[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28098-28393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1998]
[[Page 28097]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60, 63, et al.
Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 28098]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60, 63, 85, 89, 90, 91, 1027, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054,
1060, 1065, 1068, and 1074
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008; FRL-8303-7]
RIN 2060-AM34
Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and
Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing emission standards for new nonroad spark-
ignition engines that will substantially reduce emissions from these
engines. The proposed exhaust emission standards would apply in 2009
for new marine spark-ignition engines, including first-time EPA
standards for sterndrive and inboard engines. The proposed exhaust
emission standards would apply starting in 2011 and 2012 for different
sizes of new land-based, spark-ignition engines at or below 19
kilowatts (kW). These small engines are used primarily in lawn and
garden applications. We are also proposing evaporative emission
standards for vessels and equipment using any of these engines. In
addition, we are making other minor amendments to our regulations. We
estimate that by 2030, the proposed standards would result in
significant annual reductions of pollutant emissions from regulated
engine and equipment sources nationwide, including 631,000 tons of
volatile organic hydrocarbon emissions, 98,200 tons of NOX
emissions, and 6,300 tons of direct particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions. These reductions correspond to
significant reductions in the formation of ground-level ozone. We also
expect to see annual reductions of 2,690,000 tons of carbon monoxide
emissions, with the greatest reductions in areas where there have been
problems with individual exposures. The requirements in this proposal
would result in substantial benefits to public health and welfare and
the environment. We estimate that by 2030, on an annual basis, these
emission reductions would prevent 450 PM-related premature deaths,
approximately 500 hospitalizations, 52,000 work days lost, and other
quantifiable benefits every year. The total estimated annual benefits
of this rule in 2030 are approximately $3.4 billion. Estimated costs in
2030 are many times less at approximately $240 million.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before August 3, 2007.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before June 18,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0008, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (202) 260-4400.
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, Mail-code 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please
mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0008. Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit XIII of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ``Control of Emissions
from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Vessels and Equipment'' Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the
``Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Vessels,
and Equipment'' Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Hearing: A hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 5,
2007 at the Sheraton Reston Hotel. The hotel is located at 11810
Sunrise Valley Drive in Reston, Virginia; their phone number is 703-
620-9000. For more information on these hearings or to request to
speak, see Section XIII.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Connell, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment
and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105; telephone number: 734-214-4349; fax number: 734-214-4050; e-mail
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action will affect you if you produce or import new spark-
ignition engines intended for use in marine vessels or in new vessels
using such engines. This action will also affect you if you produce or
import new spark-ignition engines below 19 kilowatts used in nonroad
equipment, including agricultural and construction equipment, or
produce or import such nonroad vehicles.
[[Page 28099]]
The following table gives some examples of entities that may have
to follow the regulations; however, since these are only examples, you
should carefully examine the proposed regulations. Note that we are
proposing minor changes in the regulations that apply to a wide range
of products that may not be reflected in the following table (see
Section XI). If you have questions, call the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially regulated
Category NAICS codes a SIC codes b entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry 333618 3519 Manufacturers of new engines.
Industry 333111 3523 Manufacturers of farm machinery
and equipment.
Industry 333112 3524 Manufacturers of lawn and garden
tractors (home).
Industry 336612 3731, 3732 Manufacturers of marine vessels.
Industry 811112, 811198 7533, 7549 Commercial importers of vehicles
and vehicle components.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Overview
B. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
C. What Regulations Currently Apply to Nonroad Engines or
Vehicles?
D. Putting This Proposal into Perspective
E. What Requirements Are We Proposing?
F. How Is This Document Organized?
II. Public Health and Welfare Effects
A. Ozone
B. Particulate Matter
C. Air Toxics
D. Carbon Monoxide
III. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines
A. Overview
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
C. Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards
D. Test Procedures for Certification
E. Additional Certification and Compliance Provisions
F. Small-Business Provisions
G. Technological Feasibility
IV. Outboard and Personal Watercraft Engines
A. Overview
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
C. Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards
D. Changes to Existing OB/PWC Test Procedures
E. Additional Certification and Compliance Provisions
F. Other Adjustments to Regulatory Provisions
G. Small-Business Provisions
H. Technological Feasibility
V. Small SI Engines
A. Overview
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
C. Proposed Requirements
D. Testing Provisions
E. Certification and Compliance Provisions for Small SI Engines
and Equipment
F. Small Business Provisions
G. Technological Feasibility
VI. Evaporative Emissions
A. Overview
B. Fuel Systems Covered by This Rule
C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
D. Emission Credit Programs
E. Testing Requirements
F. Certification and Compliance Provisions
G. Small-Business Provisions
H. Technological Feasibility
VII. General Concepts Related to Certification and Other
Requirements
A. Scope of Application
B. Emission Standards and Testing
C. Demonstrating Compliance
D. Other Concepts
VIII. General Nonroad Compliance Provisions
A. Miscellaneous Provisions (Part 1068, subpart A)
B. Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements (Part 1068, subpart
B)
C. Exemptions (Part 1068, subpart C)
D. Imports (Part 1068, subpart D)
E. Selective Enforcement Audit (Part 1068, subpart E)
F. Defect Reporting and Recall (Part 1068, subpart F)
G. Hearings (Part 1068, subpart G)
IX. General Test Procedures
A. Overview
B. Special Provisions for Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
X. Energy, Noise, and Safety
A. Safety
B. Noise
C. Energy
XI. Proposals Affecting Other Engine and Vehicle Categories
A. State Preemption
B. Certification Fees
C. Amendments to General Compliance Provisions in 40 CFR Part
1068
D. Amendments Related to Large SI Engines (40 CFR Part 1048)
E. Amendments Related to Recreational Vehicles (40 CFR Part
1051)
F. Amendments Related to Heavy-Duty Highway Engines (40 CFR Part
85)
G. Amendments Related to Stationary Spark-Ignition Engines (40
CFR Part 60)
XII. Projected Impacts
A. Emissions from Small Nonroad and Marine Spark-Ignition
Engines
B. Estimated Costs
C. Cost per Ton
D. Air Quality Impact
E. Benefits
F. Economic Impact Analysis
XIII. Public Participation
XIV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
[[Page 28100]]
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. Introduction
A. Overview
Air pollution is a serious threat to the health and well-being of
millions of Americans and imposes a large burden on the U.S. economy.
Ground-level ozone is linked to potentially serious health problems,
especially respiratory effects, and environmental degradation. Carbon
monoxide emissions are also related to health problems. Over the past
quarter century, state and federal agencies have established emission
control programs that make significant progress in addressing these
concerns.
This proposal includes steps that would reduce the mobile-source
contribution to air pollution in the United States. In particular, we
are proposing standards that would require manufacturers to
substantially reduce emissions from marine spark-ignition engines and
from nonroad spark-ignition engines below 19 kW that are generally used
in lawn and garden applications.\1\ We refer to these as Marine SI
engines and Small SI engines, respectively. The proposed standards are
a continuation of the process of establishing standards for nonroad
engines and vehicles as required by Clean Air Act section 213. All the
nonroad engines subject to this proposal are already regulated under
existing emission standards, except sterndrive and inboard marine
engines, which will be subject to EPA emission standards for the first
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Otto-cycle engines (referred to here as spark-ignition or SI
engines) typically operate on gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, or
natural gas. Diesel-cycle engines, referred to simply as ``diesel
engines'' in this document, may also be referred to as compression-
ignition or CI engines. These engines typically operate on diesel
fuel, but other fuels may also be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide, emissions from Marine SI engines and Small SI engines
contribute significantly to mobile source air pollution. By 2020
without the proposed requirements these engines will account for about
27 percent (1,352,000 tons) of mobile source volatile organic
hydrocarbon compounds (VOC) emissions, 31 percent (16,374,000 tons) of
mobile source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, 4 percent (202,000 tons)
of mobile source oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions, and 16
percent (39,000 tons) of mobile source particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions. The proposed standards will reduce
exposure to these emissions and help avoid a range of adverse health
effects associated with ambient ozone, CO, and PM levels. In addition,
the proposed standards will help reduce acute exposure to CO, air
toxics, and PM for persons who operate or who work with or are
otherwise active in close proximity to these engines. They will also
help address other environmental problems associated with Marine SI
engines and Small SI engines, such as visibility impairment in our
national parks and other wilderness areas. These effects are described
in more detail in subsequent sections of this Preamble.
B. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1) directs us to study emissions from
nonroad engines and vehicles to determine, among other things, whether
these emissions ``cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.'' Section 213(a)(2) further requires us to determine whether
emissions of CO, VOC, and NOX from all nonroad engines
significantly contribute to ozone or CO concentrations in more than one
nonattainment area. If we determine that emissions from all nonroad
engines do contribute significantly to these nonattainment areas,
section 213(a)(3) then requires us to establish emission standards for
classes or categories of new nonroad engines and vehicles that cause or
contribute to such pollution. We may also set emission standards under
section 213(a)(4) regulating any other emissions from nonroad engines
that we find contribute significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Specific statutory direction to propose standards for nonroad
spark-ignition engines comes from section 428(b) of the 2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act, which requires EPA to propose
regulations under the Clean Air Act ``that shall contain standards to
reduce emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than
50 horsepower.'' \2\ As highlighted above and more fully described in
Section II, these engines emit pollutants that contribute to ground-
level ozone and ambient CO levels. Human exposure to ozone and CO can
cause serious respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Additionally,
these emissions contribute to other serious environmental degradation.
This proposal implements Congress' mandate by proposing new
requirements for particular nonroad engines and equipment that are
regulated as part of EPA's overall nonroad emission control program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pub. L. 108-199, Div G, Title IV, Sec. 428(b), 118 Stat.
418 (January 23, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing this rule under the procedural authority of
section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act.
C. What Regulations Currently Apply to Nonroad Engines or Vehicles?
EPA has been setting emission standards for nonroad engines and/or
vehicles since Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 and included
section 213. These amendments have led to a series of rulemakings to
reduce the air pollution from this widely varying set of products. In
these rulemakings, we divided the broad group of nonroad engines and
vehicles into several different categories for setting application-
specific requirements. Each category involves many unique
characteristics related to the participating manufacturers, technology,
operating characteristics, sales volumes, and market dynamics.
Requirements for each category therefore take on many unique features
regarding the stringency of standards, the underlying expectations
regarding emission control technologies, the nature and extent of
testing, and the myriad details that comprise the implementation of a
compliance program.
At the same time, the requirements and other regulatory provisions
for each engine category share many characteristics. Each rulemaking
under section 213 sets technology-based standards consistent with the
Clean Air Act and requires annual certification based on measured
emission levels from test engines or vehicles. As a result, the broader
context of EPA's nonroad emission control programs demonstrates both
strong similarities between this rulemaking and the requirements
adopted for other types of engines or vehicles and distinct differences
as we take into account the unique nature of these engines and the
companies that produce them.
We completed the Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study to
satisfy Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1) in
[[Page 28101]]
November 1991.\3\ On June 17, 1994, we made an affirmative
determination under section 213(a)(2) that nonroad emissions are
significant contributors to ozone or CO in more than one nonattainment
area (56 FR 31306). Since then we have undertaken several rulemakings
to set emission standards for the various categories of nonroad
engines. Table I-1 highlights the different engine or vehicle
categories we have established and the corresponding cites for emission
standards and other regulatory requirements. Table I-2 summarizes the
series of EPA rulemakings that have set new or revised emission
standards for any of these nonroad engines or vehicles. These actions
are described in the following sections, with additional discussion to
explain why we are not proposing more stringent standards for certain
types of nonroad spark-ignition engines below 50 horsepower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This study is available on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.
Table I-1.--Nonroad Engine Categories for EPA Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR cite for regulationse
Engine categories establishing emission Cross reference to Table I.C-2
standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Locomotives engines................... 40 CFR Part 92.............. d
2. Marine diesel engines................. 40 CFR Part 94.............. g, i, j
3. Other nonroad diesel engines.......... 40 CFR Parts 89 and 1039.... a, e, k
4. Marine SI engines \4\................. 40 CFR Part 91.............. c
5. Recreational vehicles................. 40 CFR Part 1051............ i
6. Small SI engines \5\.................. 40 CFR Part 90.............. b, f, h
7. Large SI engines \4\.................. 40 CFR Part 1048............ i
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I-2.--EPA's Rulemakings for Nonroad Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad engines (categories and sub-
categories) Final rulemaking Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Land-based diesel engines >=37 kW 56 FR 31306........................ June 17, 1994.
Tier 1.
b. Small SI engines--Phase 1.......... 60 FR 34581........................ July 3, 1995.
c. Marine SI engines--outboard and 61 FR 52088........................ October 4, 1996.
personal watercraft.
d. Locomotives........................ 63 FR 18978........................ April 16, 1998.
e. Land-based diesel engines--Tier 1 63 FR 56968........................ October 23, 1998.
and Tier 2 for engines <37 kW--Tier 2
and Tier 3 for engines >=37 kW.
f. Small SI engines (Nonhandheld)-- 64 FR 15208........................ March 30, 1999.
Phase 2.
g. Commercial marine diesel <30 liters 64 FR 73300........................ December 29, 1999.
per cylinder.
h. Small SI engines (Handheld)--Phase 65 FR 24268........................ April 25, 2000.
2.
i. Recreational vehicles, Industrial 67 FR 68242........................ November 8, 2002.
spark-ignition engines >19 kW, and
Recreational marine diesel.
j. Marine diesel engines >=2.5 liters/ 68 FR 9746......................... February 28, 2003.
cylinder.
k. Land-based diesel engines--Tier 4.. 69 FR 38958........................ June 29, 2004.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Small SI Engines
We have previously adopted emission standards for nonroad spark-
ignition engines at or below 19 kW in two phases. The first phase of
these standards introduced certification and an initial level of
emission standards for both handheld and nonhandheld engines. On March
30, 1999 we adopted a second phase of standards for nonhandheld
engines, including both Class I and Class II engines, which are almost
fully phased-in today (64 FR 15208).\6\ These standards involved
emission reductions based on improving engine calibrations to reduce
exhaust emissions and added a requirement that emission standards must
be met over the engines' entire useful life as defined in the
regulations. We believe catalyst technology has now developed to the
point that it can be applied to all nonhandheld Small SI engines to
reduce exhaust emissions. Various emission control technologies are
similarly available to address the different types of fuel evaporative
emissions we have identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The term ``Marine SI,'' used throughout this document,
refers to all spark-ignition engines used to propel marine vessels.
This includes outboard engines, personal watercraft engines, and
sterndrive/inboard engines. See Section III for additional
information.
\5\ The terms ``Small SI'' and ``Large SI'' are used throughout
this document. All nonroad spark-ignition engines not covered by our
programs for Marine SI engines or recreational vehicles are either
Small SI engines or Large SI engines. Small SI engines include those
engines with maximum power at or below 19 kW, and Large SI engines
include engines with maximum power above 19 kW.
\6\ Handheld engines generally include those engines for which
the operator holds or supports the equipment during operation;
nonhandheld engines are Small SI engines that are not handled
engines (see Sec. 1054.801). Class I refers to nonhandheld engines
with displacement below 225 cc; Class II refers to larger
nonhandheld engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For handheld engines, we adopted Phase 2 exhaust emission standards
in April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24268). These standards were based on the
application of catalyst technology, with the expectation that
manufacturers would have to make considerable investments to modify
their engine designs and production processes. A technology review we
completed in 2003 indicated that manufacturers were making progress
toward compliance, but that additional implementation flexibility was
needed if manufacturers were to fully comply with the regulations by
2010. This finding and a change in the rule were published in the
Federal Register on January 12, 2004 (69FR1824). At this point, we have
no information to suggest that manufacturers can uniformly apply new
technology or make design improvements to reduce exhaust emissions
below the Phase 2 levels. We therefore believe the Phase 2 standards
continue to represent the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable for these engines.\7\ However, we believe it is appropriate
to apply evaporative emission standards to the handheld engines similar
to those we are
[[Page 28102]]
proposing for the nonhandheld engines. Manufacturers can control
evaporative emissions in a way that has little or no impact on exhaust
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Note that we refer to the handheld exhaust emission
standards in 40 CFR part 1054 as Phase 3 standards. This is intended
to maintain consistent terminology with the comparable standards in
California rather than indicating an increase in stringency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Marine SI Engines
On October 4, 1996 we adopted emission standards for spark-ignition
outboard and personal watercraft engines that have recently been fully
phased in (61 FR 52088). We decided not to finalize emission standards
for sterndrive or inboard marine engines at that time. Uncontrolled
emission levels from sterndrive and inboard marine engines were already
significantly lower than the outboard and personal watercraft engines.
We did, however, leave open the possibility of revisiting the need for
emission standards for sterndrive and inboard engines in the future.
See Section III for further discussion of the scope and background of
past and current rulemakings for these engines.
We believe existing technology can be applied to all Marine SI
engines to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants, including both
exhaust and evaporative emissions. Manufacturers of outboard and
personal watercraft engines can continue the trend of producing four-
stroke engines and advanced-technology two-stroke engines to further
reduce emissions. For sterndrive/inboard engines, manufacturers can add
technologies, such as fuel injection and aftertreatment, that can
safely and substantially improve the engines' emission control
capabilities.
(3) Large SI Engines
We adopted emission standards for Large SI engines on November 8,
2002 (67 FR 68242). This includes Tier 1 standards for 2004 through
2006 model years and Tier 2 standards starting with 2007 model year
engines. Manufacturers are today facing a considerable challenge to
comply with the Tier 2 standards, which are already substantially more
stringent than any of the standards proposed or contemplated for the
other engine categories in this proposal. The Tier 2 standards also
include evaporative emission standards, new transient test procedures,
and additional exhaust emission standards to address off-cycle
emissions, and diagnostic requirements. Stringent standards for this
category of engines, and in particular, engines between 25 and 50
horsepower (19 to 37 kW), have been completed in the recent past, and
are currently being implemented. Because of that we do not have
information on the actual Tier 2 technology that manufacturers will use
and do not have information at this time on possible advances in
technology beyond Tier 2. We therefore believe the evidence provided in
the recently promulgated rulemaking continues to represent the best
available information regarding the appropriate level of standards for
these engines under section 213 at this time. California Air Resources
Board (ARB) has adopted an additional level of emission control for
Large SI engines starting with the 2010 model year. However, as
described in Section I.D.1, their new standards would not increase
overall stringency beyond that reflected in the federal standards. As a
result, we believe it would be inappropriate to pursue more stringent
emission standards for these engines in this rulemaking.
Note that the Large SI standards apply to nonroad spark-ignition
engines above 19 kW. However, we adopted a special provision for engine
families where production engines have total displacement at or below
1000 cc and maximum power at or below 30 kW, allowing these engine
families to instead certify to the applicable standards for Small SI
engines.
(4) Recreational Vehicles
We adopted exhaust and evaporative emission standards for
recreational vehicles in our November 8, 2002 final rule (67FR68242).
These standards apply to all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles,
and snowmobiles.\8\ These exhaust emission standards will be fully
phased in starting with the 2007 model year. The evaporative emission
standards apply starting with the 2008 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Note that we treat certain high-speed off-road utility
vehicles as all-terrain vehicles (see 40 CFR part 1051).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational vehicles will soon be subject to permeation
requirements that are very similar to the requirements proposed in this
rulemaking. We have also learned more about controlling running losses
and diffusion emissions that may eventually lead us to propose
comparable standards for recreational vehicles. We expect to revisit
these questions in the context of a rulemaking to modify the duty cycle
for all-terrain vehicles, as described below. Considering these new
requirements for recreational vehicles in this later rulemaking would
give us additional time to collect information to better understand the
feasibility, costs, and benefits of applying these requirements to
recreational vehicles.
The following sections describe the state of technology and
regulatory requirements for the different types of recreational
vehicles.
(a) All-Terrain Vehicles
The regulations for all-terrain vehicles (ATV) specify testing
based on a chassis-based transient procedure. However, on an interim
basis, we are permitting manufacturers the option to use a steady-state
engine-based procedure to allow manufacturers an opportunity to develop
the field operating data needed to determine if ATV operation is
dominantly steady state or transient in nature and to develop an
appropriate emission test cycle from that information. The emissions
test procedure and duty cycle are critical to getting the degree of
emission control expected from these engines. We are continuing to work
toward a resolution of this test cycle development initiative in a
separate action. The anticipated changes to the test cycle raise new
questions we will need to work through before we are prepared to change
the existing regulation and perhaps pursue new emission control
requirements. In particular, we will need to further explore the extent
to which the new duty cycle represents in-use operation and whether
engine or chassis testing is more appropriate in simulating in-use
operation for accurate emission characterization and measurements. We
believe it is appropriate to consider more stringent exhaust emission
standards for these engines after we have had the opportunity to
address the emission test cycle issue and to thus establish a long-term
testing protocols and related requirements.
(b) Off-Highway Motorcycles
For off-highway motorcycles, manufacturers are in many cases making
a substantial transition to move away from two-stroke engines in favor
of four-stroke engines. This transition is now underway. While it may
eventually be appropriate to apply aftertreatment or other additional
emission control technologies to off-highway motorcycles, we need more
time for this transition to be completed and to assess the success of
aftertreatment technologies such as catalysts on similar applications
such as highway motorcycles. As EPA and manufacturers learn more in
implementing emission standards, we would expect to be able to better
judge the potential for broadly applying new technology to achieve
further emission reductions from off-highway motorcycles.
(c) Snowmobiles
In our November 8, 2002 final rule we set three phases of exhaust
emission standards for snowmobiles (67 FR
[[Page 28103]]
68242). Environmental and industry groups challenged the third phase of
these standards. The court decision upheld much of EPA's reasoning for
the standards, but vacated the NOX standard and remanded the
CO and HC standards to clarify the analysis and evidence upon which the
standards are based. See Bluewater Network, et al v. EPA, 370 F 3d 1
(D.C. Cir. 2004). A large majority of snowmobile engines are rated
below 50 hp and there is still a fundamental need for time to pass to
allow us to assess the success of 4 stroke engine technology in the
market place. This is an important of the assessment we need to conduct
with regard to 2012 and later model year emission standards. Thus we
believe is appropriate to address this in a separate rulemaking.\9\ We
expect to complete that work with sufficient lead time for
manufacturers to meet any revised Phase 3 standards that we might adopt
for the 2012 model year, consistent with the original rulemaking
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Only about 3 percent of snowmobiles are rated below 50
horsepower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Nonroad Diesel Engines
The 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act providing the specific
statutory direction for this rulemaking focuses on nonroad spark-
ignition engines. Nonroad diesel engines are therefore not included
within the scope of that Congressional mandate. However, we have gone
through several rulemakings to set standards for these engines under
the broader authority of Clean Air Act section 213. In particular, we
have divided nonroad diesel engines into three groups for setting
emission standards. We adopted a series of standards for locomotives on
April 16, 1998, including requirements to certify engines to emission
standards when they are rebuilt (63 FR 18978). We also adopted emission
standards for marine diesel engines over several different rulemakings,
as described in Table I-2. These included separate actions for engines
below 37 kW, engines installed in oceangoing vessels, engines installed
in commercial vessels involved in inland and coastal waterways, and
engines installed in recreational vessels. We have recently proposed
new emission standards for both locomotive and marine diesel engines
(72 FR 15938, April 3, 2007).
Finally, all other nonroad diesel engines are grouped together for
EPA's emission standards. We have adopted multiple tiers of
increasingly stringent standards in three separate rulemakings, as
described in Table I-2. We most recently adopted Tier 4 standards based
on the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and the application of
exhaust aftertreatment technology (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
D. Putting This Proposal Into Perspective
Most manufacturers that will be subject to this rulemaking are also
affected by regulatory developments in California and in other
countries. Each of these is described in more detail below.
(1) State Initiatives
Clean Air Act section 209 prohibits California and other states
from setting emission standards for new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines, but authorizes EPA to waive this prohibition for
California, in which case other states may adopt California's
standards. Similar preemption and waiver provisions apply for emission
standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, whether new or in-use.
However for new locomotives, new engines used in locomotives, and new
engines used in farm or construction equipment with maximum power below
130 kW, California and other states are preempted and there is no
provision for a waiver of preemption. In addition, in section 428 of
the amendment to the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress
further precluded other states from adopting new California standards
for nonroad spark-ignition engines below 50 horsepower. In addition,
the amendment required that we specifically address the safety
implications of any California standards for these engines before
approving a waiver of federal preemption. We are proposing to codify
these changes to preemption in this rule.
California ARB has adopted requirements for five groups of nonroad
engines: (1) Diesel- and Otto-cycle small off-road engines rated under
19 kW; (2) spark-ignition engines used for marine propulsion; (3) land-
based nonroad recreational engines, including those used in all-terrain
vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, go-carts, and other similar
vehicles; (4) new nonroad spark-ignition engines rated over 19 kW not
used in recreational applications; and (5) new land-based nonroad
diesel engines rated over 130 kW. They have also approved a voluntary
registration and control program for existing portable equipment.
In the 1990s California ARB adopted Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards for
Small SI engines consistent with the federal requirements. In 2003,
they moved beyond the federal program by adopting exhaust
HC+NOX emission standards of 10 g/kW-hr for Class I engines
starting in the 2007 model year and 8 g/kW-hr for Class II engines
starting in the 2008 model year. In the same rule they adopted
evaporative emission standards for nonhandheld equipment, requiring
control of fuel tank permeation, fuel line permeation, diurnal
emissions, and running losses.
California ARB has adopted two tiers of exhaust emission standards
for outboard and personal watercraft engines beyond EPA's original
standards. The most recent standards, which apply starting in 2008,
require HC+NOX emission levels as low as 16 g/kW-hr. For
sterndrive and inboard engines, California has adopted a 5 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX emission standard for 2008 and later model year
engines, with testing underway to confirm the feasibility of standards.
California ARB's marine programs include no standards for exhaust CO
emissions or evaporative emissions.
The California emission standards for recreational vehicles have a
different form than the comparable EPA standards but are roughly
equivalent in stringency. The California standards include no standards
for controlling evaporative emissions. Another important difference
between the two programs is California ARB's reliance on a provision
allowing noncompliant vehicles to be used in certain areas that are
less environmentally sensitive as long as they have a specified red
sticker that would identify their lack of emission controls to prevent
them from operating in other areas.
California ARB in 1998 adopted requirements that apply to new
nonroad engines rated over 25 hp produced for California, with
standards phasing in from 2001 through 2004. Texas has adopted these
initial California ARB emission standards statewide starting in 2004.
More recently, California ARB has proposed exhaust emission standards
and new evaporative emission standards for these engines, consistent
with EPA's 2007 model year standards. Their proposal also included an
additional level of emission control for Large SI engines starting with
the 2010 model year. However, their proposed standards would not
increase overall stringency beyond that reflected in the federal
standards. Rather, they aim to achieve reductions in HC+NOX
emissions by removing the flexibility incorporated into the federal
standards allowing manufacturers to have higher HC+NOX
emissions by certifying to a more stringent CO standard.
[[Page 28104]]
(2) Actions in Other Countries
While the proposed emission standards will apply only to engines
sold in the United States, we are aware that manufacturers in many
cases are selling the same products into other countries. To the extent
that we have the same emission standards as other countries,
manufacturers can contribute to reducing air emissions without being
burdened by the costs associated with meeting differing or inconsistent
regulatory requirements. The following discussion describes our
understanding of the status of emission standards in countries outside
the United States.
Regulations for spark ignition engines in handheld and
nonhandheld equipment are included in the ``Directive 97/68/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1997 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants
from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile
machinery (OJ L 59, 27.2.1998, p. 1)'', as amended by ``Directive
2002/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9
December 2002''. The Stage I emission standards are to be met by all
handheld and nonhandheld engines by 24 months after entry into force
of the Directive (as noted in a December 9, 2002 amendment to
Directive 97/68/EC). The Stage I emission standards are similar to
the U.S. EPA's Phase 1 emission standards for handheld and
nonhandheld engines. The Stage II emission standards are implemented
over time for the various handheld and nonhandheld engine classes
from 2005 to 2009 with handheld engines >= 50cc on August 1, 2008.
The Stage II emission standards are similar to EPA's Phase 2
emission standards for handheld and nonhandheld engines. Six months
after these dates Member States shall permit placing on the market
of engines, whether or not already installed in machinery, only if
they meet the requirements of the Directive.
The European Commission has adopted emission standards for
recreational marine engines, including both diesel and gasoline
engines. These requirements apply to all new engines sold in member
countries and began in 2006 for four-stroke engines and in 2007 for
two-stroke engines. Table I-3 presents the European standards for
diesel and gasoline recreational marine engines. The numerical emission
standards for NOX are based on the applicable standard from
MARPOL Annex VI for marine diesel engines (See Table I-3). The European
standards are roughly equivalent to the nonroad diesel Tier 1 emission
standards for HC and CO. Emission measurements under the European
standards rely on the ISO D2 duty cycle for constant-speed engines and
the ISO E5 duty cycle for other engines.
Table I-3.--European Emission Standards for Recreational Marine Engines
[g/kW-hr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Type HC NOX CO PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-Stroke Spark-Ignition.................... 30 + 100/P\0.75\ 10.0 150 + 600/P ..............
Four-Stroke Spark-Ignition................... 6 + 50/P\0.75\ 15.0 150 + 600/P ..............
Compression-Ignition......................... 1.5 + 2/P\0.5\ 9.8 5.0 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ P = rated power in kilowatts (kW)
E. What Requirements Are We Proposing?
EPA's emission control provisions require engine, vessel and
equipment manufacturers to design and produce their products to meet
the emission standards we adopt. To ensure that engines, vessels and
equipment meet the expected level of emission control, we also require
compliance with a variety of additional requirements, such as
certification, labeling engines, and meeting warranty requirements. The
following sections provide a brief summary of the new requirements we
are proposing in this rulemaking. See the later sections for a full
discussion of the proposal.
(1) Marine SI Engines and Vessels
We are proposing a more stringent level of emission standards for
outboard and personal watercraft engines starting with the 2009 model
year. The proposed standards for engines above 40 kW are 16 g/kW-hr for
HC+NOX and 200 g/kW-hr for CO. For engines below 40 kW, the
standards increase gradually based on the engine's maximum power. We
expect manufacturers to meet these standards with improved fueling
systems and other in-cylinder controls. The levels of the standards are
consistent with the requirements recently adopted by California ARB
with the advantage of a simplified form of the standard for different
power ratings and with a CO emission standard. We are not pursuing
catalyst-based emission standards for outboard and personal watercraft
engines. As is discussed later in this preamble, the application of
catalyst-based standards to the marine environment creates special
technology challenges that must be addressed. Unlike the sterndrive/
inboard engines discussed in the next paragraph, outboard and personal
watercraft engines are not built from automotive engine blocks and are
not as easily amenable to the fundamental engine modifications, fuel
system upgrades, and other engine control modifications needed to get
acceptable catalyst performance. This proposal is an appropriate next
step in the evolution of technology-based standards for outboard and
personal watercraft engines as they are likely to lead to the
elimination of carbureted two-stroke engines in favor of direct-
injection two-stroke engines and to encourage the fuel system upgrades
and related engine modifications needed to achieve the required
reductions and to potentially set the stage for future considerations.
We are proposing new exhaust emission standards for sterndrive and
inboard marine engines. The proposed standards are 5.0 g/kW-hr for
HC+NOX and 75.0 g/kW-hr for CO starting with the 2009 model
year. We expect manufacturers to meet these standards with three-way
catalysts and closed-loop fuel injection. To ensure proper functioning
of these emission control systems in use, we are proposing a
requirement that engines have a diagnostic system for detecting a
failure in the emission control system. For sterndrive and inboard
marine engines at or above 373 kW with high-performance characteristics
(generally referred to as ``SD/I high-performance engines''), we are
proposing an HC+NOX emission standard of 5.0 g/kW-hr and a
CO standard of 350 g/kW-hr. We are also proposing a variety of other
special provisions for these engines to reflect unique operating
characteristics and to make it feasible to meet emission standards
using emission credits. These standards are consistent with the
requirements recently adopted by California ARB, with some adjustment
to the provisions for SD/I high-performance engines and with a CO
emission standard.
The emission standards described above relate to engine operation
over a
[[Page 28105]]
prescribed duty cycle for testing in the laboratory. We are also
proposing not-to-exceed (NTE) standards that establish emission limits
when engines operate under normal speed-load combinations that are not
included in the duty cycles for the other engine standards.
We are proposing new standards to control evaporative emissions for
all Marine SI vessels. The new standards include requirements to
control fuel tank permeation, fuel line permeation, and diurnal
emissions, including provisions to ensure that refueling emissions do
not increase.
We are proposing to place these new regulations for Marine SI
engines in 40 CFR part 1045 rather than changing the current
regulations in 40 CFR part 91. This new part will allow us to improve
the clarity of regulatory requirements and update our regulatory
compliance program to be consistent with the provisions we have
recently adopted for other nonroad programs. We are also making a
variety of changes to 40 CFR part 91 to make minor adjustments to the
current regulations and to prepare for the transition to 40 CFR part
1045.
(2) Small SI Engines and Equipment
We are proposing HC+NOX exhaust emission standards of
10.0 g/kW-hr for Class I engines starting in the 2012 model year and
8.0 g/kW-hr for Class II engines starting in the 2011 model year. For
both classes of nonhandheld engines, we are proposing to maintain the
existing CO standard of 610 g/kW-hr. We expect manufacturers to meet
these standards by improving engine combustion and adding catalysts.
These standards are consistent with the requirements recently adopted
by California ARB.
For spark-ignition engines used in marine generators, we are
proposing a more stringent Phase 3 CO emission standard of 5.0 g/kW-hr.
This would apply equally to all sizes of engines subject to the Small
SI standards.
We are proposing new evaporative emission standards for both
handheld and nonhandheld engines. The new standards include
requirements to control permeation from fuel tanks and fuel lines. For
nonhandheld engines we are also proposing to require control of
diffusion emissions and running losses.
We are proposing to place the new regulations for Small SI engines
from 40 CFR part 90 to 40 CFR part 1054. This new part will allow us to
improve the clarity of regulatory requirements and update our
regulatory compliance program to be consistent with the provisions we
have recently adopted for other nonroad programs.
F. How Is This Document Organized?
Since this proposal covers a broad range of engines and equipment
that vary in design and use, many readers may be interested only in
certain aspects of the proposal. We have therefore attempted to
organize this preamble in a way that allows each reader to focus on the
material of particular interest. The Air Quality discussion in Section
II, however, is general in nature and applies to all the categories
covered by this proposal.
The next several sections contain our proposal for Small SI engines
and equipment and Marine SI engines and vessels. Sections III through V
describe the proposed requirements related to exhaust emission
standards for each of the affected engine categories, including
standards, effective dates, testing information, and other specific
requirements. Section VI details the proposed requirements related to
evaporative emission requirements for all categories. Sections VII
through IX contain some general concepts that are relevant to all of
the engines, vessels and equipment covered by this proposal, such as
certification requirements and general testing procedures and
compliance provisions. Section X discusses how we took energy, noise,
and safety factors into consideration for the proposed standards.
Section XI describes a variety of proposed provisions that affect
other categories of engines besides those that are the primary subject
of this proposal. This includes the following changes:
We are proposing to reorganize the regulatory language
related to preemption of state standards and to clarify certain
provisions. We are also requesting comment regarding a petition to
reconsider some of the provisions including the extent to which states
may regulate the use and operation of nonroad engines and vehicles.
We are incorporating new provisions related to
certification fees for newly regulated products covered by this
proposal. This involves some restructuring of the regulatory language.
We are also proposing various technical amendments, such as identifying
an additional payment method, that would apply broadly to our
certification programs.
We are proposing changes to 40 CFR part 1068 to clarify
how the provisions apply with respect to evaporative emission
standards. We are also proposing various technical amendments. These
changes would apply to all types of nonroad engines that are subject to
the provisions of part 1068.
We are proposing several technical amendments for Large SI
engines and recreational vehicles, largely to maintain consistency
across programs for different categories of engines and vehicles.
We are proposing to amend provisions related to the
delegated-assembly exemption for heavy-duty highway engines as part of
the effort to apply these provisions to Small SI engines, as described
in Section V.E.2.
We are proposing to apply the new standards for Small SI
engines to the comparable stationary engines.
Section XII summarizes the projected impacts and benefits of this
proposal. Finally, Sections XIII and XIV contain information about
public participation and how we satisfy our various administrative
requirements.
II. Public Health and Welfare Effects
The engines, vessels and equipment that would be subject to the
proposed standards generate emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide
(CO) that contribute to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, PM and CO. These engines, vessels
and equipment also emit hazardous air pollutants (air toxics) that are
associated with a host of adverse health effects. Emissions from these
engines, vessels and equipment also contribute to visibility impairment
and other welfare and environmental effects.
The health and environmental effects associated with emissions from
Small SI engines and equipment and Marine SI engines and vessels are a
classic example of a negative externality (an activity that imposes
uncompensated costs on others). With a negative externality, an
activity's social cost (the cost on society imposed as a result of the
activity taking place) exceeds its private cost (the cost to those
directly engaged in the activity). In this case, as described in this
section, emissions from Small SI engines and equipment and Marine SI
engines and vessels impose public health and environmental costs on
society. The market system itself cannot correct this externality. The
end users of the equipment and vessels are often unaware of the
environmental impacts of their use for lawn care or recreation. Because
of this, consumers fail to send the market a signal to provide cleaner
equipment and vessels. In addition, producers of these engines,
equipment, and vessels are rewarded for emphasizing other aspects of
these
[[Page 28106]]
products (e.g., total power). To correct this market failure and reduce
the negative externality, it is necessary to give producers social cost
signals. The standards EPA is proposing will accomplish this by
mandating that Small SI engines and equipment and Marine SI engines and
vessels reduce their emissions to a technologically feasible limit. In
other words, with this proposed rule the costs of the services provided
by these engines and equipment will account for social costs more
fully.
This section summarizes the general health and welfare effects of
these emissions. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the
Draft RIA for more in-depth discussions.
A. Ozone
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed by the reaction of volatile
organic compounds (VOC), of which HC are the major subset, and
NOX in the lower atmosphere in the presence of heat and
sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are
emitted by many types of pollution sources, such as highway and nonroad
motor vehicles and engines (including those subject to this proposed
rule), power plants, chemical plants, refineries, makers of consumer
and commercial products, industrial facilities, and smaller area
sources. The engine, vessel and equipment controls being proposed will
reduce VOCs and NOX.
The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is
complex.\10\ Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical
set of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature
and sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high
for several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its
precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically would
occur on a single high-temperature day. Ozone also can be transported
into an area from pollution sources found hundreds of miles upwind,
resulting in elevated ozone levels even in areas with low VOC or
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. This document
is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current ozone NAAQS, established by EPA in 1997, has an 8-hour
averaging time.\11\ The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is based on well-documented
science demonstrating that more people were experiencing adverse health
effects at lower levels of exertion, over longer periods, and at lower
ozone concentrations than addressed by the previous one-hour ozone
NAAQS. The current ozone NAAQS addresses ozone exposures of concern for
the general population and populations most at risk, including children
active outdoors, outdoor workers, and individuals with pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma. The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at
an ambient air quality monitoring site when the average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration over
three years is less than or equal to 0.084 parts per million (ppm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA's review of the ozone NAAQS is underway and a proposal
is scheduled for June 2007 with a final rule scheduled for March
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Health Effects of Ozone
The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are
assessed in the EPA's 2006 ozone Air Quality Criteria Document (ozone
AQCD) and staff paper.12 13 Ozone can irritate the
respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irritation, and/or
uncomfortable sensation in the chest. Ozone can reduce lung function
and make it more difficult to breathe deeply, and breathing may become
more rapid and shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person's
activity. Ozone can also aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma
attacks that require a doctor's attention and/or the use of additional
medication. Animal toxicologic evidence indicates that with repeated
exposure, ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which
may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue and irreversible
reductions in lung function. People who are more susceptible to effects
associated with exposure to ozone include children, the elderly, and
individuals with respiratory disease such as asthma. There is also
suggestive evidence that certain people may have greater genetic
susceptibility. Those with greater exposures to ozone, for instance due
to time spent outdoors (e.g., outdoor workers), are also of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. This document
is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
\13\ U.S. EPA (2007) Review of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone, Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-07-003. This document is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent ozone AQCD also examined relevant new scientific
information that has emerged in the past decade, including the impact
of ozone exposure on such health effects as changes in lung structure
and biochemistry, inflammation of the lungs, exacerbation and causation
of asthma, respiratory illness-related school absence, hospital
admissions and premature mortality. Animal toxicologic studies have
suggested potential interactions between ozone and PM with increased
responses observed to mixtures of the two pollutants compared to either
ozone or PM alone. The respiratory morbidity observed in animal studies
along with the evidence from epidemiologic studies supports a causal
relationship between acute ambient ozone exposures and increased
respiratory-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the
warm season. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a
contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and non-
accidental and cardiopulmonary mortality.
EPA typically quantifies ozone-related health impacts in its
regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) when possible. In the analysis of
past air quality regulations, ozone-related benefits have included
morbidity endpoints and welfare effects such as damage to commercial
crops. EPA has not recently included a separate and additive mortality
effect for ozone, independent of the effect associated with fine
particulate matter. For a number of reasons, including (1) Advice from
the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Health and Ecological Effects
Subcommittee (HEES) that EPA consider the plausibility and viability of
including an estimate of premature mortality associated with short-term
ozone exposure in its benefits analyses and (2) conclusions regarding
the scientific support for such relationships in EPA's 2006 Air Quality
Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (the CD), EPA is
in the process of determining how to appropriately characterize ozone-
related mortality benefits within the context of benefits analyses for
air quality regulations. As part of this process, we are seeking advice
from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding how the ozone-
mortality literature should be used to quantify the reduction in
premature mortality due to diminished exposure to ozone, the amount of
life expectancy to be added and the monetary value of this increased
life expectancy in the context of health benefits analyses associated
with regulatory assessments. In addition, the Agency has sought advice
on characterizing and communicating the uncertainty associated with
each of these aspects in health benefit analyses.
Since the NAS effort is not expected to conclude until 2008, the
agency is currently deliberating how best to
[[Page 28107]]
characterize ozone-related mortality benefits in its rulemaking
analyses in the interim. We do not quantify an ozone mortality benefit
for the analysis of the proposed emission standards. So that we do not
provide an incomplete picture of all of the benefits associated with
reductions in emissions of ozone precursors, we have chosen not to
include an estimate of total ozone benefits in the proposed RIA. By
omitting ozone benefits in this proposal, we acknowledge that this
analysis underestimates the benefits associated with the proposed
standards. For more information regarding the quantified benefits
included in this analysis, please refer to Chapter 8 of the Draft RIA.
(2) Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
Ozone contributes to many environmental effects, with impacts to
plants and ecosystems being of most concern. Ozone can produce both
acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on the
concentration level and the duration of the exposure. Ozone effects
also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that
even lower concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the
potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to
plants includes visible injury to leaves and a reduction in food
production through impaired photosynthesis, both of which can lead to
reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of sensitive
ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the reduced food production in
plants and subsequent reduced root growth and storage below ground, can
result in other, more subtle plant and ecosystems impacts. These
include increased susceptibility of plants to insect attack, disease,
harsh weather, interspecies competition and overall decreased plant
vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on forest and other natural
vegetation can potentially lead to species shifts and loss from the
affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss or reduction in associated
ecosystem goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone injury to leaves
can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special scenic
significance like national parks and wilderness areas. The 2006 ozone
AQCD presents more detailed information on ozone effects on vegetation
and ecosystems.
(3) Current and Projected 8-Hour Ozone Levels
Currently, ozone concentrations exceeding the level of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS occur over wide geographic areas, including most of the
nation's major population centers.\14\ As of October, 2006 there are
approximately 157 million people living in 116 areas designated as not
in attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. There are 461 full or
partial counties that make up the 116 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
These numbers do not include the people living in areas where there is
a potential risk of failing to maintain or achieve the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A map of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas is included
in the RIA for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient ozone levels. These control programs include
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005), as well as
many mobile source rules, some of which are described in Section I of
this preamble. As a result of these programs, the number of areas that
fail to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the future is expected to
decrease.
Based on the recent ozone modeling performed for the CAIR analysis,
barring additional local ozone precursor controls, we estimate 37
eastern counties (where 24 million people are projected to live) will
exceed the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2010.15 16 An additional
148 eastern counties (where 61 million people are projected to live)
are expected to be within 10 percent of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air
Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling. This document is available in
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008, Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0008-0484.
\16\ We expect many of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas to
adopt additional emission reduction programs but we are unable to
quantify or rely upon future reductions from additional state and
local programs that have not yet been adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States with 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas will be required to
take action to bring those areas into compliance in the future. Based
on the final rule designating and classifying 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004), most 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas will be required to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in the 2007 to 2014 time frame and then be required to maintain the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS thereafter.\17\ Emissions of ozone precursors from the
engines, vessels and equipment subject to the proposed standards
contribute to ozone in many, if not all, of these areas. Therefore, the
expected HC and NOX reductions from the standards proposed
in this action will be useful to states in attaining or maintaining the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area will have until June 15, 2021 to reach
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's review of the ozone NAAQS is currently underway and a
proposed decision in this review is scheduled for June 2007 with a
final rule scheduled for March 2008. If the ozone NAAQS is revised then
new nonattainment areas could be designated. While EPA is not relying
on it for purposes of justifying this rule, the emission reductions
from this rulemaking would also be helpful to states if there is an
ozone NAAQS revision.
(4) Air Quality Modeling for Ozone
To model the ozone air quality benefits of this rule we used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension (CAMx). CAMx simulates
the numerous physical and chemical processes involved in the formation,
transport, and destruction of ozone. This model is commonly used in
developing attainment demonstration State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
as well as estimating the ozone reductions expected to occur from a
reduction in emitted pollutants. Meteorological data are developed by a
separate program, the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS), and
input into CAMx. The simulation periods modeled by CAMx include several
multi-day periods when ambient measurements were representative of
ozone episodes over the eastern United States: June 12-24, July 5-15
and August 7-21, 1995. The modeling domain we used includes the 37
eastern states modeled in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). More
detailed information is included in the Air Quality Modeling Technical
Support Document (TSD), which is located in the docket for this rule.
Note that the emission control scenarios used in the air quality
and benefits modeling are slightly different than the emission control
program in this proposal reflecting further refinement of the
regulatory program since we performed the air quality modeling for this
proposal. Additional detail on the difference between the modeled and
proposed inventories is included in Section 3.6 of the Draft RIA.
(5) Results of the Air Quality Modeling for Ozone
According to air quality modeling performed for this proposal, the
proposed controls for emissions from the engines, vessels and equipment
subject to the proposed standards are expected to provide nationwide
improvements in ozone levels. On a population-weighted basis, the
average modeled future-year 8-hour ozone design values would decrease
by 0.7
[[Page 28108]]
ppb in 2020 and 0.8 ppb in 2030.\18\ Within areas predicted to have
design values greater than 85 ppb the average decrease would be
somewhat higher: 0.8 ppb in 2020 and 1.0 ppb in 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ A design value is the monitored reading used by EPA to
determine an area's air quality status; e.g., for ozone, the fourth
highest reading measured over the most recent three years is the
design value. (http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/dterms.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) represents a broad class of chemically and
physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as
discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase
spanning several orders of magnitude in size. PM is further described
by breaking it down into size fractions. PM10 refers to
particles generally less than or equal to 10 micrometers ([mu]m) in
diameter. PM2.5 refers to fine particles, those particles
generally less than or equal to 2.5 [mu]m in diameter. Inhalable (or
``thoracic'' ) coarse particles refer to those particles generally
greater than 2.5 [mu]m but less than or equal to 10 [mu]m in diameter.
Ultrafine PM refers to particles with diameters generally less than 100
nanometers (0.1 [mu]m). Larger particles (>10 [mu]m) tend to be removed
by the respiratory clearance mechanisms, whereas smaller particles are
deposited deeper in the lungs.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and
by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., SOx,
NOX and VOCs) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region,
meteorology and source category. Thus, PM2.5, may include a
complex mixture of different pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These
particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel
through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
EPA's final rule to amend the PM NAAQS addressed revisions to the
primary and secondary NAAQS for PM to provide increased protection of
public health and welfare, respectively (71 FR 61144, October 17,
2006). The primary PM2.5 NAAQS include a short-term (24-
hour) and a long-term (annual) standard. The level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS has been revised from 65[mu]g/m 3 to
35[mu]g/m 3 to provide increased protection against health
effects associated with short-term exposures to fine particles. The
current form of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard was retained
(e.g., based on the 98th percentile concentration averaged over three
years). The level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS was retained at
15[mu]g/m 3, continuing protection against health effects
associated with long-term exposures. The current form of the annual
PM2.5 standard was retained as an annual arithmetic mean
averaged over three years, however, the following two aspects of the
spatial averaging criteria were narrowed: (1) The annual mean
concentration at each site shall be within 10 percent of the spatially
averaged annual mean, and (2) the daily values for each monitoring site
pair shall yield a correlation coefficient of at least 0.9 for each
calendar quarter. With regard to the primary PM10 standards,
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS was retained at a level of 150[mu]g/m
3 not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over
a three-year period. Given that the available evidence does not suggest
an association between long-term exposure to coarse particles at
current ambient levels and health effects, EPA has revoked the annual
PM10 standard.
With regard to the secondary PM standards, EPA has revised these
standards to be identical in all respects to the revised primary
standards. Specifically, EPA has revised the current 24-hour
PM2.5 secondary standard by making it identical to the
revised 24-hour PM2.5 primary standard, retained the annual
PM2.5 and 24-hour PM10 secondary standards, and
revoked the annual PM10 secondary standards. This suite of
secondary PM standards is intended to provide protection against PM-
related public welfare effects, including visibility impairment,
effects on vegetation and ecosystems, and material damage and soiling.
(1) Health Effects of PM
Scientific studies show ambient PM is associated with a series of
adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in
the 2004 EPA Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria Document (PM AQCD)
as well as the 2005 PM Staff Paper.19 20 Further discussion
of health effects associated with PM can also be found in the Draft
RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter
(Oct 2004), Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II
Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF. This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008. This document is available electronically at:
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.
\20\ U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-05-005. This
document is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html and in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health effects associated with short-term exposures (e.g. hours to
days) in ambient PM2.5 include premature mortality,
increased hospital admissions, heart and lung diseases, increased
cough, adverse lower-respiratory symptoms, decrements in lung function
and changes in heart rate rhythm and other cardiac effects. Studies
examining populations exposed to different levels of air pollution over
a number of years, including the Harvard Six Cities Study and the
American Cancer Society Study, show associations between long-term
exposure to ambient PM2.5 and both total and
cardiorespiratory mortality. In addition, the reanalysis of the
American Cancer Society Study shows an association between fine
particle and sulfate concentrations and lung cancer mortality. The
engines, vessels and equipment covered in this proposal contribute to
both acute and chronic PM2.5 exposures. Additional
information on acute exposures is available in Section 2.5 of the Draft
RIA.
Recently, several studies have highlighted the adverse effects of
PM specifically from mobile sources.21 22 Studies have also
focused on health effects due to PM exposures on or near roadways.\23\
Although these studies include all air pollution sources, including
both spark-ignition (gasoline) and diesel powered vehicles, they
indicate that exposure to PM emissions near roadways, thus dominated by
mobile sources, are associated with health effects. The proposed
controls may help to reduce exposures, and specifically exposures near
the source, to mobile source related PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Laden, F.; Neas, L.M.; Dockery, D.W.; Schwartz, J. (2000)
Association of Fine Particulate Matter from Different Sources with
Daily Mortality in Six U.S. Cities. Environmental Health
Perspectives 108: 941-947.
\22\ Janssen, N.A.H.; Schwartz, J.; Zanobetti, A.; Suh, H.H.
(2002) Air Conditioning and Source-Specific Particles as Modifiers
of the Effect of PM10 on Hospital Admissions for Heart
and Lung Disease. Environmental Health Perspectives 110: 43-49.
\23\ Riediker, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R..; Herbst, M.C.;
Bromberg, P.A.; Neas, L.; Williams, R.W.; Devlin, R.B. (2003)
Particulate Matter Exposures in Cars is Associated with
Cardiovascular Effects in Healthy Young Men. Am. J. Respir. Crit.
Care Med. 169: 934-940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is
transparent to visible light.\24\ Visibility impairment
[[Page 28109]]
manifests in two principal ways: as local visibility impairment and as
regional haze.\25\ Local visibility impairment may take the form of a
localized plume, a band or layer of discoloration appearing well above
the terrain as a result from complex local meteorological conditions.
Alternatively, local visibility impairment may manifest as an urban
haze, sometimes referred to as a ``brown cloud.'' This urban haze is
largely caused by emissions from multiple sources in the urban areas
and is not typically attributable to only one nearby source or to long-
range transport. The second type of visibility impairment, regional
haze, usually results from multiple pollution sources spread over a
large geographic region. Regional haze can impair visibility over large
regions and across states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ National Research Council, 1993. Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC. This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008. This book can be viewed on the National
Academy Press Website at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/.
\25\ See discussion in U.S. EPA , National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule; January 17, 2006,
Vol71 p 2676. This information is available electronically at http://epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/a177.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility is important because it has direct significance to
people's enjoyment of daily activities in all parts of the country.
Individuals value good visibility for the well-being it provides them
directly, where they live and work, and in places where they enjoy
recreational opportunities. Visibility is also highly valued in
significant natural areas such as national parks and wilderness areas,
and special emphasis is given to protecting visibility in these areas.
For more information on visibility see the 2004 PM AQCD as well as the
2005 PM Staff Paper.26 27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter
(Oct 2004), Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II
Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF. This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
\27\ U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-05-005. This
document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine particles are the major cause of reduced visibility in parts
of the United States. To address the welfare effects of PM on
visibility, EPA set secondary PM2.5 standards that would act
in conjunction with the establishment of a regional haze program. In
setting this secondary standard, EPA concluded that PM2.5
causes adverse effects on visibility in various locations, depending on
PM concentrations and factors such as chemical composition and average
relative humidity. The secondary (welfare-based) PM2.5 NAAQS
was established as equal to the suite of primary (health-based) NAAQS.
Furthermore, section 169 of the Act provides additional authorities to
remedy existing visibility impairment and prevent future visibility
impairment in the 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas
categorized as mandatory class I Federal areas (62 FR 38680-81, July
18, 1997).\28\ In July 1999 the regional haze rule (64 FR 35714) was
put in place to protect the visibility in mandatory class I federal
areas. Visibility can be said to be impaired in both PM2.5
nonattainment areas and mandatory class I federal areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ These areas are defined in section 162 of the Act as those
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial
parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were
in existence on August 7, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Current Visibility Impairment
Recently designated PM2.5 nonattainment areas indicate
that, as of October 2006, almost 90 million people live in
nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, at least
these populations would likely be experiencing visibility impairment,
as well as many thousands of individuals who travel to these areas. In
addition, while visibility trends have improved in mandatory Class I
federal areas, the most recent data show that these areas continue to
suffer from visibility impairment. In summary, visibility impairment is
experienced throughout the U.S., in multi-state regions, urban areas,
and remote mandatory class I federal areas.29 30 The
mandatory class I federal areas are listed in Chapter 2 of the RIA for
this action. The areas that have design values above the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS are also listed in Chapter 2 of the RIA for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ US EPA, Air Quality Designations and Classifications for
the Fine Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, December 17, 2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5. 2005) This document
is also available on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/.
\30\ US EPA. Regional Haze Regulations, July 1, 1999. (64 FR
35714, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Future Visibility Impairment
Recent modeling for the CAIR was used to project visibility
conditions in mandatory class I federal areas across the country in
2015. The results for the mandatory class I federal areas suggest that
these areas are predicted to continue to have annual average deciview
levels above background in the future.\31\ Modeling done for the PM
NAAQS projected PM2.5 levels in 2015. These projections
include all sources of PM2.5, including the engines, vessels
and equipment covered in this rule, and suggest that PM2.5
levels above the NAAQS will persist into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The deciview metric describes perceived visual changes in a
linear fashion over its entire range, analogous to the decibel scale
for sound. A deciview of 0 represents pristine conditions. The
higher the deciview value, the worse the visibility, and an
improvement in visibility is a decrease in deciview value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The engines, vessels and equipment that would be subject to these
proposed standards contribute to visibility concerns in these areas
through both their primary PM emissions and their VOC and
NOX emissions, which contribute to the formation of
secondary PM2.5. Reductions in these direct and secondary PM
emissions will help to improve visibility across the nation, including
mandatory class I federal areas.
(3) Atmospheric Deposition
Wet and dry deposition of ambient particulate matter delivers a
complex mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, lead, nickel, aluminum,
cadmium), organic compounds (e.g., POM, dioxins, furans) and inorganic
compounds (e.g., nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. The chemical form of the compounds deposited is impacted by
a variety of factors including ambient conditions (e.g., temperature,
humidity, oxidant levels) and the sources of the material. Chemical and
physical transformations of the particulate compounds occur in the
atmosphere as well as the media onto which they deposit. These
transformations in turn influence the fate, bioavailability and
potential toxicity of these compounds. Atmospheric deposition has been
identified as a key component of the environmental and human health
hazard posed by several pollutants including mercury, dioxin and
PCBs.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. EPA (2000) Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great
Waters: Third Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EPA-453/R-00-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse impacts on water quality can occur when atmospheric
contaminants deposit to the water surface or when material deposited on
the land enters a waterbody through runoff. Potential impacts of
atmospheric deposition to waterbodies include those related to both
nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse effects to human health and welfare
can occur from the addition of excess particulate nitrate nutrient
enrichment, which contributes to toxic algae blooms and zones of
depleted oxygen, which can lead to fish kills, frequently in coastal
waters. Particles contaminated with heavy metals or other toxins may
lead to the ingestion of contaminated fish, ingestion of contaminated
water, damage to the marine ecology, and limited recreational uses.
Several
[[Page 28110]]
studies have been conducted in U.S. coastal waters and in the Great
Lakes Region in which the role of ambient PM deposition and runoff is
investigated.33 34 35 36 37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. EPA (2004) National Coastal Condition Report II.
Office of Research and Development/ Office of Water. EPA-620/R-03/
002.
\34\ Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. 2002.
Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on PM2.5
particulate matter over the New York-New Jersey harbor estuary.
Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077-1086.
\35\ Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church. 2000.
Factors influencing the atmospheric depositional fluxes of stable
Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 65-79.
\36\ Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. 2003. Dry
deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los Angeles Basin and
adjacent coastal waters. J. Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11-1 to
11-24.
\37\ Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al. 2002.
Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes Erie and Ontario: A
comparative analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(3): 437-450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse impacts on soil chemistry and plant life have been observed
for areas heavily impacted by atmospheric deposition of nutrients,
metals and acid species, resulting in species shifts, loss of
biodiversity, forest decline and damage to forest productivity.
Potential impacts also include adverse effects to human health through
ingestion of contaminated vegetation or livestock (as in the case for
dioxin deposition), reduction in crop yield, and limited use of land
due to contamination.
(4) Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels
In 2005 EPA designated 39 nonattainment areas for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based on air quality design values (using 2001-
2003 or 2002-2004 measurements) and a number of other factors (70 FR
943, January 5, 2005).\38\ These areas are comprised of 208 full or
partial counties with a total population exceeding 88 million. As
mentioned in Section II.B.2, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was
recently revised and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS became effective
on December 18, 2006. Table II-1 presents the number of counties in
areas currently designated as nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the number of additional counties
that have monitored data that is violating the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Nonattainment areas will be designated with respect to the new
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in early 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The full details involved in calculating a PM2.5
design value are given in Appendix N of 40 CFR part 50.
Table II-1.--Fine Particle Standards: Current Nonattainment Areas and
Other Violating Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonattainment areas/other violating Number of
counties counties Population \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 PM2.5 Standards: 39 areas 208 88,394,000
currently designated...............
2006 PM2.5 Standards: counties with 49 18,198,676
violating monitors \2\.............
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 257 106,592,676
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
\2\ This table provides an estimate of the counties violating the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2003-05 air quality data. The areas designated as
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be based on 3 years of air
quality data from later years. Also, the county numbers in the summary
table include only the counties with monitors violating the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The monitored county violations may be an underestimate of the
number of counties and populations that will eventually be included in
areas with multiple counties designated nonattainment.
Based on modeling performed for the PM NAAQS analysis, we estimate
that 52 counties (where 53 million people are projected to live) will
exceed the 2006 PM2.5 standard in 2015.\39\ In addition, 54
counties (where 27 million people are projected to live) are expected
to be within 10 percent of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ US EPA (2006). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2006
NAAQS for Particle Pollution. This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas designated as not attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
will need to attain these standards in the 2010 to 2015 time frame, and
then be required to maintain the NAAQS thereafter. The attainment dates
associated with the potential new 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
areas would likely be in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. The emission
standards being proposed in this action would become effective as early
as 2009 making the expected HC, NOX and PM inventory
reductions from this rulemaking useful to states in attaining or
maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS.
(5) Current PM10 Levels
As of October 2006 approximately 28.5 million people live in 46
designated PM10 nonattainment areas, which include all or
part of 46 counties. These population numbers do not include the people
living in areas where there is a potential risk of failing to maintain
or achieve the PM10 NAAQS in the future. The expected PM, HC
and NOX inventory reductions from these proposed standards
would be useful to states in maintaining the PM10 NAAQS.
C. Air Toxics
Emissions from the engines, vessels and equipment subject to the
proposed standards contribute to ambient levels of gaseous air toxics
known or suspected as human or animal carcinogens, or that have non-
cancer health effects. These compounds include benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM),
and naphthalene. All of these compounds, except acetaldehyde, were
identified as national or regional risk drivers in the 1999 National-
Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) and have significant inventory
contributions from mobile sources. That is, for a significant portion
of the population, these compounds pose a significant portion of the
total cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics. The reductions in
the emissions from these engines, vessels and equipment would help
reduce exposure to these harmful substances.
Air toxics can cause a variety of cancer and noncancer health
effects. A number of the mobile source air toxic pollutants described
in this section are known or likely to pose a cancer hazard in humans.
Many of these compounds also cause adverse noncancer health effects
resulting from chronic,\40\ subchronic,\41\ or acute \42\ inhalation
exposures. These include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney,
and respiratory effects as well as effects on the immune and
reproductive systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the
Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database (http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route
for more than approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more
than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used laboratory
animal species).
\41\ Defined in the IRIS database as exposure to a substance
spanning approximately 10 of the lifetime of an organism.
\42\ Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral,
dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28111]]
Benzene. The EPA's Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database
lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) by all
routes of exposure, and that exposure is associated with additional
health effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals
and increased proliferation of bone marrow cells in
mice.43 44 45 EPA states in its IRIS database that data
indicate a causal relationship between benzene exposure and acute
lymphocytic leukemia and suggests a relationship between benzene
exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic
leukemia. A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood
disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been
associated with long-term exposure to benzene.46 47 The most
sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current data,
is the depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in
blood.48 49 In addition, recent work, including studies
sponsored by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), provides evidence that
biochemical responses are occurring at lower levels of benzene exposure
than previously known.50 51 52 53 EPA's IRIS program has not
yet evaluated these new data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ U.S. EPA (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
\44\ International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC
monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs,
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345-389, 1982.
\45\ Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry,
V.A. (1992) Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite
hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/
macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 89:3691-3695.
\46\ Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of
benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197.
\47\ Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational
medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554.
\48\ Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E. Bechtold, G.E.
Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-
Holland, L.P. Zhang, W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes (1996)
Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily exposed to benzene. Am.
J. Ind. Med. 29: 236-246.
\49\ EPA 2005 ``Full IRIS Summary for Benzene (CASRN 71-43-2)''
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
\50\ Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.; Cohen, B.;
Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport, S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.;
Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.; Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok,
E.; Li, Y.; Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report
115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in Workers Exposed to
Benzene in China.
\51\ Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. Cohen, et
al. (2002). Hematological changes among Chinese workers with a broad
range of benzene exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275-285.
\52\ Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al. (2004).
Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene. Science
306: 1774-1776.
\53\ Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene metabolism in
rodents at doses relevant to human exposure from Urban Air. Research
Reports Health Effect Inst. Report No.113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,3-Butadiene. EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic
to humans by inhalation.54 55 The specific mechanisms of
1,3-butadiene-induced carcinogenesis are unknown. However, it is
virtually certain that the carcinogenic effects are mediated by
genotoxic metabolites of 1,3-butadiene. Animal data suggest that
females may be more sensitive than males for cancer effects, but there
are insufficient data in humans from which to draw conclusions about
sensitive subpopulations. 1,3-Butadiene also causes a variety of
reproductive and developmental effects in mice; no human data on these
effects are available. The most sensitive effect was ovarian atrophy
observed in a lifetime bioassay of female mice.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene.
Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report
No. EPA600-P-98-001F.
\55\ U.S. EPA (1998). A Science Advisory Board Report: Review of
the Health Risk Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene. EPA-SAB-EHC-98.
\56\ Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996)
Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in rats and mice by
inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 32:1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde. Since 1987, EPA has classified formaldehyde as a
probable human carcinogen based on evidence in humans and in rats,
mice, hamsters, and monkeys.\57\ EPA is currently reviewing recently
published epidemiological data. For instance, recently released
research conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) found an
increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer and lymphohematopoietic
malignancies such as leukemia among workers exposed to
formaldehyde.58 59 NCI is currently performing an update of
these studies. A recent National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) study of garment workers also found increased risk of
death due to leukemia among workers exposed to formaldehyde.\60\ Based
on the developments of the last decade the working group of the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in 2004
that formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), a higher
classification than previous IARC evaluations, on the basis of
sufficient evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental
animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ U.S. EPA (1987). Assessment of Health Risks to Garment
Workers and Certain Home Residents from Exposure to Formaldehyde,
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987.
\58\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.;
Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic malignancies among
workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer
Institute 95: 1615-1623.
\59\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.;
Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in
formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117-
1130.
\60\ Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde exposure also causes a range of noncancer health
effects, including irritation of the eyes (tearing of the eyes and
increased blinking) and mucous membranes.
Acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA's IRIS database as
a probable human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is
considered toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.\61\
The primary acute effect of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors is
irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.\62\ The agency is
currently conducting a reassessment of the health hazards from
inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ U.S. EPA (1988). Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
\62\ U.S. EPA (1988). Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein. Acrolein is intensely irritating to humans when inhaled,
with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation and
congestion. EPA determined in 2003 using the 1999 draft cancer
guidelines that the human carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not
be determined because the available data were inadequate. No
information was available on the carcinogenic effects of acrolein in
humans and the animal data provided inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ U.S. EPA. 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM). POM is generally defined as a
large class of organic compounds with multiple benzene rings and a
boiling point greater than 100 degrees Celsius. One of these compounds,
naphthalene, is discussed separately below. Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) are a class of POM that contain only hydrogen and
carbon atoms. A number of PAHs are known or suspected carcinogens.
[[Page 28112]]
Recent studies have found that maternal exposures to PAHs in a
population of pregnant women were associated with several adverse birth
outcomes, including low birth weight and reduced length at birth, as
well as impaired cognitive development at age three.64 65
EPA has not yet evaluated these recent studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W-Y.; et al. (2002) Effect of
transplacental exposure to environmental pollutants on birth
outcomes in a multiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect. 111:
201-205.
\65\ Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai, W.Y.; Tang, D.;
Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu, Y.H.; Camann, D.; Kinney, P.
(2006) Effect of prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3 years of life among
inner-city children. Environ Health Perspect 114: 1287-1292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naphthalene. Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline
and diesel fuels but is primarily a product of combustion. EPA recently
released an external review draft of a reassessment of the inhalation
carcinogenicity of naphthalene.\66\ The draft reassessment recently
completed external peer review.\67\ Based on external peer review
comments, additional analyses are being considered. California EPA has
released a new risk assessment for naphthalene, and the IARC has
reevaluated naphthalene and re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly
carcinogenic to humans.\68\ Naphthalene also causes a number of chronic
non-cancer effects in animals, including abnormal cell changes and
growth in respiratory and nasal tissues.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ U.S. EPA. 2004. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
\67\ Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. (2004).
External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation
Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=86019.
\68\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2002).
Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals
for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France.
\69\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene,
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System,
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to reducing VOC, NOX, CO and
PM2.5 emissions from these engines, vessels and equipment,
the standards proposed in this document would also reduce air toxics
emitted from these engines, vessels and equipment, thereby helping to
mitigate some of the adverse health effects associated with operation
of these engines, vessels and equipment.
D. Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced through
the incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels. The current primary
NAAQS for CO are 35 ppm for the 1-hour average and nine ppm for the 8-
hour average. These values are not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
We have already found that emissions from nonroad engines
contribute significantly to CO concentrations in more than one
nonattainment area (59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994). We have also
previously found that emissions from Small SI engines contribute to CO
concentrations in more than one nonattainment area. We propose to find
here, based on the information in this section of the preamble and
Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft RIA, that emissions from Marine SI
engines and vessels likewise contribute to CO concentrations in more
than one CO nonattainment area.
Carbon monoxide enters the bloodstream through the lungs, forming
carboxyhemoglobin and reducing the delivery of oxygen to the body's
organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those
who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina
or peripheral vascular disease. Healthy individuals also are affected,
but only at higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated CO levels is
associated with impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual
dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex tasks. Carbon
monoxide also contributes to ozone nonattainment since carbon monoxide
reacts photochemically in the atmosphere to form ozone.\70\ Additional
information on CO related health effects can be found in the Carbon
Monoxide Air Quality Criteria Document (CO AQCD).\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ U.S. EPA (2000). Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide,
EPA/600/P-99/001F. This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0008.
\71\ U.S. EPA (2000). Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide,
EPA/600/P-99/001F. This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to health effects from chronic exposure to ambient CO
levels, acute exposures to higher levels are also a problem, see the
Draft RIA for additional information. In recent years a substantial
number of CO poisonings and deaths have occurred on and around
recreational boats across the nation.\72\ The actual number of deaths
attributable to CO poisoning while boating is difficult to estimate
because CO-related deaths in the water may be labeled as drowning. An
interagency team consisting of the National Park Service, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, and the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health maintains a record of published CO-related fatal and
nonfatal poisonings.\73\ Between 1984 and 2004, 113 CO-related deaths
and 458 non-fatal CO poisonings have been identified based on hospital
records, press accounts and other information. Deaths have been
attributed to exhaust from both onboard generators and propulsion
engines. Houseboats, cabin cruisers, and ski boats are the most common
types of boats associated with CO poisoning cases. These incidents have
prompted other federal agencies, including the United States Coast
Guard and National Park Service, to issue advisory statements and other
interventions to boaters to avoid excessive CO exposure.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Mott, J.S.; Wolfe, M.I.; Alverson, C.J.; Macdonald, S.C.;
Bailey, C.R.; Ball, L.B.; Moorman, J.E.; Somers, J.H.; Mannino,
D.M.; Redd, S.C. (2002) National Vehicle Emissions Policies and
Practices and Declining US Carbon Monoxide-Related Mortality. JAMA
288:988-995.
\73\ National Park Service; Department of the Interior; National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2004) Boat-related
carbon monoxide poisonings. This document is available
electronically at http://safetynet.smis.doi.gov/thelistbystate10-19-04.pdf and in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
\74\ U.S Department of the Interior. (2004) Carbon monoxide
dangers from generators and propulsion engines. On-board boats--
compilation of materials. This document is available online at
http://safetynet.smis.doi.gov/COhouseboats.htm and in docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of October 2006, there were approximately 15 million people
living in 6 areas (which include 10 counties) designated as
nonattainment for CO. The CO nonattainment areas are presented in the
Draft RIA.
EPA previously determined that emissions from nonroad engines and
equipment contribute significantly to ozone and CO concentrations in
more than one nonattainment area (59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994). EPA also
determined that the categories of small land-based SI engines cause or
contribute to ambient ozone and CO in more than one nonattainment area
(65 FR 76790, Dec. 7, 2000). With regard to Marine SI engines and
vessels, our NONROAD model indicates that these engines are present in
each of the CO nonattainment areas and thus contribute to CO
concentrations in those nonattainment areas. The CO contribution from
Marine SI engines in classified CO nonattainment areas is presented in
Table II-2.
[[Page 28113]]
Table II-2.--CO Emissions from Marine SI Engines and Vessels in Classified CO Nonattainment Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (short tons
Area County Category in 2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missoula, MT........................... Missoula.................. Marine SI................ 94
Las Vegas, NV.......................... Clark..................... Marine SI................ 3,016
Reno, NV............................... Washoe.................... Marine SI................ 3,494
El Paso, TX............................ El Paso................... Marine SI................ 37
South Coast Air Basin.................. Los Angeles............... Marine SI................ 4,615
Riverside................. Marine SI................ 1,852
Orange.................... Marine SI................ 5,360
San Bernardino............ Marine SI................ 2,507
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA, NONROAD 2005 model.
Based on the national inventory numbers in Chapter 3 of the Draft
RIA and the local inventory numbers described in this section of the
preamble, we propose to find that emissions of CO from Marine SI
engines and vessels contribute to CO concentrations in more than one CO
nonattainment area.
III. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines
A. Overview
This section applies to sterndrive and inboard marine (SD/I)
engines. Sterndrive and inboard engines are spark-ignition engines
typically derived from automotive engine blocks for which a
manufacturer will take steps to ``marinize'' the engine for use in
marine applications. This marinization process includes choosing and
optimizing the fuel management system, configuring a marine cooling
system, adding intake and exhaust manifolds, and adding accessory
drives and units. These engines typically have water-jacketed exhaust
systems to keep surface temperatures low. Ambient surface water
(seawater or freshwater) is generally added to the exhaust gases before
the mixture is expelled under water.
As described in Section I, the initial rulemaking to set standards
for Marine SI engines did not include final emission standards for SD/I
engines. In that rulemaking, we finalized the finding under Clean Air
Act section 213(a)(3) that all Marine SI engines cause or contribute to
ozone concentrations in two or more ozone nonattainment areas in the
United States. However, because uncontrolled SD/I engines appeared to
be a low-emission alternative to outboard and personal watercraft
engines in the marketplace, even after the emission standards for these
engines were fully phased in, we decided to set emission standards only
for outboard and personal watercraft engines. At that time, outboard
and personal watercraft engines were almost all two-stroke engines with
much higher emission rates compared to the SD/I engines, which were all
four-stroke engines. We pointed out in that initial rulemaking that we
wanted to avoid imposing costs on SD/I engines that could cause a
market shift to increased use of the higher-emitting outboard engines,
which would undermine the broader goal of achieving the greatest degree
of emission control from the full set of Marine SI engines.
We believe now is an appropriate time to set standards for SD/I
engines, for several reasons. First, the available technology for SD/I
engines has developed significantly, so we are now able to anticipate
substantial emission reductions. With the simultaneous developments in
technology for outboard and personal watercraft engines, we can set
standards that achieve substantial emission reductions from all Marine
SI engines. Second, now that California has adopted standards for SD/I
engines, the cost impact of setting new standards for manufacturers
serving the California market is generally limited to the hardware
costs of adding emission control technology; these manufacturers will
be undergoing a complete redesign effort for these engines to meet the
California standards. Third, we believe SD/I engines meeting the
proposed standards will in many cases have performance advantages over
pre-control engines, which will allow manufacturers of SD/I engines to
promote their engines as having a greater value to justify any price
increases. As a result, we believe we can achieve the maximum emission
reductions from Marine SI engines by setting standards for SD/I engines
based on the use of catalyst technology at the same time that we adopt
more stringent standards for outboard and personal watercraft engines.
As described in Section II, we are proposing to make the finding
under Clean Air Act section 213(a)(3) that Marine SI engines cause or
contribute to CO concentrations in two or more nonattainment areas of
the United States. We believe the proposed CO standards will also
reduce the exposure of individual boaters and bystanders to potentially
dangerous CO levels.
We believe catalyst technology is available for achieving these
proposed standards. Catalysts have been used for decades in automotive
applications to reduce emissions, and catalyst manufacturers have
continued to develop and improve this technology. Design issues for
using catalysts in marine applications are primarily centered on
packaging catalysts in the water-jacketed, wet exhaust systems seen on
most SD/I engines. Section III.G discusses recent development work that
has shown success in packaging catalysts in SD/I applications. In
addition, there are ongoing efforts in evaluating catalyst technology
in SD/I engines being sponsored by the marine industry, U.S. Coast
Guard, and California ARB.
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
(1) Definition of Sterndrive and Inboard Engines
For the purpose of this regulation, SD/I engines encompass all
spark-ignition marine propulsion engines that are not outboard or
personal watercraft engines. A discussion of the proposed new
definitions for outboard and personal watercraft engines is in Section
IV.B. We consider all the following to be SD/I engines: inboard,
sterndrive (also known as inboard/outboard), airboat engines, and jet
boat engines.
The existing definitions for sterndrive and inboard engines from 40
CFR part 91 are presented below:
Sterndrive engine means a four stroke Marine SI engine
that is designed such that the drive unit is external to the hull of
the marine vessel, while the engine is internal to the hull of the
marine vessel.
Inboard engine means a four stroke Marine SI engine that
is designed such that the propeller shaft penetrates the
[[Page 28114]]
hull of the marine vessel while the engine and the remainder of the
drive unit is internal to the hull of the marine vessel.
We are proposing to amend the above definitions for determining
which exhaust emission standards apply to spark-ignition marine engines
in 2009. The new proposed definition would be a single term to include
sterndrive and inboard engines together as a single engine category.
The proposed definition for sterndrive/inboard also is drafted to
include all engines not otherwise classified as outboard or personal
watercraft engines. Note that we are proposing to revise the
definitions of outboard and personal watercraft engines as described in
Section IV.B.
The proposed definition has several noteworthy impacts. First, it
removes a requirement that only four-stroke engines can qualify as
sterndrive/inboard engines. We believe limiting the definition to
include only four-stroke engines is unnecessarily restrictive and could
create an incentive to use two-stroke (or rotary) engines to avoid the
proposed catalyst-based standards. Second, it removes limitations
caused by reference to propellers. The definition should not refer
specifically to propellers, because there are other propulsion drives
on marine vessels, such as jet drives, that could be used with SD/I
engines. Third, as explained in the section on the OB/PWC definitions,
the proposed definitions treat engines installed in open-bay vessels
(e.g. jet boats) and in vessels over 4 meters long as SD/I engines.
Finally, the existing definition does not clearly specify how to treat
specialty vessels such as airboats or hovercraft that use engines that
are similar to those in conventional SD/I applications. Under the
discretion in the regulation allowing EPA to make judgments about the
scope of the SD/I engine definition, we have classified airboats as SD/
I engines. See 40 CFR 91.3 for the existing definitions of the marine
engine classes. We continue to believe these engines share fundamental
characteristics with traditional SD/I engines and should therefore be
treated the same way. However, we believe the definitions should
address these applications expressly to make clear which standards
apply.
We request comment on the following proposed definition:
Sterndrive/inboard engine means a spark-ignition engine
that is used to propel a marine vessel, but is not an outboard engine
or a personal watercraft engine. This includes engines on propeller-
driven vessels, jet boats, airboats, and hovercraft.
High-performance SD/I engines are generally characterized by high-
speed operation, supercharged air intake, customized parts, very high
power densities, and a short time until rebuild (50 to 200 hours).
Based on current SD/I product offerings, we are proposing to define a
high-performance engine as an SD/I engine with maximum power at or
above 373 kW (500 hp) that has design features to enhance power output
such that the expected operating time until rebuild is substantially
shorter than 480 hours.
(2) Exclusions and Exemptions
We are proposing to extend our basic nonroad exemptions to the SD/I
engines and vessels covered by this proposal. These include the testing
exemption, the manufacturer-owned exemption, the display exemption, and
the national-security exemption. If the conditions for an exemption are
met, then the engine is not subject to the exhaust emission standards.
These exemptions are described in more detail under Section VIII.
In the rulemaking for recreational vehicles, we chose not to apply
standards to hobby products by exempting all reduced-scale models of
vehicles that are not capable of transporting a person (67 FR 68242,
November 8, 2002). We are proposing to extend that same provision to
SD/I marine engines (see Sec. 1045.5).
The Clean Air Act provides for different treatment of engines used
solely for competition. Rather than relying on engine design features
that serve as inherent indicators of dedicated competitive use, as
specified in the current regulations, we have taken the approach in
more recent programs of more carefully differentiating competition and
noncompetition models in ways that reflect the nature of the particular
products. In the case of Marine SI engines, we do not believe there are
engine design features that allow us to differentiate between engines
that are used in high-performance recreational applications and those
that are used solely for competition. We are therefore proposing that,
starting January 1, 2009, Marine SI engines meeting all the following
criteria would be considered to be used solely for competition, except
in other cases where information is available indicating that engines
are not used solely for competition (see Sec. 1045.620):
The engine (or a vessel in which the engine is installed)
may not be displayed for sale in any public dealership or otherwise
offered for sale to the general public.
Sale of the vessel in which the engine is installed must
be limited to professional racers or other qualified racers.
The engine must have performance characteristics that are
substantially superior to noncompetitive models (e.g. higher power-to-
weight ratio).
The engines must be intended for use only in racing events
sanctioned (with applicable permits) by the Coast Guard or other public
organization, with operation limited to racing events, speed record
attempts, and official time trials.
Engine manufacturers would make their request for each new model
year, and we would deny a request for future production if there are
indications that some engines covered by previous requests are not
being used solely for competition. Competition engines are produced and
sold in very small quantities, so manufacturers should be able to
identify which engines qualify for this exemption. We are also
proposing to apply the same criteria to outboard and personal
watercraft engines and vessels. We request comment on this approach to
qualifying for a competition exemption.
We are proposing a new exemption to address individuals who
manufacture recreational marine vessels for personal use (see Sec.
1045.630). Under the proposed exemption, these vessels and their
engines could be exempt from standards, subject to certain limitations.
For example, an individual may produce one such vessel over a ten-year
period, the vessel may not be used for commercial purposes, and any
exempt engines may not be sold for at least five years. The vessel must
generally be built from unassembled components, rather than simply
completing assembly of a vessel that is otherwise similar to one that
will be certified to meet emission standards. This proposal addresses
the concern that hobbyists who make their own vessels could otherwise
be a manufacturer subject to the full set of emission standards by
introducing these vessels into commerce. We expect this exemption to
involve a very small number of vessels.
C. Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards
We are proposing technology-based exhaust emission standards for
new SD/I engines. These standards are similar to the exhaust emission
standards that California ARB recently adopted (see Section I). This
section describes the proposed requirements for SD/I engines for
controlling exhaust emissions. See
[[Page 28115]]
Section V for a description of the proposed requirements related to
evaporative emissions.
(1) Standards and Dates
We are proposing exhaust emission standards of 5 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX and 75 g/kW-hr CO for SD/I engines, starting with the
2009 model year (see Sec. 1045.105). On average, this represents about
a 70 percent reduction in HC+NOX and a 50 percent reduction
in CO from baseline engine configurations. Due to the challenges of
controlling CO emissions at high load, the expected reduction in CO
emissions from low to mid-power operation is expected to be more than
80 percent. We are proposing additional lead time for small businesses
as discussed in Section III.F.2. The proposed standards would be based
on the same duty cycle that currently is in place for outboard and
personal watercraft engines, as described in Section III.D. Section
III.F discusses the technological feasibility of these standards in
more detail. We request comment on the feasibility and appropriateness
of the proposed standards.
The proposed standards are largely based on the use of small
catalytic converters that can be packaged in the water-cooled exhaust
systems typical for these applications. California ARB also adopted an
HC+NOX standard of 5 g/kW-hr, but they did not adopt a
standard for CO emissions. We believe the type of catalyst used to
achieve the HC+NOX standard will also be effective in
reducing CO emissions enough to meet the proposed standard, so no
additional technology will be needed to control CO emissions.
Manufacturers have expressed concern that the proposed
implementation dates may be difficult to meet, for certain engines, due
to anticipated changes in engine block designs produced by General
Motors. As described in the Draft RIA and in the docket, the vast
majority of SD/I engines are based on automotive engine blocks sold by
General Motors.\75\ There are five basic engine blocks used, and
recently GM has announced that it will discontinue production of the
4.3L and 8.1L engine blocks in 2009. GM anticipates that it will offer
a 4.1L engine block and a 6.0L supercharged engine block to the marine
industry as replacements. Full run production of these new blocks is
anticipated in mid to late 2009. SD/I engine manufacturers have
expressed concern that they will not be able to begin the engineering
processes related to marinizing these engines, including the
development of catalyst-equipped exhaust manifolds, until mid-2007,
when they are expecting to see the first prototypes of the two
replacement engine models. In addition, they are concerned that they do
not have enough remaining years of sales of the 4.3L and 8.1L engines
to justify the cost of developing catalyst-equipped exhaust manifolds
for these engines and amortizing the costs of the required tooling
while also developing the two new engine models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ ``GM Product Changes Affecting SD/I Engine Marinizers,''
memo from Mike Samulski, EPA, to Docket EPA-HQ-QAR-2004-0008-0528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SD/I requirements begin in earnest in California in the 2008
model year. Manufacturers have indicated that they plan to use
catalysts to meet the California standards in 2008 for three or four of
the five engine models used in SD/I applications but to potentially
have limited availability of the 4.3L or 8.1L engines until the
catalyst-equipped versions of the two new engine models (4.1L and 6.0L)
have been marinized and meet the new California emission standards. At
this point, the manufacturers project that the two new engine models
would be available for sale in California in 2010. Some 4.3L and 8.1L
engines may be available in California during the phase-out based on
the possibility of some use of catalyst for one or both of these
displacements and the use of transitional flexibilities.
These are unique circumstances because the SD/I engine
manufacturers' plans and products depend on the manufacture of the base
engine by a company not directly involved in marine engine
manufacturing. The SD/I sales represent only a small fraction of total
engine sales and thus did not weigh heavily in GM's decision to replace
the existing engine blocks with two comparable versions during the
timeframe when the SD/I manufacturers are facing new emission
standards. SD/I manufacturers have stated that alternative engine
blocks that meet their are not available in the interim, and that it
would be cost-prohibitive for them to produce their own engine blocks.
EPA is proposing that the Federal SD/I standards take effect for
the 2009 model year, one year after the same standards apply in
California. We believe a requirement to extend the California standards
nationwide after a one-year delay allows manufacturers adequate time to
incorporate catalysts across their product lines as they are doing in
California. Once the technology is developed for use in California, it
would be available for use nationwide soon thereafter. In fact, one
company currently certified to the California standards is already
offering catalyst-equipped SD/I engines nationwide. However, we request
comment on whether an additional year of lead time would be appropriate
for engines not using catalysts in California in 2008. This is
potentially the 4.3L or 8.1L SD/I engines. Under this alternative,
engines based on the three engine blocks not being changed would be
required to meet the standards in 2009. Also, engines built from the
4.3L and/or the 8.1L GM blocks would be required to meet the EPA
standards if sold in California in 2008 or 2009. Otherwise the new
standards for these engines could be delayed for an additional model
year (until 2010). Assuming product plans follow through as projected,
the two new engine blocks would be required to meet the standards in
the 2010 model year.
Another possibility would be to address this issue through the
combination of the flexibilities provided through an ABT program and a
phase-in of the standards over two model years (2009/2010) instead of
implementation in one model year (2009). Under this approach,
manufacturers could certify and sell the 4.3L and 8.1L engines in the
2009 model year without catalysts or with limited use of catalysts
through emissions averaging. This approach would have the advantage of
giving manufacturers flexibility in how they choose to phase in their
catalyst-equipped engines. However, engine manufacturers have expressed
concern that, even though they will be offering limited configurations
of catalyzed engines in California in 2008, that the lead time is short
and they will not have the ability to fully catalyze their entire line
of engines for 2009. Thus, if the rule is structured in a manner to
permit it, marine engine manufacturers would sell a mix of catalyzed
and non-catalyzed engines in 2009. Since boat builders can determine
which engines are purchased and can choose either catalyzed or non-
catalyzed versions of the engines if available, manufacturers are
concerned that it would be difficult for SD/I engine manufacturers to
ensure compliance with standards based on sales and horsepower
weightings. Engine manufacturers, not boat builders, are subject to
exhaust emission standards. Thus, a phase-in approach, which would be
based on a projection that a certain number of catalyzed engines would
be sold, may not be a feasible approach for this industry. The industry
would thus prefer a mandatory implementation date as discussed below
without a phase-in that uses averaging. The industry's concerns
notwithstanding, there are benefits to
[[Page 28116]]
this approach. Therefore, we are requesting comment on phasing in the
proposed standards over the 2009-2010 timeframe. Under this approach,
the standards would be 10 g/kW-hr HC+NOX and 100 g/kW-hr CO
in 2009. The proposed standards would then go into effect in 2010.
During the phase-in period, the proposed family emission limit (FEL)
caps (see Section III.C.3) would still apply.
A third alternative, preferred by the two large SD/I manufacturers,
would be full compliance with the 5 g/kW-hr standard in 2010 except for
the 4.1L engine and the 6.0L supercharged engine and requiring those
engines to comply with the standards in 2011. Manufacturers have
expressed the view that there is value in limiting production volumes
of catalyst-equipped engines only to California for two years to gain
in-use experience before selling these engines nationwide. Under this
approach, any technical issues that may arise with catalyst designs or
in-use performance would affect only a small portion of the fleet,
which would help minimize in-use concerns and costs associated with
warranty claims. This approach would also provide additional lead time
for those configurations not modified for California and the two new
engine displacements. In addition, as discussed above, manufacturers
stated that an averaging-based phase-in program that required the
introduction of catalyst-equipped engines outside of California before
2010 is problematic because of marketplace and competitive issues as
discussed above. For these reasons, we request comment on whether the
proposed standards for SD/I engines should be delayed to 2010 for the
three engine models that are not being modified and with an additional
model year (2011) for the 4.1L and 6.0L supercharged engines.
Under stoichiometric or lean conditions, catalysts are effective at
oxidizing CO in the exhaust. However, under very rich conditions,
catalysts are not effective for reducing CO emissions. In contrast,
NOX emissions are effectively reduced under rich conditions.
SD/I engines often run at high power modes for extended periods of
time. Under high-power operation, engine marinizers must calibrate the
engine to run rich as an engine-protection strategy. If the engine were
calibrated for a stoichometric air-fuel ratio at high power, high
temperatures could lead to failures in exhaust valves and engine heads.
In developing the proposed CO standard for SD/I engines, we considered
an approach where test Mode 1 (full power) would be excluded from the
weighted CO test level and the other four test modes would be re-
weighted accordingly. Under this approach, the measured CO emissions
from catalyst-equipped engines were observed to be 65-85 percent lower
without Mode 1, even though the weighting factor for Mode 1 is only 6
percent of the total cycle weighting. These test results are presented
in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA. We request comment on finalizing a CO
standard of 25 g/kW-hr based on a four-mode duty cycle that excludes
Mode 1 instead of the proposed CO standard. Under this approach, we
also request comment on CO cap, such as 350 g/kW-hr, specific to Mode
1. Manufacturers would still measure CO emissions at Mode 1 to
demonstrate compliance with this cap.
Controlling CO emissions at high power may be a more significant
issue with supercharged 6.0L engines due to uncertainty with regard to
the air fuel ratio of the engine at high power. Engine manufacturers
have not yet received prototype engines; however, they have expressed
concern that these engines may need to be operated with a rich air-fuel
ratio even at Mode 2 as an engine-protection strategy.\76\ This concern
is based on previous experience with other supercharged engines. If
this is the case, it may affect the potential CO emission reductions
from these engines. To address the uncertainties related to the two new
SD/I engines (4.1L and 6.0L supercharged) we are asking for comment on
a CO averaging standard with a maximum family emission limit to cap
high CO emissions. Specifically, we request comment on averaging
standard of 25 g/kW-hr CO based on a four-mode test, as discussed
above, with a maximum family emission limit for the four-mode test of
75 g/kW-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 80 percent of maximum engine test speed and 71.6 percent of
maximum torque at maximum test speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engines used on jet boats may have been classified under the
existing definitions as personal watercraft engines. As described
above, engines used in jet boats or personal watercraft-like vessels 4
meters or longer would be classified as SD/I engines under the proposed
definitions. Such engines subject to part 91 today would therefore need
to continue meeting EPA emission standards as personal watercraft
engines through the 2008 model year under part 91, after which they
would need to meet the new SD/I standards under the proposed part 1045.
This is another situation where the transition period discussed above
may be helpful. In contrast, as discussed above, air boats have been
classified as SD/I engines under EPA's discretionary authority and are
not required to comply with part 91.
As described above, engines used solely for competition would not
be subject to the proposed regulations, but many SD/I high-performance
engines are sold for recreational use. High-performance SD/I engines
have very high power outputs, large exhaust gas flow rates, and
relatively high concentrations of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in
the exhaust gases. From a conceptual perspective, the application of
catalytic converter technology to these engines is feasible. As is the
case in similar heavy-duty highway gasoline engines, these catalytic
converters would have to be quite large in volume, perhaps on the order
of the same volume as the engine displacement, and would involve
significant heat rejection issues. Highway heavy-duty gasoline engine
certification information from the late 1970s and early 1980s suggests
that it is possible to achieve HC and CO emission reductions around 20
to 40 percent by adding an air pump to increase the level of oxygen in
the exhaust stream. This would be a relatively low-cost and durable
method of oxidizing HC and CO when the exhaust gases are hot enough to
support further oxidation reactions. California ARB has implemented the
same HC+NOX standards we are proposing but is expecting
manufacturers to rely on emissions averaging within the SD/I class.
This is not viable for small business manufacturers who do not have
other products with which to average.
Even if manufacturers use catalysts to control HC+NOX
emissions from high-performance engines, controlling CO emissions
continues to present a technological challenge. Since these engines
generally operate with fuel-rich combustion, there is little or no
oxygen in the exhaust stream. As a result, any oxidation of hydrocarbon
compounds in the catalyst would likely increase CO levels, rather than
oxidizing all the way to CO2. We are therefore proposing a
CO standard for high-performance engines of 350 g/kW-hr. We believe
this is achievable with more careful control of fueling under idle
conditions. Control of air-fuel ratios at idle should result in
improved emission control even after multiple rebuilds. Basing
standards on non-catalyst hardware such as an air pump could enable
lower CO levels.
We are proposing a variety of provisions to simplify the
requirements for exhaust emission certification and compliance for
these engines, as described in Section IV.F. We are also proposing not
to apply the not-to-exceed
[[Page 28117]]
emission standards to high-performance SD/I marine engines.
We also request comment on two alternative approaches to define
emission standards for high-performance engines. First, we could set
the HC+NOX standard at 5 g/kW-hr and allow for emission
credits as described above, but allow small-volume manufacturers of
high-performance engines to meet a HC+NOX emission standard
in the range of 15 to 22 g/kW-hr. See Section III.F.2 for our proposed
definition of small-volume SD/I engine manufacturers. We would also
need to adopt an FEL cap of 22 g/kW-hr for HC+NOX for all
manufacturers under this approach to avoid the situation where only
small-volume manufacturers of high-performance engines need to make
design changes to reduce these emissions. Our concern is that a large
manufacturer would otherwise be able to use emission credits to avoid
making design changes to their high-performance engines. This emission
level is consistent with measured HC+NOX emission values
from these engines showing a range of emission levels with different
types of fuel systems and different calibrations, as shown in the Draft
RIA. Treating small-volume manufacturers of high-performance engines
differently may be appropriate because they have little or no access to
emission credits.
Second, we could alternatively set the high-performance engine
HC+NOX standard in the range of 15 to 22 g/kW-hr for all
companies and disallow the use of emission credits for meeting this
standard. This would require all companies to redesign their engines,
rather than use emission credits, to reduce emissions to a standard
that is tailored to high-performance engines.
We request comment on the primary approach as well as the two
alternatives for high-performance engine standards. Comment is
requested on the costs and general positives and negatives of each
approach. Comment is also requested on the technology required if a
level above the proposed standards is supported, as well as information
on safety and energy implications of the alternative emission
standards. If a commenter supports either of the two alternative
approaches, information and data are requested to assist EPA in setting
the appropriate HC+NOX and CO emission standards within the
15 to 22 g/kW-hr range.
We are also aware that there may be some very small sterndrive or
inboard engines. In particular, sailboats may have small propulsion
engines for backup power. These engines would fall under the proposed
definition of sterndrive/inboard engines, even though they are much
smaller and may experience very different in-use operation. These
engines may have more in common with marine auxiliary engines that are
subject to land-based standards. Nevertheless, these engines share some
important characteristics with bigger SD/I engines, such as reliance on
four-stroke technology and access to water-based cooling. It is also
true that emission standards are based on specific emission levels
expected from engines of comparable sizes, so the standards adjust
automatically with the size of the engine to require a relatively
constant level of stringency. These engines are not like the very small
outboard engines that are subject to less stringent standards because
of their technical limitations in controlling emissions. Accordingly,
we believe these engines can incorporate the same technologies as the
bigger marine propulsion engines and meet the same emission standards.
However, we request comment on the need for adjusting the emission
standards for these engines to accommodate any technology constraints
related to their unique designs. Specifically, we request comment on
allowing manufacturers the option of certifying small SD/I engines to
the proposed standards for auxiliary marine engines discussed in
Section V.C.1. We also request comment on the possibility that some
other small engines may inappropriately fall into the category of
sterndrive/inboard engines. We request comment on the engine size for
which any special accommodations must be made. Such comments should
also address any issues that may exist for these engines with regard to
meeting the proposed standards, or identify any other appropriate way
of differentiating these engines from conventional sterndrive/inboard
engines.
(2) Not-To-Exceed Standards
We are proposing emission standards for an NTE zone representing a
multiplier times the duty cycle standard for HC+NOX and for
CO (see Sec. 1045.105). Section III.D.2 describes the proposed NTE
test procedures and gives an overview of the proposed NTE provisions.
In addition, Section III.D.2 presents the specific multipliers for the
proposed NTE standards.
The NTE approach is consistent with the concept of a weighted modal
emission test such as the steady-state tests included in this rule. The
proposed duty cycle standard itself is intended to represent the
average emissions under steady-state conditions. Because it is an
average, manufacturers design their engines with emission levels at
individual points varying as needed to maintain maximum engine
performance and still meet the engine standard. The NTE limit would be
an additional requirement. It is intended to ensure that emission
controls function with relative consistency across the full range of
expected operating conditions.
(3) Emission Credit Programs
(a) Averaging, Banking, and Trading
We are proposing averaging, banking, and trading of emission
credits for sterndrive and inboard marine engines for meeting
HC+NOX and CO standards (see Sec. 1045.105 and part 1045,
subpart H). See Section VII.C.5 for a description of general provisions
related to averaging, banking, and trading programs. Emission credit
calculations would be based on the maximum engine power for an engine
family, as described in Section IV.F.
As with previous emission control programs, we are also proposing
not to allow an emission family to earn credits for one pollutant if it
is using credits to meet the standard for another pollutant. In other
words, an engine family that does not meet the CO standard would not be
able to earn HC+NOX emission credits, or vice versa. This
should rarely be an issue for SD/I engines, because the same catalyst
technology is effective for controlling HC+NOX and CO
emissions. In addition, as with previous emission control programs, we
are proposing that engines sold in California would not be included in
this ABT program because they are already subject to California
HC+NOX requirements.
Credit generation and use is calculated based on the family
emission limit (FEL) of the engine family and the standard. We are
proposing FEL caps to prevent the sale of very-high emitting engines.
For HC+NOX, the proposed FEL cap is 16 g/kW-hr for
HC+NOX emissions from engines below 373 kW; this emission
level is equal to the first phase of the California SD/I standards. We
are proposing an FEL cap of 150 g/kW-hr for CO emissions from engines
below 373 kW. These FEL caps represent the average baseline emission
levels of SD/I engines, based on data described in the Draft RIA. The
analogous figures for high-performance engines are 30 g/kW-hr for
HC+NOX and 350 g/kW-hr for CO, as described in Section
III.C.(d).
Except as specified below for jet boat engines, we are proposing to
keep OB/PWC engines and SD/I engines in separate averaging sets. This
means that credits earned by SD/I and OB/PWC engines are counted
separately and may not be exchanged to demonstrate
[[Page 28118]]
compliance with emission standards. Most of the engine manufacturers
building SD/I engines do not also build OB/PWC engines. The exception
to this is the largest manufacturer in both categories. We are
concerned that allowing averaging, banking, or trading between OB/PWC
engines and SD/I engines would not provide the greatest achievable
reductions, because the level of the standard we are proposing is
premised on the use of aftertreatment technology in SD/I engines, and
is based on what is feasible for SD/I engines. We did not set the SD/I
level based on the reductions achievable between OB/PWC and SD/I, but
instead based on what is achievable by SD/I engines alone. The proposed
limitation on ABT credits is consistent with this approach to setting
the level of the SD/I standard. In addition, allowing such credit usage
could provide an incentive to avoid the use of aftertreatment
technologies in SD/I engines. This could create a competitive
disadvantage for the many small manufacturers of SD/I engines that do
not also produce OB/PWC engines.
We propose that emission credits for SD/I engines have an unlimited
credit life with no discounting. We consider these emission credits to
be part of the overall program for complying with the proposed
standards. Given that we may consider further reductions beyond these
standards in the future, we believe it will be important to assess the
ABT credit situation that exists at the time any further standards are
considered. We would need to set such future emission standards based
on the statutory direction that emission standards must represent the
greatest degree of emission control achievable, considering cost,
safety, lead time, and other factors. Emission credit balances will be
part of the analysis for determining the appropriate level and timing
of new standards. If we were to allow the use of credits generated
under this proposed program for future, more stringent, standards, we
may, depending on the level of emission credit banks, need to adopt
emission standards at more stringent levels or with an earlier start
date than we would absent the continued or limited use of existing
emission credits. Alternatively, we could adopt future standards
without allowing the use of existing emission credits.
We are requesting comment on one particular issue regarding credit
life. As proposed, credits earned under the exhaust ABT program would
have an unlimited lifetime. This could result in a situation where
credits generated by an engine sold in a model year are not used until
many years later when the engines generating the credits have been
scrapped and are no longer part of the fleet. EPA believes there may be
value to limiting the use of credits to the period that the credit-
generating engines exist in the fleet. For this reason, EPA requests
comment on limiting the lifetime of the credits to five years or,
alternatively, to the regulatory useful life of the engine.
(b) Early-Credit Approaches
We are proposing an early-credit program in which a manufacturer
could earn emission credits before 2009 with early introduction of
emission controls designed to meet the proposed standards (see Sec.
1045.145). For engines produced by small-volume SD/I manufacturers that
are eligible for the proposed two-year delay described in Section
III.F.2, early credits could be earned before 2011. While we believe
adequate lead time is provided to meet the proposed standards, we
recognize that flexibility in timing could help some manufacturers--
particularly small manufacturers--to meet the new standards. Other
manufacturers that are able to comply early on certain models would be
better able to transition their full product line to the new standards
by spreading out the transition over two years or more. Under this
approach, we anticipate that manufacturers would generate credits
through the use of catalysts.
Manufacturers would generate these credits based on the difference
between the measured emission level of the clean engines and an
assigned baseline level (16 g/kW-hr HC+NOX and 150 g/kW-hr
CO). These assigned baseline levels are based on data presented in
Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA representing the average level observed for
uncontrolled engines. We are also proposing to provide bonus credits to
any manufacturer that certifies early to the proposed standard to
provide a further incentive for introducing catalysts in SD/I engines.
The bonus credits would take the form of a multiplier times the earned
credits. The proposed multipliers are 1.25 for one year early, 1.5 for
two years early, and 2.0 for three years early. For example, a small-
volume manufacturer certifying an engine to 5.0 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX in 2009 (2 years early) would get a bonus multiplier
of 1.5. Therefore, early HC+NOX credits would be calculated
using the following equation: credits [grams] = (16-5) x Power [kW] x
Useful Life [hours] x Load Factor x 1.5. We are proposing to use a load
factor of 0.207, that is currently used in the OB/PWC calculations.
To earn these credits, the engine would have to meet both the
proposed HC+NOX and CO standards. These early credits would
be treated the same as emission credits generated after the emission
standards start to apply. This approach would provide an incentive for
manufacturers to pull ahead significantly cleaner technologies. We
believe such an incentive would lead to early introduction of catalysts
on SD/I and help promote earlier market acceptance of this technology.
Because of the proposed credit life, these credits would only be able
to be used during the transition period to the new standards. We
believe this proposed early credit program will allow manufactures to
comply to the proposed standards in an earlier time frame than they
would otherwise because it allows them to spread out their development
resources over multiple years. To ensure that manufacturers do not
generate credits for already required activities, no credits would be
generated for the proposed federal program for engines that are
produced for sale in California. We request comment on this approach.
Alternatively, we request comment on the alternative of an early
``family banking'' approach. Under this approach, we would allow
manufacturers to certify an engine family early to the proposed
standards. For each year of certifying engines early, the manufacturer
would be able to delay certification of a comparable number of engines
by one year, taking into account the relative power ratings of the
different engine families. This would be based on the actual sales and
would require no calculation or accounting of emission credits. This
approach would not provide the same degree of precision as the early-
credit program described above, but it may be an effective way of
helping manufacturers make the transition to new emission standards.
See 40 CFR 1048.145(a) for an example of regulations that implement
such a family banking program.
We request comment on the above early-credit approaches or any
other approach that would help manufacturers bring the product lines
into compliance with the proposed standards without compromising
overall emission reductions. Any allowance for high-emitting or late-
compliant engines should be offset by emission controls that achieve
emission reductions beyond that required by the new standards. We
request comment on the merits of the various approaches noted above and
others that commenters may wish to suggest. We request that commenters
provide detailed comments on how the approaches described above
[[Page 28119]]
should be set up, enhanced, or constrained to ensure that they serve
their purpose without diminishing the overall effectiveness of the
standards.
(c) Jet Boats
Sterndrive and inboard vessels are typically propelled by
traditional SD/I engines based on automotive engine blocks. As
explained in Section IV, we are proposing to amend the definition of
personal watercraft engine to ensure that engines used on jet boats
would no longer be classified as personal watercraft engines but
instead as SD/I engines because jet boats are more comparable to SD/I
vessels. However, manufacturers in some cases make these jet boats by
installing an engine also used in outboard or personal watercraft
applications (less than 4 meters in length) and coupling the engine to
a jet drive for propelling the jet boat. Thus, manufacturers of
outboard or personal watercraft engines may also manufacture the same
or similar engine for use on what we would propose here to be
considered a jet boat (whose engine we would therefore proposed to be
subject to SD/I standards).
We are proposing to allow some flexibility in meeting new emission
standards for jet boat engines because they are currently designed to
use engines derived from OB/PWC applications and because of their
relatively low sales volumes. We are also proposing to allow
manufacturers to use emission credits generated from outboard and
personal watercraft engines to demonstrate that their jet boat engines
meet the proposed HC+NOX and CO standards for SD/I engines
(see Sec. 1045.660 and Sec. 1045.701). We further propose that such
engine manufacturers may only use this provision if the engines are
certified as outboard or personal watercraft engines, and if the
majority of units sold in the United States from those related engine
families are sold for use as outboard or personal watercraft engines.
We would decide whether a majority of engine units are sold for use as
outboard or personal watercraft engines based on projected sales
volumes from the application for certification. Manufacturers would
need to group SD/I engines used for jet boats in a separate engine
family from the outboard or personal watercraft engine to ensure proper
labeling and calculation of emission credits, but manufacturers could
rely on emission data from the same prototype engine for certifying
both engine families. Finally, we propose that manufacturers of jet
boat engines subject to SD/I standards and using credits from outboard
or personal watercraft engines must certify these jet boat engines to
an FEL that meets or exceed the standards for outboard and personal
watercraft engines. This limits the degree to which manufacturers may
take advantage of emission credits to produce engines that are emitting
at higher levels than competitive engines. As such, the FELs for these
engines must therefore be at or below the proposed emission standards
for outboard and personal watercraft engines.
(d) SD/I High-Performance Engines
We are proposing that the ABT program described above (III.C.3(a)
through (c)) would also include SD/I high-performance engines.
Manufacturers would be able to use emission credits from conventional
SD/I engines to offset credit deficits from higher-emitting SD/I high-
performance engines. Although SD/I high-performance engines represent
fewer than 1 percent of total SD/I engine sales, there are many more
companies producing SD/I high-performance engines than conventional SD/
I engines. Because of the relatively small sales of these engines, a
large manufacturer with a broad product line could readily offset a
potential credit deficit by using credits from high-volume SD/I
engines. In contrast, most manufacturers of SD/I high-performance
engines are small businesses that do not also produce conventional SD/I
engines. Section III.F discusses special provisions intended to reduce
the burden for small businesses to meet the proposed standards. We
request comment on whether this ABT program would create a competitive
disadvantage for small businesses.
We are proposing an approach in which manufacturers can use default
emission factor of 30 g/kW-hr for HC+NOX emissions and 350
g/kW-hr for CO emissions in lieu of testing for certification. For
purposes of this ABT program these default emission factors, if used in
lieu of testing, would be used for certification to an FEL at these
levels. Thus, the emission credits needed would be the difference
between the default levels and the applicable standard (see Sec.
1045.240). These default emission levels represent the highest emission
rates observed on uncontrolled engines. Manufacturers would always have
the option of conducting tests to establish a measured emission rate to
reduce or eliminate the need to use emission credits. While this
testing may require additional setup and preparation, we believe it
would be possible even for the most high-powered engines. To avoid the
possibility of manufacturers selectively taking advantage of the
default values, we would require them to rely on measured values for
both HC+NOX and CO emissions if they do testing.
For the purposes of the credit calculations, we are proposing to
use an hours term longer than the proposed useful life for these
engines. The proposed useful life for traditional SD/I engines is
intended to reflect the full useable life of the engine. For high-
performance engines the proposed useful life is intended to reflect the
expected time until the engine is rebuilt. High-performance engines are
typically rebuilt several times. In fact, manufacturers have indicated
that it is common for the boat owner to own two pairs of engines so
that they can use one pair while the other is being rebuilt. Therefore,
the proposed useful life does not reflect the full life of the engine,
including rebuilds, over which emission credits would be used (or
generated). We are proposing, for purposes of the credit calculations,
that a life of 480 hours would be used for high-performance SD/I
engines at or below 485 kW and 250 hours for engines above 485 kW. We
request comment on the number of times that high-performance engines
are typically rebuilt and how the number of rebuilds should be
addressed in the credit calculations.
(4) Crankcase Emissions
Due to blowby of combustion gases and the reciprocating action of
the piston, exhaust emissions can accumulate in the crankcase.
Uncontrolled engine designs route these vapors directly to the
atmosphere. Closed crankcases have become standard technology for
automotive engines and for outboard and personal watercraft engines.
Manufacturers generally do this by routing crankcase vapors through a
valve into the engine's air intake system. We propose to require
manufacturers to prevent crankcase emissions from SD/I marine engines
(see Sec. 1045.115). Because automotive engine blocks are already
tooled for closed crankcases, the cost of adding a valve for positive
crankcase ventilation is small for SD/I engines. Even with non-
automotive blocks, the tooling changes necessary for closing the
crankcase are straight-forward.
(5) Durability Provisions
We rely on pre-production certification, and other programs, to
ensure that engines control emissions throughout their intended
lifetime of operation. Section VII describes how we are proposing to
require manufacturers to incorporate laboratory aging in the
certification process, how we limit the
[[Page 28120]]
extent of maintenance that manufacturers may specify to keep engines
operating as designed, and other general provisions related to
certification. The following sections describe additional provisions
that are specific to SD/I engines.
(a) Useful Life
We are proposing to specify a useful life period of 480 hours or
ten years, whichever comes first. The engines would be subject to the
emission standards during this useful life period. This is consistent
with the requirements adopted by California ARB (see Sec. 1045.105).
We are further proposing that the 480-hour useful life period is a
baseline value, which may be extended if data show that the average
service life for engines in the family is longer. For example, we may
require that the manufacturer certify the engine over a longer useful
life period that more accurately represents the engines' expected
operating life if we find that in-use engines are typically operating
substantially more than 480 hours. This approach is similar to what we
adopted for recreational vehicles.
For high-performance SD/I engines (at or above 373 kW), we are
proposing a useful life of 150 hours or 3 years for engines at or below
485 kW and a useful life of 50 hours or 1 year for engines above 485
kW. Due to the high power and high speed of these engines, mechanical
parts are often expected to wear out quickly. For instance, one
manufacturer indicated that some engines above 485 kW have scheduled
head rebuilds between 50 and 75 hours of operation. These proposed
useful life values are consistent with the California ARB regulations
for high-performance SD/I engines. We request comment on the proposed
useful life requirements for high performance marine engines.
Some SD/I engines below 373 kW may be designed for high power
output even though they do not reach the power threshold to qualify as
SD/I high-performance engines. Because they do not qualify for the
shorter useful life that applies to SD/I high-performance engines, they
would be subject to the default value of 480 hours for other SD/I
engines. However, to address the limited operating life for engines
that are designed for especially high power output, we are proposing to
allow manufacturers to request a shorter useful life for such an engine
family based on information showing that engines in the family rarely
operate beyond the requested shorter period. For example, if engines
designed for extremely high performance are typically rebuilt after 250
hours of operation, this would form the basis for establishing a
shorter useful life period for those engines. See the proposed
regulations for additional detail in establishing a shorter useful
life.
(b) Warranty Periods
We are proposing that manufacturers must provide an emission-
related warranty during the first 3 years or 480 hours of engine
operation, whichever comes first (see Sec. 1045.120). This warranty
period would apply equally to emission-related electronic components on
SD/I high-performance engines. However, we are proposing shorter
warranty periods for emission-related mechanical components on SD/I
high-performance engines because these parts are expected to wear out
more rapidly than comparable parts on traditional SD/I engines.
Specifically, we are proposing a warranty period for emission-related
mechanical components of 3 years or 150 hours for engines between 373
and 485 kW, and 1 year or 50 hours for engines above 485 kW. These
proposed warranty periods are the same as those adopted by the
California ARB.
If the manufacturer offers a longer warranty for the engine or any
of its components at no additional charge, we propose that the
emission-related warranty for the respective engine or component must
be extended by the same amount. The emission-related warranty includes
components related to controlling exhaust, evaporative, and crankcase
emissions from the engine. This approach to setting warranty
requirements is consistent with provisions that apply in most other
programs for nonroad engines.
(6) Engine Diagnostics
We are proposing to require that manufacturers design their SD/I
engines to diagnose malfunctioning emission control systems starting
with the introduction of the proposed standards (see Sec. 1045.110).
As discussed in the Draft RIA, three-way catalyst systems with closed-
loop fueling control work well only when the air-fuel ratios are
controlled to stay within a narrow range around stoichiometry. Worn or
broken components or drifting calibrations over time can prevent an
engine from operating within the specified range. This increases
emissions and can lead to significantly increased fuel consumption and
engine wear. The operator may or may not notice the change in the way
the engine operates. We are not proposing to require similar diagnostic
controls for OB/PWC or Small SI engines because the anticipated
emission control technologies for these other applications are
generally less susceptible to drift and gradual deterioration. We have
adopted similar diagnostic requirements for Large SI engines operating
in forklifts and other industrial equipment that also use three-way
catalysts to meet emission standards.
This diagnostic requirement focuses solely on maintaining
stoichiometric control of air-fuel ratios. This kind of design detects
problems such as broken oxygen sensors, leaking exhaust pipes, fuel
deposits, and other things that require maintenance to keep the engine
at the proper air-fuel ratio.
Diagnostic monitoring provides a mechanism to help keep engines
tuned to operate properly, with benefits for both controlling emissions
and maintaining optimal performance. There are currently no inspection
and maintenance programs for marine engines, so the most important
variable in making the emission control and diagnostic systems
effective is in getting operators to repair the engine when the
diagnostic light comes on. This calls for a relatively simple design to
avoid signaling false failures as much as possible. The diagnostic
requirements in this rule therefore focus on detecting inappropriate
air-fuel ratios, which is the most likely failure mode for three-way
catalyst systems. The malfunction indicator light must go on when an
engine runs for a full minute under closed-loop operation without
reaching a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio.
California ARB has adopted diagnostic requirements for SD/I engines
that involve a more extensive system for monitoring catalyst
performance and other parameters. We would accept a California-approved
system as meeting EPA requirements. However, we believe the simpler
system described above is better matched to the level of emission
control involved, and is more appropriate in the context of
recreational boating by consumers who are not subject to any systematic
requirements for inspecting or maintaining their engines.
The proposed regulations direct manufacturers to follow standard
practices defined in documents adopted by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) that establish protocols for
automotive systems. The proposed regulations also state that we may
approve variations from these industry standards, because individual
manufacturers may have systems with unique operating parameters that
warrant a deviation from the automotive approach. Also, if a new
voluntary consensus standard is adopted to define appropriate practices
for marine
[[Page 28121]]
engines, we would expect to incorporate that new standard into our
regulations. See Sec. 1045.110 of the draft regulations for more
information.
D. Test Procedures for Certification
(1) General Provisions
The proposed test procedures are generally the same for both SD/I
and OB/PWC engines. This involves laboratory measurement of emissions
while the engine operates on the ISO E4 duty cycle. This is a five-mode
steady-state duty cycle including an idle mode and four modes lying on
a propeller curve with an exponent of 2.5, as shown in Appendix II to
part 1045 of the draft regulations. The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) intended for this cycle to be used for
recreational spark-ignition marine engines installed in vessels up to
24 m in length. Because most or all vessels over 24 m have diesel
engines, we believe the E4 duty cycle is most appropriate for SD/I
engines covered by this rule. There may be some spark-ignition engines
installed in vessels somewhat longer than 24 m, but we believe the E4
duty cycle is no less appropriate in these cases. See Section IV.D for
a discussion of adjustments to the test procedures related to the
migration to 40 CFR part 1065, testing with a ramped-modal cycle,
determining maximum test speed for denormalizing the duty cycle, and
testing at higher altitudes.
The E4 duty cycle is gives a weighting of 40 percent for idle.
High-performance engine manufacturers have expressed their belief that
the E4 duty cycle overstates the idle fraction of operation of high-
performance engines. They stated that these engines are rarely operated
at idle and are therefore primarily designed for mid-range and high-
power operation at the expense of rough idle operation. We request
comment on whether the modes for the proposed duty cycle should be
reweighted toward higher power for high-performance engines. Commenters
should support their assertions with data on high-performance engine
use. If constructive data are forthcoming, we may finalize an
alternative cycle weighting for high-performance engines based on this
data.
(2) Not-to-Exceed Test Procedures and Standards
We are proposing not-to-exceed (NTE) requirements similar to those
established for marine diesel engines. Engines would be required to
meet the NTE standards during normal in-use operation. We request
comment on applying the proposed NTE requirements to spark-ignition
marine engines and on the application of the requirements to these
engines.
(a) Concept
Our goal is to achieve control of emissions over a wide range of
ambient conditions and over the broad range of in-use speed and load
combinations that can occur on a marine engine. This would ensure real-
world emission control, rather than just controlling emissions under
certain laboratory conditions. An important tool for achieving this
goal is an in-use testing program with an objective standard and an
easily implemented test procedure. Our traditional approach has been to
set a numerical standard on a specified test procedure and rely on the
additional prohibition of defeat devices to ensure in-use control over
a broad range of operation not included in the test procedure.
We are proposing to apply the same prohibition on defeat devices
for OB/PWC and SD/I engines (see Sec. 1045.115).
No single test procedure or test cycle can cover all real-world
applications, operations, or conditions. Yet to ensure that emission
standards are providing the intended benefits in use, we must have a
reasonable expectation that emissions under real-world conditions
reflect those measured on the test procedure. The defeat device
prohibition is designed to ensure that emission controls are employed
during real-world operation, not just under laboratory testing
conditions. However, the defeat device prohibition is not a quantified
standard and does not have an associated test procedure, so it does not
have the clear objectivity and ready enforceability of a numerical
standard and test procedure. We believe using the traditional approach,
i.e., using only a standardized laboratory test procedure and test
cycle, makes it difficult to ensure that engines will operate with the
same level of control in use as in the laboratory.
Because the proposed duty cycle uses only five modes on an average
propeller curve to characterize marine engine operation, we are
concerned that an engine designed to the proposed duty cycle would not
necessarily perform the same way over the range of speed and load
combinations seen on a boat. This proposed duty cycle is based on an
average propeller curve, but a marine propulsion engine may never be
fitted with an ``average propeller.'' For instance, an engine fit to a
specific boat may operate differently based on how heavily the boat is
loaded.
To ensure that engines control emissions over the full range of
speed and load combinations seen on boats, we propose to establish a
zone under the engine's power curve where the engine may not exceed a
specified emission limit (see Sec. 1045.105 and Sec. 1045.515). This
limit would apply to all regulated pollutants during steady-state
operation. In addition, we propose that a wide range of real ambient
conditions be included in testing with this NTE zone. The NTE zone,
limit, and ambient conditions are described below.
We believe there are significant advantages to establishing NTE
standards. The proposed NTE test procedure is flexible, so it can
represent the majority of in-use engine operation and ambient
conditions. The NTE approach thus takes all the benefits of a numerical
standard and test procedure and expands it to cover a broad range of
conditions. Also, laboratory testing makes it harder to perform in-use
testing because either the engines would have to be removed from the
vessel or care would have to be taken to achieve laboratory-type
conditions on the vessel. With the NTE approach, in-use testing and
compliance become much easier since emissions may be sampled during
normal boating. By establishing an objective measurement, this approach
makes enforcement of defeat device provisions easier and provides more
certainty to the industry.
Even with the NTE requirements, we believe it is still appropriate
to retain standards based on the steady-state duty cycle. This is the
standard that we expect the certified marine engines to meet on average
in use. The NTE testing is focused more on maximum emissions for
segments of operation and, in most cases, would not require additional
technology beyond what is used to meet the proposed standards. In some
cases, the calibration of the engine may need to be adjusted. We
believe that basing the emission standards on a distinct cycle and
using the NTE zone to ensure in-use control creates a comprehensive
program.
We believe the technology used to meet the standards over the five-
mode duty cycle will meet the caps that apply across the NTE zone. We
therefore do not expect the proposed NTE standards to cause
manufacturers to need additional technology. We believe the NTE
standard will not result in a large amount of additional testing,
because these engines should be designed to perform as well in use as
they do over the five-mode test. However, our cost analysis in the
Draft RIA accounts for some additional testing, especially in the early
years, to provide
[[Page 28122]]
manufacturers with assurance that their engines would meet the proposed
NTE requirements.
(b) Shape of NTE Zone
Figure III-1 illustrates our proposed NTE zone for SD/I engines. We
developed this zone based on the range of conditions that these engines
typically see in use. Manufacturers collected data on several engines
installed on vessels and operated under light and heavy load. Chapter 4
of the Draft RIA presents this data and describes the development of
the boundaries and conditions associated with the proposed NTE zone.
Although significant in-use engine operation occurs at low speeds, we
are excluding operation below 40 percent of maximum test speed because
brake-specific emissions increase dramatically as power approaches
zero. An NTE limit for low-speed or low-power operation would be very
hard for manufacturers and EPA to implement in a meaningful way. We are
proposing NTE limits for the subzones shown in Figure III-1, as
described below. We request comment on the proposed NTE zone and
subzones.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY07.000
We propose to allow manufacturers to request approval for
adjustments to the size and shape of the NTE zone for certain engines,
if they can show that the engine will not see operation outside of the
revised NTE zone in use (see Sec. 1045.515). We would not want
manufacturers to go to extra lengths to design and test their engines
to control emissions for operation that will not occur in use. However,
manufacturers would still be responsible for all operation of an engine
on a vessel that would reasonably be expected to be seen in use, and
they would be responsible for ensuring that their specified operation
is indicative of real-world operation. In addition, if a manufacturer
designs an engine for operation at speeds and loads outside of the
proposed NTE zone, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying
us so the NTE zone can be modified appropriately to include this
operation for that engine family.
(c) Excluded Operation
As with marine diesel engines, we are proposing that only steady-
state operation be included for NTE testing (see Sec. 1045.515).
Steady-state operation would generally mean setting the throttle (or
speed control) in a fixed position. We believe most operation with
Marine SI engines involves nominally steady-state operator demand. It
is true that boats often experience rapid accelerations, such as with
water skiing. However, boats are typically designed for planing
operation at relatively high speeds. This limits the degree to which we
would expect engines to experience frequent accelerations during
extended operation. Also, because most of the transient events involve
acceleration from idle to reach a planing condition, most transient
engine operation is outside the NTE zone and would therefore not be
covered by NTE testing anyway. Moreover, we believe OB/PWC and SD/I
engines designed to comply with steady-state NTE requirements will be
using technologies that also work effectively under the changing speed
and load conditions that may occur. If we find there is substantial
transient operation within the NTE zone that causes significantly
increased emissions from installed engines, we will revisit
[[Page 28123]]
this provision in the future. We request comment on the appropriateness
of excluding transient operation from NTE requirements.
We are aware that SD/I engines may not be able to meet emission
standards under all conditions, such as times when emission control
must be compromised for startability or safety. We are proposing to
specify that NTE testing excludes engine starting and warm-up. We would
allow manufacturers to design their engines to utilize engine
protection strategies that would not be covered by defeat device
provisions or NTE standards. This is analogous to the tampering
exemptions incorporated into 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) to address
emergencies. We believe it is appropriate to allow manufacturers to
design their engines with ``limp-home'' capabilities to prevent a
scenario where an engine fails to function, leaving an operator on the
water without any means of propulsion.
(d) NTE Emission Limits
We are proposing NTE limits for the subzones shown in Figure III-1
above based on data collected from several SD/I engines equipped with
catalysts. These data and our analysis are presented in Chapter 4 of
the Draft RIA. See Section IV.C for a discussion of NTE limits for OB/
PWC engines.
Because the proposed NTE zone does not include the idle point,
which is weighted at 40 percent of the certification duty cycle, brake-
specific emissions throughout most of the proposed NTE zone are less
than the weighted average from the steady-state testing. For most of
the NTE zone, we are therefore proposing a limit equal to the duty
cycle standard (i.e., NTE multiplier = 1.0). However, data on low-
emission engines show that brake-specific emissions increase for engine
speeds below 50 percent of maximum test speed (Subzone 4). We are
therefore proposing an HC+NOX cap of 1.5 times the
certification level in Subzone 4. Emission data on catalyst-equipped
engines also show higher emissions near full-power operation. We
understand that richer air-fuel ratios are needed under high-power
operation to protect the engines from overheating. We are therefore
proposing higher NTE limits for engine speeds at or above 90 percent of
rated test speed and at or above 100 percent of peak torque measured at
the rated test speed (Subzone 1). Specifically, we are proposing an
HC+NOX cap of 1.5 times the duty cycle standard and a CO cap
of 3.5 times the duty cycle standard for Subzone 1. We request comment
on the proposed NTE limits for SD/I engines. These limits are
summarized in Table III-1.
Table III-1.--Proposed NTE Limits by Subzone for SD/I Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Subzone 1 Subzone 2 Subzone 3 Subzone 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC+NOX.......................................... 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.5
CO.............................................. 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD/I engine manufacturers have begun developing prototype engines
with catalysts, and one manufacturer is currently selling SD/I engines
equipped with catalysts. These manufacturers have indicated that they
begin moving to richer air-fuel ratio calibrations at torque values
greater than 80 percent of maximum. These richer air-fuel ratios give
more power but because more fuel is burned also lead to higher
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission rates. Part of the
manufacturers' rationale in selecting the appropriate air-fuel ratio in
this type of operation is to protect the engine by minimizing excess
air, which would lead to greater engine temperatures as increased
combustion of fuel and exhaust gases. To avoid the adverse effects of
this potential for overheating, we request comment on whether subzone 1
should be expanded to accommodate the engine-protection strategies
needed for SD/I engines at high power. In addition, we request comment
on the proposed NTE limits in subzone 1 with respect to open-loop
engine operation, especially for carbon monoxide.
Marine engine manufacturers have suggested alternative approaches
to setting NTE limits for marine engines, which are discussed in
Section IV.C.2. Largely, these suggestions have been made to address
the emission variability between test modes seen in direct-injection
two-stroke outboard and PWC engines. However, we request comment on
alternative approaches for SD/I engines as well.
(e) Ambient Conditions
Variations in ambient conditions can affect emissions. Such
conditions include air temperature, water temperature, and barometric
pressure, and humidity. We are proposing to apply the comparable ranges
for these variables as for marine diesel engines (see Sec. 1045.515).
Within the ranges, there is no calculation to correct measured
emissions to standard conditions. Outside of the ranges, emissions
could be corrected back to the nearest end of the range using good
engineering practice. The proposed ranges are 13 to 35 [deg]C (55 to 95
[deg]F) for ambient air temperature, 5 to 27 [deg]C (41 to 80 [deg]F)
for ambient water temperature, and 94.0 to 103.325 kPa for atmospheric
pressure. We do not specify a range of humidity values, but propose
only to require that laboratory testing be conducted at humidity levels
representing in-use conditions.
(f) Measurement Methods
While it may be easier to test outboard engines in the laboratory,
there is a strong advantage to using portable measurement equipment to
test SD/I engines and personal watercraft without removing the engine
from the vessel. Field testing would also provide a much better means
of measuring emissions to establish compliance with the NTE standards,
because it is intended to ensure control of emissions during normal in-
use operation that may not occur during laboratory testing over the
specified duty cycle. We propose to apply the field testing provisions
for all SD/I engines. These field-testing procedures are described
further in Section IV.E.2.d. We request comment on any ways the field
testing procedures should be modified to address the unique operating
characteristics of marine engines.
A parameter to consider is the minimum sampling time for field
testing. A longer period allows for greater accuracy, due mainly to the
smoothing effect of measuring over several transient events. On the
other hand, an overly long sampling period can mask areas of engine
operation with poor emission control characteristics. To balance these
concerns, we are applying a minimum sampling period of 30 seconds. This
is consistent with the requirement for marine diesel engines. Spark-
ignition engines generally don't have turbochargers and they control
emissions largely by maintaining air-fuel ratio. Spark-ignition engines
are therefore much less prone to consistent
[[Page 28124]]
emission spikes from off-cycle or unusual engine operation. We believe
the minimum 30 second sampling time will ensure sufficient measurement
accuracy and will allow for meaningful measurements.
We do not specify a maximum sampling time. We expect manufacturers
testing in-use engines to select an approximate sampling time before
measuring emissions; however, the standards apply for any sampling time
that meets the minimum.
(g) Certification
We propose to require that manufacturers state in their application
for certification that their engines will comply with the NTE standards
under any nominally steady-state combination of speeds and loads within
the proposed NTE zone (see Sec. 1045.205). The manufacturer would also
provide a detailed description of all testing, engineering analysis,
and other information that forms the basis for the statement. This
statement would be based on testing and, if applicable, other research
that supports such a statement, consistent with good engineering
judgment. We would be able to review the basis for this statement
during the certification process. For marine diesel engines, we have
provided guidance that manufacturers may demonstrate compliance with
NTE standards by testing their engines at a number of standard points
throughout the NTE zone. In addition, manufacturers must test at a few
random points chosen by EPA prior to the testing. We request comment on
this approach for Marine SI engines.
E. Additional Certification and Compliance Provisions
(1) Production Line Testing
We are proposing to require that manufacturers routinely test
engines at the point of production to ensure that production
variability does not affect the engine family's compliance with
emission standards (see part 1045, subpart D). These proposed testing
requirements are the same as we are proposing for outboard and personal
watercraft engines and are very similar to those already in place in
part 91. See Section VII.C.7 and the draft regulations for a detailed
description of these requirements. We may also require manufacturers to
perform production line testing under the selective enforcement
auditing provisions described in Section VIII.E.
(2) In-Use Testing
Manufacturers of OB/PWC engines have been required to test in-use
engines to show that they continue to meet emission standards. We
contemplated a similar requirement for SD/I engines, but have decided
not to propose a requirement for a manufacturer-run in-use testing
program at this time. Manufacturers have pointed out that it would be
very difficult to identify a commercial fleet of boats that could be
set up to operate for hundreds of hours, because it is very uncommon
for commercial operators to have significant numbers of SD/I vessels.
Where there are commercial fleets of vessels that may be conducive to
accelerated in-use service accumulation, these vessels generally use
outboard engines. Manufacturers could instead hire drivers to operate
the boats, but this may be cost-prohibitive. We request comment on any
other alternative approaches that might be available for accumulating
operating hours with SD/I engines. For example, to the extent that boat
builders maintain a fleet of boats for product development or
employees' recreational use, those engines may be available for
emission testing after in-use operation.
There is also a question about access to the engines for testing.
If engines need to be removed from vessels for testing in the
laboratory, it is unlikely that owners would cooperate. However, we are
proposing test procedures with specified portable equipment that would
potentially allow for testing engines that remain installed in boats.
This is described in Section IV.E.2.d.
While we are not proposing a program to require manufacturers to
routinely test in-use engines, the Clean Air Act allows us to perform
our own testing at any time with in-use engines to evaluate whether
they continue to meet emission standards throughout the useful life.
This may involve either laboratory testing or in-field testing with
portable measurement equipment. For laboratory tests, we could evaluate
compliance with either the duty cycle standards or the not-to-exceed
standards. For testing with engines that remain installed on marine
vessels, we would evaluate compliance with the not-to-exceed standards.
In addition, we may require the manufacturer to conduct a reasonable
degree of testing under Clean Air Act section 208 if we have reason to
believe that an engine family does not conform to the regulations. This
testing may take the form of a Selective Enforcement Audit, or we may
require the manufacturer to test in-use engines.
(3) Certification Fees
Under our current certification program, manufacturers pay a fee to
cover the costs for various certification and other compliance
activities associated with implementing the emission standards. As
explained below, we are proposing to assess EPA's compliance costs
associated with SD/I engines based on EPA's existing fees regulation.
Section VI describes our proposal to establish a new fees category,
based on the cost study methodology used in establishing EPA's existing
fees regulation, for costs related to the proposed evaporative emission
standards for both vessels and equipment that would be subject to
standards under this proposal.
EPA established a fee structure by grouping together various
manufacturers and industries into fee categories, with an explanation
that separation of industries into groups was appropriate to tailor the
applicable fee to the level of effort expected for EPA to oversee the
range of certification and compliance responsibilities (69 FR 26222,
May 11, 2004). As part of this process, EPA conducted a cost analysis
to determine the various compliance activities associated with each fee
category and EPA's associated annual cost burden. Once the total EPA
costs were determined for each fee category, the total number of
certificates involved within a fee category was added together and
divided into the total costs to determine the appropriate assessment
for each anticipated certificate.\77\ One of the fee categories created
was for ``Other Engines and Vehicles,'' which includes marine engines
(both compression-ignition and spark-ignition), nonroad spark-ignition
engines (above and below 19 kW), locomotive engines, recreational
vehicles, heavy-duty evaporative systems, and heavy-duty engines
certified only for sale in California. These engine and vehicle types
were grouped together because EPA planned a more basic certification
review than, for example, light-duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See Cost Analysis Document at p. 21 associated with the
proposed fees rule (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fees.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA determined in the final fees rulemaking that it would be
premature to assess fees for the SD/I engines since they were not yet
subject to emission standards. The fee calculation nevertheless
includes a projection that there will eventually be 25 certificates of
conformity annually for SD/I engines. We are proposing to now formally
include SD/I engines in the ``Other Engines and Vehicles'' category and
[[Page 28125]]
assess a fee of $839 for each certificate of conformity in 2006. Note
that we will continue to update assessed fees each year, so the actual
fee in 2009 and later model years will depend on these annual
calculations (see Sec. 1027.105).
(4) Special Provisions Related to Partially Complete Engines
It is common practice for Marine SI engines for one company to
produce the base engine for a second company to modify for the final
application. Since our regulations prohibit the sale of uncertified
engines, we are proposing provisions to clarify the status of these
engines and defining a path by which these engines can be handled
without violating the regulations. See Section XI for more information.
(5) Use of Engines Already Certified to Other Programs
In some cases, manufacturers may want to use engines already
certified under our other programs. Engines certified to the emission
standards for highway applications in part 86 or Large SI applications
in part 1048 are meeting more stringent standards. We are therefore
proposing to allow the pre-existing certification to be valid for
engines used in marine applications, on the condition that the engine
is not changed from its certified configuration in any way (see Sec.
1045.605). Manufacturers would need to demonstrate that fewer than five
percent of the total sales of the engine model are for marine
applications. There are also a few minor notification and labeling
requirements to allow for EPA oversight of this provision.
(6) Import-Specific Information at Certification
We are proposing to require additional information to improve our
ability to oversee compliance related to imported engines (see Sec.
1045.205). In the application for certification, we are proposing to
require the following additional information: (1) The port or ports at
which the manufacturer will import the engines, (2) the names and
addresses of the agents the manufacturer has authorized to import the
engines, and (3) the location of the test facilities in the United
States where the manufacturer will test the engines if we select them
for testing under a selective enforcement audit.
F. Small-Business Provisions
(1) Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
On June 7, 1999, we convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The
purpose of the Panel was to collect the advice and recommendations of
representatives of small entities that could be affected by this
proposed rule and to report on those comments and the Panel's findings
and recommendations as to issues related to the key elements of the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. We convened a Panel again on August 17,
2006 to update our review for this new proposal. The Panel reports have
been placed in the rulemaking record for this proposal. Section 609(b)
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act directs the review Panel to report on
the comments of small entity representatives and make findings as to
issues related to identified elements of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) under RFA section 603. Those elements of an
IRFA are:
A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
A description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule; and
A description of any significant alternative to the
proposed rule that accomplishes the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and that minimizes any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
In addition to the EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, the
Panel consisted of the Director of the Assessment and Standards
Division of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Using definitions provided by the Small Business Administration
(SBA), companies that manufacture internal-combustion engines and that
employ fewer than 1000 employees are considered small businesses for a
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel. Equipment manufacturers,
boat builders, and fuel system component manufacturers that employ
fewer than 500 people are considered small businesses for the SBAR
Panel. Based on this information, we asked 25 companies that met the
SBA small business thresholds to serve as small entity representatives
for the duration of the Panel process. Of these 25 companies, 13 were
involved in the marine industry. These companies represented a cross-
section of SD/I engine manufacturers, boat builders, and fuel system
component manufacturers.
With input from small entity representatives, the Panel reports
provide findings and recommendations on how to reduce potential burden
on small businesses that may occur as a result of this proposed rule.
The Panel reports are included in the rulemaking record for this
proposal. In light of the Panel reports, and where appropriate, the
agency has made changes to the provisions anticipated for the proposed
rule. The proposed options recommended to us by the Panel are described
below.
(2) Proposed Burden Reduction Approaches for Small-Volume SD/I Engine
Manufacturers
We are proposing several options for small-volume SD/I engine
manufacturers. For purposes of determining which engine manufacturers
are eligible for the small business provisions described below for SD/I
engine manufacturers, we are proposing criteria based on a production
cut-off of 5,000 SD/I engines per year. Under this approach, we would
allow engine manufacturers that exceed the production cut-off level
noted above to request treatment as a small business if they have fewer
than the number of employees specified above. In such a case, the
manufacturer would provide information to EPA demonstrating the number
of employees in their employ. The proposed options would be used at the
manufacturers' discretion. We request comment on the appropriateness of
these options, which are described in detail below.
(a) Additional Lead Time
One small business marine engine manufacturer is already using
catalytic converters on some of its production SD/I marine engines
below 373 kW. These engines have been certified to meet standards
adopted by California ARB that are equivalent to the proposed
standards. However, other small businesses producing SD/I engines have
stated that they are not as far along in their catalyst development
efforts. These manufacturers support the concept of receiving
additional time for
[[Page 28126]]
compliance, beyond the implementation date for large manufacturers.
High-performance SD/I engine manufacturers are typically smaller
businesses than other SD/I engine manufacturers. The majority of high-
performance engine manufacturers produce fewer than 100 engines per
year for sale in the United States, and some produce only a few engines
per year. Due to these very low sales volumes, additional lead time may
be useful to the manufacturers to help spread out the compliance
efforts and costs.
As recommended in the SBAR Panel report, EPA is proposing an
implementation date of 2011 for SD/I engines below 373 kW produced by
small business marine engine manufacturers and a date of 2013 for small
business manufacturers of high-performance (at or above 373 kW) marine
engines (see Sec. 1045.145). As discussed earlier, we have requested
comment on alternative non-catalyst based standard of 22 g/kW-hr for
high-performance SD/I marine engines. In the case of an alternative
non-catalyst based standard, less lead time may be necessary. EPA
requests comments on the proposed additional lead time in the
implementation of the proposed SD/I exhaust emission standards for
small businesses.
(b) Exhaust Emission ABT
As discussed above, we are proposing an averaging, banking, and
trading (ABT) credit program for exhaust emissions from SD/I marine
engines (see part 1045, subpart H). Small businesses expressed some
concern that ABT could give a competitive advantage to large
businesses. Specifically, there was an equity concern that if credits
generated by SD/I engines below 373 kW could be used for high-
performance SD/I engines, that one large manufacturer could use these
credits to meet the high-performance SD/I engine standards without
making any changes to their engines. EPA requests comment on the
desirability of credit trading between high-performance and other SD/I
marine engines and the impact it could have on small businesses.
(c) Early Credit Generation for ABT
The SBAR Panel recommended an early banking program and expressed
belief that bonus credits will provide greater incentive for more small
business engine manufacturers to introduce advanced technology earlier
across the nation than would otherwise occur. As discussed above, we
are proposing an early banking program in which bonus credits could be
earned for certifying early (see Sec. 1045.145). This program,
combined with the additional lead time for small businesses, would give
small-volume SD/I engine manufacturers ample opportunity to bank
emission credits prior to the proposed implementation date of the
standards.
(d) Assigned Emission Rates for High-Performance SD/I Engines
Small businesses commented that certification may be too costly to
amortize effectively over the small sales volumes for high-performance
SD/I engines. One significant part of certification costs is engine
testing. This includes testing for emissions over the specified duty
cycle, deterioration testing, and not to exceed (NTE) zone testing.
Even in the case where an engine manufacturer is using emission credits
to comply with the standard, the manufacturer would still need to test
engines to calculate how many emission credits are needed. One way of
minimizing this testing burden would be to allow manufacturers to use
assigned baseline emission rates for certification based on previously
generated emission data. As discussed earlier in this preamble, we are
proposing assigned baseline HC+NOX and CO emission rates for
all high-performance SD/I engines. These assigned emission rates are
based on test data presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA.
(e) Alternative Standards for High-Performance SD/I Engines
Small businesses expressed concern that catalysts have not been
demonstrated on high-performance engines and that they may not be
practicable for this application. In addition, the concern was
expressed that emission credits may not be available at a reasonable
price. As discussed earlier, we are requesting comment on the need for
and level of alternative standards for high-performance marine engines.
The proposed NTE standards discussed above would likely require
additional certification and development testing. The SBAR Panel
recommended that NTE standards not apply to any high-performance SD/I
engines, as it would minimize the costs of compliance testing for small
businesses. For these reasons, we are not proposing to apply NTE
standards to high-performance SD/I engines (See Sec. 1045.105).
(f) Broad Engine Families for High-Performance SD/I Engines
Testing burden could be reduced by using broader definitions of
engine families. Typically in EPA engine and equipment programs,
manufacturers are able to group their engine lines into engine families
for certification to the standards. Engines in a given family must have
many similar characteristics including the combustion cycle, cooling
system, fuel system, air aspiration, fuel type, aftertreatment design,
number of cylinders and cylinder bore sizes. A manufacturer would then
perform emission tests only on the engine in that family that would be
most likely to exceed an emission standard. We are proposing to allow
small businesses to group all of their high performance SD/I engines
into a single engine family for certification, subject to good
engineering judgment (see Sec. 1045.230).
(g) Simplified Test Procedures for High-Performance SD/I Engines
Existing testing requirements include detailed specifications for
the calibration and maintenance of testing equipment and tolerances for
performing the actual tests. For laboratory equipment and testing,
these specifications and tolerances are intended to achieve the most
repeatable results feasible given testing hardware capabilities. For
in-use testing, EPA allows for different equipment than is specified
for the laboratory and with arguably less restrictive specifications
and tolerances. The purpose of separate requirements for in-use testing
is to account for the variability inherent in testing outside of the
laboratory. These less restrictive specifications allow for lower cost
emission measurement devices, such as portable emission measurement
units. For high performance SD/I engines, it may be difficult to hold
the engine at idle or high power within the tolerances currently
specified by EPA in the laboratory test procedure. Therefore, we are
proposing less restrictive specifications and tolerances, for testing
high performance SD/I engines, which would allow the use of portable
emission measurement equipment (see Sec. 1065.901(b)). This would
facilitate less expensive testing for these small businesses without
having a negative effect on the environment.
(h) Reduced Testing Requirements
We are proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers may rely on
an assigned deterioration factor to demonstrate compliance with the
standards for the purposes of certification rather than doing service
accumulation and additional testing to measure deteriorated emission
levels at the end of the regulatory useful life (see Sec. 1045.240).
EPA is not proposing actual
[[Page 28127]]
levels for the assigned deterioration factors with this proposal. EPA
intends to analyze available emission deterioration information to
determine appropriate deterioration factors for SD/I engines. The data
will likely include durability information from engines certified to
California ARB's standards and may also include engines certified early
to EPA's standards. Prior to the implementation date for the SD/I
standards, EPA will provide guidance to engine manufacturers specifying
the levels of the assigned deterioration factors for small-volume
engine manufacturers.
We are also proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers would
be exempt from the production-line testing requirements (see Sec.
1045.301). While we are proposing to exempt small-volume engine
manufacturers from production line testing, we believe requiring
limited production-line testing could be beneficial to implement the
ongoing obligation to ensure that production engines are complying with
the standards. Therefore, we request comment on the alternative of
applying limited production-line testing to small-volume engine
manufacturers with a requirement to test one production engine per
year.
(i) Hardship Provisions
We are proposing two types of hardship provisions for SD/I engine
manufacturers consistent with the Panel recommendations. The first type
of hardship is an unusual circumstances hardship, which would be
available to all businesses regardless of size. The second type of
hardship is an economic hardship provision, which would be available to
small businesses only. Sections VIII.C.8 and VIII.C.9 provide a
description of the proposed hardship provisions that would apply to SD/
I engine manufacturers.
Because boat builders in many cases will depend on engine
manufacturers to supply certified engines in time to produce complying
boats, we are also proposing a hardship provision for all boat
builders, regardless of size, that would allow the builder to request
more time if they are unable to obtain a certified engine and they are
not at fault and would face serious economic hardship without an
extension (see Sec. 1068.255). Section VIII.C.10 provides a
description of the proposed hardship provisions that would apply to
boat builders.
G. Technological Feasibility
(1) Level of Standards
Over the past few years, developmental programs have demonstrated
the capabilities of achieving significant reductions in exhaust
emissions from SD/I engines. California ARB has acted on this
information to set an HC+NOX emission standard of 5 g/kW-hr
for SD/I engines, starting in 2008. Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA presents
data from several SD/I engines with catalysts packaged within water-
cooled exhaust manifolds. Four of these engines were operated with
catalysts in vessels for 480 hours. The remaining engines were tested
with catalysts that had been subjected to a rapid-aging cycle in the
laboratory. Data from these catalyst-equipped engines generally show
emission levels below the proposed standards.
(2) Implementation Dates
We anticipate that manufacturers will use the same catalyst designs
to meet the proposed standards that they will use to meet the
California ARB standards for SD/I engines in 2008. We believe a
requirement to extend the California standards nationwide after a one-
year delay allows manufacturers adequate time to incorporate catalysts
across their product lines. Once the technology is developed for use in
California, it would be available for use nationwide. In fact, one
company currently certified to the California standards is already
offering catalyst-equipped SD/I engines nationwide. As discussed above,
we request comment on the effect that anticipated product changes for
specific General Motors engine blocks may have on the proposed
implementation dates.
(3) Technological Approaches
Engine manufacturers can adapt readily available technologies to
control emissions from SD/I engines. Electronically controlled fuel
injection gives manufacturers more precise control of the air/fuel
ratio in each cylinder, thereby giving them greater flexibility in how
they calibrate their engines. With the addition of an oxygen sensor,
electronic controls give manufacturers the ability to use closed-loop
control, which is especially valuable when using a catalyst. In
addition, manufacturers can achieve HC+NOX reductions
through the use of exhaust gas recirculation. However, the most
effective technology for controlling emissions is a three-way catalyst
in the exhaust stream.
In SD/I engines, the exhaust manifolds are water-jacketed and the
water mixes with the exhaust stream before exiting the vessel.
Manufacturers add a water jacket to the exhaust manifold to meet
temperature-safety protocol. They route this cooling water into the
exhaust to protect the exhaust couplings and to reduce engine noise.
Catalysts must therefore be placed upstream of the point where the
exhaust and water mix--this ensures the effectiveness and durability of
the catalyst. Because the catalyst must be small enough to fit in the
exhaust manifold, potential emission reductions are not likely to
exceed 90 percent, as is common in land-based applications. However, as
discussed in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA, demonstration programs have
shown that emissions may be reduced by 70 to 80 percent for
HC+NOX and 30 to 50 percent for CO over the proposed test
cycle. Larger reductions, especially for CO, have been achieved at
lower-speed operation.
There have been concerns that aspects of the marine environment
could result in unique durability problems for catalysts. The primary
aspects that could affect catalyst durability are sustained operation
at high load, saltwater effects on catalyst efficiency, and thermal
shock from cold water coming into contact with a hot catalyst. Modern
catalysts perform well at temperatures up to 1100[deg] C, which is much
higher than would be seen in a marine exhaust manifold. These catalysts
have also been shown to withstand the thermal shock of being immersed
in water. More detail on catalyst durability is presented in the Draft
RIA. In addition, use of catalysts in automotive, motorcycle, and
handheld equipment has shown that catalysts can be packaged to
withstand vibration in the exhaust manifold.
Manufacturers already strive to design their exhaust systems to
prevent water from reaching the exhaust ports. If too much water
reaches the exhaust ports, significant durability problems would result
from corrosion or hydraulic lock. As discussed in the Draft RIA,
industry and government worked on a number of cooperative test programs
in which several SD/I engines were equipped with catalysts and
installed in vessels to prove out the technology. Early in the
development work, a study was performed on an SD/I engine operating in
a boat to see if water was entering the part of the manifold where
catalysts would be installed. Although some water was collected in the
exhaust manifold, it was found that this water came from water vapor
that condensed out of the combustion products. This was easily
corrected using a thermostat
[[Page 28128]]
to prevent overcooling from the water jacket.
Four SD/I engines equipped with catalysts were operated in vessels
for 480 hours on fresh water. This time period was intended to
represent the full expected operating life of a typical SD/I engine. No
significant deterioration was observed on any of these catalysts, nor
was there any evidence of water reaching the catalysts. In addition,
the catalysts were packaged such that the exhaust system met industry
standards for maximum surface temperatures.
Testing has been performed on one engine in a vessel on both fresh
water and saltwater over a test protocol designed by industry to
simulate the worst-case operation for water reversion. No evidence was
found of water reaching the catalysts. After the testing, the engine
had emission rates below the proposed HC+NOX standard. We
later engaged in a test program to evaluate three additional engines
with catalysts in vessels operating on saltwater for extended periods.
Early in the program, two of the three manifolds experienced corrosion
in the salt-water environment resulting in water leaks and damage to
the catalyst. These manifolds were rebuilt with guidance from experts
in the marine industry and additional hours have been accumulated on
the boats. Although the accumulated hours are well below the 480 hours
performed on fresh water, the operation completed has shown no visible
evidence of water reversion or damage to the catalysts.
One SD/I engine manufacturer began selling engines equipped with
catalysts in Summer 2006. They have certified their engines to the
California ARB standards, and are selling their catalyst-equipped
engines nationwide. This manufacturer indicated that they have
successfully completed durability testing, including extended in-use
testing on saltwater. Other manufacturers have indicated that they will
have catalyst-equipped SD/I engines for sale in California by the end
of this year.
(4) Regulatory Alternatives
In developing the proposed emission standards, we considered both
what was achievable without catalysts and what could be achieved with
larger, more efficient catalysts than those used in our test programs.
Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA presents data on SD/I engines equipped with
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). HC+NOX emission levels
below 10 g/kW-hr were achieved for each of the engines. CO emissions
ranged from 25 to 185 g/kW-hr. We believe EGR would be a
technologically feasible and cost-effective approach to reducing
emissions from SD/I marine engines. However, we believe greater
reductions could be achieved through the use of catalysts. We
considered basing an interim standard on EGR, but were concerned that
this would divert manufacturers' resources away from catalyst
development and could have the effect of delaying emission reductions
from this sector.
Several of the marine engines with catalysts that were tested as
part of the development of the proposed standards had HC+NOX
emission rates in the 3-4 g/kW-hr range, even with consideration of
expected in-use emissions deterioration associated with catalyst aging.
However, we believe a standard of 5 g/kW-hr is still appropriate given
the potential variability in in-use performance and in test data. The
test programs described in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA did not
investigate larger catalysts for SD/I applications. The goal of the
testing was to demonstrate catalysts that would work within the
packaging constraints associated with water jacketing the exhaust and
fitting the engines into engine compartments on boats. However, we did
perform testing on engines equipped with both catalysts and EGR. These
engines showed emission results in the 2-3 g/kW-hr range. We expect
that these same reductions could be achieved more simply through the
use of larger catalysts or catalysts with higher precious metal
loading. Past experience indicates that most manufacturers will strive
to achieve emission reductions well below the proposed standards to
give them certainty that they will pass the standards in-use,
especially as catalysts on SD/I engines are a new technology.
Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary at this time to set a
lower standard for these engines.
(5) Our Conclusions
We believe the proposed 2009 exhaust emission standards for SD/I
engines represent the greatest degree of emission reduction feasible in
this time frame. Manufacturers could meet the proposed standards
through the use of three-way catalysts packaged in the exhaust systems
upstream of where the water and exhaust mix. One manufacture is already
selling engines with this technology and by 2009 many other
manufacturers will have experience in producing engines with catalysts
for sale in California.
As discussed in Section X, we do not believe the proposed standards
would have negative effects on energy, noise, or safety and may lead to
some positive effects.
IV. Outboard and Personal Watercraft Engines
A. Overview
This section applies to spark-ignition outboard and personal
watercraft (OB/PWC) marine engines and vessels. OB/PWC engines are
currently required to meet the HC+NOX exhaust emissions and
other related requirements under 40 CFR part 91. As a result of these
standards, manufacturers have spent the last several years developing
new technologies to replace traditional, carbureted, two-stroke engine
designs. Many of these technologies are capable of emission levels well
below the current standards. We are proposing new HC+NOX and
CO exhaust emission standards for OB/PWC marine engines.
For outboard and personal watercraft engines, the current emission
standards regulate only HC+NOX emissions. As described in
Section II, we are proposing in this notice to make the finding under
Clean Air Act section 213(a)(3) that Marine SI engines cause or
contribute to CO nonattainment in two or more areas of the United
States.
We believe manufacturers can use readily available technological
approaches to design their engines to meet the proposed standards. In
fact, as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA, manufacturers are
already producing several models of four-stroke engines and direction-
injection two-stroke engines that meet the proposed standards. The most
important compliance step for the proposed standards will be to retire
high-emitting designs that are still available and replace them with
these cleaner engines. We are not proposing standards based on the use
of catalytic converters in OB/PWC engines. While this may be an
attractive technology in the future, we do not believe there has been
sufficient development work on the application of catalysts to OB/PWC
engines to use as a basis for standards at this time.
Note that we are proposing to migrate the regulatory requirements
for marine spark-ignition engines from 40 CFR part 91 to 40 CFR part
1045. This gives us the opportunity to update the details of our
certification and compliance program to be consistent with the
comparable provisions that apply to other engine categories and
describe regulatory requirements in plain language. Most of the change
in regulatory text provides improved clarity without substantially
changing procedures or compliance obligations. Where there is a change
that warrants further attention, we describe the need for the change
below.
[[Page 28129]]
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
(1) Definition of Outboard and Personal Watercraft Engines and Vessels
The proposed standards are intended to apply to outboard marine
engines and engines used to propel personal watercraft. We are
proposing to change the existing definitions of outboard and personal
watercraft to reflect this intent. The existing definitions of outboard
engine and personal watercraft marine engine are presented below:
Outboard engine is a Marine SI engine that, when properly
mounted on a marine vessel in the position to operate, houses the
engine and drive unit external to the hull of the marine vessel.
Personal watercraft engine (PWC) is a Marine SI engine
that does not meet the definition of outboard engine, inboard engine,
or sterndrive engine, except that the Administrator in his or her
discretion may classify a PWC as an inboard or sterndrive engine if it
is comparable in technology and emissions to an inboard or sterndrive
engine.
With the proposed implementation of catalyst-based standards for
sterndrive and inboard marine engines, we believe the above definitions
could be problematic. Certain applications using SD/I engines and able
to apply catalyst control would not be categorized as SD/I under the
existing definitions in at least two cases. First, an airboat engine,
which is often mounted well above the hull of the engine and used to
drive an aircraft-like propeller could be misconstrued as an outboard
engine. However, like traditional sterndrive and inboard engines,
airboat engines are typically derived from automotive-based engines
without substantial modifications for marine application. Airboat
engines can use the same technologies that are available to sterndrive
and inboard engines, so we believe they should be subject to the same
standards. To address the concerns about classifying airboats, we are
proposing to change the outboard definition to specify that the engine
and drive unit be a single, self-contained unit that is designed to be
lifted out of the water. This clarifies that air boats are not outboard
engines; air boats do not have engines and drive units that are
designed to be lifted out of the water. We are proposing the following
definition:
Outboard engine means an assembly of a spark-ignition
engine and drive unit used to propel a marine vessel from a properly
mounted position external to the hull of the marine vessel. An outboard
drive unit is partially submerged during operation and can be tilted
out of the water when not in use.
Second, engines used on jet boats (with an open bay for passengers)
have size, power, and usage characteristics that are very similar to
sterndrive and inboard applications, but these engines may be the same
as OB/PWC engines, rather than the marinized automotive engines
traditionally used on sterndrive vessels. We believe classifying such
engines as personal watercraft engines is inappropriate because it
would subject the jet boats to less stringent emission standards than
other boats with similar size and power characteristics. This different
approach could lead to increased use of high-emitting engines in these
vessels. Under the current regulations, engines powering jet boats
could be treated as SD/I engines at the discretion of the Agency,
because they are comparable in technology to conventional SD/I engines.
We are proposing definitions that would explicitly exclude jet boats
and their engines from being treated as personal watercraft engines or
vessels. Instead, we are proposing to classify jet boat engines as SD/
I.
The proposed definitions conform to the existing definition of
personal watercraft established by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO 13590). This ISO standard excludes open-bay
vessels and specifies a maximum vessel length of 4 meters. The ISO
standard therefore excludes personal watercraft-like vessels 4 meters
or greater and jet boats. Thus, engines powering such vessels would be
classified as sterndrive/inboard engines. We believe this definition
effectively serves to differentiate vessels in a way that groups
propulsion engines into categories that are appropriate for meeting
different emission standards. This approach is shown below with the
corresponding proposed definition of personal watercraft engine. We are
proposing one change to the ISO definition for domestic regulatory
purposes; we propose to remove the word ``inboard'' to prevent
confusion between PWC and inboard engines and state specifically that a
vessel powered by an outboard marine engine is not a PWC. We are
proposing the following definition:
Personal watercraft means a vessel less than 4.0 meters
(13 feet) in length that uses an installed internal combustion engine
powering a water jet pump as its primary source of propulsion and is
designed with no open load carrying area that would retain water. The
vessel is designed to be operated by a person or persons positioned on,
rather than within, the confines of the hull. A vessel using an
outboard engine as its primary source of propulsion is not a personal
watercraft.
Personal watercraft engine means a spark-ignition engine
used to propel a personal watercraft.
Section III.C.2 describes special provisions that would allow
manufacturers extra flexibility with emission credits if they want to
continue using outboard or personal watercraft engines in jet boats.
These engines would need to meet the standards for sterndrive/inboard
engines, but we believe it is appropriate for them to make this
demonstration using emission credits generated by other outboard and
personal watercraft engines because these vessels are currently using
these engine types. We request comment on this approach to defining
personal watercraft, especially as it relates to vessels 4 meters or
longer and jet boats.
(2) Exclusions and Exemptions
We are proposing to maintain the existing exemptions for OB/PWC
engines. These include the testing exemption, the manufacturer-owned
exemption, the display exemption, and the national-security exemption.
If the conditions for an exemption are met, the engine is not subject
to the exhaust emission standards. These exemptions are described in
more detail under Section VIII.
The Clean Air Act provides for different treatment of engines used
solely for competition. In the initial rulemaking to set standards for
OB/PWC engines, we adopted the conventional definitions that excluded
engines from the regulations if they had features that would be
difficult to remove and that would make it unsafe, impractical, or
unlikely to be used for noncompetitive purposes. We have taken the
approach in other programs of more carefully differentiating
competition and noncompetition models, and are proposing these kinds of
changes in this rule. The proposed changes to the existing provisions
relating to competition engines would apply equally to all types of
Marine SI engines. See Section III and Sec. 1045.620 of the
regulations for a full discussion of the proposed approach.
We are proposing a new exemption to address individuals who
manufacture recreational marine vessels for personal use (see Sec.
1045.630). Under the proposed exemption, these vessels and their
engines could be exempt from standards, subject to certain limitations.
For example, an individual may produce one such vessel over a ten-year
[[Page 28130]]
period, the vessel may not be used for commercial purposes, and any
exempt engines may not be sold for at least five years. The vessel must
generally be built from unassembled components, rather than simply
completing assembly of a vessel that is otherwise similar to one that
will be certified to meet emission standards. This proposal addresses
the concern that hobbyists who make their own vessels would otherwise
be manufacturers subject to the full set of emission standards by
introducing these vessels into commerce. We expect this exemption to
involve a very small number of vessels.
In the rulemaking for recreational vehicles, we chose not to apply
standards to hobby products by exempting all reduced-scale models of
vehicles that are not capable of transporting a person (67 FR 68242,
November 8, 2002). We are proposing to extend that same provision to
OB/PWC marine engines (see Sec. 1045.5).
C. Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards
We are proposing more stringent exhaust emission standards for new
OB/PWC marine engines. These proposed standards can be met through the
expanded reliance on four-stroke engines and two-stroke direct-
injection engines. This section describes the proposed requirements for
OB/PWC engines for controlling exhaust emissions. See Section V for a
description of the proposed requirements related to evaporative
emissions.
(1) Standards and Dates
We are proposing new HC+NOX standards for OB/PWC engines
starting in model year 2009 that would achieve more than a 60 percent
reduction from the existing 2006 standards. We are also proposing new
CO emission standards. These proposed standards would result in
meaningful CO reductions from many engines and prevent CO from
increasing from engines that already use technologies with lower CO
emissions. The proposed emission standards are largely based on
certification data from cleaner-burning Marine SI engines, such as
four-stroke engines and two-stroke direct-injection engines. Section
IV.F discusses the technological feasibility of these standards in more
detail. Table IV-1 presents the proposed exhaust emission standards for
OB/PWC. We are also proposing to apply not-to-exceed emission standards
over a range of engine operating conditions, as described in Section
IV.C.2. (See Sec. 1045.103.)
Table IV-1--Proposed OB/PWC Exhaust Emission Standards [g/kW-hr] for
2009 Model Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant P\a\ <= 40 kW P\a\ > 40 kW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC+NOX............................ 28-0.3 x P 16
CO................................ 500-5.0 x P 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ P = maximum engine power in kilowatts (kW).
The proposed emission standards for HC+NOX are similar
in stringency to the 2008 model year standards adopted in California,
and we expect that the same technology anticipated to be used in
California can be used to meet these proposed standards. However, we
are proposing to simplify the form of the standards. The existing EPA
2006 and California ARB 2008 requirements use a functional relationship
to set the emission standard for each engine family depending on the
power rating--the numerical value of the standard increases with
decreasing power ratings, especially for the smallest engines. However,
as described in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA, certification data show
that brake-specific emission rates (in g/kW-hr) are relatively constant
for engines with maximum engine power above 40 kW. We are therefore
proposing a single standard for engines with maximum engine power above
40 kW. For smaller engines, the relationship between brake-specific
emissions and maximum engine power is pronounced. We are proposing a
simple linear function for the standards for these engines, as shown in
Table IV-1. While this approach differs slightly from the California
ARB standards, we believe it provides a good match for establishing a
comparable level of stringency while simplifying the form of the
regulatory standard.
The proposed implementation date gives an additional year beyond
the implementation date of the California standards of similar
stringency. Manufacturers generally sell their lower-emission engines,
which are already meeting the 2008 California standards, nationwide.
However, the additional year would give manufacturers time to address
any models that may not meet the upcoming California standards or are
not generally sold in California. We request comment on additional
regulatory flexibility that manufacturers may need to transition to the
proposed standards. For instance, a modest phase-in of the standards
may be useful to manufacturers to complete an orderly turnover of high-
emitting engines. This phase-in could take the form of giving an extra
year for compliance with the proposed standards for a small percentage
of engines (e.g., 10 percent of projected sales) or phasing-in the
level of the standard (e.g., 20-25 g/kW-hr HC+NOX). Any
comments on proposed transitional flexibility should give details that
fully describe the recommended program.
The proposed standards include the same general provisions that
apply today. For example, engines must control crankcase emissions. The
regulations also require compliance over the full range of adjustable
parameters and prohibit the use of defeat devices. (See Sec.
1045.115.)
(2) Not-to-Exceed Standards
Section III.D.2 describes NTE standards for sterndrive and inboard
engines. We are proposing to apply the same NTE testing provisions to
OB/PWC engines, including the same NTE zone and subzones and ambient
conditions (see Sec. 1045.515). However, data presented in Chapter 4
of the Draft RIA suggest that different emission limits would be
appropriate for OB/PWC engines. For instance, we are proposing higher
limits at full power for SD/I engines equipped with catalysts because
the engines must operate rich at this mode to protect catalysts and
exhaust valves. Because we are not anticipating the use of catalysts on
OB/PWC to meet the exhaust emission standards, we believe it is not
necessary to adopt such high limits for OB/PWC engines.
The Draft RIA describes the available emission data that allow us
to specify appropriate modal caps for OB/PWC engines based on four-
stroke engine technology. The available data for direct-injection two-
stroke engines showed two different distinct patterns in modal emission
rates. We are therefore proposing two alternative sets of NTE limits--
manufacturers could use either set of NTE limits for their OB/PWC
engines. To offset the relaxed
[[Page 28131]]
limits for certain subzones, we are proposing more stringent limits for
other subzones for these alternative approaches. Table IV-2 presents
the proposed sets of NTE limits for the subzones described in Section
III.D.2. We request comment on the proposed NTE limits for OB/PWC
engines.
Table IV-2--Proposed NTE Limits by Subzone for OB/PWC Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach Pollutant Subzone 4 Subzone 3 Subzone 2 Subzone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary....................... HC+NOX.......... 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.2
CO.............. 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Alternative 1................. HC+NOX.......... 2.0 0.8 0.8 2.0
CO.............. 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0
Alternative 2................. HC+NOX.......... 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
CO.............. 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine engine manufacturers indicated that they are concerned that
the differences in engine designs, especially for direct-injection two-
stroke engines, may result in emission variation that would make it
difficult to meet a fixed set of NTE limits for all engines. To address
this variability, they have suggested two alternative approaches to
setting NTE limits for marine engines. The first approach would be to
base the NTE limits on the modal test results from the certification
test rather than fixed values that would apply to all engines. NTE
limits would then be linearly interpolated between the modes as a
function of speed and load. For example, if the modal results were 2.0
g/kW-hr at Mode 3 and 4.0 g/kW-hr at Mode 4, the interpolated value
half way between these modal test points would be 3 g/kW-hr. A
multiplier would then be applied to this interpolated value to create
the NTE limit. This multiplier would be intended to account for testing
and production variability. The multiplier would not likely need to be
as large as the proposed general multipliers for the subzones presented
above because it would be applied to a surface generated from each
manufacturer's actual modal data. Because the NTE cap would be
calculated from the individual test modes in the steady-state test, it
may be necessary for the manufacturers to assign family emission limits
for each of the test modes in the proposed NTE zone.
The second conceptual approach would be to use a weighted average
approach to the NTE limit rather than to have individual NTE limits for
each subzone. Under this approach, an emission measurement would be
made in each of the subzones plus idle. These measurements could be
made at any operation point within each subzone. The measured emissions
would then be combined using the weighting factors for the modal test.
This weighted average emission level would be required to be below the
standard (or family emission limit) times a multiplier (under this
approach, only a single multiplier would be needed). The purpose of the
multiplier would be to allow for some variability within each subzone.
Because the weighted average emissions from the subzones would have the
tendency of approaching the steady-state test value, this multiplier
would not be expected to be much higher than 1.0. However, one drawback
to this approach is that there is no specific cap for each mode and a
weighted average approach may not be as effective in capping modal
emissions as would be specific limits for each subzone. More detail on
this concept is available in the docket.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ ``Marine NTE Zones,'' Presentation to EPA by BRP on October
26, 2006, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on the two alternative NTE limit approaches
described above. Specifically, commenters should provide detail on what
advantages (and disadvantages) these alternatives may provide and what
effect they may have on in-use emissions and the potential for
improving the manufacturer in-use testing program. In addition,
commenters should describe what emission limits or multipliers would be
appropriate for the alternative approaches and provide test data
supporting these conclusions.
(3) Emission Credit Programs
Engine manufacturers may use emission credits to meet OB/PWC
standards under part 91. See Section VII.C.5 for a description of
general provisions related to averaging, banking, and trading programs.
We propose to adopt an ABT program for the new HC+NOX
emission standards that is similar to the existing program (see part
1045, subpart H). Credits may be used interchangeably between outboard
and personal watercraft engine families. Credits earned under the
current program may also be used to comply with the new OB/PWC
standards as described below.
We are proposing an unlimited life for emission credits earned
under the proposed new standards for OB/PWC engines. We consider these
emission credits to be part of the overall program for complying with
proposed standards. Given that we may consider further reductions
beyond the proposed standards in the future, we believe it will be
important to assess the ABT credit situation that exists at the time
any future standards are considered. We would need to set such future
emission standards based on the statutory direction that emission
standards must represent the greatest degree of emission control
achievable, considering cost, safety, lead time, and other factors.
Emission credit balances will be part of the analysis for determining
the appropriate level and timing of new standards. If we were to allow
the use of existing emission credits for meeting future standards, we
may, depending on the level of emission credit banks, need to adopt
emission standards at more stringent levels or with an earlier start
date than we would absent the continued or limited use of existing
emission credits. Alternatively, we could adopt future standards
without allowing the use existing credits. The proposal described in
this notice describes a middle path in which we allow the use of
existing credits to meet the proposed new standards, with provisions
that limit the use of these credits based on a three-year credit life.
We are requesting comment on one particular issue regarding credit
life. As proposed, credits earned under the new exhaust ABT program
would have an unlimited lifetime. This could result in a situation
where credits generated by an engine sold in a model year are not used
until many years later when the engines generating the credits have
been scrapped and are no longer part of the fleet. EPA believes there
may be value to limiting the use of credits to the period that the
credit-generating engines
[[Page 28132]]
exist in the fleet. For this reason, EPA requests comment on limiting
the lifetime of the credits generated under the proposed exhaust ABT
program to five years or, alternatively, to the regulatory useful life
of the engine.
We are interested in using a common emission credit calculation
methodology across our programs. Therefore, we are proposing to use the
same emission credit equation for OB/PWC engines that is common in many
of our other programs. This equation results in a simpler calculation
than is currently used for OB/PWC engines. The primary difference is
that the regulatory useful life would be used in the credit calculation
rather than a discounted useful life function based on engine type and
power rating. In addition, the emission credits would be reported in
units of kilograms rather than grams. We anticipate that this change in
the credit calculation would directionally increase the relative value
of emission credits generated under the existing ABT program. However,
due to the proposed limit on credit life and the proposed FEL cap for
OB/PWC engines, we do not believe that this increase in relative value
will significantly hamper the introduction of clean engine technology.
We request comment on the new credit calculation and on whether credits
generated under the existing OB/PWC standards should be adjusted to be
more equivalent to credits generated under the proposed ABT program.
We are proposing an averaging program for CO emissions. Under this
program, manufacturers could generate credits with engine families that
have FELs below the CO emission standard to be used for engine families
in their product line in the same model year that are above the CO
standard. However, we are proposing to disallow banking for CO
emissions. We are concerned that a banking program could result in a
large accumulation of credits based on a given company's mix of engine
technologies. If banking were allowed, the proposed CO standard would
need to be substantially more stringent to reflect the capability for
industry-wide average CO emission levels. We generally allow trading
only with banked credits, so we are also proposing to disallow trading
of CO emission credits.
As with previous emission control programs, we are also proposing
not to allow manufacturers to earn credits for one pollutant for an
emission family that is using credits to meet the standard for another
pollutant. In other words, an engine family that does not meet the CO
standard would not be able to earn HC+NOX emission credits,
or vice versa. In addition, as with the current standards, we are
proposing that engines sold in California would not be included in this
ABT program because they are already subject to California
requirements.
Under the existing standards, no cap is set on FELs for certifying
engine families. This was intended to allow manufacturers to sell old-
technology two-stroke engines by making up the emissions deficit with
credits under the ABT program. For engines subject to the new emission
standards, we are proposing FEL caps to prevent the sale of very high-
emitting engines. For HC+NOX, the proposed FEL cap is based
on the existing 2006 standards. For CO, the proposed FEL cap is 150 g/
kW-hr above the proposed standard. We believe this will still allow a
great deal of flexibility for manufacturers using credits, but will
require manufacturers to stop producing engines that emit pollutants at
essentially uncontrolled levels.
Except as specified in Section III.C.2 for jet boats, we are
proposing to specify that OB/PWC engines and SD/I engines are in
separate averaging sets. This means that credits earned by OB/PWC
engines may be used only to offset higher emissions from other OB/PWC
engines, and credits earned by SD/I engines may be used only to offset
higher emissions from other SD/I engines. We are allowing jet boats to
use OB/PWC credits because there are currently small sales of these
engines currently using OB/PWC engines. Most of the engine
manufacturers building SD/I engines do not also build OB/PWC engines.
The exception to this is the largest manufacturer in both categories.
We are concerned that allowing averaging, banking, and trading between
OB/PWC engines and SD/I engines would not provide the greatest
achievable reductions, because the level of the standard we are
proposing is premised on the technology used in OB/PWC engines, and is
based on what is feasible for these engines. We did not set the OB/PWC
level based on the reductions achievable between OB/PWC and SD/I, but
instead based on what is achievable by OB/PWC itself. The proposed
limitation on ABT credits is consistent with this approach to setting
the level of the OB/PWC standards. We are also concerned that allowing
trading between OB/PWC and SD/I could create a competitive disadvantage
for the many small manufacturers of SD/I engines that do not also
produce OB/PWC engines. In addition, we are proposing SD/I emission
standards that would likely require the use of aftertreatment. We would
not want to provide an incentive to use credits from the OB/PWC marine
sector to avoid the use of aftertreatment technologies in SD/I engines.
We request comment on the structure of the proposed ABT program,
including the new provisions related to CO emissions. For any
commenters suggesting that we include banking or trading for CO
emissions, we solicit further comment on what the appropriate CO
standard should be to account for the greater regulatory flexibility
and therefore greater degree of control achievable using emissions
credits. We also request comment on the use and level of the proposed
FEL caps and on the approach to defining averaging sets.
(4) Durability Provisions
We are proposing to keep the existing useful life periods from 40
CFR part 91. The specified useful life for outboard engines is 10 years
or 350 hours of operation, whichever comes first. The useful life for
personal watercraft engines is 5 years or 350 hours of operation,
whichever comes first. (See Sec. 1045.103.)
We are proposing to update the specified emissions warranty periods
for outboard and personal watercraft engines to align with our other
emission control programs (see Sec. 1045.120). Most nonroad engines
have emissions warranty periods that are half of the total useful life
period. As a result, we are proposing a warranty period for outboard
engines of five years or 175 hours of operation, whichever comes first.
The proposed warranty period for personal watercraft engines is 30
months or 175 hours, whichever comes first. This contrasts somewhat
with the currently specified warranty period of 200 hours or two years
(or three years for specified major emission control components). The
proposed approach would slightly decrease the warranty period in terms
of hours, but would somewhat increase the period in terms of calendar
years (or months). We request comment on this revised approach to
defining warranty periods.
If the manufacturer offers a longer mechanical warranty for the
engine or any of its components at no additional charge, we propose
that the emission-related warranty for the respective engine or
component must be extended by the same amount. The emission-related
warranty includes components related to controlling exhaust,
evaporative, and crankcase emissions from the engine. This approach to
setting warranty requirements is consistent with provisions that apply
in
[[Page 28133]]
most other programs for nonroad engines.
We are proposing to keep the existing requirements related to
demonstrating the durability of emission controls for purposes of
certification (see Sec. 1045.235, Sec. 1045.240, and Sec. 1045.245).
Manufacturers must run engines long enough to develop and justify full-
life deterioration factors. This allows manufacturers to generate a
deterioration factor that helps ensure that the engines will continue
to control emissions over a lifetime of operation. The new requirement
to generate deterioration factors for CO emissions is the same as that
for HC+NOX emissions. For the HC+NOX standard, we
propose to specify that manufacturers use a single deterioration factor
for the sum of HC and NOX emissions. However, if
manufacturers get our approval to establish a deterioration factor on
an engine that is tested with service accumulation representing less
than the full useful life for any reason, we would require separate
deterioration factors for HC and NOX emissions. The
advantage of a combined deterioration factor is that it can account for
an improvement in emission levels with aging. However, for engines that
have service accumulation representing less than the full useful life,
we believe it is not appropriate to extrapolate measured values
indicating that emission levels for a particular pollutant will
decrease.
Under the current regulations, emission-related maintenance is not
allowed during service accumulation to establish deterioration factors.
The only maintenance that may be done must be (1) Regularly scheduled,
(2) unrelated to emissions, and (3) technologically necessary. This
typically includes changing engine oil, oil filter, fuel filter, and
air filter. In addition, we are proposing to specify that manufacturers
may not schedule critical emission-related maintenance during the
useful life period (see Sec. 1045.125). This would prevent
manufacturers from designing engines with emission controls that depend
on scheduled maintenance that is not likely to occur with in-use
engines. We request comment on all aspects of our provisions related to
manufacturers' prescribed maintenance.
D. Changes to Existing OB/PWC Test Procedures
We are proposing a number of minor changes to the test procedures
for OB/PWC to make them more consistent with the test procedures for
other nonroad spark-ignition engines. These test provisions would apply
to SD/I marine engines as well.
(1) Duty Cycle
A duty cycle is the set of modes (engine speed and load) over which
an engine is operated during a test. For purposes of exhaust emission
testing, we are proposing to keep the existing duty cycle specified for
OB/PWC engines, with two adjustments (see Sec. 1045.505). First, we
are proposing that manufacturers may choose to run the specified duty
cycle as a ramped-modal cycle, as described in Section IX.B. Second, we
are proposing to change the low-power test mode from a specified 25
percent load condition to 25.3 percent load, which would complete the
intended alignment with the E4 duty cycle adopted by the International
Organization for Standardization.
We request comment on the appropriateness of changing part 91 to
include the correction to the duty cycle described above. We request
comment regarding whether a change in the specification for the current
standards may cause some existing test data to be considered invalid.
For example, testing from an earlier model year may have involved
measurements that were slightly below 25 percent load, but within the
specified tolerance for testing. These measurements may be used for
carryover engine families today, but increasing the load point in the
regulation could cause some measurements to be outside the tolerance
once it shifts to a nominal value of 25.3 percent.
(2) Maximum Test Speed
The definition of maximum test speed, where speed is the angular
velocity of an engine's crankshaft (usually expressed in revolutions
per minute, or rpm), is an important aspect of the duty cycles for
testing. Engine manufacturers currently declare the rated speeds for
their engines and then used the rated speed as the maximum speed for
testing. However, we have established an objective procedure for
measuring this engine parameter to have a clearer reference point for
an engine's maximum test speed. This is important to ensure that
engines are tested at operating points that correspond with in-use
operation. This also helps ensure that the NTE zone is appropriately
matched to in-use operating conditions.
We propose to define the maximum test speed for any engine to be
the single point on an engine's maximum-power versus speed curve that
lies farthest away from the zero-power, zero-speed point on a
normalized maximum-power versus speed plot. In other words, consider
straight lines drawn between the origin (speed = 0, load = 0) and each
point on an engine's normalized maximum-power versus speed curve.
Maximum test speed is defined at that point where the length of this
line reaches its maximum value. This change would apply to testing of
OB/PWC engines as well as SD/I engines. We request comment on the use
and definition of maximum test speed.
(3) 40 CFR Part 1065
We are proposing to specify that OB/PWC engines certified to the
proposed exhaust emission standards use the test procedures in 40 CFR
part 1065 instead of those in 40 CFR part 91.\79\ We are proposing that
the new procedures would apply starting with the introduction of
proposed exhaust standards, though we allow manufacturers to start
using these new procedures earlier as an alternative procedure. The
procedures in part 1065 include updated provisions to account for newer
measurement technologies and improved calculation and corrections
procedures. Part 1065 also specifies more detailed provisions related
to alternate procedures, including a requirement to conduct testing
representative of in-use operation. In many cases, we allow carryover
of emission test data from one year to another. After the
implementation of the proposed standards, we are proposing to allow
carryover of any test data generated prior to 2009 under the test
procedures in 40 CFR part 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See our previous rulemakings related to 40 CFR part 1065
for more information about the changes in test provisions (70 FR
40420, July 13, 2005 and 67 FR 68242, November 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Altitude
EPA emission standards generally apply at a wide range of
altitudes, as reflected in the range of barometric pressures in the
specified test procedures. For marine spark-ignition engines, it is
clear that the large majority of operation is at sea level or at inland
lakes that are not at high altitude. We are therefore proposing a
specific range of barometric pressures from 94.0 to 103.325 kPa, which
corresponds to all altitudes up to about 2,000 feet (see Sec.
1045.501). Manufacturers are expected to design emission control
systems that continue to function effectively at lower barometric
pressures (i.e., higher altitudes), but we would not require that
engines meet emission standards when tested at altitudes more than
2,000 feet above sea level.
(5) Engine Break-in
Testing new engines requires a period of engine operation to
stabilize emission
[[Page 28134]]
levels. The regulations specify two separate figures for break-in
periods. First, for certification, we establish a limit on how much an
engine may operate and still be considered a ``low-hour'' engine. The
results of testing with the low-hour engine are compared with a
deteriorated value after some degree of service accumulation to
establish a deterioration factor. For Large SI engines, we require that
low-hour test engines have no more than 300 hours of engine operation.
However, given the shorter useful life for marine engines, this would
not make for a meaningful process for establishing deterioration
factors, even if there is a degree of commonality between the two types
of engines. We are proposing for all marine spark-ignition engines that
low-hour engines generally have no more than 30 hours of engine
operation (see Sec. 1045.801). This allows some substantial time for
break-in, stabilization, and running multiple tests, without
approaching a significant fraction of the useful life. The current
regulation in part 91 specifies that manufacturers perform the low-hour
measurement after no more than 12 hours of engine operation (see Sec.
91.408(a)(1)). The proposed approach, 30 hours of engine operation, is
consistent with what we have done for recreational vehicles and would
give manufacturers more time to complete a valid low-hour test.
For production-line testing there is also a concern about how long
an engine should operate to reach a stabilized emission level. We are
proposing to keep the provision in part 91 that allows for a presumed
stabilization period of 12 hours (see Sec. 90.117(a)). We believe 12
hours is sufficient to stabilize the emissions from the engine.
We request comment on these specified values for stabilizing new
engines for emission measurements.
E. Additional Certification and Compliance Provisions
(1) Production-Line Testing
We are proposing to continue to require that manufacturers
routinely test engines at the point of production to ensure that
production variability does not affect the engine family's compliance
with emission standards. This is largely based on the existing test
requirements, but includes a variety of changes. See Section VII.C.7
for a detailed description of these requirements. We may also require
manufacturers to perform production line testing under the selective
enforcement auditing provisions described in Section VIII.E.
(2) In-Use Testing
We are also proposing to continue the requirements related to the
manufacturer-run in-use testing program. Under this program,
manufacturers test field-aged engines to determine whether they
continue to meet emission standards (see part 1045, subpart E). We are
proposing to make a variety of changes and clarifications to the
existing requirements, as described in the following sections.
(a) Adjustments Related to Engine Selection
Both EPA and manufacturers have gained insights from implementing
the current program. Manufacturers have expressed a concern that engine
families are selected rather late in the model year, which makes it
harder to prepare a test fleet for fulfilling testing obligations. On
the other hand, we have seen that manufacturers certify some of their
engine families well into the model year. By making selections early in
the model year, we would generally be foregoing the opportunity to
select engine families for which manufacturers don't apply for
certification until after the selections occur.
To address these competing interests, we are proposing an approach
that allows for early selection of engine families, while preserving
the potential to require testing for engines that are certified later
in the model year. For applications we receive by December 31 of a
given calendar year for the following model year, we would expect to
select engine families for testing by the end of February of the
following year. If we have not made a complete selection of engine
families by the end of February, manufacturers would have the option of
making their own selections for in-use testing. The proposed
regulations include criteria to serve as guidance for manufacturers to
make appropriate selections. For example, we would expect manufacturers
to most strongly consider those engine families with the highest
projected sales volume and the smallest compliance margins.
Manufacturers may also take into account past experience with engine
families if they have already passed an in-use testing regimen and have
not undergone significant design changes since that time.
We propose to treat engine families differently for in-use testing
if we receive the application after December 31. This would apply, for
example, if manufacturers send an application for a 2009 engine family
in February 2009. In these cases, we are proposing that all these
engine families are automatically subject to in-use testing, without
regard to the 25 percent limitation that would otherwise dictate our
selections. This may appear to increase the potential test burden, but
the clear majority of applications for certification are completed
before the end of the calendar year for the following model year. This
proposed provision would eliminate the manufacturers' ability to game
the testing system by delaying a family of potential concern until the
next calendar year. We would expect to receive few new applications
after the end of the calendar year. This would be consistent with the
manufacturers' interest in early family selections, without
jeopardizing EPA's interest in being able to select from a
manufacturer's full product lineup.
We request comment on the approach to selecting engine families for
in-use testing.
(b) Crankcase Emissions
Because the crankcase requirements are based on a design
specification rather than emission measurements, the anticipated
crankcase technologies are best evaluated simply by checking whether or
not they continue to function as designed. As a result, we intend for
an inspection of in-use engines to show whether these systems continue
to function properly throughout the useful life, but are not proposing
to require manufacturers to include crankcase measurements as part of
the in-use testing program described in this section. This is
consistent with the approach we have taken in other programs.
(c) In-Use Emission Credits
Clean Air Act section 213 requires engines to comply with emission
standards throughout their regulatory useful lives, and section 207
requires a manufacturer to remedy in-use nonconformity when we
determine that a substantial number of properly maintained and used
engines fail to conform with the applicable emission standards (42
U.S.C. 7541). As described in the original rulemaking, manufacturers
could use a calculation of emission credits generated under the in-use
testing program to avoid a recall determination if an engine family's
in-use testing results exceeded emission standards (61 FR 52095,
October 4, 1996).
We are proposing a more general approach to addressing potential
noncompliance under the in-use testing program than is specified in 40
CFR part 91. The proposed regulations do not specify how manufacturers
would
[[Page 28135]]
generate emission credits to offset a nonconforming engine family. The
proposed approach is preferred for two primary reasons. First,
manufacturers will be able to use emission data generated from field
testing to characterize an engine family's average emission level. This
becomes necessarily more subjective, but allows us to consider a wider
range of information in evaluating the degree to which manufacturers
are complying with emission standards across their product line.
Second, this approach makes clearer the role of the emission credits in
our consideration to recall failing engines. We plan to consider, among
other information, average emission levels from multiple engine
families in deciding whether to recall engines from a failing engine
family. We therefore believe it is not appropriate to have a detailed
emission credit program defining precisely how and when to calculate,
generate, and use credits that do not necessarily have value elsewhere.
Not specifying how manufacturers generate emission credits under
the in-use testing program gives us the ability to consider any
appropriate test data in deciding what action to take. In generating
this kind of information, some general guidelines would apply. For
example, we would expect manufacturers to share test data from all
engines and all engine families tested under the in-use testing
program, including nonstandard tests that might be used to screen
engines for later measurement. This allows us to understand the
manufacturers' overall level of performance in controlling emissions to
meet emission standards. Average emission levels should be calculated
over a running three-year period to include a broad range of testing
without skewing the results based on old designs. Emission values from
engines certified to different tiers of emission standards or tested
using different measurement procedures should not be combined to
calculate a single average emission level. Average emission levels
should be calculated according to the following equation, rounding the
results to 0.1 g/kW-hr:
Average EL = [Sigma]i[(STD-CL)i x
(UL)i x (Sales)i x Poweri x
LFi] / [Sigma]i [(UL)i x
(Sales)i x Poweri x LFi]
Where:
Average EL = Average emission level in g/kW-hr.
Salesi = The number of eligible sales, tracked to the
point of first retail sale in the U.S., for the given engine family
during the model year.
(STD-CL)i = The difference between the emission standard
(or Family Emission Limit) and the average emission level for an in-
use testing family in g/kW-hr.
ULi = Useful life in hours.
Poweri = The sales-weighted average maximum engine power
for an engine family in kW.
LFi = Load factor or fraction of maximum engine power
utilized in use; use 0.50 for engine families used only in constant-
speed applications and 0.32 for all other engine families.
We have adopted this same approach for the in-use testing program
that applies for Large SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048.
(3) Optional Procedures for Field Testing
Outboard engines are inherently portable, so it may be easier to
test them in the laboratory than in the field. However, there is a
strong advantage to using portable measurement equipment to test
personal watercraft and SD/I engines while the engine remains installed
to avoid the effort of taking the engine out and setting it up in a
laboratory. Field testing would also provide a much better means of
measuring emissions to establish compliance with the NTE standards,
because it is intended to ensure control of emissions during normal in-
use operation that may not occur during laboratory testing over the
specified duty cycle. We propose to apply the field testing provisions
described below as an option for all OB/PWC and SD/I engines. We
request comment on any ways the field testing procedures should be
modified to address the unique operating characteristics of OB/PWC or
SD/I engines.
The regulations at 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J, specify how to
measure emissions using portable measurement equipment. To test engines
while they remain installed, analyzers are connected to the engine's
exhaust to detect emission concentrations during normal operation.
Exhaust volumetric flow rate and continuous power output are also
needed to convert the analyzer responses to units of g/kW-hr for
comparing to emission standards. These values can be calculated from
measurements of the engine intake flow rate, the exhaust air-fuel ratio
and the engine speed, and from torque information.
Available small analyzers and other equipment may be adapted for
measuring emissions from field equipment. A portable flame ionization
detector can measure total hydrocarbon concentrations. A portable
analyzer based on zirconia technology can measure NOX
emissions. A nondispersive infrared (NDIR) unit can measure CO. We are
proposing to require manufacturers to specify how they would allow for
drawing emission samples from in-use engines for testing installed
engines. For example, emission samples can be drawn from the exhaust
flow directly upstream of the point at which water is mixed into the
exhaust flow. This should minimize collection of water in the extracted
sample, though a water separator may be needed to maintain a
sufficiently dry sample. Mass flow rates also factor into the torque
calculation; this may be measured either in the intake or exhaust
manifold.
Calculating brake-specific emissions depends on determining
instantaneous engine speed and torque levels. We propose to require
that manufacturers must therefore design their engines to be able to
continuously monitor engine speed and torque. We have already adopted
this requirement for other mobile source programs where electronic
engine control is used. Monitoring speed values is straightforward. For
torque, the onboard computer needs to convert measured engine
parameters into useful units. Manufacturers generally will need to
monitor a surrogate value such as intake manifold pressure or throttle
position (or both), then rely on a look-up table programmed into the
onboard computer to convert these torque indicators into Newton-meters.
Manufacturers may also want to program the look-up tables for torque
conversion into a remote scan tool. Part 1065 specifies the performance
requirements for accuracy, repeatability, and noise related to speed
and torque measurements. These tolerances are taken into account in the
selection of the proposed NTE standards.
(4) Other Changes for In-use Testing
A question has been raised regarding the extent of liability if an
engine family is found to be noncompliant during in-use testing.
Because it can take up to two years to complete the in-use testing
regimen for an engine family, we want to clarify the status of engines
produced under that engine family's certificate, and under the
certificates of earlier and later engine families that were effectively
of the same design. For example, manufacturers in many cases use
carryover data to continue certifying new engine families for a
subsequent model year; this avoids the need to produce new test data
for engines whose design does not change from year to year. For these
cases, absent any contrary information from the manufacturer, we will
maintain the discretion to include other applicable
[[Page 28136]]
engine families in the scope of any eventual recall, as allowed by the
Act.
There are a variety of smaller changes to the in-use testing
provisions as a result of updating the regulatory language to reflect
the language changes that we adopted for similar testing with Large SI
engines. First, we are proposing to remove the requirement to select
engines that have had service accumulation representing less than 75
percent of the useful life. This will allow manufacturers the
flexibility to test somewhat older engines if they want to. Second, we
are proposing to slightly adjust the description of the timing of the
test program, specifying that the manufacturer must submit a test plan
within 12 months of EPA selecting the family for testing, with a
requirement to complete all testing within 24 months. This contrasts
with the current requirement to complete testing within 12 months after
the start of testing, which in turn must occur within 12 months of
family selection. We believe the modified approach allows additional
flexibility without delaying the conclusion of testing. Third, we are
proposing to require that manufacturers explain why they excluded any
particular engines from testing. Finally, we are proposing to require
manufacturers to report any noncompliance within 15 days after
completion of testing for a family, rather than 15 days after an
individual engine fails. This has the advantage for manufacturers and
the Agency of a more unified reporting after testing is complete,
rather than piecemeal reporting before conclusions can be drawn.
(5) Use of Engines Already Certified to Other Programs
In some cases, manufacturers may want to use engines already
certified under our other programs. Engines certified to the emission
standards for highway applications in part 86 or Large SI applications
in part 1048 are meeting more stringent standards. We are therefore
proposing to allow the pre-existing certification to be valid for
engines used in marine applications, on the condition that the engine
is not changed from its certified configuration in any way (see Sec.
1045.605). For outboard and personal watercraft engines, we are also
proposing to allow this for engines certified to the Phase 3 emission
standards for Small SI engines. Manufacturers would need to demonstrate
that fewer than five percent of the total sales of the engine model are
for marine applications. There are also a few minor notification and
labeling requirements to allow for EPA oversight of this provision.
(6) Import-Specific Information at Certification
We are proposing to require additional information to improve our
ability to oversee compliance related to imported engines (see Sec.
1045.205). In the application for certification, we are proposing to
require the following additional information: (1) The port or ports at
which the manufacturer will import the engines, (2) the names and
addresses of the agents the manufacturer has authorized to import the
engines, and (3) the location of the test facilities in the United
States where the manufacturer will test the engines if we select them
for testing under a selective enforcement audit.
F. Other Adjustments to Regulatory Provisions
We are proposing to migrate the regulatory requirements for marine
spark-ignition engines from 40 CFR part 91 to 40 CFR part 1045. This
gives us the opportunity to update the details of our certification and
compliance program to be consistent with the comparable provisions that
apply to other engine categories. The following paragraphs highlight
some of the changes in the new language that may involve noteworthy
changes from the existing regulations. All these provisions apply
equally to SD/I engines, except that they are not subject to the
current requirements in 40 CFR part 91.
We are proposing some adjustments to the criteria for defining
engine families (see Sec. 1045.230). The fundamental principle behind
engine families is to group together engines that will have similar
emission characteristics over the useful life. We are proposing that
engines within an engine family must have the same approximate bore
diameter and all use the same method of air aspiration (for example,
naturally aspirated vs. turbocharged). Under the current regulation,
manufacturers may consider bore and stroke dimensions and aspiration
method if they want to subdivide engine families beyond what would be
required under the primary criteria specified in Sec. 91.115. We
believe engines with substantially different bore diameters will have
combustion and operating characteristics that must be taken into
account with unique engineering. Similarly, adding a turbocharger or
supercharger to an engine changes the engine's combustion and emission
control in important ways. Finally, we are proposing that all the
engines in an engine family use the same type of fuel. This may have
been a simple oversight in the current regulations, since all OB/PWC
engines operate on gasoline. However, if a manufacturer would produce
an engine model that runs on natural gas or another alternative fuel,
that engine model should be in its own engine family.
The proposed regulatory language related to engine labels remains
largely unchanged (see Sec. 1045.135). However, we are including a
provision to allow manufacturers to print labels that have a different
company's trademark. Some manufacturers in other programs have
requested this flexibility for marketing purposes.
The proposed warranty provisions are described above. We are
proposing to add an administrative requirement to describe the
provisions of the emission-related warranty in the owners manual (see
Sec. 1045.120). We expect that many manufacturers already do this, but
believe it is appropriate to require this as a routine practice.
Certification procedures depend on establishing deterioration
factors to predict the degradation in emission controls that occurs
over the course of an engine's useful life. This typically involves
service accumulation in the laboratory to simulate in-use operation.
Since manufacturers do in-use testing to further characterize this
deterioration rate, we are proposing to specify that deterioration
factors for certification must take into account any available data
from in-use testing with similar engines. This provision applies in
most of our emission control programs that involve in-use testing. To
the extent that this information is available, it should be factored
into the certification process. For example, if in-use testing shows
that emission deterioration is substantially higher than that
characterized by the deterioration factor, we would expect the
manufacturer to factor the in-use data into a new deterioration factor,
or to revise durability testing procedures to better represent the
observed in-use degradation.
Maximum engine power for an engine family is an important
parameter. For engines below 40 kW, the maximum engine power determines
the applicable standard. For bigger engines, emission credits are
calculated based on total power output. As a result, we are proposing
to specify that manufacturers determine their engines' maximum engine
power as the point of maximum engine power on the engine map the
manufacturers establish with their test engines (see Section VII.C.6
and
[[Page 28137]]
Sec. 1045.140). This value would be based on the measured maximum
engine power, without correction to some standard ambient conditions.
The proposed requirements related to the application for
certification would involve some new information, most of which is
described above, such as installation instructions and a description of
how engines comply with not-to-exceed standards (see Sec. 1045.205).
In addition, we are proposing to require that manufacturers submit
projected sales volumes for each family, rather than requiring that
manufacturers keep these records and make them available upon request.
Manufacturers already do this routinely and it is helpful to have ready
access to this information to maintain compliance oversight of the
program for Marine SI engines for such things as emission credit
calculations. We are also proposing that each manufacturer identify an
agent for service in the United States. For companies based outside the
United States, this ensures that we will be able to maintain contact
regarding any official communication that may be required. We have
adopted these same requirements for other nonroad programs.
We are proposing to require that manufacturers use good engineering
judgment in all aspects of their effort to comply with regulatory
requirements. The regulations at Sec. 1068.5 describe how we would
apply this provision and what we would require of manufacturers where
we disagree with a manufacturer's judgment.
We are also proposing new defect-reporting requirements. These are
requirements are described in Section VIII.
It is common practice for Marine SI engines for one company to
produce the base engine for a second company to modify for the final
application. Since our regulations prohibit the sale of uncertified
engines, we are proposing provisions to clarify the status of these
engines and defining a path by which these engines can be handled
without violating the regulations. See Section XI for more information.
We request comment on all these changes to the regulations. Where
there is an objection to any of the proposed provisions, we request
comment on alternative provisions that would best address the concern
on which the proposed provisions are based. Also, aside from the items
described in this section, there are many minor adjustments in the
regulatory text. While most of these changes are intended to improve
the clarity of the regulations without imposing new requirements, we
request comment on any of these changes that may be inappropriate. We
also request comment on any additional changes that may be helpful in
making the regulations clear or addressing the administration or
implementation of the regulatory requirements.
G. Small-Business Provisions
The OB/PWC market has traditionally been made up of large
businesses. In addition, we anticipate that the OB/PWC standards will
be met through the expanded use of existing cleaner engine
technologies. Small businesses certifying to standards today are
already using technologies that could be used to meet the proposed
standards. As a result, we are proposing only three small business
regulatory relief provisions for small business manufacturers of OB/PWC
engines. We are proposing to allow small business OB/PWC engine
manufacturers to be exempt from PLT testing and to use assigned
deterioration factors for certification. (EPA will provide guidance to
engine manufacturers on the assigned deterioration factors prior to
implementation of the new OB/PWC standards.) We are also proposing to
extend the economic hardship relief for small businesses described in
Section VIII.C.9 to small-business OB/PWC engine manufacturers (see
Sec. 1068.250). We are proposing small business eligibility criteria
for OB/PWC engine manufacturers based on a production cut-off of 5,000
OB/PWC engines per year. We would also allow OB/PWC engine
manufacturers that exceed the production cut-off level noted above but
have fewer than 1,000 employees to request treatment as a small
business.
In addition to the flexibilities noted above, all OB/PWC engine
manufacturers, regardless of size, would be able to apply for the
unusual circumstances hardship described in Section VIII.C.8 (see Sec.
1068.245). Finally, all OB/PWC vessel manufacturers, regardless of
size, that rely on other companies to provide certified engines or fuel
system components for their product would be able to apply for the
hardship provisions described in Section VIII.C.10 (see Sec.
1068.255).
H. Technological Feasibility
(1) Level of Standards
Over the past several years, manufacturers have demonstrated their
ability to achieve significant HC+NOX emission reductions
from outboard and personal watercraft engines. This has largely been
accomplished through the introduction of two-stroke direct injection
engines and conversion to four-stroke engines. Current certification
data for these types of engines show that these technologies may be
used to achieve emission levels significantly below the existing
exhaust emission standards. In fact, California has adopted standards
requiring a 65 percent reduction beyond the current federal standards
beginning in 2008.
Our own analysis of recent certification data show that most four-
stroke outboard engines and many two-stroke direct injection outboard
engines can meet the proposed HC+NOX standard. Similarly,
although PWC engines tend to have higher HC+NOX emissions,
presumably due to their higher power densities, many of these engines
can also meet the proposed HC+NOX standard. Although there
is currently no CO standard for OB/PWC engines, OB/PWC manufacturers
are required to report CO emissions from their engines (see Sec.
91.107(d)(9)). These emissions are based on test data from new engines
and do not consider deterioration or compliance margins. Based on this
data, all of the two-stroke direct injection engines show emissions
well below the proposed standards. In addition, the majority of four-
stroke engines would meet the proposed CO standards as well.
We therefore believe the proposed HC+NOX and CO emission
standards can be achieved by phasing out conventional carbureted two-
stroke engines and replacing them with four-stroke engines or two-
stroke direct injection engines. This has been the market-driven trend
over the last five years. Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA presents charts
that compare certification data to the proposed standards.
(2) Implementation Dates
We are proposing to implement the new emission standards beginning
with the 2009 model year. This gives an additional year beyond the
implementation date of the California standards of similar stringency.
This additional year may be necessary for manufacturers that don't sell
engine models in California or that sell less than their full product
lineup into the California market. We believe the same technology used
to meet the 2008 standards in California could be used nationwide with
the additional year allowed for any engine models not sold in
California. Low-emission engines sold in California are generally sold
nationwide as part of manufacturer compliance strategies for the
Federal 2006 standards. Manufacturers have
[[Page 28138]]
indicated that they are calibrating their four-stroke and direct-
injection two-stroke engines to meet the California requirements. To
meet the proposed standards, manufacturers' efforts would primarily
center on phasing out their higher-emission carbureted two-stroke
engines and producing more of their lower emission engines.
(3) Technological Approaches
Conventional two-stroke engines add a fuel-oil mixture to the
intake air with a carburetor, and use the crankcase to force this mixed
charge air into the combustion chamber. In the two-stroke design, the
exhaust gases must be purged from the cylinder while the fresh charge
enters the cylinder. With traditional two-stroke designs, the fresh
charge, with unburned fuel and oil, would push the exhaust gases out of
the combustion chamber as the combustion event concludes. As a result,
25 percent or more of the fresh fuel-oil could pass through the engine
unburned. This is known as scavenging losses. Manufacturers have phased
out sales of the majority of their traditional two-stroke engines to
meet the federal 2006 OB/PWC exhaust emission standards. However, many
of these engines still remain in the product mix as a result of
emission credits.
One approach to minimizing scavenging losses in a two-stroke engine
is through the use of direct fuel injection into the combustion
chamber. The primary advantage of direct injection for a two-stroke is
that the exhaust gases can be scavenged with fresh air and fuel can be
injected into the combustion chamber after the exhaust port closes. As
a result, hydrocarbon emissions, fuel economy, and oil consumption are
greatly improved. Some users prefer two-stroke direct injection engines
over four-stroke engines due to the higher power-to-weight ratio. Most
of the two-stroke direct injection engines currently certified to the
current OB/PWC emission standards have HC+NOX emissions
levels somewhat higher than certified four-stroke engines. However,
these engines also typically have lower CO emissions due to the nature
of a heterogeneous charge. By injecting the fuel directly into a charge
of air in the combustion chamber, localized areas of lean air/fuel
mixtures are created where CO is efficiently oxidized.
OB/PWC manufacturers are also achieving lower emissions through the
use of four-stroke engine designs. Because the combustion cycle takes
place over two revolutions of the crankshaft, the fresh fuel-air charge
can enter the combustion chamber after the exhaust valve is closed.
This prevents scavenging losses. Manufacturers currently offer four-
stroke marine engines with maximum engine power ranging from 1.5 to 224
kW. These engines are available with carburetion, throttle-body fuel
injection, or multi-point fuel injection. Based on the certification
data, whether the engine is carbureted or fuel-injected does not have a
significant effect on combined HC+NOX emissions. For PWC
engines, the HC+NOX levels are somewhat higher, primarily
due to their higher power-to-weight ratio. CO emissions from PWC
engines are similar to those for four-stroke outboard engines.
One manufacturer has certified two PWC engine models with oxidation
catalysts. One engine model uses the oxidation catalyst in conjunction
with a carburetor while the other uses throttle-body fuel injection. In
this application, the exhaust system is shaped in such a way to protect
the catalyst from water. The exhaust system is relatively large
compared to the size of the engine. We are not aware of any efforts to
develop a three-way catalyst system for PWC engines. We are also not
aware of any development efforts to package a catalyst into the exhaust
system of an outboard marine engine. In current designs, water and
exhaust are mixed in the exhaust system to help cool the exhaust and
tune the engine. Water can work its way up through the exhaust system
because the lower end is under water and varying pressures in the
exhaust stream can draw water against the prevailing gas flow. As
discussed in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA, saltwater can be detrimental
to catalyst performance and durability. In addition, outboard engines
are designed with lower units that are designed to be as thin as
possible to improve the ability to turn the engine on the back of the
boat and to reduce drag on the lowest part of the unit. This raises
concerns about the placement and packaging of catalysts in the exhaust
stream. Certainly, the success of packaging catalysts in sterndrive and
inboard boats in recent development efforts (see Section III) suggests
that catalysts may be feasible for outboards with additional effort.
However, this has not yet been demonstrated and significant development
efforts would be necessary. We request comment on the feasibility of
using catalysts on OB and PWC engines.
(4) Regulatory Alternatives
We considered a level of 10 g/kW-hr HC+NOX for OB/PWC
engines above 40 kW with an equivalent percent reduction below the
proposed standards for engines below 40 kW. This second tier of
standards could apply in the 2012 or later time frame. Such a standard
would be consistent with currently certified emission levels from a
significant number of four-stroke outboard engines. We have three
concerns with adopting this second tier of OB/PWC standards. First,
while some four-stroke engines may be able to meet a 10 g/kW-hr
standard with improved calibrations, it is not clear that all engines
could meet this standard without applying catalyst technology. As
described in Section IV.H.3, we believe it is not appropriate to base
standards in this rule on the use of catalysts for OB/PWC engines.
Second, certification data for personal watercraft engines show
somewhat higher exhaust emission levels, so setting the standard at 10
g/kW-hr would likely require catalysts for many models. Third, it is
not clear that two-stroke engines would be able to meet the more
stringent standard, even with direct injection and catalysts. These
engines operate with lean air-fuel ratios, so reducing NOX
emissions with any kind of aftertreatment is especially challenging.
Therefore, unlike the proposed standards for sterndrive and inboard
engines, we are not adopting OB/PWC standards that will require the use
of catalysts. Catalyst technology would be necessary for significant
additional control of HC+NOX and CO emissions. While there
is good potential for eventual application of catalyst technology to
outboard and personal watercraft engines, we believe the technology is
not adequately demonstrated at this point. Much laboratory and in-water
work is needed.
(5) Our Conclusions
We believe the proposed emission standards can be achieved by
phasing out conventional carbureted two-stroke engines in favor of
four-stroke engines or two-stroke direct injection engines. The four-
stroke engines or two-stroke direct injection engines are already
widely available from marine engine manufacturers. One or both of these
technologies are currently in place for the whole range of outboard and
personal watercraft engines.
The proposed exhaust emission standards represent the greatest
degree of emission control achievable in the contemplated time frame.
While manufacturers can meet the proposed standards with their full
product line in 2009, requiring full compliance with a nationwide
program earlier, such as in the same year that California introduces
new emission standards, would pose an unreasonable requirement.
Allowing
[[Page 28139]]
one year beyond California's requirements is necessary to allow
manufacturers to certify their full product line to the new standards,
not only those products they will make available in California. Also,
as described above, we believe the catalyst technology that would be
required to meet emission standards substantially more stringent than
we are proposing has not been adequately demonstrated for outboard or
personal watercraft engines. As such, we believe the proposed standards
for HC+NOX and CO emissions are the most stringent possible
in this rulemaking. More time to gain experience with catalysts on
sterndrive and inboard engines and a substantial engineering effort to
apply that learning to outboard and personal watercraft engines may
allow us to pursue more stringent standards in a future rulemaking.
As discussed in Section X, we do not believe the proposed standards
would have negative effects on energy, noise, or safety and may lead to
some positive effects.
V. Small SI Engines
A. Overview
This section applies to new nonroad spark-ignition engines with
rated power at or below 19 kW (``Small SI engines''). These engines are
most often used in lawn and garden applications, typically by
individual consumers; they are many times also used by commercial
operators and they provide power for a wide range of other home,
industrial, farm, and construction applications. The engines are
typically air-cooled single-cylinder models, though Class II engines
(with displacement over 225 cc) may have two or three cylinders, and
premium models with higher power may be water-cooled.
We have already adopted two phases of exhaust standards for Small
SI engines. The first phase of standards for nonhandheld engines
generally led manufacturers to convert any two-stroke engines to four-
stroke engines. These standards applied only to engines at the time of
sale. The second phase of standards for nonhandheld engines generally
led manufacturers to apply emission control technologies such as in-
cylinder controls and improved carburetion, with the additional
requirement that manufacturers needed to meet emission standards over a
useful life period.
As described in Section I, this proposal is the result of a
Congressional mandate that springs from the new California ARB
standards. In 2003, the California ARB adopted more stringent standards
for nonhandheld engines. These standards target emission reductions of
approximately 35 percent below EPA's Phase 2 standards and are based on
the expectation that manufacturers will use relatively low-efficiency
three-way catalysts to control HC+NOX emissions. California
ARB did not change the applicable CO emission standard.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ California ARB also adopted new fuel evaporative emission
standards for equipment using handheld and nonhandheld engines.
These included tank permeation standards for both types of equipment
and hose permeation, running loss, and diurnal emission standards
for nonhandheld equipment. See Section VI for additional information
related to evaporative emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to place these new regulations for Small SI
engines in 40 CFR part 1054 rather than changing the current
regulations in 40 CFR part 90. This gives us the opportunity for
proposing updates to the details of our certification and compliance
program that are consistent with the comparable provisions that apply
to other engine categories and describe regulatory requirements in
plain language. Most of the change in regulatory text provides improved
clarity without changing procedures or compliance obligations. Where
there is a change that warrants further attention, we describe the need
for the change below.
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
This action includes proposed exhaust emission standards for new
nonroad engines with rated power at or below 19 kW that are sold in the
United States. The exhaust standards are for nonhandheld engines
(Classes I and II). As described in Section I, handheld Small SI
engines (Classes III, IV, and V) are also subject to standards, but we
are not proposing changes to the level of exhaust emission standards
for these engines. As described in Section VI, we are also proposing
standards for controlling evaporative emissions from Small SI engines,
including both handheld and nonhandheld engines. Certain of the
provisions discussed in this Section V apply to both handheld and
nonhandheld engines, as noted. Reference to both handheld and
nonhandheld engines also includes marine auxiliary engines subject to
the Small SI standards for that size engine.
(1) Engines Covered by Other Programs
The Small SI standards do not apply to recreational vehicles
covered by EPA emission standards in 40 CFR part 1051. The regulations
in part 1051 apply to off-highway motorcycles, snowmobiles, all-terrain
vehicles, and high-speed offroad utility vehicles. However, if an
amphibious vehicle with an engine at or below 19 kW is not subject to
standards under part 1051, its engine would need to meet the Small SI
standards. We also do not consider vehicles such as go karts or golf
carts to be recreational vehicles because they are not intended for
high-speed operation over rough terrain; these engines are also subject
to Small SI standards. The Small SI standards do not apply to engines
used in scooters or other vehicles that qualify as motor vehicles.
Consistent with the current regulation under 40 CFR part 90, Small
SI standards apply to spark-ignition engines used as generators or for
other auxiliary power on marine vessels, but not to marine propulsion
engines. As described below, we are proposing more stringent exhaust
emission standards that would apply uniquely to marine generator
engines.
Engines with rated power above 19 kW are subject to emission
standards under 40 CFR part 1048. However, we adopted a special
provision under part 1048 allowing engines with total displacement at
or below 1000 cc and with rated power at or below 30 kW to meet the
applicable Small SI standards instead of the standards in part 1048.
For any engines that are certified using this provision, any emission
standards that we adopt for Class II engines and equipment in this
rulemaking will also apply at the same time. Since these engines are
not required to meet the Small SI standards we have not included them
in the analyses associated with this proposal.
(2) Maximum Engine Power and Engine Displacement
Under the current regulations, rated power and power rating are not
defined terms, which leaves manufacturers to determine their values. We
are proposing to establish an objective approach to establishing
``maximum engine power'' under the regulations (see Section VII.C.6 and
Sec. 1054.140). This value has regulatory significance for Small SI
engines only to establish whether or not engines are instead subject to
Large SI standards. Determining maximum engine power is therefore
relevant only for those engines that are approaching the line
separating these two engine categories. We are proposing to require
that manufacturers determine and report maximum engine power if their
emission-data engine has a maximum modal power at or above 15 kW.
Similarly, the regulations depend on engine displacement to
differentiate engines for the applicability of different standards. The
regulations currently provide no objective direction or
[[Page 28140]]
restriction regarding the determinations of engine displacement. We are
proposing to define displacement as the intended swept volume of the
engine to the nearest cubic centimeter, where the engine's swept volume
is the product of the internal cross-section area of the cylinders, the
stroke length, and the number of cylinders. As described Section
VII.C.6 for maximum engine power, we are proposing that the intended
swept volume must be within the range of the actual swept volumes of
production engines considering normal production variability. If
production engines are found to have different swept volumes, this
should be noted in a change to the application for certification.
(3) Exempted or Excluded Engines
Under the Clean Air Act, engines that are used in stationary
applications are not nonroad engines. States are generally preempted
from setting emission standards for nonroad engines but this preemption
does not apply to stationary engines. EPA recently adopted emission
standards for stationary compression-ignition engines sold or used in
the United States (71 FR 39154, July 11, 2006). In addition, EPA has
proposed emission standards for stationary spark-ignition engines in a
separate action (71 FR 33804, June 12, 2006). In pursuing emission
standards for stationary engines, we have attempted to maintain
consistency between stationary and nonroad requirements as much as
possible. As explained in the proposal for stationary spark-ignition
engines, since stationary spark-ignition engines below 19 kW are almost
all sold into residential applications, we believe it is not
appropriate to include requirements for owners or operators that would
normally be part of a program for implementing standards for stationary
engines. As a result, in that proposal we indicated that it is most
appropriate to set exhaust and evaporative emission standards for
stationary spark-ignition engines below 19 kW as if they were nonroad
engines. This would allow manufacturers to make a single product that
meets all applicable EPA standards for both stationary and nonroad
applications.
The Clean Air Act provides for different treatment of engines used
solely for competition. Rather than relying on engine design features
that serve as inherent indicators of dedicated competitive use, we have
taken the approach in other programs of more carefully differentiating
competition and noncompetition models in ways that reflect the nature
of the particular products. In the case of Small SI engines, we do not
believe there are engine design features that allow us to differentiate
between engines that are used solely for competition from those with
racing-type features that are not used solely for competition. We are
proposing that handheld and nonhandheld equipment with engines meeting
all the following criteria would be considered to be used solely for
competition, except in other cases where information is available
indicating that engines are not used solely for competition:
The engine (or equipment in which the engine is installed)
may not be displayed for sale in any public dealership;
Sale of the equipment in which the engine is installed
must be limited to professional competitors or other qualified
competitors;
The engine must have performance characteristics that are
substantially superior to noncompetitive models;
The engines must be intended for use only in competition
events sanctioned (with applicable permits) by a state or federal
government agency or other widely recognized public organization, with
operation limited to competition events, performance-record attempts,
and official time trials.
Engine manufacturers would make their request for each new model
year and we would deny a request for future production if there are
indications that some engines covered by previous requests are not
being used solely for competition. Competition engines are produced and
sold in very small quantities so manufacturers should be able to
identify which engines qualify for this exemption. We request comment
on this approach to qualifying for a competition exemption. (See Sec.
1054.620.)
In the rulemaking for recreational vehicles, we chose not to apply
standards to hobby products by exempting all reduced-scale models of
vehicles that were not capable of transporting a person (67 FR 68242,
November 8, 2002). We are proposing to extend that same provision to
handheld and nonhandheld Small SI engines. (See Sec. 1054.5.)
In the rulemaking to establish Phase 2 emission standards, we
adopted an exemption for handheld and nonhandheld engines used in
rescue equipment. The regulation does not require any request,
approval, or recordkeeping related to the exemption but we discovered
while conducting the SBAR Panel described in Section VI.F that some
companies are producing noncompliant engines under this exemption. We
are proposing to keep this exemption but add several provisions to
allow us to better monitor how it is used (see Sec. 1054.625). We are
proposing to keep the requirement that equipment manufacturers use
certified engines if they are available. We are proposing to update
this provision by adding a requirement that equipment manufacturers use
an engine that has been certified to less stringent Phase 1 or Phase 2
standards if such an engine is available. We are proposing to
explicitly allow engine manufacturers to produce engines for this
exemption (with permanent labels identifying the particular exemption),
but only if they have a written request for each equipment model from
the equipment manufacturer. We are further proposing that the equipment
manufacturer notify EPA of the intent to produce emergency equipment
with exempted engines. Also, to clarify the scope of this provision, we
are proposing to define ``emergency rescue situations'' as firefighting
or other situations in which a person is retrieved from imminent
danger. Finally, we are proposing to clarify that EPA may discontinue
the exemption on a case-by-case basis if we find that engines are not
used solely for emergency and rescue equipment or if we find that a
certified engine is available to power the equipment safely and
practically. We propose to apply the provisions of this section for new
equipment built on or after January 1, 2009.
The current regulations also specify an exemption allowing
individuals to import up to three nonconforming handheld or nonhandheld
engines one time. We are proposing to keep this exemption with three
adjustments (see Sec. 1054.630). First, we are proposing to allow this
exemption only for used equipment. Allowing importation of new
equipment under this exemption is not consistent with the intent of the
provision, which is to allow people to move to the United States from
another country and continue to use lawn and garden equipment that may
already be in the person's possession. Second, we are proposing to
allow such an importation once every five years but require a statement
that the person importing the exempted equipment has not used this
provision in the preceding five years. The current regulations allow
only one importation in a person's lifetime without including any way
of making that enforceable. We believe the proposed combination of
provisions represents an appropriate balance between preserving the
enforceability of the exemption within the normal flow
[[Page 28141]]
of personal property for people coming into the country. Third, we are
proposing to no longer require submission of the taxpayer
identification number since this is not essential for ensuring
compliance.
C. Proposed Requirements
A key element of the proposed new requirements for Small SI engines
is the more stringent exhaust emission standards for nonhandheld
engines. We are also proposing several changes to the certification
program that would apply to both handheld and nonhandheld engines. For
example, we are proposing to clarify the process for selecting an
engine family's useful life, which defines the length of time over
which manufacturers' are responsible for meeting emission standards. We
are also proposing several provisions to update the program for
allowing manufacturers to use emission credits to show that they meet
emission standards. The following sections describe the elements of
this proposed rule.
The timing for implementation of the new exhaust emission standards
is described below. Unless we specify otherwise, all the additional
proposed regulatory changes would apply when engines are subject to the
emission standards and the other provisions under 40 CFR part 1054.
This would be model year 2012 for Class I engines and model year 2011
for Class II engines. For handheld engines, we propose to require
compliance with the provisions of part 1054, including the
certification provisions, starting in the 2010 model year. These
proposed requirements apply to handheld engines unless stated
otherwise. For convenience we refer to the handheld emission standards
in part 1054 as Phase 3 standards even though the numerical values
remain unchanged.
(1) Emission Standards
Extensive testing and dialogue with manufacturers and other
interested parties has led us to a much better understanding of the
capabilities and limitations of applying emission control technologies
to Small SI nonhandheld engines. As described in the Draft RIA, we have
collected a wealth of information related to the feasibility,
performance characteristics, and safety implications of applying
catalyst technology to these engines. We have concluded within the
context of Clean Air Act section 213 that it is appropriate to propose
emission standards that are consistent with those adopted by California
ARB. We are proposing HC+NOX emission standards of 10.0 g/
kW-hr for Class I engines starting in the 2012 model year, and 8.0 g/
kW-hr for Class II engines starting in the 2011 model year (see Sec.
1054.105). For both classes of nonhandheld engines we are proposing to
maintain the existing CO standard of 610 g/kW-hr.
We are proposing to eliminate the defined subclasses for the
smallest sizes of nonhandheld engines starting with implementation of
the Phase 3 standards. Under the current regulations in part 90, Class
I-A is designated for engines with displacement below 66 cc that may be
used in nonhandheld applications. To address the technological
constraints of these engines, all the current requirements for these
engines are the same as for handheld engines. Class I-B is similarly
designated for engines with displacement between 66 and 100 cc that may
be used in nonhandheld applications. These engines are currently
subject to a mix of provisions that result in an overall stringency
that lies between handheld and nonhandheld engines. We are proposing to
revise the regulations such that engines below 80 cc are subject to the
Phase 3 handheld engine standards in part 1054 starting in the 2010
model year. We are also proposing to allow engines below 80 cc to be
used without restriction in nonhandheld equipment. Identifying the
threshold at 80 cc aligns with the California ARB program. For
nonhandheld engines at or above 80 cc, we are proposing to treat them
in every way as Class I engines. Based on the fact that it is more
difficult for smaller displacement engines to achieve the same g/kW-hr
emission level as larger displacement engines, it will be more of a
challenge for manufacturers to achieve a 10.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOX
level on these smallest Class I engines. However, for those engines
unable to achieve the level of the proposed standards (either with or
without a catalyst), manufacturers may elect to rely on emissions
averaging to comply with emission standards. We believe all
manufacturers producing engines formerly included in Class I-B also
have a wide enough range of engine models that they should be able to
generate sufficient credits to meet standards across the full product
line. (See Sec. 1054.101 and Sec. 1054.801.)
We are proposing another slight change to the definition of
handheld engines that may affect whether an engine is subject to
handheld or nonhandheld standards. The handheld definition relies on a
weight threshold for certain engines. As recently as 1999, we affirmed
that the regulation should allow for the fact that switching to a
heavier four-stroke engine to meet emission standards might
inappropriately cause an engine to no longer qualify as a handheld
engine (64 FR 5252, February 3, 1999). The regulation accordingly
specifies that the weight limit is 20 kilograms for one-person augers
and 14 kilograms for other types of equipment, based on the weight of
the engine that was in place before applying emission control
technologies. We believe it is impractical to base a weight limit on
product specifications that have become difficult to establish. We are
therefore proposing to increase each of the specified weight limits by
1 kilogram, representing the approximate additional weight related to
switching to a four-stroke engine, and applying the new weight limit to
all engines and equipment (see Sec. 1054.801). We request comment on
this adjustment to the handheld engine definition.
The regulations in part 90 allow manufacturers to rely on altitude
kits to comply with emission requirements at high altitude. We are
proposing to continue with this approach but to clarify that all
nonhandheld engines must comply with Phase 3 standards without altitude
kits at barometric pressures above 94.0 kPa, which corresponds to
altitudes up to about 2,000 feet above sea level (see Sec. 1054.115).
This would ensure that all areas east of the Rocky Mountains and most
of the populated areas in Pacific Coast states would have compliant
engines without depending on engine modifications. This becomes
increasingly important as we anticipate manufacturers relying on
technologies that are sensitive to controlling air-fuel ratio for
reducing emissions. Engine manufacturers must identify the altitude
ranges for proper engine performance and emission control that are
expected with and without the altitude kit in the owners manual. The
owners manual must also state that operating the engine with the wrong
engine configuration at a given altitude may increase its emissions and
decrease fuel efficiency and performance. See Section V.E.5 for further
discussion related to the deployment of altitude kits where the
manufacturers rely on them for operation at higher altitudes.
We are proposing a slightly different approach for handheld engines
with respect to altitude. Since we are not adopting more stringent
exhaust emission standards, we believe it is appropriate to adopt
provisions that are consistent with current practice at this time. We
are therefore proposing to require handheld engines to comply with the
current standards without altitude kits at barometric pressures
[[Page 28142]]
above 96.0 kPa, which would allow for testing in most weather
conditions at all altitudes up to about 1,100 feet above sea level.
Spark-ignition engines used for marine auxiliary power are covered
by the same regulations as land-based engines of the same size.
However, the marine versions of Small SI engines are able to make use
of ambient water for enhanced cooling of the engine and exhaust system.
Exhaust systems for these engines are water-jacketed to maintain low
surface temperatures to minimize the risk of fires on boats where the
generator is often installed in small compartments within the boat.
Recently, auxiliary marine engine manufacturers have developed advanced
technology in an effort to improve fuel consumption and CO emission
rates for marine generators. This advanced technology includes the use
of electronic fuel injection and three-way catalysts. As a result,
manufacturers are offering new products with more than a 99 percent
reduction in CO and have expressed their intent to offer only these
advanced technology engines in the near future. They have stated that
these low CO engines are due to market demand. We are proposing a CO
standard of 5.0 g/kW-hr CO for marine generator engines to reflect the
recent trend in marine generator engine design (see Sec. 1054.105).
For other auxiliary marine engines, we are proposing the same CO
emission limits as for land-based engines. We believe this cap is
necessary to prevent backsliding in CO emissions that could occur if
new manufacturers were to attempt to enter the market with cheaper,
high-CO designs. See Section II for a discussion of air quality
concerns related to CO emissions. We request comment on the
appropriateness of setting a separate standard for marine auxiliary
engines and on the most appropriate level of such a standard.
At this time, we are planning to continue the current regulatory
approach for wintertime engines (e.g., engines used exclusively to
power equipment such as snowthrowers and ice augers). Under this
proposal, the HC+NOX exhaust emission standards would be
optional for wintertime engines. However, if a manufacturer chooses to
certify its wintertime engines to such standards, those engines would
be subject to all the requirements as if the optional standards were
mandatory. We are adding a definition of wintertime engines to clarify
which engines qualify for these special provisions. We are also
proposing to require that manufacturers identify these as wintertime
engines on the emission control information label to prevent someone
from inappropriately installing these engines (either new or used) in
equipment that would not qualify for the wintertime exemption.
All engines subject to standards must continue to control crankcase
emissions.
(2) Useful Life
The Phase 2 standards for Small SI engines included the concept
that manufacturers are responsible for meeting emission standards over
a useful life period. The useful life defines the design target for
ensuring the durability of emission controls under normal in-use
operation for properly maintained engines. Given the very wide range of
engine applications, from very low-cost consumer products to commercial
models designed for continuous operation, we determined that a single
useful life value for all products, which is typical for other engine
programs, was not appropriate for Small SI engines. We proposed at that
time to determine the useful life for an engine family based on
specific criteria, but commenters suggested that such a requirement was
overly rigid and unnecessary. The final rule instead specified three
alternative useful life values, giving manufacturers the responsibility
to select the useful life that was most appropriate for their engines
and the corresponding types of equipment. The preamble to the final
rule expressed a remaining concern that manufacturers might not select
the most appropriate useful life value, both for ensuring effective in-
use emission control and for maintaining the integrity of emission-
credit calculations. The preamble also stated our intent to
periodically review the manufacturers' decisions to determine whether
modifications to these rules are appropriate.
The regulations in Sec. 90.105 provide a benchmark for determining
the appropriate useful life value for an engine family. The regulations
direct manufacturers to select the useful life value that ``most
closely approximates the expected useful lives of the equipment into
which the engines are anticipated to be installed.'' To maintain a
measure of accountability, we included a requirement that manufacturers
document the basis for their selected useful life values. The suggested
data included, among other things: (1) Surveys of the life spans of the
equipment in which the subject engines are installed; (2) engineering
evaluations of field-aged engines to ascertain when engine performance
deteriorates to the point where utility and/or reliability is impacted
to a degree sufficient to necessitate overhaul or replacement; and (3)
failure reports from engine customers. These regulatory provisions
identify the median time to retirement for in-use equipment as the
marker for defining the useful life period. This allows manufacturers
to consider that equipment models may fail before the engine has
reached the point of failure and that engines may be installed in
different types of equipment with varying usage patterns. Engines used
in different types of equipment, or even engines used in the same
equipment models used by different operators, may experience widely
varying usage rates. The manufacturer is expected to make judgments
that take this variability into account when estimating the median life
of in-use engines and equipment.
Several manufacturers have made a good faith effort to select
appropriate useful life values for their engine families, either by
selecting only the highest value, or by selecting higher values for
families that appear more likely to be used in commercial applications.
At the same time, we have observed several instances in which engine
models are installed in commercial equipment and marketed as long-life
products but are certified to the minimum allowable useful life period.
As described in the Phase 2 final rule, we are considering
modifications to the regulations to address this recurring problem.
After assessing several ideas, we are proposing an approach that
preserves the fundamental elements of the current provisions related to
useful life but clarifies and enhances its implementation (see Sec.
1054.107). Manufacturers will continue to select the most appropriate
useful life from the same nominal values to best match the expected in-
use lifetime of the equipment into which the engines in the engine
family will be installed. Manufacturers must continue to document the
information supporting their selected useful life. We are considering
three approaches to address remaining concerns with the process of
selecting useful life values.
First, for manufacturers not selecting the highest available
nominal value for useful life, we would expect to routinely review the
information to confirm that it complies with the regulation. Where our
review indicates that the selected useful life may not be appropriate
for an engine family, we may request further justification. If we
determine from available information that a longer useful life is
appropriate, the manufacturer must either provide additional
justification or select a longer
[[Page 28143]]
useful life for that engine family. We would encourage manufacturers to
use the proposed provisions related to preliminary approval in Sec.
1054.210 if there is any uncertainty related to the useful life
selection. We would rather work to establish this together early in the
certification process rather than reviewing a completed application for
certification to evaluate whether the completed durability
demonstration is sufficient.
Second, we believe it is appropriate to modify the regulations to
allow nonhandheld engine manufacturers to select a useful life value
that is longer than the three specified nominal values. Manufacturers
may choose to do this for the marketing advantage of selling a long-
life product or they may want to generate emission credits that
correspond to an expected lifetime that is substantially longer than we
would otherwise allow. We are proposing to allow manufacturers to
select longer useful life values in 100-hour increments. Durability
testing for certification would need to correspond to the selected
useful life period. We have considered the possibility that a
manufacturer might overstate an engine family's useful life to generate
emission credits while knowing that engines may not operate that long.
We believe the inherent testing burden and compliance liability is
enough to avoid such a problem, but we are specifying maximum values
corresponding with the applicable useful life for comparable diesel
engines or Large SI engines. We are not proposing to allow for longer
useful life values for handheld engines.
We are also proposing to require that engines and equipment be
labeled to identify the applicable useful life period. The current
requirement allows manufacturers to identify the useful life with code
letters on the engine's emission control information label, with the
numerical value of the useful life spelled out in the owners manual. We
believe it is important for equipment manufacturers and consumers to be
able to find an unambiguous designation showing the manufacturer's
expectations about the useful life of the engine. There has also been
some interest in using descriptive terms to identify the useful life on
the label. We believe any terminology would communicate less
effectively than the numerical value of the useful life. However, we
request comment on allowing or requiring manufacturers to also include
descriptive terms. We believe it would be most appropriate to
characterize the three useful life values in increasing order as
Residential, Premium Residential (or General Purpose), and Commercial.
Any useful life values beyond the three nominal values would
appropriately be identified as Heavy Commercial. Handheld engine
manufacturers have suggested using the terms Light Use, Medium Use, and
Heavy Use to characterize the three useful life categories applicable
to handheld engines.
In all of our other engine programs, useful life is defined in
terms of years of use or extent of engine operation, whichever comes
first. Under the current regulations, manufacturers are responsible for
meeting emission standards for any in-use engine that is properly
maintained and used over the full useful life period. Since the useful
life is defined in operating hours without regard to calendar years,
some engines that accumulate operating hours very slowly could remain
within the useful life period for ten years or more. We request comment
regarding the appropriateness of revising the useful life to limit the
useful life period to five years or the specified number of operating
hours, whichever comes first. Adding a five-year limit on the useful
life would not change the certification process.
(3) Averaging, Banking, and Trading
EPA has included averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) programs in
almost all of its recent mobile source emissions control programs.
EPA's existing Phase 2 regulations for Small SI engines include an
exhaust ABT program (40 CFR 90.201 through 90.211). We propose to adopt
an ABT program for the Phase 3 HC+NOX exhaust emission
standards that is similar to the existing program (see part 1054,
subpart H in the proposed regulations). The proposed exhaust ABT
program is intended to enhance the ability of engine manufacturers to
meet the emission standards for the proposed model years. The proposed
exhaust ABT program is also structured to avoid delay of the transition
to the new exhaust emission controls. As described in Section VI, we
are proposing a separate evaporative ABT program for fuel tanks used in
Small SI equipment (and for fuel lines used in handheld equipment). We
are proposing that credits cannot be exchanged between the exhaust ABT
program and the evaporative ABT program.
The exhaust ABT program has three main components. Averaging means
the exchange of emission credits between engine families within a given
engine manufacturer's product line for a specific model year. Engine
manufacturers divide their product line into ``engine families'' that
are comprised of engines expected to have similar emission
characteristics throughout their useful life. Averaging allows a
manufacturer to certify one or more engine families at levels above the
applicable emission standard, but below a set upper limit. This level
then becomes the applicable standard for all of the engines in that
engine family, for purposes of certification, in-use testing, and the
like. However, the increased emissions must be offset by one or more
engine families within that manufacturer's product line that are
certified below the same emission standard, such that the average
standard from all the manufacturer's engine families, weighted by
engine power, regulatory useful life, and production volume, is at or
below the level of the emission standard. Banking means the retention
of emission credits by the engine manufacturer for use in future model
year averaging or trading. Trading means the exchange of emission
credits between engine manufacturers which can then be used for
averaging purposes, banked for future use, or traded to another engine
manufacturer.
Because we are not proposing any change in the general equation
under which emission credits are calculated, EPA is proposing to allow
manufacturers to use Phase 2 credits generated under the part 90 ABT
program for engines that are certified in the Phase 3 program under
part 1054, within the limits described below. As with the existing
exhaust ABT program for Phase 2 engines in part 90, we are proposing
that engines sold in California which are subject to the California ARB
standards would not be included in the proposed exhaust ABT program
because they are subject to California's requirements and not EPA's
requirements. Furthermore, even though we are not proposing new exhaust
emission standards for handheld engines, the handheld engine
regulations are migrating to part 1054. Therefore, handheld engines
will be included in the proposed ABT program under part 1054 with one
change in the overall program as described below.
Under an ABT program, averaging is allowed only between engine
families in the same averaging set, as defined in the regulations. For
the exhaust ABT program, we are proposing to separate handheld engines
and nonhandheld engines into two distinct averaging sets starting with
the 2011 model year. Under the proposed program, credits may generally
be used interchangeably between Class I and Class II engine families,
with a limited restriction on Phase 3 credits during model years 2011
[[Page 28144]]
and 2012 as noted below. Likewise, credits will be able to be used
interchangeably between all three handheld engine classes (Classes III,
IV, and V). Because the Phase 2 exhaust ABT program allowed exchange
across all engine classes (i.e., allowing exchanges between handheld
engines and nonhandheld engines), manufacturers using credits beginning
with the 2011 model year would need to show that the credits were
generated within the allowed category of engines. For many companies,
especially those in the handheld market, this will potentially be
straightforward since they are primarily in the handheld market. For
companies that have a commingled pool of emission credits generated by
both handheld engines and nonhandheld engines, this will take some more
careful accounting. Because manufacturers are aware of this already at
the time of this proposal, keeping records to distinguish handheld
credits and nonhandheld credits will be relatively straightforward for
2006 and later model years.
We are proposing two exceptions to the provision restricting credit
exchanges between handheld engines and nonhandheld engines. Currently,
some companies that are primarily nonhandheld engine manufacturers also
sell a relatively limited number of handheld engines. Under the Phase 2
program, these engine manufacturers can use credits from nonhandheld
engines to offset the higher emissions of their handheld engines.
Because we are not proposing new exhaust requirements for handheld
engines, we are proposing to address this existing practice by
specifying that an engine manufacturer may use emission credits from
their nonhandheld engines for their handheld engines under the
following conditions. A manufacturer may use credits from their
nonhandheld engines for their handheld engines but only where the
handheld engine family is certified in 2008 and later model years
without any design changes from the 2007 model year and the FEL of the
handheld engine family does not increase above the level that applied
in the 2007 model year unless such an increase is based on emission
data from production engines. We believe this allows for engine
manufacturers to continue producing these handheld engines for use in
existing handheld models of low-volume equipment applications while
preventing new high-emitting handheld engine families from entering the
market through the use of nonhandheld engine credits. As discussed
below, we are proposing to prohibit the use of Phase 2 nonhandheld
engine credits after 2013 to demonstrate compliance with the Phase 3
nonhandheld engine standards. For this reason, we request comment on
whether we should allow only Phase 3 nonhandheld engine credits to be
used under this handheld engine credit provision after 2013 as well.
A second exception to the provision restricting credit exchanges
between handheld engines and nonhandheld engines arises because of our
proposed handling of engines below 80cc. Under the proposed Phase 3
program, all engines below 80cc are considered handheld engines for the
purposes of the emission standards. However, a few of these engines are
used in nonhandheld applications. Therefore, EPA will allow a
manufacturer to generate nonhandheld ABT credits from engines below
80cc for those engines a manufacturer has determined are used in
nonhandheld applications. (The credits would be generated against the
applicable handheld engine standard.) These nonhandheld credits could
be used within the Class I and Class II engine classes to demonstrate
compliance with the Phase 3 exhaust standards (subject to applicable
restrictions). The credits generated by engines below 80cc used in
handheld applications could only be used for other handheld engines.
Under an ABT program, a manufacturer establishes a ``family
emission limit'' (FEL) for each participating engine family. This FEL
may be above or below the standard. The FEL becomes the enforceable
emissions limit for all the engines in that family for purposes of
compliance testing. FELs that are established above the standard may
not exceed an upper limit specified in the ABT regulations. For
nonhandheld engines we are proposing FEL caps to prevent the sale of
very high-emitting engines. Under the proposed FEL cap, manufacturers
would need to establish FELs at or below the levels of the Phase 2
HC+NOX emission standards of 16.1 g/kW-hr for Class I
engines and 12.1 g/kW-hr for Class II engines. (The Phase 3 FEL cap for
Class I engines with a displacement between 80 cc and 100 cc would be
40.0 g/kW-hr since these engines would have been Class I-B engines
under the Phase 2 regulations and subject to this higher level.) For
handheld engines, where we are not proposing new exhaust emission
standards, we are maintaining the FEL caps as currently specified in
the part 90 ABT regulations.
For nonhandheld engines we are proposing two special provisions
related to the transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3 standards. First, we
are proposing incentives for manufacturers to produce and sell engines
certified at or below the Phase 3 standards before the standards are
scheduled to be implemented. Second, we are proposing provisions to
allow the use of Phase 2 credits for a limited period of time under
specific conditions. The following discussions describes each of these
provisions in more detail for Class I engines and Class II engines
separately.
For Class I, engine manufacturers could generate early Phase 3
credits by producing engines with an FEL at or below 10.0 g/kW-hr prior
to 2012. These early Phase 3 credits would be calculated and
categorized into two distinct types of credits, Transitional Phase 3
credits and Enduring Phase 3 credits. For engines certified with an FEL
at or below 10.0 g/kW-hr, the manufacturer would earn Transitional
Phase 3 credits. The Transitional Phase 3 credits would be calculated
based on the difference between 10.0 g/kW-hr and 15.0 g/kW-hr. (The
15.0 g/kW-hr level is the production-weighted average of Class I FEL
values under the Phase 2 program.) Manufacturers could use the
Transitional Phase 3 credits from Class I engines in 2012 through 2014
model years. For engines certified with an FEL below 10.0 g/kW-hr,
manufacturers would earn Enduring Phase 3 credits in addition to the
Transitional Phase 3 credits described above. The Enduring Phase 3
credits would be calculated based on the difference between the FEL for
the engine family and 10.0 g/kW-hr (i.e., the applicable Phase 3
standard). The Enduring Phase 3 credits could be used once the Phase 3
standards are implemented without the model year restriction noted
above for Transitional Phase 3 credits.
For Class I, engine manufacturers may use Phase 2 credits generated
by nonhandheld engines for the first two years of the Phase 3 standards
(i.e., model years 2012 and 2013) under certain conditions. The
manufacturer must first use all of its available Phase 3 credits to
demonstrate compliance with the Phase 3 standards. This would include
all early Phase 3 credits (Transitional and Enduring) as well as all
other Phase 3 credits, subject to the cross-class credit restriction
noted below which applies prior to model year 2013. If these Phase 3
credits are sufficient to demonstrate compliance, the manufacturer may
not use Phase 2 credits. If these Phase 3 credits are insufficient to
demonstrate compliance, the manufacturer could use Phase 2 credits to a
limited degree (under the conditions described below) to cover the
[[Page 28145]]
remaining amount of credits needed to demonstrate compliance.
The maximum number of Phase 2 HC+NOX exhaust emission
credits a manufacturer could use for their Class I engines would be
calculated based on the characteristics of Class I engines produced
during the 2007, 2008, and 2009 model years. For each of those years,
the manufacturer would calculate a Phase 2 credit allowance using the
ABT credit equation and inserting 1.6 g/kW-hr for the ``Standard--FEL''
term, and basing the rest of the values on the total production of
Class I engines, the production-weighted power for all Class I engines,
and production-weighted useful life value for all Class I engines
produced in each of those years. Manufacturers would not include their
wintertime engines in the calculations unless the engines are certified
to meet the otherwise applicable HC+NOX emission standard.
The maximum number of Phase 2 HC+NOX exhaust emission
credits a manufacturer could use for their Class I engines (calculated
in kilograms) would be the average of the three values calculated for
model years 2007, 2008, and 2009. The calculation described above
allows a manufacturer to use Phase 2 credits to cover a cumulative
shortfall over the first two years for their Class I engines of 1.6 g/
kW-hr above the Phase 3 standard.
The Phase 2 credit allowance for Class I engines could be used all
in 2012, all in 2013, or partially in either or both model year's ABT
compliance calculations. Because ABT compliance calculations must be
done annually, the manufacturer will know its 2013 remaining allowance
based on its 2012 calculation. For example, if a manufacturer uses all
of its Phase 2 credit allowance in 2012, it will have no use of Phase 2
credits for 2013. Conversely, if a manufacturer doesn't use any Phase 2
credits in 2012, it will have all of its Phase 2 credit allowance
available for use in 2013. And of course, if a manufacturer uses less
than its calculated total credits based on the 1.6 g/kW-hr limit in
2012, the remainder would be available for use in 2013. This provision
allows for some use of Phase 2 emission credits to address the
possibility of unanticipated challenges in reaching the Phase 3
emission levels in some cases or selling Phase 3 compliant engines
early nationwide, without creating a situation that would allow
manufacturers to substantially delay the introduction of Phase 3
emission controls.
For Class II, engine manufacturers could generate early Phase 3
credits by producing engines with an FEL at or below 8.0 g/kW-hr prior
to 2011. These early Phase 3 credits would be calculated and
categorized as Transitional Phase 3 credits and Enduring Phase 3
credits. For engines certified with an FEL at or below 8.0 g/kW-hr, the
manufacturer would earn Transitional Phase 3 credits. The Transitional
Phase 3 credits would be calculated based on the difference between 8.0
g/kW-hr and 11.0 g/kW-hr. (The 11.0 g/kW-hr level is the production-
weighted average of Class II FEL values under the Phase 2 program.)
Manufacturers could use the Transitional Phase 3 credits from Class II
engines in 2011 through 2013 model years. For engines certified with an
FEL below 8.0 g/kW-hr, manufacturers would earn Enduring Phase 3
credits in addition to the Transitional Phase 3 credits described
above. The Enduring Phase 3 credits would be calculated based on the
difference between the FEL for the engine family and 8.0 g/kW-hr (i.e.,
the applicable Phase 3 standard). The Enduring Phase 3 credits could be
used once the Phase 3 standards are implemented without the model year
restriction noted above for Transitional Phase 3 credits.
For Class II, engine manufacturers may use Phase 2 credits
generated by nonhandheld engines for the first three years of the Phase
3 standards (i.e., model years 2011, 2012 and 2013) under certain
conditions. The manufacturer must first use all of its available Phase
3 credits to demonstrate compliance with the Phase 3 standards. This
would include all early Phase 3 credits (Transitional and Enduring) as
well as all other Phase 3 credits, subject to the cross-class credit
restriction noted below which applies prior to model year 2013. If
these credits are sufficient to demonstrate compliance, the
manufacturer may not use Phase 2 credits. If these Phase 3 credits are
insufficient to demonstrate compliance, the manufacturer could use
Phase 2 credits to a limited degree (under the conditions described
below) to cover the remaining amount of credits needed to demonstrate
compliance.
The maximum number of Phase 2 HC+NOX exhaust emission
credits a manufacturer could use for their Class II engines would be
calculated based on the characteristics of Class II engines produced
during the 2007, 2008, and 2009 model years. For each of those years,
the manufacturer would calculate a Phase 2 credit allowance using the
ABT credit equation and inserting 2.1 g/kW-hr for the ``Standard--FEL''
term, and basing the rest of the values on the total production of
Class II engines, the production-weighted power for all Class II
engines, and production-weighted useful life value for all Class II
engines produced in each of those years. Manufacturers would not
include their wintertime engines in the calculations unless the engines
are certified to meet the otherwise applicable HC+NOX
emission standard. The maximum number of Phase 2 HC+NOX
exhaust emission credits a manufacturer could use for their Class II
engines (calculated in kilograms) would be the average of the three
values calculated for model years 2007, 2008, and 2009. The calculation
described above allows a manufacturer to use Phase 2 credits to cover a
cumulative shortfall over the first three years for their Class II
engines of 2.1 g/kW-hr above the Phase 3 standard.
The Phase 2 credit allowance for Class II engines could be used all
in 2011, all in 2012, all in 2013, or partially in any or all three
model year's ABT compliance calculations. Because ABT compliance
calculations must be done annually, the manufacturer will know its
remaining allowance based on its previous calculations. For example, if
a manufacturer uses all of its Phase 2 credit allowance in 2011, it
will have no Phase 2 credits for 2012 or 2013. However, if a
manufacturer uses less than its calculated total credits based on the
2.1 g/kW-hr limit in 2011, it will have the remainder of its allowance
available for use in 2012 and 2013. This provision allows for some use
of Phase 2 emission credits to address the possibility of unanticipated
challenges in reaching the Phase 3 emission levels in some cases or
selling Phase 3 engines nationwide, without creating a situation that
would allow manufacturers to substantially delay the introduction of
Phase 3 emission controls.
Engine manufacturers have raised concerns that despite all of their
planning, they may not be able to accurately predict their use of
credits at the beginning of the year. They are concerned that they may
end up in a credit deficit situation if sales do not materialize as
projected, potentially needing to use more Phase 2 credits than they
have available to them. In order to prevent such a non-compliance
situation from occurring, manufacturers have suggested that we allow
manufacturers to carry a limited credit deficit during the initial
years of the Phase 3 program. EPA has allowed such provisions in other
rules, including deficit provisions for handheld engines in the Phase 2
regulations in which the manufacturer was required to cover the deficit
in the next four model years with a penalty applied that increased over
time depending how soon the deficit
[[Page 28146]]
was repaid. EPA requests comment on providing some type of credit
deficit provisions for the Phase 3 exhaust standards for nonhandheld
engines including what limits and penalties would be appropriate if
such provisions were adopted.
To avoid the use of credits to delay the introduction of Phase 3
technologies, we are also proposing that manufacturers may not use
Phase 3 credits from Class I engines to demonstrate compliance with
Class II engines in the 2011 and 2012 model years. Similarly, we are
proposing that manufacturers may not use Phase 3 credits from Class II
engines to demonstrate compliance with Class I engines in the 2012
model year. The 1.6 kW-hr and 2.1 g/kW-hr allowances discussed above
may not be traded across engine classes or among manufacturers.
We are proposing to make two additional adjustments related to the
exhaust ABT program for engines subject to the new emission standards.
As with all our other emission control programs, we are proposing that
engine manufacturers identify an engine's FEL on the emission control
information label (see Sec. 1054.135). This is important for readily
establishing the enforceable level of emission control that applies for
each engine. Recent experience has shown that this is also necessary in
cases where the engine's build date is difficult to determine. We are
proposing to require that lowering an FEL after the start of production
may occur only if the manufacturer has emission data from production
engines justifying the lower FEL (see Sec. 1054.225). This prevents
manufacturers from making FEL changes late in the model year to
generate more emission credits (or use fewer emission credits) when
there is little or no opportunity to verify whether the revised FEL is
appropriate for the engine family. This provision is common in EPA's
emission control programs for other engine categories. We are also
proposing that the any revised FEL can apply only for engines produced
after the FEL change. This is necessary to prevent manufacturers from
recalculating emission credits in a way that leaves no way of verifying
that the engines produced prior to the FEL change met the applicable
requirements. It is also consistent with the proposal to require
identification of the FEL on the emission control information label.
Manufacturers have raised concerns that this approach sets up an
inappropriate incentive to set FELs with the smallest possible
compliance margin to avoid foregone emission credits in case
production-line testing shows that actual emission levels were below
that represented by the emission-data engine for certification.
However, it is not clear why manufacturers should not perform
sufficient testing early in the model year to be confident that the FEL
is properly matched to the emission levels from production engines.
Nevertheless, we request comment on any appropriate methods to use the
results of production-line testing to revise FELs retroactively such
that the past production is clearly compliant with respect to the
modified FEL. An important element of our compliance program involves
the responsibility to meet standards with production-line testing, not
just with a backward-looking calculation, but with a real-time
evaluation at the point of testing. We would therefore not consider
allowing revised FELs to apply for more than the first half of the
production for a given model year.
As described below in Section V.E.3., we are proposing that a
limited number of Class II engines certified by engine manufacturers
with a catalyst as Phase 3 engines, may be installed by equipment
manufacturers in equipment without the catalyst. (This would only be
allowed when the engine is shipped separately from the exhaust system
under the provisions described in Section V.E.2.) Because engine
manufacturers may be generating emission credits from these catalyst-
equipped engines, EPA is concerned that engine manufacturers could be
earning exhaust ABT credits for engines that are sold but never have
the catalyst installed. In discussions with EPA, engine manufacturers
expressed concern about the difficulty of tracking the eventual use of
these engines by equipment manufacturers (i.e., whether the catalyst-
equipped exhaust system was installed or not). Therefore, instead of
requiring engine manufacturers to track whether equipment manufacturers
install the catalyst-equipped exhaust system into the equipment, EPA is
proposing for model years 2011 through 2014 that all Class II engine
families which are offered for sale under the separate shipment
provisions must decrease the number of ABT credits generated by the
engine family by 10 percent. This adjustment would only apply to
engines generating credits because those are the engines most likely to
be equipped with catalysts. We believe the 10 percent decrease from
credit generating engines should provide an emission adjustment
commensurate with the potential use of the equipment manufacturer
flexibility provisions described in Section V.E.3. We request comment
on this approach to addressing the concern related to engines involving
delegated-assembly provisions. In particular, we request comment
regarding the amount of the credit adjustment, and whether there might
be alternative approaches that would address this concern.
For all emission credits generated by engines under the Phase 3
exhaust ABT program, we are proposing an unlimited credit life. We
consider these emission credits to be part of the overall program for
complying with Phase 3 standards. Given that we may consider further
reductions beyond the Phase 3 standards in the future, we believe it
will be important to assess the ABT credit situation that exists at the
time any post-Phase 3 standards are considered. We will need to set
such future emission standards based on the statutory direction that
emission standards must represent the greatest degree of emission
control achievable, considering cost, safety, lead time, and other
factors. Emission credit balances will be part of the analysis for
determining the appropriate level and timing of new standards. If we
were to allow the use of Phase 3 credits for meeting post-Phase 3
standards, we may, depending on the level of Phase 3 credit banks, need
to adopt emission standards at more stringent levels or with an earlier
start date than we would absent the continued or limited use of Phase 3
credits. Alternatively, we could adopt future standards without
allowing the use of Phase 3 credits. The proposal described in this
notice describes a middle path in which we allow the use of Phase 2
credits to meet the Phase 3 standards, with provisions that limit the
extent and timing of using these credits.
We are requesting comment on one particular issue regarding credit
life. As proposed, credits earned under the Phase 3 exhaust ABT program
would have an unlimited lifetime. This could result in a situation
where credits generated by an engine sold in a model year are not used
until many years later when the engines generating the credits have
been scrapped and are no longer part of the fleet. EPA believes there
may be value to limiting the use of credits to the period that the
credit-generating engines exist in the fleet. For this reason, EPA
requests comment on limiting the lifetime of the credits generated
under the Phase 3 exhaust ABT program to five years. The five-year
period is intended to be similar to the typical median life of Small SI
equipment and is consistent with the contemplated specification for
defining the useful life in years in addition to
[[Page 28147]]
operating hours (see Section V.C.2 for more information).
D. Testing Provisions
The test procedures provide an objective measurement for
establishing whether engines comply with emission standards. The
following sections describe a variety of proposed changes to the
current test procedures. Except as identified in the following
sections, we are proposing to preserve the testing-related regulatory
provisions that currently apply under 40 CFR part 90. Note that we will
approve any appropriate alternatives, deviations, or interpretations of
the new testing requirements on a case-by-case basis rather than
operating under any presumption that any such judgments made under the
Phase 1 or Phase 2 programs will continue to apply.
(1) Migrating Procedures to 40 CFR Part 1065
Manufacturers have been using the procedures in 40 CFR part 90 to
test their engines for certification of Phase 1 and Phase 2 engines. As
part of a much broader effort, we have adopted comprehensive testing
specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 that are intended to serve as the
basis for testing all types of engines. The procedures in part 1065
include updated information reflecting the current state of available
technology. We are proposing to apply the procedures in part 1065 to
nonhandheld engines starting with the applicability of the Phase 3
standards as specified in 40 CFR part 1054, subpart F. As described in
Section IX, the procedures in part 1065 identifies new types of
analyzers and updates a wide range of testing specifications, but
leaves intact the fundamental approach for measuring exhaust emissions.
There is no need to shift to the part 1065 procedures for nonhandheld
engines before the proposed Phase 3 standards apply. See Section IX for
additional information.
We are not proposing new exhaust emission standards for handheld
engines so there is no natural point in time for shifting to the part
1065 procedures. For the reasons described above and in Section IX, we
nevertheless believe handheld engines should also use the part 1065
procedures for measuring exhaust emissions. We propose to require
manufacturers to start using the part 1065 procedures in the 2012 model
year. Manufacturers would be allowed to continue certifying engines
using carryover data generated under the part 90 procedures, but any
new certification testing would be subject to the part 1065 procedures.
Engine manufacturers have raised one issue related to the specified
test procedures in part 1065. The calculations for determining mass
emissions depend on a simplifying assumption that combustion is at
stoichiometry or is in fuel-lean environment. This is not the case for
many Small SI engines. The equation with the simplifying assumption
does not take into account the equilibrium reaction between hydrogen
and water. As a result, engines with fuel-rich operation would have
detectable hydrogen concentrations in the exhaust, which would cause
the analyzers to have a reading for hydrocarbon emissions that is
somewhat higher than the actual value. To the extent there is a
concern, we believe it would always be appropriate to rely on the
reference equations without the simplifying assumptions made for the
equations published in part 1065. We request comment on this approach
to measurements from Small SI engines.
(2) Duty Cycle
The regulations under part 90 currently specify duty cycles for
testing engines for exhaust emissions. The current requirements specify
how to control speeds and loads and describe the situations in which
the installed engine governor controls engine speed. We are proposing
to extend these provisions to testing under the new standards with a
few adjustments described below. For engines equipped with an engine
speed governor, the current regulations at 40 CFR 90.409(a)(3) state:
For Phase 2 Class I, Phase 2 Class I-B, and Phase 2 Class II
engines equipped with an engine speed governor, the governor must be
used to control engine speed during all test cycle modes except for
Mode 1 or Mode 6, and no external throttle control may be used that
interferes with the function of the engine's governor; a controller
may be used to adjust the governor setting for the desired engine
speed in Modes 2-5 or Modes 7-10; and during Mode 1 or Mode 6 fixed
throttle operation may be used to determine the 100 percent torque
value.
In addition the current regulations at 40 CFR 90.410(b) state:
For Phase 2 Class I, I-B, and II engines equipped with an engine
speed governor, during Mode 1 or Mode 6 hold both the specified
speed and load within five percent of point, during
Modes 2-3, or Modes 7-8 hold the specified load with
five percent of point, during Modes 4-5 or Modes 9-10, hold the
specified load within the larger range provided by 0.27
Nm ( 0.2 lb-ft), or ten (10) percent of
point, and during the idle mode hold the specified speed within
ten percent of the manufacturer's specified idle engine
speed (see Table 1 in Appendix A of this subpart for a description
of test Modes).
Manufacturers have raised some questions about the interpretation
of these provisions. Our intent is that the current requirements
specify that testing be conducted as follows:
Full-load testing (Mode 1) occurs at wide-open throttle to
maintain engines at rated speed, which is defined as the speed at which
the engine's maximum power occurs (as declared by the manufacturer).
Idle testing (Mode 6) occurs at the manufacturer's
specified idle speed with a maximum load of five percent of maximum
torque. The regulation allows adjustment to control speeds that are
different than would be maintained by the installed governor.
The installed governor must be used to control engine
speed for testing at all modes with torque values between idle and
full-load modes. The regulation allows adjustments for nominal speed
settings that are different than would be maintained by the installed
governor without modification.
We are proposing adjustments to the current regulatory requirements
in 40 CFR part 90 (see Sec. 1054.505). Since each of these proposed
adjustments may have some effect on measured emission levels, we
believe it is appropriate to implement these changes concurrent with
the Phase 3 standards. To the extent the proposed adjustments apply to
handheld engines, we believe it is appropriate to apply the changes for
new testing with 2012 and later model year engines for the reasons
described above for adopting the test procedures in part 1065.
First, we are proposing to require engine speed during the idle
mode to be controlled by the engine's installed speed governor. We
believe there is no testing limitation that would call for engine
operation at idle to depart from the engine's governed speed. Allowing
manufacturers to arbitrarily declare an idle speed only allows
manufacturers to select an idle speed that gives them an advantage in
achieving lower measured emission results, but not in a way that
corresponds to in-use emission control. We are also aware that some
production engines have a user-selectable control for selecting high-
speed or low-speed idle (commonly identified as ``rabbit/turtle''
settings). We believe this parameter adjustment may have a significant
effect on emissions that should be captured in the certification test
procedure. As a result, we are proposing a requirement that
manufacturers conduct testing with user-selectable controls set to keep
the
[[Page 28148]]
engine operating at low-speed idle if any production engines in the
engine family have such an option.
Second, we are proposing an option in which manufacturers would
test their nonhandheld engines using a ramped-modal version of the
specified duty cycle, as described in Section IX. We expect this
testing to be equivalent to the modal testing described above but would
have advantages for streamlining test efforts by allowing for a single
result for the full cycle instead of relying on a calculation from
separate modal results. Under the proposal we would allow manufacturers
the option to select this type of testing. EPA's testing would
generally involve ramped-modal testing only if the engine manufacturer
selected this option for certification.
Third, the part 90 regulations currently specify two duty cycles
for nonhandheld engines: (1) Testing at rated speed; and (2) testing at
85 percent of rated speed. The regulations direct manufacturers simply
to select the most appropriate cycle and declare the rated speed for
their engines. We believe it is appropriate to make this more objective
by stating that rated speed is 3600 rpm and intermediate speed is 3060
rpm, unless the manufacturer demonstrates that a different speed better
represents the in-use operation for their engines. This is consistent
with the most common in-use settings and most manufacturers' current
practice.
In addition, we are proposing regulatory provisions to clarify how
nonhandheld engines are operated to follow the prescribed duty cycle.
As described in part 90, we are proposing to require that the engines
operate ungoverned at wide-open throttle for the full-power mode. This
test mode is used to denormalize the rest of the duty cycle. Testing at
other modes occurs with the governor controlling engine speed. Before
each test mode, manufacturers may adjust the governor to target the
same nominal speed used for the full-power mode, with a tolerance
limiting the variation in engine speed at each mode. Alternatively,
testing may be done by letting the installed governor control engine
speed, in which case only the torque value would need to be controlled
within an established range.
A different duty cycle applies to handheld engines, which are
generally not equipped with governors to control engine speed. The
current regulations allow manufacturers to name their operating speed
for testing at each of the test modes. We are proposing to continue the
allowance for manufacturers to select an appropriate engine speed for
idle operation. However, we are concerned that this approach allows
manufacturers too much discretion for selecting a rated speed for high-
load testing. Manufacturers are encouraged to select a speed that best
represents in-use operation for the engine family, but there is no
requirement to prevent a manufacturer from selecting a rated speed that
results in lower emissions, independent of the speeds at which in-use
engines operate. We are proposing to specify that manufacturers select
a value for rated speed that matches the most common speed for full-
load operation within the engine family. Engine manufacturers generally
also make their own equipment, so this information should be readily
available. We would expect manufacturers to identify the range of
equipment models covered by a given engine family, identify the in-use
operating speeds for those models, and select the full-load speed
applicable for the greatest number of projected unit sales. We further
propose to require manufacturers to describe in their application for
certification how they selected the value for rated speed.
(3) Test Fuel
We are proposing to require Phase 3 testing with a standard test
fuel consistent with the requirements under 40 CFR part 90 (see 40 CFR
part 1065, subpart H). In particular, we do not believe it is
appropriate to create a flexibility to allow for testing using
oxygenated fuel since this could affect an engine's air-fuel ratio,
which in turn could affect the engine's combustion and emission
characteristics. However, we understand that engine manufacturers may
have emission data from some model years before the Phase 3 standards
take effect. We would allow for continued use of this pre-existing data
as long as it is appropriate to use carryover data for demonstrating
compliance with current standards.
Ethanol is commonly blended into in-use gasoline and is anticipated
to be more widely used in the future. However, we are not proposing a
test fuel containing ethanol for two reasons. First, the technical
feasibility of this rule is based on certification gasoline. If an
ethanol fuel blend were used as the certification fuel, the standards
would need to be adjusted to account for the effects of this fuel on
emissions. Second, manufacturers may not use ethanol blends to certify
Small SI engines in California. The use of an ethanol blend would
require manufacturers to test their engines separately for the
California and Federal testing.
The test fuel specifications apply to all testing. However, we may
be able to allow for testing with oxygenated fuel for production-line
testing if manufacturers first establish the appropriate correction to
account for the fuel's effect on emissions. We request comment on an
appropriate approach that would allow for production-line testing with
oxygenated fuel.
We are similarly proposing test fuel specifications for liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas. Since natural gas has a very high
methane content and methane is generally nonreactive in the atmosphere,
we are proposing to apply the same emission standards for natural gas
engines but not count methane emissions toward the total hydrocarbon
measurement.
E. Certification and Compliance Provisions for Small SI Engines and
Equipment
(1) Deterioration Factors
As part of the certification process, manufacturers generate
deterioration factors to demonstrate that their engines meet emission
standards over the full useful life. We are proposing some changes from
the procedures currently included in part 90 (see Sec. 1054.240 and
Sec. 1054.245). Much of the basis for these changes comes from the
experience gained in testing many different engines in preparation for
this proposal. First, we are proposing to discontinue bench aging of
emission components. Testing has shown that operating and testing the
complete engine is necessary to get accurate deterioration factors.
Second, we are proposing to allow for assigned deterioration factors
for a limited number of small-volume nonhandheld engine families.
Manufacturers could use assigned deterioration factors for multiple
small-volume nonhandheld engine families as long as the total
production for all of the nonhandheld engine families for which the
manufacturer is using assigned deterioration factors is estimated at
the time of certification to be no more than 10,000 units per year.
Third, we are proposing to allow for assigned deterioration factors for
all engines produced by small-volume nonhandheld engine manufacturers.
For the HC+NOX standard, we propose to specify that
manufacturers use a single deterioration factor for the sum of HC and
NOX emissions. However, if manufacturers get approval to
establish a deterioration factor on an engine that is tested with
service accumulation representing less than the full useful life for
any reason, we would require separate deterioration factors for
[[Page 28149]]
HC and NOX emissions. The advantage of a combined
deterioration factor is that it can account for an improvement in
emission levels with aging. However, for engines that have service
accumulation representing less than the full useful life, we believe it
is not appropriate to extrapolate measured values indicating that
emission levels for a particular pollutant will decrease. This is the
same approach we adopted for recreational vehicles.
EPA is not proposing the values for the assigned deterioration
factors for small-volume nonhandheld engine manufacturers in this
proposal. In an effort to develop deterioration factors that are
appropriate for Small SI engines, we plan to evaluate certification
data from Phase 3 engines certified early with EPA and from engines
certified under California ARB's Tier 3 standards (which begin in 2007
and 2008). Because we are not proposing new exhaust standards for
handheld engines, the assigned deterioration factor provisions adopted
for Phase 2 handheld engines are being retained.
Although we are not proposing new exhaust standards for handheld
engines, handheld engine manufacturers noted that California ARB has
approved certain durability cycles for accumulating hours on engines
for the purpose of demonstrating emissions durability. The durability
cycles approved by California ARB vary from a 30-second cycle for
chainsaws to a 20-minute cycle for blowers, with 85 percent of the time
operated at wide open throttle and 15 percent of the time operated at
idle. Engine manufacturers can run the durability cycles over and over
until they accumulate the hours of operation equivalent to the useful
life of the engine family. Our current regulations state that ``service
accumulation is to be performed in a manner using good judgment to
ensure that emissions are representative of production engines.'' While
we are not proposing to change the regulatory language regarding
service accumulation, we believe the California ARB-approved durability
cycles are appropriate and acceptable to EPA for accumulating hours on
handheld engines for demonstrating emissions durability.
Manufacturers have pointed out that they are developing a testing
protocol that would allow manufacturers to develop deterioration
factors for catalysts through a bench-aging procedure. A fundamental
factor in evaluating the appropriateness of any bench-aging procedure
is the extent to which it simulates representative exhaust gas
composition and other in-use operating parameters. We request comment
on any appropriate procedures, or limitations on the use of such
procedures, for certifying Small SI engines.
(2) Delegated Final Assembly
The current practice of attaching exhaust systems to engines
varies. Class I engines are typically designed and produced by the
engine manufacturer with complete emission control systems. Equipment
manufacturers generally buy these engines and install them in their
equipment, adjusting equipment designs if necessary to accommodate the
mufflers and the rest of the exhaust system from the engine
manufacturer.
Engine manufacturers generally produce Class II engines without
exhaust systems, relying instead on installation instructions to ensure
that equipment manufacturers get mufflers that fall within a specified
range of backpressures that is appropriate for a given engine model.
Equipment manufacturers are free to work with muffler manufacturers to
design mufflers that fit into the space available for a given equipment
model, paying attention to the need to stay within the design
specifications from the engine manufacturers. A similar situation
applies for air filters, where equipment manufacturers in some cases
work with component manufacturers to use air filters that are tailored
to the individual equipment model while staying within the design
specifications defined by the engine manufacturer.
The existing regulations require that certified engines be in their
certified configuration when they are introduced into commerce. We
therefore need special provisions to address the possibility that
engines will need to be produced and shipped without exhaust systems or
air intake systems that are part of the certified configuration. We
have adopted such provisions for heavy-duty highway engines and for
other nonroad engines in 40 CFR 85.1713 and 40 CFR 1068.260,
respectively. These provisions generally require that engine
manufacturers establish a contractual arrangement with equipment
manufacturers and take additional steps to ensure that engines are in
their certified configuration before reaching the ultimate purchaser.
We are proposing to apply delegated-assembly provisions for
nonhandheld engines that are similar to those adopted for heavy-duty
highway engines, with a variety of adjustments to address the unique
situation for Small SI engines (see Sec. 1054.610). This would require
that engine manufacturers apply for certification in the normal way,
identifying all the engine parts that make up the engine configurations
covered by the certification. Equipment manufacturers would be able to
work with muffler manufacturers to get mufflers with installed
catalysts as specified in the engine manufacturer's application for
certification. If equipment manufacturers would need a muffler or
catalyst that is not covered by the engine manufacturer's
certification, the engine manufacturer would need to amend the
application for certification. This may require new testing if the data
from the original emission-data engine are not appropriate for showing
that the new configuration will meet emission standards, as described
in Sec. 1054.225. (Alternatively, the equipment manufacturer may take
on the responsibility for certifying the new configuration, as
described in Sec. 1054.612.) Engine manufacturers would also identify
in the application for certification their plans to sell engines
without emission-related components. We are proposing several
provisions to ensure that engines will eventually be in their certified
configuration. For example, engine manufacturers would establish
contracts with affected equipment manufacturers, include installation
instructions to make clear how engine assembly should be completed,
keep records of the number of engines produced under these provisions,
and obtain annual affidavits from affected equipment manufacturers to
confirm that they are installing the proper emission-related components
on the engines and that they have ordered a number of components that
corresponds to the number of engines involved.
While the delegated-assembly provisions are designed for direct
shipment of engines from engine manufacturers to equipment
manufacturers, we are aware that distributors play an important role in
providing engines to large numbers of equipment manufacturers. We are
proposing that these provisions apply to distributors in one of two
ways. First, engine manufacturers may have an especially close working
relationship with primary distributors. In such a case, the engine
manufacturer would be able to establish a contractual arrangement
allowing the distributor to act as the engine manufacturer's agent for
all matters related to compliance with the delegated-assembly
provisions. This would allow the distributor to make arrangements with
equipment manufacturers to address design needs
[[Page 28150]]
and perform oversight functions. We would hold the engine manufacturer
directly responsible if the distributor failed to meet the regulatory
obligations that would otherwise apply to the engine manufacturer.
Second, other distributors may receive shipment of engines without
exhaust systems, but they would need to add any aftertreatment
components before sending the engines on to equipment manufacturers.
Engine manufacturers would treat these distributors as equipment
manufacturers for the purposes of delegated assembly. Equipment
manufacturers buying engines from such a distributor would not have the
option of separately obtaining mufflers from muffler manufacturers. In
both of these scenarios, the engine manufacturer continues to be
responsible for the in-use compliance of all their engines.
Engine manufacturers would need to affix a label to the engine to
clarify that it needs certain emission-related components before it is
in its certified configuration. This labeling information is important
for alerting assembly personnel to select mufflers with installed
catalysts; the label would also give in-house inspectors or others with
responsibility for quality control a tool for confirming that all
engines have been properly assembled and installed. Given the large
numbers of engine and equipment models and the interchangeability of
mufflers with and without catalysts, we believe proper labeling will
reduce the possibility that engines will be misbuilt.
This labeling may be done with any of three approaches. First, a
temporary label may be applied such that it would not be removed
without a deliberate action on the part of the equipment manufacturer.
We believe it is not difficult to create a label that will stay on the
engine until it is deliberately removed. Second, manufacturers may add
the words ``delegated assembly'' to the engine's permanent emission
control information label. Third, manufacturers may create a unique
alphanumeric code to apply to the engine's permanent emission control
information label. This code would be identified in the application for
certification. Creating a unique code would not provide a clear enough
communication to equipment manufacturers that they are responsible for
bringing the engine into its certified configuration. Engine
manufacturers taking this approach would therefore need to add features
to the label to make this clear. For example, creating labels with a
different color or shading would make it easy to identify that an
engine needs to be properly assembled before it is in its certified
configuration.
Any of these labeling approaches would properly identify the
engines as needing emission-related components from the equipment
manufacturer. We have a remaining concern that the approaches involving
permanent labels do not identify that an engine is not yet in its
certified configuration. Since there is no change in the label to show
the engine's status, we believe these approaches may not be as
effective as the temporary labels in preventing misbuilt engines. We
are also concerned that imported engines with manufacturer-specific
codes will lead to confusion with Customs inspectors. With no
standardized approach for identifying which engines do not need
catalysts, there is a significant risk that engines will be held up
while inspectors confirm their status. We request comment on the best
way of requiring labeling information for these engines. For example,
we request comment on adding a requirement for equipment manufacturers
to add some identifying mark to the permanent label to show that the
engine is in its certified configuration. We also request comment on
replacing the provision allowing for a manufacturer-specific code to
some standardized abbreviation for ``delegated assembly'' that would
allow for unambiguous identification of the engine's status with a
minimum burden in terms of requiring larger labels.
In addition, engine manufacturers would need to perform or arrange
for audits to verify that equipment manufacturers are properly
assembling engines. Engine manufacturers may rely on third-party agents
to perform auditing functions. Since the purpose of the audit is to
verify that equipment manufacturers are properly assembling products,
they may not perform audits on behalf of engine manufacturers. We are
proposing to require that audits must involve at a minimum reviewing
the equipment manufacturer's production records and procedures,
inspecting the equipment manufacturer's production operations, or
inspecting the final assembled products. Inspection of final assembled
products may occur at any point in the product distribution system. For
example, products may be inspected at the equipment manufacturer's
assembly or storage facilities, at regional distribution centers, or at
retail locations. The audit must also include confirmation that the
number of aftertreatment devices shipped was sufficient for the number
of engines involved. We would typically expect engine manufacturers to
perform more than the minimum auditing steps identified above. For
example, equipment manufacturers with low order volumes, an unclear
history of compliance, or other characteristics that would cause some
concern may prompt us to require a more extensive audit to ensure
effective oversight in confirming that engines are always built
properly. Moreover, in the early years of this program, engine
manufacturers should consider nearly all participating equipment
manufacturers to be unfamiliar with the regulatory requirements and the
mechanics of meeting their responsibilities and obligations as
contracted manufacturers of certified engines. Engine manufacturers
would describe in the application for certification their plan for
taking steps to ensure that all engines will be in their certified
configuration when installed by the equipment manufacturer. EPA
approval of a manufacturer's plan for delegated assembly would be
handled as part of the overall certification process. We request
comment on appropriate requirements related to specific auditing
procedures that would be appropriate to address these concerns and to
provide adequate assurance that engines are routinely assembled in
their certified configuration.
We are proposing that engine manufacturers annually audit twelve
equipment manufacturers, or fewer if they are able to audit all
participating equipment manufacturers on average once every four years.
These audits would be divided over different equipment manufacturers
based on the number of engines sold to each equipment manufacturer. We
further propose that these auditing rates may be reduced after the
first eight years, or after the engine manufacturer has audited all
affected equipment manufacturers. This reduced auditing rate would be
based on an expectation that all participating equipment manufacturers
would be audited on average once every ten years.
To facilitate auditing related to catalysts, we are proposing to
require engine manufacturers to establish an alphanumeric designation
to identify each unique catalyst design (including size, washcoat,
precious metal loading, supplier, and any other appropriate factors)
and instruct equipment manufacturers to use stamping or other means to
permanently display this designation on the external surface of the
exhaust system, making it readily visible as much as possible when the
equipment is fully assembled, consistent with the objective of
verifying the identity of the installed
[[Page 28151]]
catalyst. This designation could be the same as the code applied to the
emission control information label as described above.
We are proposing that all the same requirements apply for separate
shipment related to air filters if they are part of an engine's
certified configuration, except for the auditing. We would require
auditing related to air filters only if engine manufacturers are
already performing audits related to catalysts. We believe there is
much less incentive or potential for problems with equipment
manufacturers producing engines with noncompliant air filters so we
believe a separate auditing requirement for air filters would be
unnecessary.
The draft regulation specifies that the exemption expires when the
equipment manufacturer takes possession of the engine and the engine
reaches the point of final equipment assembly. We would understand the
point of final equipment assembly for purposes of delegated assembly
for aftertreatment components to be the point at which the equipment
manufacturer attaches a muffler to the engine. Engines observed in
production or inventory assembled with improper mufflers would be
considered to have been built contrary to the engine manufacturer's
installation instructions. Catalysts are invariably designed as part of
the muffler, so we would understand that there would be no reason to
install a different muffler once a given muffler has been installed
using normal production procedures. If equipment manufacturers sell
equipment without following these instructions, they would be
considered in violation of the prohibited acts (i.e., selling
uncertified engines). If there is a problem with any given equipment
manufacturer, we would hold the engine manufacturer responsible for
those noncompliant engines and require the engine manufacturer to
discontinue the practice of delegated assembly for that equipment
manufacturer. We request comment on the need to more explicitly
identify the meaning of the point of final equipment assembly in the
regulations, as described above.
We are aware that the proposed approach of allowing equipment
manufacturers to make their own arrangements to order mufflers results
in a situation in which the equipment manufacturer must spend time and
money to fulfill their responsibilities under the regulations. This
introduces a financial incentive to install mufflers with inferior
catalysts, or to omit the catalyst altogether. To address this concern
for heavy-duty highway engines, we adopted a requirement for engine
manufacturers to confirm that a vehicle manufacturer has ordered the
appropriate aftertreatment devices before they ship an engine.
Equipment manufacturers' purchasing practices for Small SI engines,
especially considering the order volumes, makes this approach
impractical. We are instead proposing to require that engine
manufacturers get written confirmation from each equipment manufacturer
before an initial shipment of engines in a given model year for a given
engine model. This confirmation would document the equipment
manufacturer's understanding that they are using the appropriate
aftertreatment components. The written confirmation would be due within
30 days after shipping the engines and would be required before
shipping any additional engines from that engine family to that
equipment manufacturer.
The shipping confirmation included in the rule for heavy-duty
highway engines is a very substantial provision to address the fact
that vehicle manufacturers would gain a competitive advantage by
producing noncompliant products, and that engines in commerce would be
labeled as if they were fully compliant even though they are not yet in
their certified configuration. This is especially problematic when a
muffler with no catalyst can easily be installed and can perform
without indicating a problem. To address this concern for Small SI
engines, we are including a requirement that equipment manufacturers
include in their annual affidavits an accounting for the number of
aftertreatment components they have ordered relative to the number of
engines shipped without the catalysts that the mufflers would otherwise
require.
Production-line testing normally involves building production
engines using normal assembly procedures. For engines shipped without
catalysts under the delegated-assembly provisions, it is not normally
possible to do this at the engine manufacturer's facility, where such
testing would normally occur. To address this, we are proposing to
specify that engine manufacturers must arrange to get a randomly
selected catalyst that will be used with the engine. The catalyst may
come from any point in the normal distribution from the aftertreatment
component manufacturer to the equipment manufacturer. The catalyst may
not come from the engine manufacturer's own inventory. Engine
manufacturers would keep records to show how they randomly selected
catalysts.
As described above, we believe this is a very significant
compliance issue since it allows manufacturers to introduce into
commerce engines that are labeled as meeting current emission standards
even though they are not in their certified configuration. This is
especially true for Small SI engines where many high-volume products
are handled by many different manufacturers such that the final
assembly requires equipment manufacturers to properly install otherwise
indistinguishable products to keep products in the certified
configuration. Also, an equipment manufacturer may install multiple
engine models in a single type of equipment, some of which may need
catalyzed mufflers while others would use a conventional muffler. The
appearance and function of such mufflers with and without catalysts
would be virtually indistinguishable, which increases the likelihood of
accidentally installing the wrong muffler.
The provisions described above are intended to minimize the risks
associated with this practice. However, this concern is heightened for
companies that would use the delegated-assembly provisions to import
noncompliant engines with the expectation that equipment manufacturers
in the United States would add catalyzed mufflers as specified in the
engine manufacturer's application for certification. This raises two
potential problems. First, this practice could create a loophole in
EPA's enforcement program that would allow for widespread importation
of noncompliant engines, with the financial incentive for equipment
manufacturers to complete assembly with noncompliant mufflers. Since
all engines have mufflers, and since proper catalyst installation
generally can be confirmed only with an emission test or a destructive
inspection, it would be very difficult to find and correct any problems
that might occur. Second, engine manufacturers outside the United
States may be willing to take risks with noncompliant products based on
their limited exposure to EPA enforcement. As described in Section VI.F
we are considering bonding requirements for imported engines to ensure
that we will be able to fully resolve compliance or enforcement issues
with companies that have little or no presence or selling history in
the United States. We would expect to specify an increased bond payment
for importation of engines using the delegated-assembly provisions.
Increasing the per-engine bond value by 20 percent corresponds roughly
with the
[[Page 28152]]
value of catalyzed mufflers that would be required. We believe this
would be an appropriate additional bond value to address the concerns
for noncompliance from imported engines.
While this section describes the compliance provisions we believe
are necessary for addressing the practice of delegating assembly of
emission-related components to equipment manufacturers, providing a
broader view of the context for delegated assembly is also appropriate
for understanding our concern regarding the duplicative aspects of
delegated assembly with other provisions in this rulemaking. Recent
evaluation of a wide range of equipment models powered by Small SI
engines has led to several important observations. Many equipment
models have mufflers installed away from all other components such that
they have no space or packaging constraints. Other equipment models
with mufflers that are installed inside a cage or compartment generally
include substantial space around the muffler, which is necessary to
isolate the muffler's high surface temperatures and radiant heat from
operators and any heat-sensitive components. Another important
observation was the striking uniformity of muffler geometries, even
where equipment manufacturers obtained mufflers directly from muffler
manufacturers. Most mufflers on Class II engines are cylindrical models
with the size varying to correspond with the size of the engines. Other
Class II engine models use a box-shaped muffler design, but these
mufflers also exhibited little variation across models. These
observations have fundamental implications for the regulatory
provisions we are proposing for ensuring a smooth transition to the
Phase 3 emission standards.
For example, in situations that limit equipment manufacturers to
standardized muffler configurations, they would at most need to make
modest changes to their equipment to accommodate somewhat different
muffler geometries. We have taken these equipment design changes into
account with the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers
described below. We are therefore concerned that the proposed
provisions for delegated assembly and the Transition Program for
Equipment Manufacturers may be duplicative in providing additional time
and/or flexibilities for equipment manufacturers to redesign their
equipment for accommodating engines that meet the Phase 3 standards. If
this is the case, the proposed provisions for delegated assembly merely
serve to preserve the current business arrangements for the different
types of manufacturers. We request comment on the need for these
delegated-assembly provisions in light of the Transition Program for
Equipment Manufacturers. We also request comment on the appropriateness
of adopting these delegated-assembly provisions for Class I engines
since these engine manufacturers already install complete exhaust
systems for the large majority of their engines. Finally, we request
comment on the need to allow for the use of the more restrictive
delegated-assembly provisions in Sec. 1068.260 in the event that we do
not finalize the delegated-assembly provisions described above.
(3) Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers
Given the level of the proposed Phase 3 exhaust emission standards
for Class II engines, we believe there may be situations where the use
of a catalyzed muffler could require equipment manufacturers to modify
their equipment. We are therefore proposing a set of provisions to
provide equipment manufacturers with reasonable lead time for
transition to the proposed standards. The proposed provisions are
similar to the program we adopted for nonroad diesel engines (69 FR
38958, June 29, 2004).
Equipment manufacturers would not be obligated to use any of these
provisions, but all equipment manufacturers that produce Class II
equipment would be eligible to do so. We are also proposing that all
entities under the control of a common entity would have to be
considered together for the purposes of applying these allowances.
Manufacturers would be eligible for the allowances described below only
if they have primary responsibility for designing and manufacturing
equipment, and if their manufacturing procedures include installing
engines in the equipment.
(a) General Provisions
Under the proposed approach, beginning in the 2011 model year and
lasting through the 2014 model year, each equipment manufacturer may
install Class II engines not certified to the proposed Phase 3 emission
standards in a limited number of equipment applications produced for
the U.S. market (see Sec. 1054.625). We refer to these here as ``flex
engines.'' These flex engines would need to meet the Phase 2 standards.
The maximum number of ``allowances'' each manufacturer could use would
be based on 30 percent of an average year's production of Class II
equipment. The number of ``allowances'' would be calculated by
determining the average annual U.S.-directed production of equipment
using Class II engines produced from January 1, 2007 through December
31, 2009. Thirty percent of this average annual production level would
be the total number of ``allowances'' under this transition program
over four years. Manufacturers could use these allowances for their
Class II equipment over four model years from 2011 through 2014, with
the usage spread over these model years as determined by the equipment
manufacturer. Equipment produced under these provisions could use
engines that meet the Phase 2 emission standards instead of the Phase 3
standards. If an equipment manufacturer newly enters the Class II
equipment market during 2007, 2008 or 2009, the manufacturer would
calculate its average annual production level based only on the years
during which it actually produced Class II equipment. Equipment
manufacturers newly entering the Class II equipment market after 2009
would not receive any allowances under the transition program and would
need to incorporate Phase 3 compliant engines into the Class II
equipment beginning in 2011.
Equipment using engines built before the effective date of the
proposed Phase 3 standards would not count toward an equipment
manufacturer's allowances. Equipment using engines that are exempted
from the Phase 3 standards for any reason would also not count toward
an equipment manufacturer's allowances. For example, we are proposing
that small-volume engine manufacturers may continue to produce Phase 2
engines for two model years after the Phase 3 standards apply. All
engines subject to the Phase 3 standards, including those engines that
are certified to FELs at higher levels than the standard, but for which
an engine manufacturer uses exhaust ABT credits to demonstrate
compliance, would count as Phase 3 complying engines and would not be
included in an equipment manufacturer's count of allowances.
The choice of the allowances based on 30 percent of one year's
production is based on our best estimate of the degree of reasonable
lead time needed by the largest equipment manufacturers to modify their
equipment designs as needed to accommodate engines and exhaust systems
that have changed as a result of more stringent emission standards. We
believe the proposed level of allowances responds to the need for lead
time to accommodate the workload related to redesigning
[[Page 28153]]
equipment models to incorporate catalyzed mufflers while ensuring a
significant level of emission reductions in the early years of the
proposed program.
Equipment manufacturers may face similar challenges in
transitioning to rotational-molded fuel tanks that meet the proposed
permeation standards. We are therefore proposing to allow equipment
manufacturers to use noncompliant rotational-molded fuel tanks with any
equipment that is counted under the allowances described in this
section which use engines meeting Phase 2 exhaust emission standards
(see Sec. 1054.627). As part of this expanded rotational-molded fuel
tank allowance, we are requiring that equipment manufacturers first use
up any available credits or allowances generated from early compliance
with the fuel tank permeation requirements (see Section VI.D.4).
A similar concern applies for controlling running losses. As
described in Section VI, technologies for controlling running losses
may involve a significant degree of integration between engine and
equipment designs. In particular, routing a vapor line from the fuel
tank to the engine's intake system depends on engine modifications that
would allow for this connection. As a result, we are proposing that any
equipment using flex engines would not need to meet running loss
standards.
(b) Coordination Between Engine and Equipment Manufacturers
We are proposing two separate paths for complying with
administrative requirements related to the proposed transition program,
depending on how the engine manufacturer chooses to make flex engines
available under the transition program. Engine manufacturers choosing
to use the delegated-assembly provisions described above would be
enabling equipment manufacturers to make the decision whether to
complete the engine assembly in the Phase 3 configuration or to use a
noncatalyzed muffler such that the engine would meet Phase 2 standards
and would therefore need to be counted as a flex engine. If engine
manufacturers do not use the delegated-assembly provisions, equipment
manufacturers would need to depend on engine manufacturers to produce
and ship flex engines that are already in a configuration meeting Phase
2 standards and labeled accordingly. Each of these scenarios involves a
different set of compliance provisions, which we describe below.
(i) Compliance based on engine manufacturers. Engine manufacturers
will in many cases produce complete engines. This would be the case if
the engine does not require a catalyst or if the engine manufacturer
chooses to design their own exhaust systems and ship complete engine
assemblies to equipment manufacturers.
Under this scenario, we propose to require that equipment
manufacturers request a certain number of flex engines from the engine
manufacturer. The proposed regulatory provisions would specifically
allow engine manufacturers to continue to build and sell Phase 2
engines needed to meet the market demand created by the transition
program for equipment manufacturers provided they receive the written
assurance from the equipment manufacturer that such engines are being
procured for this purpose. We are proposing to require that engine
manufacturers keep copies of the written assurance from equipment
manufacturers for at least five years after the final year in which
allowances are available.
Engine manufacturers are currently required to label their
certified engines with a variety of information. We are proposing that
engine manufacturers producing complete flex engines under this program
identify on the engine label that they are flex engines. In addition,
equipment manufacturers would be required to apply an Equipment
Flexibility Label to the engine or piece of equipment that identifies
the equipment as using an engine produced under the Phase 3 transition
program for equipment manufacturers. These proposed labeling
requirements would allow EPA to easily identify flex engines and
equipment, verify which equipment manufacturers are using these flex
engines, and more easily monitor compliance with the transition
provisions. Labeling of the equipment could also help U.S. Customs to
quickly identify equipment being imported lawfully using the Transition
Program for Equipment Manufacturers.
While manufacturers would need to meet Phase 2 standards with their
flex engines, they would not need to certify them for the current model
year. We are proposing instead to apply the requirements in 40 CFR
1068.260, which requires that manufacturers keep records showing that
they meet emission standards without requiring submission of an
application for certification. We request comment on these requirements
and whether these engines should be certified annually along with the
Phase 3 engines.
(ii) Compliance based on equipment manufacturers. We are proposing
to set up a different set of compliance provisions for engine
manufacturers that ship the engine separately from the exhaust system.
Under this scenario, as discussed above, the engine manufacturers must
establish a relationship with the equipment manufacturers allowing the
equipment manufacturer to install catalysts to complete engine assembly
for compliance with Phase 3 standards.
In this case, engine manufacturers would design and produce their
Phase 3 engines and label them accordingly. The normal path for these
engines covered by the delegated-assembly provisions would involve
shipment of the engine without an exhaust system to the equipment
manufacturer, the equipment manufacturer would then follow the engine
manufacturer's instructions to add the exhaust system including the
catalyst to bring the engine into a certified Phase 3 configuration.
Under the proposed transition program, equipment manufacturers would
choose for each of these engines to either follow the engine
manufacturer's instructions to install a catalyst to make it compliant
with Phase 3 standards or follow a different set of instructions to
install a non-catalyzed muffler to make it compliant with Phase 2
standards. Any such engines downgraded to Phase 2 standards would count
toward the equipment manufacturer's total number of allowances under
the transition program.
To make this work, engine manufacturers would need to take certain
steps to ensure overall compliance. First, engine manufacturers would
need to include emission data in the application for certification
showing that the engine would meet Phase 2 standards without any
modification other than installing a non-catalyzed exhaust system. This
may include a specified range of backpressures that equipment
manufacturers would need to meet in procuring a non-catalyst muffler.
If the Phase 3 engine without a catalyst would otherwise still be
covered by the emission data from engines produced in earlier model
years under the Phase 2 standards, manufacturers could rely on
carryover emission data to make this showing. Second, the installation
instructions we specify under the delegated-assembly provisions would
need to describe the steps equipment manufacturers would need to take
to make either Phase 3 engines or Phase 2 flex engines. Third, for
engine families that generate positive emission credits under the
exhaust ABT
[[Page 28154]]
program, engine manufacturers must decrease the number of ABT credits
generated by the engine family by 10 percent. We believe the 10 percent
decrease should provide an emission adjustment commensurate with the
potential use of the equipment manufacturer flexibility provisions.
Equipment manufacturers using allowances under these provisions
would need to keep records that would allow EPA or engine manufacturers
to confirm that equipment manufacturers followed appropriate procedures
and produced an appropriate number of engines without catalysts. In
addition, we are proposing to require that equipment manufacturers
place a label on the engine as close as possible to the engine
manufacturer's emission control information label to identify it as a
flex engine. This could be the full label described above or it could
be a simplified label that has only the equipment manufacturer's name
and a simple statement that this is a flex engine. The location of this
label is important since it effectively serves as an extension of the
engine manufacturer's label, clarifying that the engine meets Phase 2
standards, not the Phase 3 standards referenced on the original label.
This avoids the problematic situation of changing or replacing labels,
or requiring engine manufacturers to send different labels. We request
comment on an approach in which we would require the full label for
equipment manufacturers to be placed on the engine adjacent to the
engine manufacturer's label to prevent confusion and the risks
associated with multiple labels.
Engine manufacturers might choose to produce Phase 3 engines before
the 2011 model year and set up arrangements for separate shipment of
catalyzed mufflers as described in Section V.E.2. We would expect any
engine manufacturers producing these early Phase 3 engines to continue
production of comparable engine models that meet Phase 2 standards
rather than forcing all equipment manufacturers to accommodate the new
engine design early. We believe it would not be appropriate for
equipment manufacturers to buy Phase 3 engines in 2010 or earlier model
years and downgrade them to meet Phase 2 emission standards as
described above. We are therefore proposing to allow the downgrading of
Phase 3 engines only for 2011 and later model years.
Because equipment manufacturers in many cases depend on engine
manufacturers to supply certified engines in time to produce complying
equipment, we are also proposing a hardship provision for all equipment
manufacturers (see Sec. 1068.255). An equipment manufacturer would be
required to use all of its allowances under the transition program
described above before being eligible to use this hardship. See Section
VIII.C.9 for further discussion of this proposed hardship provision for
equipment manufacturers.
As described in Section V.E.2, we are concerned that the Transition
Program for Equipment Manufacturers and the provisions related to
delegated assembly may be redundant approaches to address the need to
design equipment models to accommodate upgraded engines. The transition
program is intended to give equipment manufacturers four years to make
the design changes needed to reach a point of being able to accommodate
low-emission Phase 3 engines, even for the most challenging equipment
models. If equipment manufacturers are able to continue to
independently source their exhaust systems based on the catalyst
specifications determined by the engine manufacturer, it is not clear
that allowances for additional lead time would be needed. We request
comment on the relative advantages of these two approaches and, more
specifically, which approach we should adopt in the final rule to
address equipment manufacturers' needs for designing and producing
equipment with Phase 3 engines. We request comment on an alternative
approach of relying on the delegated-assembly provisions in Sec.
10654.610 and the equipment-manufacturer hardship provisions in Sec.
1068.255. This combination of tools would still allow for substantial
flexibility in helping equipment manufacturers transition to Phase 3
engines. The hardship provisions of Sec. 1068.255 were an important
element of the successful transition to new emission standards for
Large SI engines.
(iii) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Equipment
manufacturers choosing to participate in the transition program would
be required to keep records of the U.S-directed production volumes of
Class II equipment in 2007 through 2009 broken down by equipment model
and calendar year. Equipment manufacturers would also need to keep
records of the number of flex engines they use under this program.
We are also proposing some notification requirements for equipment
manufacturers. Under this proposal, equipment manufacturers wishing to
participate in the transition provisions would need to notify EPA by
June 30, 2010 that they plan to participate. They must submit
information on production of Class II equipment over the three-year
period from 2007 through 2009, calculate the number of allowances
available, and provide basic business information about the company.
For example, we would want to know the names of related companies
operating under the same parent company that would be required to count
engines together under this program. This early notification will not
be a significant burden to the equipment manufacturer and will greatly
enhance our ability to ensure compliance. Indeed, equipment
manufacturers would need to have the information required in the
notification to know how to use the allowances.
We are proposing an ongoing reporting requirement for equipment
manufacturers participating in the Phase 3 transition program. Under
this proposal, participating equipment manufacturers would be required
to submit an annual report to EPA that shows its annual number of
equipment produced with flex engines under the transition provisions in
the previous year. Each report would include a cumulative count of the
number of equipment produced with flex engines for all years. To ease
the reporting burden on equipment manufacturers, EPA intends to work
with the manufacturers to develop an electronic means for submitting
information to EPA.
(c) Additional Allowances for Small- and Medium-Sized Companies
We believe small-volume equipment manufacturers would need a
greater degree of lead time than manufacturers that sell large volumes
of equipment. The small companies are less likely to have access to
prototype engines from engine manufacturers and generally have smaller
engineering departments for making the necessary design changes.
Allowances representing thirty percent of annual U.S.-directed
production provide larger companies with substantial lead time to plan
their product development for compliance but smaller companies may have
a product mix that requires extensive work to redesign products in a
short amount of time. We are therefore proposing to specify that small-
volume equipment manufacturers may use this same transition program
with allowances totaling 200 percent of the average annual U.S.-
directed production of equipment using Class II engines from 2007
through 2009. For purposes of this program, a small-volume equipment
manufacturer would be a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000
pieces of nonhandheld equipment
[[Page 28155]]
per year subject to EPA regulations in each of the three years from
2007 through 2009 or meets the SBA definition of small business
equipment manufacturer (i.e., generally fewer than 500 employees for
manufacturers of most types of equipment). These allowances would be
spread over the same four-year period between 2011 and 2014. For
example, a small-volume equipment manufacturer could potentially use
Phase 2 engines on all their Class II equipment for two years or they
might sell half their Class II equipment with Phase 2 engines for four
years assuming production stayed constant over the four years.
Medium-sized equipment manufacturers, i.e., companies that produce
too much equipment to be considered a small-volume equipment
manufacturer but produce fewer than 50,000 pieces of Class II
equipment, may also face difficulties similar to that of small-volume
equipment manufacturers. These companies may be like small-volume
manufacturers if they have numerous product lines with varied
approaches to installing engines and mufflers. Other companies may be
more like bigger companies if they produce most of their equipment in a
small number of high-volume models or have consistent designs related
to engine and muffler installations. We are therefore proposing to
create special provisions that would enable us to increase the number
of transition allowances that are available to these medium-sized
companies that have annual U.S.-directed production of Class II
equipment of between 5,000 and 50,000 in each of the three years from
2007 through 2009. To obtain allowances greater than 30 percent of
average annual production, a medium-sized manufacturer would need to
notify us by January 31, 2010 if they believe the standard allowances
based on 30 percent of average annual production of Class II equipment
would not provide adequate lead time starting in the 2011 model year.
Additional allowances could be requested only if the equipment
manufacturer can show they are on track to produce a number of
equipment models representing at least half of their total U.S.-
directed production volume of Class II equipment in the 2011 model year
compliant with all exhaust and evaporative emission standards. As part
of their request, the equipment manufacturer would need to describe why
more allowances are needed to accommodate anticipated changes in engine
designs resulting from engine manufacturers' compliance with changing
exhaust emission standards. The equipment manufacturer would also
request a specific number of additional allowances needed with
supporting information to show why that many allowances are needed. We
may approve additional allowances up to 70 percent of the average
annual U.S.-directed production of Class II equipment from 2007 through
2009. If a medium-sized company were granted the full amount of
additional allowances, they would have allowances equivalent to 100
percent of the average annual production volume of Class II equipment.
As noted above, the determination of whether a company is a small-
or medium-sized manufacturer will be based primarily on production data
over the 2007 through 2009 period submitted to EPA during 2010. After a
company's status as a small- or medium-sized company has been
established based on that data, EPA is proposing that manufactures
would keep that status even if a company's production volume grows
during the next few years, such that the company would no longer
qualify as a small- or medium-sized company. EPA believes that
equipment manufacturers need to know at the beginning of the transition
program (i.e., 2011) how many allowances they will receive under the
program. Changing a company's size determination during the program,
which could affect the number of allowances available, would make it
difficult for companies to plan and could lead to situations where a
company is in violation of the provisions based on the use of
allowances that were previously allowed. Likewise, if a company is
purchased by another company or merges with another company after the
determination of small- or medium-size status is established in 2010,
EPA is proposing that the combined company could, at its option, keep
the status for the individual portions of the combined company. If the
combined company chooses to keep the individual designations, the
combined company would submit the annual reports on the use of
allowances broken down for each of the previously separate companies.
(i) Requirements for foreign equipment manufacturers and importers.
Under this proposal, only companies that manufacture equipment would
qualify for the relief provided under the Phase 3 transition
provisions. Foreign equipment manufacturers who comply with the
compliance related provisions discussed below would enjoy the same
transition provisions as domestic manufacturers. Foreign equipment
manufacturers that do not comply with the compliance-related provisions
discussed below would not receive allowances. Importers that do not
manufacture equipment would not receive any transition relief directly,
but could import equipment with a flex engine if it is covered by an
allowance or transition provision associated with a foreign equipment
manufacturer. This would allow transition provisions to be used by
foreign equipment manufacturers in the same way as domestic equipment
manufacturers, at the option of the foreign manufacturer, while
avoiding the potential for importers to inappropriately use allowances.
For the purposes of this proposal, a foreign equipment manufacturer
would include any equipment manufacturer that produces equipment
outside of the United States that is eventually sold in the United
States.
All foreign equipment manufacturers wishing to use the transition
provisions would have to comply with all requirements discussed above.
Along with the equipment manufacturer's notification described earlier,
a foreign equipment manufacturer would have to comply with various
compliance related provisions similar to those adopted for nonroad
diesel engines (see Sec. 1054.626).\81\ As part of the notification,
the foreign equipment manufacturer would have to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See, for example, 40 CFR 80.410 concerning provisions for
foreign refiners with individual gasoline sulfur baselines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree to provide EPA with full, complete and immediate
access to conduct inspections and audits;
Name an agent in the District of Columbia for service;
Agree that any enforcement action related to these
provisions would be governed by the Clean Air Act;
Submit to the substantive and procedural laws of the
United States;
Agree to additional jurisdictional provisions;
Agree that the foreign equipment manufacturer will not
seek to detain or to impose civil or criminal remedies against EPA
inspectors or auditors for actions performed within the scope of EPA
employment related to the provisions of this program;
Agree that the foreign equipment manufacturer becomes
subject to the full operation of the administrative and judicial
enforcement powers and provisions of the United States without
limitation based on sovereign immunity; and
Submit all reports or other documents in the English
language, or include an English language translation.
[[Page 28156]]
In addition to these proposed requirements, we are proposing to
require foreign equipment manufacturers that participate in the
transition program to comply with a bond requirement for equipment
imported into the United States. We describe a bond program below that
we believe could be an important tool for ensuring that foreign
equipment manufacturers are subject to the same level of enforcement as
domestic equipment manufacturers. Specifically, we believe a bonding
requirement for the foreign equipment manufacturer is an important
enforcement tool for ensuring that EPA has the ability to collect any
judgments assessed against a foreign equipment manufacturer for
violations of these transition provisions. We request comments on all
aspects of the specific program we describe here, but also on
alternative measures that would achieve the same goal.
Under a bond program, the participating foreign equipment
manufacturer would have to maintain a bond in the proper amount that is
payable to satisfy judgments that result from U.S. administrative or
judicial enforcement actions for conduct in violation of the Clean Air
Act. The foreign equipment manufacturer would generally obtain a bond
in the proper amount from a third party surety agent that has been
listed with the Department of the Treasury. As discussed in Sections
V.E.6.c and V.E.6.d, EPA is proposing other bond requirements as well.
An equipment manufacturer required to post a bond under any of these
provisions would be required to obtain only one bond of the amount
specified for those sections.
In addition to the foreign equipment manufacturer requirements
discussed above, EPA also proposes to require importers of equipment
with flex engines from a complying foreign equipment manufacturer to
comply with certain provisions. EPA believes these importer provisions
are essential to EPA's ability to monitor compliance with the
transition provisions. EPA proposes that the regulations would require
each importer to notify EPA prior to their initial importation of
equipment with flex engines. Importers would be required to submit
their notification prior to the first calendar year in which they
intend to import equipment with flex engines from a complying foreign
equipment manufacturer. The importer's notification would need to
include the following information:
The name and address of importer (and any parent company);
The name and address of the manufacturers of the equipment
and engines the importer expects to import; and
Number of units of equipment with flex engines the
importer expects to import for each year broken down by equipment
manufacturer.
In addition, EPA is proposing that any importer electing to import
to the United States equipment with flex engines from a complying
foreign equipment manufacturer would have to submit annual reports to
EPA. The annual report would include the number of units of equipment
with flex engines the importer actually imported to the United States
in the previous calendar year; and identify the equipment manufacturers
and engine manufacturers whose equipment and engines were imported.
(4) Equipment Manufacturer Recertification
Generally, it has been engine manufacturers who certify with EPA
for exhaust emissions because the standards are engine-based. However,
because the Phase 3 nonhandheld standards under consideration are
expected to result in the use of catalysts, a number of equipment
manufacturers, especially those that make low-volume models, believe it
may be necessary to produce their own unique engine/muffler designs,
but using the same catalyst substrate already used in a muffler
certified by the engine manufacturer. In this situation, the engine
would not be covered by the engine manufacturer's certificate, as the
engine/muffler design is not within the specifications for the
certified engine. The equipment manufacturer is therefore producing a
new distinct engine which is not certified and needs to be certified
with EPA. In order to allow the possibility of an equipment
manufacturer certifying an engine/muffler design with EPA, we are
proposing a simplified engine certification process for nonhandheld
equipment manufacturers (see Sec. 1054.612). Under this simplified
certification process, the nonhandheld equipment manufacturer would
need to demonstrate that it is using the same catalyst substrate as the
approved engine manufacturer's engine family, provide information on
the differences between their engine/exhaust system and the engine/
exhaust system certified by the engine manufacturer, and explain why
the emissions deterioration data generated by the engine manufacturer
would be representative for the equipment manufacturer's configuration.
The equipment manufacturer would need to perform low-hour emission
testing on an engine equipped with their modified exhaust system and
demonstrate that it meets the emission standards after applying the
engine manufacturer's deterioration factors for the certified engine
family. We would not require production-line testing for these engines.
The equipment manufacturer would be responsible to meet all of the
other requirements of an engine manufacturer under the regulations,
including labeling, warranty, defect reporting, payment of
certification fees, and other things. EPA requests comments on the
usefulness of such a provision. EPA also requests comments on whether
such a simplified certification provision should expire after a period
of time, for example, after five years. If the provision were to
expire, an equipment manufacturer could continue to certify, but they
would have to follow the general certification regulations at that
point.
(5) Special Provisions Related to Altitude
As described in Section V.C.1, we allow manufacturers of handheld
and nonhandheld engines to comply with emission standards at high
altitudes using an altitude kit. We are proposing to keep the
provisions that already apply in part 90 related to descriptions of
these altitude kits in the application for certification. This would
include a description of how engines comply with emission standards at
varying atmospheric pressures, a description of the altitude kits, and
the associated part numbers. The manufacturer would also identify the
altitude range for which it expects proper engine performance and
emission control with and without the altitude kit, state that engines
will comply with applicable emission standards throughout the useful
life with the altitude kit installed according to instructions, and
include any supporting information. Finally, manufacturers would need
to describe a plan for making information and parts available such that
altitude kits would reasonably be expected to be widely used in high-
altitude areas. For nonhandheld engines, this would involve all
counties with elevations substantially above 4,000 feet (see Appendix
III to part 1054). This includes all U.S. counties where 75 percent of
the land mass and 75 percent of the population are above 4,000 feet
(see 45 FR 5988, January 24, 1980 and 45 FR 14079, March 4, 1980). For
handheld engines, this would involve all areas at an elevation at or
above that which they identify in their application
[[Page 28157]]
for certification for needing an altitude kit to meet emission
standards.
We are also proposing to require information related to altitude
kits to be on the emission control information label, unless space
limitations prevent it. We believe it is important for operators to
know that engines may need to be modified to run properly at high
elevations.
We request comment on all aspects of this approach for compliance
at high-altitude conditions. (See Sec. Sec. 1054.115, 1054.135,
1054.205, and 1054.655.)
(6) Special Provisions for Compliance Assurance
EPA's experiences in recent years have highlighted the need for
more effective tools for preventing the introduction into commerce of
noncompliant engines. These include noncompliant engines sold without
engine labels or with counterfeit engine labels. We are proposing the
special provisions in the following sections to help us address these
problems.
(a) Importation Form
Importation of engines is regulated both by EPA and U.S. Customs.
The current regulations for U.S. Customs specify that anyone importing
a nonroad engine (or equipment containing a nonroad engine) must
complete a declaration form before importation. EPA has created
Declaration Form 3520-21 for this purpose. Customs requires this in
many cases, but there are times when they allow engines to be imported
without the proper form. It would be an important advantage for EPA's
own compliance efforts to be able to enforce this requirement. We are
therefore proposing to modify part 90 to mirror the existing Customs
requirement (and the EPA requirement in Sec. 1068.301) for importers
to complete and retain the declaration form before importing engines
(see Sec. 90.601). This would facilitate a more straightforward
processing of cases in which noncompliant products are brought to a
U.S. port for importation because currently no requirement exists for
measuring emissions or otherwise proving that engines are noncompliant
at the port facility. Since this is already a federal requirement, we
are proposing to make this effective immediately with the final rule.
(b) Assurance of Warranty Coverage
Manufacturers of Small SI engines subject to the standards are
required to provide an emission-related warranty so owners are able to
have repairs done at no expense for emission-related defects during an
initial warranty period. Established companies are able to do this with
a network of authorized repair facilities that can access replacement
parts and properly correct any defects. In contrast, we are aware that
some manufacturers are selling certified engines in the United States
without any such network for processing warranty claims. As such,
owners who find that their engines have an emission-related defect are
unable to properly file a warranty claim or get repairs that should be
covered by the warranty. In effect, this allows companies to certify
their engines and agree to provide warranty coverage without ever
paying for legitimate repairs that should be covered by the warranty.
We are therefore proposing to require that manufacturers demonstrate
several things before we will approve certification for their engines
(see Sec. 90.1103 and Sec. 1054.120). The following provisions would
apply to manufacturers who certify engines, and would include importers
who certify engines. First, we are proposing to require manufacturers
to provide and monitor a toll-free telephone number and an e-mail
address for owners to receive information about how to make a warranty
claim and how to make arrangements for authorized repairs. Second, we
are proposing to require manufacturers to provide a source of
replacement parts within the United States. For imported parts, this
would require at least one distributor within the United States.
Finally, we are proposing to require manufacturers to have a
network of authorized repair facilities or to take one of several
alternate approaches to ensure that owners will be able to get free
repair work done under warranty. If warranty-related repairs are
limited to authorized repair facilities, we are proposing to require
that manufacturers have enough such facilities that owners do not have
to go more than 100 miles for repairs. An exception would be made for
remote areas where we would allow for approval of greater travel
distances for getting repairs as long as the longer travel distance
applies to no more than 10 percent of affected owners. For small
businesses, start-up companies, or importers, it may not be realistic
to maintain a national repair network. We are proposing a variety of
alternative methods for such companies to meet their warranty
obligations. Manufacturers would be able to meet warranty obligations
by informing owners that free shipping to and from an authorized
service center is available, a service technician will be provided to
come to the owner to make the warranty repair, or repair costs at a
local nonauthorized service center will be reimbursed.
We believe these proposed requirements are both necessary and
effective for ensuring proper warranty coverage for all owners. At the
same time, we are proposing a flexible approach that allows companies
to choose from widely varying alternatives to provide warranty service.
We therefore believe these proposed requirements are readily achievable
for any company. We are therefore proposing to implement these
requirements starting with the 2009 model year. This should allow time
for the administrative steps necessary to arrange for any of the
allowable compliance options described above. We request comment on
these provisions to ensure proper warranty coverage. We also request
comment on alternative means of demonstrating effective warranty
coverage comparable to that described above.
(c) Bond Requirements Related to Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Certification initially involves a variety of requirements to
demonstrate that engines and equipment are designed to meet applicable
emission standards. After certification is complete, however, several
important obligations apply to the certifying manufacturer or importer.
For example, we require ongoing testing of production engines, warranty
coverage for emission-related defects, reporting of recurring defects,
and payment of penalties if there is a violation. For companies
operating within the United States, we are generally able to take steps
to communicate clearly and insist on compliance with applicable
regulations. For companies without staff or assets in the United
States, this is not the case. Accordingly, we have limited ability to
enforce these requirements or recover any appropriate penalties, which
increases the risk of environmental problems as well as problems for
owners. This creates the potential for a company to gain a competitive
advantage if they do not operate in the United States by avoiding some
of the costs of complying with EPA regulations.
We request comment on a requirement for importers of certified
engines and equipment to post a bond to cover any potential compliance
or enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act. Importers would be
exempt from the bond requirement if they were able to sufficiently
demonstrate an assurance that they would meet any compliance-or
enforcement-related obligations. We
[[Page 28158]]
would consider adopting provisions to waive the bonding requirement
based on a variety of specific criteria. For example, importers might
show that they have physical assets in the United States with a value
equal to the retail value of the engines that they will import during
the model year (or equipment that they will import during the model
year if they import equipment). Also, we may be able to establish an
objective measure for a company to demonstrate long-term compliance
with applicable regulations. Another alternative might involve a
showing that an importer has been certified under certain industry
standards for production quality and regulatory compliance. Finally, we
may be able to rely on a company's commitment to periodically perform
voluntary in-use testing in the United States to show that engines
comply with emission standards. In addition to these specific criteria,
we would consider adopting a provision that allows an individual
importer to request a waiver from bonding requirements based on that
importer's particular circumstances. If we adopt a bonding requirement,
we would expect to apply that starting with the 2009 model year.
We would expect the per-engine bond amount to be $25 for handheld
engines and Class I engines. Class II engines cover a much wider range
of applications, so we further differentiate the bond for those
engines. The proposed per-engine bond amounts for Class II engines
would be $50 for engines between 225 and 740 cc, $100 for engines
between 740 and 1,000 cc, and $200 for engines above 1,000 cc. These
values are generally scaled to be approximately 10 to 15 percent of the
retail value. In the case of handheld engines, this is based on the
retail value of equipment with installed engines, since these products
are generally traded that way. Class II engines are very often sold as
loose engines to equipment manufacturers, so the corresponding per-
engine bond values are based on the retail value of the engine alone.
This approach is similar to the bond requirements that apply for
nonroad diesel engines (see Sec. 1039.626).
The total bond amount would be based on the value of imported
products over a one-year period. If an importer's bond would be used to
satisfy a judgment, the importer would then be required to increase the
amount of the bond within 90 days of the date the bond is used to cover
the amount that was used. Also, we would require the bond to remain in
place for five years after the importer no longer imports Small SI
engines.
(d) Bond Requirements Related to Recall
Recall is another potential compliance obligation. The Clean Air
Act specifies that EPA must require the manufacturer to conduct a
recall if EPA determines that a substantial number of engines do not
conform to the regulations. We have experience with companies that have
faced compliance-related problems where it was clear that they did not
have the resources to conduct a recall if that were necessary. Such
companies benefit from certification without bearing the full range of
associated obligations. We believe it is appropriate again to add a
requirement to post a bond to ensure that a company can meet their
recall obligations. The concern for being able to meet these
obligations applies similarly to domestic and foreign manufacturers.
The biggest indicator of a manufacturer's ability to make recall
repairs relates to the presence of repair facilities in the United
States. We are therefore proposing a bond requirement starting with the
2009 model year for all manufacturers (including importers) that do not
have assembly facilities in the United States that are available for
processing recall repairs or a repair network in the United States
capable of processing recall repairs (see Sec. 90.1007 and Sec.
1054.685). Note that a single bond payment would be required for
companies that must post bond for compliance-related obligations, as
described above, in addition to the recall-related obligations. Such a
repair network would need to involve at least 100 authorized repair
facilities in the United States or at least one such facility for each
5,000 engines sold in the United States, whichever is less. Companies
not meeting these criteria would need to post a bond as described above
for compliance assurance. We would allow these companies to arrange for
any applicable recall repairs to be done at independent facilities.
(e) Restrictions Related to Naming Model Years
New exhaust emission standards apply based on the date of engine
assembly. We similarly require that equipment manufacturers use engines
meeting emission standards in the same model year as equipment based on
the equipment assembly date. For example, a manufacturer of a 2007
model year piece of equipment must generally use a 2007 model year
engine. However, we allow equipment manufacturers to deplete their
normal inventories of engines from the previous model year as long as
there is no stockpiling of those earlier engines. We also note that
this restriction does not apply if emission standards are unchanged for
the current model year. We have found many instances where companies
will import new engines usually installed in equipment and claim that
the engine was built before emission standards took effect, even if the
start date for emission standards was several years earlier. We believe
many of these engines were in fact built later than the named model
year, but it is difficult to prove the date of manufacture, which then
makes it difficult to properly enforce these requirements. Now that
emission standards have been in place for Small SI engines for almost
ten years, we believe it is appropriate to implement a provision that
prevents new engines manufactured several years previously to be
imported when more recent emission standards have been adopted. This
would prevent companies from importing noncompliant products by
inappropriately declaring a manufacture date that precedes the point at
which the current standards started to apply. It would also put a time
limit on our existing provisions that allow for normal inventory
management to use the supply of engines from previous model years when
there has been a change in standards.
Starting January 1, 2009, we are proposing to specify that engines
and equipment will be treated as having a model year at most one year
earlier than the calendar year in which the importation occurs when
there is a change in emission standards (see Sec. 90.616 and Sec.
1054.695). For example, for new standards starting in the 2011 model
year, beginning January 1, 2012, all imported new products would be
considered 2011 or later model year engines and would need to comply
with new 2011 standards, regardless of the actual build date of the
engines or equipment. (Engines or equipment would be considered new
unless the importer demonstrates that the engine or equipment had
already been placed into service, as described below.) This would allow
a minimum of twelve months for manufactured engines to be shipped to
equipment manufacturers, installed in equipment and imported into the
United States. This time interval would be substantially longer for
most engines because the engine manufacturer's model year typically
ends well before the end of the calendar year. Also, engines produced
earlier in the model year would have that much more time to be shipped,
installed, and imported.
Manufacturers have expressed concern that the one-year limitation
on imported products may be too short
[[Page 28159]]
since there are often delays related to shipping, inventory, and
perhaps most significantly, unpredictable fluctuations in actual sales
volumes. We do not believe it is appropriate to maintain long-term
inventories of these products outside the United States for eventual
importation when it is clear several years ahead that the new standards
are scheduled to take effect. Companies may be able to import these
products shortly after manufacturing and keep their inventories in a
U.S. distribution network to avoid the situation of being unable to
sell these products. We request comment on the need to extend the one-
year limit to account for the business dynamics. We also request
comment on any narrower provisions that would allow for exceptions in
certain circumstances. For example, should we consider allowing an
additional year for products if manufacturers let us know ahead of time
that they have certain numbers of engines or equipment that will not be
imported in time, and they can demonstrate that they are not
stockpiling or circumventing regulatory requirements?
In years where the standards do not change, this proposed provision
would have no practical effect because, for example, a 2004 model year
engine meets the 2006 model year standards. We would treat such an
engine as compliant based on its 2004 emission label, any emission
credit calculations for the 2004 model year, and so on. These engines
could therefore be imported anytime until the end of the calendar year
in which new standards take effect. Also, because the changes do not
affect importation until there is a change in the standards, we are
proposing to implement these provisions starting with the Phase 3
standards.
We do not intend for these proposed provisions to delay the
introduction of emission standards by one year. It is still a violation
to produce an engine in the 2011 calendar year and call it a 2010 model
year engine to avoid being subject to 2011 standards.
Importation of equipment that is not new is handled differently.
These products would not be required to be upgraded to meet new
emission standards that started to apply after the engine and equipment
were manufactured. However, to avoid the situation where companies
simply declare that they are importing used equipment to avoid new
standards, we are proposing to require that they provide clear and
convincing evidence that such engines have been placed into service
prior to importation. Such evidence would generally include documentary
evidence of purchase and maintenance history and visible wear that is
consistent with the reported manufacture date. Importing products for
resale or importing more than one engine or piece of equipment at a
time would generally call for closer evaluation to determine that this
degree of evidence has been met.
(f) Import-Specific Information at Certification
We are proposing to require additional information to improve our
ability to oversee compliance related to imported engines (see Sec.
90.107 and Sec. 1054.205). In the application for certification, we
are proposing to require the following additional information: (1) The
port or ports at which the manufacturer intends to import the engines,
(2) the names and addresses of the agents the manufacturer has
authorized to import the engines, and (3) the location of the test
facilities in the United States where the manufacturer would test the
engines if we select them for testing under a selective enforcement
audit. This information should be readily available so we propose to
require it for the 2009 model year. The current regulations in part 90
do not include these specific requirements; however, we do specify
already that we may select imported engines at a port of entry. In such
a case, we would generally direct the manufacturer to do testing at a
facility in the United States. The proposed provision allows the
manufacturers to make these arrangements ahead of time rather than
relying on EPA's selection of a test lab. The current regulations also
state clearly in Sec. 90.119 that EPA may conduct testing at any
facility to determine whether engines meet emission standards.
(g) Counterfeit Emission Labels
We have observed that some importers attempt to import noncompliant
products by creating an emission control information label that is an
imitation of a valid label from another company. We are not proposing
to require that certifying manufacturers take steps to prevent this,
but we are proposing to include a provision that specifically allows
manufacturers to add appropriate features to prevent counterfeit
labels. This may include the engine's serial number, a hologram, or
some other unique identifying feature. We propose to apply this
provision immediately upon completion of the final rule since it is an
allowance and not a requirement (see Sec. 1054.135).
(h) Partially Complete Engines
As described in Section XI, we are proposing to clarify engine
manufacturers' responsibilities for certification with respect to
partially complete engines. While this is intended to establish a path
for secondary engine manufacturers to get their engines from the
original engine manufacturer, we are aware that this will also prevent
manufacturers from selling partially complete engines as a strategy to
circumvent certification requirements. If long blocks or engines
without fuel systems are introduced into U.S. commerce, either the
original manufacturer or the company completing engine assembly would
need to hold a certificate for that engine.
(7) Using Certified Small SI Engines in Marine Applications
Manufacturers have described situations in which Small SI engines
are used in marine applications. As described in Section III.E.5, we
are proposing to allow certified Small SI engines to be used in
outboard or personal watercraft applications without certifying to the
Marine SI emission standards in part 1045. We request comment on the
appropriateness of this provision. In particular, we request comment on
the extent to which the proposed provisions will address the unique
situations that apply for swamp boats and other unusual configurations.
(8) Other Provisions
We are also proposing a variety of changes in the provisions that
make up the certification and compliance program. Most of these changes
serve primarily to align with the regulations we have started to apply
to other types of engines.
The proposed warranty provisions are based on the requirements that
already apply under 40 CFR part 90. We are proposing to add an
administrative requirement to describe the provisions of the emission-
related warranty in the owners manual. We expect that many
manufacturers already do this but believe it is appropriate to require
this as a routine practice. (See Sec. 1054.120.) Testing new engines
requires a period of engine operation to stabilize emission levels. The
regulations specify two separate figures for break-in periods for
purposes of certification testing. First, engines are generally
operated long enough to stabilize emission levels. Second, we establish
a limit on how much an engine may operate and still be considered a
``low-hour'' engine. The results of testing with the low-hour engine
are compared with a deteriorated
[[Page 28160]]
value after some degree of service accumulation to establish a
deterioration factor. For Marine SI engines, we are proposing that the
engine can be presumed to have stabilized emission levels after 12
hours of engine operation, with a provision allowing approval for more
time if needed, and we generally require that low-hour test engines
have no more than 30 hours of engine operation. However, given the
shorter useful life for many Small SI engines, this would not make for
a meaningful process for establishing deterioration factors. For
example, emission levels in Small SI engines may not stabilize before
deterioration begins to affect emission levels, which would prevent the
engine from ever truly having stabilized emission levels. Also, the
low-hour emission test should occur early enough to adequately
represent the deterioration over the engine's lifetime.
We are proposing that Small SI engines with a useful life above 300
hours can be presumed stable after 12 hours with low-hour testing
generally occurring after no more than 24 hours of engine operation.
For Small SI engines with useful life below 300 hours, we are proposing
a combination of provisions to address this concern. First, we are
proposing to allow manufacturers to establish a stabilization period
that is less than 12 hours without showing that emission levels have
fully stabilized (see Sec. 1054.501). Second, we propose to specify
that low-hour testing must generally occur after no more than 15 hours
of engine operation (see Sec. 1054.801). This allows some substantial
time for break-in, stabilization, and running multiple tests, without
approaching a significant fraction of the useful life. Third, we are
proposing that manufacturers consistently test low-hour production-line
engines (and emission-data engines in the case of carryover
deterioration factors for certification) using the same degree of
service accumulation to avoid inaccurate application of deterioration
factors (see Sec. 1054.301).
As described in Section VII.C, we are proposing to clarify the
maintenance that manufacturers may perform during service accumulation
as part of the certification process. The general approach is to allow
any amount of maintenance that is not emission-related, but to allow
emission-related maintenance only if it is a routine practice with in-
use engines. In most of our emission control programs we specify that
80 percent of in-use engines should undergo a particular maintenance
step before manufacturers can do that maintenance during service
accumulation for certification testing. We are aware that Small SI
engines are predominantly operated by homeowners with widely varying
practices in servicing their lawn and garden equipment. As such,
achieving a rate of 80 percent may be possible only for the most
obvious maintenance steps. We are therefore proposing a more
accommodating approach for Small SI engines. In particular, we are
proposing to allow manufacturers to perform a maintenance step during
certification based on information showing that 60 to 80 percent of in-
use engines get the specified maintenance at the recommended interval.
We would approve the use of such maintenance based on the relative
effect on performance and emissions. For example, we may allow
scheduled fuel-injector replacement if survey data show this is done at
the recommended interval for 65 percent of engines and performance
degradation is shown to be roughly proportional to the degradation in
emission control for engines that do not have their fuel injectors
replaced.
One maintenance step of particular interest will be replacement of
air filters. In larger spark-ignition engines, we don't treat
replacement of air filters as critical emission-related maintenance,
largely because those engines have feedback controls to compensate for
changes in varying pressure drop across the air filter. However, for
Small SI engines varying air flow through the air filter has a direct
effect on the engine's air-fuel ratio, which in turn directly affects
the engine's emission rates for each of the regulated pollutants.
Service accumulation generally takes place in laboratory conditions
with far less debris, dust, or other ambient particles that would cause
filter loading, so filter changes should be unnecessary to address this
conventional concern. We are concerned that the greater affect is from
fuel and oil that may deposit on the back side of the filter,
especially from crankcase ventilation into the intake. If filters are
changed before an emission test, this effect will go undetected. If
filter changes are disallowed before emission testing, manufacturers
would need to design their intake systems to prevent internal filter
contamination. We request comment on the need for replacing air
filters, the effect on emission levels, and on the extent of change
that would be needed to prevent filter contamination from recirculating
crankcase gases. We also request comment on the extent to which air
filters are changed with in-use engines. While this is clearly done
with many engines, it is not clear that the experience is common enough
that we would consider it to be routine, and therefore appropriate for
certification engines. Since the cost of equipment, the types of jobs
performed, and the operating lifetime varies dramatically for Class I
and Class II engines, commenters should distinguish between in-use
maintenance that is done by engine class as much as possible. We may,
for example, conclude that owners of riding mowers and other Class II
equipment routinely replace air filters to keep their equipment
operating properly, while owners of walk-behind mowers and other Class
I equipment are more likely to treat their equipment as a disposable
product and therefore not replace the air filter.
We are proposing to define criteria for establishing engine
families that are very similar to what is currently specified in 40 CFR
part 90. We are proposing to require that engines with turbochargers be
in a different family than naturally aspirated engines since that would
be likely to substantially change the engine's emission
characteristics. Very few if any Small SI engines are turbocharged
today so this change will not be disruptive. We are also specifying
that engines must have the same number, arrangement, and approximate
bore diameter of cylinders. This will help us avoid the situation where
manufacturers argue that engines with substantially different engine
blocks should be in the same engine family. We would expect to
implement this provision consistent with the approach adopted by
California ARB in which they limit engine families to include no more
than 15 percent variation in total engine displacement. Similarly, the
current regulations in part 90 do not provide a clear way of
distinguishing engine families by cylinder dimensions (bore and stroke)
so we are also proposing to change part 90 to limit the variation in
displacement within an engine family to 15 percent. (See Sec. 1054.230
and Sec. 90.116.)
The test procedures for Small SI engines are designed for engines
operating in constant-speed applications. This covers the large
majority of affected equipment; however, we are aware that engines
installed in some types of equipment, such as small utility vehicles or
go carts, are not governed to operate only at a single rated speed.
These engines would be certified based on their emission control over
the constant-speed duty cycle even though they do not experience
constant-speed operation in use. We are not prepared to propose a
[[Page 28161]]
new duty cycle for these engines but we are proposing to require engine
manufacturers to explain how their emission control strategy is not a
defeat device in the application for certification. For example, if
engines will routinely experience in-use operation that differs from
the specified duty cycle for certification, the manufacturer should
describe how the fuel-metering system responds to varying speeds and
loads not represented by the duty cycle. We are also proposing to
require that engine distributors and equipment manufacturers that
replace installed governors must have a reasonable technical basis for
believing that the effectiveness of the modified engine's emission
controls over the expected range of in-use operation will be similar to
that measured over the specified duty cycle (see Sec. 1054.650). This
may require test data. While this does not require a new certificate of
conformity, it may require testing to confirm that the engine
modification should not be considered tampering. In addition, we would
require that engine distributors and equipment manufacturers notify the
engine manufacturer before modifying the engine, follow any
instructions from the engine manufacturer related to the emission
control system, and avoid making any other changes to the engine that
would remove it from its certified configuration. We request comment on
these provisions.
F. Small Business Provisions
(1) Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
On August 17, 2006, we convened a Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel (SBAR Panel or the Panel) under section 609(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The purpose of the Panel was
to collect the advice and recommendations of representatives of small
entities that could be affected by this proposed rule and to prepare a
report containing the Panel's recommendations for small entity
flexibilities based on those comments, as well as on the Panel's
findings and recommendations regarding the elements of the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under section 603 of the RFA.
Those elements of an IRFA are:
A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
A description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule; and
A description of any significant alternative to the
proposed rule that accomplishes the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and that minimizes any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
The report of the Panel has been placed in the rulemaking record
for this proposal.
In addition to EPA's Director of the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information who acted as chairperson, the Panel
consisted of the Director of the EPA's Assessment and Standards
Division of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the
Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration.
Using definitions provided by the Small Business Administration
(SBA), companies that manufacture internal-combustion engines and that
employ fewer than 1,000 people are considered small businesses for the
SBAR Panel. Companies that manufacture equipment and that employ fewer
than 500 people, or fewer than 750 people for manufacturers of
construction equipment, or fewer than 1,000 people for manufacturers of
generators, are considered small businesses for the SBAR Panel. Based
on this information, we asked 25 companies that met the SBA small
business thresholds to serve as small entity representatives for the
duration of the Panel process. Of these 25 companies, 14 of them
represented a cross-section of Small SI engine manufacturers, equipment
manufacturers, and fuel system component manufacturers. (The rest of
the companies were involved in the Marine SI market.)
With input from small entity representatives, the Panel drafted a
report providing findings and recommendations to us on how to reduce
the potential burden on small businesses that may occur as a result of
this proposed rule. The Panel report is included in the rulemaking
record for this proposal. In light of the Panel report, and where
appropriate, we have identified provisions anticipated for the proposed
rule. The proposed flexibility options, based on the recommendations of
the Panel, are described below.
(2) Proposed Burden Reduction Approaches for Small-Volume Nonhandheld
Engine Manufacturers
We are proposing several provisions for small business nonhandheld
engine manufacturers. The purpose of these provisions is to reduce the
burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a
large number of engines. We request comment on the appropriateness of
these provisions which are described in detail below.
Under EPA's current Phase 2 regulations, EPA provided a number of
provisions for small-volume engine manufacturers. For the Phase 2
regulations, the criteria for determining if a company was a ``small-
volume engine manufacturer'' was based on whether the company projected
at time of certification to have production of no more than 10,000
nonhandheld engines per year (excluding engines sold in California that
are subject to the California ARB standards). Based on past experience,
EPA believes that determining the applicability of the provisions based
on number of employees, as compared to volume of products, can be more
problematic given the nature of the workforce in terms of full-time,
part-time, contract, overseas versus domestic, and parent companies.
EPA believes it can avoid these potential complications and still
provide relief to nearly all small businesses by continuing to use the
annual sales criteria for determining which entities qualify as a small
volume engine manufacturer under the Phase 3 program. For these
reasons, EPA is proposing to retain the current production-based
criteria for determining who is a small-volume engine manufacturer and,
as a result, eligible for the Phase 3 flexibilities described below
(see Sec. 1054.801).
Based on confidential sales data provided to EPA by engine
manufacturers, the 10,000 unit cut-off for engine manufacturers would
include all of the small business engine manufacturers currently
identified using SBA's employee-based definition. To ensure all small
businesses have access to the flexibilities described below, EPA is
also proposing to allow engine manufacturers which exceed the
production cut-off level noted above but have fewer than 1,000
employees to request treatment as a small-volume engine manufacturer
(see Sec. 1054.635). In such a case, the manufacturer would need to
provide information to EPA demonstrating that the manufacturer has
[[Page 28162]]
fewer employees than the 1,000 cut-off level.
If a small-volume engine manufacturer grows over time and exceeds
the production volume limit of 10,000 nonhandheld engines per year, the
engine manufacturer would no longer be eligible for the small volume
flexibilities. However, because some of the flexibilities described
below provide manufacturers with the ability to avoid certain testing
such as durability testing or production line testing, it may be
difficult for a manufacturer to fully comply with all of the testing
requirements immediately upon losing its small-volume status. In such
cases, EPA is proposing that the engine manufacturer would be able to
contact EPA and request additional time, subject to EPA approval, to
meet the testing requirements that generally apply to engine
manufacturers.
(a) Assigned Deterioration Factors
We are proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers may rely on
an assigned deterioration factor to demonstrate compliance with the
standards for the purposes of certification rather than doing service
accumulation and additional testing to measure deteriorated emission
levels at the end of the regulatory useful life (see Sec. 1054.240).
EPA is not proposing actual levels for the assigned deterioration
factors with this proposal. EPA intends to analyze emissions
deterioration information that becomes available over the next few
years to determine what deterioration factors would be appropriate for
nonhandheld engines. This is likely to include deterioration data for
engines certified to comply with California ARB's Tier 3 standards and
engines certified early to EPA's Phase 3 standards. Prior to the
implementation date for the Phase 3 standards, EPA will provide
guidance to engine manufacturers specifying the levels of the assigned
deterioration factors for small-volume engine manufacturers.
(b) Exemption From Production-Line Testing
We are proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers would be
exempt from the production-line testing requirements (see Sec.
1054.301). While we are proposing to exempt small-volume engine
manufacturers from production line testing, we believe requiring
limited production-line testing could be beneficial to implement the
ongoing obligation to ensure that production engines are complying with
the standards. Therefore, we request comment on the alternative of
applying limited production-line testing to small-volume engine
manufacturers with a requirement to test one production engine per
year.
(c) Additional Lead Time
We are proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers could delay
implementation of the Phase 3 exhaust emission standards for two years
(see Sec. 1054.145). Small-volume engine manufacturers would be
required to comply with the Phase 3 exhaust emission standards
beginning in model year 2014 for Class I engines and model year 2013
for Class II engines. Under this approach, manufacturers would be able
to apply this delay to all of their nonhandheld engines or to just a
portion of their production. For those engine families that are
certified to meet the Phase 3 standards prior to these delayed dates by
selecting an FEL at or below the Phase 3 standards, small volume engine
manufacturers could generate early Phase 3 credits (as discussed in
Section V.C.3) through the 2013 model year for Class I engines and
through the 2012 model years for Class II engines. This option provides
more lead time for small-volume engine manufacturers to redesign their
products. They would also be able to learn from some of the hurdles
overcome by larger manufacturers.
(d) Broad Engine Families
We are also proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers may
use a broader definition of engine family for certification purposes.
Under the existing engine family criteria specified in the regulations,
manufacturers group their various engine lines into engine families
that have similar design characteristics including the combustion
cycle, cooling system, cylinder configuration, number of cylinders,
engine class, valve location, fuel type, aftertreatment design, and
useful life category. We are proposing to allow small-volume engine
manufacturers to group all of their Small SI engines into a single
engine family for certification by engine class and useful life
category, subject to good engineering judgment (see Sec. 1054.230).
(e) Hardship Provisions
We are also proposing two types of hardship provisions for
nonhandheld engine manufacturers consistent with the Panel
recommendations. The first type of hardship is an unusual circumstances
hardship which would be available to all businesses, regardless of
size. The second type of hardship is an economic hardship provision
which would be available to small businesses only. Sections VIII.C.8
and VIII.C.9 provide a description of the proposed hardship provisions
that would apply to nonhandheld engine manufacturers.
(3) Proposed Burden Reduction Approaches for Small-Volume Nonhandheld
Equipment Manufacturers
We are proposing three provisions for small-volume nonhandheld
equipment manufacturers. The purpose of these provisions is to reduce
the burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed
over large sales volumes. We are offering these provisions because
equipment manufacturers may need more lead time to redesign their
equipment to accommodate the new Phase 3 engine designs. We request
comment on the appropriateness of the flexibilities described below.
Under EPA's current Phase 2 regulations, EPA provided a number of
lead time provisions for small-volume equipment manufacturers. For the
Phase 2 regulations, the criteria for determining if a company was a
``small-volume equipment manufacturer'' was based on whether the
company produced fewer than 5,000 nonhandheld pieces of equipment per
year (excluding equipment sold in California that are subject to the
California ARB standards). For the same reasons noted above for engine
manufacturers, EPA is proposing to retain the current production-based
criteria for determining who is a small-volume equipment manufacturer
and, as a result, eligible for the Phase 3 flexibilities described
below (see Sec. 1054.801). The determination of which companies
qualify as small-volume equipment manufacturers for the purposes of the
flexibilities described below would be based on the annual U.S.-
directed production of nonhandheld equipment in each of the three years
from 2007 through 2009.
Based on estimated sales data for equipment manufacturers, EPA
believes the 5,000 unit cut-off for equipment manufacturers would
include almost all of the small business equipment manufacturers using
SBA's employee-based definition. However to ensure all small businesses
have access to the flexibilities described below, EPA is also proposing
to allow equipment manufacturers which exceed the production cut-off
level noted above but have fewer than 500 employees for equipment
manufacturers, or 750 employees for construction equipment
manufacturers, or 1,000 employees for generator manufacturers, to
request treatment as a small-volume equipment manufacturer (see Sec.
1054.635). In such a case, the manufacturer would need to provide
information to EPA
[[Page 28163]]
demonstrating that the manufacturer has fewer employees than the
applicable employee cut-off level.
(a) Additional Lead Time
As described in Section V.E.3., EPA is proposing a transition
program for all equipment manufacturers that produce Class II
equipment. Under that program, equipment manufacturers can install
Phase 2 engines in limited numbers of Class II equipment over the first
four years the Phase 3 standards apply (i.e., 2011 through 2014). The
number of equipment that can use Phase 2 engines is based on 30 percent
of an average annual production level of Class II equipment. To
implement this two-year extension for small-volume equipment
manufacturers within the context of the transition program for
equipment manufacturers, EPA is proposing that small-volume
manufacturers may use Phase 2 engines at a level of 200 percent of an
average annual production level of Class II equipment. Small-volume
equipment manufacturers could use these allowances over the four year
period of the transition program (see Sec. 1054.625). Therefore, a
small-volume equipment manufacturer could potentially use Phase 2
engines on all their Class II equipment for two years, consistent with
the SBAR Panel's recommendation, or they might, for example, sell half
their Class II equipment with Phase 2 engines for four years assuming
sales stay constant over time.
(b) Simplified Certification Procedure
We are proposing a simplified engine certification procedure for
all equipment manufacturers, including small-volume equipment
manufacturers. See Section V.E.4 for further discussion of this
provision.
(c) Hardship Provisions
Because nonhandheld equipment manufacturers in many cases depend on
engine manufacturers to supply certified engines in time to produce
complying equipment, we are also proposing a hardship provision for all
nonhandheld equipment manufacturers, regardless of size. The proposed
hardship would allow the manufacturer to request more time if they are
unable to obtain a certified engine and they are not at fault and would
face serious economic hardship without an extension (see Sec.
1068.255). Section VIII.C.10 provides a description of the proposed
hardship provision that would apply to nonhandheld equipment
manufacturers.
G. Technological Feasibility
(1) Level of Standards
We are proposing new, more stringent exhaust HC+NOX
standards for Class I and II Small SI engines. We are also proposing a
new CO standard for Small SI engines used in marine generator
applications.
In the 2005 model year manufacturers certified over 500 Class I and
II engine families to the Phase 2 standards using a variety of engine
designs and emission control technology. All Class I engines were
produced using carbureted air-fuel induction systems. A small number of
engines used catalyst-based emission control technology. Similarly,
Class II engines were predominately carbureted. A limited number of
these engines used catalyst technology, electronic engine controls and
fuel injection, or were water cooled. In both classes, several engine
families were certified at levels that would comply with the proposed
Phase 3 standards. Also, a number of families were very close to the
proposed emission standards. This suggests that, even accounting for
the relative increase in stringency associated with our proposed Phase
3 requirements, a number of families either will not need to do
anything or will require only modest reductions in their emission
performance to meet the proposed standards. However, many engine
families clearly will have to do more to improve their emissions
performance.
Based on our own testing of advanced technology for these engines,
our engineering assessments, and statements from the affected industry,
we believe the proposed requirements will require many engine
manufacturers to adopt exhaust aftertreatment technology using
catalyst-based systems. Other likely changes include improved engine
designs and fuel delivery systems. Finally, adding electronic controls
or fuel injection systems may obviate the need for catalytic
aftertreatment for some engine families, with the most likely
candidates being multi-cylinder engine designs.
(2) Implementation Dates
We are proposing HC+NOX exhaust emission standards of
10.0 g/kW-hr for Class I engines starting in the 2012 model year and
8.0 g/kW-hr for Class II engines starting in the 2011 model year. For
both classes of nonhandheld engines, we are proposing to maintain the
existing CO standard of 610 g/kW-hr. We expect manufacturers to meet
these standards by improving engine combustion and adding catalysts.
For spark-ignition engines used in marine generators, we are
proposing a more stringent Phase 3 CO emission standard of 5.0 g/kW-hr.
This would apply equally to all sizes of engines subject to the Class I
and II Small SI standards, with implementation dates as described above
relative to Class I and Class II engines.
(3) Technological Approaches
Our feasibility assessment began by evaluating the emissions
performance of current technology for Small SI engines and equipment.
These initial efforts focused on developing a baseline for emissions
and general engine performance so that we could assess the potential
for new emission standards for engines and equipment in this category.
This process involved laboratory and field evaluations of the current
engines and equipment. We reviewed engineering information and data on
existing engine designs and their emissions performance. Patents of
existing catalyst/muffler designs for Class I engines were also
reviewed. We engaged engine manufacturers and suppliers of emission
control-related engine components in discussions regarding recent and
expected advances in emissions performance beyond that required to
comply with the current Phase 2 standards. Finally, we purchased
catalyst/muffler units that were already in mass production by an
original equipment manufacturer for use on European walk-behind lawn
mowers and conducted engineering and chemical analyses on the design
and materials of those units.
We used the information and experience gathered in the above effort
along with the previous catalyst design experience of our engineering
staff, to design and build prototype catalyst-based emission control
systems that were capable of effectively and safely achieving the
proposed Phase 3 requirement based on dynamometer and field testing. We
also used the information and the results of our engine testing to
assess the potential need for improvements to engine and fuel system
designs, and the selective use of electronic engine controls and fuel
injection on some engine types. A great deal of this effort was
conducted in association with our more exhaustive study regarding the
efficacy and safety of implementing advanced exhaust emission controls
on Small SI engines, as well as new evaporative requirements for these
engines. In other testing, we evaluated advanced emission controls on a
multi-cylinder Class II engine with electronic fuel injection. The
results of that study are also discussed in Section XII.
[[Page 28164]]
In our test program to assess the feasibility of achieving the
proposed Phase 3 HC+NOX standard, we evaluated 15 Class I
engines of varying displacements and valve-train designs. Each of these
engines was equipped with a catalyst-based control system and all
achieved the applicable standard at the end of their regulatory useful
lives. Our work also suggests that manufacturers of Class I engines may
also need to improve the durability of their basic engine designs,
ignition systems, or fuel metering systems for some engines in order to
comply with the emission regulations.
We tested five single-cylinder, overhead-valve Class II engines
with prototype catalyst/muffler control systems. Three of the engines
were carbureted and two were equipped with electronic engine and fuel
controls. This latter technology improves the management of air-fuel
mixtures and ignition spark timing. This itself can reduce engine-out
emissions relative to a carbureted system and also allows the use of
larger catalyst volumes and higher precious metal loading. Each of the
engines achieved the requisite emission limit for HC+NOX
(e.g., 8.0 g/kW-hr). Based on this work and information from one
manufacturer of emission controls, we believe that either a catalyst-
based system or electronic engine controls appear sufficient to meet
the standard. Nonetheless, some applications may require the use of
both technologies. Finally, similarly to Class I engines, we found that
manufacturers of Class II engines may also need to improve the
durability of their ignition systems or fuel metering systems for some
engines in order to comply with the emission regulations.
Multi-cylinder Class II engines are very similar to their single-
cylinder counterparts regarding engine design and combustion
characteristics. There are no multi-cylinder Class I engines. Base on
these attributes and our testing of two twin-cylinder engines, we
conclude that the proposed Phase 3 HC+NOX standard is
technically feasible.
Nonetheless, we also found that multi-cylinder engines may present
unique concern with the application of catalytic control technology
under atypical operation conditions. More specifically, the concern
relates to the potential consequences of combustion misfire or a
complete lack of combustion in one of the two or more cylinders when a
single catalyst/muffler design is used. A single muffler is typically
used in Class II applications. In a single-catalyst system, the
unburned fuel and air mixture from the malfunctioning cylinder would
combine with hot exhaust gases from the other, properly operating
cylinder. This condition would create high temperatures within the
muffler system as the unburned fuel and air charge from the misfiring
cylinder combusts within the exhaust system. This could potentially
destroy the catalyst.
One solution is simply to have a separate catalyst/muffler for each
cylinder. Another solution is to employ electronic engine controls to
monitor ignition and put the engine into ``limp-mode'' until necessary
repairs are made. For engines using carburetors, this would effectively
require the addition of electronic controls. For engines employing
electronic fuel injection that may need to add a small catalyst, it
would require that the electronic controls incorporate ignition misfire
detection if they do not already utilize the inherent capabilities
within the engine management system.
As described earlier, we also expect some engine families may use
electronic fuel injection to meet the proposed Phase 3 standard without
employing catalytic aftertreatment. Engine families that already use
these fuel metering systems and are reasonably close to complying with
the proposed requirement are likely to need only additional calibration
changes to the engine management system for compliance. In addition, we
expect that some engine families which currently use carbureted fuel
systems will convert directly to electronic fuel injection.
Manufacturers may adopt this strategy to couple achieving the standard
without a catalyst and realizing other advantages of using fuel
injection such as easier starting, more stable and reliable engine
operation, and reduced fuel consumption.
Our evaluation of electronic fuel injection systems that could be
used to attain the proposed standard found that a rather simple, low-
cost system should be sufficient. We demonstrated this proof of concept
as part of the engine test program we conducted for our safety study.
In that program, we fitted two single-cylinder Class II engines with an
electronic control unit and fuel system components developed for Asian
motor-scooters and small-displacement motorcycles. The sensors for the
system were minimized to include a throttle position sensor, air charge
temperature sensor, oil temperature sensor, manifold absolute pressure
sensor, and a crankshaft position sensor. This is in contrast to the
original equipment manufacturer fuel injection systems currently used
in some equipment with two-cylinder Class II engine applications that
employ more sophisticated and expensive automotive-based components.
Finally, there are a number of Class II engines that use gaseous
fuels (i.e., liquid propane gas or compressed natural gas). Based on
our engineering evaluation of current and likely emission control
technology for these engines, we conclude that there are no special
concerns relative to achieving the proposed Phase 3 HC+NOX
standard.
Turning to the proposed Phase 3 CO standard for Class I and II
Small SI engines used in marine generator applications, these engines
have several rather unique design considerations that are relevant to
achieving the proposed CO standard. Marine generator engines are
designed to operate for very long periods. Manufacturers generally
design the engines to operate at lower loads to accommodate continuous
operation. Manufacturers also design them to take advantage of the
cooling available from the water in the lake or river where the boat is
operating (seawater). By routing seawater through the engine block, or
using a heat exchanger that transfers heat from the engine coolant to
the seawater, manufacturers are able to maintain engine temperatures as
well or better than automotive engines. Stable temperatures in the
engine block make a very significant difference in engine operation,
enabling much less distortion of the cylinders and a much more
consistent combustion event. These operating characteristics make it
possible to introduce advanced technology for controlling emissions.
Manufacturers also use this cooling water in a jacketing system around
the exhaust in order to minimize surface temperatures and reduce the
risk of fires on boats.
The vast majority of gasoline marine generators are produced by two
engine manufacturers. Recently, these two manufacturers have announced
that they are converting their marine generator product lines to new
designs which can achieve more than a 99 percent reduction in CO
emissions. These manufacturers stated that this action is to reduce the
risk of CO poisoning and is a result of boat builder demand. These low
CO emission designs used closed-loop electronic fuel injection and
catalytic control. Both of these manufacturers have certified some low
CO engines and have expressed their intent to convert their full
product lines in the near future. These manufacturers also make use of
electronic controls to monitor catalyst function.
[[Page 28165]]
(4) Consideration of Regulatory Alternatives
In developing the proposed emission standards, we considered what
was achievable with catalyst technology. Our technology assessment work
indicated that the proposed emission standards are feasible in the
context of provisions for establishing emission standards prescribed in
section 213 of the Clean Air Act. We also considered what could be
achieved with larger, more efficient catalysts and improved fuel
induction systems. In particular, Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA presents
data on Class I engines with more active catalysts and on Class II
engines with closed-loop control fuel injection systems in addition to
a catalyst. In both cases larger emission reductions were achieved.
Based on this work we considered HC+NOX standards which
would have involved a 50 percent reduction for Class I engines and a
65-70 percent reduction for Class II engines. Chapter 11 of the Draft
RIA evaluates these alternatives, including an assessment of the
overall technology and costs of meeting more stringent standards. For
Class I engines a 50 percent reduction standard would require base
engine changes not necessarily involved with the standards we are
proposing and the use of a more active catalyst. For Class II engines
this would require the widespread use of closed loop control fuel
injection systems rather than carburetors, some additional engine
upgrades, and the use three-way catalysts. We believe it is not
appropriate at this time to propose more stringent exhaust emission
standards for Small SI engines. Our key concern is lead time. More
stringent standards would require three to five years of lead time
beyond the 2011 model year start date we are proposing for the program.
We believe it would be more effective to implement the proposed Phase 3
standards to achieve near-term emission reductions needed to reduce
ozone precursor emissions and to minimize growth in the Small SI
exhaust emissions inventory in the post 2010 time frame. More efficient
catalysts, engine improvements, and closed loop electronic fuel
injection could be the basis for more stringent Phase 4 emission
standards at some point in the future.
(5) Our Conclusions
We believe the proposed Phase 3 exhaust emission standards for
nonhandheld Small SI engines will achieve significant emission
reductions. Manufacturers will likely meet the proposed standards with
a mix of three-way catalysts packaged in the mufflers and fuel-
injection systems. Test data using readily available technologies have
demonstrated the feasibility of achieving the proposed emission levels.
As discussed in Section X, we do not believe the proposed standards
would have negative effects on energy, noise, or safety and may lead to
some positive effects.
VI. Evaporative Emissions
A. Overview
Evaporative emissions refer to hydrocarbons released into the
atmosphere when gasoline or other volatile fuels escape from a fuel
system. The primary source of evaporative emissions from nonroad
gasoline engines and equipment is known as permeation, which occurs
when fuel penetrates the material used in the fuel system and reaches
the ambient air. This is especially common through rubber and plastic
fuel-system components such as fuel lines and fuel tanks. Diurnal
emissions are another important source of evaporative emissions.
Diurnal emissions occur as the fuel heats up due to increases in
ambient temperature. As the fuel heats, liquid fuel evaporates into the
vapor space inside the tank. In a sealed tank, these vapors would
increase the pressure inside the tank; however, most tanks are vented
to prevent this pressure buildup. The evaporating fuel therefore drives
vapors out of the tank into the atmosphere. Diffusion emissions occur
when vapor escapes the fuel tank through an opening as a result of
random molecular motion, independent of changing temperature. Running
loss emissions are similar to diurnal emissions except that vapors
escape the fuel tank as a result of heating from the engine or some
other source of heat during operation rather than from normal daily
temperature changes. Refueling losses are vapors that are displaced
from the fuel tank to the atmosphere when someone fills a fuel tank.
Refueling spitback is the spattering of liquid fuel droplets coming out
of the filler neck during a refueling event. Spillage is fuel that is
spilled while refueling. Regulatory provisions to set standards for
several of these types of evaporative emissions effectively define the
terms for establishing the specific test procedures for measuring
emissions. See the proposed regulatory text for more information.
This proposal is part of a larger effort to control evaporative
emissions from all mobile sources. Motor vehicles have stringent
evaporative emission controls based on SHED testing of complete
vehicles.\82\ As a result, motor vehicle manufacturers must control
diurnal emissions, permeation through all fuel-system components,
running loss emissions, refueling vapor displacement, refueling
spitback, and to some extent, spillage. We recently established
evaporative emission standards for recreational vehicles and Large SI
engines (67 FR 68242, November 8, 2002). These standards include
permeation requirements for fuel tanks and fuel lines. In addition,
equipment using Large SI engines must control diurnal emissions and
running losses. Fuel systems used with Small SI engines and Marine SI
engines are not yet subject to evaporative emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ An entire vehicle is placed in a SHED (Sealed Housing for
Evaporative Determination) and total evaporative emissions are
measured over prescribed test cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2002, we proposed permeation and diurnal emission
standards for fuel systems related to Marine SI engines (67 FR 53050,
August 14, 2002). We finalized other portions of that proposal but
chose to delay promulgation of Marine SI evaporative standards. At the
time of the earlier proposal there were still open issues regarding
emission control technologies for rotational-molded fuel tanks and for
pressurizing fuel tanks as a diurnal emission control strategy. Since
then, EPA has continued gathering information and performing tests on
new technologies that could be used to address these issues. In this
notice we are updating the proposed evaporative emission standards for
Marine SI fuel systems. The standards in this proposal incorporate this
new information.
We are also proposing standards for controlling evaporative
emissions from fuel systems used with Small SI engines. These proposed
standards include requirements for controlling permeation, diffusion,
and running loss emissions.
B. Fuel Systems Covered by This Rule
The proposed evaporative emission standards would apply to fuel
systems for both Small SI engines and Marine SI engines. The marine
standards apply to fuel systems related to both propulsion and
auxiliary engines. In some cases, specific standards are proposed only
for certain types of equipment, as described below. These standards
would apply only to new products, as described in Section VII.A.
We are proposing to write the regulations related to evaporative
emission standards in 40 CFR part 1060,
[[Page 28166]]
which is devoted to evaporative emission controls from nonroad engines
and equipment. The exhaust standard-setting part (part 1045 for Marine
SI and part 1054 for Small SI) defines the emission standards, but
references part 1060 for certification and testing procedures, in
addition to definitions, compliance-related issues, and other special
provisions. Section VII describes further how the different parts work
together in the certification process. Also, as described in Section
XI, we are proposing to allow component manufacturers and some
equipment manufacturers to certify products under the provisions of
part 1060 with respect to recreational vehicles. We also plan to
clarify in a separate action that marine and land-based compression-
ignition engines that operate on volatile liquid fuels (such as
methanol or ethanol) are subject to evaporative requirements related to
part 1060. The draft regulations in part 1060 describe how those
provisions would apply for compression-ignition engines, but these
regulations impose no obligations until we adopt those as requirements
in a separate rulemaking.
The following definitions are important in establishing which
components would be covered by the proposed standards: ``evaporative,''
``fuel system,'' ``fuel line,'' ``portable nonroad fuel tank,'' and
``installed marine fuel tank.'' See the full text of these definitions
in the proposed regulations at Sec. 1060.801.
Note in particular that the proposed standards would apply to fuel
lines, including hose or tubing that contains liquid fuel. This would
include fuel supply lines but not vapor lines or vent lines not
normally exposed to liquid fuel. We consider fuel return lines for
handheld engines to be vapor lines, not fuel lines. Data in Chapter 5
of the Draft RIA suggest that permeation rates through vapor lines and
vent lines are already lower than the proposed standard; this is due to
the low vapor concentration in the vapor line. In contrast, permeation
rates for materials that are consistently exposed to saturated fuel
vapor are generally considered to be about the same as that for liquid
fuel. The standards also do not apply to primer bulbs exposed to liquid
fuel only for priming. This standard would apply to marine filler necks
that are filled or partially filled with liquid fuel after a refueling
event where the operator fills the tank as full as possible. In the
case where the fuel system is designed to prevent liquid fuel from
standing in the fill neck, the fill neck would be considered a vapor
line and not subject to the proposed fuel line permeation standard. We
request comment on the appropriateness of applying permeation standards
to filler necks, vapor lines and vent lines for Small SI engines and
Marine SI engines.
One special note applies to fuel systems for auxiliary marine
engines. These engines must meet exhaust emission standards that apply
to land-based engines. This is appropriate because these engines,
typically used to power generators, operate more like land-based
engines than like marine propulsion engines. For evaporative emissions,
however, it is important that the fuel systems for propulsion and
auxiliary engines be subject to the same standards because these
engines typically draw fuel from a common fuel tank and share other
fuel-system components. We are therefore proposing to apply the Marine
SI evaporative emission standards and certification requirements to the
fuel systems for both auxiliary and propulsion marine engines on marine
vessels.
Our evaporative emission standards for automotive applications are
based on a comprehensive measurement from the whole vehicle. However,
the evaporative standards in this proposal are generally based on
individual fuel-system components. For instance, we are proposing
permeation standards for fuel lines and fuel tanks rather than for the
equipment as a whole.\83\ We are taking this approach for several
reasons. First, most production of Small SI equipment and Marine SI
vessels is not vertically integrated. In other words, the fuel line
manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the fuel tank manufacturer, and
the equipment manufacturer are often separate companies. In addition,
there are several hundred equipment manufacturers and boat builders,
many of which are small businesses. Testing the systems as a whole
would place the entire certification burden on the equipment
manufacturers and boat builders. Specifying emission standards and
testing for individual components allows for measurements that are
narrowly focused on the source of emissions and on the technology
changes for controlling emissions. This correspondingly allows for
component manufacturers to certify that their products meet applicable
standards. We believe it would be most appropriate for component
manufacturers to certify their products since they are best positioned
to apply emission control technologies and demonstrate compliance.
Equipment manufacturers and boat builders would then be able to
purchase certified fuel-system components rather than doing all their
own testing on individual components or whole systems to demonstrate
compliance with every requirement. In contrast, controlling running
loss emissions cannot be done on a component basis so we are proposing
to require engine or equipment manufacturers to certify that they meet
the running loss standard. We would otherwise expect most equipment
manufacturers to simply identify a range of certified components and
install the components as directed by the component manufacturer to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ An exception to component certification is the design
standard for contolling running loss emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, a great deal of diversity exists in fuel-system designs
(hose lengths, tank sizes/shapes, number of connections, etc.). In most
cases, the specific equipment types are low-volume production runs so
sales would not be large enough to cover the expense of SHED-type
testing. Third, there are similarities in fuel lines and tanks that
allow for component data to be used broadly across products in spite of
extensive variety in the geometry and design of fuel systems. Fourth,
many equipment types, primarily boats, would not fit in standard-size
SHEDs and would require the development of very large, very expensive
test facilities if the entire vessel were tested.
Finally, by proposing separate standards for fuel line permeation,
fuel tank permeation, diurnal emissions, and diffusion emissions, we
are able to include simplified certification requirements without
affecting the level of the standards. Specifying a comprehensive test
with a single standard for all types of evaporative emissions would
make it difficult or impossible to rely on design-based certification.
Requiring emission tests to cover the wide range of equipment models
would greatly increase the cost of compliance with little or no
increase in the effectiveness of the certification program. We believe
the proposed approach allows substantial opportunity for market forces
to appropriately divide compliance responsibilities among affected
manufacturers and accordingly results in an effective compliance
program at the lowest possible cost to society.
The proposed emission standards generally apply to the particular
engines and their associated fuel systems. However, for ease of
reference, we may refer to evaporative standards as being related to
Small SI equipment or Marine SI vessels, meaning the relevant
[[Page 28167]]
evaporative standards for engines and fuel systems used in such
equipment or vessels.\84\ See Section VI.F for a more detailed
description of certification responsibilities for all the proposed
evaporative standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ ``Small SI equipment'' includes all nonroad equipment
powered by Small SI engines. ``Marine SI vessels'' includes all
vessels powered by engines that run on volatile liquid fuels. In
almost all cases these engines are powered by gasoline. Note also
that volatile liquid fuels include methanol or ethanol, which could
be used in a compression-ignition engine. While we are aware of no
such equipment or vessels today, they would be covered by the
proposed regulations. In this preamble, we nevertheless refer to all
the vessels that fall within the scope of the proposed regulations
as marine SI vessels. Throughout this section, we generally refer to
Small SI equipment and Marine SI vessels as ``equipment,''
consistent with the proposed regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
We are proposing permeation standards for Small SI equipment and
Marine SI vessels, covering permeation from fuel tanks and fuel lines.
We are also proposing diurnal emission standards for Marine SI vessels.
We are proposing diffusion emission standards but not diurnal emission
standards for nonhandheld Small SI equipment. In addition, we are
proposing a running loss standard for nonhandheld Small SI equipment
(except wintertime engines), with a variety of specified options for
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance. Based on the current state of
technology, we believe the proposed standards are a logical extension
of the standards proposed for marine vessels in August 2002 and the
standards finalized for recreational vehicles in November 2002.
All the proposed evaporative emission standards would apply to new
equipment for a useful life period in years that matches the useful
life of the corresponding engine. We propose to specify a five-year
useful life for evaporative requirements for Small SI equipment (we are
not proposing a year-based useful life requirement related to exhaust
emissions for Small SI engines). Manufacturers have expressed concern
that they will not have time to gain five years of in-use experience on
low-permeation fuel tanks by the proposed dates of the tank permeation
standards. Unlike barrier fuel line, which is well established
technology, some fuel tanks may use barrier technologies that have not
been used extensively in other applications. An example of this
technology would be barrier surface treatments that must be properly
matched to the fuel tank material. Therefore, we are proposing a
shorter useful life of two years for Marine SI and Small SI fuel tanks
through the 2013 model year to allow manufacturers to gain experience
in use (see Sec. Sec. 1045.145 and 1054.145). We do not expect this
interim provision to affect manufacturer designs or in-use compliance
efforts. We do not believe this interim provision to specify a shorter
useful life period is necessary for other fuel-system components,
either because there is adequate durability experience in other sectors
or because the control inherently does not involve a concern over in-
use deterioration.
The rest of this section summarizes the proposed standards,
additional requirements, and implementation dates. Unless otherwise
stated, implementation dates specified below refer to the model year.
Section VI.D describes how manufacturers may use emission credits to
meet fuel tank permeation standards. Section VI.E describes the test
procedures corresponding to each standard. Section VI.F describes how
component and equipment manufacturers certify their products and how
their responsibilities overlap in some cases. Section VI.F also
describes the simplified process of design-based certification for
meeting many of the proposed standards.
(1) Fuel Line Permeation Standards and Dates
The proposed fuel line permeation standard applies to fuel lines
intended for use in new Small SI equipment and Marine SI vessels is 15
g/m\2\/day at 23 [deg]C on a test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol
(see Sec. 1060.102 and Sec. 1060.515). The form of the standard
refers to grams of permeation over a 24-hour period divided by the
inside surface area of the fuel line. This proposed standard is
consistent with that adopted for fuel lines in recreational vehicles.
The move toward low-permeation fuel lines in recreational vehicles--and
further development work in this area since the first proposed rule for
marine evaporative emissions--demonstrates that low-permeation fuel
lines are available on the market today for Small SI equipment and
Marine SI vessels. In addition, many manufacturers are already using
low-permeation technologies in response to permeation standards in
California. We are therefore proposing that this standard apply
beginning with 2008 for nonhandheld Small SI equipment and 2009 for
Marine SI vessels. For handheld equipment, we are proposing a fuel line
permeation implementation date of 2012, except that small-volume
families as defined in Sec. 1054.801 would have until 2013. Although
low-permeation fuel line technology is available, handheld equipment is
not currently subject to fuel line permeation requirements in
California and does not typically use low-permeation fuel lines today.
In addition, much of the fuel line used on handheld equipment is not
straight-run fuel line for which low-permeation replacements are
readily available; thus, more lead time is required. We request comment
on the proposed standard and implementation dates.
Component manufacturers would be required to certify to the
proposed emission standard for fuel lines (this may involve
certification to a family emission limit above the emission standard
for handheld engines, as described in Section VI.D), except in certain
circumstances. Equipment manufacturers may need to certify that their
fuel lines meet the proposed emission standards if they use any
sections or pieces of fuel line that are not already certified by the
fuel line manufacturer, or if they comply using emission credits, as
described in Section VI.F.
To address the short lead time associated with the 2008
requirements for Small SI equipment, we are proposing an interim
arrangement in which engine manufacturers would include compliant fuel
lines under their existing certification (see Sec. 90.127). This would
prevent the need for other companies to submit new applications for
certification that would need to be processed immediately. This
arrangement would allow for engine manufacturers to start complying
well ahead of the time that the fuel line standards become mandatory.
The certification requirements described above for component
manufacturers would start once Small SI engines and equipment would be
subject to Phase 3 standards.
By specifying standards for fuel-system components rather than the
entire fuel system, we must separately address appropriate requirements
for connecting pieces, such as valves, O-rings, seals, plugs, and
grommets that are exposed to liquid fuel but are not part of the fuel
line. We are proposing to require that these ancillary pieces meet the
broad specifications described in Sec. 1060.101(f), which generally
requires that fittings and connections be designed to prevent leaks. As
described in Section VI.E.1, we are also proposing to allow testing of
fuel line assemblies that include connecting pieces, primer bulbs, and
other fuel line components as a single item (see Sec. 1060.102). For
example, manufacturers may certify fuel lines for portable marine fuel
tanks as
[[Page 28168]]
assemblies of fuel line, primer bulbs, and self-sealing end
connections. Finally, we are proposing to require that detachable fuel
lines be self-sealing when they are removed from the fuel tank or the
engine because this would otherwise result in high evaporative
emissions (see Sec. 1060.101). To the extent that equipment
manufacturers and boat builders certify their products, they would need
to describe how they meet the equipment-based requirements proposed in
Sec. 1060.101(e) and (f) in their application for certification. If
boat builders rely on certified components instead of certifying, they
would need to keep records describing how they meet the equipment-based
requirements proposed in Sec. 1060.101(e) and (f).
Handheld equipment manufacturers have raised concerns that fuel
lines constructed of available low-permeation materials may not perform
well in some handheld applications under extreme cold weather
conditions such as below -30 [deg]C. These products often use injected
molded fuel lines with complex shapes and designs needed to address the
unique equipment packaging issues and the high vibration and random
movement of the fuel lines within the overall equipment when in use.
Industry has expressed concern and the data in Chapter 5 of the Draft
RIA suggest that durability issues may occur from using certain low-
permeation materials in these applications when the weather is
extremely cold and that these could lead to unexpected fuel line leaks.
Handheld equipment types that could be considered as cold-weather
products include cut-off saws, clearing saws, brush cutters over 40cc,
commercial earth and wood drills, ice augers, and chainsaws.
The extreme cold temperatures needed to induce the potential fuel
line failures are very rare but do occur each year in Alaska and the
continental United States. EPA considered a number of different options
aimed at developing special provisions for equipment most likely to be
used in these extreme cold weather situations without providing relief
to all of the equipment sold in the broad categories identified by
industry as cold weather products. These included focusing the
provisions on products used by professionals (longer useful life
equipment or Class V equipment only), geographic-based retrofit kits,
product segregation, and special labeling. While each of the options
has some merit, none could provide the full assurance that handheld
equipment using low-permeation fuel lines not compatible with extreme
cold weather would not be used in such weather conditions. While very
low temperature materials are available that can achieve the fuel line
permeation standards discussed above, these materials come at a
substantially higher cost than that for fuel lines used in non cold
weather products and none have been evaluated in fuel lines on the
handheld equipment at issue.
If we consider a less stringent standard, we believe there are
lower cost materials available that could be used to achieve permeation
reductions in equipment designed for cold weather applications without
creating potential safety concerns related to fuel leaks. As discussed
in the Draft RIA, rubbers with high acrylonitrile (ACN) content are
used in some handheld applications. These materials have about half the
permeation of lower ACN-content rubbers also used in handheld
applications. To capture the capability of these materials to reduce
permeation emissions without creating other issues for cold weather
products, we are proposing a fuel line permeation standard of 175 g/
m\2\/day in 2013 for cold-weather products. We request comment on
appropriateness of this standard and whether there are materials that
could be used to achieve larger fuel line permeation reductions from
cold-weather products.
We request comment on what products should be considered to be
cold-weather products and if it would be possible to distinguish
between products used in warm versus cold climates. We also request
comment regarding whether the proposed ABT program discussed below for
handheld equipment would provide enough flexibility to manufacturers to
address cold weather issues through credit trading rather than through
a differentiated standard.
Outboard engine manufacturers have expressed concern that it would
be difficult for them to meet proposed 2009 date for the sections of
fuel lines that are mounted on their engines under the engine cowl.
While some sections of straight-run fuel line are used on the
outboards, many of the smaller sections between engine mounted fuel-
system components and connectors are preformed or even injection-molded
parts. Outboard engine manufacturers stated that they would need
additional time to redesign and perform testing on low-permeation fuel
lines under the cowl. PWC and SD/I manufacturers have indicated that
this is not an issue on their engines because they are dominantly
straight-run pieces. Outboard engine manufacturers have also stated
that, in contrast to under cowl fuel line, they would be able to
facilitate the introduction of low-permeation fuel line, from the fuel
tank to the engine, in 2008.
We request comment on implementing an optional program where the
implementation dates for fuel line under the cowl can be delayed beyond
2009, provided low-permeation fuel line from the fuel tank to the
engine is used beginning on January 1, 2008. Under this approach,
permeation standards for primer bulbs on fuel lines from the tank to
the engine would still begin in 2009. One specific approach would be to
phase in the use of low-permeation fuel lines on outboards based on the
total inside surface area of the under cowl fuel lines. For instance
the following phase-in could be implemented: 30 percent in 2010, 60
percent in 2011, and 90 percent in 2012. This would allow manufacturers
to transition to the use of low-permeation fuel lines in an orderly
fashion. Also, it would give them some flexibility to continue to use
short sections of uncontrolled fuel lines, in the longer term, that are
more difficult or costly to replace with low-permeation fuel lines. At
some point in the future, such as 2015, we could require the use of 100
percent low-permeation fuel lines. Manufacturers would be expected to
target 100 percent use of low-permeation fuel lines in new engine
designs. If the surface area percentages were weighted across a
manufacturers entire product line of outboard engines (rather than on a
per-engine basis), it would allow manufacturers to use 100 percent low-
permeation fuel lines on new engine designs, while making less changes
to engines that are planned to be phased out of production.
We also request comment on how the above program could be
implemented given that the fuel line from the tank to the engine is
typically installed by the boat builder while the under-cowl fuel line
is installed by the engine manufacturer. One approach that has been
considered is requiring the engine manufacturer to specify low-
permeation fuel line in its installation instructions beginning in
2008. The engines would not be made available to boat builders who do
not begin using low-permeation fuel lines in 2008.
(2) Fuel Tank Permeation Standards and Dates
Except as noted below, we are proposing a fuel tank permeation
standard of 1.5 g/m\2\/day for tanks intended for use in new Small SI
equipment and Marine SI vessels based on the permeation rate of
gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol at a test temperature of 28
[deg]C (see Sec. 1060.103 and Sec. 1060.520). The emission standard
is
[[Page 28169]]
based on the inside surface area of the fuel tank rather than the
volumetric capacity because permeation is a function of surface area
exposed to fuel. This proposed standard is consistent with that adopted
for fuel tanks in recreational vehicles.
We are proposing a fuel tank permeation standard of 2.5 g/m\2\/day
for handheld equipment with structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks
(see Sec. 1060.801 for the proposed definition of structurally
integrated nylon fuel tanks). These fuel tanks are molded as part of
the general structure of the equipment. In most cases, these fuel tanks
are made of glass-reinforced nylon for strength and temperature
resistance. These nylon constructions typically have significantly
lower permeation rates than other plastics used for fuel tanks, such as
high-density polyethylene; however, based on data in Chapter 5 of the
Draft RIA the nylon constructions may not be able meet a standard of
1.5 g/m\2\/day. Therefore, we believe a higher standard is necessary
for these fuel tank constructions. We request comment on this separate
permeation standards for structurally integrated fuel tanks.
Many Small SI equipment manufacturers are currently using low-
permeation fuel tanks for products certified in California. The
California tank permeation test procedures use a nominal test
temperature of 40 [deg]C with California certification gasoline while
we are proposing to require testing at 28 [deg]C with gasoline
containing 10 percent ethanol. We are proposing to allow manufacturers
the alternative of testing their fuel tanks at 40 [deg]C with our test
fuel. Because permeation increases as a function of temperature, we are
proposing an alternative standard of 2.5 g/m2/day for fuel tanks tested
at 40 [deg]C. For structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks, the
alternative standard at 40 [deg]C would be 4.0 g/m\2\/day.
We consider three distinct classes of marine fuel tanks: (1)
Portable marine fuel tanks (generally used with small outboards); (2)
personal watercraft (PWC) fuel tanks; and (3) other installed marine
fuel tanks (generally used with SD/I and larger outboards). The fuel
tank permeation standards are proposed to start in 2011 for all Small
SI equipment using Class II engines and for personal watercraft and
portable marine fuel tanks. For Small SI equipment using Class I
engines and for other installed marine fuel tanks, we propose to apply
the same standard starting in 2012. Most of the marine fuel tanks with
the later standards are produced in low volumes using rotational-molded
cross-link polyethylene or fiberglass construction, both of which
generally present a greater design challenge. We believe the additional
lead time will be necessary for these fuel tanks to allow for a smooth
transition to low-permeation designs. For Small SI equipment, these
dates also align with the schedule for introducing the proposed Phase 3
exhaust emission standards.
Component manufacturers would be required to certify to the
proposed permeation emission standard for fuel tanks (this may involve
certification to a family emission limit above the emission standard,
as described in Section VI.D), except in certain circumstances.
Equipment manufacturers would need to certify that their fuel tanks
meet the proposed emission standards if they are not already certified
by the fuel tank manufacturer, or if they comply using emission
credits, as described in Section VI.F. However, we are proposing that
manufacturers of portable marine fuel tanks be required to certify that
their products meet the new permeation standard. This is necessary
because portable fuel tanks are not sold to boat builders for
installation in a vessel. There is therefore no other manufacturer who
could be treated as the manufacturer and responsible for meeting
emission standards that apply to portable marine fuel tanks.
For handheld equipment, we are proposing a phased-in implementation
of the fuel tank permeation standards. Manufacturers would be required
to meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standards in 2009 for
products that they already certify in California (see Sec. 90.129).
The remaining equipment, except for structurally integrated nylon fuel
tanks and small-volume families, would be subject to the proposed tank
permeation standards in 2010 (see Sec. 1054.110). Structurally
integrated nylon fuel tanks would be subject to the proposed standards
in 2011 and small-volume families would have to meet the proposed tank
permeation standards beginning in 2013. Manufacturers would need to
start using EPA-specified procedures starting in 2010, except that
equipment certified using carryover data would be allowed to use data
collected using procedures specified for compliance in California for
model years 2010 and 2011 (see Sec. 1054.145).
For the purpose of the proposed fuel tank permeation standards, a
fuel cap mounted on the fuel tank is considered to be part of the fuel
tank. We consider a fuel cap to be mounted on the fuel tank unless the
fuel tank is designed to have a filler neck at least 12 inches long
with the opening at least six inches above the top of the fuel tank.
The fuel cap would therefore be included in the tank permeation
standard and test. The cap may optionally be tested separately from the
tank and the results combined to determine the total tank permeation
rate (see Sec. 1060.521). Cap manufacturers could also test their caps
and certify them separately to a separate 1.5 g/m\2\/day cap permeation
standard. The permeation requirements apply independently of the
diffusion standards described below, which address venting of fuel
vapors. We are concerned that allowing certification of fuel caps could
add complexity to the certification process. It would also add a
measure of uncertainty in our efforts to ensure compliance with
emission standards--for fuel tanks certified to permeation standards
alone, it would be hard ensure that the fuel tanks in the final
installation would be in a certified configuration with respect to
diffusion emissions. We therefore request comment on the value to
manufacturers of allowing fuel caps to be certified independently from
the fuel tank. Note that a single certification fee would apply to fuel
tanks that are certified to permeation and diffusion emission
standards, but only if there is no optional fuel cap certification.
With the option of fuel cap certification, a separate certification fee
would apply to diffusion and permeation families, even if a single fuel
tank manufacturer certifies to both standards.
(3) Diurnal Emission Standards and Dates
We are proposing diurnal emission standards for fuel tanks intended
for use in new Marine SI vessels (see Sec. 1045.107). We consider
three distinct classes of marine fuel tanks: (1) Portable marine fuel
tanks (used with small outboards); (2) personal watercraft (PWC) fuel
tanks; and (3) other installed fuel tanks (used with SD/I and larger
outboards). For diurnal emissions from portable fuel tanks, we are
proposing a design requirement that the tank remain sealed up to a
pressure of 5.0 psi, starting in the 2009 model year (see Sec.
1060.105). We are also proposing that portable fuel tanks must continue
to be self-sealing when disconnected from an engine.
We are proposing a general emission standard of 0.40 g/gal/day
based on a 25.6-32.2 [deg]C temperature profile for installed tanks.
The applicable test procedures are described in Section VI.E.3.
Manufacturers have expressed concerns that some very large boats stay
in the water throughout the boating season and therefore will see a
much smaller daily swing in fuel
[[Page 28170]]
temperatures, which corresponds with a smaller degree of diurnal
emissions. We are proposing to address this concern with an alternative
standard and test procedure that would apply only for nontrailerable
boats. Using available measurements related to fuel temperatures and
emission models to relate temperatures to projected diurnal emission
levels, we are proposing an alternative standard of 0.16 g/gal/day
based on a 27.6-30.2 [deg]C temperature cycle for fuel tanks installed
in nontrailerable boats. For the purposes of this rule, we are
proposing to define a nontrailerable boat as 26 feet or more in length,
which is consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition
for ``nontrailerable recreational vessels'' in 50 CFR 86.12. The
diurnal emission standards would apply starting in 2009 for PWC fuel
tanks and in 2010 for other installed fuel tanks.
Component manufacturers would be required to certify to the
proposed diurnal emission standard for fuel tanks, except in certain
circumstances. Equipment manufacturers would need to certify that their
fuel tanks meet the proposed emission standards if they are not already
certified by the fuel tank manufacturer, as described in Section VI.F.
As described above for permeation standards, we are proposing to
require manufacturers of portable marine fuel tanks to certify that
they meet the proposed diurnal emission standards since there is no
``equipment manufacturer'' to assume certification responsibility for
those tanks.
We believe the proposed requirements would achieve at least a 50
percent reduction in diurnal emissions from PWC and other installed
marine fuel tanks and nearly a 100 percent reduction from portable
marine tanks. We request comment on the proposed diurnal emission
standards for Marine SI vessels.
It is common today for portable marine fuel tanks to maintain an
airtight seal when the engine is not operating. These tanks typically
have caps that are fitted with a valve that can be manually opened
during engine operation and closed when the fuel tank is stored.
Although this technology could be used to control diurnal emissions
effectively, it depends on user intervention. We are proposing that
portable fuel tanks be required to be fitted with a self-sealing vent
rather than a manually-controlled vent. For instance, a one-way
diaphragm valve could be used to allow air in when fuel is drawn from
the tank (to prevent vacuum conditions), but otherwise seal the fuel
tank. Current portable marine fuel tanks are small and designed to hold
pressure when the manual valve is closed. We are proposing to require
that portable marine fuel tanks be designed to maintain a seal to allow
for pressure buildup resulting from normal temperature swings. These
tanks should include valves that prevent a vacuum in the tank during
engine operation which could restrict fuel flow to the engine and
potentially stall the engine. We believe portable marine fuel tanks
with valves that seal automatically will control diurnal emissions
without relying on user operation. We are proposing to implement this
design standard beginning with the 2009 model year. We request comment
on this approach.
Manufacturers will likely control emissions from installed marine
fuel tanks either by sealing the fuel system up to 1.0 psi or by using
a carbon canister in the vent line. As discussed below, we believe PWC
manufacturers will likely seal the fuel tank with a pressure-relief
valve while manufacturers of other boats with installed fuel tanks are
more likely to use carbon canisters. However, either technology would
be acceptable for either kind of installed marine fuel tank as long as
every system meets the numerical standard applicable to the specific
tank.
Personal watercraft currently use sealed fuel systems for
preventing fuel from exiting, or water from entering, the fuel tank
during typical operation. These vessels use pressure-relief valves for
preventing excessive positive pressure in the fuel system; the pressure
to trigger the valve may range from 0.5 to 4.0 psi. Such fuel systems
would also need a low-pressure vacuum relief valve to allow the engine
to draw fuel from the tank during operation. In the 2002 proposal, we
discussed a diurnal emission standard largely based on the use of a
sealed system with a 1.0 psi pressure-relief valve. The Personal
Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) expressed support in their
comments for this proposal. We estimate that diurnal emissions from a
sealed system with a 1.0 psi pressure-relief valve would be about half
that of the same system on a PWC with an open vent. For personal
watercraft, we are proposing an implementation date of 2009 because the
anticipated technology is widely used today.
The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) expressed
concern in their comments on the 2002 proposal that pressurized fuel
tanks could lead to safety issues for larger installed fuel tanks. NMMA
commented that these tanks would deform under pressure and that
pressure could lead to fuel leaks. Manufacturers also commented that
bladder fuel systems, which would not be pressurized, would be too
expensive. At the time of the 2002 proposal, we considered the use of
carbon canisters to control diurnal emissions, but were concerned that
active purging would occur infrequently due to the low hours of
operation per year seen by many boats. However, we have since collected
data on carbon canisters showing that canisters can reduce emissions by
more than 50 percent with passive purge that occurs during the normal
breathing process without creating any significant pressure in the fuel
tank. For installed marine fuel tanks, other than PWC, we are therefore
proposing an implementation date of 2010 to allow additional lead time
for designing and producing canisters for marine vessels.
During the SBREFA process described in Section VI.I, NMMA expressed
general support of the feasibility of using carbon canisters on boats.
However, they commented that there are many small boat builders that
may need additional time to become familiar with and install carbon
canisters in their boats. We request comment on either a three-year
phase-in (say 33/66/100 percent over the 2010 through 2012 model years)
or an extra year of lead time for small businesses to comply with the
proposed diurnal emission standards. We also request comment on which
small business companies would be eligible for this flexibility. One
option would be to use the SBA definition of a small boat builder which
is based on having fewer than 500 employees. Another option would be to
base the flexibility on the annual boat sales of the company. One issue
with the latter approach would be the wide range of boat sizes and
sales prices in the marine industry. With a given number of employees,
many more small than large boats can be manufactured in a year.
If a manufacturer uses a canister-based system to comply with the
standard applicable to the specific tank, we are also proposing to
require that manufacturers design their systems not to allow liquid
gasoline to reach the canister during refueling or from fuel sloshing
(see Sec. 1060.105). Liquid gasoline would significantly degrade the
carbon's ability to capture hydrocarbon vapors. One example of an
approach to protect the canister from exposure to liquid gasoline is a
design in which the canister is mounted higher than the fuel level and
a small orifice or a float valve is installed in the vent line to stop
the flow of liquid gasoline to the canister.
Several manufacturers have stated that it is common for users to
fill their fuel tank until they see fuel coming out
[[Page 28171]]
of the vent line. In addition to being a source of hydrocarbon
emissions, if liquid fuel were to reach a carbon canister, it would
significantly reduce the effectiveness of the canister. Solutions for
this problem are relatively straightforward and have been used in
automotive applications for many years. We are therefore proposing to
require that boat builders use good engineering judgment in designing
fuel systems that address diurnal emission control in a way that does
not increase the occurrence of fuel spitback or spillage during
refueling beginning in the years specified in Table VI-1. While this
provision is not detailed or prescriptive, it communicates a
requirement that manufacturers appropriately take refueling design into
account, and it allows EPA to make enforcement decisions as the
industry establishes sound practices in this area. In addition, we are
proposing that manufacturers would have to meet certain specifications
with their fuel tank caps, including requirements to tether the cap to
the equipment and designing the cap to provide physical or audible
feedback when the vapor seal is established. Also, adding vents to a
fuel tank would generally not be allowed. To the extent that boat
builders certify their vessels to meet emission standards, they would
need to describe how they meet these refueling-related requirements in
their application for certification. If boat builders rely on certified
components instead of applying for certification, they would need to
keep records describing how they meet these refueling-related
requirements; Section VI.F describes how such companies can meet
certification requirements without applying for a certificate.
Any increase in fuel temperature resulting from engine operation
would cause a potential for emissions that is very similar to diurnal
emissions. We are therefore proposing to disallow manufacturers from
disabling their approaches for controlling diurnal emissions during
engine operation (see Sec. 1060.105). This would ensure that any
running loss emissions that would otherwise occur will be controlled to
a comparable degree as diurnal emissions.
We are not proposing diurnal emission standards for Small SI
equipment. However, we request comment on such a requirement. We
believe passively purging carbon canisters could reduce diurnal
emissions by 50 to 60 percent from Small SI equipment. Active purging
would result in even greater reductions. However, we believe some
important issues would need to be resolved, such as cost, packaging,
and vibration. The cost sensitivity is especially noteworthy given the
relatively low emissions levels (on a per-equipment basis) from such
small fuel tanks. We request comment on the appropriate level of such a
standard and when it could be implemented.
There are some small outboard marine engines that have fuel tanks
directly mounted on the engine. In these cases, the fuel tank could be
considered to be more similar to those on Small SI equipment than other
marine fuel tanks. Typically, these outboard engines have fuel tanks on
the order of 1-2 liters in size. Manufacturers have expressed concern
about the practicality of using carbon canisters for these applications
due to space constraints and durability impacts of engine handling. We
request comment on excluding fuel tanks less than 2 liters in size that
are mounted on outboard engines from the proposed diurnal emission
requirements. Since it may be a viable alternative, comments should
address the feasibility of using sealed fuel tanks with pressure relief
in these applications. Similar to Small SI equipment, marine fuel tanks
mounted on the engine are directly exposed to heat from the engine
during operation. In the case where diurnal standards were not applied
to these fuel tanks, we request comment on applying the proposed
diffusion and running loss standards, described below, to these fuel
tanks.
(4) Diffusion Standards and Dates
As described above, diffusion emissions occur when vapor escapes
the fuel tank through an opening as a result of random molecular
motion, independent of changing temperature. Diffusion emissions can be
easily controlled by venting fuel tanks in a way that forces fuel
vapors to go through a long, narrow path to escape. We are proposing
that manufacturers may choose between certifying to a performance
standard or a design standard. Under a performance standard, we specify
a test procedure and a maximum emission rate. Under a design standard,
we specify certain designs that a manufacturer may use to comply with
the standard. This standard would take effect at the same time as the
exhaust emission standards--2011 for Class II engines and 2012 for
Class I engines.
We are proposing a performance standard of 0.80 g/day for diffusion
emissions for fuel tanks intended for use in new nonhandheld Small SI
equipment (Sec. 1060.105). This standard would not apply to a
manufacturer who certifies using one of the four alternative design
standards described below.
1. We are proposing a design standard for diffusion in which the
tank must be sealed except for a single vent line. This vent line would
need to be at least 180 mm long and have a ratio of length to the
square of the diameter of at least 5.0 mm-1 (127
inches-1). For example, a vent line with 6 mm inside
diameter would have to be at least 180 mm long to meet this design
standard.
2. We are proposing a second alternative design standard for
diffusion in which vapors from a fuel tank are vented solely through a
tortuous path through the fuel cap. Many fuel cap manufacturers use
this cap design today to prevent fuel from splashing out through the
vent during operation. As described in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA, we
tested three low-diffusion fuel caps used on Class I equipment with
high annual sales. Based on these designs, we proposing to define a
tortuous path fuel cap as one that is vented through a small path in
the gasket and then around the threads where the cap screws onto the
fuel tank. Specifically, we are proposing an average path length to
total cross sectional area in the gasket pathways of greater than 1
mm-1 and a vent path through at least 360[deg] of the
threads.
3. We are proposing a third alternative design standard for
diffusion in which the fuel tank is sealed except for a vent through a
carbon canister. Carbon canisters are one technology that manufacturers
may use to meet diurnal emission standards in California.
4. We are proposing a fourth alternative design standard for
diffusion in which a fuel tank is sealed so that vapors may not exit
the fuel tank. Under this design standard, it would be acceptable to
have a pressure relief valve with an opening pressure of at least 0.5
psi.
We request comment on the appropriateness of setting a design
standard for diffusion and on the designs described above. We also
request comment on any additional diffusion data from fuel caps that
are capable of meeting the proposed performance-based diffusion
standard and on the design of these fuel caps. Even without the
alternative of a design standard, we anticipate that fuel cap
manufacturers, with a small number of designs covering a large number
of equipment models, would be able to perform the necessary testing for
a performance-standard without being unreasonably burdened.
Fuel tank manufacturers would be required to certify that their
products limit venting sufficiently to meet the proposed diffusion
emission standard, except in certain circumstances. Fuel
[[Page 28172]]
cap manufacturers may optionally certify their fuel caps to the
diffusion emission standard, in which case they would become subject to
all the compliance requirements related to the standards, including
certification. Equipment manufacturers would need to certify that their
fuel tanks meet the proposed emission standards if they are not already
certified by the fuel tank manufacturer, as described in Section VI.F.
We are also proposing that equipment manufacturers subject to
diffusion emission standards must ensure that the fuel cap is tethered
to the fuel tank or the equipment to prevent it from being accidentally
misplaced (see Sec. 1060.101). A missing fuel tank cap would bypass
any design intended to control these losses and could lead to very high
emission rates. Fuel cap or fuel tank manufacturers could address this
as part of their component certification. If this is not part of the
component certification, an equipment manufacturer would need to
describe how it meets the tethering requirement in its application for
certification.
We are not proposing diffusion standards for handheld equipment.
Handheld equipment use fuel caps that are either sealed or have
tortuous venting pathways to prevent fuel from spilling during
operation. We believe these fuel cap designs limit diffusion emissions
sufficiently that handheld equipment already meet the proposed
standard. In addition, we are not proposing diffusion standards for
Marine SI vessels. The diurnal emission standard for Marine SI vessels
will lead manufacturers to adopt technologies that automatically limit
diffusion losses, so there is no need to propose a separate diffusion
standard for those systems. Similarly, we would not finalize the
proposed diffusion standard if we adopt a diurnal emission standard for
Small SI equipment. We request comment on the proposed diffusion
standard for nonhandheld equipment and whether it should apply to
handheld equipment and marine vessels as well.
(5) Running Loss Emission Standards and Dates
We are proposing standards to control running loss emissions from
nonhandheld Small SI equipment beginning in the same year as the
proposed Phase 3 exhaust emission standards--2012 for Class I engines
and 2011 for Class II engines (see Sec. 1060.104). Equipment
manufacturers would need to certify that their equipment models meet
the proposed running loss requirements since component certification is
not practical.
We have measured fuel temperatures and found that some types of
equipment experience significant fuel heating during engine operation.
This was especially true for fuel tanks mounted on or near the engine.
This occurs in many types of Small SI equipment.
It would be very difficult to define a measurement procedure to
consistently and accurately quantify running losses. Also, a
performance standard with such a procedure would introduce a
challenging testing requirement for hundreds of small-volume equipment
manufacturers. Moreover, we believe there are several different design
approaches that will reliably and effectively control running losses.
We are therefore not proposing to control running losses using the
conventional approach of establishing a procedure to measure running
losses and adopting a corresponding emission standard. Manufacturers
could choose from one of the following approaches to meet this
requirement:
Vent running loss fuel vapors from the fuel tank to the
engine's intake manifold in a way that burns the fuel vapors in the
engine instead of venting them to the atmosphere. The use of an
actively purged carbon canister would qualify under this approach.
Use a bladder to minimize fuel vapor volume in a sealed
fuel tank.
Design the equipment so that fuel temperature does not
rise more than 8 [deg]C during normal operation. Such a design may use
insulation or forced cooling to minimize temperature increases. This
would require measuring fuel temperatures to show that each covered
equipment configuration does not exceed the temperature threshold (see
Sec. 1060.535).
Show that the equipment qualifies as wintertime equipment.
We believe any of these approaches will ensure that manufacturers
will be substantially controlling running losses, either by preventing
or managing running loss vapors. While none of these approaches are
expected to require extensive design changes or lead time, any
manufacturer choosing the option to vent running loss fuel vapors into
the engine's intake manifold would need to make this change in
coordination with the engine design. As a result, we believe it is
appropriate to align the timing of the running loss standards with the
introduction of the proposed Phase 3 standards.
We request comment on the proposed running loss requirement for
nonhandheld Small SI equipment. We also request comment on any other
design approaches that will reliably and effectively control running
losses. Examples of other approaches may be to seal the fuel tank for
pressures up to 3.5 psi or, for equipment that does not include fuel
recirculation, locate the fuel tank at least 12 inches away from the
engine and other heat sources (such as exhaust pipes, hydraulic lines,
etc.).
We are not proposing to apply the running loss requirements to
handheld Small SI engines. We believe running loss emission standards
should not apply to handheld engines at this time because the likely
approach to controlling running losses could require that manufacturers
revisit their design for controlling exhaust emissions. As described
above, we are not proposing to change the exhaust emission standards
for handheld engines in this rulemaking. In addition, there are some
technical challenges that would require further investigation. For
example, the compact nature of the equipment makes it harder to isolate
the fuel tank from the engine and the multi-positional nature of the
operation may prevent a reliable means of venting fuel vapors into the
intake manifold while the engine is running. We request comment on the
appropriateness of requiring manufacturers to address running loss
emissions from handheld engines.
Furthermore, we are not proposing to apply running loss
requirements to Marine SI engines. Installed marine fuel tanks are
generally not mounted near the engine or other heat sources so running
losses should be very low. A possible exception to this is personal
watercraft since they are designed with the fuel tank closer to the
engine. However, under the proposed standard for controlling diurnal
emissions, we expect that manufacturers will design their fuel tanks to
stay pressurized up to 1 psi. This would also help control running loss
emissions. We request comment on applying running loss controls to
Marine SI engines. In particular, we request comment on the possibility
that other design configurations would have higher running loss
emissions. One example may be outboard applications in which a fuel
tank is mounted directly on the engine.
(6) Requirements Related to Refueling
Refueling spitback and spillage emissions represent a substantial
additional amount of fuel evaporation that contributes to overall
emissions from equipment with gasoline-fueled engines. We are not
proposing measurement procedures with corresponding emission standards
to address these emission sources. However, we believe equipment
manufacturers can take significant steps
[[Page 28173]]
to address these refueling issues by incorporating sound practices into
their equipment designs. For example, designing a marine filler neck
with a horizontal segment near the fuel inlet will almost inevitably
lead to high levels of spillage since fuel flow will invariably reach
the nozzle, leading to substantial fuel flow out of the fuel system. In
contrast, designing for automatic shutoff would prevent this. Also,
maintaining a vertical orientation of the filler neck would allow the
fuel to flow back into the filler neck and into the tank after the
nozzle shuts off.
For Small SI equipment, designing fuel inlets that are readily
accessible and large enough to see the rising fuel level (either
through the tank wall or the fuel inlet) will substantially reduce
accidental spillage during refueling. We are therefore proposing to
require that equipment manufacturers design and build their equipment
such that operators could reasonably be expected to fill the fuel tank
without spitback or spillage during the refueling event (see Sec.
1060.101). This proposed requirement mirrors the following requirement
recently adopted with respect to portable fuel containers (72 FR 8428,
February 26, 2007):
You are required to design your portable fuel containers to
minimize spillage during refueling to the extent practical. This
requires that you use good engineering judgment to avoid designs
that will make it difficult to refuel typical vehicle and equipment
designs without spillage. (40 CFR 59.611(c)(3))
While the proposed requirement is not as objective and quantifiable
as the other standards and requirements we are proposing, we believe
this is important, both to set a requirement for manufacturers in
designing their products and to give EPA the ability to require
manufacturers to select designs that are consistent with good
engineering practice regarding effective refueling strategies. To the
extent that equipment manufacturers and boat builders certify their
products to emission standards, they would need to describe how they
meet this refueling-related requirement in their application for
certification. If boat builders rely on certified components instead of
applying for certification, they would need to keep records describing
how they meet this refueling-related requirement; Section VI.F
describes how such companies can meet certification requirements
without applying for a certificate. We request comment on this approach
to addressing refueling emissions from nonroad spark-ignition engines.
We also request comment on the possibility of relying on current or
future published industry standards to establish designs for equipment
and fueling containers that minimize refueling emissions under normal
in-use conditions.
Spitback and spillage are a particular concern for gasoline-fueled
boats. Marine operators have reported that relatively large quantities
of gasoline are released into the marina environment during refueling
events. The American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) has a procedure in
place to define a standard practice to address refueling. However, this
procedure calls for testing by refueling up to a 75 percent fill level
at a nominal flow rate of 5 gallons per minute. This procedure is
clearly not consistent with prevailing practices and is not effective
in preventing spills. We believe the most effective means of addressing
this problem is for ABYC to revise their test procedure to reflect
current practices. Specifically, we would recommend a procedure in
which the marine fuel tank is filled at flow rates between 5 and 20
gallons per minute until automatic shutoff occurs.
A variety of technological solutions are available to address
spitback and spillage from marine vessels. The simplest would be a
system much like is used on cars. A small-diameter tube could run along
the filler neck from the top of the tank to a point near the top of the
filler neck. Once liquid fuel would reach the opening of the filler
neck and the extra tube, the fuel would go faster up the small-diameter
tube and trigger automatic shutoff before the fuel climbs up the filler
neck. This design would depend on the user to use the equipment
properly and may not be fully effective, for example, with long filler
necks and low refueling rates. An alternative design would involve a
snug fit between the nozzle's spout and the filler neck, which would
allow for a tube to run from a point inside the tank (at any
predetermined level) directly to the shutoff venturi on the spout. The
pressure change from the liquid fuel in the tank reaching the tube's
opening would trigger automatic shutoff of the nozzle. This system
would prevent overflowing fuel without depending on the user. These are
just two of several possible configurations that would address fuel
spillage from marine vessels.
We request comment on the degree of fuel spillage with current
technologies and practices with marine vessels. We request comment on
the potential for ABYC standards to address fuel spillage or on the
need for EPA to adopt such procedures and standards. We request comment
on the specific procedures that would be appropriate for measuring
spitback and spillage. Finally, we request comment on adopting
provisions such as those in 40 CFR 80.22 to regulate the dimensions of
refueling nozzles for marine applications, including a specification of
a nominal nozzle diameter of 1.1870.010 inches and nominal
venturi placement \5/8\ inch from the terminal end of the nozzle.
(7) Summary Table of Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
Table VI-1 summarizes the proposed standards and implementation
dates discussed above for evaporative emissions from Small SI equipment
and Marine SI vessels. Where a standard does not apply to a given class
of equipment, ``NA'' is used in the table to indicate ``not
applicable.''
Table VI.-1.--Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards and Model Year Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard/ category Hose permeation Tank permeation Diurnal Diffusion Running loss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard level..................... 15 g/m2 /day.......... 1.5 g/m2 /day......... 0.40 g/gal/day....... 0.80 g/day........... Design standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation Dates: Small SI Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handheld........................... 2012 a b.............. 2009-2013 c d......... NA................... NA................... NA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I............................ 2008.................. 2012.................. NA................... 2012 g............... 2012.
Class II........................... 2008.................. 2011.................. NA................... 2011 g............... 2011.
[[Page 28174]]
Implementation Dates: Marine Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable tanks..................... 2009.................. 2011.................. 2009 e............... NA................... NA.
PWC................................ 2009.................. 2011.................. 2009................. NA................... NA.
Other installed tanks.............. 2009.................. 2012.................. 2010 f............... NA................... NA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2013 for small-volume families and cold weather equipment.
\b\ Fuel line permeation standard of 175 g/m2 /day for cold-weather equipment.
\c\ 2.5 g/m2 /day for structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks.
\d\ 2009 for families certified in California, 2013 for small-volume families, 2011 for structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks, and 2010 for remaining
families.
\e\ Design standard.
\f\ Fuel tanks installed in nontrailerable boats (>=26 ft. in length) may meet a standard of 0.16 g/gal/day over an alternative test cycle.
\g\ Alternatively, may meet a design standard.
D. Emission Credit Programs
A common feature of mobile source emission requirements is an
emission credit program that allows manufacturers to generate emission
credits based on certified emission levels for engine families that are
more stringent than the standard. See Section VII for background
information and general provisions related to emission credit programs.
We believe it is appropriate to consider compliance based on
emission credits relative to permeation standards for fuel lines used
with handheld engines and for fuel tanks used in all applications. As
described above, the emission standards apply to the fuel tanks and
fuel lines directly, such that we would generally expect component
manufacturers to certify their products. However, we believe it is best
to avoid placing the responsibility for demonstrating a proper emission
credit balance on component manufacturers for three main reasons.
First, it is in many cases not clear whether these components will be
produced for one type of application or another. Component
manufacturers might therefore be selling similar products into
different applications that are subject to different standards--or no
standards at all. Component manufacturers may or may not know in which
application their products will be used. Second, there will be
situations in which equipment manufacturers and boat builders take on
the responsibility for certifying components. This may be the result of
an arrangement with the component manufacturer, or equipment
manufacturers and boat builders might build their own fuel tanks. We
believe it would be much more difficult to manage an emission credit
program in which manufacturers at different places in the manufacturing
chain would be keeping credit balances. There would also be a
significant risk of double-counting of emission credits. Third, most
component manufacturers would be in a position to use credits or
generate credits, but not both. Equipment manufacturers and boat
builders are more likely to be in a position where they would keep an
internal balance of generating and using credits to meet applicable
requirements. Our experience with other programs leads us to believe
that an emission credit program that depends on trading is not likely
to be successful.
We are therefore proposing emission credit provisions in which
equipment manufacturers and boat builders keep a balance of credits for
their product line. Equipment manufacturers and boat builders choosing
to comply based on emission credits would need to certify all their
products that either generate or use emission credits. Component
manufacturers would be able to produce their products with emission
levels above or below applicable emission standards but would not be
able to generate emission credits and would not need to maintain an
accounting to demonstrate a balance of emission credits.
We are aware that some component manufacturers would be making
products that generate emission credits that would belong to equipment
manufacturers or boat builders. Equipment manufacturers or boat
builders could in turn use those emission credits to enable them to buy
components from different competing component manufacturers. This would
potentially put fuel tank manufacturers producing low-FEL products at a
competitive disadvantage with other manufacturers producing high-FEL
fuel tanks. We request comment on the best approach to setting up an
ABT program. We specifically request comment on special provisions that
may be appropriate to address these competitiveness issues for
component manufacturers.
(1) Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Nonhandheld Equipment and
Marine Vessels
We are proposing averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions
for fuel tank permeation from nonhandheld Small SI equipment and Marine
SI vessels (see subpart H in parts 1045 and 1054). See the following
section for similar provisions for handheld Small SI equipment.
We are aware of certain control technologies that would allow
manufacturers to produce fuel tanks that reduce emissions more
effectively than we would require. These technologies may not be
feasible or practical in all applications, but we are proposing to
allow equipment manufacturers using such low-emission technologies to
generate emission credits. In other cases, an equipment manufacturer
may want to or need to use emission credits that would allow for fuel
tanks with permeation rates above the applicable standards. Equipment
manufacturers would quantify positive or negative emission credits by
establishing a Family Emission Limit (FEL) to define the applicable
emission level, then factoring in sales volumes and useful life to
calculate a credit total. This FEL could be based on testing done
either by the component manufacturer or the equipment manufacturer.
Through averaging, these emission credits could be used by the same
equipment manufacturer to offset other fuel tanks in the same model
year that do not have control technologies that control emissions to
the level of the standard. Through banking, such an equipment
manufacturer could use the emission credits in later model years to
offset high-emitting fuel tanks. The emission credits could also be
traded to another equipment manufacturer to offset that company's high-
emitting fuel tanks.
[[Page 28175]]
We believe an ABT program is potentially very advantageous for fuel
tanks because of the wide variety of tank designs. The geometry,
materials, production volumes, and market dynamics for some fuel tanks
are well suited to applying emission controls but other fuel tanks pose
a bigger challenge. The proposed emission credit program allows us to
set a single standard that applies broadly without dictating that all
fuel tanks be converted to use low-permeation technology at the same
time.
We are requesting comment on one particular issue. We are not
proposing to limit the life of evaporative emission credits under the
proposed banking program. However, we are concerned that this could
result in a situation where credits generated by a fuel tank sold in a
model year are not used until many years later when the fuel tanks
generating the credits have been scrapped and are no longer part of the
fleet. EPA believes there may be value to limiting the use of credits
to the period that the credit-generating fuel tanks exist in the fleet.
For this reason, EPA requests comment on limiting the lifetime of the
credits generated under the proposed evaporative emission ABT program
to five years. The five-year period is consistent with the proposed
useful life for fuel tank evaporative emissions.
We are proposing not to allow manufacturers to generate emission
credits by using metal fuel tanks. These tanks would have permeation
rates well below the standard, but there is extensive use of metal
tanks today, so it would be difficult to allow these emission credits
without undercutting the stringency of the standard and the expected
emission reductions from the standard.
Emission control technologies and marketing related to portable
marine fuel tanks are quite different than for installed tanks. Since
these fuel tanks are not installed in vessels that are subject to
emission standards, the fuel tank manufacturer would need to take on
the responsibility for certification. As a result, we would treat these
companies as both component manufacturer and equipment manufacturer
with respect to their portable fuel tanks. As described above, we are
proposing that component manufacturers not be responsible for
compliance as part of an emission credit program. We would expect all
portable fuel tank manufacturers to also make nonportable fuel tanks,
which would again lead to a confusing combination of manufacturers
maintaining credit balances to demonstrate compliance. In addition,
most if not all portable fuel tanks are made using high-density
polyethylene in a blow-molding process. The control technologies for
these tanks are relatively straightforward and readily available so we
do not anticipate that these companies will need emission credits to
meet the proposed standards. We are therefore proposing to require
portable marine fuel tanks to meet emission standards without an
emission credit program.
We are proposing not to allow cross-trading of emission credits
between Small SI equipment and Marine SI vessels. The proposed
standards are intended to be technology-forcing for each equipment
category. We are concerned that cross-trading may allow marginal
credits in one area to hamper technological advances in another area.
We are also proposing not to allow credit exchanges with Small SI
equipment certified in California because California has its own
emission standards for these products. Similarly, if California ARB
adopts different evaporative requirements or separate ABT provisions
for Marine SI vessels, we would not allow credit exchanges with marine
vessels certified in California. These restrictions are consistent with
our existing ABT programs. We also would not allow credit exchanges
between handheld and nonhandheld equipment or between Class I and Class
II equipment. We are concerned that cross trading between these
equipment types could give an unfair competitive advantage to equipment
manufacturers with broader product lines. We request comment regarding
whether the competitive nature of the market warrants such a
restriction in cross-trading between Class I and Class II equipment.
In the early years of the ABT program we are proposing not to have
an FEL cap. This would give manufacturers additional time to use
uncontrolled fuel tanks, primarily in small-volume applications, until
they could convert their full product lines to having fuel tanks with
permeation control. After an initial period of three years after the
implementation date of the fuel tank standards, we are proposing an FEL
cap of 5.0 g/m2 /day (8.3 g/m2 /day if tested at
40 [deg]C). For Class II equipment, portable marine fuel tanks, and
personal watercraft, the FEL cap would begin in 2014. For Class I
equipment, handheld equipment, and other installed marine fuel tanks,
the FEL cap would begin in 2015. See Sec. 1045.107 and Sec. 1054.110.
For small volume, Small SI equipment families, we are proposing an FEL
cap of 8.0 g/m2 /day (13.3 g/m2 /day if tested at
40 [deg]C). The purpose of the FEL cap would be to prevent the long-
term production of fuel tanks without permeation control, while still
providing regulatory flexibility. We request comment on the level of
the FEL that would be necessary to achieve this goal.
While the FEL cap is intended to require manufacturers to move
toward widespread use of emission control technologies, we are aware of
technologies that have measured emission levels between the proposed
standard and the proposed FEL cap. As a result, the effect of an FEL
cap may be that there will be little or no use of emission credits as a
compliance strategy once the FEL cap applies. We request comment on the
usefulness of maintaining an ABT program after we implement an FEL cap.
We are proposing that emission credits under the tank permeation
standards would be calculated using the following equation: Credits
[grams] = (Standard - FEL) x useful life [years] x 365 days/year x
inside surface area [m2]. Both the standard and the FEL are
in units of g/m2 /day based on testing at 28 [deg]C.
As discussed earlier, we are proposing an alternative standard for
tank permeation testing performed at 40 [deg]C. Because permeation is
higher at this temperature than the primary test temperature, emissions
credits and debits calculated at this test temperature would be
expected to be higher as well. An FEL 10 percent below the standard
would generate 0.15 grams of credit for the primary standard and 0.25
grams of credit for the alternative standard. Therefore, we are
proposing that credits and debits that are calculated based on the
alternative standard be adjusted using a multiplicative factor of 0.6
(1.5/2.5 = 0.6).
We request comment on the need for averaging, banking and trading
for fuel tanks and on the specific provisions proposed above.
(2) Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program for Handheld Equipment
We are proposing an ABT program for handheld equipment that would
include fuel tanks and fuel lines. Under this program, a manufacturer
would be able to use credits from fuel tanks to offset debits from fuel
lines, or vice versa. This category of equipment generally involves
very short sections of fuel lines, which are often made using complex,
injection-molded designs. We believe an ABT program would help handheld
equipment manufacturers meet fuel line permeation standards sooner than
would otherwise be possible.
[[Page 28176]]
As discussed earlier, we are proposing a higher standard level of
2.5 g/m2 /day for structurally integrated handheld fuel
tanks. This standard is intended to reflect the measured permeation
rates and characteristics of materials used in these fuel tanks and
manufacturer concerns regarding uncertainty about the permeation rates
from tanks used in the wider range of products and the lack of
definitive control strategies to reduce emissions while meeting other
product requirements. A similar issue exists for cold-weather fuel
lines, for which we are proposing a less stringent permeation standard
of 175 g/m2 /day to address uncertainty associated with the
availability of appropriate low-permeation cold-weather materials in
the time frame of the new standards. We are concerned that windfall
credits that may be generated for these applications if products are
produced that are below the adjusted standards, but do not meet the
primary standards for fuel tanks and fuel lines. To address this issue,
we are proposing that credits would only be earned below 1.5 g/
m2 /day for fuel tanks and below 15 g/m2 /day for
fuel lines on handheld equipment. To promote early introduction of low-
permeation products, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to be able
to earn credits on this basis even before the permeation standards go
into effect. Credit use would be calculated based on the applicable
standards. Emission credits would otherwise be calculated using the
same equation described in Section VI.D.1 above.
Both the fuel line and fuel tank standards are in units of g/
m2 /day. However, fuel line testing is performed at 23
[deg]C while tank testing is performed at 28 [deg]C. Because permeation
tends to increase with increases in temperature, we request comment
regarding whether the credits should be adjusted to account for
temperature. This adjustment would be smaller than the adjustment
described above for a 28 [deg]C versus 40 [deg]C test.
For non-structurally integrated fuel tanks, we are proposing to
apply an FEL cap of 5.0 g/m2 /day (8.3 g/m2 /day
if tested at 40[deg]C) beginning in 2015. For structurally integrated
fuel tanks we are proposing an FEL cap of 3.0 g/m2 /day (5.0
g/m2 /day if tested at 40 [deg]C) in 2015. We believe this
cap gives adequate flexibility for manufacturers to address variability
in the permeation rates of these fuel tanks. For small volume, Small SI
equipment families (including handheld and nonhandheld equipment), we
are proposing a long term FEL cap of 8.0 g/m2 /day (13.3 g/
m2 /day if tested at 40[deg]C) to provide additional
regulatory flexibility where costs cannot be spread over high
production volumes. We request comment on the need for continuing an
ABT program once there is an FEL cap, as described for nonhandheld
equipment above.
(3) Other Evaporative Sources
We are not proposing an emission credit program for other
evaporative sources. We believe technologies are readily available to
meet the applicable standards for fuel line permeation, diurnal
emissions and diffusion emissions (see Section VI.H.). The exception to
this is for fuel lines on handheld equipment as discussed above. In
addition, the diurnal emission standards for portable marine fuel tanks
and PWC fuel tanks are largely based on existing technology so any
meaningful emission credit program with the proposed standards would
result in windfall credits. The running loss standard is not based on
emission measurements and refueling-related requirements are based on
design specifications only, so it is not appropriate or even possible
to calculate emission credits.
(4) Early-Allowance Programs
Manufacturers may in some cases be able to meet the proposed
emission standards earlier than we would require. We are proposing
provisions for equipment manufacturers using low-emission evaporative
systems early to generate allowances before the standards apply. These
early allowances could be used, for a limited time, after the
implementation date of the standards to sell equipment or fuel tanks
that have emissions above the standards. We are proposing two types of
allowances. The first is for Small SI equipment as a whole where for
every year that a piece of equipment is certified early, another piece
of equipment could delay complying with the proposed standards by an
equal time period beyond the proposed implementation date. The second
is similar but would be just for the fuel tank rather than the whole
equipment (Small SI or Marine SI). Equipment or fuel tanks certified
for the purposes of generating early allowances would be subject to all
applicable requirements. These allowances are similar to the emission
credit program elements described above but they are based on counting
compliant products rather than calculating emission credits.
Establishing appropriate credit calculations would be difficult because
the early compliance is in some cases based on products meeting
different standards using different procedures.
(a) Nonhandheld Small SI Equipment
Many Small SI equipment manufacturers are currently certifying
products to evaporative emission standards in California. The purpose
of the proposed early-allowance program is to provide an incentive for
manufacturers to begin selling low-emission products nationwide. We are
proposing to give allowances to manufacturers for equipment meeting the
California evaporative emission standards that are sold in the United
States outside of California and are therefore not subject to
California's emission standards. Manufacturers would need to have
California certificates for these equipment types. See Sec. 1054.145.
Allowances could be earned in any year before 2012 for Class I
equipment and before 2011 for Class II equipment. We are proposing that
the allowances may be used through the 2014 model year for Class I and
through the 2013 model year for Class II equipment. We are proposing
not to allow trading of allowances between Class I and Class II. To
keep this program simpler, we are not proposing to adjust the
allowances based on the anticipated emission rates from the equipment.
Therefore, we believe it is necessary to at least distinguish between
Class I and Class II equipment. We request comment on the early
allowance program described above for nonhandheld Small SI equipment.
(b) Fuel Tanks
We are also proposing an early-allowance program for nonhandheld
Small SI equipment for fuel tanks (see Sec. 1054.145). This program
would be similar to the program described above for equipment
allowances, except that it would be for fuel tanks only. We would
accept California-certified configurations. Allowances could be earned
prior to 2011 for Class II equipment and prior to 2012 for Class II
equipment; allowances could be used through 2013 for Class II equipment
and through 2014 for Class II equipment. Allowances would not be
exchangeable between Class I and Class II equipment. See Section V.E.3
for a description of how this provision would interact with the
proposed transition program for equipment manufacturers.
The proposed early-allowance program for marine fuel tanks would be
similar except that there are no California standards for these tanks
(see Sec. 1045.145). Manufacturers certifying early to the proposed
fuel tank permeation standards would be able to earn allowances that
they could use to
[[Page 28177]]
offset high-emitting fuel tanks after the proposed standards go into
place. We are proposing not to allow cross-trading of allowances
between portable fuel tanks, personal watercraft, and other installed
fuel tanks. Each of these categories includes significantly different
tank sizes and installed tanks have different implementation dates and
are expected to use different permeation control technology. For
portable fuel tanks and personal watercraft, allowances could be earned
prior to 2011 and used through the 2013 model year. For other installed
tanks, allowances could be earned prior to 2012 and used through the
2014 model year.
E. Testing Requirements
Compliance with the emission standards is determined by following
specific testing procedures. This section describes the proposed test
procedures for measuring fuel line permeation, fuel tank permeation,
diurnal emissions, and diffusion emissions. We also describe
measurement procedures related to running loss emissions. As discussed
in Section VI.H, we are proposing design-based certification as an
alternative to testing for certain standards.
(1) Fuel Line Permeation Testing Procedures
We are proposing that fuel line permeation be measured at a
temperature of 23 2 [deg]C using a weight-loss method
similar to that specified in SAE J30 \85\ and J1527 \86\ recommended
practices (see Sec. 1060.515). We are proposing two modifications to
the SAE recommended practice. The first modification is for the test
fuel to contain ethanol; the second modification is to require
preconditioning of the fuel line through a fuel soak. These
modifications are described below and are consistent with our current
requirements for recreational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Society of Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard,
``Fuel and Oil Hoses,'' SAE J30, June 1998 (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0008-0176).
\86\ SAE Recommended Practice J1527, ``Marine Fuel Hoses,''
1993, (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0195-0177).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Test Fuel
The recommended practice in SAE J30 and J1527 is to use ASTM Fuel C
(defined in ASTM D471-98) as a test fuel. We are proposing to use a
test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol. We believe the test fuel must
contain ethanol because it is commonly blended into in-use gasoline and
because ethanol substantially increases the permeation rates for many
materials.
Specifically, we are proposing to use a test fuel of ASTM Fuel C
blended with 10 percent ethanol by volume (CE10).\87\ Manufacturers
have expressed support of this test fuel because it is a consistent
test fluid compared to gasoline and because it is widely used today by
industry for permeation testing. In addition, most of the data used to
develop the proposed fuel line permeation standards were collected on
this test fuel. This fuel is allowed today as one of two test fuels for
measuring permeation from fuel lines under the recreational vehicle
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ ASTM Fuel C is a mix of equal parts toluene and isooctane.
We refer to gasoline blended with ethanol as E10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on allowing permeation testing using EPA
certification gasoline (known as indolene and specified in 40 CFR
1065.710) blended with 10 percent ethanol as the test fuel (IE10). This
test fuel is also specified in the recreational vehicle standards and
has the advantage of being more similar to in-use fuel than CE10. Based
on data contained in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA, most materials used in
fuel line constructions have lower permeation rates on IE10 than CE10.
Because the proposed standards are based primarily on data collected
using CE10 as a test fuel, we also request comment on how the level of
the standard would need to be adjusted for testing performed on IE10.
(b) Preconditioning Soak
The second difference from weight-loss procedures in SAE practices
is in fuel line preconditioning. We believe the fuel line should be
preconditioned with an initial fuel fill followed by a long enough soak
to ensure that the permeation rate has stabilized. We are proposing a
soak period of four to eight weeks at 23 5 [deg]C.
Manufacturers should use the longer soak period as necessary to achieve
a stabilized permeation rate for a given fuel line design, consistent
with good engineering judgment. For instance, thick-walled marine fuel
line may take longer to reach a stable permeation rate than the fuel
line used in Small SI equipment. After this fuel soak, the fuel
reservoir and fuel line would be drained and immediately refilled with
fresh test fuel prior to the weight-loss test. We request comment on
the need to require a longer fuel soak, especially for marine lines.
(c) Alternative Approaches
We also propose to allow permeation measurements using alternative
equipment and procedures that provide equivalent results (see Sec.
1060.505). To use these alternative methods, manufacturers would first
need to get our approval. Examples of alternative approaches that we
anticipate manufacturers may use are the recirculation technique
described in SAE J1737 or enclosure-type testing such as in 40 CFR part
86.\88\ Note that the proposed test fuel, test temperatures, and
preconditioning soak described above would still apply. Because
permeation increases with temperature we would accept data collected at
higher temperatures (greater than 23 [deg]C) for a demonstration of
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ SAE Recommended Practice J1737, ``Test Procedure to
Determine the Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hoses, Fittings,
and Fuel Line Assemblies by Recirculation,'' 1997, (Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0008-0178).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For portable marine fuel tanks, the fuel line assembly from the
engine to the fuel tank typically includes two sections of fuel line
with a primer bulb in-between and quick-connect assemblies on either
end. We are proposing a provision to allow manufacturers to test the
full assembly as a single fuel line to simplify testing for these fuel
line assemblies (see Sec. 1060.102). This gives the manufacturer the
flexibility to use a variety of materials as needed for performance
reasons while meeting the fuel line permeation standard for the fully
assembled product. Measured values would be based on the total measured
permeation divided by the total internal surface area of the fuel line
assembly. However, where it is impractical to calculate the internal
surface area of individual parts of the assembly, such as a primer
bulb, we would allow a simplified calculation that treats the full
assembly as a straight fuel line. This small inaccuracy would cause
reported emission levels (in g/m\2\/day) to be slightly higher so it
would not jeopardize a manufacturer's effort to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable standard.
We request comment on the above approaches for fuel line permeation
testing and on the proposed test fuel.
(2) Fuel Tank Permeation Testing Procedures
The proposed test procedure for fuel tank permeation includes
preconditioning, durability simulation, and a weight-loss permeation
test (see Sec. 1060.520). The preconditioning and the durability
testing may be conducted
[[Page 28178]]
simultaneously; manufacturers would put the tank through durability
testing while the tank is undergoing its preconditioning fuel soak to
reach a stabilized permeation level. We request comment on the proposed
tank permeation test procedures and options.
(a) Test Fuel
Similar to the proposed fuel line testing procedures, we are
proposing to use a test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol to help
ensure in-use emission reductions with the full range of in-use fuels.
We are proposing to specify IE10 as the test fuel; this is made up of
90 percent certification gasoline and 10 percent ethanol (see 40 CFR
1065.710). This is the same test fuel specified for testing fuel tanks
for recreational vehicles. In addition, IE10 is representative of in-
use test fuels. We are proposing that Fuel CE10 may be used as an
alternative test fuel. Data in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA suggest that
permeation tends to be somewhat higher on CE10 than IE10, so testing on
CE10 should be an acceptable demonstration of compliance. We request
comment on the proposed test fuels.
We included a provision allowing recreational vehicle manufacturers
to perform emission measurements after preconditioning using IE10. This
allowance has created substantial confusion and necessitated including
additional provisions to prevent manufacturers from exercising the test
option in a way that undermines the objective of maintaining a
procedure that accounts for the effect of ethanol. As a result, we
believe it is appropriate to propose a test procedure for Small SI
equipment and Marine SI vessels that maintains a consistent approach by
including ethanol in the test fuel for both preconditioning and
emission measurements. We request comment on this approach.
(b) Preconditioning Fuel Soak
Before testing fuel tanks for permeation, the fuel tank must be
preconditioned by allowing it to sit with fuel inside until the
hydrocarbon permeation rate has stabilized. Under this step, we are
proposing that the fuel tank be filled with test fuel and soaked--
either for 20 weeks at 28 5 [deg]C or for 10 weeks at 43
5 [deg]C. The manufacturer may need to use a longer soak
period if necessary to achieve a stabilized permeation rate for a given
fuel tank, consistent with good engineering judgment.
The tank would have to be sealed during this fuel soak and we are
proposing that any components that are directly mounted to the fuel
tank, such as a fuel cap, must be attached. Other openings, such as
fittings for fuel lines or petcocks, would be sealed with impermeable
plugs. In addition, if there is a vent path through the fuel cap, that
vent path may be sealed. Alternatively, we are proposing that the
opening could be sealed for testing and the fuel cap tested separately
for permeation (discussed below). If the fuel tank is designed to have
a separate fill neck between the fuel cap and the tank that is at least
12 inches long and at least 6 inches above the top of the fuel tank,
the tank may be sealed with something other than a production fuel cap.
Manufacturers may do the durability testing described below during
the time period specified for preconditioning. The time spent in
durability testing may count as preconditioning time as long as the
fuel tank has fuel inside the entire time. During the slosh testing, a
fuel fill level of 40 percent would be considered acceptable for the
fuel soak. Otherwise, we are proposing to require that the fuel tank be
filled to nominal capacity during the fuel soak.
(c) Durability Tests
We are proposing three tests to evaluate the durability of fuel
tank permeation controls: (1) Fuel sloshing; (2) pressure-vacuum
cycling; and (3) ultraviolet exposure. The purpose of these
deterioration tests would be to help ensure that the technology is
durable under the wide range of in-use operating conditions. For
sloshing, the fuel tank would be filled to 40 percent capacity with E10
fuel and rocked for one million cycles. The pressure-vacuum testing
would consist of 10,000 cycles from -0.5 to 2.0 psi. These two proposed
durability tests are based on draft recommended SAE practice.\89\ The
third durability test would be intended to assess potential impacts of
ultraviolet sunlight (i.e., light with wavelength ranging from 300 to
400 nanometers) on the durability of surface treatment. In this test,
the tank would be exposed to ultraviolet light with an intensity of at
least 0.40 W-hr/m2/min on the tank surface for 450 hours.
Alternatively, we are proposing the tank could be exposed to direct
natural sunlight for an equivalent period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Draft SAE Information Report J1769, ``Test Protocol for
Evaluation of Long Term Permeation Barrier Durability on Non-
Metallic Fuel Tanks,'' (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0195).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to include a provision that would allow
manufacturers to omit one or more of the durability tests if it is not
appropriate for a certain tank design. For example, coextruded plastic
tanks rely on a thin layer of material within the wall of the tank.
This material is never exposed to sunlight or liquid fuel so the
sloshing, pressure, and ultraviolet-exposure tests would not be
necessary. At the same time, we request comment on whether other
durability tests would be necessary to ensure that the fuel tank would
not be compromised for safety due to changes to address permeation.
Examples may be temperature cycling or impact testing.
(d) Weight-Loss Test
Following the fuel soak, we are proposing that the fuel tank must
be drained and refilled with fresh fuel immediately after to prevent
the fuel tank from drying out. The tank would have to be sealed within
eight hours after refreshing the fuel at the end of the soak period.
The permeation rate from fuel tanks would be measured by comparing mass
measurements of the tank before and after a soaking period of at least
two weeks at a temperature of 28 2 [deg]C. In the case of
fuel tanks with very low permeation, the weight loss of the fuel tank
over two week period could be too small to obtain an accurate
measurement. We are proposing that manufacturers may extend the test
period by two weeks to obtain an accurate measurement for fuel tanks
with low permeation rates, consistent with good engineering judgment.
A change in atmospheric pressure over the weeks of testing can
affect the accuracy of measured weights for testing due to the buoyancy
of the fuel tank. The buoyancy effect on emission measurements is
proportional to the volume of the fuel tank, so this procedure is
appropriate even for testing very small fuel tanks. To address this we
are proposing a procedure in which a reference fuel tank filled with
sand or some other inert material to the approximate total weight of
the test tank be used to zero the scale used for measuring the test
tank. This would result in measured and reported values representing
the change in mass from permeation losses rather than a comparison of
absolute masses. This is similar to an approach in which weighing would
determine absolute masses with a mathematical correction to account for
the effects of buoyancy. We believe the proposed approach is better
because it minimizes the possibility of introducing or propagating
error.
We propose to allow permeation measurements for certification using
alternative equipment and procedures that provide equivalent results.
To use these alternative methods, manufacturers would first need to get
[[Page 28179]]
our approval. An example of an alternative weight-loss measurement
procedure would be to test the fuel tank in a SHED and determine the
permeation by measuring the concentration of hydrocarbons in the
enclosure.
(e) Fuel Cap Permeation Testing
As discussed above, we are proposing that manufacturers would have
the option to test the fuel cap separately from the tank and combine
the results to determine the total tank permeation rate. In this case,
the permeation test would be performed as described above except that
the fuel cap would be mounted on an impermeable reservoir such as a
metal or glass tank. The volume of the test reservoir would have to be
at least one liter to ensure sufficient fuel vapor exposure. We are
proposing that the ``tank'' surface area for calculating the results
would be the smallest inside cross sectional area of the opening on
which the cap is mounted. The fuel cap would need to be tested in
conjunction with a representative gasket. In the case where the vent
path is through grooves in the gasket, another gasket of the same
material and dimensions, without the vent grooves, may be used. In the
case where the vent is through the cap, that vent would be sealed for
testing.
(3) Diurnal Emission Testing Procedures
The proposed test procedure for diurnal emissions from installed
marine fuel tanks involves placing the fuel tank in a SHED, varying the
temperature over a prescribed profile, and measuring the hydrocarbons
escaping from the fuel tank (see Sec. 1060.525). The final result
would be reported in grams per gallon where the grams are the mass of
hydrocarbons escaping from the fuel tank over 24 hours and the gallons
are the nominal fuel tank capacity. The proposed test procedure is
derived from the automotive evaporative emission test with
modifications specific to marine applications.\90\ We request comment
on the proposed diurnal test procedures described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, for the automotive
evaporative emission test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Temperature Profile
We believe it is appropriate to base diurnal measurements on a
summer day with ambient temperatures ranging from 72 to 96 [deg]F (22.2
to 35.6 [deg]C). This temperature profile, which is also used for
automotive testing, represents a hot summer day when ground-level ozone
formation is most likely. Due to the thermal mass of the fuel and, in
some cases, the inherent insulation provided by the boat hull, the fuel
temperatures would cover a narrower range. Data presented in Chapter 5
of the Draft RIA suggest that the fuel temperature in an installed
marine fuel tank would see a total change of about half the ambient
temperature swing. We are therefore proposing a test temperature range
of 78 to 90 [deg]F (25.6 to 32.2 [deg]C) for installed marine fuel
tanks. This testing would be based on fuel temperature instead of
ambient temperature.
We are proposing an alternative, narrower temperature range for
fuel tanks installed in nontrailerable boats (>=26 ft.). Data presented
in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA suggest that the fuel temperature swing
in a boat stored in the water would be about 20 percent of the ambient
temperature swing. Based on this relationship, we are proposing an
alternative temperature cycle for tanks installed in nontrailerable
boats of 81.6 to 86.4 [deg]F (27.6 to 30.2 [deg]C). This alternative
temperature cycle would be associated with an alternative standard as
discussed earlier. See the proposed regulations at Sec. 1060.525 for
further detail. We request comment on the proposed test temperatures,
especially on the appropriateness of the alternative test procedure and
standard for tanks installed in nontrailerable boats.
The automotive diurnal test procedure includes a three-day
temperature cycle to ensure that the carbon canister can hold at least
three days of diurnal emissions without vapors breaking through to the
atmosphere. For marine vessels using carbon canisters as a strategy for
controlling evaporative emissions, we are proposing a three-day cycle
here for the same reason. In the automotive test, the canister is
loaded and then purged by the engine during a warm-up drive before the
first day of testing. Here, we are proposing a different approach
because we anticipate that canisters on marine applications will be
passively purged. Before the first day of testing, the canister would
be loaded to full working capacity and then run over the diurnal test
temperature cycle, starting and ending at the lowest temperature, to
allow one day of passive purging. The test result would then be based
on the highest recorded value during the following three days.
For fuel systems using a sealed system (including those that rely
on pressure-relief valves with no canister), we believe a three-day
test would not be necessary. Before the first day of testing, the fuel
would be stabilized at the initial test temperature. Following this
stabilization, the SHED would be purged, followed by a single run
through the diurnal temperature cycle. Because this technology does not
depend on purging or storage capacity of a canister, multiple days of
testing should not be necessary. We are therefore proposing a one-day
test for the following technologies: Sealed systems, sealed systems
with a pressure-relief valve, bladder fuel tanks, and sealed fuel tanks
with a volume-compensating air bag. We request comment on this
simplified approach.
(b) Test Fuel
Consistent with the automotive test procedures, we are proposing to
specify a gasoline test fuel with a volatility of 9 psi.\91\ We are not
proposing that the fuel used in diurnal emission testing include
ethanol for two reasons. First, we do not believe that ethanol in the
fuel affects the diurnal emissions or control effectiveness other than
the effect that ethanol in the fuel may have on fuel volatility.
Second, in-use fuels containing ethanol are generally blended in such a
way as to control for ethanol effects in order to meet fuel volatility
requirements. We request comment on the proposed test fuel and whether
it would be appropriate to specify a test fuel blended with ethanol
either as the primary test fuel or as an optional test fuel. If so, we
request comment regarding whether the volatility of the test fuel
should be controlled to 9 psi or if ethanol should be blended into
certification gasoline. We also request comment on the effect of
ethanol in the fuel on controlled diurnal emissions and if the standard
would need to be adjusted to account for ethanol in the test fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Volatility is specified based on a procedure known as Reid
Vapor Pressure (see ASTM D 323-99a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diurnal emissions are not only a function of temperature and fuel
volatility, but of the size of the vapor space in the fuel tank.
Consistent with the automotive procedures, we are proposing that the
fill level at the start of the test be 40 percent of the nominal
capacity of the fuel tank. Nominal capacity of the fuel tank would be
defined as the a fuel tank's volume as specified by the fuel tank
manufacturer, using at least two significant figures, based on the
maximum volume of fuel the tank can hold with standard refueling
techniques. The ``permanent'' vapor space above a fuel tank that has
been filled to capacity would not be considered in the nominal capacity
of the fuel tank.
[[Page 28180]]
(c) Fuel Tank Configuration
The majority of marine fuel tanks are made of plastic. Even plastic
fuel tanks designed to meet our proposed standards would be expected to
have some amount of permeation. However, over the length of the diurnal
test, if it were performed on a new tank that had not been previously
exposed to fuel, the effect of permeation on the test results should be
insignificant. For fuel tanks that have reached their stabilized
permeation rate (such as testing on in-use tanks), we believe it would
be appropriate to correct for permeation. In such a case, we propose
that the permeation rate be measured from the fuel tank and subtracted
from the final diurnal test result. The fuel tank permeation rate would
be measured with the established procedure for measuring permeation
emissions, except that the test fuel would be the same as that used for
diurnal emission testing. This test measurement would have to be made
just before the diurnal emission test to ensure that the permeation
rate does not change when measuring diurnal emissions. In no case would
we allow a permeation correction higher than that corresponding to the
applicable permeation standard for a tank with a given inside surface
area. Because not correcting for permeation represents the worst-case
test result, we would accept data from manufacturers in which no
permeation correction was applied. We request comment on this approach.
(4) Diffusion Testing Procedures
The proposed procedure for measuring diffusion emissions is very
similar to that for diurnal emissions, with three primary differences
(see Sec. 1060.530). First, the fuel tank should be filled to 90
percent of its nominal capacity. Second, the fuel tank is held in a
controlled environment to stabilize at test temperatures. Third, the
test run is proposed to be six hours in length. Testing has shown that
diffusion occurs at a steady rate, so we would want manufacturers to be
able to run a full test in a single day's shift rather than running a
test for a full 24 hours. Measured emissions are then adjusted
mathematically for comparison to the gram-per-day standard.
There is some concern that fluctuating temperatures during this
test could cause small diurnal effects that would result in higher
measured emissions. Filling the fuel tank to 90 percent would help
minimize the potential for diurnal effects by increasing the thermal
mass of the fuel and by reducing the volume of the vapor space. In
addition, the proposed diffusion standard is based on data collected
from testing in this manner.
As described above, we are proposing to allow fuel cap
manufacturers to voluntarily certify their fuel caps to diffusion
standard. This would require a separate test with a fuel cap mounted on
a test tank with a representative sealing configuration of production
tanks.
As described for diurnal measurements, we are proposing that
manufacturers would be able to separately quantify permeation emissions
occurring during the diffusion test and subtract the permeation
contribution so the reported result isolates the test to quantifying
diffusion emissions.
(5) Measurement Procedures Related to Running Loss Emissions
We do not specify a procedure for measuring running loss emissions,
but we are proposing to allow manufacturers to demonstrate control of
running losses by showing that fuel temperatures will not increase by
more than 8 [deg]C during normal operation (see Sec. 1060.104 and
Sec. 1060.535). This requires testing to measure fuel temperatures on
each equipment configuration. We are proposing a fuel temperature test
that includes filling the fuel tank with commercially available
gasoline and operating the equipment for one hour over a normal in-use
duty cycle with a load factor approximately the same as the specified
test cycle. If the equipment consumes 80 percent of the fuel capacity
in one hour of operation, a shorter period may be used based on time
until the fuel tank is drained to 20 percent capacity. We are proposing
that manufacturers would be required to document a description of the
operation and include grass height or equivalent variables affecting
load.
We are proposing that the testing must occur outdoors with a
beginning ambient temperature ranging from 20 to 30 [deg]C with no
precipitation and with average wind speeds below fifteen miles per
hour. The ambient temperature would have to be steady or increasing
during the test and it must be during a mostly sunny time period with a
maximum cloud cover of 25 percent as reported by the nearest local
airport making hourly meteorological observations.
We are proposing that the temperature of the fuel in the tank must
be within 2 [deg]C of (but not exceeding) the ambient temperature at
the beginning of the test. Fuel temperature would be measured with a
thermocouple positioned in the fuel but not touching the inside walls
or bottom of the tank. Ambient temperature would be measured on-site in
the shade. The equipment configuration meets the requirement to control
running losses if measured minimum and maximum fuel temperatures
throughout the period of operation do not differ by more than 8 [deg]C.
In the case were the equipment has multiple fuel tanks, the temperature
would have to be measured on each fuel tank. We request comment on this
procedure for measuring fuel temperatures.
We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to use an alternative
procedure in a laboratory with prior EPA approval. The alternative test
procedure would need to simulate outdoor conditions and consider engine
operation, solar load, temperature, and wind speed. The manufacturer
would be required to make a demonstration of equivalency.
F. Certification and Compliance Provisions
Sections VII and VIII describe several general provisions related
to certifying emission families and meeting other regulatory
requirements. This section notes several particulars related to
applying these general provisions to evaporative emissions.
Marine vessels do not always include installed fuel systems.
Manufacturers of vessels without installed fuel systems do not have the
ability to control engine or fuel system design parameters. We are
therefore proposing that vessels without an installed fuel system would
not be subject to the proposed standards (see Sec. 1045.5). As a
result, it is necessary for us to treat manufacturers of uninstalled
fuel-system components as the equipment manufacturer with respect to
evaporative emission standards. This includes manufacturers of outboard
engines (including any fuel lines or fuel tanks produced with the
engine), portable fuel tanks, and the fuel line system (including fuel
line, primer bulb, and connectors).
For ease of reference, Small SI equipment manufacturers, Marine SI
boat builders, and manufacturers of portable marine fuel tanks (and
associated fuel-system components) are all referred to as equipment
manufacturers in this section.
(1) Liability for Certification and Compliance
The proposed standards for fuel lines and fuel tanks apply to any
such components that are used with or intended to be used with Small SI
engines or Marine SI engines (see Sec. 1060.1 and Sec. 1060.601).
Section VI.C
[[Page 28181]]
describes for each standard which manufacturer is expected to certify.
Engine manufacturers would describe these fuel-system components in the
same certification application in which they document their compliance
with exhaust emission standards (see Sec. 1045.201 and Sec.
1054.201).
In most cases, nonroad standards apply to the manufacturer of the
engine or the manufacturer of the nonroad equipment. Here, the products
subject to the standards (fuel lines and fuel tanks) are typically
manufactured by a different manufacturer. In most cases the engine
manufacturers do not produce complete fuel systems and would therefore
not be in a position to do all the testing and certification work
necessary to cover the whole range of products that will be used. We
are therefore proposing an arrangement in which manufacturers of fuel-
system components are in most cases subject to the standards and are
subject to certification and other compliance requirements associated
with the applicable standards. We are proposing to prohibit the
introduction into commerce of noncompliant fuel-system components that
are intended for installation in Small SI equipment or Marine SI
vessels unless the component manufacturer either certifies the
component or has a contractual arrangement for each equipment
manufacturers using their products to certify those components. As a
matter of good practice, any components not intended for installation
in Small SI equipment or Marine SI vessels should be labeled
accordingly to prevent the possibility of improper installation to
prevent confusion in this regard.
As described in Section VI.D, component manufacturers may certify
with measured emission levels showing that the components meet the
emission standard, or they may certify to an FEL above or below the
standard. If any component manufacturer certifies using an FEL, the FEL
becomes the emission standard for that emission family for all
practical purposes. The component manufacturer however would not be
required to meet any overall average for their products, but would have
the option to certify to an FEL above or below the standard. This is to
facilitate the use of ABT by equipment manufacturers, as discussed
below.
Equipment manufacturers would be subject to all the proposed
evaporative standards. This applies for the general standards described
above with respect to fuel caps, miscellaneous fuel-system components,
and refueling. These standards generally depend on design
specifications rather than emission measurements, so we believe it is
appropriate to simply deem these products to be certified if they are
designed and produced to meet the standards we specify. The vessel
manufacturer would also need to keep records of the components used
(see Sec. 1060.210). This would allow us, by operation of the
regulation, to have certified products without requiring the paperwork
burden associated with demonstrating compliance with these relatively
straightforward specifications. Manufacturers could optionally apply
for and receive a certificate of conformity with respect to these
general standards, but this would not be necessary and we would expect
this to be a rare occurrence.
Equipment manufacturers would also be subject to all the proposed
emission standards. Equipment manufacturers may comply with
requirements related to evaporative emission standards in three
different situations. First, equipment manufacturers might install only
components certified by the component manufacturer, without using
emission credits. In this case all the components must meet the
proposed emission standard or have an FEL below the standard. Such an
equipment manufacturer would be subject to the fuel line and fuel tank
standards, but would be able to satisfy their requirements by using
certified components. They would need to apply for certification only
with respect to the remaining emission standards they are subject to,
such as running loss emissions (if applicable). Equipment manufacturers
must also design and produce their equipment to meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 1060.101(f), though this would not necessarily
involve an application for certification. Such an equipment
manufacturer would generally need only to use certified components, add
an emission label, and follow any applicable emission-related
installation instructions to ensure that certified components are
properly installed. This is similar to an equipment manufacturer that
is required to properly install certified engines in its equipment,
except that the equipment manufacturer must meet general design
standards and shares the liability for meeting emission standards.
Second, equipment manufacturers may be required to certify certain
components based on contractual arrangements with the manufacturer of
those components. In this case, the equipment manufacturer's
certification causes the component manufacturer to no longer be subject
to the standard. This approach might involve the equipment manufacturer
relying on test data from the component manufacturer. The equipment
manufacturer might also be producing its own fuel tanks for
installation in its equipment, in which case it would be subject to the
standards and all requirements related to certification and compliance.
In either case, the equipment manufacturer would take on all the
responsibilities associated with certification and compliance with
respect to those components.
Third, equipment manufacturers may comply with evaporative emission
requirements by using certified components, some of which are certified
to an FEL above the standard. The equipment manufacturer would then
comply based on emission credits. In this case, the equipment
manufacturer would take on all the certification and compliance
responsibilities with respect to any components that are part of the
equipment manufacturer's emission credit calculations. Equipment
manufacturers would generally use only certified components for meeting
evaporative emission requirements, but they might also hold the
certificate for such components. For purposes of certification,
equipment manufacturers would not need to submit new test data if they
use certified components. Equipment manufacturers would make an annual
accounting to demonstrate a net balance of credits for the model year.
Under this approach, the component manufacturer would continue to be
subject to the standards for its products and be required to meet the
certification and compliance responsibilities related to the standard.
However, as in the first option, the component manufacturer would not
be required to meet any averaging requirements or be required to use
emissions credits. Where equipment manufacturers use ABT with
components that have already been certified by the component
manufacturer, there will be overlapping certifications between the two
parties. We propose to address this by specifying that all parties are
responsible for meeting applicable requirements associated with the
standards to which they have certified, but if any specific requirement
is met by one company, we will consider the requirement to be met for
all companies (see Sec. 1060.5). For example, either the component
manufacturer or the equipment manufacturer could honor warranty claims,
but we may hold both companies responsible for the violation if there
is a failure to meet warranty obligations.
Similarly, if we find that new equipment is sold without a valid
[[Page 28182]]
certificate of conformity for the fuel lines or fuel tanks, then the
equipment manufacturer and all the affected fuel-system manufacturers
subject to the standards would be liable for the noncompliance (see
Sec. 1060.601).
Liability for recall of noncompliant products would similarly fall
to any manufacturer whose product is subject to the standard, as
described above. If more than one manufacturer is subject to the
standards for a noncompliant product, we would have the discretion to
assign recall liability to any one of those manufacturers. In assigning
this liability, we would generally consider factors such as which
manufacturer has substantial manufacturing responsibility and which
manufacturer holds the certificate (see Sec. 1060.5). However, we may
hold equipment manufacturers liable for recall even if they don't
manufacture or certify the defective product. This would generally be
limited to cases where the component manufacturer is unavailable to
execute any remedial action. For example, if a foreign component
manufacturer discontinues their participation in the U.S. market or a
component manufacturer goes out of business, we would turn to the
equipment manufacturer.
The proposed running loss standards for nonhandheld Small SI
engines are not geared toward component certification, which
necessitates some special provisions. If engine manufacturers sell
their engines with a complete fuel system, which is typical for Class I
engines, they would also be subject to and need to comply with running
loss standards as part of their overall certification. Of the available
alternatives for demonstrating compliance with the running loss
standard, we would expect the only practical approach for these
companies would be to route vapors from the fuel tank into the engine's
air intake system for combustion. Any engine manufacturer certifying
its engines this way would need to test for exhaust emissions with an
installed running loss vent (see Sec. 1054.501). If equipment
manufacturers use only fuel-system components that have been certified
by component manufacturers (without using emission credits) and engines
that are certified by the engine manufacturer to meet both exhaust and
running loss standards, they would have no responsibility to certify.
However, if the engine manufacturer does not sell its engine with a
complete fuel system that has been certified for running loss control,
the equipment manufacturer would need to certify with respect to the
running loss standard.
The running loss standard is not a typical standard based on
emission measurements using established procedures. Some of the
available compliance demonstrations involve straightforward design
specifications that involve no measurement at all. The approach of
keeping fuel temperatures from increasing above a specified threshold
involves a test procedure with a performance standard, but does not
involve emission measurements. As described above, it may be possible
to identify design specifications that would replace the need for the
proposed temperature measurements. In this case running loss control
would be a straightforward design standard that we could treat like the
general standards above, in which equipment manufacturers are deemed to
be certified by operation of the regulations, rather than submitting an
application for certification. The regulations would prohibit the sale
of equipment without the specified running loss controls.
(2) Regulatory Requirements Related to Certification
The established provisions for implementing exhaust emission
standards apply similarly for evaporative emission standards; however,
because the control technologies are very different, these requirements
require further clarification. For example, scheduled maintenance is an
important part of certifying engines to exhaust emission standards.
There is little or no maintenance involved for the expected
technologies for controlling evaporative emissions. The regulations
still require manufacturers to identify specified maintenance
procedures, if there are any, but there are no specific limitations on
the maintenance intervals and no distinction for emission-related
maintenance. Manufacturers may not do any maintenance during testing
for certification. (See Sec. 1060.125 and Sec. 1060.235.) We also do
not expect that emission-related warranty claims would be common, but
we are proposing a two-year period for emission-related warranties with
respect to evaporative emission controls.
Similarly, we do not expect manufacturers to use evaporative
emission control technologies that involve adjustable parameters or
auxiliary emission control devices. Technologies that control
evaporative emissions are generally passive designs that prevent vapors
from escaping, in contrast to the active systems engines use to control
exhaust emissions. The regulations state the basic expectation that
systems must comply with standards throughout any adjustable range
without auxiliary emission control devices, but it is clear that these
provisions will not apply to most evaporative systems. We also do not
allow emission control strategies that cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health or welfare or that involve defeat
devices. While these are additional statutory provisions that are
meaningful primarily in the context of controlling exhaust emissions,
we are proposing to include them for addressing evaporative emissions
(see Sec. 1045.101). This also addresses the possibility that future
technologies may be different in a way that makes these provisions more
meaningful. We request comment on this approach. In particular we
request comment on best way of adapting these provisions to evaporative
emission controls.
The testing specified for certifying fuel systems to the
evaporative emission standards includes measurements for evaluating the
durability of emission control technologies where appropriate. While we
adopted evaporative requirements for recreational vehicles relying on a
testing approach that used deterioration factors, we believe it is more
appropriate to incorporate the durability testing for each family
directly. Therefore, no requirement exists for generating deterioration
factors for any evaporative emission standard. We request comment on
the best approach to incorporate durability testing for evaporative
emission standards
We are proposing to require that Small SI engine or equipment
manufacturers add an emission control information label if they certify
with respect to running losses or if they certify based on the use of
emission credits. We are proposing to require that Marine SI engine or
vessel manufacturers add an emission control information label for
evaporative emission only if they certify based on the use of emission
credits. (See Sec. 1060.135.) If engine, equipment, or vessel
manufacturers also certify fuel-system components separately, they may
include that additional information in a combined label. If the
equipment is produced by the same company that certifies the engine for
exhaust standards, the emission control information label for the
engine may include all the appropriate information related to
evaporative emissions.
In addition, we are proposing a simplified labeling requirement for
fuel lines (see Sec. 1060.136). This would involve only the fuel line
manufacturer's name, EPA's standardized designation for an
[[Page 28183]]
emission family, and the family emission limit (FEL), if applicable.
This labeling information would need to be repeated continuously, with
not more than 12 inches before repeating. There is some concern that if
short sections of fuel lines are used, that sections of the fuel line
may be found on equipment without sufficient markings on them. We
request comment regarding whether the length of the repeated labeling
information should be shorter than 12 inches. We are proposing
simplified labeling requirements for fuel filters, primer bulbs, or
short preformed fuel lines (less than 12 inches long) (see Sec.
1060.138).
Fuel tanks that are certified separately would need to include an
emission control information label (see Sec. 1060.137). This would
involve fuel tank manufacturer's name, EPA's standardized designation
for an emission family, the FEL (if applicable), a simple compliance
statement, and a description of the method of controlling emissions.
For example, a label on a certified marine fuel tank would need to
describe how it meets permeation emission standards and identify the
part numbers of any associated components for meeting diurnal emission
standards.
Including the fuel tank's family emission limit is important, not
only for EPA oversight, but also to communicate this information to
equipment manufacturers and end users. Unlike the situation for exhaust
emissions, the certifying manufacturer establishes the FEL, but does
not maintain a balance of emission credits. Equipment manufacturers may
buy fuel tanks and fuel lines that have an FEL, which would be the
basis for calculating emission credits for the equipment manufacturer.
Any other approach would require equipment manufacturers to be vigilant
about verifying FEL values with EPA or the component manufacturer, or
both. Also, as described in Section VI.F.6, we are proposing to require
that owners find replacement fuel tanks and fuel lines with FELs that
match or exceed the emission control performance represented by the
original parts. This is an unrealistic expectation unless the FEL is
readily available on the original equipment.
Other fuel-system components would need to be labeled with the
manufacturer's name and part number, if space allows, and EPA's
standardized designation for an emission family (see Sec. 1060.138).
This would apply for carbon canisters, fuel tanks that are not
certified separately, and any other fuel-system components (such as
fuel caps) that are certified separately. Equipment manufacturers could
meet the requirement to label fuel tanks by placing the overall
equipment label on the fuel tank, as long as the fuel tank and label
are positioned such that the label can be read easily.
Manufacturers have expressed concern that it would be very
difficult to properly label very small fuel tanks and fuel lines. To
the extent that engine manufacturers are certifying their products with
respect to evaporative emissions, this problem can be addressed in part
by putting the information related to evaporative emissions on the
engine label already required for exhaust emissions. This is most
likely to be the case for the smallest products. We request comment on
any additional provisions we would need to specify to address space
limitations on very small fuel-system components.
While we are proposing no requirement for manufacturers to test
production-line or in-use products, we may pursue testing of certified
products to evaluate compliance with evaporative emission standards
(see Sec. 1060.301).
(3) Emission Families
To certify equipment or components, manufacturers would first
define their emission families. This is generally based on selecting
groups of products that have similar emission characteristics
throughout the useful life (see Sec. 1060.230). For example, fuel
tanks could be grouped together if they were made of the same material
(including consideration of additives such as pigments, plasticizers,
and UV inhibitors that may affect emissions) and the same control
technology. For running loss control for nonhandheld Small SI engines
and equipment, emission families are based on the selected compliance
demonstration. For example, certifying manufacturers would have one
emission family for all their products that vent fuel vapors to the
engine's air intake system, and another emission family for all their
products that comply based on keeping fuel temperatures below the
specified threshold.
The manufacturer would then select a single product from the
emission family for certification testing. This product would be the
one that is most likely to exceed the applicable emission standard. For
instance, the ``worst-case'' fuel tank in a family of monolayer tanks
would likely be the tank with the thinnest average wall thickness. For
fuel lines or co-extruded fuel tanks with a permeation barrier layer,
the worst-case configuration may be the thinnest barrier thickness.
Testing with those products, as specified above, would need to show
compliance with emission standards. The manufacturers would then send
us an application for certification. After reviewing the information in
the application, we would issue a certificate of conformity allowing
equipment manufacturers to introduce into commerce certified equipment
from the covered emission family, or alternatively, equipment with the
components from certified emission families.
(4) Compliance Provisions From 40 CFR Part 1068
As described in Section VIII, we are proposing to apply the
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 to Small SI and Marine SI engines,
equipment, and vessels. This section describes how some of the
provisions of part 1068 apply specifically with respect to evaporative
emissions.
The provisions of Sec. 1068.101 prohibit introducing into commerce
new nonroad engines and equipment unless they are covered by a
certificate of conformity and labeled appropriately. Section VI.F.1
describes the responsibilities for engine manufacturers, equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers of fuel-system components with respect
to the prohibition against introducing uncertified products into
commerce. In the case of portable marine fuel tanks and outboard
engines, there is no equipment manufacturer so we are proposing to
treat manufacturers of these items as equipment manufacturers relative
to this prohibition.
While engine rebuilding or extensive engine maintenance is
commonplace in the context of exhaust emission controls, there is very
little analogous servicing related to evaporative emission controls.
Nevertheless, it can be expected that individual components, such as
fuel lines, fuel tanks, or other fuel-system components, may be
replaced periodically. While the detailed rebuilding provisions of
Sec. 1068.120 have no meaning for evaporative emission controls, the
underlying requirement applies generally. Specifically, if someone is
servicing a certified system, there must be a reasonable basis to
believe that the modified emission control system will perform at least
as well as the original system. We are not proposing any recordkeeping
requirements related to maintenance of evaporative emission control
systems.
There are many instances where we specify in 40 CFR part 1068,
subparts C and D, that engines (and the associated
[[Page 28184]]
equipment) are exempt from emission standards under certain
circumstances, such as for testing, national security, or export. Our
principle objective in applying these provisions to evaporative
emission standards is to avoid confusion. We are therefore proposing
that an exemption from exhaust emission standards, automatically
triggers a corresponding exemption from evaporative emission standards
for the same products. We believe it is unlikely that an equipment
manufacturer will need a separate exemption from evaporative emission
standards, but the exemptions related to national security, testing,
and economic hardship would apply if such a situation were to occur. We
believe these are the only three reasons that would ever call for
evaporative systems to be exempt when the engines have not already been
exempted for some reason. We request comment on this approach to
addressing exemptions and importation provisions for evaporative
requirements.
Given the extended times required to precondition fuel-system
components, we have no plans to require evaporative testing of units
from the production line. This means that evaporative measurements are
not part of the production-line testing program or selective
enforcement audits. On the other hand, we may require certifying
manufacturers to supply us with production equipment or components as
needed for our own testing or we may find our own source of products
for testing.
The defect-reporting requirements of Sec. 1068.501 apply to
certified evaporative systems. This requires the certifying
manufacturer to maintain information, such as warranty claims, that may
indicate an emission-related defect. The regulations describe when
manufacturers must pursue an investigation of apparent defects and when
to report defects to EPA. These provisions apply to every certifying
manufacturer and their certified products, including component
manufacturers.
(5) Interim Compliance Flexibility for Small SI Equipment
Most Small SI equipment manufacturers are currently certifying
products to evaporative emission requirements in California. However,
these standards and their associated test procedures differ somewhat
from those proposed in this document. Although the standards are
different, we believe evaporative emission control technologies are
available to meet the California ARB's standards and our proposed
emission standards. To help manufacturers transition to selling low-
emission equipment nationwide, we are proposing to accept California
ARB certification of equipment and components in the early years of the
proposed federal program.
As discussed above, we are proposing to accept California ARB
certification for nonhandheld equipment and fuel tanks for the purposes
of the proposed early-allowance program (see Sec. Sec. 1045.145 and
1054.145). We are also proposing to accept California ARB certification
of handheld fuel tanks through the 2011 model year (see Sec. 90.129).
We are proposing to accept Class I/Class II fuel lines meeting
California ARB certification or certain SAE specifications through the
2011/2010 model years (see Sec. 90.127). These SAE specifications
include SAE J30 R11A, SAE J30 R12, and SAE J2260 Category 1. Such fuel
lines would need to be labeled accordingly. As described in Section
VI.C.1, we are proposing to require that engine manufacturers certify
fuel lines used with their engines until the proposed Phase 3 standards
are in place. The purpose of this provision is to give Small SI
equipment manufacturers additional lead time before they have to
certify to the proposed standards. For any fuel lines installed on the
equipment, but not supplied with the engine, we are proposing that the
engine manufacturer would be required to supply low-permeation fuel
line specifications in its installation instructions (see Sec.
90.128). Equipment manufacturers would be required, under the
prohibited acts specified in the regulations, to use the fuel line
specified by the engine manufacturer.
We are proposing to allow certification of walk-behind mowers under
Sec. 90.127 as an alternative to the proposed fuel line permeation
standards if manufacturers rely on SHED-based certification to meet the
California standards that apply to the overall equipment (diurnal, tank
permeation, and fuel line permeation). While this might allow for use
of fuel lines that exceed the proposed standards, we believe the
overall emission control will be at least as great from systems that
have been tested and certified using SHED-based procedures. The Phase 3
standards described above do not rely on diurnal emission control, so
we do not intend to continue the provision for SHED-based testing and
certification. However, we request comment on the possible
administrative advantages or emission control advantages of continuing
this alternative approach in the Phase 3 time frame.
(6) Replacement Parts
We are proposing to apply the tampering prohibition in Sec.
1068.101(b)(1) for evaporative systems. This means that it would be a
violation to replace compliant fuel tanks or fuel lines with
noncompliant products. This would effectively disable the applicable
emission controls. To address the concern that low-cost replacement
products will be easy to make available and difficult to prevent, we
are proposing several new noncompliance-related provisions. In Sec.
1060.610 we clarify the meaning of tampering for evaporative systems
and propose two requirements. First, for the period from January 1,
2012 to December 31, 2019, we propose to require that manufacturers,
distributors, retailers, and importers of these replacement parts
clearly label their products with respect to the applicable
requirements. For example, a package might be labeled as compliant with
the requirements in 40 CFR part 1060 or it might be labeled as
noncompliant and appropriate only for use in applications not covered
by EPA standards. Unless the packaging clearly states otherwise, the
product is presumed to be intended for applications that are subject to
EPA standards. Second, starting in 2020 we are proposing a provision
stating that it is presumed that all replacement parts intended for
applications covered by EPA standards will be installed in such
equipment. This presumption significantly enhances our ability to
enforce the tampering prohibition because the replacement part is then
noncompliant before it is installed in a vessel or a piece of
equipment. We believe shifting to a blanket presumption in 2020 is
appropriate since in-use vessels and equipment will be almost
universally subject to EPA's evaporative emission standards by that
time.
We are aware that producing low-permeation fuel tanks in very low
production volumes can be costly. In particular, some equipment owners
may need to replace a fuel tank that has been certified to a Family
Emission Limit (FEL) that is lower than the emission standard. The
owner would need to find and install a replacement fuel tank that is
certified with an FEL that is the same as or lower than that of the
replaced fuel tank. However, we are concerned that such replacement
fuel tanks may in some cases not be available. We are proposing to
allow equipment owners to ask for an exemption from the tampering
prohibition if there is no low-FEL tank available. The replacement tank
would still need to meet applicable
[[Page 28185]]
standards, but would not need to meet the more stringent emission
levels reflected by the old tank's FEL. We request comment on the need
for this provision. In particular, we request comment on the likelihood
that owners would be unable to find replacement tanks that match the
emission level of the fuel tanks being replaced.
(7) Certification Fees
Under our current certification program, manufacturers pay a fee to
cover the costs associated with various certification and other
compliance activities associated with an EPA issued certificate of
conformity. These fees are based on the projected costs to EPA per
emission family. For the fees rule published May 11, 2004, we conducted
a cost study to assess EPA's costs associated with conducting programs
for the industries that we certify (69 FR 26222). A copy of the cost
study worksheets that were used to assess the fees per category may be
found on EPA's fees Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/proprule.htm.
We are proposing to establish a new fees category for certification
related to the proposed evaporative emission standards. The costs for
this category will be determined using the same method used in
conducting the previous cost study.
As under the current program, this depends on an assessment of the
anticipated number of emission families and the corresponding EPA
staffing necessary to perform this work. At this time, EPA plans to
perform a basic level of certification review of information and data
submitted to issue certificates of conformity for the evaporative
emission standards, as well as conducting some testing to measure
evaporative emissions. This is especially the case for equipment
manufacturers that use only certified components for meeting applicable
emission standards. We are proposing a fee of $241 based on Agency
costs for half of a federal employee's time and three employees hired
through the National Senior Citizens Education and Research Center
dedicated to the administration of the evaporative certification
program, including the administrative, testing, and overhead costs
associated with these people. The total cost to administer the program
is estimated to be $362,225. We divided this cost by the estimated
number of certificates, 1503, to calculate the proposed fee.
We will update the fees related to evaporative emission
certificates each year when we update the fees for all categories. The
actual fee in 2015 and later model years will depend on these annual
calculations. The fees update will be based upon EPA's costs of
implementing the evaporative category multiplied by the consumer price
index (CPI), then divided by the average of the number of certificates
received in the two years prior to the update. The CPI will be applied
to all of EPA's costs except overhead. This is a departure from EPA's
current fees program wherein the CPI is applied only to EPA's labor
costs. In the most recent fees rulemaking, commenters objected to
applying the CPI to EPA's fixed costs. In the proposed fee program for
the evaporative category, however, there are no fixed costs. EPA
expects all its costs to increase with inflation and we therefore think
it is appropriate to apply the inflation adjustment to all of the
program costs.
Where a manufacturer holds the certificates for compliance with
exhaust emission standards and includes certification for evaporative
emissions in that same certificate, we would assess an additional
charge related to compliance with evaporative emission standards to
that for the exhaust emission certification.
EPA believes it appropriate to charge less for a certificate
related to evaporative emissions relative to the existing charge for
certificates of conformity for exhaust emissions from the engines in
these same vessels and equipment. The amount of time and level of
effort associated with reviewing the latter certificates is higher than
that projected for the certificates for evaporative emissions.
(8) Engineering Design-Based Certification
Certification of equipment or components that are subject to
performance-based emission standards depends on test data showing that
products meet the applicable standards. We are proposing a variety of
approaches that reduce the level of testing needed to show compliance.
As described above, we allow manufacturers to group their products into
emission families so that a test on a single worst-case configuration
can be used to show that all products in the emission family are
compliant. Also, test data from a given year could be ``carried over''
for later years for a given emission control design (see Sec.
1060.235). These steps help reduce the overall cost of testing.
Design-based certification is an additional step that may be
available to reduce testing requirements (see Sec. 1060.240). To
certify their products using design-based certification, certifying
manufacturers would describe, from an engineering perspective, how
their fuel systems meet the applicable design specifications. These
manufacturers could then forego the testing described in Section VI.E.
We believe there are several emission control designs that use
established technologies that are well understood to have certain
emission characteristics. At the same time, while engineering design-
based certification is a useful tool for reducing the test burden
associated with certification, this does not remove a manufacturer's
liability for meeting the emission standard throughout the useful life.
The following sections describe how we propose to implement
engineering design-based certification for each of the different
performance standards. We are proposing that we may establish
additional engineering design-based certification options where we find
that new test data demonstrate that the use of other technology designs
will ensure compliance with the applicable emission standards. These
designs would need to produce emission levels comfortably below the
proposed emission standards when variability in the emission control
performance is considered.
(a) Fuel Line Permeation
In our program for recreational vehicles, we specified that fuel
lines meeting certain SAE specifications could be certified by design.
However, we are not proposing to allow this for Small SI equipment or
marine vessels. That decision was appropriate for recreational
vehicles, because that program did not include provisions for component
certification. Fuel line manufacturers will need to conduct testing
anyway to qualify their fuel lines as meeting the various industry
ratings so any testing burden to demonstrate compliance with EPA
standards should be minimal. We would allow test data used to meet
industry standards to be used to certify to the proposed standards
provided that the data were collected in a manner consistent with this
proposal and that the data were made available to EPA if required.
(b) Fuel Tank Permeation
We are proposing to consider that a metal fuel tank meets the
design criteria for a design-based certification as a low-permeation
fuel tank. There is also a body of existing test data showing that co-
extruded fuel tanks from automotive applications have permeation rates
that are well below the proposed standard. We are proposing to allow
design-based certification for co-extruded high-
[[Page 28186]]
density polyethylene fuel tanks with a continuous ethylene vinyl
alcohol barrier layer. The EVOH barrier layer would be required to be
at least 2 percent of the wall thickness of the fuel tank.
To address the permeability of the fuel cap, seals, and gaskets
used on metal and co-extruded tanks, we are proposing that the design
criteria include a specification that seals and gaskets that are not
made of low-permeation materials must have a total exposed surface area
smaller than 1000 mm\2\. A metal or co-extruded fuel tank with seals
that meet this design criterion would reliably pass the standard.
However, we believe it is not appropriate to assign an emission level
to fuel tanks using a design-based certification option that would
allow them to generate emission credits. Given the uncertainty of
emission rates from the seals and gaskets, we would not consider these
tanks to be any more effective than other fuel tanks meeting emission
standards.
(c) Diurnal Emissions
For portable marine fuel tanks, we are proposing a design standard
based on automatically sealing the tank to prevent fuel venting while
fuel temperatures are rising. The options described below for design-
based certification therefore deal only with installed marine fuel
tanks (including personal watercraft).
We are proposing that fuel systems sealed to 1.0 psi would meet the
criteria for engineering design-based certification to the proposed
diurnal emission standards. Systems that remain sealed up to positive
pressures of 1.0 psi have a predictable relationship to changing fuel
temperatures that ensure that total diurnal emissions over the
specified test procedure will be below the proposed standard. This type
of system would allow venting of fuel vapors only when pressures exceed
1.0 psi or when the fuel cap is removed for refueling. Note that
systems with anti-siphon valves would have to be designed to prevent
fuel releases when the system is under pressure to meet Coast Guard
requirements.
Bladder fuel tanks and tanks with a volume-compensating air bag are
specialized versions of tanks that may meet the specifications for
systems that remain sealed up to positive pressures of 1.0 psi. In each
of these designs, volume changes within a sealed system prevent
pressure buildup. As long as these designs meet basic specifications
for system integrity they would also qualify for design-based
certification.
We are proposing that fuel tanks equipped with a passively purged
carbon canister to control diurnal emissions may be certified by
design, subject to several technical specifications. To ensure that
there is enough carbon to collect a sufficient mass of hydrocarbon
vapors, we propose to specify a minimum butane working capacity of 9 g/
dL based on the test procedures specified in ASTM D5228-92. The carbon
canister would need a minimum carbon volume of 0.040 liters per gallon
of fuel tank capacity. For fuel tanks certified to the optional
standards for tanks in nontrailerable boats ( 26 ft. in length), we are
proposing a minimum carbon volume of 0.016 liters per gallon of fuel
tank capacity.
We are proposing two additional specifications for the quality of
the carbon. We believe these specifications are necessary to ensure
that the canister will continue to function effectively over the full
useful life of a marine vessel. First, the carbon would need to meet a
moisture adsorption capacity maximum of 0.5 grams of water per gram of
carbon at 90 percent relative humidity and a temperature of 25 5 [deg]C. Second, the carbon would need to pass a dust attrition
test similar to that in ASTM D3802-79. The moisture adsorption and dust
attrition tests are described in more detail in Chapter 5 of the Draft
RIA. We are also proposing that the carbon canister must be properly
designed to ensure the in-use effectiveness of the carbon.
The canisters would need to be designed using good engineering
judgment to ensure structural integrity. They must include a volume
compensator or other device to hold the carbon pellets in place under
vibration and changing temperatures and the vapor flow would need to be
directed so that it reaches the whole carbon bed rather than just
passing through part of the carbon. We are proposing that the geometry
of the carbon canister must have a length to diameter ratio of at least
3.5.
The emission data we used to develop these proposed engineering
design-based certification options are presented in Chapter 5 of the
Draft RIA. Manufacturers wanting to use designs other than those we
discuss here would have to perform the applicable testing. However,
once an additional technology is proven, we may consider adding it to
the list as one that qualifies for engineering design-based
certification. For example, if several manufacturers were to pool
resources to test a diurnal emission control strategy and submit this
data to EPA, we could consider this particular technology, with any
appropriate design specifications, as one that qualifies to be
considered compliant under engineering design-based certification. We
would intend to revise the regulations to include any additional
technologies we decide are suitable for design-based certification, but
we would be able to approve the use of additional engineering design-
based certification with these technologies before changing the
regulations. We request comment on this approach to design-based
certification for diurnal emission control technologies and on the
specific technologies discussed above. Section IV.H presents a more
detailed description of these technologies and how they can be used to
reduce evaporative emissions.
G. Small-Business Provisions
(1) Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
On May 3, 2001, we convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The
purpose of the Panel was to collect the advice and recommendations of
representatives of small entities that could be affected by this
proposed rule and to report on those comments and the Panel's findings
and recommendations as to issues related to the key elements of the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. We convened a Panel again on August 17,
2006 to update our findings for this new proposal. The Panel reports
have been placed in the rulemaking record for this proposal. Section
609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act directs the review Panel to
report on the comments of small entity representatives and make
findings as to issues related to identified elements of an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) under RFA section 603. Those
elements of an IRFA are:
A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
A description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules
[[Page 28187]]
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and
A description of any significant alternative to the
proposed rule that accomplishes the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and that minimizes any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
In addition to the EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, the
Panel consisted of the Director of the Assessment and Standards
Division of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Using definitions provided by the Small Business Administration
(SBA), companies that manufacture internal-combustion engines and that
employ fewer than 1000 people are considered small businesses for a
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel. Equipment manufacturers,
boat builders, and fuel-system component manufacturers that employ
fewer than 500 people are considered small businesses for the SBAR
Panel. Based on this information, we asked 25 companies that met the
SBA small business thresholds to serve as small entity representatives
for the duration of the Panel process. These companies represented a
cross-section of engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and
fuel-system component manufacturers.
With input from small-entity representatives, the Panel drafted a
report providing findings and recommendations to us on how to reduce
potential burden on small businesses that may occur as a result of this
proposed rule. The Panel Report is included in the rulemaking record
for this proposal. We are proposing all of the recommendations as
presented in the Panel Report. The proposed flexibility options
recommended to us by the Panel, and any updated assessments, are
described below.
(2) Proposed Burden Reduction Approaches for Small Businesses Subject
to the Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
The SBAR Panel Report includes six general recommendations for
regulatory flexibility for small businesses affected by the proposed
evaporative emission standards. This section discusses the provisions
being proposed based on each of these recommendations. In this industry
sector, we believe the burden reduction approaches presented in the
Panel Report should be applied to all businesses with the exception of
one general economic hardship provision described below which is
designed specifically for small businesses. The majority of fuel tanks
produced for the Small SI equipment and Marine SI vessel market are
made by small businesses or by companies producing small volumes of
these products. The purpose of these options is to reduce the potential
burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a
large product line. For this reason, we often also consider the
production volume when making decisions regarding burden reduction
options.
(a) Consideration of Appropriate Lead Time
Small businesses commented that they would need to make significant
changes to their plastic fuel tank designs and molding practices to
meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standards. For blow-molded tank
designs with a molded-in permeation barrier, new blow-molding machines
would be needed that could produce multi-layer fuel tanks. One small
business commented that, due to the lead time needed to install a new
machine and to perform quality checks on the tanks, they would not be
ready to sell multi-layer blow-molded fuel tanks until 2011 for the
Small SI and Marine SI markets.
Small businesses that rotational-mold fuel tanks were divided in
their opinion of when they would be ready to produce low-permeation
fuel tanks. One manufacturer stated that it is already producing fuel
tanks with a low-permeation inner layer that are used in Small SI
applications. This company also sells marine fuel tanks, but not with
the low-permeation characteristics. However, they have performed Coast
Guard durability testing on a prototype 40 gallon marine tank using
their technology which passed the tests. Two other small businesses,
that rotationally mold fuel tanks, stated that they have not been able
to identify and demonstrate a low-permeation technology that would meet
their cost and performance needs. They commented that developing and
demonstrating low-permeation technology is especially an issue for the
marine industry because of the many different tank designs and Coast
Guard durability requirements.
Consistent with the Panel recommendations in response to the above
comments, we are proposing to provide sufficient lead time for blow-
molded and marine rotational molded fuel tanks. We are proposing tank
permeation implementation dates of 2011 for Class II equipment and 2012
for Class I equipment. For marine fuel tanks, we are proposing to
implement the tank permeation standards in 2011 with an additional year
(2012) for installed fuel tanks which are typically rotational-molded
marine fuel tanks (see Sec. 1054.110 and Sec. 1045.107).
There was no disagreement on the technological feasibility of the
Marine SI diurnal emission standard EPA is considering. Small
businesses commented that they would like additional time to install
carbon canisters in their vessels. They stated that some boat designs
would require deck and hull changes to assist in packaging the
canisters and they would like to make these changes in the normal
turnover cycle of their boat molds. Small businesses commented that
they would consider asking EPA to allow the use of low-permeation fuel
line prior to 2009 as a method of creating an emission neutral option
for providing extra time for canisters. We are requesting comment on
phase-in schemes or other burden reduction approaches which would
provide small businesses additional lead time to meet these
requirements without losing overall emission reductions.
The majority of large equipment manufacturers have indicated that
they will be using low-permeation fuel lines in the near term as part
of their current product plans. As a result, we are proposing an
implementation date of 2008 for Small SI fuel line permeation standards
for nonhandheld equipment (see Sec. 90.127). The Panel expressed
concern that small equipment manufacturers who do not sell products in
California may not necessarily be planning on using low-permeation fuel
line in 2008. Therefore, we are proposing a 2009 implementation date
for low-permeation fuel line for small businesses producing Small SI
nonhandheld equipment.
(b) Fuel Tank ABT and Early-Incentive Program
The Panel recommended that we propose an ABT program for fuel tank
permeation and an early-allowance program for fuel tank permeation. Our
proposed ABT and early-allowance programs are described above. We are
requesting comment on including service tanks in the ABT program. These
are tanks that are sold as replacement parts for in-use equipment.
(c) Broad Definition of Emission Family
The Panel recommended that we propose broad emission families for
fuel tank emission families similar to the
[[Page 28188]]
existing provisions for recreational vehicles. As described above, we
are proposing permeation emission families be based on type of material
(including additives such as pigments, plasticizers, and UV
inhibitors), emission control strategy, and production methods. Fuel
tanks of different sizes, shapes, and wall thicknesses would be grouped
into the same emission family (see Sec. 1045.230 and Sec. 1054.230).
Manufacturers therefore would be able to broadly group similar fuel
tanks into the same emission family and then only test the
configuration most likely to exceed the emission standard. Although
Small SI and Marine SI fuel tanks would not be allowed in the same
emission family, it could be possible to carry-across certification
test data from one category to another.
(d) Compliance Progress Review for Marine Fuel Tanks
One manufacturer of rotational-molded fuel tanks has stated that
they are already selling low-permeation tanks into the Small SI market
and they have plans to sell them into marine applications. However,
other manufacturers of rotational-molded marine fuel tanks have
expressed concern that they do not have significant in-use experience
to demonstrate the durability of low-permeation rotational-molded fuel
tanks in boats. To address this uncertainty, EPA intends to continue to
engage on a technical level with rotational-molded marine fuel tank
manufacturers and material suppliers to assess the progress of low-
permeation fuel tank development and compliance. If systematic problems
are identified across the industry, this would give EPA the opportunity
to address the problem. If problems were identified only for individual
businesses, this would give EPA early notice of the issues that may
need to be addressed through the proposed hardship relief provisions.
(e) Engineering Design-Based Certification
In the existing evaporative emission program for recreational
vehicles, manufacturers using metal fuel tanks may certify by design to
the tank permeation standards. Tanks using design-based certification
provisions are not included in the ABT program because they are
assigned a certification emission level equal to the standard. The
Panel recommended that we propose to allow design-based certification
for metal tanks and plastic fuel tanks with a continuous EVOH barrier.
The Panel also recommended that we propose design-based certification
for carbon canisters. A detailed description of the proposed design-
based certification options that are consistent with the Panel
recommendations is presented earlier in this document.
The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) the American
Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) and the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) have industry recommended practices for boat designs that must be
met as a condition of NMMA membership. NMMA stated that they are
working to update these recommended practices to include carbon
canister installation instructions and low-permeation fuel line design.
The Panel recommended that EPA accept data used for meeting the
voluntary requirements as part of the EPA certification. We are
proposing that this data could be used as part of EPA certification as
long as it is collected consistent with the test procedures and other
requirements described in this proposal.
(f) Hardship Provisions
We are proposing two types of hardship provisions consistent with
the Panel recommendations. The first type of hardship is an unusual
circumstances hardship which would be available to all businesses,
regardless of size. The second type of hardship is an economic hardship
provision which would be available to small businesses only. Sections
VIII.C.8 and VIII.C.9 provide a description of the proposed hardship
provisions that would apply to the range of manufacturers subject to
the proposed Marine SI and Small SI evaporative emission requirements.
This would include Marine SI engine manufacturers, nonhandheld engine
manufacturers, nonhandheld equipment manufacturers, handheld equipment
manufacturers, boat builders, and fuel-system component manufacturers.
The proposed criteria for small businesses are presented earlier in
Sections III.F.2 and IV.G for Marine SI engine manufacturers, Section
V.F.2 for nonhandheld engine manufacturers, and Section V.F.3 for
nonhandheld equipment manufacturers. For handheld equipment
manufacturers, EPA is proposing to use the existing small-volume
manufacturer criteria which relies on a production cut-off of 25,000
pieces of handheld equipment per year. For boat builders and fuel-
system component manufacturers, EPA is proposing to base the
determination of whether a company is a small business based on the SBA
definition. The SBA small business definition for companies
manufacturing boats subject to the proposed standards is fewer than 500
employees. Likewise, the SBA small business definition for companies
manufacturing fuel-system components such as fuel tanks and fuel lines
is fewer than 500 employees.
Because many boat builders, nonhandheld equipment manufacturers,
and handheld equipment manufacturers will depend on fuel tank
manufacturers and fuel line manufacturers to supply certified products
in time to produce complying vessels and equipment, we are also
proposing a hardship provision for all boat builders and Small SI
equipment manufacturers, regardless of size. The proposed hardship
would allow the boat builder or equipment manufacturer to request more
time if they are unable to obtain a certified fuel system component and
they are not at fault and would face serious economic hardship without
an extension (see Sec. 1068.255). Section VIII.C.10 provides a
description of the proposed hardship provisions that would apply to
boat builders and Small SI equipment manufacturers.
H. Technological Feasibility
We believe there are several strategies that manufacturers can use
to meet the proposed evaporative emission standards. We have collected
and will continue to collect emission test data on a wide range of
technologies for controlling evaporative emissions. The design-based
certification levels discussed above are based on this test data and we
may amend the list of approved designs and emission levels as more data
become available.
In the following sections we briefly describe how we decided to
propose specific emission standards and implementation dates, followed
by a more extensive discussion of the expected emission control
technologies. A more detailed discussion of the feasibility of the
proposed evaporative requirements, including all the underlying test
data, is included in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA. See Table VI-1 for a
summary of the proposed evaporative emission standards.
(1) Level of Standards
The proposed fuel line and fuel tank permeation standards for Small
SI equipment and Marine SI vessels are based on the standards already
adopted for recreational vehicles. These applications use similar
technology in their fuel systems. In cases where the fuel systems
differ we have identified technological approaches that could be used
to meet these same emission levels. The control strategies are
discussed below. For structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks and for
fuel
[[Page 28189]]
lines used with cold-weather equipment, we are proposing slightly
relaxed standards based on available permeation data. In addition, we
have proposed higher numerical standards for fuel tank permeation for
tests performed at higher temperature (40 [deg]C vs. 28 [deg]C). These
higher numerical standards are based on data described in Chapter 5 of
the Draft RIA.
For fuel tanks installed in personal watercraft and for portable
marine fuel tanks, we are proposing diurnal emission standards based on
the current capabilities of these systems. We are basing the proposed
standard for other installed marine fuel tanks on the capabilities of
passive systems that store emitted vapors in a carbon canister. The
Draft RIA describes the test results on passively purged canisters, and
other technologies, that led us to the proposed level of the diurnal
emission standard.
Control of diffusion emissions from Small SI equipment requires
application of a simple technological approach that is widely used
today. The Draft RIA describes the testing we conducted on fuel caps
with tortuous vent paths and short vent lines on which we based the
diffusion emission standard.
We have measured running loss emissions and found that some Small
SI products have very high emission levels. The large variety of
manufacturers and equipment types makes it impractical to design a
measurement procedure, which means that we are unable to specify a
performance standard. We are proposing a design standard for running
losses from Small SI equipment by specifying that manufacturers may use
any of a variety of specified design solutions, as described in Section
VI.C.6. Several of these design options are already in common use
today.
We are proposing to require that equipment and vessel manufacturers
use good engineering judgment in their designs to minimize refueling
spitback and spillage. In general, it would simply require
manufacturers to use system designs that are commonly used today.
Several refueling spitback and spillage control strategies are
discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA.
(2) Implementation Dates
Low-permeation fuel line is available today. Many Small SI
equipment manufacturers certifying to permeation standards in
California are selling products with low-permeation fuel line
nationwide. In addition, many boat builders have begun using low-
permeation marine fuel lines to feed fuel from the fuel tank to the
engine. For this reason, we are proposing to implement the fuel line
permeation standards in 2008 for nonhandheld Small SI equipment and in
2009 for Marine SI vessels. This date is the same as for recreational
vehicles and is two years later than the California requirements for
Small SI equipment. For handheld equipment, there are no fuel line
permeation requirements in California. In addition, injection molded
fuel lines are common in many applications rather than straight-run
extruded fuel line. For this reason we are proposing to delay
implementation of fuel line permeation standards for handheld equipment
until 2012 (or 2013 for small volume emission families). We request
comment on the proposed implementation dates for fuel line permeation
standards.
Similar to fuel line technology, low-permeation fuel tank
constructions are used today in automotive and portable fuel tank
applications. This technology is also being developed for use in
recreational vehicles and for Small SI equipment sold in California.
The available technology options include surface treatment and multi-
layer constructions, though rotational molding presents some unique
design challenges. Based on discussions with fuel tank manufacturers,
and on our own assessment of the lead time necessary to change current
industry practices, we believe low-permeation fuel tank technology can
be applied in the 2011-2012 model years for Small SI and Marine SI fuel
tanks. We are proposing to implement the fuel tank permeation standards
in 2011 for Class II equipment and portable and PWC marine fuel tanks.
For Class I equipment and installed marine fuel tanks, we are proposing
an implementation date of 2012. We are proposing to phase-in the
handheld fuel tank standards on the following schedule: 2009 for
equipment models certifying in California, 2013 for small-volume
families, and 2010 for the remaining fuel tanks on handheld equipment.
We believe this will facilitate an orderly transition from current fuel
tank designs to low-permeation fuel tanks.
We are proposing the additional year of lead time for the large
fuel tanks installed in marine vessels largely due to concerns raised
over the application of low-permeation rotational-molded fuel tank
technology to marine applications. The majority of these fuel tanks are
typically rotational-molded by small businesses. Although low-
permeation technology has emerged for these applications, we believe
additional lead time will be necessary for all manufacturers to be
ready to implement this technology. This will give these manufacturers
additional time to make changes to their production processes to comply
with the standards and to make any tooling changes that may be
necessary. We are similarly proposing the implementation of fuel tank
permeation standards for Class I fuel tanks installed in Small SI
equipment in 2012, mostly to align with the implementation date for the
Phase 3 exhaust emission standards. This is especially important for
Class I engines where most of the engine manufacturers will also be
responsible for meeting all evaporative emission standards. We request
comment on the proposed implementation dates for the proposed fuel tank
permeation standards.
We are proposing to implement the running loss standards for
nonhandheld Small SI equipment in the same year as the exhaust emission
standards. We believe this is appropriate because the running loss
vapor will in some cases be routed to the intake manifold for
combustion in the engine. Manufacturers would need to account for the
effect of the additional running loss vapor in their engine
calibrations. We request comment on this approach.
We are proposing to implement the proposed diurnal standards for
portable marine fuel tanks and personal watercraft in 2009. We believe
these requirements will not result in a significant change from current
practice so this date will provide sufficient lead time for
manufacturers to comply with standards. For other installed fuel tanks,
however, we are proposing a later implementation date of 2010. The
development of canisters as an approach to control diurnal emissions
without pressurizing the tanks has substantially reduced the expected
level of effort to redesign and retool for making fuel tanks. However,
canister technology has not yet been applied commercially to marine
applications and additional lead time may be necessary to work out
various technical parameters, such as design standards and installation
procedures to ensure component durability and system integrity. We
request comment on the proposed diurnal implementation dates.
(3) Technological Approaches
We believe several emission control technologies can be used to
reduce evaporative emissions from Small SI equipment and Marine SI
vessels. These emission control strategies are discussed below. Chapter
5 of the Draft RIA presents more detail on these technologies and
Chapter 6 provides information on the estimated costs. We request
comment on these or other technological approaches for reducing
[[Page 28190]]
evaporative emissions from these engines and equipment.
(a) Fuel Line Permeation
Fuel lines produced for use in Small SI equipment and Marine SI
applications are generally extruded nitrile rubber with a cover for
abrasion resistance. Fuel lines used in Small SI applications often
meet SAE J30 R7 recommendations, including a permeation limit of 550 g/
m2/day at 23 [deg]C on ASTM Fuel C. Fuel lines for personal
watercraft are typically designed to meet SAE J2046, which includes a
permeation limit of 300 g/m2/day at 23 [deg]C on ASTM Fuel
C.\92\ Marine fuel lines subject to Coast Guard requirements under 33
CFR part 183 are designated as either Type A or Type B and either Class
1 or Class 2. SAE J1527 provides detail on these fuel line designs.
Type A fuel lines pass the U.S. Coast Guard fire test while Type B
designates fuel lines that have not passed this test. Class 1 fuel
lines are intended for fuel-feed lines where the fuel line is normally
in contact with liquid fuel and has a permeation limit of 100 g/
m2/day at 23 [deg]C. Class 2 fuel lines are intended for
vent lines and fuel fill necks where liquid fuel is not continuously in
contact with the fuel line; it has a permeation limit of 300 g/
m2/day at 23 [deg]C. In general practice, most boat builders
use Class 1 fuel lines for both vent lines and fuel-feed lines to avoid
carrying two types of fuel lines. Most fuel fill necks, which have a
much larger diameter and are constructed differently, use materials
meeting specifications for Class 2 fuel lines. The marine industry is
currently in the process of revising SAE J1527 to include a permeation
rating of 15 g/m2/day at 23 [deg]C on fuel CE10 for marine
fuel lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Society of Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard,
``Personal Watercraft Fuel Systems,'' SAE J2046, Issues 1993-01-19
(Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0179).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-permeability fuel lines are in production today. One fuel line
design, already used in some marine applications, uses a thermoplastic
layer between two rubber layers to control permeation. This
thermoplastic barrier may either be nylon or ethyl vinyl acetate.
Barrier approaches in automotive applications include fuel lines with
fluoroelastomers such as FKM and fluoroplastics such as Teflon and THV.
In addition to presenting data on low-permeation fuel lines, Chapter 5
of the Draft RIA lists several fuel-system materials and their
permeation rates. Molded rubber fuel line components, such as primer
bulbs and some handheld fuel lines, could meet the standard by using a
fluoroelastomer such as FKM. The Draft RIA also discusses low-
permeation materials that retain their flexibility at very low
temperatures.
Automotive fuel lines made of low-permeation plastic tubing are
generally made from fluoroplastics. An added benefit of these low-
permeability fuel lines is that some fluoropolymers can be made to
conduct electricity and therefore prevent the buildup of static
charges. This type of fuel line can reduce permeation by more than an
order of magnitude below the level associated with barrier-type fuel
lines, but it is relatively inflexible and would need to be molded in
specific shapes for each equipment or vessel design. Manufacturers have
commented that they need flexible fuel lines to fit their many designs,
resist vibration, prevent kinking, and simplify connections and
fittings. An alternative to custom molding is to manufacture fuel lines
with a corrugated profile (like a vacuum hose). Producing flexible
fluoropolymer fuel lines is somewhat more expensive but the result is a
product that meets emission standards without compromising in-use
performance or ease of installation.
(b) Fuel Tank Permeation
Blow-molding is widely used for the manufacture of Small SI,
portable marine, and PWC fuel tanks. Typically, blow-molding is
performed by creating a hollow tube, known as a parison, by pushing
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) through an extruder with a screw. The
parison is then pinched in a mold and inflated with an inert gas. In
highway applications, nonpermeable plastic fuel tanks are produced by
blow molding a layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) or nylon between
two layers of polyethylene. This process is called coextrusion and
requires at least five layers: the barrier layer, adhesive layers on
either side of the barrier layer, and two outside layers of HDPE that
make up most of the thickness of the fuel tank walls. However, multi-
layer construction requires additional extruder screws, which
significantly increases the cost of the blow-molding process. One
manufacturer has developed a two-layer barrier approach using a
polyarylamide inner liner. This technology is not in production yet but
appears to be capable of permeation levels similar to the traditional
EVOH barrier designs. This approach would enable blow-molding of low-
permeation fuel tanks with only one additional extruder screw.
Multi-layer fuel tanks can also be formed using injection molding.
In this method a low-viscosity polymer is forced into a thin mold to
create the two sides of the fuel tank (e.g., top and bottom), which are
then fused together. To add a barrier layer, a thin sheet of the
barrier material is placed inside the mold before injecting the
poleythylene. The polyethylene, which generally has a much lower
melting point than the barrier material, bonds with the barrier
material to create a shell with an inner liner.
A less expensive alternative to coextrusion is to blend a low-
permeable resin with the HDPE and extrude it with a single screw to
create barrier platelets. The trade name typically used for this
permeation control strategy is Selar. The low-permeability resin,
typically EVOH or nylon, creates noncontinuous platelets in the HDPE
fuel tank to reduce permeation by creating long, tortuous pathways that
the hydrocarbon molecules must navigate to escape through the fuel tank
walls. Although the barrier is not continuous, this strategy can still
achieve greater than a 90 percent reduction in permeation of gasoline.
EVOH has much higher permeation resistance to alcohol than nylon so it
would likely be the preferred material for meeting the proposed
standard based on testing with a 10 percent ethanol fuel.
Many fuel tanks for Small SI equipment are injection-molded out of
either HDPE or nylon. Injection-molding can be used with lower
production volumes than blow-molding due to lower tooling costs. In
this method, a low-viscosity polymer is forced into a thin mold to
create the two sides of the fuel tank; these are then fused together
using vibration, hot plate or sonic welding. A strategy such as Selar
has not been demonstrated to work with injection-molding due to high
shear forces.
An alternative to injection-molding is thermoforming which is also
cost-effective for lower production volumes. In this process, sheet
material is heated and then drawn into two vacuum dies. The two halves
are then fused while the plastic is still molten to form the fuel tank.
Low-permeation fuel tanks can be constructed using this process by
using multi-layer sheet material. This multi-layer sheet material can
be extruded using similar materials to multi-layer blow-molded fuel
tank designs. A typical barrier construction would include a thin EVOH
barrier, adhesion layers on both sides, a layer of HDPE regrind, and
outside layers of pure virgin HDPE.
Regardless of the molding process, another type of low-permeation
technology for HDPE fuel tanks would
[[Page 28191]]
be to treat the surfaces with a barrier layer. Two ways of achieving
this are known as fluorination and sulfonation. The fluorination
process causes a chemical reaction where exposed hydrogen atoms are
replaced by larger fluorine atoms, which creates a barrier on the
surface of the fuel tank. In this process, batches of fuel tanks are
generally processed post-production by stacking them in a steel
container. The container is then voided of air and flooded with
fluorine gas. By pulling a vacuum in the container, the fluorine gas is
forced into every crevice in the fuel tanks. Fluorinating with this
process would treat both the inside and outside surfaces of the fuel
tank, thereby improving the reliability and durability of the
permeation-resistance. As an alternative, fuel tanks can be fluorinated
during production by exposing the inside surface of the fuel tank to
fluorine during the blow-molding process. However, this method may not
prove as effective as post-production fluorination.
Sulfonation is another surface treatment technology where sulfur
trioxide is used to create the barrier by reacting with the exposed
polyethylene to form sulfonic acid groups on the surface. Current
practices for sulfonation are to place fuel tanks on a small assembly
line and expose the inner surfaces to sulfur trioxide, then rinse with
a neutralizing agent. However, sulfonation can also be performed using
a batch method. Either of these sulfonation processes can be used to
reduce gasoline permeation by more than 95 percent.
Over the first month or so of use, polyethylene fuel tanks can
experience a material expansion of as much as three percent due to
saturation of the plastic with fuel. Manufacturers have raised the
concern that this hydrocarbon expansion could degrade the effectiveness
of surface treatments like fluorination or sulfonation. However, we
believe this will not significantly affect these surface treatments.
California ARB has performed extensive permeation testing on portable
fuel containers with and without these surface treatments. Prior to the
permeation testing, the tanks were prepared by performing a durability
procedure where the fuel container cycled a minimum of 1,000 times
between--1 psi and 5 psi. In addition, the fuel containers were soaked
with fuel for a minimum of four weeks before testing. Their test data,
presented in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA, show that fluorination and
sulfonation are still effective after this durability testing. We have
conducted our own permeation testing on fluorinated fuel tanks that
have been exposed to fuel for more than a year with excellent results.
These results are presented in the Draft RIA.
Manufacturers have also commented that fuel sloshing in the tank
under normal in-use operation could wear off the surface treatments.
However, we believe this is unlikely to occur. These surface treatments
actually result in an atomic change in the structure of the surface of
the fuel tank. To wear off the treatment, the plastic itself would need
to be worn away. In addition, testing by California ARB shows that the
fuel tank permeation standard can be met by fuel tanks that have
undergone 1.2 million slosh cycles. Test data on a sulfonated
automotive HDPE fuel tank after five years of use showed no
deterioration in the permeation barrier. These data are presented in
Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA.
A fourth method for molding plastic fuel tanks is called
rotational-molding. Rotational-molding is a lower-cost alternative for
smaller production volumes. In this method, a mold is filled with a
powder form of polyethylene with a catalyst material. While the mold is
rotated in an oven, the heat melts the plastic. When cross-link
polyethylene (XLPE) is used, this heat activates a catalyst in the
plastic, which causes a strong cross-link material structure to form.
This method is often used for relatively large fuel tanks in Small SI
equipment and for installed marine fuel tanks. The advantages of this
method are low tooling costs, which allow for smaller production
volumes, and increased strength and flame resistance. Flame resistance
is especially important for installed marine fuel tanks subject to 33
CFR part 183. At this time, the barrier treatment approaches discussed
above for HDPE have not been demonstrated to be effective for XLPE.
We have evaluated two permeation control approaches for rotational-
molded fuel tanks. The first is to form an inner layer during the
molding process. Historically, the primary approach for this is to use
a drop-box that opens after the XLPE tank begins to form. However,
processes have been developed that eliminate the need for a drop box.
With this construction a low-permeation inner liner can be molded into
the fuel tank. Manufacturers are currently developing acetyl copolymer,
nylon, and polybutylene terephthalate inner liners for this
application. In fact, one fuel tank manufacturer is already selling
tanks with a nylon inner liner into Class II Small SI equipment
applications. Initial testing suggests that these barrier layers could
be used to achieve the proposed standards.
The second approach to creating a barrier layer on XLPE rotational-
molded fuel tanks is to use an epoxy barrier coating. One manufacturer
has demonstrated that a low-permeation barrier coating can be adhered
to an XLPE fuel tank that results in a permeation rate below the
proposed standard. In this case, the manufacturer used a low level of
fluorination to increase the surface energy of the XLPE so the epoxy
would adhere properly.
Marine fuel tanks are also fabricated out of either metal or
fiberglass. Metal does not permeate so tanks that are constructed and
installed properly to prevent corrosion should meet the proposed
standards throughout their full service life. For fiberglass fuel
tanks, one manufacturer has developed a composite that has been
demonstrated to meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standard.
Permeation control is achieved by incorporating fillers into a resin
system and coating the assembled tank interior and exterior. This
filler is made up of nanocomposites (very small particles of treated
volcanic ash) which are dispersed into a carrier matrix. These
particles act like the barrier platelets discussed above by creating a
tortuous pathway for hydrocarbon migration through the walls of the
fuel tank.
(c) Diurnal
Portable marine fuel tanks are currently equipped with a valve that
can be closed by the user when the tank is stored to hold vapor in the
fuel tank. These fuel tanks are designed to hold the pressure that
builds up when a sealed fuel tank undergoes normal daily warming. This
valve must be opened when the engine is operating to prevent a vacuum
from forming in the fuel tank as the fuel level in the tank decreases.
A vacuum in the fuel tank could prevent fuel from being drawn into the
engine. Because the valve is user-controlled, any emission control is
dependent on user behavior. This can be corrected by replacing the
user-controlled valve with a simple one-way valve in the fuel cap. For
instance, a diaphragm valve that is common in many automotive
applications seals when under pressure but opens at low-vacuum
conditions.
Personal watercraft currently use sealed systems with pressure-
relief valves that start venting vapors when pressures reach a
threshold that ranges from 0.5 to 4.0 psi. We believe the proposed
standard can be met through the use of a sealed fuel system with a 1.0
psi pressure-relief valve. Personal watercraft should therefore be able
to meet the proposed standard with little or no change to current
designs.
[[Page 28192]]
For other vessels with installed fuel tanks, manufacturers have
commented that even 1.0 psi of pressure would be too high for their
applications. They expressed concern that their fuel tanks had large,
flat surfaces that would deform or leak at pressures of 0.5 psi or
higher. This concern led us to consider several technologies for
controlling diurnal emissions without pressurizing the tank, including
carbon canisters, volume-compensating air bags, and bladder fuel tanks.
The primary evaporative emission control device used in automotive
applications is a carbon canister. With this technology, vapor
generated in the tank is vented to a canister containing activated
carbon. The fuel tank must be sealed such that the only venting that
occurs is through the carbon canister. This prevents more than a
minimal amount of positive or negative pressure in the tank. The
activated carbon collects and stores the hydrocarbons. The activated
carbon bed in the canister is refreshed by purging.
In a marine application, an engine purge is not practical;
therefore, canisters were not originally considered to be a practical
technology for controlling diurnal vapor from boats. Since that time,
however, we have collected information showing that the canister is
purged sufficiently during cooling periods to reduce diurnal emissions
effectively. When the fuel in the tank cools, fresh air is drawn back
through the canister into the fuel tank. This fresh air partially
purges the canister and returns hydrocarbons to the fuel tank. This
creates open sites in the carbon so the canister can again collect
vapor during the next heating event. Test data presented in Chapter 5
of the Draft RIA show that a canister starting from empty is more than
90 percent effective until it reaches the point of saturation. Once it
reaches saturation, a canister is still capable of reducing diurnal
emissions by more than 60 percent due to the normal airflow across the
canister bed during cooling periods. Adding active purging during
engine operation would improve the level of control somewhat depending
on how often the engine is operated.
Manufacturers have raised the concern that it is common for fuel to
pass out the vent line during refueling. If there were a canister in
the vent line it would become saturated with fuel. While this would not
likely cause permanent damage to the canister, we believe marine fuel
systems should prevent liquid fuel from exiting the vent line for both
environmental and safety reasons. A float valve or small orifice in the
entrance to the vent line from the fuel tank would prevent liquid fuel
from reaching the canister or escaping from the tank. Any pressure
build-up from such a valve would cause fuel to back up the fill neck
and shut off the fuel dispensing nozzle. Manufacturers have also
expressed concerns for canister durability in marine applications due
to vibration, shock, and humidity. However, there are now marine grades
of activated carbon that are harder and more moisture-resistant than
typical automotive carbon. Industry installed canisters equipped with
the marine grade carbon on 14 boats in a pilot program and no problems
were encountered. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of the
Draft RIA.
Another concept for minimizing pressure in a sealed fuel tank is
through the use of a volume-compensating air bag. The purpose of the
bag is to fill up the vapor space above the liquid fuel. By minimizing
the vapor space, the equilibrium concentration of fuel vapors occupies
a smaller volume, resulting in a smaller mass of vapors. As the
equilibrium vapor concentration increases with increasing temperature,
the vapor space expands, which forces air out of the bag through the
vent to atmosphere. Because the bag volume decreases to compensate for
the expanding vapor space, total pressure inside the fuel tank stays
very close to atmospheric pressure. Once the fuel tank cools in
response to cooling ambient temperatures the resulting vacuum in the
fuel tank will make the bag expand again by drawing air from the
surrounding environment. Our test results show that pressure could be
kept below 0.8 psi using a bag with a capacity equal to 25 percent of
the fuel tank capacity. The use of a volume-compensating air bag, in
conjunction with a pressure-relief valve, would be very effective in
controlling diurnal emissions.
Probably the most effective technology for reducing diurnal
emissions from marine fuel tanks is through the use of a collapsible
fuel bladder. In this concept, a low-permeation bladder is installed in
the fuel tank to hold the fuel. As fuel is drawn from the bladder the
vacuum created collapses the bladder. There is, therefore, no vapor
space and no pressure build-up from fuel heating. No vapors would be
vented to the atmosphere since the bladder is sealed. This option could
also significantly reduce emissions during refueling that would
normally result from dispensed fuel displacing vapor in the fuel tank.
We have received comments that this would be cost-prohibitive because
it could increase costs from 30 to 100 percent, depending on tank size.
However, bladder fuel tanks have safety advantages and they are already
sold by at least one manufacturer to meet market demand in niche
applications.
(d) Running Loss
Running loss emissions can be controlled by sealing the fuel cap
and routing vapors from the fuel tank to the engine intake. In doing
so, vapors generated by heat from the engine will be burned in the
engine's combustion chamber. It may be necessary to use a valve or
limited-flow orifice in the purge line to prevent too much fuel vapor
from reaching the engine and to prevent liquid fuel from entering the
line if the equipment flips over. Depending on the configuration of the
fuel system and purge line, a one-way valve in the fuel cap may be
desired to prevent a vacuum in the fuel tank during engine operation.
We anticipate that a system like this would eliminate running loss
emissions. However, higher temperatures during operation and the
additional length of vapor line would slightly increase permeation.
Considering these effects, we still believe that the system described
here would reduce running losses from Small SI equipment by more than
90 percent. Other approaches would be to move the fuel tank away from
heat sources or to use heat protection such as a shield or directed air
flow.
We are not considering running loss controls for marine vessels.
For portable fuel tanks and installed fuel tanks on larger vessels we
would expect the significant distance from the engine and the cooling
effect of operating the vessel in water to prevent significant heating
of the fuel tanks during engine operation. For personal watercraft,
fuel tanks have a sealed system with pressure relief that should help
contain running loss emissions. For other installed fuel tanks, we
would expect the system for controlling diurnal emissions would capture
about half of any running losses that would occur.
(e) Diffusion
Many manufacturers today use fuel caps that effectively limit the
diffusion of gasoline from fuel tanks. In fact, the proposed diffusion
emission standard for Small SI equipment is based to a large degree on
the diffusion control capabilities of these fuel caps. As discussed in
Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA, venting a fuel tank through a tube (rather
than through an open orifice) also greatly reduces diffusion. We have
conducted additional testing with short, narrow-diameter vent lines
that provide
[[Page 28193]]
enough resistance to diffusion to meet the proposed emission standards.
A secondary benefit of the running loss control described above for
Small SI equipment relates to diffusion emissions. In a system that
vents running loss vapors to the engine, venting losses would occur
through the vapor line to the engine intake, rather than through open
vents in the fuel cap. This approach should therefore eliminate
diffusion emissions.
(4) Regulatory Alternatives
We considered both less and more stringent evaporative emission
control alternatives for fuel systems used in Small SI equipment and
Marine SI vessels. Chapter 11 of the Draft RIA presents details on this
analysis of regulatory alternatives. The results of this analysis are
summarized below. We believe the proposed permeation standards are
reflective of available technology and represent a step change in
emissions performance. Therefore, we consider the same permeation
control scenario in the less stringent and more stringent regulatory
alternatives.
For Small SI equipment, we considered a less stringent alternative
without running loss emission standards Small SI engines. However, we
believe controlling running loss and diffusion emissions from
nonhandheld equipment is feasible at a relatively low cost. Running
loss emissions can be controlled by sealing the fuel cap and routing
vapors from the fuel tank to the engine intake. Other approaches would
be to move the fuel tank away from heat sources or to use heat
protection such as a shield or directed air flow. Diffusion can be
controlled by simply using a tortuous tank vent path, which is commonly
used today on Small SI equipment to prevent fuel splashing or spilling.
These emission control technologies are relatively straight-forward,
inexpensive, and achievable in the near term. Not requiring these
controls would be inconsistent with section 213 of the Clean Air Act.
For a more stringent alternative, we considered applying a diurnal
emission standard for all Small SI equipment. We believe passively
purging carbon canisters could reduce diurnal emissions by 50 to 60
percent from Small SI equipment. However, we believe some important
issues would need to be resolved for diurnal emission control, such as
cost, packaging, and vibration. The cost sensitivity is especially
noteworthy given the relatively low emissions levels (on a per-
equipment basis) from such small fuel tanks.
For marine vessels, we considered a less stringent alternative,
where there would be no diurnal emission standard for vessels with
installed fuel tanks. However, installed fuel tanks on marine vessels
are much larger in capacity than those used in Small SI applications.
Our analysis indicates that traditional carbon canisters are feasible
for boats at relatively low cost. While packaging and vibration are
also issues with marine applications, we believe these issues have been
addressed. Carbon canisters were installed on fourteen boats by
industry in a pilot program. The results demonstrated the feasibility
of this technology. The proposed standards would be achievable through
engineering design-based certification with canisters that are very
much smaller than the fuel tanks. In addition, sealed systems, with
pressure control strategies would be accepted under the proposed
engineering design-based certification. For a more stringent scenario,
we consider a standard that would require boat builders to use an
actively purged carbon canister. This means that, when the engine is
operating, it would draw air through the canister to purge the canister
of stored hydrocarbons. However, we rejected this option because active
purge occurs infrequently due to the low hours of operation per year
seen by many boats. The gain in overall efficiency would be quite small
relative to the complexity active purge adds into the system in that
the engine must be integrated into a vessel-based control strategy. The
additional benefit of an actively purged diurnal control system is
small in comparison to the cost and complexity of such a system.
(5) Our Conclusions
We believe the proposed evaporative emission standards reflect what
manufacturers can achieve through the application of available
technology. We believe the proposed lead time is necessary and adequate
for fuel tank manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and boat builders
to select, design, and produce evaporative emission control strategies
that will work best for their product lines. We expect that meeting
these requirements will pose a challenge, but one that is feasible when
taking into consideration the availability and cost of technology, lead
time, noise, energy, and safety. The role of these factors is presented
in detail in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Draft RIA. As discussed in Section
X, we do not believe the proposed standards would have negative effects
on energy, noise, or safety and may lead to some positive effects.
VII. General Concepts Related to Certification and Other Requirements
This section describes general concepts concerning the proposed
emission standards and various requirements related to these standards.
There is a variety of proposed requirements that serve to ensure
effective implementation of the emission standards, such as applying
for certification, labeling engines, and meeting warranty requirements.
The following discussion reviews these requirements for Small SI
engines and outboard and personal-watercraft engines that have already
been subject to exhaust emission standards, explains a variety of
changes, and describes how these provisions apply to evaporative
emissions. Sterndrive and inboard marine engines will be subject to
emission standards for the first time so all these requirements are new
for those engines.
Rather than making changes to existing regulations, we have drafted
new regulatory text describing the new emission standards and related
requirements and included that text in this proposal. The proposed
regulations are written in plain-language format. In addition to the
improved clarity of the regulatory text, this allows us to harmonize
the regulations with our other programs requiring control of engine
emissions.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ For additional background related to plans for migrating
regulations, see ``Plain Language Format of Emission Regulations for
Nonroad Engines,'' EPA420-F-02-046, September 2002 (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/f02046.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulatory text migrates the existing requirements for
Small SI engines, including all the emission standards and other
requirements related to getting and keeping a valid certificate of
conformity, from 40 CFR part 90 to 40 CFR part 1054. For nonhandheld
engines, manufacturers must comply with all the provisions in part 1054
once the Phase 3 standards begin to apply in 2011 or 2012. For handheld
engines, manufacturers must comply with the provisions in part 1054
starting in 2010. Similarly, we are proposing to migrate the existing
requirements for Marine SI engines from 40 CFR part 91 to 40 CFR part
1045. Manufacturers must comply with the provisions in part 1045 for an
engine once the proposed exhaust emission standards begin to apply in
2009.
The proposed requirements for evaporative emissions are described
in 40 CFR part 1060, with some category-specific provisions in 40 CFR
parts 1045 and 1054, which are referred to as the exhaust standard-
setting parts for each
[[Page 28194]]
type of engine. Adopting the provisions related to evaporative
emissions in a broadly applicable part has two main advantages. First,
we anticipate that in many cases boat builders, equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers of fuel-system components will need to
certify their products only to the standards for evaporative emissions,
with no corresponding responsibility for exhaust emissions. These
companies will not need to focus on the exhaust standard-setting part
except to read the short section defining the evaporative emission
standards and requirements. Second, manufacturers of fuel-system
components make products that are not necessarily unique to a specific
category of engines. The regulations in 40 CFR parts 1045 and 1054 will
highlight the standards that apply and provide any specific directions
in applying the general provisions in part 1060. The standards, test
procedures, and certification provisions are almost completely uniform
across our programs so this combined set of evaporative-related
provisions will make it much easier for companies to certify their
products if they are not subject to the exhaust emission standards. In
Section XI we describe how we might apply the provisions of part 1060
to recreational vehicles regulated under 40 CFR part 1051.
Other provisions describing general testing procedures, including
detailed laboratory and equipment specifications and procedures for
equipment calibration and emission measurements, are written in 40 CFR
part 1065. The exhaust standard-setting parts also include testing
specifications that are specific to each type of engine, including duty
cycles, test-fuel specifications, and procedures to establish
deterioration factors. See Section IX for further discussion of these
test procedures. Engines, equipment, and vessels subject to the new
standard-setting parts (parts 1045, 1054, and 1060) will also be
subject to the general compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068. These
include prohibited acts and penalties, exemptions and importation
provisions, selective enforcement audits, defect reporting and recall,
and hearing procedures. See Section VIII for further discussion of
these general compliance provisions. Both part 1065 and part 1068
already apply to various other engine categories. We are therefore
publishing in this proposal only the changes needed to apply the
existing regulations to the engines, equipment, and vessels covered by
this rulemaking.
A. Scope of Application
This proposal covers spark-ignition propulsion marine engines and
vessels powered by those engines introduced into commerce in the United
States. The proposal also covers other nonroad spark-ignition engines
rated at or below 19 kW and the corresponding equipment. The following
sections describe generally when emission standards apply to these
products. Refer to the specific program discussion in Sections III
through VI for more information about the scope of application and
timing of the proposed standards.
(1) Do the standards apply to all engines, equipment, and vessels or
only to new products?
The scope of this proposal is broadly set by Clean Air Act section
213(a)(3), which instructs us to set emission standards for new nonroad
engines and new nonroad vehicles. Generally speaking, the proposed rule
is intended to cover all new engines and vehicles in the identified
categories (including any associated vehicles, vessels, or other
equipment). Once the emission standards apply to an engine, piece of
equipment, or fuel-system component manufacturers must get a
certificate of conformity from us before selling them or otherwise
introducing them into commerce in the United States. Note that the term
``manufacturer'' includes any individual or company introducing into
commerce in the United States engines, equipment, vessels, or
components that are subject to emission standards. These Clean Air Act
requirements relate to importation and any other means of introducing
covered products into commerce. In addition to any applicable
evaporative requirements, we also require equipment manufacturers that
install engines from other companies to install only certified engines
once emission standards apply. The certificate of conformity (and
corresponding emission control information label) provides assurance
that manufacturers have met their obligation to make engines,
equipment, and vessels that meet emission standards over the useful
life we specify in the regulations.
(2) How do I know if my engine or equipment is new?
We are proposing to define ``new'' consistent with previous
rulemakings. Under the proposed definition, a nonroad engine (or
nonroad equipment) is considered new until its title has been
transferred to the ultimate purchaser or the engine has been placed
into service. This proposed definition would apply to engines,
equipment, and vessels so the nonroad equipment using these engines
would be considered new until their title has been transferred to an
ultimate buyer. In Section VII.B.1 we describe how to determine the
model year of individual engines, equipment, and vessels.
To further clarify the proposed definition of new nonroad engine,
we are proposing to specify that a nonroad engine, equipment, or vessel
is placed into service when it is used for its intended purpose. We are
therefore proposing that an engine subject to the proposed standards is
used for its intended purpose when it is installed in a vessel or other
piece of nonroad equipment. We need to make this clarification because
some engines are made by modifying a highway or land-based nonroad
engine that has already been installed on a vessel or other piece of
equipment, so without this clarification, these engines may escape
regulation. For example, an engine installed in a marine vessel after
it has been used for its intended purpose as a land-based highway or
nonroad engine is considered ``new'' under this definition. We believe
this is a reasonable approach because the practice of adapting used
highway or land-based nonroad engines may become more common if these
engines are not subject to the standards in this proposal.
In summary, an engine would be subject to the proposed standards if
it is:
Freshly manufactured, whether domestic or imported; this
may include engines produced from engine block cores;
Installed for the first time in nonroad equipment after
having powered a car, a truck, or a category of nonroad equipment
subject to different emission standards;
Installed in new nonroad equipment, regardless of the age
of the engine; or
Imported--whether new or used, as long as the engine was
not built before the initial emission standards started to apply.
(3) When do imported engines, equipment, and vessels need to meet
emission standards?
The proposed emission standards would apply to all new engines,
equipment, and vessels that are used in the United States. According to
Clean Air Act section 216 ``new'' includes engines or equipment that
are imported by any person, whether freshly manufactured or used. Thus,
the proposed program would include
[[Page 28195]]
engines that are imported for use in the United States whether they are
imported as loose engines or are already installed on a vessel or other
piece of nonroad equipment built elsewhere. All imported engines would
need an EPA-issued certificate of conformity to clear customs, with
limited exemptions (as described in Section VIII).
If an engine or piece of nonroad equipment that was built after
emission standards take effect is imported without a currently valid
certificate of conformity, we would still consider it to be a new
engine, equipment, or vessel. This means it would need to comply with
the emission standards that apply based on its model year. Thus, for
example, a marine vessel manufactured in a foreign country in 2009,
then imported into the United States in 2010, would be considered
``new.'' The engines on that piece of equipment would have to comply
with the requirements for the 2009 model year, assuming that the engine
has not been modified and no other exemptions apply. This provision is
important to prevent manufacturers from avoiding emission standards by
building products abroad, transferring their title, and then importing
them as used products. Note that if an imported engine has been
modified it must meet emission standards based on the year of
modification rather than the year of manufacture. See Section V.E.6 and
Section XI.C for proposed and contemplated restrictions related model
years for importation of new engines and equipment.
(4) Do the standards apply to exported engines, equipment, or vessels?
Engines, equipment, or vessels intended for export would generally
not be subject to the requirements of the proposed emission control
program, except that we would not exempt engines exported to countries
having standards identical to the United States. However, engines,
equipment, or vessels that are exported and subsequently re-imported
into the United States must be certified. For example, this would be
the case when a foreign company purchases engines manufactured in the
United States for installation in nonroad equipment for export back to
the United States. Those engines would be subject to the emission
standards that apply on the date the engine was originally
manufactured. If the engine is later modified and certified (or
recertified), the engine is subject to emission standards that apply on
the date of the modification. So, for example, foreign equipment
manufacturers buying U.S.-made engines without recertifying the engines
will need to make sure they purchase complying engines for the products
they sell in the United States.
(5) Are there any new products that would be exempt from the emission
standards?
We are proposing to extend our basic nonroad exemptions to the
engines, equipment, and vessels covered by this proposal. These include
the testing exemption, the manufacturer-owned exemption, the display
exemption, and the national security exemption. These exemptions are
described in more detail in Section VIII.C.
In addition, the Clean Air Act does not consider engines used
solely for competition to be nonroad engines so the proposed emission
standards do not apply to them. The Clean Air Act similarly does not
consider engines used in stationary applications to be nonroad engines;
however, EPA has proposed to apply emission standards for stationary
spark-ignition engines that are comparable to the standards that apply
to nonroad engines (71 FR 33804, June 12, 2006). As described in
Section V, we are proposing in this notice to apply the Phase 3
standards for Small SI engines equally to stationary spark-ignition
engines at or below 19 kW. Refer to the program discussions in Sections
III through VI for a discussion of how the various exclusions apply for
different categories of engines.
B. Emission Standards and Testing
(1) How is the model year determined?
The proposed emission standards are effective on a model-year
basis. We are proposing to define model year much like we do for
passenger cars. It would generally mean either the calendar year or
some other annual production period based on the manufacturer's
production practices. For example, manufacturers could start selling
2006 model year engines as early as January 2, 2005 as long as the
production period extends until at least January 1, 2006. All of a
manufacturer's engines from a given model year would have to meet
emission standards for that model year. For example, manufacturers
producing new engines in the 2006 model year would need to comply with
the 2006 standards.
(2) How do adjustable engine parameters affect emission testing?
Many engines are designed with components that can be adjusted for
optimum performance under changing conditions, such as varying fuel
quality, high altitude, or engine wear. Examples of adjustable
parameters include spark timing, idle speed setting, and fuel injection
timing. While we recognize the need for this practice, we are also
concerned that engines maintain a consistent level of emission control
for the whole range of adjustability. We are therefore proposing to
require that engines meet emission standards over the full adjustment
range.
Manufacturers would have to provide a physical stop to prevent
adjustment outside the established range. Operators would then be
prohibited from adjusting engines outside this range. Refer to the
proposed regulatory text for more information about adjustable engine
parameters. See especially the proposed sections 40 CFR 1045.115 for
Marine SI engines and 40 CFR 1054.115 for Small SI engines.
(3) Alternate Fuels
The emission standards apply to all spark-ignition engines
regardless of the fuel they use. Almost all Marine SI engines and Small
SI engines operate on gasoline, but these engines may also operate on
other fuels, such as natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, ethanol, or
methanol. The test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 describe adjustments
needed for operating test engines with oxygenated fuels.
In some special cases, a single engine is designed to alternately
run on different fuels. For example, some engines can switch back and
forth between natural gas and LPG. We request comment on the best way
of certifying such engines so they can be in a single engine family,
even though we would normally require engines operating on different
fuels to be in separate engine families. We could require such
manufacturers to conduct emission testing with emission-data engines
operating on both fuels to establish the worst-case configuration. In
particular, we request comment on the appropriate data for
demonstrating compliance at the end of the service-accumulation period
for durability testing.
Once an engine is placed into service, someone might want to
convert it to operate on a different fuel. This would take the engine
out of its certified configuration, so we are proposing to require that
someone performing such a fuel conversion go through a certification
process. We would expect to allow certification of the complete engine
using normal certification procedures, or the aftermarket conversion
kit could be certified using the provisions of 40 CFR part 85, subpart
V. This contrasts with the existing provisions that allow for fuel
conversions that can be demonstrated
[[Page 28196]]
not to increase emission levels above the applicable standard. We
propose to apply this requirement starting January 1, 2010. (See Sec.
90.1003 and Sec. 1054.635.)
C. Demonstrating Compliance
We are proposing a compliance program to accompany emission
standards. This consists first of a process for certifying engine
models and fuel systems (either as a part of or independently from the
vessel or equipment). In addition to certification, we are proposing
several provisions to ensure that emission control systems continue to
function over long-term operation in the field. Most of these
certification and durability provisions are consistent with previous
rulemakings for these and other nonroad engines, equipment, and
vessels. Refer to the discussion of the specific programs in Sections
III through VI for additional information about these requirements for
each engine category.
(1) How would I certify my engines, equipment, or vessels?
Sections III through VI describe the proposed emission standards
for new engines, equipment, and vessels. Section VI in particular
describes which companies are responsible for certifying to the new
standards. This section describes the general certification process.
We are proposing a certification process similar to that already
adopted for these and other engines and equipment. Certifying
manufacturers generally test representative prototype engines or fuel
system components and submit the emission data along with other
information to EPA in an application for a Certificate of Conformity.
If we approve the application, then the manufacturer's Certificate of
Conformity allows the manufacturer to sell the engines, equipment, or
vessels described in the application in the United States. We are
proposing to include clarifying language to specify that the
certificate is valid starting with the indicated effective date, but
that it is not valid for any production after December 31 of the model
year for which it is issued. We are also proposing a provision to
preclude issuance of certificates after December 31 of a given model
year. This would avoid a situation in which a manufacturer receives
certification after it is no longer valid for further production.
We are proposing that manufacturers certify their engine models by
grouping them into emission families. Under this approach, engines
expected to have similar emission characteristics would be classified
in the same emission family. The emission family definition is
fundamental to the certification process and to a large degree
determines the amount of testing required for certification. The
proposed regulations include specific engine characteristics for
grouping emission families for each category of products. To address a
manufacturer's unique product mix, we may approve using broader or
narrower emission families as long as the manufacturer can show that
all the engines in an engine family will have similar emission control
characteristics over the engines' useful life.
The useful life period specified in the regulations defines the
period over which manufacturers are responsible for meeting emission
standards. The useful life values included in our regulations are
intended to reflect the period during which engines are designed to
properly function without being remanufactured. Useful life values are
unique for each category of engines. As proposed, for purposes of
certification, manufacturers would be required to use test data to
estimate the rate of deterioration for each emission family over its
useful life. Manufacturers would show that each emission family meets
the emission standards after incorporating the estimated deterioration
in emission control.
The emission-data engine is the engine from an emission family that
will be used for certification testing. To ensure that all engines in
the family meet the standards, we are proposing that manufacturers
select for certification testing the engine from the family that is
most likely to exceed emission standards. In selecting this ``worst-
case'' engine, the manufacturer uses good engineering judgment.
Manufacturers would consider, for example, all engine configurations
and power ratings within the emission family and the range of allowed
options. Requiring the worst-case engine to be tested ensures that all
engines within the emission family are complying with emission
standards. A similar approach would be used for evaporative emission
control systems in emission families.
We are proposing to require manufacturers to include in their
application for certification the results of all emission tests from
their emission-data units (engines, fuel tanks, etc.), including any
diagnostic-type measurements (such as ppm testing) and invalidated
tests. This complete set of test data ensures that the valid tests
forming the basis of the manufacturer's application are a robust
indicator of emission control performance rather than a spurious or
incidental test result.
Clean Air Act section 206(h) specifies that test procedures for
certification (including the test fuel) should adequately represent in-
use operation. We are proposing test fuel specifications intended to
represent in-use fuels. Engines would have to meet the standards on
fuels with properties anywhere in the range of proposed test fuel
specifications. The test fuel is generally to be used for all testing
associated with the regulations proposed in this document, including
certification, production-line testing, and in-use testing.
We are proposing to require that engine manufacturers give engine
operators instructions for properly maintaining their engines. We are
including limitations on the frequency of scheduled maintenance that a
manufacturer may specify for emission-related components to help ensure
that emission control systems do not depend on an unreasonable
expectation of maintenance in the field. These maintenance limits would
also apply during any service accumulation that a manufacturer may do
to establish deterioration factors. This approach is common to all our
engine programs. We are proposing new regulatory language to clarify
that engine manufacturers may perform emission-related maintenance
during service accumulation only to the extent that they can
demonstrate that such maintenance will be done with in-use engines. It
is important to note, however, that these provisions would not limit
the maintenance an operator could perform. It would merely limit the
maintenance that operators would be expected to perform on a regularly
scheduled basis. Some of these requirements are new for engines that
are already subject to standards. We believe it is important to define
limits to these maintenance parameters, especially with the expectation
that engines will begin to incorporate aftertreatment technologies. See
Sec. 1045.125 and Sec. 1054.125 of the proposed regulations for more
information.
(2) What emission labels are required?
Once an emission family is certified every product a manufacturer
produces from that emission family would need an emission label with
basic identifying information. We request comment on the proposed
requirements for the design and content of engine labels, which are
detailed in Sec. 1045.135 and Sec. 1054.135 of the proposed
regulation text.
The current regulations require equipment manufacturers to put a
duplicate label on the equipment if the
[[Page 28197]]
engine is installed in a way that obscures the label on the engine. We
are proposing to clarify this requirement for duplicate labels to
ensure that labels are accessible without creating a supply of
duplicate labels that are not authentic or are not used appropriately.
Specifically, we are proposing to require engine manufacturers to
supply duplicate labels to equipment manufacturers that request them
and keep records to show how many labels they supply. Similarly, we are
proposing that equipment manufacturers must request from engine
manufacturers a specific number of duplicate labels, with a description
of which engine and equipment models are involved and why the duplicate
labels are necessary. Equipment manufacturers would need to destroy any
excess labels and keep records to show the disposition of all the
labels they receive. This would make it easier for us to verify that
engines are meeting requirements and it would be easier for U.S.
Customs to clear imported equipment with certified engines.
(3) What requirements apply to auxiliary emission control devices?
Clean Air Act section 203(a) and existing regulations prohibit the
use of a defeat device (see 40 CFR 90.111 and 91.111). The defeat
device prohibition is intended to ensure that engine manufacturers do
not use auxiliary emission control devices (AECD) in a regulatory test
procedure that reduce the effectiveness of the emission control system
during operation that is not substantially included in the regulatory
test procedure.\94\ We are proposing to require manufacturers to
describe their AECDs and explain why these are not defeat devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Auxiliary emission control device is defined at 40 CFR 90.2
and 91.2 as `` any element of design that senses temperature,
vehicle speed, engine RPM, transmission gear, or any other parameter
for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying or deactivating
the operation of any part of the emission control system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the current regulations, there has been limited use of AECDs.
However, with the proposed new emission standards and the corresponding
engine technologies, we expect manufacturers to increase their use of
engine designs that rely on AECDs. Disclosure of the presence and
purpose of an AECD is essential in allowing us to evaluate the AECD and
determine whether it represents a defeat device.
(4) What warranty requirements apply to engines or other products that
are subject to emission standards?
Consistent with our current emission control programs, we are
proposing that manufacturers provide a design and defect warranty
covering emission-related components. If the manufacturer offers a
longer mechanical warranty for the engine or any of its components
without an additional charge, the proposed regulations would require
that the emission-related warranty period must be at least as long as
the commercial warranty for the engine or the applicable components.
Extended warranties that are available for an extra price would not
trigger a need for a longer emission-related warranty. See the proposed
regulation language for a description of which components are emission-
related.
If an operator makes a valid warranty claim for an emission-related
component during the warranty period, the engine manufacturer is
generally obligated to replace the component at no charge to the
operator. The engine manufacturer may deny warranty claims if the
operator failed to do prescribed maintenance that contributed to the
warranty claim.
We are also proposing a defect reporting requirement that applies
separately from the emission-related warranty (see Section VIII.F). In
general, defect reporting applies when a manufacturer discovers a
pattern of component failures whether that information comes from
warranty claims, voluntary investigation of product quality, or other
sources.
(5) Can I meet standards with emission credits?
We are proposing a new emission-credit program for sterndrive and
inboard marine engines and for evaporative emissions. We are also
proposing to revise the existing emission-credit provisions for
outboard and personal-watercraft engines and for Small SI engines. An
emission-credit program is an important factor we take into
consideration in setting emission standards that are appropriate under
Clean Air Act section 213. An emission-credit program can reduce the
cost and improve the technological feasibility of achieving standards,
helping to ensure the standards achieve the greatest achievable
reductions, considering cost and other relevant factors, in a time
frame that is earlier than might otherwise be possible. Manufacturers
gain flexibility in product planning and the opportunity for a more
cost-effective introduction of product lines meeting a new standard.
Emission-credit programs also create an incentive for the early
introduction of new technology, which allows certain emission families
to act as trailblazers for new technology. This can help provide
valuable information to manufacturers on the technology before they
apply the technology throughout their product line. This early
introduction of clean technology improves the feasibility of achieving
the standards and can provide valuable information for use in other
regulatory programs that may benefit from similar technologies.
Emission-credit programs generally involve averaging, banking, or
trading. Averaging would allow a manufacturer to certify one or more
emission families at emission levels above the applicable emission
standards as long as the increased emissions are offset by one or more
emission families certified below the applicable standards. The over-
complying families generate credits that are used by the under-
complying families. Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions
basis to account for differences in production volume, power, and
useful life among emission families. The average of all emissions for a
particular manufacturer's production must be at or below the level of
the applicable emission standards. This calculation generally factors
in sales-weighted average power, production volume, useful life, and
load factor. Banking and trading would allow a manufacturer to generate
emission credits and bank them for future use in its own averaging
program in later years or sell them to another company.
A manufacturer choosing to participate in an emission-credit
program would certify each participating emission family to a Family
Emission Limit (FEL). In its certification application, a manufacturer
would determine a separate FEL for each pollutant included in the
emission-credit program. The FEL selected by the manufacturer becomes
the emission standard for that emission family. Emission credits are
based on the difference between the emission standard that applies and
the FEL. The engines have to meet the FEL for all emission testing. At
the end of the model year, manufacturers would generally need to show
that the net effect of all their emission families participating in the
emission-credit program is a zero balance or a net positive balance of
credits. A manufacturer could generally choose to include only a single
pollutant from an emission family in the emission-credit program or,
alternatively, to establish an FEL for each of the regulated
pollutants.
[[Page 28198]]
Refer to the program discussions in Sections III through VI for
more information about emission-credit provisions for individual engine
or equipment categories. We request comment on all aspects of the
emission-credit programs discussed in this proposal. In particular, we
request comment on the structure of the proposed emission-credit
programs and how the various provisions may affect manufacturers'
ability to utilize averaging, banking, or trading to achieve the
desired emission-reductions in the most efficient and economical way.
(6) How does EPA define maximum engine power?
Maximum engine power is used to calculate the value of emission
credits. For Small SI engines, it is also used to determine whether the
standards apply; for example engines above 1000 cc are subject to Small
SI standards only if maximum engine power is at or below 19 kW. For
Marine SI engines, maximum engine power is also used to determine the
emission standard that applies to a particular engine and to calculate
emission credits. The regulations give no specific direction for
defining maximum power for determining whether part 90 applies. Marine
SI engine manufactures declare a rated power based on a procedure
specified in a voluntary consensus standard, while credit calculations
are based on sales-weighted average power for an engine family. We are
concerned that these terms and specifications are not objective enough
to ensure consistent application of regulatory requirements to all
manufacturers. To the extent that manufacturers can determine different
values of rated power or maximum engine power, they could be subject to
different emission standards and calculate emission credits differently
for otherwise identical engines. We believe it is important that a
single power value be determined objectively according to a specific
regulatory definition. Note that maximum engine power is not used
during engine testing.
We are proposing to standardize the determination of maximum engine
power by relying primarily on the manufacturer's design specifications
and the maximum torque curve that the manufacturer expects will
represent the actual production engines. Under this approach the
manufacturer would take the torque curve that is projected for an
engine configuration, based on the manufacturer's design and production
specifications, and convert it into a ``nominal power curve'' that
would relate the maximum expected power to engine speed when a
production engine is mapped according to our specified mapping
procedures. The maximum engine power is the maximum power point on that
nominal power curve. This has become the standard approach for all our
emission control programs.
Manufacturers would report the maximum engine power of each
configuration in the application for certification. As with other
engine parameters, manufacturers would ensure that the engines they
produce under the certificate have maximum engine power consistent with
those described in their applications. However, since we recognize that
variability is a normal part of engine production, we allow a tolerance
around the nominal value. We would instead require only that the power
specified in the application be within the normal power range for
production engines (see Sec. 1045.140 and Sec. 1054.140). We would
typically expect the specified power to be within one standard
deviation of the mean power of the production engines. If a
manufacturer determines that the specified power is outside of the
normal range for production engines, we may require the manufacturer to
amend the application for certification. Manufacturer could
alternatively change their engines to conform to the parameters
detailed in the application for certification. In deciding whether to
require a change to the application for certification, we would
consider the degree to which the specified power differed from that of
the production engines, the normal power variability for those engines,
whether the engine used or generated emission credits, and whether the
error affects which standards apply to the engine.
(7) What are the proposed production-line testing requirements?
We are proposing to modify production-line testing requirements for
engines already subject to exhaust emission standards and to extend
these requirements to sterndrive and inboard marine engines. According
to these requirements, manufacturers would routinely test production-
line engines to help ensure that newly assembled engines control
emissions at least as well as the emission-data engines tested for
certification. Production-line testing serves as a quality-control
step, providing information to allow early detection of any problems
with the design or assembly of freshly manufactured engines. This is
different than selective enforcement auditing where we would give a
test order for more rigorous testing for production-line engines in a
particular emission family (see Section VIII.E).
If an engine fails to meet an emission standard, the manufacturer
must modify it to bring that specific engine into compliance. If too
many engines exceed emission standards, the manufacturer will need to
correct the problem for the engine family. This correction may involve
changes to assembly procedures or engine design, but the manufacturer
must, in any case, do sufficient testing to show that the emission
family complies with emission standards.
The proposed production-line testing programs would depend on the
Cumulative Sum (CumSum) statistical process for determining the number
of engines a manufacturer needs to test. We have used CumSum procedures
for production-line testing with several other engine categories. Each
manufacturer selects engines randomly at the beginning of a new
sampling period. If engines must be tested at a facility where final
assembly is not yet completed, manufacturers must randomly select
engine components and assemble the test engine according to their
established assembly instructions. The sampling period is a calendar
quarter for engine families over 1,600 units. The minimum testing rate
for these families is five engines per year. For engine families with
projected sales at or below 1,600 units, the sampling period is a
calendar year and the minimum testing rate is two engines. We may waive
testing requirements for Marine SI engine families with projected sales
below 150 units per year and for Small SI engine families with
projected sales below 5,000 units per year. The CumSum program uses the
emission results to calculate the number of tests required for the
remainder of the sampling period to reach a pass or fail determination.
If tested engines have relatively high emissions, the statistical
sampling method calls for an increased number of tests to show that the
emission family meets emission standards. The remaining number of tests
is recalculated after the manufacturer tests each engine. Engines
selected should cover the broadest range of production configurations
possible. Tests should also be distributed evenly throughout the
sampling period to the extent possible.
Under the CumSum approach, a limited number of individual engines
can exceed the emission standards before the Action Limit is met and
the engine family itself fails under the production-line testing
program. If an engine family fails, we may suspend the certificate. The
manufacturer would then need to take steps to address the
[[Page 28199]]
nonconformity, which may involve amending the application for
certification. This could involve corrected production procedures, a
modified engine design. This may also involve changing the Family
Emission Limit if there is no defect and the original Family Emission
Limit was established using good engineering judgment. Note, however,
that we propose to require manufacturers to adjust or repair every
failing engine and retest it to show that it meets the emission
standards. Note also that all production-line emission measurements
must be included in the periodic reports to us. This includes any type
of screening or surveillance tests (including ppm measurements), all
data points for evaluating whether an engine controls emissions ``off-
cycle,'' and any engine tests that exceed the minimum required level of
testing.
While the proposed requirements may involve somewhat more testing
than is currently required under 40 CFR part 90 or 91, there are
several factors that limit the additional burden. First, the testing
regulations in 40 CFR part 1065 specify that manufacturers may use
field-testing equipment and procedures to measure emissions from
production-line engines. This may substantially reduce the cost of
testing individual engines by allowing much lower-cost equipment for
measuring engines following assembly.
Second, we are proposing to reduce the testing requirements for
emission families that consistently meet emission standards. The
manufacturer may request a reduced testing rate for emission families
with no production-line tests exceeding emission standards for two
consecutive years. The minimum testing rate is one test per emission
family for one year. Our approval for a reduced testing rate would
apply for a single model year.
Third, as we have concluded in other engine programs, some
manufacturers may have unique circumstances that call for different
methods to show that production engines comply with emission standards.
We therefore propose to allow a manufacturer to suggest an alternate
plan for testing production-line engines as long as the alternate
program is as effective at ensuring that the engines will comply. A
manufacturer's petition to use an alternate plan should address the
need for the alternative and should justify any changes from the
regular testing program. The petition must also describe in detail the
equivalent thresholds and failure rates for the alternate plan. If we
approve the plan, we would use these criteria to determine when an
emission family would become noncompliant. It is important to note that
this allowance is intended only to provide flexibility and is not
intended to affect the stringency of the standards or the production-
line testing program.
Refer to the specific program discussions in Sections III, IV, and
V for additional information about production-line testing for
different types of engines.
D. Other Concepts
(1) What are the proposed emission-related installation instructions?
For manufacturers selling loose engines to equipment manufacturers,
we are proposing to require that the engine manufacturer develop a set
of emission-related installation instructions. This would include
anything that the installer would need to know to ensure that the
engine operates within its certified design configuration. For example,
the installation instructions could specify a total capacity needed
from the engine cooling system, placement of catalysts after final
assembly, or specification of parts needed to control evaporative
emissions. If equipment manufacturers fail to follow the established
emission-related installation instructions, we would consider this
tampering, which could subject them to significant civil penalties.
Refer to the proposed regulations for more information about specific
provisions related to installation instructions (see Sec. 1045.130 and
Sec. 1054.130).
(2) What is an agent for service?
We are proposing to require that manufacturers identify an agent
for service in the United States in their application for
certification. The named person should generally be available within a
reasonable time to respond to our attempts to make contact, either by
telephone, e-mail, or in person. The person should also be capable of
communicating about matters related to emission program requirements in
English. (See Sec. 1045.205 and Sec. 1054.205).
(3) Are there special provisions for small manufacturers of these
engines, equipment, and vessels?
The scope of this proposal includes many engine, equipment, and
vessel manufacturers that have not been subject to our regulations or
certification process. Many of these manufacturers are small
businesses. The sections describing the proposed emission control
program include discussion of proposed special compliance provisions
designed to address small business issues for the different types of
engines and other products covered by the rule. Section XIV.B gives an
overview of the inter-agency process in which we developed these small-
volume provisions.
VIII. General Nonroad Compliance Provisions
This section describes a wide range of compliance provisions that
apply generally to all the engines and equipment that would be subject
to the proposed standards. Several of these provisions apply not only
to engine manufacturers but also to equipment manufacturers installing
certified engines, remanufacturing facilities, operators, and others.
For standards that apply to equipment or fuel-system components,
the provisions generally applicable to engine manufacturers would also
apply to the equipment or component manufacturers. While this preamble
section is written as if it would apply to engine exhaust standards,
the same provisions would apply for equipment or component evaporative
standards. We are proposing extensive revisions to the regulations to
more carefully make these distinctions.
As described in Section VII, we are proposing to migrate these
general compliance provisions from 40 CFR parts 90 and 91 to the
established regulatory text in 40 CFR part 1068. The provisions in part
1068 already apply to other engine categories and we believe they can
be applied to Small SI engines and Marine SI engines with minimal
modification. Note that Section XI.C describes a variety of proposed
changes and updates to the regulatory provisions in part 1068. We
request comment on all aspects of part 1068 for these engines. The
following discussion follows the sequence of the existing regulatory
text in part 1068.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ The regulatory text in the proposal does not republish the
provisions of part 1068 that we are not proposing to change. For the
latest full-text version of part 1068, see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/index.html. Note that part 1068 is in Title 40, Protection of
Environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Miscellaneous Provisions (Part 1068, Subpart A)
This regulation contains some general provisions, including general
applicability and the definitions that apply to part 1068. Other
provisions concern good engineering judgment, how we would handle
confidential information, how the EPA Administrator delegates decision-
[[Page 28200]]
making authority, and when we may inspect facilities, engines, or
records.
The process of testing engines and preparing an application for
certification requires the manufacturer to make a variety of judgments.
This includes, for example, selecting test engines, operating engines
between tests, and developing deterioration factors. EPA has the
authority to evaluate whether a manufacturer's use of engineering
judgment is reasonable. The regulations describe the methodology we use
to address any concerns related to a manufacturer's use of good
engineering judgment in cases where the manufacturer has such
discretion (see 40 CFR 1068.5). We will take into account the degree to
which any error in judgment was deliberate or in bad faith. This
subpart is consistent with provisions already adopted for light-duty
highway vehicles and various other nonroad engines.
B. Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements (Part 1068, Subpart B)
The proposed provisions in this subpart lay out a set of
prohibitions for engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers,
operators, and engine rebuilders to ensure that engines comply with the
emission standards. These provisions are summarized below but readers
are encouraged to review the regulatory text. These provisions are
intended to help ensure that each new engine sold or otherwise entered
into commerce in the United States is certified to the relevant
standards, that it remains in its certified configuration throughout
its lifetime, and that only certified engines are used in the
appropriate nonroad equipment.
(1) General Prohibitions (Sec. 1068.101)
This proposed regulation contains several prohibitions consistent
with the Clean Air Act. We generally prohibit selling a new engine in
the United States without a valid certificate of conformity issued by
EPA, deny us access to relevant records, or keep us from entering a
facility to test or inspect engines. In addition, no one may
manufacture any device that will make emission controls ineffective or
remove or disable a device or design element that may affect an
engine's emission levels, which we would consider tampering. We have
generally applied the existing policies developed for tampering with
highway engines and vehicles to nonroad engines.\96\ Other prohibitions
reinforce manufacturers' obligations to meet various certification
requirements. We also prohibit selling engine parts that prevent
emission control systems from working properly. Finally, for engines
that are excluded from regulation based on their use in certain
applications, we generally prohibit using these engines in applications
for which emission standards apply.
Each prohibited act has a corresponding maximum penalty as
specified in Clean Air Act section 205. As provided for in the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 10-410, these
maximum penalties are in 1970 dollars and should be periodically
adjusted by regulation to account for inflation. The current penalty
amount for most violations is $32,500.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ ``Interim Tampering Enforcement Policy,'' EPA memorandum
from Norman D. Shutler, Office of General Counsel, June 25, 1974
(Docket A-2000-01; document II-B-20).
\97\ EPA acted to adjust the maximum penalty amount in 1996 (61
FR 69364, December 31, 1996). See also 40 CFR part 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Equipment Manufacturer Provisions (Sec. 1068.105)
The provisions of Sec. 1068.105 require equipment manufacturers to
use certified engines in their new equipment once the emission
standards begin to apply. We would allow a grace period for equipment
manufacturers to deplete their supply of uncertified engines if they
follow their normal inventory practices for buying engines, rather than
stockpiling noncompliant (or previous-tier) engines to circumvent the
new standards.
We require equipment manufacturers to observe the engine
manufacturers' emission-related installation instructions to ensure
that the engines remain consistent with the application for
certification. This may include such things as radiator specifications,
diagnostic signals and interfaces, and placement of catalytic
converters.
If equipment manufacturers install a certified engine in a way that
obscures the engine label, we propose to require that they add a
duplicate label on the equipment. The equipment manufacturer would need
to request from the engine manufacturer a specific number of duplicate
labels, describe which engine and equipment models are involved, and
explain why the duplicate labels are necessary. Equipment manufacturers
would need to destroy any excess labels and keep records to show the
disposition of all the labels they receive. This would make it easier
for us to verify that engines are meeting requirements and it would be
easier for U.S. Customs to clear imported equipment with certified
engines.
Equipment manufacturers not fulfilling the responsibilities we
describe in this section would be in violation of one or more of the
prohibited acts described above.
(3) In-Service Engines (Sec. 1068.110)
The regulations generally prevent manufacturers from requiring
owners to use any certain brand of aftermarket parts as well as give
the manufacturers responsibility for engine servicing for emission-
related warranty issues, leaving the responsibility for all other
maintenance with the owner. This proposed regulation would also reserve
our right to do testing (or require testing), for example, to
investigate potential defeat devices or in-use noncompliance, as
authorized by the Clean Air Act.
(4) Engine Rebuilding (Sec. 1068.120)
We are proposing to apply rebuild provisions for all the nonroad
engines subject to the proposed emission standards. This approach is
similar to what applies to heavy-duty highway engines and most other
nonroad engines. This is necessary to prevent an engine rebuilder from
rebuilding engines in a way that disables the engine's emission
controls or compromises the effectiveness of the emission control
system. We are proposing minimal recordkeeping requirements for
businesses involved in commercial engine rebuilding to show that they
comply with the regulations.
In general, anyone who rebuilds a certified engine must restore it
to its original (or a lower-emitting) configuration. Rebuilders must
also replace some critical emission control components such as fuel
injectors and oxygen sensors in all rebuilds for engines that use those
technologies. Rebuilders must replace an existing catalyst if there is
evidence that it is not functional; for example, if rattling pieces
inside a catalyst show that it has lost its physical integrity, it
would need to be replaced. See Sec. 1068.120 for more detailed
information.
These rebuilding provisions define good maintenance and rebuilding
practices to help someone avoid violating the prohibition on ``removing
or disabling'' emission control systems. These provisions therefore
apply also to individuals who rebuild their own engines. However, we do
not require such individuals to keep records to document compliance.
We request comment on applying these proposed requirements for
engine rebuilding and maintenance to the engines and vehicles subject
to this rulemaking. In addition, we request
[[Page 28201]]
comment on the associated recordkeeping requirements.
C. Exemptions (Part 1068, Subpart C)
We are proposing to apply several exemptions for certain specific
situations, consistent with previous rulemakings. In general, exempted
engines would need to comply with the requirements only in the sections
related to the exemption. Note that additional restrictions could apply
to importing exempted engines (see Section VIII.D). We may also require
manufacturers (or importers) to add a permanent label describing that
the engine is exempt from emission standards for a specific purpose. In
addition to helping us enforce emission standards, this would help
ensure that imported engines clear Customs without difficulty.
(1) Testing
Anyone would be allowed to request an exemption for engines used
only for research or other investigative purposes.
(2) Manufacturer-Owned Engines
Engines that are used by engine manufacturers for development or
marketing purposes could be exempted from regulation if they are
maintained in the manufacturers' possession and are not used for any
revenue-generating service. In contrast with the testing exemption,
only certificate holders would be able to use this exemption.
(3) Display Engines
Anyone may request an exemption for an engine if it is for display
only.
(4) National Security
Engine manufacturers could receive an exemption for engines they
can show are needed by an agency of the federal government responsible
for national defense. For cases where the engines will not be used on
combat applications, the manufacturer would have to request the
exemption with the endorsement of the procuring government agency.
(5) Exported Engines
Engines that will be exported to countries that do not have the
same emission standards as those that apply in the United States would
be exempted without need for a request. This exemption would not be
available if the destination country has the same emission standards as
those in the United States.
(6) Competition Engines
New engines that are used solely for competition are excluded from
regulations applicable to nonroad engines. For purposes of our
certification requirements, a manufacturer would receive an exemption
if it can show that it produces the engine specifically for use solely
in competition (see Sections III through V for specific provisions). In
addition, engines that have been modified for use in competition would
be exempt from the prohibition against tampering described above
(without need for request). The literal meaning of the term ``used
solely for competition'' would apply for these modifications. We would
therefore not allow the engine to be used for anything other than
competition once it has been modified. This also applies to someone who
would later buy the engine, so we would require the person modifying
the engine to remove or deface the original engine label and inform a
subsequent buyer in writing of the conditions of the exemption.
(7) Replacement Engines
An exemption would be available to engine manufacturers without
request if that is the only way to replace an engine from the field
that was produced before the current emission standards took effect. If
less stringent standards applied to the old engine when it was new, the
replacement engine would also have to meet those standards.
(8) Unusual Circumstance Hardship Provision
Under the unusual circumstances hardship provision, any
manufacturer subject to the proposed standards would be able to apply
for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the
failure to comply and if failure to sell the subject engines or
equipment or fuel system component would have a major impact on the
company's solvency (see Sec. 1068.245). An example of an unusual
circumstance outside a manufacturer's control may be an ``Act of God,''
a fire at the manufacturing plant, or the unforeseen shutdown of a
supplier with no alternative available. The terms and time frame of the
relief would depend on the specific circumstances of the company and
the situation involved. As part of its application for hardship, a
company would be required to provide a compliance plan detailing when
and how it would achieve compliance with the standards. This hardship
provision would be available to all manufacturers of engines,
equipment, boats, and fuel system components subject to the proposed
standards, regardless of business size.
(9) Economic Hardship Provision for Small Businesses
An economic hardship provision would allow small businesses subject
to the proposed standards to petition EPA for limited additional lead
time to comply with the standards (see Sec. 1068.250). A small
business would have to make the case that it has taken all possible
business, technical, and economic steps to comply, but the burden of
compliance costs would have a significant impact on the company's
solvency. Hardship relief could include requirements for interim
emission reductions and/or the purchase and use of emission credits.
The length of the hardship relief decided during review of the hardship
application would be up to one year, with the potential to extend the
relief as needed. We anticipate that one to two years would normally be
sufficient. As part of its application for hardship, a company would be
required to provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it would
achieve compliance with the standards. This hardship provision would be
available only to small manufacturers of engines, equipment, boats, and
fuel system components subject to the standards. For the purpose of
determining which manufacturers qualify as a small business, EPA is
proposing criteria based on either a production cut-off or the number
of employees. The proposed criteria for determining which companies
qualify as a small business are contained in Section III.F.2 for SD/I
engines, Section IV.G for OB/PWC engines, Sections V.F.2 for
nonhandheld engines, V.F.3 for nonhandheld equipment, and Section
VI.G.2.f for handheld equipment, boats, and fuel system components.
(10) Hardship for Equipment Manufacturers, Vessel Manufacturers, and
Secondary Engine Manufacturers
Equipment manufacturers and boat builders in many cases will depend
on engine manufacturers and fuel system component manufacturers to
supply certified engines and fuel system components in time to produce
complying equipment or boats by the date emission standards begin to
apply. We are aware of other regulatory control programs where
certified engines have been available too late for equipment
manufacturers to adequately accommodate changing engine size or
performance characteristics. To address this concern, we are proposing
to allow Small SI equipment manufacturers and Marine SI boat builders
to request up to one extra year before using certified engines or fuel
system components if
[[Page 28202]]
they are unable to obtain certified product and they are not at fault
and would face serious economic hardship without an extension. See
Sec. 1068.255 for the proposed regulatory text related to this
hardship.
In addition, we are aware that some manufacturers of nonroad
engines are dependent on another engine manufacturer to supply base
engines that are then modified for the final application. Similar to
equipment or vessel manufacturers, these ``secondary engine
manufacturers'' may face difficulty in producing certified engines if
the manufacturer selling the base engine makes an engine model
unavailable with short notice. These secondary engine manufacturers
generally each buy a relatively small number of engines and would
therefore not necessarily be able to influence the marketing or sales
practices of the engine manufacturer selling the base engine. As a
result, we are proposing that secondary engine manufacturers could
apply for this hardship as well. However, because these secondary
engine manufacturers control the final design of their modified engine
and could benefit in the market if they are allowed to produce a
product certified to less stringent standards than their competitors,
we would generally not approve an exemption unless the secondary engine
manufacturer committed to a plan to make for any calculated loss in
environmental benefit. Provisions similar to this hardship were already
adopted for Large SI engines and recreational vehicles. See the
existing regulatory text in Sec. 1068.255(c).
(11) Delegated Final Assembly
The regulations in 40 CFR 1068.260 allow for flexible manufacturing
for companies that produce engines that rely on aftertreatment. These
regulations allow for equipment manufacturers to receive separate
shipment of aftertreatment devices with the obligation resting on the
equipment manufacturer to correctly install the aftertreatment on the
engine when installing the engine in the equipment. Allowing for this
practice requires an exemption from provisions which prohibit an engine
from being introduced into commerce in its uncertified configuration.
The provisions in Sec. 1068.260 to prevent improper use of this
exemption include requirements to (1) Have contractual arrangements
with equipment manufacturers; (2) submit affidavits to EPA regarding
the use of the exemption; (3) include the price of the aftertreatment
in the cost of the engine (to avoid giving equipment manufacturers an
incentive to reduce costs inappropriately); and (4) periodically audit
the affected equipment manufacturers.
These provisions are not likely to be necessary for most Marine SI
engine manufacturers. We do not expect outboard or personal watercraft
engine manufacturers to use aftertreatment technology. For sterndrive/
inboard engines, we expect catalyst designs generally to be so integral
to the exhaust manifold that engine manufacturers will include them
with their engines. However, their may be some less common designs,
such as engines on large vessels or airboats, where engine
manufacturers may want to use the provisions allowing for separate
shipment of aftertreatment. We are therefore proposing to adopt the
provisions of Sec. 1068.260 without change for Marine SI engines.
Manufacturers of handheld Small SI engines typically build both the
engine and the equipment so we are proposing not to allow for delegated
assembly with these engines.
In contrast, nonhandheld engines (especially Class II) are built by
engine manufacturers and sold to equipment manufacturers, often without
complete fuel or exhaust systems. Ensuring that consumers get only
engines that are in a certified configuration therefore requires a
carefully crafted program. As described in Section V.E.2, we are
proposing special provisions to accommodate the unique circumstances
related to nonhandheld Small SI engines.
(12) Uncertified Engines Subject to Emission Standards
In some cases we require manufacturers to meet certain emission
standards without requiring certification, most commonly for
replacement engines. In 40 CFR 1068.265 we spell out manufacturers
obligations for these compliant but uncertified engines. Manufacturers
must have test data showing that their engines meet the applicable
emission standards and are liable for the emission performance of their
engines, much like for certified engines, but are not required to
submit an application for certification and get EPA approval before
selling the engine. We propose to apply these provisions without
modification for Small SI engines and Marine SI engines.
D. Imports (Part 1068, Subpart D)
In general, the same certification requirements would apply to
engines and equipment whether they are produced in the United States or
are imported. The regulations in part 1068 also include some additional
provisions that would apply if someone wants to import an exempted or
excluded engine.
All the proposed exemptions described above for new engines would
also apply to importation, though some of these exemptions apply only
on a temporary basis. An approved temporary exemption would be
available only for a defined period. We could require the importer to
post bond while the engine is in the United States. There are several
additional proposed exemptions that would apply only to imported
engines.
Identical configuration: This is a permanent exemption to
allow individuals to import engines that were designed and produced to
meet applicable emission standards. These engines may be different than
certified engines only in the fact that the emission label is missing
because they were not intended for sale in the United States.
Ancient engines: We would generally treat used engines as
new if they are imported without a certificate of conformity. However,
this permanent exemption would allow for importation of uncertified
engines if they are more than 20 years old and remain in their original
configuration.
Repairs or alterations: This is a temporary exemption to
allow companies to repair or modify engines. This exemption does not
allow for operating the engine except as needed to do the intended
work. This exemption would also apply for the practice for retiring
bigger engines; noncompliant engines may be imported under this
exemption for the purpose of recovering the engine block.
Diplomatic or military: This is a temporary exemption to
allow diplomatic or military personnel to use uncertified engines
during their term of service in the U.S.
We request comment on all these exemptions for domestically
produced and imported engines and vehicles.
E. Selective Enforcement Audit (Part 1068, Subpart E)
Clean Air Act section 206(b) gives us the discretion in any program
with vehicle or engine emission standards to do selective enforcement
auditing of production engines. We would do a selective enforcement
audit by choosing an engine family and giving the manufacturer a test
order that details a testing program to show that production-line
engines meet emission standards. The regulation text describes the
audit procedures in greater detail.
[[Page 28203]]
We intend generally to rely on manufacturers' testing of
production-line engines to show that they are consistently building
products that conform to the standards. However, we reserve our right
to do selective enforcement auditing if we have reason to question the
emission testing conducted and reported by the manufacturer or for
other reasons.
F. Defect Reporting and Recall (Part 1068, Subpart F)
We are proposing to apply the defect reporting requirements of
Sec. 1068.501 to replace the provisions of 40 CFR part 85 for nonroad
engines. The requirements obligate manufacturers to tell us when they
learn that emission control components or systems are defective and to
conduct investigations under certain circumstances to determine if an
emission-related defect is present. We are also proposing a requirement
that manufacturers initiate these investigations when warranty claims
and other available information indicate that a defect investigation
may be fruitful. For this purpose, we consider defective any part or
system that does not function as originally designed for the regulatory
useful life of the engine or the scheduled replacement interval
specified in the manufacturer's maintenance instructions.
We believe the investigation requirement proposed in this rule will
allow both EPA and the engine manufacturers to fully understand the
significance of any unusually high rates of warranty claims that may
have an impact on emissions. We believe prudent engine manufacturers
already conduct a thorough investigation when available data indicate
recurring parts failures as part of their normal practice to ensure
product quality. Such data are valuable and readily available to most
manufacturers and, under this proposal, must be considered to determine
whether or not there is a possible defect of an emission-related part.
Defect reports submitted in compliance with the current regulations
are based on a single threshold applicable to engine families of all
production volumes. No affirmative requirement for gathering
information about the full extent of the problem applies. Many Small SI
engine families have very high sales volumes. The proposed approach may
therefore result in fewer total defect reports that should be submitted
compared with the traditional approach because the number of defects
triggering the submission requirement generally rises in proportion to
the engine family size. Under the existing regulations, very small
engine families would likely never report even a prominent defect
because a relatively high proportion of such engines would have to be
known to be defective before reporting is required under a scheme with
fixed thresholds. The proposed threshold for reporting for the smallest
engine families is therefore lower than under the current regulations.
We are aware that accumulation of warranty claims will likely
include many claims and parts that do not represent defects, so we are
establishing a relatively high threshold for triggering the
manufacturer's responsibility to investigate whether there is, in fact,
a real occurrence of an emission-related defect.
This proposal is intended to require manufacturers to use
information we would expect them to keep in the normal course of
business. We believe in most cases manufacturers would not be required
to institute new programs or activities to monitor product quality or
performance. A manufacturer that does not keep warranty information may
ask for our approval to use an alternate defect-reporting methodology
that is at least as effective in identifying and tracking potential
emission-related defects as the proposed requirements. However, until
we approve such a request, the proposed thresholds and procedures
continue to apply.
The proposed investigation thresholds are ten percent of total
production to date up to a total production of 50,000 engines, but
never fewer than 50 for any single engine family in one model year. For
production between 50,000 and 550,000 units, the investigation
threshold would increase at a marginal rate of four percent. For all
production above 550,000 an investigation threshold of 25,000 engines
would apply. For example, for an engine family with a sales volume of
20,000 units in a given model year, the manufacturer would have to
investigate potential emission-related defects after identifying 2,000
possible defects. For an engine family with a sales volume of 450,000
units in a given model year, the manufacturer would have to investigate
potential emission-related defects after identifying 21,000 possible
defects. These thresholds reflect the relevant characteristics of
nonroad engines, such as the varying sales volumes, engine
technologies, and warranty and maintenance practices.
To carry out an investigation to determine if there is an emission-
related defect, manufacturers would have to use available information
such as preexisting assessments of warranted parts. Manufacturers would
also have to gather information by assessing previously unexamined
parts submitted with warranty claims and replacement parts which are
available or become available for examination and analysis. If
available parts are deemed too voluminous to conduct a timely
investigation, manufacturers would be permitted to employ appropriate
statistical analyses of representative data to help draw timely
conclusions regarding the existence of a defect. These investigative
activities should be summarized in the periodic reports of recently
opened or closed investigations, as discussed below. It is important to
note that EPA does not regard having reached the investigation
thresholds as conclusive proof of the existence of a defect, only that
initiation of an appropriate investigation is merited to determine
whether a defect exists.
The second threshold in this proposal specifies when a manufacturer
must report that an emission-related defect exists. This threshold
involves a smaller number of engines because each potential defect has
been screened to confirm that it is an emission-related defect. In
counting engines to compare with the defect-reporting threshold, the
manufacturer would consider a single engine family and model year.
However, when a defect report is required, the manufacturer would
report all occurrences of the same defect in all engine families and
all model years that use the same part. The threshold for reporting a
defect is two percent of total production for any single engine family
for production up to 50,000 units, but never fewer than 20 for any
single engine family in one model year. For production between 50,000
and 550,000 units, the investigation threshold would increase at a
marginal rate of one percent. For all production above 550,000 an
investigation threshold of 6,000 engines would apply.
It is important to note that while EPA regards occurrence of the
defect threshold as proof of the existence of a reportable defect, it
does not regard that occurrence as conclusive proof that recall or
other action is merited.
If the number of engines with a specific defect is found to be less
than the threshold for submitting a defect report, but warranty claims
or other information later indicate additional potentially defective
engines, under this proposal the information must be aggregated for the
purpose of determining whether the threshold for submitting a defect
report has been met. If a manufacturer has knowledge from any source
that the threshold for submitting a defect report has been met,
[[Page 28204]]
a defect report would have to be submitted even if the trigger for
investigating has not yet been met. For example, if manufacturers
receive information from their dealers, technical staff, or other field
personnel showing conclusively that a recurring emission-related defect
exists, they would have to submit a defect report if the submission
threshold is reached.
At specified times, the manufacturer would have to report open
investigations as well as recently closed investigations that did not
require a defect report. We are not proposing a fixed time limit for
manufacturers to complete their investigations. However, the periodic
reports required by the regulations will allow us to monitor these
investigations and determine if it is necessary or appropriate for us
to take further action.
We request comment on all aspects of this approach to defect
reporting. We also request comment on whether these reporting
requirements should also apply to the current Phase 2 compliance
program and if so, when these provisions should be applied.
Under Clean Air Act section 207, if we determine that a substantial
number of engines within an engine family, although properly used and
maintained, do not conform to the appropriate emission standards, the
manufacturer must remedy the problem and conduct a recall of the
noncomplying engine family. However, we recognize that in some cases
recalling noncomplying nonroad engines may not achieve sufficient
environmental protection, so instead of making a determination of a
substantial number of nonconforming engines (and thereby triggering a
recall responsibility), we may allow manufacturers in some cases to
nominate alternative remedial measures to address most potential
noncompliance situations.
G. Hearings (Part 1068, Subpart G)
According to this regulation, manufacturers would have the
opportunity to challenge our decision to deny an application for
certification or to suspend, revoke, or void an engine family's
certificate. This also applies to our decision to reject the
manufacturer's use of good engineering judgment (see Sec. 1068.5), and
to our decisions related to emission-credit programs. Part 1068,
subpart G, references the proposed procedures for a hearing to resolve
such disputes.
IX. General Test Procedures
The regulatory text in part 1065 is written with the intent to
apply broadly to EPA engine programs. Part 1065 was originally adopted
on November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68242) and currently applies for nonroad
diesel engines, large nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational
vehicles under 40 CFR parts 1039, 1048 and 1051, respectively. The
regulatory text was substantially revised in a recent rulemaking to
make a variety of corrections and improvements (70 FR 40420, July 13,
2005).
This proposal applies to anyone who tests engines to show that they
meet the emission standards for Small SI engines or Marine SI engines.
This includes certification testing as well as all production-line and
in-use testing. See the program descriptions above for testing
provisions that are unique to each category of engines.
We are proposing to apply the existing test provisions in part 1065
for all Small SI engines and Marine SI engines. See Sections III
through V for testing issues that are specific to the particular engine
categories. In addition, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to use
the provisions of part 1065 even before the proposed new standards take
effect. This would allow manufacturers to migrate to the new test
procedures sooner. This may involve upgrading to different types of
analyzers that are specified in part 1065 but not in part 90 or part
91. It may also involve recoding computers to do modal calculations
specified in part 1065 instead of the weight-based calculations in part
90 or part 91. At the same time, this would allow EPA to do
confirmatory testing using the upgraded procedures without waiting for
the proposed new standards to apply. This is important because EPA
testing facilities are used for many different programs and the
conversion to testing according to part 1065 specifications is well
underway. We are aware that the new test specifications regarding
engine mapping, generating duty cycles, and applying cycle-validation
criteria would affect the emission measurements so we would follow the
manufacturers' methods for these parameters in any case. For any other
parameters, we would understand any differences between test procedures
specified in parts 90, 91, and 1065 either to have no effect on
emission measurements or to improve the accuracy of the measurement.
We have identified various provisions in part 90 and part 91 that
may need correction or adjustment. We request comment on the following
possible changes:
Changing the standard temperature condition for volume-
related calculations in Sec. 90.311(a)(2) and Sec. 91.311(a)(2) from
25 [deg]C to 20 [deg]C. This would be consistent with EPA's test
regulations, including the specifications in Sec. 1065.640.
Removing the requirement to derive calibration and span
gas concentrations from NIST Standard Reference Materials in Sec.
90.312(c) and Sec. 91.312(c). This goes beyond the traceability
requirements of other EPA test regulations and standard lab practices.
We could instead refer to Sec. 1065.750 for calibration and span gas
concentrations.
Changing the direction for specifying gas concentrations
in Sec. 90.312(c)(3) and Sec. 91.312(c)(3) from a volumetric basis to
a molar basis.
Correcting inconsistent requirements related to gas
dividers. The regulations at Sec. 90.312(c)(4) and Sec. 91.312(c)(4)
specify an accuracy of 2 percent, while Sec. 90.314(c) and
Sec. 91.314(c) specify an accuracy of 1.5 percent. We
could select one of these values, or we could refer to the gas divider
specifications in Sec. 1065.248 and Sec. 1065.307.
Correcting inconsistent specifications related to the
timing of CO interference checks. The regulations at Sec. 90.317(b)
and Sec. 91.317(b) specify that interference checks occur as part of
annual maintenance, Sec. 90.325(a) and Sec. 91.325(a) specify that
interference checks occur after any major repairs that could affect
analyzer performance. We believe it would be most appropriate to make
these consistent based on the specification in Sec. 1065.303, which
calls for interference checks to occur after major maintenance.
As we have done in previous programs, we are proposing specific
test procedures to define how measurements are to be made but would
allow the use of alternate procedures if they are shown to be
equivalent to our specified procedures.\98\ The test procedures
proposed in part 1065 are derived from our test procedures in 40 CFR
part 86 for highway heavy-duty gasoline engines and light-duty
vehicles. The procedures have been simplified (and to some extent
generalized) to better fit nonroad engines. The procedures in part 1065
currently apply to recreational vehicles and to nonroad spark-ignition
engines above 19 kW. We request comment on all aspects of these
proposed test procedures. We also request comment regarding whether any
additional parts of the test procedures contained in 40 CFR part 86
(for highway vehicles and engines), in other parts that apply to
nonroad engines, or
[[Page 28205]]
in ISO 8178 should be incorporated into the final test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Note that the published procedures still apply if we
approve a manufacturer's use of an alternative procedure. EPA
testing may be done using the published procedures or the alternate
procedures approved for a given engine family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Overview
Part 1065 is organized by subparts as shown below:
Subpart A: General provisions; global information on
applicability, alternate procedures, units of measure, etc.
Subpart B: Equipment specifications; required hardware for
testing
Subpart C: Measurement instruments
Subpart D: Calibration and verifications; for measurement
systems
Subpart E: Engine selection, preparation, and maintenance
Subpart F: Test protocols; step-by-step sequences for
laboratory testing and test validation
Subpart G: Calculations and required information
Subpart H: Fuels, fluids, and analytical gases
Subpart I: Oxygenated fuels; special test procedures
Subpart J: Field testing and portable emissions
measurement systems
Subpart K: Definitions, references, and symbols
The regulations prescribe scaled specifications for test equipment
and measurement instruments by parameters such as engine power, engine
speed and the emission standards to which an engine must comply. That
way this single set of specifications will cover the full range of
engine sizes and our full range of emission standards. Manufacturers
will be able to use these specifications to determine what range of
engines and emission standards may be tested using a given laboratory
or field testing system.
The content already adopted in part 1065 is mostly a combination of
material from our most recent updates to other test procedures and from
test procedures specified by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). There are also some provisions we created
specifically for part 1065, generally to address very recent advances
such as measuring very low concentrations of emissions, using new
measurement technology, using portable emissions measurement systems,
and performing field testing.
The content in part 1065 also reflects a shift in our approach for
specifying measurement performance. In the past we specified numerous
calibration accuracies for individual measurement instruments, and we
specified some verifications for individual components such as
NO2-to-NO converters. We have shifted our focus away from
individual instruments and toward the overall performance of complete
measurement systems. We did this for several reasons. First, some of
what we specified in the past precluded the implementation of new
measurement technologies. These new technologies, sometimes called
``smart analyzers,'' combine signals from multiple instruments to
compensate for interferences that were previously tolerable at higher
emissions levels. These analyzers are useful for detecting low
concentrations of emissions. They are also useful for detecting
emissions from raw exhaust, which can contain high concentrations of
interferences, such as water vapor. This is particularly important for
field testing, which will most likely rely upon raw exhaust
measurements. Second, this new ``systems approach'' requires periodic
verifications for complete measurement systems, which we feel will
provide a more robust assurance that a measurement system as a whole is
operating properly. Third, the systems approach provides a direct
pathway to demonstrate that a field test system performs similarly to a
laboratory system. Finally, we feel that our systems approach will lead
to a more efficient way of ensuring measurement performance in the
laboratory and in the field. We believe this efficiency will stem from
less frequent calibrations of individual instruments and higher
confidence that a complete measurement system is operating properly.
Below is a brief description of the content of each subpart. The
discussion highlights some recent changes to part 1065. We are not
proposing any changes to part 1065 as part of this proposal, but we
intend to make various changes to part 1065 as part of a concurrent
rulemaking to set new emission standards for marine diesel and
locomotive engines. Manufacturers of engines that are the subject of
this proposal are encouraged to stay abreast of testing changes that we
propose in this other rulemaking.
(1) Subpart A General Provisions
In Subpart A we identify the applicability of part 1065 and
describe how procedures other than those in part 1065 may be used to
comply with a standard-setting part. In Sec. 1065.10(c)(1) we specify
that testing must be conducted in a way that represents in-use engine
operation, such that in the rare case where provisions in part 1065
result in unrepresentative testing, we may cooperate with manufacturers
to work out alternative testing approaches for demonstrating compliance
with emission standards. Another aspect of representative testing
relates to the desire to maintain consistency between certification
testing and in-use testing. If we or manufacturers test in-use engines,
we would expect the engine to be removed from the equipment and
installed on an engine dynamometer for testing with no changes to the
engine (including the governor, fuel system, exhaust system and other
components).
In Sec. 1065.10(c)(7) and Sec. 1065.12 we describe a process by
which we may approve alternative test procedures that we determine to
be equivalent to (or more accurate than) the specified procedures.
Given the new testing specifications in part 1065 and the standard-
setting parts, and this more detailed approach to approving alternative
test procedures, we will not allow manufacturers to continue testing
based on any earlier approvals for alternative testing under part 90 or
part 91. Any manufacturer wishing to continue testing with any method,
device, or specification that departs from that included in this
proposal would need to request approval for such testing under Sec.
1065.10(c)(7).
Other information in this subpart includes a description of the
conventions we use regarding units and certain measurements and we
discuss recordkeeping. We also provide an overview of how emissions and
other information are used for determining final emission results. The
regulations in Sec. 1065.15 include a figure illustrating the
different ways we allow brake-specific emissions to be calculated.
In this same subpart, we describe how continuous and batch sampling
may be used to determine total emissions. We also describe the two ways
of determining total work that we approve. Note that the figure
indicates our default procedures and those procedures that require
additional approval before we will allow them.
(2) Subpart B Equipment Specifications
Subpart B first describes engine and dynamometer related systems.
Many of these specifications are scaled to an engine's size, speed,
torque, exhaust flow rate, etc. We specify the use of in-use engine
subsystems such as air intake systems wherever possible to best
represent in-use operation when an engine is tested in a laboratory.
Subpart B also describes sampling dilution systems. These include
specifications for the allowable components, materials, pressures, and
temperatures. We describe how to sample crankcase emissions.
The regulations in Sec. 1065.101 include a diagram illustrating
all the available equipment for measuring emissions.
[[Page 28206]]
(3) Subpart C Measurement Instruments
Subpart C specifies the requirements for the measurement
instruments used for testing. These specifications apply to both
laboratory and field testing. In subpart C we recommend accuracy,
repeatability, noise, and response time specifications for individual
measurement instruments, but note that we require that overall
measurement systems meet the calibrations and verifications in Subpart
D.
In some cases we allow new instrument types to be used where we
previously did not allow them. For example, we now allow the use of a
nonmethane cutter for NMHC measurement, a nondispersive ultraviolet
analyzers for NOX measurement, zirconia sensors for
O2 measurement, various raw-exhaust flow meters for
laboratory and field testing measurement, and an ultrasonic flow meter
for CVS systems.
(4) Subpart D Calibrations and Verifications
Subpart D describes what we mean when we specify accuracy,
repeatability and other parameters in Subpart C. These specifications
apply to both laboratory and field testing. We are adopting
calibrations and verifications that scale with engine size and with the
emission standards to which an engine is certified. We are replacing
some of what we have called ``calibrations'' in the past with a series
of verifications, such as a linearity verification, which essentially
verifies the calibration of an instrument without specifying how the
instrument must be initially calibrated. Because new instruments have
built-in routines that linearize signals and compensate for various
interferences, our existing calibration specifications sometimes
conflicted with an instrument manufacturer's instructions. In addition,
there are new verifications in subpart D to ensure that the new
instruments we specify in Subpart C are used correctly.
(5) Subpart E Engine Selection, Preparation, and Maintenance
Subpart E describes how to select, prepare, and maintain a test
engine. We updated these provisions to include both gasoline and diesel
engines.
(6) Subpart F Test Protocols
Subpart F describes the step-by-step protocols for engine mapping,
test cycle generation, test cycle validation, pre-test preconditioning,
engine starting, emission sampling, and post-test validations. We
adopted an improved way to map and generate cycles for constant-speed
engines that would better represent in-use engine operation. We adopted
a more streamlined set of test cycle and validation criteria. We allow
modest corrections for drift of emission analyzer signals within a
certain range.
(7) Subpart G Calculations and Required Information
Subpart G includes all the calculations required in part 1065. We
adopted definitions of statistical quantities such as mean, standard
deviation, slope, intercept, t-test, F-test, etc. By defining these
quantities mathematically we intend to resolve any potential ambiguity
when we discuss these quantities in other subparts. We have written all
calculations for calibrations and emission calculations in
international units to comply with 15 CFR part 1170, which removes the
voluntary aspect of the conversion to international units for federal
agencies. Furthermore, Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801, July 29,
1991) reinforces this policy by providing Presidential authority and
direction for the use of the metric system of measurement by Federal
agencies and departments. For our standards that are not completely in
international units (i.e., grams/horsepower-hour, grams/mile), we
specify in part 1065 the correct use of internationally recognized
conversion factors.
We also specify emission calculations based on molar quantities for
flow rates instead of volume or mass. This change eliminates the
frequent confusion caused by using different reference points for
standard pressure and standard temperature. Instead of declaring
standard densities at standard pressure and standard temperature to
convert volumetric concentration measurements to mass-based units, we
declare molar masses for individual elements and compounds. Since these
values are independent of all other parameters, they are known to be
universally constant.
(8) Subpart H Fuels, Fluids, and Analytical Gases
Subpart H specifies test fuels, lubricating oils and coolants, and
analytical gases for testing. We are not identifying any detailed
specification for service accumulation fuel. Instead, we specify that
service accumulation fuel must be either a test fuel or a commercially
available in-use fuel. This helps ensure that testing is representative
of in-use engine operation. We are adding a list of ASTM specifications
for in-use fuels as examples of appropriate service accumulation fuels.
Compared to the proposed regulatory language, we have clarified that
Sec. 1065.10(c)(1) does not require test fuels to be more
representative than the specified test fuels. We have added an
allowance to use similar test fuels that do not meet all of the
specifications provided they do not compromise the manufacturer's
ability to demonstrate compliance. We also now allow the use of ASTM
test methods specified in 40 CFR part 80 in lieu of those specified in
part 1065. We did this because we may more frequently review and update
the ASTM methods in part 80 versus those in part 1065.
Proper testing requires the use of good engineering judgment to
maintain the stability of analytical gases.
(9) Subpart I Oxygenated Fuels
Subpart I describes special procedures for measuring certain
hydrocarbons whenever oxygenated fuels are used. We updated the
calculations for these procedures in Subpart G. We have made some
revisions to the proposed text to make it consistent with the original
content of the comparable provisions in part 86. We have also added an
allowance to use the California NMOG test procedures to measure
alcohols and carbonyls.
(10) Subpart J Field Testing and Portable Emissions Measurement Systems
Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) for field testing for
marine spark-ignition engines must generally meet the same
specifications and verifications that laboratory instruments must meet
according to subparts B, C, and D. However, we allow some deviations
from laboratory specifications. In addition to meeting many of the
laboratory system requirements, a PEMS must meet an overall
verification relative to laboratory measurements. This verification
involves repeating a duty cycle several times. The duty cycle itself
must have several individual field-test intervals (e.g., NTE events)
against which a PEMS is compared to the laboratory system. This is a
comprehensive verification of a PEMS. We also adopted a procedure for
preparing and conducting a field test and adopted drift corrections for
emission analyzers. Given the evolving state of PEMS technology, the
field-testing procedures provide for a number of known measurement
techniques. We have added provisions and conditions for using PEMS in
an engine dynamometer laboratory to conduct laboratory testing.
[[Page 28207]]
(11) Subpart K Definitions, References, and Symbols
Subpart K includes all the defined terms, identification of
reference materials, and lists of acronyms and abbreviations used
throughout part 1065.
B. Special Provisions for Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
While part 1065 defines a wide range of specifications to define
appropriate test procedures, several parameters are unique to each
program. For example, each category of engines has one or more duty
cycles that describe exactly how to operate each engine during the
test. These category-specific provisions are described in part 1045,
subpart F, for Marine SI engines and in part 1054, subpart F, for Small
SI engines.
Manufacturers may run the specified steady-state duty cycle either
as a series of discrete modes or as a ramped-modal cycle. The ramped-
modal cycle specifies the same engine speeds and loads as in
conventional discrete-mode testing, but the modes are connected by
gradual ramps in engine speed and torque for a single, continuous
emission-sampling period. The different modes are connected with
twenty-second linear speed and torque transitions during which
emissions are measured. Emission sampling therefore starts at the
beginning of a ramped-modal cycle and does not stop until its last mode
is completed.
Ramped-modal cycles involve a different sequence of modes than is
specified for discrete-mode testing. For example, the first mode, which
is engine idle, is split so that half the idle mode occurs at the
beginning of the test and half occurs at the end of the test. This
helps facilitate certain technical aspects of emission sampling.
Instead of using weighting factors for each steady-state mode, a
ramped-modal cycle specifies different time durations for each mode.
Time durations of the modes and transitions are proportioned to the
established modal weighting factors for the specified cycle.
There are several advantages to ramped-modal testing. Using
discrete-mode testing, manufacturers sample emissions for an
unspecified time duration near the end of each individual mode. The
result is several separate measurements that must be combined
mathematically to yield an overall emission result in g/kW-hr. The
ramped-modal cycle has a single emission-sampling period. This
decreases testing variability and reduces the overall cost of running
tests. Ramped-modal testing also enables the use of batch sampling
systems such as bag samplers.
X. Energy, Noise, and Safety
Section 213 of the Clean Air Act directs us to consider the
potential impacts on safety, noise, and energy when establishing the
feasibility of emission standards for nonroad engines. Furthermore,
section 205 of EPA's 2006 Appropriations Act requires us to assess
potential safety issues, including the risk of fire and burn to
consumers in use, associated with the proposed emission standards for
nonroad spark-ignition engines below 50 horsepower.\99\ As further
detailed in the following sections, we expect that the proposed exhaust
and evaporative emission standards will either have no adverse affect
on safety, noise, and energy or will improve certain aspects of these
important characteristics. A more in depth discussion of these topics
relative to the proposed exhaust and evaporative emission standards is
contained in Chapters 4 and 5 of the Draft RIA, respectively. Also, our
conclusions relative to safety are fully documented in our
comprehensive safety study which is discussed in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. 109-54, Title II, sec.
205, 119 Stat. 499, 532 (August 2, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Safety
We conducted a comprehensive, multi-year safety study of spark-
ignition engines that focused on the four areas where we are proposing
new emission standards.\100\ These areas are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ ``EPA Technical Study on the Safety of Emission Controls
for Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines < 50 Horsepower,'' Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA420-R-06-006, March 2006. This document
is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008. This report was also
subject to peer review, as described in a peer review report that is
also available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New catalyst-based HC+NOX exhaust emission
standards for Class I and Class II nonhandheld spark-ignition engines;
New fuel evaporative emission standards for nonhandheld
and handheld equipment;
New HC+NOX exhaust emission standards for
outboard and personal watercraft engines and vessels, and a new CO
exhaust emission standard for nonhandheld engines used in marine
auxiliary applications; and
New fuel evaporative emission standards for outboard and
personal watercraft engines and vessels.
Each of these four areas is discussed in greater detail in the next
sections.
(1) Exhaust Emission Standards for Small Spark-Ignition Engines
The technology approaches that we assessed for achieving the
proposed Small SI engine standards included exhaust catalyst
aftertreatment and improvements to engine and fuel system designs. In
addition to our own testing and development effort, we also met with
engine and equipment manufacturers to better understand their designs
and technology and to determine the state of technological progress
beyond EPA's Phase 2 emission standards.
The scope of our safety study included Class I and Class II engine
systems that are used in residential walk-behind and ride-on lawn mower
applications, respectively. Residential lawn mower equipment was chosen
for the following reasons.
Lawn mowers and the closely-related category of lawn
tractors overwhelmingly represent the largest categories of equipment
using Class I and Class II engines.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) data indicate
that more thermal burn injuries are associated with lawn mowers than
occur with other nonhandheld equipment; lawn mowers therefore represent
the largest thermal burn risk for these classes of engines.
General findings regarding advanced emission control
technologies for residential lawn and garden equipment carry over to
commercial lawn and turf care equipment as well as to other nonhandheld
equipment using Class I and Class II engines.
We conducted the technical study of the incremental risk on several
fronts. First, working with CPSC, we evaluated their reports and
databases and other outside sources to identify those in-use situations
which create fire and burn risk for consumers. The outside sources
included meetings, workshops, and discussions with engine and equipment
manufacturers. From this information, we identified ten scenarios for
evaluation that covered a comprehensive variety of in-use conditions or
circumstances which potentially could lead to an increased risk in
burns or fires.
Second, we conducted extensive laboratory and field testing of both
current technology (Phase 2) and prototype catalyst-equipped advanced-
technology engines and equipment (Phase 3) to assess the emission
control performance and thermal characteristics of the engines and
equipment. This testing included a comparison of exhaust system,
engine, and equipment
[[Page 28208]]
surface temperatures using still and full motion video thermal imaging
equipment.
Third, we conducted a design and process Failure Mode and Effects
Analyses (FMEA) comparing current Phase 2 and Phase 3 compliant engines
and equipment to evaluate incremental changes in risk probability as a
way of evaluating the incremental risk of upgrading Phase 2 engines to
meet Phase 3 emission standards.\101\ This is an engineering analysis
tool to help engineers and other professional staff to identify and
manage risk. In an FMEA, potential failure modes, causes of failure,
and failure effects are identified and a resulting risk probability is
calculated from these results. This risk probability is used by the
FMEA team to rank problems for potential action to reduce or eliminate
the causal factors. Identifying these causal factors is important
because they are the elements that a manufacturer can consider to
reduce the adverse effects that might result from a particular failure
mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ ``EPA Technical Study on the Safety of Emission Controls
for Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines < 50 Horsepower,'' Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA420-R-06-006, March 2006. This document
is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our technical work and subsequent analysis of all of the data and
information strongly indicate that effective catalyst-based standards
can be implemented without an incremental increase in the risk of fire
or burn to the consumer either during or after using the equipment.
Similarly, we did not find any increase in the risk of fire during
refueling or in storage near typical combustible materials. For
example, our testing program demonstrated that properly designed
catalyst-mufflers could, in some cases, actually result in systems that
were significantly cooler than many current original equipment
mufflers. A number of design elements appear useful to properly
managing heat loads including: (1) The use of catalyst designs that
minimize CO oxidation through careful selection of catalyst size,
washcoat composition, and precious metal loading; (2) positioning the
catalyst within the cooling air flow of the engine fan or redirecting
some cooling air over the catalyst area with a steel shroud; (3)
redirecting exhaust flow through multiple chambers or baffles within
the catalyst-muffler; and (4) larger catalyst-muffler volumes than the
original equipment muffler.
(2) Fuel Evaporative Emission Standards for Nonhandheld and Handheld
Engines and Equipment
We reviewed the fuel line and fuel tank characteristics for
nonhandheld and handheld equipment and evaluated control technology
which could be used to reduce evaporative emissions from these two
subcategories. The available technology is capable of achieving
reductions in fuel tank and fuel line permeation without an adverse
incremental impact on safety. For fuel lines and fuel tanks, the
applicable consensus safety standards, manufacturer specific test
procedures and EPA requirements are sufficient to ensure that there
will be no increase in the types of fuel leaks that lead to fire and
burn risk during in-use operation. Instead, these standards will reduce
vapor emissions both during operation and in storage. That reduction,
coupled with some expected equipment redesign, is expected to lead to
reductions in the risk of fire or burn without affecting component
durability.
The Failure Mode and Effects Analyses, which was described in the
previous section, also evaluated permeation and running loss controls
on nonhandheld engines. We found that these controls would not increase
the probability of fire and burn risk from those expected with current
fuel systems, but could in fact lead to directionally improved systems
from a safety perspective. Finally, the running loss control program
being proposed for nonhandheld equipment will lead to changes that are
expected to reduce risk of fire during in-use operation. Moving fuel
tanks away from heat sources, improving cap designs to limit leakage on
tip over, and requiring a tethered cap will all help to eliminate
conditions which lead to in-use problems related to fuel leaks and
spillage. Therefore, we believe the application of emission control
technology to reduce evaporative emissions from these fuel lines and
fuel tanks will not lead to an increase in incremental risk of fires or
burns and in some cases is likely to at least directionally reduce such
risks.
(3) Exhaust Emission Standards for Outboard and Personal Watercraft
Marine Engines and Vessels and Marine Auxiliary Engines
Our analysis of exhaust emission standards for OB/PWC engines and
marine auxiliary engines found that the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) has
comprehensive safety standards that apply to engines and fuel systems
used in these vessels. Additionally, organizations such as the Society
of Automotive Engineers, Underwriters Laboratories, and the American
Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) also have safety standards that apply in
this area. We also found that the four-stroke and two-stroke direct
injection engine technologies which are likely to be used to meet the
exhaust emission standards contemplated for OB/PWC engines are in
widespread use in the vessel fleet today. These more sophisticated
engine technologies are replacing the traditional two-stroke carbureted
engines. The four-stroke and two-stroke direct injection engines meet
applicable USCG and ABYC safety standards and future products will do
so as well. The proposed emission standards must be complementary to
existing safety standards and our analysis indicates that this will be
the case. There are no known safety issues with the advanced
technologies compared with two-stroke carbureted engines. The newer-
technology engines arguably provide safety benefits due to improved
engine reliability and range in-use. Based on the applicability of USCG
and ABYC safety standards and the good in-use experience with advanced-
technology engines in the current vessel fleet, we believe new emission
standards would not create an incremental increase in the risk of fire
or burn to the consumer.
(4) Fuel Evaporative Emission Standards for Outboard and Personal
Watercraft Engines and Vessels
We reviewed the fuel line and fuel tank characteristics for marine
vessels and evaluated control technology which could be used to reduce
evaporative emissions from boats. With regard to fuel lines, fuel
tanks, and diurnal controls, there are rigorous USCG, ABYC, United
Laboratories, and Society of Automotive Engineers standards which
manufacturers will continue to meet for fuel system components. All of
these standards are designed to address the in-use performance of fuel
systems, with the goal of eliminating fuel leaks. The low-permeation
fuel lines and tanks needed to meet the Phase 3 requirements would need
to pass these standards and every indication is that they would
pass.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ ``EPA Technical Study on the Safety of Emission Controls
for Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines < 50 Horsepower,'' Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA420-R-06-006, March 2006. This document
is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the EPA permeation certification requirements related
to emissions durability will add an additional layer of assurance. Low-
permeation fuel lines are used safely
[[Page 28209]]
today in many marine vessels. Low-permeation fuel tanks and diurnal
emission controls have been demonstrated in various applications for
many years without an increase in safety risk. Furthermore, a properly
designed fuel system with fuel tank and fuel line permeation controls
and diurnal emission controls would reduce the fuel vapor in the boat,
thereby reducing the opportunities for fuel related fires. In addition,
using improved low-permeation materials coupled with designs meeting
USCG and ABYC requirements should reduce the risk of fuel leaks into
the vessel. We believe the application of emission control technologies
on marine engines and vessels for meeting the proposed fuel evaporative
emission standards would not lead to an increase in incremental risk of
fires or burns, and in many cases may incrementally decrease safety
risk in certain situations.
B. Noise
As automotive technology demonstrates, achieving low emissions from
spark-ignition engines can correspond with greatly reduced noise
levels. Direct-injection two-stroke and four-stroke OB/PWC have been
reported to be much quieter than traditional carbureted two-stroke
engines. Catalysts in the exhaust act as mufflers which can reduce
noise. Additionally, adding a properly designed catalyst to the
existing muffler found on all Small SI engines can offer the
opportunity to incrementally reduce noise.
C. Energy
(1) Exhaust Emission Standards
Adopting new technologies for controlling fuel metering and air-
fuel mixing, particularly the conversion of some carbureted engines to
advanced fuel injection technologies, will lead to improvements in fuel
consumption. This is especially true for OB/PWC engines where we expect
the proposed standards to result in the replacement of old technology
carbureted two-stroke engines with more fuel-efficient technologies
such as two-stroke direct injection or four-stroke engines. Carbureted
crankcase-scavenged two-stroke engines are inefficient in that 25
percent or more of the fuel entering the engine may leave the engine
unburned. EPA estimates that conversion to more fuel efficient
recreational marine engines would save 61 million gallons of gasoline
per year in 2030. The conversion of some carbureted Small SI engines to
fuel injection technologies is also expected to improve fuel economy.
We estimate approximately 18 percent of the Class II engines will be
converted to fuel injection and that this will result in a fuel savings
of about 10 percent for each converted engine. This translates to a
fuel savings of about 56 million gallons of gasoline in 2030 when all
of the Class II engines used in the U.S. will comply with the proposed
Phase 3 standards. By contrast, the use of catalyst-based control
systems on Small SI engines is not expected to change their fuel
consumption characteristics.
(2) Fuel Evaporative Emission Standards
We anticipate that the proposed fuel evaporative emission standards
will have a positive impact on energy. By capturing or preventing the
loss of fuel due to evaporation, we estimate that the lifetime average
fuel savings would be about 1.6 gallons for an average piece of Small
SI equipment and 32 gallons for an average boat. This translates to a
fuel savings of about 41 million gallons for Small SI equipment and 30
million gallons for Marine SI vessels in 2030 when most of the affected
equipment used in the U.S. would be expected to have evaporative
emission controls.
XI. Proposals Affecting Other Engine and Vehicle Categories
We are proposing to make several regulatory changes that would
affect engines, equipment, and vessels other than Small SI and Marine
SI. These changes are described in the following sections. We request
comment on all aspects of these proposed changes.
A. State Preemption
Section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act prohibits states and their
political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing standards and other
requirements relating to the control of emissions from nonroad engines
or vehicles. Section 209(e) authorizes EPA to waive this preemption for
California for standards and other requirements for nonroad engines and
vehicles, excluding new engines that are smaller than 175 horsepower
used in farm or construction equipment or vehicles and new locomotives
or new engines used in locomotives. States other than California may
adopt and enforce standards identical to California standards
authorized by EPA.
EPA promulgated regulations implementing section 209(e) on July 20,
1994 (59 FR 36987). EPA subsequently promulgated revised regulations
implementing section 209(e) on December 30, 1997 (62 FR 67733). See 40
CFR part 85, subpart Q. We are proposing to create a new part 1074 that
would describe the federal preemption of state and local emission
requirements. This is being done as part of EPA's ongoing effort to
write its regulations in plain language format in subchapter U of title
40 of the CFR. The proposed regulations are based directly on the
existing regulations in 40 CFR part 85, subpart Q. With the exception
of the simplification of the language and specific changes described in
this section, we are not changing the meaning of these regulations.
Pursuant to section 428 of the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations
Act, we are proposing to add regulatory language to implement the
legislative restriction on states other than California adopting, after
September 1, 2003, standards or other requirements applicable to spark-
ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower. We are also proposing to
add, pursuant to that legislation, criteria for EPA's consideration in
authorizing California to adopt and enforce standards applicable to
such engines.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See section 428 of the Appropriations Act for 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 2002, the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA) petitioned EPA to amend EPA's rules implementing
section 209(e) of the Act.\104\ In particular, ARTBA petitioned EPA to
amend its regulations and interpretive rule regarding preemption of
state and local requirements ``that impose in-use and operational
controls or fleet-wide purchase, sale or use standards on nonroad
engines.''\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ ``Petition to Amend Rules Implementing Clean Air Act
section 209(e),'' American Road and Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA), July 12, 2002. Also, EPA received an additional
communication from ARTBA urging EPA to grant the petition after the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in EMA v. SCAQMD, 541 U.S. 246
(2004). See ``ARTBA Petition,'' L. Joseph, ARTBA, to D. Dickinson &
R. Doyle, EPA, April 30, 2004. These documents are available in
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
\105\ In 1994, EPA promulgated an interpretive rule at Appendix
A to subpart A of 40 CFR part 89. The appendix provides that state
restrictions on the use and operation of nonroad engines are not
preempted under section 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTBA believes such controls should be preempted. As we are already
revising the preemption provisions to a certain extent in this rule, we
believe it is appropriate to respond to ARTBA's petition in the context
of this rule, while giving the public the ability to respond to provide
comments regarding ARTBA's petition. EPA is not proposing to adopt the
explicit changes requested by ARTBA in its petition; however, EPA will
continue to review the arguments raised by ARTBA's petition, as well as
all further arguments provided by ARTBA and other commenters during the
period for notice and comment on
[[Page 28210]]
this issue. We will respond to the petition, and if appropriate, make
any changes to the regulations to conform our response to ARTBA and
other commenters in the final rule. We request comment from the public
regarding issues related to ARTBA's petition and how we should respond.
B. Certification Fees
Under our current certification program, manufacturers pay a fee to
cover the costs associated with various certification and other
compliance activities associated with an EPA issued certificate of
conformity. These fees are based on the actual and/or projected cost to
EPA per emission family. We are proposing to establish a new fees
category for certification related to the proposed evaporative emission
standards. Sections III and VI describe how these fees would apply to
sterndrive/inboard marine engines and equipment and vessels subject to
evaporative emission standards since these products are not currently
required to pay certification fees.
In addition, we are proposing to create a new part 1027 in title 40
that would incorporate the new and existing fee requirements under a
single part in the regulations. This is being done as part of EPA's
ongoing effort to write its regulations in plain language format in
subchapter U of title 40 of the CFR. The proposed regulations are based
directly on the existing regulations in 40 CFR part 85, subpart Y.
Aside from a variety of specific changes, moving this language to part
1027 is not intended to affect the substance of the existing fee
provisions. We are proposing the following adjustments and
clarifications to the existing regulations:
Establishing a new fees category for new evaporative
emission standards.
Eliminating one of the paths for applying for a reduced
fee. The existing regulations specify that applications covering fewer
than six vehicles or engines, each with an estimated retail sales price
below $75,000, shall receive a certificate for five vehicles or
engines. Holders of these certificates are required to submit an annual
model year reduced fee payment report adjusting the fees paid. We are
proposing to eliminate this pathway and the associated report, as they
are complex and have been rarely used.
Clarifying the obligation to make additional payment on a
reduced fee certificate if the actual final sales price is more than
the projected retail sales price for a reduced fee vehicle or engine.
As before, the final fee payment must also reflect the actual number of
vehicles.
Applying the calculated fee changes for later years, which
are based on the Consumer Price Index and the total number of
certificates, only after the change in the fee's value since the last
reported change has reached $50. The fee change for the ``Other''
category for calendar year 2005 to 2006 changed from $826 to $839 and
for non-road compression-ignition engines from $1822 to $1831. Under
the proposal, the fee would not change until such time as the fee
increase would be $50.00 or greater. This might not occur after one
year, but after two or more years the calculated increase in a fee
based on the change in the Consumer Price Index might be more than
$50.00. The same applies if the price goes both up and down. For
example, if the fee published in EPA guidance for a category of engine
was $1,000 in 2011 and the calculated fee for 2012 is $990 and in 2013
is $1040, the fee in 2013 would remain at $1,000 since the change from
the 2011 fee is only $40. This would minimize confusion related to
changing fees where the calculated fee is very close to that already
established for the previous year. It will also lessen paperwork and
administrative burdens for manufacturers and EPA in making adjustments
for small fees changes for applications that are completed around the
change in a calendar year. The number of certificates may go up or down
in any given year, while the Consumer Price Index would generally
increase annually. As a result, this change would be revenue-neutral or
would perhaps slightly decrease overall revenues.
Clarifying that all fee-related records need to be kept,
not just those related to the ``final reduced fee calculation and
adjustment.''
Adding www.Pay.gov or other methods specified in guidance
as acceptable alternative methods for payment and filing of fee forms.
We anticipate several changes in administration of the fees program in
coming months. It is likely that future payment of fees by electronic
funds transfers (other than wire payments through the Federal Reserve)
will be available only through online payments via www.Pay.gov. We are
also receiving an increasing number of fee forms through e-mail
submissions, which has proved to be a reliable and convenient method.
We will be establishing a specific e-mail address for these
submissions.
Establishing a single deadline for all types of refunds:
total, partial for reduced fees, and partial for corrections. In all
cases, refund requests must be received within six months of the end of
the model year. A common type of request is due to an error in the fee
amount paid as a result of changed fees for a new calendar year. We
frequently apply these overpayments to other pending certification
applications. This is less burdensome than applying for a simple
refund, both for EPA and for most manufacturers. Applications to apply
such refunds to other certification applications must also be received
within six months of the end of the model year of the original engine
family or test group.
Emphasizing with additional cross references that the same
reduced fee provisions that apply to Independent Commercial Importers
also apply to modification and test vehicle certificates under 40 CFR
85.1509 and 89.609: the number of vehicles covered is listed on the
certificate, a revision of the certificate must be applied for and
additional reduced fee payments made if additional vehicles are to be
covered, and the certificate must be revised to show the new total
number of vehicles to be covered.
C. Amendments to General Compliance Provisions in 40 CFR Part 1068
The provisions of part 1068 currently apply for nonroad diesel
engines regulated under 40 CFR part 1039, Large SI engines regulated
under 40 CFR part 1048, and recreational vehicles regulated under 40
CFR part 1051. We are proposing to apply these provisions also for
Small SI and Marine SI engines, equipment, and vessels. Any changes we
make to part 1068 will apply equally for these other types of engines
and vehicles. We therefore encourage comment from any affected
companies for any of these proposed changes.
The most significant change we are proposing for part 1068 is to
clarify the language throughout to make necessary distinctions between
engines, equipment, and fuel-system components--and particularly
between equipment using certified engines and equipment that has been
certified to meet equipment-based standards. This becomes necessary
because the evaporative emission standards proposed in this document
apply in some cases to equipment manufacturers and boat builders, while
the exhaust emission standards apply only to engine manufacturers. Some
provisions in part 1068 apply to equipment manufacturers differently if
they hold a certificate of conformity rather than merely installing
certified engines (or certified fuel-system components). The proposed
changes in regulatory language are intended to help make those
distinctions. See Sec. 1068.2 for a
[[Page 28211]]
description of the proposed terminology that we intend to use
throughout part 1068.
We are aware that in some cases manufacturers produce nonroad
engines by starting with a complete or partially complete engine from
another manufacturer and modifying it as needed for the particular
application. This is especially common for Marine SI and Large SI
engines and equipment, but it may also occur for other types of nonroad
engines and equipment. We are concerned that an interpretation of the
prohibited acts in Sec. 1068.101 would disallow this practice because
the original engine manufacturer is arguably selling an engine that is
not covered by a certificate of conformity even though emission
standards apply. We are addressing this first by proposing to define
``engine'' for the purposes of the regulations (see Sec. 1068.30). To
do this, we differentiate between complete engines and partially
complete engines, both of which need to be covered by a certificate.
Partially complete engines would include any engine, consisting of the
engine block plus at least one attached component such that the engine
is not yet in its final, certified configuration. We are also proposing
to allow for a path by which the original engine manufacturer would not
need to certify partially complete engines or request approval for an
exemption (see Sec. 1068.262). To do this though, the original engine
manufacturer would need a written request from a secondary engine
manufacturer who already holds a valid certificate of conformity for
the engine based on its final configuration and application. These
proposed provisions are intended generally to be clarifications of the
existing regulatory provisions, particularly those in Sec. 1068.330
for imported engines.
One situation involving partially complete engines involves the
engine block as a replacement part where the original engine had major
structural damage. In this case the engine manufacturer will typically
sell an engine block with piston, crankshaft, and other internal
components to allow the user to repower with many of the components
from the original engine. Under the proposed definitions, these short
blocks or three-quarter blocks would be new engines subject to emission
standards. We believe it would be appropriate to address this situation
in the regulations with the replacement engine provisions in Sec.
1068.240, which provides a path for making new engines that are exempt
from current emission standards. We request comment on applying these
replacement-engine provisions to engine blocks as replacement parts.
We are proposing to further clarify the requirement for engine
manufacturers to sell engines in their certified configuration. The
existing provisions in Sec. 1068.260 describe how manufacturers may
use delegated assembly to arrange for equipment manufacturers to
separately source aftertreatment components for engines that depend on
aftertreatment to meet emission standards. We are proposing to include
language to clarify that we will consider an engine to be in its
certified configuration in certain circumstances even if emission-
related components are not assembled to the engine. This is intended to
reflect common practice that has developed over the years. We are also
proposing to clarify that engines may be shipped without radiators or
other components that are unrelated to emission controls, and that we
may approve requests to ship engines without emission-related
components in some circumstances. This would generally be limited to
equipment-related components such as vehicle-speed sensors. We could
specify conditions that we determine are needed to ensure that shipping
the engine without such components will not result in the engine being
operated outside of its certified configuration.
We adopted a definition of ``nonroad engine'' that continues to
apply today (see Sec. 1068.30). This definition distinguishes between
portable or transportable engines that may be considered either nonroad
or stationary, depending on the way they will be used. The distinction
between nonroad and stationary engines is most often relevant for new
engines in determining which emission standards apply. However, we have
received numerous questions related to equipment whose usage has
changed so that the original designation no longer applies. The
definition does not address these situations. We are therefore
proposing to adopt provisions that would apply when an engine
previously used in a nonroad application is subsequently used in an
application other than a nonroad application, or when an engine
previous used in a stationary application is moved (see Sec. 1068.31).
In addition, we are proposing several amendments to part 1068 to
clarify various items. These include:
Sec. 1068.101(a)(1): Revising the prohibited act to
specify that engines must be ``covered by'' a certificate rather than
``having'' a certificate. The revised language is more descriptive and
consistent with the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 1068.101(a)(1)(i): Clarifying that engines or
equipment are considered to be uncertified if they are not in a
configuration that is included in the applicable certificate of
conformity. This would apply even if the product had an emission label
stating that it complies with emission standards.
Sec. 1068.101(a)(2): Clarifying the prohibition on
recordkeeping to apply also to submission of records to the Agency.
Sec. 1068.101(b)(2): Adding a prohibition against using
engines in a way that renders emission controls inoperative, such as
misfueling or failing to use additives that the manufacturer specifies
as part of the engine's certified configuration. This is more likely to
apply for compression-ignition engines than spark-ignition engines.
Sec. 1068.101(b)(7): Clarifying the prohibitions related
to warranty to require the submission of specified information in the
application for certification; adding language to identify obligations
related to recall; and preventing the manufacturer from communicating
to users that warranty coverage is conditioned on using authorized
parts or service facilities. These provisions are consistent with
requirements that apply in other EPA programs.
Sec. 1068.105(a): Revising the regulation to allow
equipment manufacturers to use up normal inventories of previous model
year engines only if it is a continuation of ongoing production with
existing inventories. These provisions would not apply for an equipment
manufacturer starting to produce a new equipment model.
Sec. 1068.105: Eliminating paragraph (b) related to using
highway certification for nonroad engines or equipment, since these
provisions are spelled out specifically for each nonroad program where
appropriate.
Sec. 1068.105(b): Clarifying the requirement to follow
emission-related installation instructions to include installation
instructions from manufacturers that certify components to evaporative
emission standards.
Sec. 1068.120: Clarifying the rebuilding provisions to
apply to maintenance related to evaporative emissions.
Sec. 1068.240: Clarifying that the scope of the exemption
for new replacement engines is limited to certain engines; also
clarifying that the replacement engine provisions apply for replacing
engines that meet alternate emission standards (such as those produced
[[Page 28212]]
under the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers).
Sec. 1068.250: Revising the applicability of the hardship
provisions to small businesses more broadly by referring to a term that
is defined in Sec. 1068.30; this would include small businesses as
identified in the standard-setting part, or any companies that meet the
criteria established by the Small Business Administration.
Sec. 1068.250: Clarifying the timing related to hardship
approvals, and the ability to get extensions under appropriate
circumstances.
Sec. 1068.260: Revising the provisions related to
delegated assembly as described in Section XI.F and clarifying that
reduced auditing rates as specified in paragraph (a)(6) should be based
on the number of equipment manufacturers involved rather than the
number of engines; also specifying that manufacturers may itemize
invoices to ensure that the Customs valuation for assessment of import
duties is based on the price of the imported engine without the
aftertreatment components that are being shipped separately. We request
comment on adding a provision allowing for a separate invoice for
aftertreatment components that are shipped separately.
Sec. 1068.305: Clarifying that the requirement to submit
importation forms applies to all engines, not just nonconforming
engines; also adding a requirement to keep these records for five
years. Both of these changes are consistent with the Customs
regulations at 19 CFR 12.74.
Part 1068, Appendix I: Clarifying that the fuel system
includes evaporative-related components and that the parts comprising
the engine's combustion chamber are emission-related components.
Manufacturers have also expressed a concern that the engine
rebuilding provisions in Sec. 1068.120 do not clearly address the
situation in which rebuilt engines are used to repower equipment where
the engine being replaced meets alternate emission standards (such as
those produced under the Transition Program for Equipment
Manufacturers). These engines are not certified to the emission
standards that would otherwise apply for the given model year, so there
may be some confusion regarding the appropriate way of applying these
regulatory requirements.
In Section V.E.6 we describe several proposed special compliance
provisions that are intended to improve our ability to oversee our
emission control program for Small SI engines. For example, we are
proposing that manufacturers take steps to ensure that they will be
able to honor emission-related warranty claims, meet any compliance- or
enforcement-related obligations that may arise, and import new engines
and equipment in a timely manner after we adopt new standards. We
request comment on the appropriateness of adopting any or all of those
provisions under part 1068 such that they would apply to all engines
and equipment subject to part 1068. We also request comment on any
adjustments to those provisions that would be appropriate for other
categories of engines and equipment, whether we choose to adopt these
provisions in this proposal or in a separate rulemaking.
In addition, we request comment on early application of the
provisions of part 1068 before the standards proposed in this notice
take effect. For example, for any provisions not directly related to
the emission standards, we could revise the regulations in part 90 and
part 91 to reference the corresponding provisions in part 1068. We
similarly request comment on making these changes for diesel engines
regulated under part 89 (land-based) and part 94 (marine). This would
allow us to accelerate the transition to plain-language regulations and
prevent confusion from maintaining multiple versions of similar
provisions for several years. We would also be able to substantially
decrease printing costs. The provisions most appropriately considered
for early transition to part 1068 include: (1) Selective enforcement
audits, (2) exemptions, (3) importation provisions, (4) defect
reporting and recall, (5) hearing procedures, and (6) treatment of
confidential information.
We are also seeking comment on revisions to 40 CFR 1068.101.
Section 203 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7522) states that performing certain
acts, ``and causing thereof,'' constitutes a prohibited act. We are
interested in revising the regulations to specifically include this
prohibition on the ``causing'' of any of the prohibited acts listed in
the statute and the regulations. Adding this clarification would help
people who are subject to the regulations to more fully understand what
actions are prohibited and may potentially subject them to enforcement
proceedings under the Act. The revisions themselves would not be
intended to add new enforcement authorities beyond what is already
specified in the statute.
If we consider it a violation to cause someone to commit a
prohibited act, then persons causing any prohibited act would also be
subject to the full administrative and judicial enforcement actions
allowable under the Act and the regulations. The prohibition on
``causing'' a prohibited act would apply to all persons and would not
be limited to manufacturers or importers of regulated engines or
equipment.
If this provision is adopted, EPA would interpret the ``causation''
aspect of section 203 broadly. In assessing whether a person has caused
a prohibited act, EPA would evaluate the totality of circumstances. For
example, in certain circumstances EPA believes a retailer may be
responsible for causing the importation of engines or equipment not
covered by a valid certificate of conformity or otherwise in violation
of our regulations, such as the labeling requirements. In addition to
the prohibitions that apply to manufacturers and importers generally
under section 203, EPA will also consider many factors in assessing
whether a manufacturer, importer, retailer, distributor or other person
has caused a prohibited act, including, but not limited to, the
following: (1) The contractual or otherwise established business
relationship of those persons involved in producing and/or selling new
engines and equipment; (2) the particular efforts or influence of the
alleged violator contributing to, leading to or resulting in the
prohibited act; and (3) the efforts, or lack thereof, of the person to
prevent such a violation. EPA will evaluate the entire circumstances in
determining whether a person caused another person to commit a
prohibited act such as importing engines or equipment in violation of
our regulations.
D. Amendments Related to Large SI Engines (40 CFR Part 1048)
Manufacturers of Large SI engines are encouraged to review the
proposed changes described in Section XI.C related to 40 CFR part 1068.
Some of the issues related to Marine SI engines described in
Section III relate to Large SI engines. In particular, the uncertain
availability of certain base engine models from General Motors for use
in nonroad applications poses a challenge for efforts to certify the
engines to the Large SI standards. In particular, the uncertain lead
time associated with getting the new engines and the level of effort
expected for certifying the existing engine models that are planned for
obsolescence make it difficult for companies, especially small
businesses, to go through the certification process and recover costs
for repeated testing. Of greatest concern are requirements related to
developing deterioration factors for these engines. The existing
regulations allow for assigned deterioration factors for small
businesses, but these apply only to companies with fewer than 200
[[Page 28213]]
employees. We are therefore proposing to expand the definition of
small-volume engine manufacturer to also include companies with annual
U.S. sales of no more than 2000 Large SI engines. This would align with
the provisions already adopted by California ARB. Similarly, we are
proposing a provision allowing for assigned deterioration factors for
small-volume engine families for Small SI engines (see Section V). A
similar dynamic applies for Large SI engines. Any such allowance would
apply to engine families with projected sales up to 300 or 500 units to
reflect to different production volumes. We request comment on allowing
assigned deterioration factors for small-volume engine families for
Large SI engines, and on the appropriate threshold for this provision.
We are also proposing to revise the provisions related to
competition engines to align with the proposal for Small SI engines.
Any Small SI engine that is produced under the competition exemption
will very likely exceed 19 kW. As a result, we believe it is
appropriate to make these provisions identical to avoid confusion.
Manufacturers have notified us that the transient test for
constant-speed engines does not represent in-use operation in a way
that significantly affects measured emission levels. This notification
is required by Sec. 1065.10(c)(1). In particular, manufacturers have
pointed out that the specified operation involves light engine loads
such that combustion and exhaust temperatures do not rise enough to
reach catalyst light-off temperatures. As a result, meeting the
standard using the constant-speed transient test would require the use
of significantly oversized catalysts, which would add significant costs
without a commensurate improvement for in-use emission control. We
faced a similar dilemma in the effort to adopt transient standards for
nonroad diesel engines, concluding that the transient standards should
not apply until we develop a more suitable duty cycle that more
appropriately reflects in-use operation. We are proposing to take this
same approach for Large SI engines, waiving the requirement constant
speed engines to meet the transient standards until we are able to
develop a more appropriate duty cycle. Manufacturers must continue to
meet the standards for steady-state testing and the field-testing
standards continue to apply. We are also proposing to clarify that
manufacturers certifying constant-speed engines should describe their
approach to controlling emissions during transient operation in their
application for certification.
Manufacturers have also pointed out that a multiplicative
deterioration factor is problematic for engines with very low emission
levels. While the HC+NOX emissions may be as high as 2.7 g/
kW-hr, manufacturers are certifying some engine families with
deteriorated emission levels below 0.1 g/kW-hr. These very low emission
levels are well below the standard, but the measurement systems are
challenged to produce a precisely repeatable emission level at that
point. As a result, measurement variability and minor engine-to-engine
variability can lead to small absolute differences in emission levels
that become magnified by a deterioration factor that reflects the
extremely small low-hour measurement. We are therefore proposing to
specify that manufacturers use an additive deterioration factor if
their low-hour emission levels are below 0.3 g/kW-hr. This change would
accommodate the mathematical and analyzer effects of very low emission
levels without changing the current practice for the majority of
engines that are certified with emission levels closer to the standard.
This change would remove the incentive for manufacturers to increase
their engine's emission levels to avoid an artificially large
deterioration factor. The only exception would be for cases in which
good engineering judgment dictates that a multiplicative deterioration
factor would nevertheless be appropriate for engines with very low
emissions. This may be the case if an engine's deterioration can be
attributed, even at very low emission levels, to proportionally
decreased catalyst conversion of emissions from an aged engine. It is
important to note that Large SI engine manufacturers are subject to in-
use testing to demonstrate that they meet emission standards throughout
the useful life. Should such testing indicate that an additive
deterioration factor does not appropriately reflect actual performance,
we would require manufacturers to revise their deterioration factors
appropriately, as required under the current regulations. If such
discrepancies appear for multiple manufacturers, we would revise the
regulation to again require multiplicative deterioration factors for
all aftertreatment-based systems. We also request comment on a further
refinement of the form of the deterioration factor to more closely
reflect the degradation in catalyst conversion efficiency. For example,
measuring engine-out emissions would allow for calculating catalyst
conversion efficiency, such that changes in this parameter over an
engine's useful life could be factored into a calculation to
characterize an engine's actual rate of deterioration.
Most Large SI engines are installed in equipment that has metal
fuel tanks. This formed the basis of the regulatory approach to set
evaporative emission standards and certification requirements.
Manufacturers have raised questions about the appropriate steps to take
for systems that rely on plastic fuel tanks. These tanks are able to
meet standards, but questions have been raised about the engine
manufacturer's role in certifying a range of fuel tanks with their
engines. We request comment on the extent to which the current
regulatory requirements might limit the range of fuel tank designs.
The current permeation standards for Large SI equipment references
Category 1 fuel lines as defined in the version of SAE J2260 that was
issued in November, 1996. In 2004, the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) updated SAE J2260. Manufacturers have asked whether we will
approve fuel lines based on the updated procedures. The new procedures
have two primary differences related to fuel line permeation. First,
the test fuel was changed from CM15 to CE10.\106\ Second, the
associated limits for the different categories of fuel line permeation
were revised. Data presented in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA suggest that
permeation from low-permeation fuel line materials can be less than
half on CE10 than on CM15. The permeation specification for Category 1
fuel line was revised by SAE from 0-25 g/m\2\/day to 3-10 g/m\2\/day.
(A new Category 0 was added at 0-3 g/m\2\/day.) Directionally, the new
Category 1 permeation limits seem to account for the change in the test
fuel. In addition, ethanol fuel blends are commonly used in-use while
methanol fuel blends are less common. We request comment on updating
the regulations for Large SI equipment to reference the Category 1 fuel
line specifications in the updated version of SAE J2260 (revised
November 2004). We also request comment on whether this new
specification would affect the stringency of the standard or the choice
of fuel line constructions for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ ``C'' refers to fuel C as specified in ASTM D 412, E10
refers to 10 percent ethanol, and M15 refers to 15 percent methanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing several technical amendments to part 1048.
Many of these simply correct
[[Page 28214]]
typographical errors or add references to the proposed regulatory cites
in part 1054. Several changes are intended merely to align regulatory
language with that of other programs, including those that would be
subject to the standards proposed in this notice. In addition, we are
proposing the following changes:
Sec. 1048.5: Clarifying that locomotive propulsion
engines are not subject to Large SI emission standards, even if they
use spark-ignition engines. This is based on the separate provisions
that apply to locomotives in Clean Air Act section 213.
Sec. 1048.101: Clarifying manufacturer's responsibility
to meet emission standards for different types of testing, especially
to differentiate between field-testing standards and duty-cycle
standards.
Sec. 1048.105: Clarifying that only the permeation
standards of SAE J2260 apply to fuel lines used with Large SI engines.
Sec. 1048.105: Clarifying that the requirement to prevent
fuel boiling is affected by the pressure in the fuel tank. The
regulation currently characterizes the boiling point of fuel only at
atmospheric pressure. Pressurizing the fuel tank increases the boiling
point of the fuel.
Sec. 1048.105: Reorganizing the regulatory provisions to
align with the new language in 40 CFR part 1060. This is not intended
to change any of the applicable requirements.
Sec. 1048.110: Clarifying that ``malfunctions'' relate to
engines failing to maintain emission control and not to diagnostic
systems that fail to report signals; and clarifying that the
malfunction indicator light needs to stay illuminated for malfunctions
or for system errors.
Sec. 1048.120: Clarifying that the emission-related
warranty covers only those components from 40 CFR part 1068, Appendix
I, whose failure will increase emissions.
Sec. 1048.125: Clarifying the provisions related to
noncritical emission-related maintenance.
Sec. 1048.135: Revising the engine labeling requirements
to allow omission of the manufacturing date only if the date is stamped
or engraved on the engine, rather than allowing manufacturers to keep
records of engine build dates. This is important for verifying that
engines comply with standards based on their build date.
Sec. 1048.205: Removing detailed specifications for
describing auxiliary emission control devices in the application for
certification. This responds to the concern expressed by manufacturers
that the existing, very prescriptive approach requires much more
information than is needed to adequately describe emission control
systems. We are proposing to leave in place a broad requirement to
describe emission control systems and parameters in sufficient detail
to allow EPA to confirm that no defeat devices are employed.
Manufacturers should be motivated to include substantial information to
make such determinations in the certification process, rather than
being subject to this type of investigation for emission control
approaches that are found to be outside of the scope of the application
for certification.
Sec. 1048.205: Adding requirement to align projected
sales volumes with actual sales from previous years. This does not
imply additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements. It is
intended simply to avoid situations where manufacturers intentionally
mis-state their projected sales volume to gain some advantage under the
regulations.
Sec. 1048.205: Specifying that manufacturers must submit
modal emission results rather than just submitting a weighted average.
Since this information is already part of the demonstration related to
the field-testing standards, this should already be common practice.
Sec. 1048.220: Clarifying that if manufacturers change
their maintenance instructions after starting production for an engine
family, they may not disqualify engines for in-use testing or warranty
claims based on the fact that operators did not follow the revised
maintenance instructions.
Sec. 1048.225: Clarifying the terminology to refer to
``new or modified engine configurations'' rather than ``new or modified
nonroad engines.'' This is necessary to avoid using the term ``new
nonroad engine'' in a way that differs from the definitions in Sec.
1048.801.
Sec. 1048.230: Clarifying that engine families relate
fundamentally to emission certification and that we would expect
manufacturers to suggest a tailored approach to specifying engine
families under Sec. 1048.230(d) to occur only in unusual
circumstances.
1048.240: Adding a requirement for design-based
certification for the diurnal standards that fuel tanks need to use
low-permeation materials.
1048.245: Adding the provision to allow for component
certification for plastic fuel tanks. The revised language clarifies
the requirement related to allowing pressure relief for vacuum
pressures and for controlling permeation rates from plastic fuel tanks.
Sec. 1048.250: Adding a requirement for manufacturers to
report their sales volumes for an engine family if they are using a
provision that depends on production volumes.
Sec. 1048.301: Clarifying that engine families with
projected sales volumes below 150 units may have reduced testing rates
for production-line testing. This level of production does not allow
for adequate testing to use the statistical techniques before exceeding
specified maximum testing rates.
Sec. 1048.305: Clarifying that (1) Tested engines should
be built in a way that represents production engines; (2) the field-
testing standards apply for any testing conducted (this may involve
simply comparing modal results to the field-testing standards); and (3)
we may review a decision to use emission results from a retested engine
instead of the original results.
Sec. 1048.310: Clarifying the relationship between
quarterly testing and compliance with the annual testing requirements.
Sec. 1048.315: Correcting the equation for the CumSum
statistic to prevent negative values.
Sec. 1048.410: Clarifying that repeat tests with an in-
use test engine are acceptable, as long as the same number of repeat
tests are performed for all engines.
Sec. 1048.415: Clarifying that the provisions related to
defect reporting in 40 CFR 1068.501 apply for in-use testing.
Sec. 1048.501: Removing specified mapping procedures,
since these are addressed in 40 CFR part 1065.
Sec. 1048.505: Removing redundant text and removing
sampling times specified in Table 1, since these are addressed in Sec.
1048.505(a)(1).
Sec. 1048.505: Correcting the mode sequence listed in the
table for the ramped-modal testing.
Sec. 1048.505: Clarifying that cycle statistics for
discrete-mode testing must be calculated separately for each mode.
Sec. Sec. 1048.605 and 1048.610: Requiring some
demonstration that the sales restrictions that apply for these sections
are met, and clarifying the provisions related to emission credits for
vehicles that generate or use emission credits under 40 CFR part 86.
Sec. 1048.801: Revising several definitions to align with
updated definitions adopted (or proposed) for other programs.
We request comment on changing Sec. 1048.220 to prevent
manufacturers from distributing revised emission-related maintenance
instructions until we have approved them. We are taking this approach
for Small SI and Marine
[[Page 28215]]
SI engines in this proposal (see Sec. Sec. 1045.220 and 1054.220)
because we believe it would be inappropriate for manufacturers to
specify increased or decreased emission-related maintenance without EPA
approval of those changes. The same concern applies equally to all
nonroad spark-ignition engines and vehicles, so we would expect to
apply the same policy to all these engines.
For Small SI and Marine SI engines we are proposing to require
manufacturers of imported engines to include basic information in the
application for certification, including identification of associated
importers, specific ports intended for importation, and testing
facilities where testing could be done in the United States. We request
comment on extending these provisions to Large SI engines. See Sec.
1054.205.
E. Amendments Related To Recreational Vehicles (40 CFR Part 1051)
Manufacturers of recreational vehicles are encouraged to review the
proposed changes described in Section XI.C related to 40 CFR part 1068.
We are proposing in this notice to establish a process by which
manufacturers of fuel system components certify that their products
meet emission standards. For recreational vehicles we adopted a program
in which the exhaust and evaporative emission standards apply to the
vehicle so we did not set up a process for certifying fuel-system
components. We continue to believe that evaporative emission standards
should apply to the vehicle. However, we are proposing to allow
manufacturers of fuel-system components to opt in to this program by
certifying their fuel tanks or fuel lines to the applicable standards.
While this would be a voluntary step, any manufacturer opting into the
program in this way would be subject to all the requirements that apply
to certificate holders. While manufacturers of recreational vehicles
would continue to be responsible for meeting standards and certifying
their vehicles, it may be appropriate to simplify their compliance
effort by allowing them to rely on the certification of the fuel-line
manufacturer or fuel-tank manufacturer.
We also request comment on specifying that vehicle manufacturers
use the certification and testing procedures proposed in 40 CFR part
1060 to meet the evaporative emission standards included in part 1051.
This would not be intended to affect the stringency of current
requirements. This would simply allow us to maintain consistent
requirements across programs and avoid publishing redundant
specifications.
We are also proposing several technical amendments to part 1051.
Many of these simply correct typographical errors or add references to
the proposed regulatory cites in part 1054. Several changes are
intended merely to align regulatory language with that of other
programs, including those that would be subject to the standards
proposed in this notice.
In addition, we are proposing the following changes:
Sec. 1051.1: Revising the speed threshold for offroad
utility vehicles to be subject to part 1051. Changing from ``25 miles
per hour or higher'' to ``higher than 25 miles per hour'' aligns this
provision with the similar threshold for qualifying as a motor vehicle
in 40 CFR 85.1703.
Sec. 1051.5: Clarifying the status of very small
recreational vehicles to reflect the provisions in the current
regulations in 40 CFR part 90 to treat such vehicles with a dry weight
under 20 kilograms as Small SI engines.
Sec. 1051.25: Clarifying that manufacturers of
recreational vehicles that use engines certified to meet exhaust
emission standards must still certify the vehicle with respect to the
evaporative emission standards.
Sec. 1051.120: Clarifying that the emission-related
warranty covers only those components from 40 CFR part 1068, Appendix
I, whose failure will increase emissions.
Sec. 1051.125: Clarifying the provisions related to
noncritical emission-related maintenance.
Sec. 1051.135: Revising the labeling requirements to
allow omission of the manufacturing date only if the date is stamped or
engraved on the vehicle, rather than allowing manufacturers to keep
records of vehicle build dates. This is important for verifying that
vehicles comply with standards based on their build date.
Sec. 1051.135: Adding a requirement to include family
emission limits related to evaporative emissions to the emission
control information label. Since this change may involve some time for
manufacturers to comply, we are proposing to apply this starting with
the 2009 model year.
Sec. 1051.137: Clarifying how the labeling requirements
apply with respect to the averaging program and selected family
emission limits.
Sec. 1051.205: Removing detailed specifications for
describing auxiliary emission control devices in the application for
certification. This responds to the concern expressed by manufacturers
that the existing, very prescriptive approach requires much more
information that is needed to adequately describe emission control
systems. We are proposing to leave in place a broad requirement to
describe emission control systems and parameters in sufficient detail
to allow EPA to confirm that no defeat devices are employed.
Manufacturers should be motivated to include substantial information to
make such determinations in the certification process, rather than
being subject to this type of investigation for emission control
approaches that are found to be outside of the scope of the application
for certification.
Sec. 1051.205: Requirements to align projected sales
volumes with actual sales from previous years. This does not imply
additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements. It is intended
simply to avoid situations where manufacturers intentionally mis-state
their projected sales volume to gain some advantage under the
regulations.
Sec. 1051.220: Clarifying that if manufacturers change
their maintenance instructions after starting production for an engine
family, they may not disqualify vehicles for warranty claims based on
the fact that operators did not follow the revised maintenance
instructions.
Sec. 1051.225: Clarifying the terminology to refer to
``new or modified vehicle configurations'' rather than ``new or
modified vehicles.'' This is necessary to avoid confusion with the term
``new vehicle'' as it relates to introduction into commerce.
Sec. 1051.225: Clarifying the provisions related to
changing an engine family's Family Emission Limit after the start of
production.
Sec. 1051.255: Adopting a different SAE standard for
specifying low-permeability materials to allow for design-based
certification of metal fuel tanks with gaskets made of polymer
materials. The existing language does not adequately characterize the
necessary testing and material specifications.
Sec. 1051.230: Clarifying that engine families relate
fundamentally to emission certification and that we would expect
manufacturers to suggest a tailored approach to specifying engine
families under Sec. 1051.230(e) to occur only in unusual
circumstances.
Sec. 1051.250: Adding a requirement for manufacturers to
report their sales volumes for an engine family if they are using a
provision that depends on production volumes.
Sec. 1051.301: Clarifying that engine families with
projected sales volumes
[[Page 28216]]
below 150 units may be exempted from production-line testing. This
level of production does not allow for adequate testing to use the
statistical techniques before exceeding specified maximum testing
rates.
Sec. 1051.305: Clarifying that tested vehicles should be
built in a way that represents production vehicles.
Sec. 1051.310: Clarifying the relationship between
quarterly testing and compliance with the annual testing requirements;
and clarifying the testing provisions that apply for engine families
where the production period is substantially less than a full year.
Sec. 1051.315: Correcting the equation for the CumSum
statistic to prevent negative values.
Sec. 1051.325: Clarifying the basis on which we would
approve retroactive changes to the Family Emission Limit for an engine
family that has failed under production-line testing.
Sec. 1051.505: Clarifying that cycle statistics for
discrete-mode testing must be calculated separately for each mode.
Sec. Sec. 1051.605 and 1051.610: Requiring some
demonstration that the sales restrictions that apply for these sections
are met.
Sec. 1051.650: Add a requirement to certify vehicles that
are converted to run on a different fuel. We expect this is a rare
occurrence, but one that we should make subject to certification
requirements (see Section VII.B.3).
Sec. 1051.701: Clarifying that manufacturers using
emission credits to meet emission standards must base their credit
calculations on their full product line-up, rather than considering
only those engine families with Family Emission Limits above or below
the emission standard. We are also clarifying that a single family may
not generate emission credits for one pollutant while using emission
credits for another pollutant, which is common to all our emission
control programs.
Sec. 1051.735: Adding a requirement to keep records
related to banked emission credits for as long as a manufacturer
intends for those credits to be valid. This is necessary for us to
verify the appropriateness of credits used for demonstrating compliance
with emission standards in later model years.
Sec. 1051.801: Revising several definitions to align with
updated definitions adopted (or proposed) for other programs.
We request comment on changing Sec. 1051.220 to prevent
manufacturers from distributing revised emission-related maintenance
instructions until we have approved them. We are taking this approach
for Small SI and Marine SI engines in this proposal (see Sec. Sec.
1045.220 and 1054.220) because we believe it would be inappropriate for
manufacturers to specify increased or decreased emission-related
maintenance without EPA approval of those changes. The same concern
applies equally to all nonroad spark-ignition engines and vehicles, so
we would expect to apply the same policy to all these engines.
For Small SI and Marine SI engines we are proposing to require
manufacturers of imported engines to include basic information in the
application for certification, including identification of associated
importers, specific ports intended for importation, and testing
facilities where testing could be done in the United States. We request
comment on extending these provisions to recreational vehicles. See
Sec. 1054.205.
F. Amendments Related to Heavy-Duty Highway Engines (40 CFR Part 85)
We are proposing to make several adjustments to the provisions
related to delegated assembly specified in Sec. 85.1713. These
adjustments include:
Removing the provision related to auditing outside the
United States since equipment manufactured in other countries would not
be subject to these provisions
Clarifying that the exemption expires when the equipment
manufacturer takes possession of the engine, but not before it reaches
the point of final assembly
Clarifying the prohibition related to following
installation instructions to ensure that engines will be in their
certified configuration when installed in a piece of equipment.
We believe all these amendments are straightforward adjustments
that are appropriate for maintaining a program that allows for
appropriate oversight and implementation.
G. Amendments Related to Stationary Spark-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Part
60)
On June 12, 2006 we proposed emission standards for stationary
spark-ignition engines (71 FR 33804). The June 2006 proposal specified
that stationary spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW would be
subject to all the same emission standards and certification
requirements that apply to Small SI engines. If we would include the
new Phase 3 standards for Small SI engines in 40 CFR part 90, these
requirements would apply automatically to those stationary engines.
However, since the Phase 3 standards will be in 40 CFR part 1054, as
described in Section V, we are proposing to revise the regulatory
language for stationary spark-ignition engines in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJJ, to directly reference the Phase 3 standards part 1054.
XII. Projected Impacts
A. Emissions from Small Nonroad and Marine Spark-Ignition Engines
As discussed in previous sections, this proposal will reduce
exhaust emissions from specific sizes of nonhandheld Small SI and
Marine SI engines. It will also reduce evaporative emissions from the
fuel systems used on nonhandheld and handheld Small SI equipment and
Marine SI vessels (for simplicity we collectively include the
evaporative emission requirements from equipment or vessels when
referring to Small SI or Marine SI engines in the remainder of this
section). The proposed exhaust and evaporative emission standards will
directly affect volatile organic hydrocarbon compounds (VOC), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), and to a lesser extent carbon monoxide (CO).
Also, we anticipate that the emission control technology which is
likely to be used to meet the exhaust emission standards will affect
directly emitted particulate matter, most importantly particles with
diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). It will also
incrementally reduce air toxic emissions. A detailed analysis of the
effects of this proposal on emissions and emission inventories can be
found in Chapter 3 of the Draft RIA.
The contribution of exhaust and evaporative emissions from Small SI
and Marine SI engines to total 50-state emission inventories is
significant and will remain so into the future. Table XII-1 presents
the nationwide inventory for these engines for both 2001 and 2020. (The
inventories cover all Small SI and Marine SI engines including the
portion of Small SI engines regulated by the California ARB.) Table
XII-1 shows that for the primary pollutants affected by this proposal,
these engines contribute about 25 to 30 percent of the nationwide VOC
emissions from all mobile sources. The nationwide contribution to the
total mobile source NOX inventory is about 5 percent or
less. Finally, for PM2.5, the contribution ranges from about
25 to 30 percent.
[[Page 28217]]
Table XII-1.--Contribution of Small Nonroad and Marine SI Engines to National (50-State) Mobile Source Emission
Inventories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------
Small SI/ Small SI/
Pollutant marine SI Percent of marine SI Percent of
inventory, mobile source inventory, mobile source
tons inventory tons inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC............................................. 2,239,056 28 1,351,739 27
NOX............................................. 159,051 1 201,789 4
PM2.5........................................... 42,294 9 39,271 16
CO.............................................. 20,867,436 24 16,373,518 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) VOC
Table XII-2 shows the VOC emissions and emission reductions we
expect both with and without the proposed standards for engines,
equipment, and vessels affected by the proposal. In 2001, Small SI and
Marine SI emitted approximately 1,081,000 and 961,000 tons of VOC,
respectively. Without the proposed standards, these emissions will
decrease because of the effect of the existing emission control
requirements to about 1,005,000 and 490,000 tons by 2040, respectively.
With the proposed controls, this pollutant will be further reduced by
34 percent for Small SI engines and 74 percent for Marine SI engines by
2040. The VOC emission inventory trends over time for both categories
of engines that are subject to the proposal are shown in Figure XII-1.
Table XII-2.--National (50-State) VOC Emissions and Emission Reductions for Small SI and Marine SI Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without With proposed Percent
Year Category proposed rule rule Reduction reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.................... Small Engine.......... 1,080,898 1,080,898
Marine................ 961,240 961,240
Both.................. 2,042,138 2,042,138
2015.................... Small Engine.......... 708,331 510,617 197,714 28
Marine................ 513,105 372,020 141,086 27
Both.................. 1,221,436 882,637 338,799 28
2020.................... Small Engine.......... 764,453 508,677 255,776 33
Marine................ 466,624 232,697 233,927 50
Both.................. 1,231,078 741,375 489,703 40
2030.................... Small Engine.......... 884,188 581,766 302,422 34
Marine................ 464,490 135,956 328,533 71
Both.................. 1,348,678 717,723 630,955 47
2040.................... Small Engine.......... 1,005,403 659,976 345,427 34
Marine................ 490,052 127,158 362,893 74
Both.................. 1,495,455 787,135 708,320 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28218]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY07.001
(2) NOX
Table XII-3 shows the NOX emissions and emission
reductions we expect both with and without the proposed standards for
engines affected by the proposal. In 2001, Small SI and Marine SI
emitted approximately 102,000 and 41,500 tons of NOX,
respectively. Without the proposed standards, these emissions will
increase to about 135,000, and 95,400 tons by 2040, respectively. With
the proposed controls, this pollutant will be reduced by 47 percent for
Small SI engines and 51 percent for Marine SI engines by 2040. The
NOX emission inventory trends over time for both categories
of engines that are subject to the proposal are shown in Figure XII-2.
Table XII-3.--National (50-State) NOX Emissions and Emission Reductions for Small SI and Marine SI Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without With proposed Percent
Year Category proposed rule rule Reduction reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.................... Small Engine.......... 101,928 101,928
Marine................ 41,514 41,514
Both.................. 143,442 143,442
2015.................... Small Engine.......... 94,432 58,117 36,315 38
Marine................ 73,583 59,024 14,558 20
Both.................. 168,015 117,141 50,874 30
2020.................... Small Engine.......... 102,310 55,241 47,069 46
Marine................ 80,655 55,656 24,999 31
Both.................. 182,965 110,896 72,069 39
2030.................... Small Engine.......... 118,615 62,778 55,837 47
Marine................ 89,225 46,859 42,366 47
Both.................. 207,840 109,637 98,203 47
2040.................... Small Engine.......... 135,136 71,361 63,775 47
Marine................ 95,440 46,874 48,567 51
Both.................. 230,577 118,235 112,342 49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28219]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY07.002
(3) PM2.5
Table XII-4 shows the PM2.5 emissions and emission reductions we
expect both with and without the proposed standards for engines
affected by the proposal. In 2001, Small SI and Marine SI emitted
23,200 and 15,600 tons of PM2.5, respectively. Without the proposed
standards, the PM2.5 emissions from Small SI engines will increase to
39,100 by 2040, while those from Marine SI will decrease to about 6,000
tons in that year due to the effects of the existing emission control
requirements for certain types of recreational marine engines, e.g,
outboards. With the proposed controls, this pollutant will be reduced
by 5 percent for Small SI engines and a further 84 percent for Marine
SI engines by 2040. The PM2.5 emission inventory trends over time for
both categories of engines that are subject to the proposal are shown
in Figure XII-3.
Table XII-4.--National (50-State) PM2.5 Emissions and Emission Reductions for Small SI and Marine SI Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without With proposed Percent
Year Category proposed rule rule Reduction reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.................... Small Engine.......... 23,163 23,163
Marine................ 15,625 15,625
Both.................. 38,789 38,789
2015.................... Small Engine.......... 27,747 26,647 1,100 4
Marine................ 6,823 4,666 2,157 32
Both.................. 34,570 31,313 3,256 9
2020.................... Small Engine.......... 30,009 28,574 1,435 5
Marine................ 5,908 2,448 3,461 59
Both.................. 35,917 31,022 4,896 14
2030.................... Small Engine.......... 34,535 32,849 1,686 5
Marine................ 5,719 1,107 4,613 81
Both.................. 40,255 33,956 6,299 16
2040.................... Small Engine.......... 39,079 37,153 1,926 5
Marine................ 6,016 985 5,031 84
Both.................. 45,095 38,138 6,957 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28220]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY07.003
(4) CO
Table XII.-5 shows the CO emissions and emission reductions we
expect both with and without the proposed standards for engines
affected by the proposal. In 2001, Small SI and Marine SI emitted
16,108,000 and 2,585,000 tons of PM2.5, respectively. Without the
proposed standards, these emissions will increase slightly for Small SI
engines to 16,727,000 and decrease slightly for Marine SI engines to
2,122,000 tons by 2040, respectively. With the proposed controls, this
pollutant will be reduced by 16 percent for Small SI engines and a
further 22 percent for Marine SI engines by 2040. The CO emission
inventory trends over time for both categories of engines that are
subject to the proposal are shown in Figure XII-4.
Table XII-5.--National (50-State) CO Emissions and Emission Reductions for Small SI and Marine SI Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without With proposed Percent
Year Category proposed rule rule Reduction reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.................... Small Engine.......... 16,108,103 16,108,103 .............. ..............
Marine................ 2,584,786 2,584,786 .............. ..............
Both.................. 18,692,890 18,692,890 .............. ..............
2015.................... Small Engine.......... 11,797,078 10,317,051 1,480,027 13
Marine................ 2,031,684 1,883,241 148,443 7
Both.................. 13,828,762 12,200,291 1,628,471 12
2020.................... Small Engine.......... 12,712,775 10,782,258 1,930,518 15
Marine................ 1,968,663 1,718,956 249,707 13
Both.................. 14,681,439 12,501,214 2,180,225 15
2030.................... Small Engine.......... 14,700,521 12,411,661 2,288,860 16
Marine................ 2,009,248 1,607,678 401,570 20
Both.................. 16,709,768 14,019,339 2,690,429 16
2040.................... Small Engine.......... 16,726,708 14,113,517 2,613,191 16
Marine................ 2,122,336 1,665,392 456,943 22
Both.................. 18,849,044 15,778,910 3,070,134 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28221]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY07.004
B. Estimated Costs
In assessing the economic impact of setting emission standards, we
have made a best estimate of the costs associated with the technologies
we anticipate manufacturers will use in meeting the standards. In
making our estimates for the proposed rule, we have relied on our own
technology assessment, which includes information developed by EPA's
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL). Estimated costs
include variable costs (e.g. hardware and assembly time) and fixed
costs (e.g. research and development, retooling, engine certification
and test cell upgrades to 40 CFR 1065 requirements). We projected that
manufacturers will recover the fixed costs over five years of
production and used an amortization rate of 7 percent in our analysis.
The analysis also considers total operating costs, including
maintenance and fuel consumption. Cost estimates based on the projected
technologies represent an expected change in the cost of engines as
they begin to comply with new emission standards. All costs are
presented in 2005 dollars. Full details of our cost analysis can be
found in Chapter 6 of the Draft RIA. Estimated costs related to exhaust
emissions were also subject to peer review, as described in a set of
peer review reports that are available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Cost estimates based on the current projected costs for our
estimated technology packages represent an expected incremental cost of
equipment in the near term. For the longer term we have identified
factors that would cause cost impacts to decrease over time. First, as
noted above, we project that manufacturers will spread their fixed
costs over the first five years of production. After the fifth year of
production, we project that the fixed costs would be retired and the
unit costs could be reduced as a result.
The cost analysis considers both long-term and short-term costs. We
expect that over time, manufacturers will undergo a learning process
that will lead to lower variable costs. For instance, the analysis
incorporates the expectation that Small SI engine manufacturers will
optimize the catalyst muffler offerings available and thereby
streamline their production and reduce costs. The cost analysis
generally incorporates this learning effect by decreasing estimated
variable costs by 20 percent starting in the sixth year of production.
Long-term impacts on costs are expected to decrease as manufacturers
fully amortize their fixed costs and learn to optimize their designs
and production processes to meet the standards more efficiently. The
learning curve has not been applied to Small SI EFI systems due to the
fact that the technologies are currently well established on similar
sized engines in other applications.
We project average costs to comply with the proposed exhaust
emission standards for Small SI engines and equipment to range from $9-
$15 per Class I equipment to meet the Phase 3 standards. We anticipate
the manufacturers will meet the emission standard with several
technologies including engine improvements and catalysts. For Class II
equipment, we project average costs to range from $22-$47 per equipment
to meet the proposed emission standards. We anticipate the
manufacturers of Class II engines would meet the proposed exhaust
emission standards by engine improvements and adding catalysts and/or
electronic fuel injection to their engines.
For Small SI equipment, we have also estimated a per-unit cost for
the proposed evaporative emission standards. The average short-term
costs without fuel savings are projected to be $0.82 for handheld
equipment, $3.16 for Class I equipment, and $6.90 for Class II
equipment. These costs are based on fuel tank and fuel line permeation
control, and for non-handheld equipment, running loss and diffusion
[[Page 28222]]
control. Because evaporative emissions are composed of otherwise usable
fuel that is lost to the atmosphere, measures that reduce evaporative
emissions will result in fuel savings. We estimate that the average
fuel savings, due to permeation control, be about 1.2 gallons over the
5-year average operating lifetime. This translates to a discounted
lifetime savings of more than $2 at an average fuel price of $1.81 per
gallon.
For marine engines, we estimated per-engine costs for OB, PWC, and
SD/I engines for meeting the proposed exhaust emission standards. The
short-term cost estimates without fuel savings are $280 for OB, $360
for PWC, and $360 for SD/I engines. For OB/PWC engines, we anticipate
that manufacturers would meet the standards through the expanded
production of existing low-emission technologies such as four-stroke
and direct-injection two-stroke engines. For SD/I engines, we
anticipate that manufacturers would use catalytic control to meet the
proposed standards.
For marine vessels, we have also estimated a per-unit cost for the
proposed evaporative emission standards. The average short-term costs
without fuel savings are projected to be $12 for boats with portable
fuel tanks, $17 for PWC, and $74 for boats with installed fuel tanks.
These costs are based on fuel tank and fuel line permeation control and
diurnal emission control. For portable fuel tanks, diurnal emission
control is based on an automatic sealing vent, for PWC we estimate that
changes will not be necessary from current designs, and for other boats
with installed fuel tanks, the estimated costs are based on the use of
a passively-purged carbon canister. Because evaporative emissions are
composed of otherwise usable fuel that is lost to the atmosphere,
measures that reduce evaporative emissions will result in fuel savings.
We estimate that the average fuel savings, due to permeation control,
be about 31 gallons over the 15-year average operating lifetime. This
translates to a discounted lifetime savings of about $36 at an average
fuel price of $1.81 per gallon.
C. Cost per Ton
We have calculated the cost per ton of the Phase 3 standards
contained in this proposal by estimating costs and emission benefits
for these engines. We made our best estimates of the combination of
technologies that engine manufacturers might use to meet the new
standards, best estimates of resultant changes to equipment design,
engine manufacturer compliance program costs, and fuel savings in order
to assess the expected economic impact of the proposed Phase 3 emission
standards for Small SI engines and Marine SI engines. Emission
reduction benefits are taken from the results of the Inventory chapter
of the RIA (Chapter 3).
A summary of the annualized costs to Small SI and Marine SI engine
manufacturers is presented in Table XII-6. These annualized costs are
over a 30-year period and presented both with a 3-percent and a 7-
percent discount rate. The annualized fuel savings for Small SI engines
are due to reduced fuel costs from the use of electronic fuel injection
on Class II engines as well as fuel savings from evaporative measures
on all Small SI engines. The annualized fuel savings for Marine SI
engines are due to reduced fuel costs from the expected elimination of
2-stroke outboard motors from the new engine fleet as well as fuel
savings from evaporative emission controls on all vessels.
Table XII-6.--Estimated Annualized Cost to Manufacturers and Annualized Fuel Savings over 30 Years Due to the
Phase 3 Small SI and Marine SI Engine Standards
[2005$, 3 and 7 percent discount rates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost to Annualized fuel savings
manufactuers (millions/ (millions/yr)
Engine category Emissions category yr) -------------------------
--------------------------
3% 7% 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small SI Engines.................... Exhaust............... $281 $267 $71 $63
Evaporative........... 70 67 58 52
Aggregate............. 350 334 129 114
Marine SI Engines................... Exhaust............... 134 141 76 67
Evaporative........... 26 26 29 25
Aggregate............. 160 167 105 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have estimated the Small SI and Marine SI engine cost per ton of
the Phase 3 HC+NOX standards over the typical lifetime of
the equipment that are covered by this proposal. We have examined the
cost per ton by performing a nationwide cost per ton analysis in which
the net present value of the cost of compliance per year is divided by
the net present value of the HC+NOX benefits over 30 years.
The resultant discounted cost per ton is presented in Table XII-7. The
total (exhaust and evaporative) cost per ton, using a 7 percent
discount rate, with fuel savings is $950 for Small SI equipment and
$350 for marine vessels. For the proposal as a whole, the cost per ton
of HC+NOX reduction is $660. Reduced operating costs offset
a portion of the increased cost of producing the cleaner Small SI and
Marine SI engines. Reduced fuel consumption also offsets the costs of
permeation control. Chapter 7 of the RIA contains a more detailed
discussion of the cost per ton analysis.
Table XII-7.--Estimated Cost Per Ton of the HC+NOX Emission Standards
[2005$, 3 and 7 percent discount rates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted cost per ton
-------------------------------
Category Implementation Without fuel With fuel
dates savings (3%/ savings (3%/
7%) 7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small SI Exhaust................................................ 2011-2012 $1700/$1860 $1270/$1420
[[Page 28223]]
Small SI Evaporative............................................ 2008-2013 720/770 120/170
Marine SI Exhaust............................................... 2009-2013 690/820 300/430
Marine SI Evaporative........................................... 2009-2012 530/630 (70)/35
Aggregate....................................................... 2008-2013 660/1120 226/660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is discussed above, we are also expecting some reduction in
direct PM emissions and carbon monoxide. These reductions will come
primarily as product of the technology being used to meet HC and
NOX standards and not directly as a result of the
implementation of specific technology to achieve these gains. Thus, we
have elected to focus our cost per ton analysis on HC+NOX.
One useful purpose of cost per ton analysis is to compare this
program to other programs designed to achieve similar air quality
objectives. Toward that end, we made a comparison between the
HC+NOX cost per ton values presented in Table C-2 and the
HC+NOX cost per ton of other recent mobile source programs.
Table XII-8 summarizes the HC+NOX cost per ton of several
recent EPA actions for controlled emissions from mobile sources. While
the analyses for each rule were not completely identical, it is clear
that the Small SI and Marine SI values compare favorably with the other
recent actions.
Table XII-8.--Cost Per Ton of Previously Implemented HC+NOX Mobile
Source Programs
[2005$, 7 percent discount with fuel savings]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted
Program cost per ton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 HH engines Phase 2................................. 840
2001 NHH engines Phase 2................................ * neg
1998 Marine SI engines.................................. 1900
2004 Comm Marine CI..................................... 200
2007 Large SI exhaust................................... 80
2006 ATV exhaust........................................ 300
2006 Off-highway motorcycle............................. 290
2006 Recreational marine CI............................. 700
2010 Snowmobile......................................... 1430
2006 <50cc highway motorcycle........................... 1860
2010 Class 3 highway motorcycle......................... 1650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Fuel savings outweigh engineering/hardware costs.
D. Air Quality Impact
Information on the air quality impacts of this proposed action can
be found in Section II of this preamble. Section II includes health
effect information on ozone, PM, CO and air toxics. It also includes
modeled projections of future ozone concentrations with and without the
controls detailed in this proposal. The proposed emission reductions
would lead to reductions in ambient concentrations of ozone, PM, CO and
air toxics.
E. Benefits
This section presents our analysis of the health and environmental
benefits that can be expected to occur as a result of the proposed
Small SI and Marine SI engine standards throughout the period from
initial implementation through 2030. Nationwide, the engines that are
subject to the proposed emission standards in this rule are a
significant source of mobile source air pollution. The proposed
standards would reduce exposure to hydrocarbon, CO and NOX
emissions and help avoid a range of adverse health effects associated
with ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels. In addition, the
proposed standards would help reduce exposure to CO, air toxics, and
PM2.5 for persons who operate or who work with or are
otherwise active in close proximity to these engines.
EPA typically quantifies PM- and ozone-related benefits in its
regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) when possible. In the analysis of
past air quality regulations, ozone-related benefits have included
morbidity endpoints and welfare effects such as damage to commercial
crops. EPA has not recently included a separate and additive mortality
effect for ozone, independent of the effect associated with fine
particulate matter. For a number of reasons, including (1) Advice from
the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Health and Ecological Effects
Subcommittee (HEES) that EPA consider the plausibility and viability of
including an estimate of premature mortality associated with short-term
ozone exposure in its benefits analyses and (2) conclusions regarding
the scientific support for such relationships in EPA's 2006 Air Quality
Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (the CD), EPA is
in the process of determining how to appropriately characterize ozone-
related mortality benefits within the context of benefits analyses for
air quality regulations. As part of this process, we are seeking advice
from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding how the ozone-
mortality literature should be used to quantify the reduction in
premature mortality due to diminished exposure to ozone, the amount of
life expectancy to be added and the
[[Page 28224]]
monetary value of this increased life expectancy in the context of
health benefits analyses associated with regulatory assessments. In
addition, the agency has sought advice on characterizing and
communicating the uncertainty associated with each of these aspects in
health benefit analyses.
Since the NAS effort is not expected to conclude until 2008, the
agency is currently deliberating how best to characterize ozone-related
mortality benefits in its rulemaking analyses in the interim. For the
analysis of the proposed standards, we do not quantify an ozone
mortality benefit. So that we do not provide an incomplete picture of
all of the benefits associated with reductions in emissions of ozone
precursors, we have chosen not to include an estimate of total ozone
benefits in the proposed RIA. By omitting ozone benefits in this
proposal, we acknowledge that this analysis underestimates the benefits
associated with the proposed standards. Our analysis, however,
indicates that the rule's monetized PM2.5 benefits alone
substantially exceed our estimate of the costs.
The PM2.5 benefits are scaled based on relative changes
in PM2.5 precursor emissions (direct PM and NOX)
between this rule and the proposed Clean Air Nonroad Diesel (CAND)
rule. As explained in Section 8.2.1 of the RIA for this rule, the
PM2.5 benefits scaling approach is limited to those studies,
health impacts, and assumptions that were used in the proposed CAND
analysis. As a result, PM-related premature mortality is based on the
updated analysis of the American Cancer Society cohort (ACS; Pope et
al., 2002).\107\ However, it is important to note that since the CAND
rule, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) has adopted a different
format for its benefits analyses in which characterization of the
uncertainty in the concentration-response function is integrated into
the main benefits analysis. This new approach follows the
recommendation of NRC's 2002 report ``Estimating the Public Health
Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations'' to begin moving the
assessment of uncertainties from its ancillary analyses into its main
benefits presentation through the conduct of probabilistic
analyses.\108\ Within this context, additional data sources are
available, including a recent expert elicitation and updated analysis
of the Six-Cities Study cohort (Laden et al., 2006).\109\ Please see
the PM NAAQS RIA for an indication of the sensitivity of our results to
use of alternative concentration-response functions. The
PM2.5-related benefits associated with the proposed
standards are presented in table XII-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D.
Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. ``Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical
Association 287:1132-1141.
\108\ National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the
Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
\109\ Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery.
2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173:
667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that since the CAND rule, EPA's Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR) has adopted a different format for its benefits
analysis in which characterization of uncertainty is integrated into
the main benefits analysis. The benefits scaling approach used in the
analysis of the proposed standards limits our ability to integrate
uncertainty into the main analysis. For the benefits analysis of the
final standards, we will adopt this integrated uncertainty approach.
Please see the PM NAAQS RIA for an indication of the uncertainty
present in the base estimate of benefits and the sensitivity of our
results to the use of alternative concentration-response functions.
Table XII-9.--Estimated Monetized PM-Related Health Benefits of the
Proposed Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits a, b, c
(billions 2005$)
-------------------------------
2020 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using a 3% discount rate................ $2.1 + B $3.4 + B
Using a 7% discount rate................ $1.9 + B $3.1 + B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits include avoided cases of mortality, chronic illness, and
other morbidity health endpoints. PM-related mortality benefits
estimated using an assumed PM threshold at background levels (3 [mu]g/
m3). There is uncertainty about which assumed threshold to use and
this may impact the magnitude of the total benefits estimate. For a
more detailed discussion of this issue, please refer to Section
8.6.2.2 of the RIA.
\b\ For notational purposes, unquantified benefits are indicated with a
``B'' to represent the sum of additional monetary benefits and
disbenefits. A detailed listing of unquantified health and welfare
effects is provided in Table XII-12.
\c\ Results reflect the use of two different discount rates: 3 and 7
percent, which are recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing
Economic Analyses\110\ and OMB Circular A-4.\111\ Results are rounded
to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation.
(1) Quantified Human Health and Environmental Effects of the Proposed
Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 2000.
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003.
\111\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular
A-4 Guidance for Federal Agencies Preparing Regulatory Analyses,
Available at: http://www/whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/iraguide.html.
Accessed December 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we discuss the PM2.5 benefits of the
proposed standards. To estimate PM2.5 benefits, we rely on a
benefits transfer technique. The benefits transfer approach uses as its
foundation the relationship between reductions in precursors to
PM2.5 (NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions)
and ambient PM2.5 concentrations modeled across the
contiguous 48 states (and DC) for the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel (CAND)
proposal.\112\ For a given future year, we first calculate the ratio
between CAND direct PM2.5 emission reductions and direct
PM2.5 emission reductions associated with the proposed
control standards (proposed emission reductions/CAND emission
reductions). We calculate a similar ratio for NOX. We then
multiply these ratios by the percent that direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions, respectively, contribute towards population-
weighted reductions in ambient PM2.5 due to the CAND
standards. This calculation results in a ``benefits apportionment
factor'' for the relationship between direct PM emissions and ambient
PM2.5 and NOX emissions and ambient
PM2.5, which are then applied to the incidence and monetized
benefits from the CAND proposal. In this way, we apportion the results
of the proposed CAND analysis to its underlying PM precursor emission
reductions and scale the apportioned
[[Page 28225]]
benefits to reflect differences in emission reductions between the two
rules.\113\ This benefits transfer method is consistent with the
approach used in other recent mobile and stationary source rules.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See 68 FR 28327, May 23, 2003.
\113\ Note that while the proposed regulations control
hydrocarbons (VOCs), which contribute to PM formation, the benefits
transfer scaling approach only scales benefits based on
NOX, SO2, and direct PM emission reductions.
PM benefits will likely be underestimated as a result, though we are
unable to estimate the magnitude of the underestimation. Note also
that PM-related mortality benefits estimated for the CAND analysis
used an assumed PM threshold at background levels (3 [mu]g/
m3). There is uncertainty about which threshold to use
and this may impact the magnitude of the total benefits estimate.
For a more detailed discussion of this issue, please refer to
Chapter 8.2 of the RIA.
\114\ See: Mobile Source Air Toxics proposed rule (71 FR 15803,
March 29, 2006); Clean Air Nonroad Diesel final rule (69 FR 38958,
June 29, 2004); Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines and
Recreational Engines standards (67 FR 68241, November 8, 2002);
Final Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP (69 FR 55217,
September 13, 2004); Final Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
NESHAP (69 FR 33473, June 15, 2004); Final Clean Air Visibility Rule
(EPA-452/R-05-004, June 15, 2005); Ozone Implementation Rule
(documentation forthcoming).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XII-10 presents the primary estimates of reduced incidence of
PM-related health effects for the years 2020 and 2030 for the proposed
emission control strategy.\115\ In 2030, we estimate that PM-related
annual benefits include approximately 450 fewer premature fatalities,
290 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 800 fewer non-fatal heart
attacks, 460 fewer hospitalizations (for respiratory and cardiovascular
disease combined), 310,000 days of restricted activity due to
respiratory illness and approximately 52,000 fewer work-loss days. We
also estimate substantial health improvements for children from reduced
upper and lower respiratory illness, acute bronchitis, and asthma
attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ The ``primary estimate'' refers to the estimate of
benefits that reflects the suite of endpoints and assumptions that
EPA believes yields the expected value of air quality improvements
related to the proposed standards. The impact that alternative
endpoints and assumptions have on the benefit estimates are explored
in appendixes to the RIA.
Table XII-10.--Estimated Annual Reductions in Incidence of Health
Effects a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 annual 2030 annual
Health effect incidence incidence
reduction reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-Related Endpoints:
Premature Mortality \b\--
Adult, age 30 and over plus Infant, 290 450
age < 1 year.......................
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 200 290
and over)..........................
Non-fatal myocardial infarction 490 800
(adult, age 18 and over)...........
Hospital admissions--respiratory 160 270
(all ages) \c\.....................
Hospital admissions--cardiovascular 130 200
(adults, age > 18) \d\.............
Emergency room visits for asthma 210 310
(age 18 years and younger).........
Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8- 470 700
12)................................
Lower respiratory symptoms 5,600 8,300
(children, age 7-14)...............
Upper respiratory symptoms 4,300 6,300
(asthmatic children, age 9-18).....
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic 7,000 10,000
children, age 6-18)................
Work loss days...................... 38,000 52,000
Minor restricted activity days 220,000 310,000
(adults age 18-65).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. The PM estimates
represent benefits from the proposed rule nationwide. The ozone
estimates only represent benefits from the Eastern 37 states and DC,
though the program is national in scope.
\b\ PM-related adult mortality based upon studies by Pope, et al
2002.\116\ PM-related infant mortality based upon studies by Woodruff,
Grillo, and Schoendorf,1997.\117\
\c\ Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma.
\d\ Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total
cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease,
dysrhythmias, and heart failure.
(2) Monetized Benefits
Table XII-11 presents the estimated monetary value of reductions in
the incidence of health and welfare effects. Annual PM-related health
benefits are approximately $3.4 billion in 2030, assuming a 3 percent
discount rate (or $3.1 billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate). All
monetized estimates are stated in 2005 dollars. These estimates account
for growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between the
present and the years 2020 and 2030. As the table indicates, total
benefits are driven primarily by the reduction in premature fatalities
each year, which accounts for well over 90 percent of total benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D.
Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. ``Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution.'' Journal of American Medical Association
287:1132-1141.
\117\ Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. 1997.
``The Relationship Between Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant
Mortality and Particulate Infant Mortality and Particulate Air
Pollution in the United States.'' Environmental Health Perspectives
105(6):608-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XII-11 indicates with a ``B'' those additional health and
environmental benefits of the rule that we were unable to quantify or
monetize. These effects are additive to the estimate of total benefits,
and are related to the following sources:
There are many human health and welfare effects associated
with ozone, PM, and toxic air pollutant reductions that remain
unquantified because of current limitations in the methods or available
data. A full appreciation of the overall economic consequences of the
proposed standards requires consideration of all benefits and costs
expected to result from the new standards, not just those benefits and
costs which could be expressed here in dollar terms. A listing of the
benefit categories that could not be quantified or monetized in our
benefit estimates are provided in Table XII-12.
The PM air quality model only captures the benefits of air
quality improvements in the 48 states and DC; PM benefits for Alaska
and Hawaii are not reflected in the estimate of benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses. www.yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed/hsf/pages/Guideline.html.
\119\ Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office of
the President, 2003. Circular A-4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars.
[[Page 28226]]
Table XII-11.--Estimated Annual Monetary Value of Reductions in Incidence of Health and Welfare Effects (2005$)
a, b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 estimated 2030 estimated
value of value of
Health effect Pollutant reductions reductions
(millions) (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-Related Premature mortality c, d
Adult >30 years........................ PM2.5..............................
3 percent discount rate............ ................................... $2,000 $3,100
7 percent discount rate............ ................................... 1,800 2,800
Child <1 year.......................... ................................... 5 6
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over)... PM2.5.............................. 90 140
Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions
3 percent discount rate................ ................................... 50 77
7 percent discount rate................ PM2.5.............................. 48 75
Hospital admissions for respiratory causes. PM2.5.............................. 2.9 5.0
Hospital admissions for cardiovascular PM2.5.............................. 3.1 4.7
causes.
Emergency room visits for asthma........... PM2.5.............................. 0.07 0.11
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8-12)...... PM2.5.............................. 0.20 0.30
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7- PM2.5.............................. 0.11 0.16
14).
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, age 9- PM2.5.............................. 0.13 0.19
11).
Asthma exacerbations....................... PM2.5.............................. 0.36 0.54
Work loss days............................. PM2.5.............................. 5.8 7.0
Minor restricted activity days (MRADs)..... PM2.5.............................. 14 19
Monetized Total \e\
Base estimate:
3 percent discount rate............ PM2.5.............................. 2,100 + B 3,400 + B
7 percent discount rate............ ................................... 1,900 + B 3,100 + B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. The PM estimates represent benefits from the proposed rule
nationwide.
\b\ Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per capita between 1990 and the analysis year
(2020 or 2030).
\c\ Valuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure assumes discounting over the SAB recommended
20 year segmented lag structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate
Rule (March 2005). Results show 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines
for preparing economic analyses (US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).118, 119
\d\ Adult mortality based upon the ACS cohort study (Pope et al., 2002). Infant mortality based upon studies by
Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, 1997.
\e\ B represents the monetary value of health and welfare benefits not monetized. A detailed listing is provided
in Table XII-12.
Table XII-12.--Unquantified and Non-Monetized Effects of the Proposed
Small Spark Ignition/Recreational Marine Engine Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects not included in primary
Pollutant/effects estimates--changes in:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone Health a.................... Premature mortality: short-term
exposures b.
Hospital admissions: respiratory.
Emergency room visits for asthma.
Minor restricted-activity days.
School loss days.
Asthma attacks.
Cardiovascular emergency room
visits.
Acute respiratory symptoms.
Chronic respiratory damage.
Premature aging of the lungs.
Non-asthma respiratory emergency
room visits.
Increased exposure to UVb.
Ozone Welfare..................... Yields for
--commercial forests.
--some fruits and vegetables.
--non-commercial crops.
Damage to urban ornamental plants.
Impacts on recreational demand from
damaged forest aesthetics.
Ecosystem functions.
Increased exposure to UVb.
PM Health c....................... Premature mortality--short term
exposures d.
Low birth weight.
Pulmonary function.
Chronic respiratory diseases other
than chronic bronchitis.
Non-asthma respiratory emergency
room visits.
Exposure to UVb ()e.
PM Welfare........................ Visibility in Class I areas.
Residential and recreational
visibility in non-Class I areas.
Soiling and materials damage.
Damage to ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb () e.
[[Page 28227]]
Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Commercial forests due to acidic
Welfare. sulfate and nitrate deposition.
Commercial freshwater fishing due to
acidic deposition.
Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems
due to acidic deposition.
Existence values for currently
healthy ecosystems.
Commercial fishing, agriculture, and
forests due to nitrogen deposition.
Recreation in estuarine ecosystems
due to nitrogen deposition.
Ecosystem functions.
Passive fertilization.
CO Health......................... Behavioral effects.
HC Health f....................... Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde).
Anemia (benzene).
Disruption of production of blood
components (benzene).
Reduction in the number of blood
platelets (benzene).
Excessive bone marrow formation
(benzene).
Depression of lymphocyte counts
(benzene).
Reproductive and developmental
effects (1,3-butadiene).
Irritation of eyes and mucus
membranes (formaldehyde).
Respiratory irritation
(formaldehyde).
Asthma attacks in asthmatics
(formaldehyde).
Asthma-like symptoms in non-
asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Irritation of the eyes, skin, and
respiratory tract (acetaldehyde).
Upper respiratory tract irritation
and congestion (acrolein).
HC Welfare........................ Direct toxic effects to animals.
Bioaccumulation in the food chain.
Damage to ecosystem function.
Odor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of
biological responses that have been associated with ozone health
effects including increased airway responsiveness to stimuli,
inflammation in the lung, acute inflammation and respiratory cell
damage, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection. The
public health impact of these biological responses may be partly
represented by our quantified endpoints.
b Recent analyses provide evidence that short-term ozone exposure is
associated with increased premature mortality. As a result, EPA is
considering how to incorporate ozone mortality benefits into its
benefits analyses as a separate estimate of the number of premature
deaths that would be avoided due to reductions in ozone levels.
c In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of
biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects
including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms.
The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly
represented by our quantified endpoints.
d While some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be
captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to
short-term exposure to PM not captured in the cohort study upon which
the primary analysis is based.
e May result in benefits or disbenefits.
f Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this rule are also hazardous
air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
(3) What Are the Significant Limitations of the Benefits Analysis?
Every benefit-cost analysis examining the potential effects of a
change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some
extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as
geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific
and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models.
Deficiencies in the scientific literature often result in the inability
to estimate quantitative changes in health and environmental effects,
such as potential increases in premature mortality associated with
increased exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics
literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even
to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified.
These general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics
literature, which can cause the valuations to be higher or lower, are
discussed in detail in the RIA and its supporting references. Key
uncertainties that have a bearing on the results of the benefit-cost
analysis of the proposed standards include the following:
The exclusion of potentially significant and unquantified
benefit categories (such as health, odor, and ecological benefits of
reduction in ozone, air toxics, and PM);
Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as
population growth;
Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions
inventories and air quality, especially regarding the discrepancy
between the modeled and proposed suite of standards and their impact on
emissions inventories;
Uncertainties associated with the scaling of the PM
results of the modeled benefits analysis to the proposed standards,
especially regarding the assumption of similarity in geographic
distribution between emissions and human populations and years of
analysis;
Uncertainty in the estimated relationships of health and
welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations including the
shape of the concentration-response function, the size of the effect
estimates, and the relative toxicity of the many components of the PM
mixture;
Uncertainties in exposure estimation; and
Uncertainties associated with the effect of potential
future actions to limit emissions.
As Table XII-11 indicates, total benefits are driven primarily by
the reduction in premature fatalities each year. Elaborating on the
list of uncertainties above, some key assumptions underlying the
primary estimate for the premature mortality category include the
following:
[[Page 28228]]
Inhalation of fine particles is causally associated with
premature death at concentrations near those experienced by most
Americans on a daily basis. Although biological mechanisms for this
effect have not yet been completely established, the weight of the
available epidemiological, toxicological, and experimental evidence
supports an assumption of causality. The impacts of including a
probabilistic representation of causality were explored in the expert
elicitation-based results of the recently published PM NAAQS RIA.
Because the analysis of the proposed standards is constrained to the
studies included in the CAND PM benefits scaling approach, we are
unable to conduct the same analysis of expert elicitation-based
mortality incidence for the proposed standards.\120\ However, we
qualitatively describe the expert elicitation-based mortality results
associated with the final PM NAAQS to provide an indication of the
sensitivity of our PM-related premature mortality results to use of
alternative concentration-response functions. We present this
discussion in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ The scaling approach relies on the incidence and valuation
estimates derived from the studies available at the time of the CAND
analysis. Incidence estimates and monetized benefits derived from
new information, including mortality derived from the full expert
elicitation, are not available for scaling. Please refer to section
2 of this preamble and Chapter 12 of the RIA for more information
about the benefits scaling approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the publication of CAIR, a follow up to the Harvard
six-city study on premature mortality was published (Laden et al., 2006
based on Dockery et al., 1993),121 122 which both confirmed
the effect size from the first study and provided additional evidence
that reductions in PM2.5 directly result in reductions in
the risk of premature death. The impacts of including this study in the
primary analysis were explored in the results of the recently published
PM NAAQS RIA. Because the analysis of the proposed standards is
constrained to the studies included in the CAND PM benefits scaling
approach, we are unable to characterize PM-related mortality based on
Laden et al. However, we discuss the implications of these results in
the RIA for the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery.
2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173:
667-672.
\122\ Dockery, D.W., C.A. Pope, X.P. Xu, J.D. Spengler, J.H.
Ware, M.E. Fay, B.G. Ferris, and F.E. Speizer. 1993. ``An
Association between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S.
Cities.'' New England Journal of Medicine 329(24):1753-1759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All fine particles, regardless of their chemical
composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is
an important assumption, because PM produced via transported precursors
emitted from Small SI and Marine SI engines may differ significantly
from PM precursors released from electric generating units and other
industrial sources. However, no clear scientific grounds exist for
supporting differential effects estimates by particle type.
The concentration-response function for fine particles is
approximately linear within the range of ambient concentrations under
consideration. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from
reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM,
including both regions that may be in attainment with PM2.5
standards and those that are at risk of not meeting the standards.
Taking into account these uncertainties, we believe this benefit-
cost analysis provides a conservative estimate of the expected economic
benefits of the proposed standards in future years because of the
exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories. Acknowledging
benefits omissions and uncertainties, we present a best estimate of the
total benefits based on our interpretation of the best available
scientific literature and methods. Furthermore, our analysis reflects
many methodological improvements that were incorporated into the
analysis of the final Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), including a
revised value of a statistical life, a revised baseline rate of future
mortality, and a revised mortality lag assumption. Details of these
improvements can be found in the RIA for this rule and in the final
CAIR rule RIA.\123\ Once again, however, it should be noted that since
the CAIR rule, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) has adopted a
different format for its benefits analysis in which characterization of
uncertainty is integrated into the main benefits analysis. Please see
the PM NAAQS RIA for an indication of the uncertainty present in the
base estimate of benefits and the sensitivity of our results to the use
of alternative concentration-response functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See Chapter 4 of the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule RIA
(http://www.epa.gov/cair) for a discussion of EPA's ongoing efforts
to address the NAS recommendations in its regulatory analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) How Do the Benefits Compare to the Costs of the Proposed Standards?
The proposed rule establishes separate standards that reduce the
evaporative and exhaust emissions from Small SI and Marine SI engines.
A full appreciation of the overall economic consequences of these
provisions requires consideration of the benefits and costs expected to
result from each standard. Due to limitations in data availability and
analytical methods, however, we are only able to present the benefits
of the entire proposed rule in the aggregate for both PM2.5
and ozone. There are also a number of health and environmental effects
associated with the proposed standards that we were unable to quantify
or monetize (see Table XII-12).
Table XII-13 contains the estimates of monetized PM2.5-
related benefits of the proposed standards and estimated social welfare
costs for each of the proposed control programs. The annual social
welfare costs of all provisions of this proposed rule are described
more fully in the next section. The results in Table XII-13 suggest
that the 2020 and 2030 monetized benefits of the proposed standards are
much greater than the expected social welfare costs. Specifically, the
annual benefits of the program would be approximately $2.1 + B billion
annually in 2020 using a three percent discount rate (or $1.9 + B
billion using a seven percent discount rate), compared to estimated
social welfare costs of approximately $252 million in that same year.
The net benefits are expected to increase to $3.4 + B billion annually
in 2030 using a three percent discount rate (or $3.1 + B billion using
a seven percent discount rate), even as the social welfare costs of
that program fall to $241 million.
In Table XII-13, we present the costs and PM-related benefits
related to each of the two broad engine classes regulated by the
proposed standards: Small SI and Marine SI engines. Table XII-13 also
presents the costs and PM-related benefits related to the specific
engine classes regulated by the proposed standards: Small SI--Class I,
Class II, and Handheld (HH); Marine SI--Sterndrive/Inboard (SD/I), and
Outboard/Personal Water Craft (OB/PWC). Using the same PM scaling
approach described in Chapter 8.2 of the RIA, we are able to split out
the estimated PM benefits related to the different Small SI and Marine
SI engine classes. One can see that in all cases, the PM benefits
accrued by the engine classes are greater than the costs, even when
fuel savings is not factored into the cost estimate. The benefit-to-
cost ratio would be even greater if we
[[Page 28229]]
estimated the ozone benefits related to the proposed standards.
Table XII-13.--Summary of Annual Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of
the Proposed Small SI and Marine SI Engine Rule a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 (Millions 2030 (Millions
Description of 2005 of 2005
dollars) dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Social Welfare Costs b c
Small SI........................ $351 $404
Class I..................... 145 167
Class II.................... 199 229
HH d........................ 7 8
Marine SI....................... 154 164
SD/I........................ 41 44
OB/PWC...................... 113 120
Total................... 505 569
Fuel Savings............ (253) (327)
Total Social Welfare Costs.......... 252 241
Estimated Benefits e f
PM-Only Small SI Benefits
3 percent discount rate..... 861 1,280
7 percent discount rate..... 782 1,160
Class I
3 percent discount 478 647
rate...............
7 percent discount 434 587
rate...............
Class II
3 percent discount 383 627
rate...............
7 percent discount 348 570
rate...............
PM-Only Marine SI Benefits
3 percent discount rate..... 1,280 2,110
7 percent discount rate..... 1,160 1,190
SD/I
3 percent discount rate..... 209 487
7 percent discount rate..... 190 442
OB/PWC
3 percent discount rate..... 1,070 1,620
7 percent discount rate..... 969 1,470
Total PM-Only Benefits g
3 percent discount rate..... 2,140+B 3,380+B
7 percent discount rate..... 1,940+B 3,070+B
Annual Net PM-Only Benefits (Total
Benefits-Total Costs) g
3 percent discount rate..... 1,890+B 3,140+B
7 percent discount rate..... 1,690+B 2,830+B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and represent
annualized benefits and costs anticipated for the years 2020 and 2030.
Columnar totals may not sum due to rounding.
\b\ Note that costs are the annual total costs of reducing all
pollutants associated with each provision of the proposed control
package, while the benefits reflect the value of reductions in PM2.5
only.
\c\ To calculate annual fixed costs, we use a 7 percent average before-
tax rate of return on private capital (see Chapter 9). We do not
present annual costs using an alternative rate of return. In Chapter
9, however, we use both a 3 percent and 7 percent social discount rate
to calculate the net present value of total social costs consistent
with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses (US EPA,
2000 and OMB, 2003).124 125
\d\ Handheld emission reductions associated with the proposed standards,
volatile organic hydrocarbons, are not accounted for in the PM
benefits scaling approach. The PM benefit scaling approach is based
upon changes in NOX and direct PM2.5 (see section 8.2 of the RIA). We
therefore do not estimate any PM-related benefits associated with
emission reductions in the handheld engine class.
\e\ PM-related benefits in this table are nationwide.
\f\ Valuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure
assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20-year segmented lag
structure described in section 8.3 of the RIA. Valuation of non-fatal
myocardial infarctions is based on the cost-of-illness over a 5-year
period after the incident. The valuation of both endpoints therefore
requires the use of a discount rate. We present the PM-related
benefits results using a 3 percent and 7 percent social discount rate
consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses
(US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).
\g\ Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and
monetized in this analysis. B is the sum of all unquantified benefits
and disbenefits. Potential benefit categories that have not been
quantified and monetized are listed in Table XII-12.
F. Economic Impact Analysis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses. http:// www.yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed/hsf/pages/Guideline.html.
\125\ Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office of
the President, 2003. Circular A-4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) to estimate the
economic impacts of the proposed emission control program on the Small
SI and Marine SI engine and equipment markets. In this section we
briefly describe the Economic Impact Model (EIM) we developed to
estimate the market-level changes in price and outputs for affected
markets, the social costs of the program, and the expected distribution
of those costs across affected stakeholders. We also present the
results of our analysis. We request comment on all aspects of the
analysis,
[[Page 28230]]
including the model and the model inputs.
We estimate the net social costs of the proposed program to be
about $241 million in 2030.126, 127 This estimate reflects
the estimated compliance costs associated with the Small SI and Marine
SI engine standards and the expected fuel savings from improved
evaporative controls. When the fuel savings are not taken into account,
the results of the economic impact modeling suggest that the social
costs of these programs are expected to be about $569 million in 2030.
Consumers of Small SI and Marine products are expected to bear about 75
percent of these costs. Small SI engine and equipment manufacturers are
expected to bear 6 percent and 19 percent, respectively. We estimate
fuel savings of about $327 million in 2030, which will accrue to
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ All estimates presented in this section are in 2005$.
\127\ This analysis is based on an earlier version of the
engineering compliance developed for this rule. The net present
value of the engineering costs used in this analysis (without taking
the fuel savings into account, at a 3 percent discount rate over the
period of the analysis) is $10.0 billion, which is about $100
million less than the net present value of the final estimated
engineering costs, $10.1 billion. We do not expect that a difference
of this magnitude would change the overall results of this economic
impact analysis, in terms of market impacts and how the costs are
expected to be shared among stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to market-level impacts in 2030, the average price
increase for Small SI engines is expected to be about 9.1 percent ($17
per unit). The average price increase for Marine SI engines is expected
to be about 1.7 percent ($195 per unit). The largest average price
increase for Small SI equipment is expected to be about 5.6 percent
($15 per unit) for Class I equipment. The largest average price
increase for Marine SI vessels is expected to be about 2.1 percent
($178 per unit) for Personal Watercraft.
(1) What is an Economic Impact Analysis?
An Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) is prepared to inform decision
makers about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory
action. The analysis consists of estimating the social costs of a
regulatory program and the distribution of these costs across
stakeholders. These estimated social costs can then be compared with
estimated social benefits (as presented in Section XII.E). As defined
in EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, social costs are
the value of the goods and services lost by society resulting from (a)
The use of resources to comply with and implement a regulation and (b)
reductions in output.\128\ In this analysis, social costs are explored
in two steps. In the market analysis, we estimate how prices and
quantities of goods affected by the proposed emission control program
can be expected to change once the program goes into effect. In the
economic welfare analysis, we look at the total social costs associated
with the program and their distribution across stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240-R-
00-003, September 2000, p 113. A copy of this document can be found
at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) What Is the Economic Impact Model?
The EIM is a behavioral model developed for this proposal to
estimate price and quantity changes and total social costs associated
with the emission controls under consideration. The EIM simulates how
producers and consumers of affected products can be expected to respond
to an increase in production costs as a result of the proposed emission
control program. In this EIM, compliance costs are directly borne by
producers of affected goods. Depending on the producers' and consumers'
sensitivity to price changes, producers of affected products will try
to pass some or all of the increased production costs on to the
consumers of these goods through price increases. In response to the
price increases, consumers will decrease their demand for the affected
good. Producers will react to the decrease in quantity demanded by
decreasing the quantity they produce; the market will react by setting
a higher price for those fewer units. These interactions continue until
a new market equilibrium quantity and price combination is achieved.
The amount of the compliance costs that can be passed on to the
consumers is ultimately limited by the price sensitivity of consumers
and producers in the relevant market (represented by the price
elasticity of demand or supply). The EIM explicitly models these
behavioral responses and estimates the new equilibrium prices and
output and the resulting distribution of social costs across these
stakeholders (producers and consumers).
(3) What Economic Sectors Are Included in This Economic Impact
Analysis?
There are two broad economic sectors affected by the emission
control program described in this proposal: (1) Small SI engines and
equipment, and (2) Marine SI engines and equipment. For Small SI
engines and equipment we distinguish between handheld and nonhandheld
sectors. For handheld, we model one integrated handheld engine and
equipment category. On the nonhandheld side, we model 6 engine
categories, depending on engine class and useful life (Class I: UL125,
UL250, and UL500; Class II: UL250, UL500, UL1000), and 8 equipment
categories (agriculture/construction/general industrial; utility and
recreational vehicles; lawn mowers; tractors; other lawn and garden;
generator sets/welders; pumps/compressors/pressure washers; and
snowblowers). For Marine SI engines and equipment, we distinguish
between sterndrives and inboards (SD/I), outboards (OB), and personal
watercraft (PWC). SD/I and OB are further categorized by whether they
are luxury or not. All of these markets are described in more detail in
Chapter 9 of the RIA and in the industry characterizations prepared for
this proposal.
This analysis assumes that all of these products are purchased and
used by residential households. This means that to model the behavior
change associated with the proposed standards we model all uses as
residential lawn and garden care or power generation (Small SI) or
personal recreation (Marine SI). We do not explicitly model commercial
uses (how the costs of complying with the proposed programs may affect
the production of goods and services that use Small SI or Marine SI
engines or equipment as production inputs); we treat all commercial
uses as if they were residential uses. We believe this approach is
reasonable because the commercial share of the end use markets for both
Small SI and Marine SI equipment is very small.\129\ In addition, for
any commercial uses of these products the share of the cost of these
products to total production costs is also small (e.g., the cost of a
Small SI generator is only a very small part of the total production
costs for a construction firm). Therefore, a price increase of the
magnitude anticipated for this control program is not expected to have
a noticeable impact on prices or quantities of goods or services
produced using Small SI or Marine SI equipment as inputs (e.g.,
commercial turf care, construction, or fishing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) provides
annual estimates of Small SI shipments (unit volumes) broken out
into commercial and residential markets. For 2003 and 2004, the
commercial share for NHH products is estimated to be 3.3 percent and
2.8 percent, respectively; for all Small SI products is estimated to
be 1.4 percent and 1.2 percent. Similarly, commercial uses of Marine
SI vessels are limited. See the industry characterizations prepared
for this proposal for more information (RTI, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28231]]
In the EIM the Small SI and Marine SI markets are not linked (there
is no feedback mechanism between the Small SI and Marine SI market
segments). This is appropriate because the affected equipment is not
interchangeable and because there is very little overlap between the
engine producers in each market. These two sectors represent different
aspects of economic activity (lawn and garden care and power generation
as opposed to recreational marine) and production and consumption of
one product is not affected by the other. In other words, an increase
in the price of lawnmowers is not expected to have an impact on the
production and supply of personal watercraft, and vice versa.
Production and consumption of each of these products are the results of
other factors that have little cross-over impacts (the need for
residential garden upkeep or power generation; the desire for personal
recreation).
(4) What Are the Key Features of the Economic Impact Model?
A detailed description of the features of the EIM and the data used
in this analysis is provided in Chapter 9 of the RIA prepared for this
rule. The model methodology is firmly rooted in applied microeconomic
theory and was developed following the methodology set out in OAQPS's
Economic Analysis Resource Document.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Innovative Strategies and Economics
Group, OAQPS Economic Analysis Resource Document, April 1999. A copy
of this document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/econdata/Rmanual2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EIM is a computer model comprised of a series of spreadsheet
modules that simulate the supply and demand characteristics of the
markets under consideration. The initial market equilibrium conditions
are shocked by applying the compliance costs for the control program to
the supply side of the markets (this is done by shifting the relevant
supply curves by the amount of the compliance costs). The EIM uses the
model equations, model inputs, and a solution algorithm to estimate
equilibrium prices and quantities for the markets with the regulatory
program. These new prices and quantities are used to estimate the
social costs of the model and how those costs are shared among affected
markets.
The EIM uses a multi-market partial equilibrium approach to track
changes in price and quantity for the modeled markets. As explained in
EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, ``partial
equilibrium'' means that the model considers markets in isolation and
that conditions in other markets are assumed either to be unaffected by
a policy or unimportant for social cost estimation. Multi-market
analysis models go beyond partial equilibrium by extending the inquiry
to more than just single markets and attempt to capture at least some
of the interaction between markets--in this case, between selected
engine and equipment markets sectors.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240-R-
00-003, September 2000, p. 125-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EIM uses an intermediate run time frame. This means that some
factors of production are fixed and some are variable. In very short
analyses, all factors of production would be assumed to be fixed,
leaving the producers with no means to respond to the increased
production costs associated with the regulation (e.g., they cannot
adjust labor or capital inputs). Under this time horizon, the costs of
the regulation fall entirely on the producer. In the long run, all
factors of production are variable and producers can adjust production
in response to cost changes imposed by the regulation (e.g., using a
different labor/capital mix). In the intermediate run there is some
resource immobility which may cause producers to suffer producer
surplus losses, but they can also pass some of the compliance costs to
consumers.
The EIM assumes a perfectly competitive market structure. The
perfect competition assumption is a widely accepted economic practice
for this type of analysis, and only in rare cases are other approaches
used.\132\ It should be noted that the perfect competition assumption
is not about the number of firms in a market, it is about how the
market operates. The markets included in this analysis do not exhibit
evidence of noncompetitive behavior: there are no indications of
barriers to entry, the firms in these markets are not price setters,
and there is no evidence of high levels of strategic behavior in the
price and quantity decisions of the firms. These markets are also
mature markets as evidenced by unit sales growing at the rate of
population increases. Pricing power in such markets is typically
limited. In addition, the products produced within each market are
somewhat homogeneous in that engines and equipment from one firm can be
purchased instead of engines and equipment from another firm. Finally,
according to contestable market theory, oligopolies and even monopolies
will behave very much like firms in a competitive market if it is
possible to enter particular markets without cost (i.e., there are no
sunk costs associated with market entry or exit). This is the case with
these markets, as there is significant excess production capacity in
both the Small SI and Marine SI industries, in part due to improved
productivity and efficiency in current plants. Idle production capacity
also limits the ability of firms to raise prices, since competitors can
easily capture market share by increasing their production at the
expense of a producer that increases its prices. For all of these
reasons it is appropriate to use a perfect competition model to
estimate the economic impacts of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See, for example, EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses, EPA 240-R-00-003, September 2000, p 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The perfect competition assumption has an impact on the way the EIM
is structured. In a competitive market the supply curve is based on the
industry marginal cost curve; fixed costs do not influence production
decisions at the margin. Therefore, in the market analysis the model is
shocked by variable costs only. However, the nature of the Small SI and
Marine SI markets suggests the market supply curve shifts in the model
should include fixed and variable compliance costs. This is because
Small SI and Marine SI engine and equipment manufacturers produce a
product that changes very little over time. These manufacturers may not
engage in research and development to improve their products on a
continuous basis (as opposed to highway vehicles or nonroad engines and
equipment). If this is the case, then the product changes that would be
required to comply with the proposed standards would require these
manufacturers to devote new funds and resources to product redesign and
facilities changes. In this situation, Small SI and Marine SI engine
and equipment manufacturers would be expected to increase their prices
by the full amount of the compliance costs (both fixed and variable) to
attempt to recover those costs. To reflect these conditions, the supply
shift in this EIM is based on both fixed and variable costs, even
though the model assumes perfect competition. A sensitivity analysis
was performed to investigate the impacts under the alternative
scenarios of shifting the supply curve by the variable costs only. The
results of that analysis can be found in the RIA prepared for this
proposal. We request comment on the extent to which manufacturers can
be expected to devote additional funds to cover the fixed costs
associated with the standards, or whether they in fact do provide for
product development resources on a continuous basis and can
[[Page 28232]]
be expected to use those funds to cover the fixed costs. We also
request comment on whether companies would attempt to pass fixed costs
to consumers as an additional price increase and, if so, how much of
the fixed costs would be based on and for how long.
The market interactions modeled in the EIM are those between
producers and consumers of the specified engines and the equipment that
use those engines. The EIM does not consider sales distribution
networks or how the regulated goods are sold to final consumers through
wholesalers and/or retailers. This is appropriate because the proposed
regulatory program does not impose additional costs on the distribution
networks and those relationships are not expected to change as a result
of the standards. In the case of Small SI equipment, however, concerns
have been raised about the potential for dominant retailers (big box
stores such as Wal-Mart, Sears and K-Mart) to affect the ability of
manufacturers to pass along cost increases associated with new emission
control requirements, forcing them to absorb the compliance costs
associated with the proposed standards. As described in greater detail
in Chapter 9 of the RIA, dominant retailers are not expected to affect
market interactions in ways that would offset the assumption of perfect
competition by preventing firms from passing on increases in costs
associated with the control program. This is because all firms in the
market are expected to comply with the control program, and all will
experience an increase in marginal costs. Profit-maximizing
manufacturers will continue to follow a marginal cost pricing rule
regardless of the distribution arrangements. If large retail
distributors attempted to prevent efficient manufacturers from raising
prices in response to the standards, manufacturers would likely respond
to a retailer's price pressure by reducing output. This would result in
large excess demand in the equipment market which would ultimately have
to be satisfied through a new higher equilibrium price, which in turn
would result in greater supply, thus bidding the price down to a new
market equilibrium after the application of the control program.
The relationships modeled in the EIM do not include substitution
away from Small SI and Marine SI engines and equipment to diesel or
electric alternatives. This is appropriate because consumers are not
likely to make these substitutions. Substitution to diesel Small SI
equipment is not a viable option for most residential consumers, either
because diesel equipment does not exist (e.g., diesel string trimmers)
or because there would be a large price premium that would discourage
the use of diesel equipment (e.g., diesel lawnmowers and diesel
recreational marine vessels). In addition, most households are not
equipped to handle the additional fuel type and misfueling would carry
a high cost. Finally, the lack of a large infrastructure system already
in place like the one supporting the use of gasoline equipment for
residential and recreational purposes, including refueling and
maintenance, represents a large barrier to substitution from gasoline
to diesel equipment. On the electric side, the impact of substitution
to electric for Small SI equipment (there are no comparable options for
Marine SI) is also expected to be negligible. Gasoline is the power
source of choice for small and inexpensive equipment due to its low
initial cost. Gasoline equipment is also inherently portable, which
make them more attractive to competing electric equipment that must be
connected with a power grid or use batteries that require frequent
recharging.
The EIM is a market-level analysis that estimates the aggregate
economic impacts of the control program on the relevant market. It is
not a firm-level analysis and therefore the supply elasticity or
individual compliance costs facing any particular manufacturer may be
different from the market average. This difference can be important,
particular where the rule affects different firms' costs over different
volumes of production. However, to the extent there are differential
effects on individual firms, EPA believes that the wide array of
compliance flexibilities provided in this proposal are adequate to
address any cost inequities that are likely to arise.
Finally, consistent with the proposed emission controls, this EIA
covers engines sold in 49 states. California engines are not included
because California has its own state-level controls for Small SI and
Marine SI engines. The sole exceptions are Small SI engines used in
agriculture and construction applications in California. These engines
are included in the control program and in this analysis because the
Clean Air Act pre-empts California from setting standards for these
engines.
(5) What Are the Key Model Inputs?
Key model inputs for the EIM are the behavioral parameters, the
market equilibrium quantities and prices, and the compliance cost
estimates.
The model's behavioral paramaters are the price elasticities of
supply and demand. These parameters reflect how producers and consumers
of the engines and equipment affected by the standards can be expected
to change their behavior in response to the costs incurred in complying
with the standards. More specifically, the price elasticity of supply
and demand (reflected in the slope of the supply and demand curves)
measure the price sensitivity of consumers and producers. The price
elasticities used in this analysis are summarized in Table XII.F-1 and
are described in more detail in Chapter 9 of the RIA. An ``inelastic''
price elasticity (less than one) means that supply or demand is not
very responsive to price changes (a one percent change in price leads
to less than one percent change in demand). An ``elastic'' price
elasticity (more than one) means that supply or demand is sensitive to
price changes (a one percent change in price leads to more than one
percent change in demand). A price elasticity of one is unit elastic,
meaning there is a one-to-one correspondence between a change in price
and change in demand.
Table XII. F-1.--Behavioral Parameters Used in Small SI/Marine SI Economic Impact Model
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Market Demand elasticity Source Supply elasticity Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine............................. Small SI and Marine SI Derived............... N/A.................. 3.8 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric
Engine Market. Estimate.
Small SI Equipment................. All handheld.......... -1.9 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric 3.4 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric
Estimate. Estimate.
Lawn Mowers........... -0.2 (inelastic)...... EPA Econometric Same as above........
Estimate.
Other lawn & garden... -0.9 (inelastic)...... EPA Econometric Same as above........
Estimate.
[[Page 28233]]
Gensets/welders (class -1.4 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric 3.3 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric
I). Estimate. Estimate.
Gensets/welders (class -1.1 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric Same as above........
II). Estimate.
All other non-handheld -1.0 (unit elastic)... EPA Econometric 3.4 (elastic) Same as
Estimate. above.
Marine SI Equipment................ PWC................... -2.0 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric 3.4 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric
Estimate. Estimate.
All other vessels Same as above......... ..................... 2.3 (elastic)........ EPA Econometric
types. Estimate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated supply and demand elasticities were based on best
data we could find. We used (1) The industry-level data published by
the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)-Center for Economic
Studies (Bartlesman, Becker, and Gray, 2000); (2) Current Industrial
Reports (CIR) series from the U.S. Census Bureau; (3) several data
series reported in a study by Air Improvement Resource Inc. and
National Economic Research Associates (AIR/NERA, 2003) for the walk-
behind lawnmowers; (4) the U.S. Census Bureau historical data on
household income and housing starts (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; 2004);
(5) price, wage, and material cost indexes from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) (BLS, 2004a,b,c,d,e); (6) the implicit gross domestic
product (GDP) price deflator reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA, 2004). It should be noted that the aggregate data we
used to estimate elasticities include data on other markets as well as
the Small SI or Marine SI markets. If we had been able to obtain
market-specific data for Small SI or Marine SI only, the estimated
price elasticities may have been different.
The estimated supply elasticities for all of the equipment and
engine markets are elastic, ranging from 2.3 for all recreational
marine except PWC, to 3.3 for generators, 3.4 for PWCs and all Small SI
except generators, and 3.8 for engines. This means that quantities
supplied are expected to be fairly sensitive to price changes (e.g., a
1% change in price yields a 3.3 percent change in quantity of
generators produced).
On the demand side, the Marine SI equipment market estimated demand
elasticity is elastic, at -2.0. This is consistent with the
discretionary nature of purchases of recreational marine vessels
(consumers can easily decide to spend their recreational budget on
other alternatives).
The estimated demand elasticity for handheld equipment is elastic,
at -1.9. This suggests that consumers are more sensitive to price
changes for handheld equipment than for other Small SI equipment. In
other words, they are more likely to change their purchase decision for
a small change in the price of a string trimmer, perhaps opting for
trimmer shears or deciding to forego trimming altogether.
The estimated demand elasticity for lawnmowers is very inelastic at
-0.2. This suggests that consumers of this equipment are not very
sensitive to price changes. Most of this equipment is sold to
individual homeowners, who are often required by local authorities to
keep their lawns trimmed. Household ownership of a gasoline lawnmower
is often their least expensive option. Lawncare services are more
expensive since the price for these services includes labor and other
factors of production. Purchasing other equipment may also not be
attractive, since electric and diesel mowers are generally more
expensive and often less convenient. Finally, the option of using
landscape alternatives (e.g., prairie, wildflower, or rock gardens) may
not be attractive for homeowners who may also use their yards for
recreational purposes. For all these reasons, the price sensitivity of
homeowners to lawnmower prices would be expected to be inelastic.
All the other demand elasticities, for gensets, welders,
compressors, and ag/construction equipment, are about unit elastic, at
-1.0 meaning a 1 percent change in price is expected to result in a 1
percent change in demand.
The demand elasticities for the engine markets are internally
derived as part of the process of running the model. This is an
important feature of the EIM, which allows it to link the engine and
equipment components of each model and simulate how compliance costs
can be expected to ripple through the affected market. In actual
markets, for example, the quantity of lawnmowers produced in a
particular period depends on the price of engines (the Small SI engine
market) and the demand for equipment by residential consumers.
Similarly, the number of engines produced depends on the demand for
engines (the lawnmower market) which depends on consumer demand for
equipment. Changes in conditions in one of these markets will affect
the others. By designing the model to derive the engine demand
elasticities, the EIM simulates these connections between supply and
demand among the product markets and replicates the economic
interactions between producers and consumers.
Initial market equilibrium quantities for these markets are
simulated using the same current year sales quantities used in the
engineering cost analysis. The initial market equilibrium prices for
Small SI and Marine SI engines and equipment were derived from industry
sources and published data and are described in Chapter 9 of the Draft
RIA.
The compliance costs used to shock the model, to simulate the
application of the control program, are the same as the engineering
costs described in Chapter 6. However, the EIM uses an earlier version
of the engineering compliance developed for this rule. The net present
value of the engineering costs used in this analysis (without taking
the fuel savings into account, at a 3 percent discount rate over the
period of the analysis) is $10.0 billion, which is about $100 million
less than the net present value of the final estimated engineering
costs, $10.1 billion. We do not expect that a difference of this
magnitude would change the overall results of this economic impact
analysis, in terms of market impacts and how the costs are expected to
be shared among stakeholders.
As explained in Section XII.F.4, the EIM uses both fixed and
variable engineering costs to shock the initial equilibrium conditions.
The fixed costs are amortized over the first 5 years of the standards
and include a 7 percent cost of capital. For some elements of the
program (i.e., evaporative emission controls), fixed costs are incurred
[[Page 28234]]
throughout the period of analysis due to the need to replace tooling.
Additional costs that need to be considered in the EIM are the
operating costs (fuel savings) associated with the evaporative emission
controls. These fuel savings are not included in the market analysis
for this economic impact analysis. This is because all available
evidence suggests that fuel savings do not affect consumer decisions
with respect to the purchase of this equipment. Unlike motor vehicles
or other consumer goods, neither Small SI nor Marine SI equipment is
labeled with expected fuel consumption or expected annual operating
costs. Therefore, there is no information available for the consumer to
use to make this decision. Instead consumers base their purchase
decision on other attributes of the product for which the manufacturer
provides information. For lawn mowers this may be the horsepower of the
engine, whether the machine has a bag or has a mulching feature, its
blade size, etc. For PWC it may be how many people it can carry, its
maximum speed, its horsepower, etc. In many cases, especially for Small
SI equipment, the consumer may not even be aware of the fuel savings
when operating the equipment, especially if he or she uses the same
portable fuel storage container to fuel several different pieces of
equipment.
These fuel savings are included in the social cost analysis. This
is because they are savings that accrue to society. These savings are
attributed to consumers of the relevant equipment. As explained in more
detail in Section 9.3.5 of the Draft RIA, the social cost analysis is
based on the equivalent of the pre-tax price of gasoline in that
analysis. Although the consumer will realize a savings equal to the
pump price of gasoline (post-tax), part of that savings is offset by a
tax loss to governmental agencies and is thus a loss to consumers of
the services supported by those taxes. This tax revenue loss,
considered a transfer payment in this analysis, does not affect the
benefit-cost analysis results.
(6) What Are the Results of the Economic Impact Modeling?
Using the model and data described above, we estimated the economic
impacts of the proposed emission control program. We performed a market
analysis for all years and all engine and equipment types. In this
section we present summarized results for selected markets and years.
More detail can be found in the appendices to Chapter 9 of the RIA and
in the docket for this rule.\133\ Also included in Appendix 9H to that
chapter are sensitivity analyses for several key inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Li, Chi. 2007. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008.
Detailed Results From Economic Impact Model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EIA consists of two parts: a market analysis and a welfare
analysis. The market analysis looks at expected changes in prices and
quantities for affected products. The welfare analysis looks at
economic impacts in terms of annual and present value changes in social
costs.
As explained in Section XII.F.4, the EIM is shocked by the sum of
fixed and variable costs. For the market analysis, this leads to a
small increase in estimated price impacts for the years 2011 through
2016, the period during which fixed costs are recovered. The increase
is small because, for many elements of the program, annual per unit
fixed costs are smaller than annual per unit variable costs. For the
welfare analysis, applying both fixed and variable costs means that the
burden of the social costs attributable to producers and consumers
remains fixed throughout the period of analysis. This is because
producers pass the fixed costs to consumers at the same rate as the
variable costs instead of having to absorb them internally.
(a) Market Impact Analysis
In the market analysis, we estimate how prices and quantities of
goods affected by the proposed emission control program can be expected
to change once the program goes into effect. The analysis relies on the
initial market equilibrium prices and quantities for each type of
equipment and the price elasticity of supply and demand. It predicts
market reactions to the increase in production costs due to the new
compliance costs (variable and fixed). It should be noted that this
analysis does not allow any other factors of production to vary. In
other words, it does not consider that manufacturers may adjust their
production processes or marketing strategies in response to the control
program. Also, as explained above, while the markets are shocked by
both fixed and variable costs, the market shock is not offset by fuel
savings.
A summary of the estimated market impacts is presented in Table
XII.F-2 for 2013, 2018, and 2030. These years were chosen because 2013
is the year of highest compliance; after 2018, the fixed costs are
recovered and the market impacts reflect variable costs as well as
growth in equipment population; and 2030 illustrates the long-term
impacts of the program.
Market level impacts are reported for the engine and equipment
markets separately. This is because the EIM is a two-level model that
treats these markets separately. However, changes in equipment prices
and quantities are due to impacts of both direct equipment compliance
costs and indirect engine compliance costs that are passed through to
the equipment market from the engine market through higher engine
prices.
The average market-level impacts presented in this section are
designed to provide a broad overview of the expected market impacts
that is useful when considering the impacts of the rule on the economy
as a whole. The average price impacts are product-weighted averages of
the results for the individual engine and equipment categories included
in that sub-sector (e.g., the estimated Marine SI engine price and
quantity changes are weighted averages of the estimated results for all
of the Marine SI engine markets). The average quantity impacts are the
sum of the decrease in units produced units across sub-markets. Price
increases and quantity decreases for specific types of engines and
equipment are likely to be different.
Although each of the affected equipment in this analysis generally
requires one engine (the exception being Marine SI sterndrive/
inboards), the estimated decrease in the number of engines produced in
Table XII.F-2 is less than the estimated decrease in the number of
equipment produced. At first glance, this result seems counterintuitive
because it does not reflect the approximate one-to-one correspondence
between engines and equipment. This discrepancy occurs because the
engine market-level analysis examines only output changes for engines
that are produced by independent engine manufacturers and subsequently
sold to independent equipment manufacturers. Engines produced and
consumed by vertically integrated equipment/engine manufacturers are
not explicitly modeled. Therefore, the market-level analysis only
reflects engines sold on the ``open market,'' and estimates of output
changes for engines consumed internally are not reflected in this
number.\134\ Despite the fact that changes
[[Page 28235]]
in consumption of internally consumed engines are not directly reported
in the market-level analysis results, the costs associated with these
engines are included in the market-level analysis (as supply shift for
the equipment markets). In addition, the cost and welfare analyses
include the compliance costs associated with internally consumed
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ For example, PWC and handheld equipment producers
generally integrate equipment and engine manufacturing processes and
are included in the EIM as one-level equipment markets. Since there
is no engine market for these engines, the EIM does not include PWC
and handheld engine consumption changes in engine market-level
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine SI Market Analysis
The average price increase for Marine SI engines in 2013, the high
cost year, is estimated to be about 2.3 percent, or $257. By 2018, this
average price increase is expected to decline to about 1.7 percent, or
$196, and remain at that level for later years. The market impact
analysis predicts that with these increases in engine prices the
expected average decrease in total sales in 2013 is about 2.0 percent,
or 8,800 engines. This decreases to about 1.6 percent in 2018, or about
7,000 engines.
On the vessel side, the average price change reflects the direct
equipment compliance costs plus the portion of the engine costs that
are passed on to the equipment purchaser (via higher engine prices).
The average price increase in 2013 is expected to be about 1.3 percent,
or $232. By 2018, this average price increase is expected to decline to
about 1 percent, or $178. These price increases are expected to vary
across vessel categories. The category with the largest price increase
in 2013 is expected to be personal watercraft engines, with an
estimated price increase of about 2.8 percent in 2013; this is expected
to decrease to 2.1 percent in 2018. The smallest expected change in
2013 is expected to be for sterndrive/inboards and outboard
recreational vessels, which are expected to see price increases of
about 0.7 percent. The market impact analysis predicts that with these
increases in vessel prices the expected average decrease in quantity
produced in 2013 is about 2.7 percent, or 11,000 vessels.\135\ This is
expected to decrease to about 2.0 percent in 2018, or about 8,600
vessels. The personal watercraft category is expected to experience the
largest decline in 2013, about 5.6 percent (4,800 vessels). The
smallest percentage decrease in production is expected for sterndrive/
inboards at 1.4 percent (1,300 vessels); the smallest absolute decrease
in quantity is expected for outboard recreational vessels, at 113
vessels (1.5 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ It should be noted that the absolute change in the number
of engines and equipment does not match. This is because the
absolute change in the quantity of engines represents only engines
sold on the open market. Reductions in engines consumed internally
by integrated engine/equipment manufacturers are not reflected in
this number but are captured in the social cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small SI Market Analysis
The average price increase for Small SI engines in 2013, the high
cost year, is estimated to be about 11.7 percent, or $22. By 2018, this
average price increase is expected to decline to about 9.1 percent, or
$17, and remain at that level for later years. The market impact
analysis predicts that with these increases in engine prices the
expected average decrease in total sales in 2013 is expected to be
about 2.3 percent, or 371,000 engines. This is expected to decrease to
about 1.7 percent in 2018, or about 299,000 engines.
On the equipment side, the average price change reflects the direct
equipment compliance costs plus the portion of the engine costs that
are passed on to the equipment purchaser (via higher engine prices).
The average price increase for all Small SI equipment in 2013 is
expected to be about 3.1 percent, or $14. By 2018, this average price
increase is expected to decline to about 2.4 percent, or $10. The
average price increase and quantity decrease differs by category of
equipment. As shown in Table XII.F-2, the price increase for Class I
equipment is estimated to be about 6.9 percent ($19) in 2013,
decreasing to 5.5 percent ($15) in 2018. The market impact analysis
predicts that with these increases in equipment prices the expected
average decrease in the quantity of Class I equipment produced in 2013
is about 2.2 percent, or 219,400 units.\136\ This is expected to
decrease to about 1.8 percent in 2018, or about 189,700 units. For
Class II equipment, a higher price increase is expected, about 3.9
percent ($41) in 2013, decreasing to 2.6 percent ($25) in 2018. The
expected average decrease in the quantity of Class II equipment
produced in 2013 is about 4.3 percent, or 157,300 units, decreasing to
2.8 percent, or about 114,000 units, in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ See previous note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the handheld equipment market, prices are expected to increase
about 0.3 percent for all years, and quantities are expected to
decrease about 0.6 percent.
Table XII.F-2.--Estimated Market Impacts for 2013, 2018, 2030
[2005$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in price Change in quantity
Market ---------------------------------------------------
Absolute Percent Absolute Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine:
Engines................................................. $257 2.3 -8,846 -2.0
Equipment............................................... 232 1.3 -10,847 -2.7
SD/I................................................ 252 0.7 -1,336 -1.4
OB Recreational..................................... 638 0.7 -113 -1.5
OB Luxury........................................... 206 1.1 -4,579 -2.1
PWC................................................. 237 2.8 -4,819 -5.6
Small SI:
Engines................................................. 22 11.7 -371,097 -2.3
Equipment............................................... 14 3.1 -482,942 -1.9
Class I............................................. 19 6.9 -219,400 -2.2
Class II............................................ 41 3.9 -157,306 -4.3
HH.................................................. 0.3 0.3 -106,236 -0.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28236]]
2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine:
Engines................................................. 196 1.7 -7,002 -1.6
Equipment............................................... 178 1.0 -8,563 -2.0
SD/I................................................ 195 0.5 -1,072 -1.1
OB Recreational..................................... 496 0.6 -91 -1.1
OB Luxury........................................... 160 0.8 -3,634 -1.6
PWC................................................. 178 2.1 -3,766 -4.2
Small SI:
Engines................................................. 17 9.1 -298,988 -1.7
Equipment............................................... 10 2.4 -401,025 -1.4
Class I............................................. 15 5.5 -189,771 -1.8
Class II............................................ 25 2.6 -113,999 -2.8
HH.................................................. 0.2 0.3 -97,255 -0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine:
Engines................................................. 195 1.7 -7,728 -1.6
Equipment............................................... 179 1.0 -9,333 -2.0
SD/I................................................ 195 0.5 -1,161 -1.1
OB Recreational..................................... 496 0.6 -98 -1.1
OB Luxury........................................... 160 0.8 -3,998 -1.7
PWC................................................. 178 2.1 -4,076 -4.2
Small SI:
Engines................................................. 17 9.1 -354,915 -1.7
Equipment............................................... 10 2.4 -475,825 -1.4
Class I............................................. 15 5.6 -225,168 -1.8
Class II............................................ 25 2.6 -135,400 -2.8
HH.................................................. 0.2 0.3 -115,257 -0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Economic Welfare Analysis
In the economic welfare analysis we look at the costs to society of
the proposed program in terms of losses to consumer and producer
surplus. These surplus losses are combined with the fuel savings to
estimate the net economic welfare impacts of the proposed program.
Estimated annual net social costs for selected years are presented in
Table XII-F-3. This table shows that total social costs for each year
are slightly less than the total engineering costs. This is because the
total engineering costs do not reflect the decreased sales of engines
and equipment that are incorporated in the total social costs.
Table XII.F-3.--Estimated Annual Engineering and Social Costs, Through 2038
[2005$, $million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
Total engineering Net social
Year engineering Total social Fuel savings costs costs
costs costs (including (including
fuel savings) fuel savings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................ $9.5 $9.5 $3.1 $6.4 $6.4
2009............................ 171.7 168.8 13.7 157.9 155.1
2010............................ 191.1 188.0 25.4 165.7 162.6
2011............................ 470.5 463.4 64.9 405.7 398.5
2012............................ 647.3 638.2 103.5 543.8 534.7
2013............................ 652.5 643.4 136.5 516.0 506.9
2014............................ 621.1 613.1 161.2 459.9 451.9
2015............................ 627.0 619.0 182.3 444.7 436.7
2016............................ 520.9 515.2 200.9 320.0 314.2
2017............................ 492.6 487.5 216.2 276.4 271.3
2018............................ 497.2 492.0 229.9 267.3 262.1
2019............................ 503.6 498.4 242.1 261.5 256.2
2020............................ 510.0 504.7 253.1 256.9 251.6
2021............................ 516.4 511.0 263.3 253.1 247.8
2022............................ 522.7 517.3 272.9 249.8 244.4
2023............................ 529.1 523.7 281.4 247.7 242.3
2024............................ 535.8 530.3 289.3 246.5 241.0
2025............................ 542.3 536.7 296.6 245.6 240.0
2026............................ 548.7 543.1 303.6 245.1 239.5
[[Page 28237]]
2027............................ 555.2 549.4 310.1 245.1 239.3
2028............................ 561.6 555.8 316.3 245.3 239.5
2029............................ 568.0 562.2 322.0 246.1 240.2
2030............................ 574.5 568.6 327.3 247.2 241.3
2031............................ 580.9 575.0 332.3 248.6 242.6
2032............................ 587.4 581.3 337.1 250.3 244.2
2033............................ 593.8 587.7 341.7 252.1 246.0
2034............................ 600.3 594.1 346.1 254.2 248.0
2035............................ 606.7 600.5 350.4 256.3 250.1
2036............................ 613.1 606.9 354.5 258.6 252.3
2037............................ 619.6 613.2 358.5 261.1 254.7
2038............................ 626.0 619.6 362.5 263.6 257.1
NPV at 3% a..................... 9,996.2 9,882.2 4,356.2 5,640.1 5,526.0
NPV at 7% a..................... 5,863.6 5,794.1 2,291.5 3,572.1 3,502.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ EPA EPA presents the present value of cost and benefits estimates using both a three percent and a seven
percent social discount rate. According to OMB Circular A-4, ``the 3 percent discount rate represents the
``social rate of time preference'* * * [which] means the rate at which `society' discounts future consumption
flows to their present value''; ``the seven percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of
return to private capital in the U.S. economy* * * [that] approximates the opportunity cost of capital.''
Table XII.F-4 shows how total social costs are expected to be
shared across stakeholders, for selected years. According to these
results, consumers in the Marine SI market are expected to bear
approximately 66 percent of the cost of the Marine SI program. This is
expected to be offset by the fuel savings. Vessel manufacturers are
expected to bear about 22 percent of that program, and engine
manufacturers the remaining 11 percent. In the Small SI market,
consumers are expected to bear 79 percent of the cost of the Small SI
program. This will also be offset by the fuel savings. Equipment
manufacturers are expected to bear about 17 percent of that program,
and engine manufacturers the remaining 4 percent. The estimated
percentage changes in surplus are the same for all years because the
initial equilibrium conditions are shocked by both fixed and variable
costs; producers would pass the fixed costs to consumers at the same
rate as the variable costs.
Table XII.F-4: Summary of Estimated Social Costs for 2013, 2018, 2030
[2005 $, $ million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute
Market change in Percent change Fuel savings Total change
surplus in surplus in surplus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine SI:
Engine Manufacturers........................ -$21.54 11 .............. -$21.54
Equipment Manufacturers..................... -42.23 22 .............. -42.23
End User (Households)....................... -125.14 66 $42.27 -82.87
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ -188.91 .............. .............. -146.64
---------------------------------------------------------------
Small SI:
Engine Manufacturers........................ -18.36 4 .............. -18.36
Equipment Manufacturers..................... -80.16 18 .............. -80.16
End User (Households)....................... -355.95 78 94.26 -261.69
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ -454.47 .............. .............. -360.21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... -643.38 .............. 136.53 -506.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine SI:
Engine Manufacturers........................ -17.29 11 .............. -17.29
Equipment Manufacturers..................... -34.02 22 .............. -34.02
End User (Households)....................... -100.19 66 87.12 -13.07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ -151.50 .............. .............. -64.38
---------------------------------------------------------------
Small SI:
Engine Manufacturers........................ -13.89 4 .............. -13.89
Equipment Manufacturers..................... -57.65 17 .............. -57.65
[[Page 28238]]
End User (Households)....................... -268.95 79 142.78 -126.17
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ -340.49 .............. .............. -197.71
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... -491.99 .............. 229.90 -262.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine SI:
Engine Manufacturers........................ -18.81 11 .............. -18.81
Equipment Manufacturers..................... -36.97 23 .............. -36.97
End User (Households)....................... -108.52 66 149.36 40.84
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ -164.30 .............. .............. -14.94
---------------------------------------------------------------
Small SI:
Engine Manufacturers........................ -16.49 4 .............. -16.49
Equipment Manufacturers..................... -68.45 17 .............. -68.45
End User (Households)....................... -319.31 79 177.89 -141.42
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ -404.25 .............. .............. -226.36
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... -568.55 .............. 327.25 -241.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XII.F-5 contains more detailed information on the sources of
the social costs for 2013. This table shows that vessel and equipment
manufacturers are expected to bear more of the burden of the program
than engine manufacturers. On the marine side, the loss of producer
surplus for the vessel manufacturers has two sources. First, they would
bear part of the burden of the equipment costs. Second, they would also
bear part of the engine costs, which are passed on to vessel
manufacturers in the form of higher engine prices. Vessel manufacturers
would not be able to pass along a greater share of the engine and
vessel compliance costs to end consumers due to the elastic price
elasticity of demand for consumers of these vessels. On the Small SI
side, equipment manufacturers can pass on more of the compliance costs
to end consumers because the price elasticity of demand in these
markets is less elastic.
Table XII.F-5.--Distribution of Estimated Surplus Changes by Market and Stakeholder for 2013
[2005$, million$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering
Scenario compliance Producer Consumer Total Fuel Net
costs surplus surplus surplus savings surplus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine SI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Manufacturers.............. $133.2 -$21.5 ........... -$21.5 ........... -$21.5
---------------------------------------------