to the same emission
standard and certification category as the previous model
year when there has been no change to the applicable
emission standards and requirements and no change to
emissions performance due to changes in emissions-related
components, engine configurations, calibrations, or
designs.
6)Authorizes ARB to request the applicant to clarify, amplify,
or otherwise supplement the information required for the
application. The number of days it takes an applicant to
respond to a request for additional information shall not
be included when determining a deadline for ARB to act on
an application.
7)Provides that an applicant may file, in writing, a complaint
with ARB's ombudsman if the applicant believes ARB has not
met the deadlines prescribed by this bill. The ombudsman
must determine whether or not the complaint has merit
within 30 days of receipt. If the ombudsman determines
SB 724
Page 3
that ARB has not met the deadlines and the application is
complete, the ombudsman shall inform the executive officer
who shall ensure that the application is approved or
disapproved within 30 days from the date it has been
determined that the deadlines have not been met.
8)Provides that if an application for certification was filed
prior to the operative date of this bill and the
application was for the 2012 model year, ARB must notify
the applicant whether the application is complete within 30
working days of January 1, 2012 and must approve or
disapprove the application within 90 calendar days of the
date the application was deemed complete.
9)Provides that if an application for certification was filed
prior to the operative date of this bill and the
application was for the 2011 model year or earlier, ARB may
disapprove the application. If ARB disapproves an
application, it must notify the applicant of that fact.
10) Requires ARB to develop, by July 1, 2012, simplified
certification application forms for model year 2014 and
later carryover and partial carryover on- and off-road
vehicles, engine, and equipment families and specifies the
items that must be included on the forms.
11) Authorizes ARB to approve an application for
certification of a new, carryover, or partial carryover on-
or off-road vehicle, engine, or equipment families that has
been certified by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency without requiring additional testing,
provided: (a) the test data and related information on
which federal certification was based demonstrate
compliance with state emission standards and requirements,
including durability and warranty requirements; and (b) the
federal standards on which federal certification was based
are as stringent as the state standards.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, this bill would
streamline and accelerate the ARB engine certification
process by creating a short-form application for
SB 724
Page 4
"carry-over" engines (previously approved engines that have
not changed from year to year) and partial carry-over
engines. To promote efficiency and avoid duplication, the
bill would grant ARB the authority to rely on test data in
federal EPA certification applications when the California
and federal standards are the same.
The author states that in order to sell the cleanest
products that meet state emission standards and
requirements, manufacturers, retailers, and dealers need
ARB to certify their products in a timely manner. The
author asserts, however, that ARB does not currently
process certification applications efficiently and, in many
cases, several months pass without ARB providing any
response to an applicant. Manufacturers are surprised to
learn 90 days after an application was submitted that
additional information is needed and that they are
essentially at "square one." The author further asserts
that ARB regulations and guidance contain inconsistent
timelines for processing applications, creating unnecessary
confusion for applicants.
2)ARB's current certification process . In a letter dated
December 27, 2010, from ARB to Senator Dutton and Senator
Correa, ARB addressed specific questions regarding its
certification process. Some key points are worth
highlighting. The letter indicates that ARB received
approximately 9,000 certification applications between 2008
and 2010 and executive orders (EOs) were issued within 90
days for 96 percent of completed applications. A common
reason why ARB is not able to act on an application within
90 days is that the applicant has not provided all of the
information necessary for ARB to complete its review. ARB
states, "In all instances, ARB staff continued to work with
the applicants until the applications were completed or
until the applicant chose not to further pursue an EO."
With regard to carryover and partial carryover certification
applications, ARB estimates that approximately 15 percent of
certifications are for carryover vehicles, engines, or
equipment and approximately 50 percent are for partial
carryovers. An application for a partial carryover takes
approximately 50 percent less time to process compared to an
SB 724
Page 5
application for a new product.
3) Does haste make waste ? The process defined in the bill to
expedite certification of equipment has merit in its
attempt to streamline a process that can appear burdensome,
especially for equipment that is relatively unchanged year
after year. It is also important that the program is
efficient so it can identify and capture equipment that
exceeds emission standards to ensure a level playing field
for California and US manufacturers to compete with
imported equipment. However, California's improving air
quality is due in part to the rigorous certification
program to make sure equipment sold in California meets
emission standards.
The bill's revisions to ARB's certification program could
result in certification of vehicles and equipment without
adequate engineering review. It could increase the
potential for ARB to rush review of certification
durability data. While the bill does contain some
safeguards to ensure that adequate review can take place,
the new process should be evaluated and reassessed after a
specified time period to determine if the goal of
streamlining the certification process has not had a
negative effect on air quality. In the interim, there
needs to be clear authority that if product does get past
the certification process, that it can be removed from
commerce.
Existing law provides ARB with some authority to recall
vehicles that fail emission standards in use. However, a
recent court judgment ruled that the ARB does not have the
authority under its Emission Warranty Information Reporting
regulation to order a recall or other corrective action
based on an emission component failure rate. This judgment
points to a shortcoming in statute that needs to be
addressed to allow ARB to fully implement its authority.
4) Concerns Raised . While there is no formal opposition to SB
724, concerns have been raised by both the American Lung
Association and Sierra Club California about the new
process for expedited review of certifications. Generally
the "fast track" of certifications based on certification
SB 724
Page 6
of previously approved engines is based on claims made by
the manufacturers. In particular the process for allowing
certification of equipment that has been certified by the
US Environmental Protection Agency without any additional
testing.
5) Recent Legislation . SB 1402 (Dutton) Chapter 413, Statutes
of 2010, requires ARB to provide a specified written
explanation prior to imposing an administrative or civil
penalty for a violation of air pollution law, make these
explanations available to the public, annually report
specified administrative penalties imposed, and publish a
penalty policy pertaining to vehicular air pollution
control.
6) Previous Committee . This bill was heard in the
Transportation and Housing Committee on April 26, 2011, and
passed on a 7-0 vote.
7) Amendments Needed . In order to address the issues raised
in #3 above, the bill should be amended to clarify that the
ARB has recall authority for emission components that have
excessive failure rates. Also, a sunset provision should
be added to allow for Legislative review of the new process
after 5 years.
SOURCE : Californians for Enforcement Reform and
Transparency
SUPPORT : American Home Furnishing Alliance
Associated General Contractors of America
Associates Environmental
California Chapter of the American Fence
Contractors Association
California Dump Truck Owner Association
California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology
Association
California Motorcycle Dealers Association
California Moving and Storage Association
California Retailers Association
Clean Fleets Coalition
Compliant Car Builders Association
SB 724
Page 7
Construction Industry Air Quality Association
Delta Liquid Energy
Engineering Contractors Association
Flasher/Barricade Association
Fuel Technologies Plus
IMPCO
Independent Waste Oil Collectors and
Transporters
Industrial Truck Association
LEHR Incorporated
Marine Builders Association
Moving and Storage Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
North American Repower
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
Sand Car Manufacturers Association
Southern California Contractors Association
Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc.,
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association
California Grocers Association
Delta Liquid Energy
Western Propane Gas Association
CMTA
Toyota
OPPOSITION : None on file