[Federal Register: October 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59033-59380]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08oc08-17]
[[Page 59033]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 9, 60, 80 et al.
Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment;
Final Rule
[[Page 59034]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 60, 80, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 1027, 1033,
1039, 1042, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065, 1068, and 1074
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008; FRL-8712-8]
RIN 2060-AM34
Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and
Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are setting emission standards for new nonroad spark-
ignition engines that will substantially reduce emissions from these
engines. The exhaust emission standards apply starting in 2010 for new
marine spark-ignition engines, including first-time EPA standards for
sterndrive and inboard engines. The exhaust emission standards 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 adopting
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, this rule will result in significantly
reduced pollutant emissions from regulated engine and equipment
sources, including estimated annual nationwide reductions of 604,000
tons of volatile organic hydrocarbon emissions, 132,200 tons of
NOX emissions, and 5,500 tons of directly-emitted
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 1,461,000 tons of
carbon monoxide emissions, with the greatest reductions in areas where
there have been problems with individual exposures. The requirements in
this rule will substantially benefit public health and welfare and the
environment. We estimate that by 2030, on an annual basis, these
emission reductions will prevent 230 PM-related premature deaths,
between 77 and 350 ozone-related premature deaths, approximately 1,700
hospitalizations and emergency room visits, 23,000 work days lost,
180,000 lost school days, 590,000 acute respiratory symptoms, and other
quantifiable benefits every year. The total annual benefits of this
rule in 2030 are estimated to be between $1.8 billion and $4.4 billion,
assuming a 3% discount rate. The total annual benefits of this rule in
2030 are estimated to be between $1.6 billion and $4.3 billion,
assuming a 7% discount rate. Estimated costs in 2030 are many times
less at approximately $190 million.
DATES: This rule is effective on December 8, 2008. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this regulation is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 8, 2008.
ADDRESSES:
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.
The docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334
in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation will
be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Docket is (202)
566-1742.
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: connell.carol@epa.gov.
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.
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 regulations. Note that we are adopting
minor changes in the regulations that apply to a wide range of products
that may not be reflected in the following table (see Section VIII). If
you have questions, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS codes SIC codes Examples of potentially regulated
Category \a\ \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 Manufacturers of marine vessels.
3732
Industry...................................... 811112 7533 Commercial importers of vehicles and
811198 7549 vehicle components.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
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 Rule into Perspective
E. What Requirements Are We Adopting?
F. How Is This Document Organized?
G. Judicial Review
II. Public Health and Welfare Effects
A. Public Health Impacts
B. Air Toxics
C. Carbon Monoxide
[[Page 59035]]
III. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines
A. Overview
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
C. 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. Final Exhaust Emission Standards
D. Changes to 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. Final 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. Final Evaporative Emission Standards
D. Emission Credit Programs
E. Testing Requirements
F. Certification and Compliance Provisions
G. Small-Business Provisions
H. Technological Feasibility
VII. Energy, Noise, and Safety
A. Safety
B. Noise
C. Energy
VIII. Requirements 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)
H. Amendments Related to Locomotive, Marine, and Other Nonroad
Compression-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Parts 89, 92, 94, 1033, 1039,
and 1042)
IX. 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
X. Public Participation
XI. 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
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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction
A. Overview
This rule will reduce the mobile-source contribution to air
pollution in the United States. In particular, we are adopting
standards that will 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 new emission 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 rule are already regulated under existing emission
standards, except sterndrive and inboard marine engines, which are
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 2030
without this final rule these engines would account for about 33
percent (1,287,000 tons) of mobile source volatile organic hydrocarbon
compounds (VOC) emissions, 31 percent (15,605,000 tons) of mobile
source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, 6 percent (311,300 tons) of
mobile source oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions, and 12
percent (44,000 tons) of mobile source particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions. The new 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 new
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 environmental
problems associated with Marine SI engines and Small SI engines, such
as injury to vegetation and ecosystems and visibility impairment. These
effects are described in more detail later in this document.
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 set standards for nonroad spark-
ignition engines comes from section 428(b) of the 2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, which requires EPA to adopt 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 rule implements
Congress' mandate by adopting new requirements for particular nonroad
engines and equipment that are regulated as part of
[[Page 59036]]
EPA's overall nonroad emission control program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public Law 108-199, Div G, Title IV, Sec. 428(b), 118 Stat.
418 (January 23, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are adopting 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 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 adopting
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
regulations Cross reference
Engine categories establishing emission to table I-2
standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Locomotives engines........ 40 CFR Part 92 and d, l.
1033.
2. Marine diesel engines...... 40 CFR Part 94 and g, i, j, l.
1042.
3. Other nonroad diesel 40 CFR Parts 89 and a, e, k.
engines. 1039.
4. Marine SI engines \a\...... 40 CFR Part 91....... c.
5. Recreational vehicles...... 40 CFR Part 1051..... i.
6. Small SI engines \b\....... 40 CFR Part 90....... b, f, h.
7. Large SI engines \b\....... 40 CFR Part 1048..... i.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 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.
\b\ 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.
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--Tier 1..... 56 FR 31306............. June 17, 1994.
b. Small SI engines--Phase 1...................... 60 FR 34581............. July 3, 1995.
c. Marine SI engines--outboard and personal 61 FR 52088............. October 4, 1996.
watercraft.
d. Locomotives.................................... 63 FR 18978............. April 16, 1998.
e. Land-based diesel engines--Tier 1 and Tier 2 63 FR 56968............. October 23, 1998.
for engines < 37 kW--Tier 2 and Tier 3 for
engines >= 37 kW.
f. Small SI engines (Nonhandheld)--Phase 2........ 64 FR 15208............. March 30, 1999.
g. Commercial marine diesel < 30 liters per 64 FR 73300............. December 29, 1999.
cylinder.
h. Small SI engines (Handheld)--Phase 2........... 65 FR 24268............. April 25, 2000.
i. Recreational vehicles, Industrial spark- 67 FR 68242............. November 8, 2002.
ignition engines > 19 kW, and Recreational marine
diesel.
j. Marine diesel engines >= 2.5 liters/cylinder... 68 FR 9746.............. February 28, 2003.
k. Land-based diesel engines--Tier 4.............. 69 FR 38958............. June 29, 2004.
l. Locomotives and commercial marine diesel < 30 73 FR 37096............. June 30, 2008.
liters per cylinder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59037]]
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 (64 FR 15208).\4\
The Phase 2 regulations included a phase-in period that has recently
been completed. 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\ 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 handheld
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 (69 FR 1824). 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.\5\ However, we believe it is appropriate
to apply evaporative emission standards to handheld engines similar to
the standards we are adopting for the nonhandheld engines.
Manufacturers can control evaporative emissions from handheld engines
in a way that has little or no impact on exhaust emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 for the other engine categories
subject to this final rule. The Tier 2 standards also include
evaporative emission standards, new transient test procedures,
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. We 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. The
California Air Resources Board 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 do
not increase overall stringency beyond that reflected in the federal
standards. As a result, we believe it is inappropriate to adopt 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. This rule preserves this approach.
Recreational Vehicles
We adopted exhaust and evaporative emission standards for
recreational vehicles in our November 8, 2002 final rule (67 FR 68242).
These standards apply to all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles,
and snowmobiles.\6\ These exhaust emission standards were fully phased
in starting with the 2007 model year. The evaporative emission
standards apply starting with the 2008 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 included 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. Considering these new
requirements for recreational vehicles in a 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.
[[Page 59038]]
All-Terrain Vehicles
EPA's initial round of exhaust emission standards was fully
implemented starting with the 2007 model year. The regulations for all-
terrain vehicles (ATV) specify testing based on a chassis-based
transient procedure. However, we permit manufacturers on an interim
basis to optionally use a steady-state engine-based procedure. We
recently completed a change in the regulations to extend this allowance
from 2009 through 2014, after which manufacturers must certify all
their ATVs based on the chassis-based transient test procedure that
applies for off-highway motorcycles (72 FR 20730, April 26, 2007). This
change does not represent an increase in stringency, but manufacturers
will be taking time to make the transition to the different test
procedure. We expect that there will be a good potential to apply
further emission controls on these engines. However, we do not have
information at this time on possible advances in technology beyond what
is required for the current standards.
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 expect to be able to better judge
the potential for broadly applying new technology to achieve further
emission reductions from off-highway motorcycles.
Snowmobiles
In our November 8, 2002 final rule we set three phases of exhaust
emission standards for snowmobiles (67 FR 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 above 50 hp and
there is still a fundamental need for time to pass to allow us to
assess the success of four-stroke engine technology in the
marketplace.\7\ This is an important aspect of the assessment we need
to conduct with regard to the Phase 3 emission standards. We believe it
is best to address this in a separate rulemaking and we have initiated
that effort to evaluate the appropriate long-term emission standards
for snowmobiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Only about 3 percent of snowmobiles are rated below 50
horsepower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 recently adopted a new
round of more stringent emission standards for both locomotives and
marine diesel engines that will require widespread use of
aftertreatment technology (73 FR 37096, June 30, 2008).
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 Rule 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.
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 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 codifying these preemption changes in this
rule.
The California Air Resources Board (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.
[[Page 59039]]
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 ARB 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 ARB 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 for identifying 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 adopted exhaust emission standards and
new evaporative emission standards for these engines, consistent with
EPA's 2007 model year standards. Their new requirements also included
an additional level of emission control for Large SI engines starting
with the 2010 model year. However, their 2010 standards do 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.
Actions in Other Countries
While the new 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 at
or above 50 cc 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 must
require that engines placed on the market meet the requirements of the
Directive, whether or not they are already installed in machinery.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: P = rated power in kilowatts (kW).
E. What Requirements Are We Adopting?
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 and fuel
systems 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 in
this rulemaking. See the later sections for a full discussion of the
rule.
Marine SI Engines and Vessels
We are adopting a more stringent level of emission standards for
outboard and personal watercraft engines starting with the 2010 model
year. The HC+NOX emission standards are the same as those
adopted by California ARB for 2008 and later model year engines. The CO
emission standard is 300 g/kW-hr for engines with maximum engine power
above 40 kW; the standard increases as a function of maximum engine
power for smaller engines. We expect manufacturers to meet these
standards with improved fueling systems and other in-cylinder controls.
We are not pursuing catalyst-based emission standards for outboard and
personal watercraft engines. As discussed below, the application of
[[Page 59040]]
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 it
is not straightforward to apply the fundamental engine modifications,
fuel system upgrades, and other engine control modifications needed to
get acceptable catalyst performance. This rule 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 four-stroke
engines or 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 more
stringent controls in the future.
We are adopting new exhaust emission standards for sterndrive and
inboard marine engines. The standards are 5.0 g/kW-hr for
HC+NOX and 75.0 g/kW-hr for CO starting with the 2010 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 will require engines to
have a diagnostic system for detecting a failure in the emission
control system. For sterndrive and inboard marine engines above 373 kW
with high-performance characteristics (generally referred to as ``SD/I
high-performance engines''), we are adopting less stringent emission
standards that reflect their limited ability to control emissions with
catalysts. The HC+NOX standard is 16 g/kW-hr in for engines
at or below 485 kW and 22 g/kW-hr for bigger engines. The CO standard
for all SD/I high-performance engines is 350 g/kW-hr. Manufacturers of
these engines must meet emission standards without generating or using
emission credits. We also include a variety of other special provisions
for these engines to reflect unique operating characteristics.
The emission standards described above relate to engine operation
over a prescribed duty cycle for testing in the laboratory. We are also
adopting 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 (the NTE
standards do not apply to SD/I high-performance engines).
We are adopting 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 including these new regulations for Marine SI engines in 40
CFR part 1045 rather than in the current regulations in 40 CFR part 91.
This new part allows 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.
Small SI Engines and Equipment
We are adopting 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 maintaining 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
adopting a more stringent Phase 3 CO emission standard of 5.0 g/kW-hr.
This applies equally to all sizes of engines subject to the Small SI
standards.
We are adopting 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 will also require control of running loss
emissions.
We are drafting the new regulations for Small SI engines from 40
CFR part 90 rather than changing the current regulations in 40 CFR part
90. 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?
Many readers may be interested only in certain aspects of the rule
since it covers a broad range of engines and equipment that vary in
design and use. We have therefore attempted to organize this
information 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 subject
to the rule.
The next several sections describe the provisions that apply for
Small SI engines and equipment and Marine SI engines and vessels.
Sections III through V describe the new 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 new requirements related
to evaporative emissions for all categories. Section VII discusses how
we took energy, noise, and safety factors into consideration for the
new standards.
Section VIII describes a variety of provisions that affect other
categories of engines besides those that are the primary subject of
this rule. This includes the following changes:
We are reorganizing the regulatory language related to
preemption of state standards and to clarify certain provisions.
We are incorporating new provisions related to
certification fees for newly regulated products covered by this rule.
This involves some restructuring of the regulatory language. We are
also adopting various technical amendments, such as identifying an
additional payment method, that apply broadly to our certification
programs.
We are modifying 40 CFR part 1068 to clarify when engines
are subject to standards. This includes several new provisions to
address special cases for partially complete engines.
We are also modifying part 1068 to clarify how the
provisions apply with respect to evaporative emission standards and we
are adopting various technical amendments. These changes apply to all
types of nonroad engines that are subject to the provisions of part
1068.
We are adopting several technical amendments for other
categories of nonroad engines and vehicles, largely to maintain
consistency across programs for different categories of engines and
vehicles.
We are amending provisions related to delegated assembly.
The new approach is to adopt a universal set of requirements in Sec.
1068.261 that applies uniformly to heavy-duty highway engines and
nonroad engines.
We are clarifying that the new exhaust and evaporative
emission standards for Small SI engines also apply to the comparable
stationary engines.
[[Page 59041]]
Section IX summarizes the projected impacts and benefits of this
rule. Finally, Sections X and XI summarize the primary public comments
received and describe how we satisfy our various administrative
requirements.
G. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
December 8, 2008. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Public Health and Welfare Effects
The engines and fuel systems subject to this rule 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 and fuel systems also emit hazardous air pollutants
(air toxics) that are associated with a host of adverse health effects.
Emissions from these engines and fuel systems also contribute to
visibility impairment and other welfare and environmental effects.
This section summarizes the general health and welfare effects of
these emissions. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the
Final RIA for more in-depth discussions.
A. Public Health Impacts
Ozone
The Small SI engine and Marine SI engine standards finalized in
this action will result in reductions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC), of which HC are a subset, and NOX emissions. VOC and NOX
contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone pollution or smog.
People in many areas across the U.S. continue to be exposed to
unhealthy levels of ambient ozone.
Background
Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed by the reaction of
VOC 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, power plants, chemical plants, refineries,
makers of consumer and commercial products, industrial facilities, and
smaller area sources.
The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is
complex.\8\ 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 occurs
on a single high-temperature day. Ozone can be transported hundreds of
miles downwind of precursor emissions, resulting in elevated ozone
levels even in areas with low local VOC or NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. This document
is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190. This document may be
accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/
ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has recently amended the ozone NAAQS (73 FR 16436, March 27,
2008). The final ozone NAAQS rule addresses revisions to the primary
and secondary NAAQS for ozone to provide increased protection of public
health and welfare, respectively. With regard to the primary standard
for ozone, EPA has revised the level of the 8-hour standard to 0.075
parts per million (ppm), expressed to three decimal places. With regard
to the secondary standard for ozone, EPA has revised the current 8-hour
standard by making it identical to the revised primary standard.
Health Effects of Ozone
The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA's 2006 ozone Air Quality Criteria Document (ozone AQCD)
and EPA Staff Paper.9, 10 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; breathing may also 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
medical attention and/or the use of additional medication. In addition,
there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to
cardiovascular-related morbidity and highly suggestive evidence that
short-term ozone exposure directly or indirectly contributes to non-
accidental and cardiopulmonary-related mortality, but additional
research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms causing these
effects. In a recent report on the estimation of ozone-related
premature mortality published by the National Research Council (NRC), a
panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short-term exposure to
ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths and that
ozone-related mortality should be included in estimates of the health
benefits of reducing ozone exposure.\11\ Animal toxicological 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
[[Page 59042]]
associated with exposure to ozone can include children, the elderly,
and individuals with respiratory disease such as asthma. Those with
greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time spent outdoors
(e.g., children and outdoor workers), are also of particular concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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-2003-0190. This document may be
accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/
ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
\10\ U.S. EPA (2007) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone, Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information. OAQPS Staff Paper.EPA-452/R-07-003. This document is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190. This document is available
electronically at: http:www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_
o3_cr_sp.html.
\11\ National Research Council (NRC), 2008. Estimating Mortality
Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air
Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 toxicological 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.
Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
Elevated ozone levels contribute to 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 low 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 final 2006
Criteria Document presents more detailed information on ozone effects
on vegetation and ecosystems.
Current and Projected Ozone Levels
Ozone concentrations exceeding the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS occur over wide geographic areas, including most of the nation's
major population centers.\12\ As of March 12, 2008, there were
approximately 140 million people living in 72 areas (which include all
or part of 337 counties) designated as not in attainment with the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.\13\ These numbers do not include the people living
in areas where there is a future risk of failing to maintain or attain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 1997 ozone NAAQS was recently revised and
the 2008 ozone NAAQS was final on March 12, 2008. Table II-1 presents
the number of counties in areas currently designated as nonattainment
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the number of additional counties
that have design values greater than the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A listing of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas is
included in the RIA for this rule.
\13\ Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
Table II-1--Counties With Design Values Greater Than the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS Based on 2004-2006 Air Quality Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Counties Population \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 Ozone Standard: Counties 337 139,633,458
within the 72 areas currently
designated as nonattainment........
2008 Ozone Standard: Additional 74 15,984,135
counties that would not meet the
2008 NAAQS \b\.....................
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 411 155,617,593
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
\b\ Attainment designations for 2008 ozone NAAQS have not yet been made.
Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS will be based on three years of
air quality data from later years. Also, the county numbers in the
table include only the counties with monitors violating the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS. The numbers in this table may be an underestimate of the number
of counties and populations that will eventually be included in areas
with multiple counties designated nonattainment.
States with 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are 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 1997 ozone NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013
time frame and then maintain the NAAQS thereafter.\14\ Many of these
nonattainment areas will need to adopt additional emission reduction
programs and the VOC and NOX reductions from this final action are
particularly important for these states. The attainment dates
associated with the potential new 2008 ozone nonattainment areas are
likely to be in the 2013 to 2021 timeframe, depending on the severity
of the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area will have to attain before June 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient ozone levels. Some of these control programs
are described in Section I.C.1. As a result of existing programs, the
number of areas that fail to meet the ozone NAAQS in the future is
expected to decrease. Based on the air quality modeling performed for
this rule, which does not include any additional local controls, we
estimate eight counties (where 22 million people are projected to live)
will exceed the 1997 8-hour
[[Page 59043]]
ozone NAAQS in 2020.\15\ An additional 37 counties (where 27 million
people are projected to live) are expected to be within 10 percent of
violating the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results from the air quality modeling conducted for this final rule
indicate that the Small SI and Marine SI engine emission reductions in
2020 and 2030 will improve both the average and population-weighted
average ozone concentrations for the U.S. In addition, the air quality
modeling shows that on average this final rule will help bring counties
closer to ozone attainment as well as assist counties whose ozone
concentrations are within ten percent below the standard. For example,
on a population-weighted basis, the average modeled future-year 8-hour
ozone design values will decrease by 0.57 ppb in 2020 and 0.76 ppb in
2030.\16\ The air quality modeling methodology and the projected
reductions are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ozone design values are reported in parts per million (ppm)
as specified in 40 CFR Part 50. Due to the scale of the design value
changes in this action, results have been presented in parts per
billion (ppb) format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate Matter
The Small SI engine and Marine SI engine standards detailed in this
action will result in reductions in emissions of VOCs and NOX which
contribute to the formation of secondary PM2.5. In addition,
the standards finalized today will reduce primary (directly emitted)
PM2.5 emissions.
Background
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 (m) in aerodynamic diameter.
PM2.5 refers to fine particles, generally less than or equal
to 2.5 in aerodynamic 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 aerodynamic diameter. Ultrafine PM
refers to particles less than 100 nanometers (0.1 [mu]m) in aerodynamic
diameter. Larger particles tend to be removed by the respiratory
clearance mechanisms (e.g. coughing), 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 VOC) 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 hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
The primary PM2.5 NAAQS includes a short-term (24-hour) and a long-
term (annual) standard. The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS established by EPA set the
24-hour standard at a level of 65[mu]g/m\3\ based on the 98th
percentile concentration averaged over three years. The annual standard
specifies an expected annual arithmetic mean not to exceed 15[mu]g/m\3\
averaged over three years.
In 2006, EPA amended the NAAQS for PM2.5 (71 FR 61144, October 17,
2006). The final rule addressed revisions to the primary and secondary
NAAQS for PM to provide increased protection of public health and
welfare, respectively. The level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was revised
from 65[mu]g/m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and the level of the annual PM2.5
NAAQS was retained at 15[mu]g/m\3\. With regard to the secondary
standards for PM2.5, EPA has revised these standards to be identical in
all respects to the revised primary standards.
Health Effects of PM2.5
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), and the 2005 PM Staff Paper.17 18 Further discussion
of health effects associated with PM can also be found in the RIA for
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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-2003-0190.
\18\ 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-2003-0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health effects associated with short-term exposures (hours to days)
to ambient PM 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 cardiovascular and respiratory mortality.\19\ In
addition, a reanalysis of the American Cancer Society Study shows an
association between fine particle and sulfate concentrations and lung
cancer mortality.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Dockery, DW; Pope, CA III: Xu, X; et al. 1993. An
association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities.
N Engl J Med 329:1753-1759.
\20\ Pope, C. A., III; Burnett, R. T.; Thun, M. J.; Calle, E.
E.; Krewski, D.; Ito, K.; Thurston, G. D. (2002) Lung cancer,
cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine
particulate air pollution. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287:1132-1141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 controls
finalized in this action 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is
transparent to visible light. Airborne particles degrade visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. 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.
[[Page 59044]]
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 final 2004 PM AQCD as well as the 2005 PM Staff
Paper.24 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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-2003-0190.
\25\ 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-2003-0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to address visibility. First,
to address the welfare effects of PM on visibility, EPA has set
secondary PM2.5 standards which act in conjunction with the
establishment of a regional haze program. In setting this secondary
standard, EPA has 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.
Second, section 169 of the Clean Air Act provides additional authority
to address 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).\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Visibility Impairment
As of March 12, 2008, over 88 million people live in nonattainment
areas for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\27\ These populations, as well as large
numbers of individuals who travel to these areas, are likely to
experience visibility impairment. 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.\28\ 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
\28\ U.S. EPA (2002) Latest Findings on National Air Quality--
2002 Status and Trends. EPA 454/K-03-001.
\29\ U.S. 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\ U.S. EPA. Regional Haze Regulations, July 1, 1999. (64 FR
35714, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Visibility Impairment
Air quality modeling conducted for this final rule was used to
project visibility conditions in 133 mandatory class I federal areas
across the U.S. in 2020 and 2030. The results indicate that
improvements in visibility will occur in the future, although all areas
will continue to have annual average deciview levels above background
in 2020 and 2030. Chapter 2 of the RIA contains more detail on the
visibility portion of the air quality modeling.
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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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. This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse impacts on water quality can occur when atmospheric
contaminants deposit to the water surface or when material deposited on
the land enters a water body through runoff. Potential impacts of
atmospheric deposition to water bodies 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 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.32 33 34 35 36
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. EPA (2004) National Coastal Condition Report II.
Office of Research and Development/ Office of Water. EPA-620/R-03/
002. This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190.
\33\ 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.
\34\ 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.
\35\ 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.
\36\ 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.
Materials Damage and Soiling
The deposition of airborne particles can reduce the aesthetic
appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling,
and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants)
to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion.\37\ Particles
affect materials principally by promoting and accelerating the
corrosion of metals, by degrading paints, and by deteriorating building
materials such as concrete and limestone. Particles contribute to these
effects because of their electrolytic, hygroscopic, and acidic
properties, and their ability to adsorb corrosive gases (principally
sulfur dioxide). The rate of metal corrosion depends on a number of
factors, including the deposition rate and nature of the pollutant; the
influence of the metal protective
[[Page 59045]]
corrosion film; the amount of moisture present; variability in the
electrochemical reactions; the presence and concentration of other
surface electrolytes; and the orientation of the metal surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ U.S EPA (2005) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. This document is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels
PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the level of the
PM2.5 NAAQS occur in many parts of the country.\38\ In 2005
EPA designated 39 nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS (70 FR 943, January 5, 2005). These areas are comprised of 208
full or partial counties with a total population exceeding 88 million.
The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was revised and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. Table II-
2 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 design values greater than the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ A listing of the PM2.5 nonattainment areas is
included in the RIA for this rule.
Table II-2--Counties With Design Values Greater Than the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS Based on 2003-2005 Air Quality Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonattainment areas/other violating Number of
counties counties Population a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 PM2.5 Standards: Counties 208 88,394,000
within the 39 areas currently
designated as nonattainment........
2006 PM2.5 Standards: Additional 49 18,198,676
counties that would not meet the
2006 NAAQS b.......................
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 257 106,595,676
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
a Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
b Attainment designations for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS have not yet been made.
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 table
includes only the counties with monitors violating the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The numbers in this table may be an underestimate of the number
of counties and populations that will eventually be included in areas
with multiple counties designated nonattainment.
Areas designated as not attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
will need to attain the 1997 standards in the 2010 to 2015 time frame,
and then maintain them thereafter. The attainment dates associated with
the potential new 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas are likely
to be in the 2014 to 2019 timeframe. The emission standards finalized
in this action become effective as early as 2009 making the inventory
reductions from this rulemaking useful to states in attaining or
maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 levels and which will
assist in reducing the number of areas that fail to achieve the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Even so, our air quality modeling for this
final rule projects that in 2020, with all current controls but
excluding the reductions achieved through this rule, up to 11 counties
with a population of over 24 million may not attain the current annual
PM2.5 standard of 15 [mu]g/m3. These numbers do
not account for additional areas that have air quality measurements
within 10 percent of the annual PM2.5 standard. These areas,
although not violating the standards, will also benefit from the
additional reductions from this rule ensuring long term maintenance of
the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Air quality modeling performed for this final rule shows the
emissions reductions will improve both the average and population-
weighted average PM2.5 concentrations for the U.S. On a
population-weighted basis, the average modeled future-year annual
PM2.5 design value (DV) for all counties is expected to
decrease by 0.02 [mu]g/m3 in 2020 and 2030. There are areas
with larger decreases in their future-year annual PM2.5 DV,
for instance the Chicago region will experience a 0.08 [mu] g/m\3\
reduction by 2030. The air quality modeling methodology and the
projected reductions are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the
RIA.
B. Air Toxics
Small SI and Marine SI emissions also contribute to ambient levels
of air toxics known or suspected as human or animal carcinogens, or
that have noncancer health effects. These air toxics 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 cancer risk or
noncancer hazard 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 and
noncancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics. In addition, human
exposure to toxics from spark-ignition engines also occurs as a result
of operating these engines and from intrusion of emissions in
residential garages into attached indoor spaces.39 40 The
emission reductions from Small SI and Marine SI engines that are
finalized in this rulemaking will help reduce exposure to these harmful
substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Baldauf, R.; Fortune, C.; Weinstein, J.; Wheeler, M.;
Blanchard, B. (2006) Air contaminant exposures during the operation
of lawn and garden equipment. J Expos Sci Environ Epidmeiol 16: 362-
370.
\40\ Isbell, M.; Ricker, J.; Gordian, M.E.; Duff, L.K. (1999)
Use of biomarkers in an indoor air study: lack of correlation
between aromatic VOCs with respective urinary biomarkers. Sci Total
Environ 241: 151-159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene: The EPA's IRIS database lists benzene as a known human
carcinogen (causing leukemia) by all routes of exposure, and concludes
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.41 42 43 EPA states in its IRIS
database that data indicate a causal relationship between benzene
exposure and acute lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship
between benzene exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic
[[Page 59046]]
leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The International Agency for
Research on Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that benzene is a human
carcinogen and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
has characterized benzene as a known human carcinogen.44 45
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 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.
\42\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1982.
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345-389.
\43\ 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.
\44\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1987.
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and
dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\45\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National
Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens available at: http://
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ U.S. EPA (2002) Toxicological Review of Benzene (Noncancer
Effects). Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. This material is
available electronically at 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 IARC has determined that
1,3-butadiene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS has characterized
1,3-butadiene as a known human carcinogen.56 57 There are
numerous studies consistently demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is
metabolized into genotoxic metabolites by experimental animals and
humans. The specific mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced carcinogenesis
are unknown; however, the scientific evidence strongly suggests that
the carcinogenic effects are mediated by genotoxic metabolites. Animal
data suggest that females may be more sensitive than males for cancer
effects associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure; 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.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. This document is available electronically at http://
www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/buta-sup.pdf.
\55\ U.S. EPA (2002) Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene (CASRN
106-99-0). Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/
iris/subst/0139.htm.
\56\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (1999)
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 71, Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals,
hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97 (in preparation),
World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\57\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2005)
National Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens available at:
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E-
7FCE50709CB4C932.
\58\ 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.\59\ EPA is currently reviewing recently
published epidemiological data. For instance, 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.60 61 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.\62\ Extended follow-up of a cohort of
British chemical workers did not find evidence of an increase in
nasopharyngeal or lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing
statistically significant excess in lung cancers was reported.\63\
Recently, the IARC re-classified formaldehyde as a human carcinogen
(Group 1).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 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.
\60\ 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.
\61\ 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.
\62\ Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193-200.
\63\ Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended
follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to
formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608-1615.
\64\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2006.
Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. Volume
88. (in preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde exposure also causes a range of noncancer health
effects, including irritation of the eyes (burning and watering of the
eyes), nose and throat. Effects from repeated exposure in humans
include respiratory tract irritation, chronic bronchitis and nasal
epithelial lesions such as metaplasia and loss of cilia. Animal studies
suggest that formaldehyde may also cause airway inflammation--including
eosinophil infiltration into the airways. There are several studies
that suggest that formaldehyde may increase the risk of asthma--
particularly in the young.65 66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
1999. Toxicological profile for Formaldehyde. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html
\66\ WHO (2002) Concise International Chemical Assessment
Document 40: Formaldehyde. Published under the joint sponsorship of
the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour
Organization, and the World Health Organization, and produced within
the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound
Management of Chemicals. Geneva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.67 Acetaldehyde is
[[Page 59047]]
reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. DHHS in the
11th Report on Carcinogens and is classified as possibly carcinogenic
to humans (Group 2B) by the IARC.68 69 EPA is currently
conducting a reassessment of cancer risk from inhalation exposure to
acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ U.S. EPA. 191. Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
\68\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National
Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens available at:
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E-
7FCE50709CB4C932.
\69\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1999.
Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, and hydrogen
peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.\70\ In
short-term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium
was observed at various concentration levels of acetaldehyde
exposure.71 72 Data from these studies were used by EPA to
develop an inhalation reference concentration. Some asthmatics have
been shown to be a sensitive subpopulation to decrements in functional
expiratory volume (FEV1 test) and bronchoconstriction upon acetaldehyde
inhalation.\73\ The agency is currently conducting a reassessment of
the health hazards from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ U.S. EPA. 1991. Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://
www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
\71\ Appleman, L. M., R. A. Woutersen, V. J. Feron, R. N.
Hooftman, and W. R. F. Notten. 1986. Effects of the variable versus
fixed exposure levels on the toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. J.
Appl. Toxicol. 6: 331-336.
\72\ Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. Feron. 1982.
Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. I. Acute and subacute
studies. Toxicology. 23: 293-297.
\73\ Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and Matsuda, T.
1993. Aerosolized acetaldehyde induces histamine-mediated
bronchoconstriction in asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis.148(4 Pt 1):
940-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein: EPA determined in 2003 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.\74\ The IARC determined in 1995 that
acrolein was not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 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
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
\75\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1995.
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 63, Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and other
industrial chemicals, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled,
with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation,
mucus hypersecretion and congestion. Levels considerably lower than 1
ppm (2.3 mg/m3) elicit subjective complaints of eye and
nasal irritation and a decrease in the respiratory
rate.76 77 Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract
of rats, rabbits, and hamsters have been observed after subchronic
exposure to acrolein. Based on animal data, individuals with
compromised respiratory function (e.g., emphysema, asthma) are expected
to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to strong
respiratory irritants such as acrolein. This was demonstrated in mice
with allergic airway-disease by comparison to non-diseased mice in a
study of the acute respiratory irritant effects of acrolein.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Weber-Tschopp, A; Fischer, T; Gierer, R; et al. (1977)
Experimentelle reizwirkungen von Acrolein auf den Menschen. Int Arch
Occup Environ Hlth 40(2):117-130. In German.
\77\ Sim, VM; Pattle, RE. (1957) Effect of possible smog
irritants on human subjects. J Am Med Assoc 165(15):1908-1913.
\78\ Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. 2003. Immediate
sensory nerve-mediated respiratory responses to irritants in healthy
and allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol 94(4):1563-1571.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is currently in the process of conducting an assessment of
acute exposure effects for acrolein. The intense irritancy of this
carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human
subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory
reactions within minutes of exposure.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Sim VM, Pattle RE. Effect of possible smog irritants on
human subjects JAMA165: 1980-2010, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM): POM is generally defined as a
large class of organic compounds which have multiple benzene rings and
a boiling point greater than 100 degrees Celsius. Many of the compounds
included in the class of compounds known as POM are classified by EPA
as probable human carcinogens based on animal data. One of these
compounds, naphthalene, is discussed separately below. Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a subset of POM that contain only
hydrogen and carbon atoms. A number of PAHs are known or suspected
carcinogens. Recent studies have found that maternal exposures to PAHs
(a subclass of POM) 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.80 81 EPA has not yet evaluated these recent
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 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.
\81\ 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. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger
quantities in both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with
evaporative emissions from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a
product of combustion. EPA recently released an external review draft
of a reassessment of the inhalation carcinogenicity of naphthalene
based on a number of recent animal carcinogenicity studies.\82\ The
draft reassessment recently completed external peer review.\83\ Based
on external peer review comments received to date, additional analyses
are being undertaken. This external review draft does not represent
official agency opinion and was released solely for the purposes of
external peer review and public comment. Once EPA evaluates public and
peer reviewer comments, the document will be revised. The National
Toxicology Program listed naphthalene as ``reasonably anticipated to be
a human carcinogen'' in 2004 on the basis of bioassays reporting clear
evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and some evidence of
carcinogenicity in mice.\84\ 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.\85\
Naphthalene
[[Page 59048]]
also causes a number of chronic non-cancer effects in animals,
including abnormal cell changes and growth in respiratory and nasal
tissues.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 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.
\83\ Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (2004)
External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation
Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403.
\84\ National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2004). 11th Report on
Carcinogens. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available from: http://
ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov.
\85\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2002)
Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals
for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France.
\86\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards finalized in this action will reduce air toxics
emitted from these engines, vessels and equipment. These emissions
reductions will help to mitigate some of the adverse health effects
associated with their operation.
C. 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 previously 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 are adopting a finding, based on the
information in this section and in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Final 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.\87\ Additional
information on CO related health effects can be found in the Carbon
Monoxide Air Quality Criteria Document (CO AQCD).\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ 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.
\88\ 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
Final 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.\89\ 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.\90\ 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.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 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.
\90\ 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.
\91\ 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 March 12, 2008, there were approximately 850,000 people
living in 4 areas (which include 5 counties) designated as
nonattainment for CO.\92\ The CO nonattainment areas are presented in
the Final RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's NONROAD model indicates that Marine SI emissions 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-3.
Table II-3--CO Emissions From Marine SI Engines and Vessels in Classified CO Nonattainment Areas a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (short tons
Area County Category in 2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas, NV........................... Clark..................... Marine SI................. 3,016
Reno, NV................................ Washoe.................... Marine SI................. 3,494
El Paso, TX............................. El Paso................... Marine SI................. 37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA, NONROAD 2005 model.
\a\ This table does not include Salem, OR which is an unclassified CO nonattainment area.
Based on the national inventory numbers in Chapter 3 of the Final
RIA and the local inventory numbers described in this section, we 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
[[Page 59049]]
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 will undermine the broader goal of achieving the greatest degree
of emission control from the full set of Marine SI engines.
We believe this 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, while an emission control program for SD/I
engines will increase the price of these engines, we no longer think
this will result in a market shift to higher-emitting outboard engines.
The economic impact analysis performed for this final rule, summarized
in Section XII, suggests that the prices will increase less than 1
percent and sales will be impacted by less than 2 percent. It is also
possible that SD/I engine manufacturers may promote higher fuel
efficiency and other performance advantages of compliant engines which
would allow them to promote these engines as having a greater value and
justifying these small expected 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 adopting 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 new 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 the new
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.
We are adopting the regulatory requirements for marine spark-
ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1045. These requirements are similar to
the regulations that have been in place for outboard and personal
watercraft engines for several years, but include updated certification
procedures, as described in Section IV.A. Engines and vessels subject
to part 1045 are also 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
of the preamble to the proposed rule for further discussion of these
general compliance provisions.
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 revised 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 definitions for sterndrive and inboard engines at 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 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 amending the above definitions for determining which exhaust
emission standards apply to spark-ignition marine engines in 2010. The
new definition establishes a single term to include sterndrive and
inboard engines together as a single engine category. The new
definition for sterndrive/inboard also is drafted to include all
engines not otherwise classified as outboard or personal watercraft
engines.
The new 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
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 new
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
definition in part 91 does not clearly specify how to treat specialty
vessels such as airboats or hovercraft that use engines similar to
those in conventional SD/I applications. The
[[Page 59050]]
definition of personal watercraft grants EPA the discretion to classify
engines as SD/I engines if the engine is comparable in technology and
emissions to an inboard or sterndrive engine. EPA has used this
discretion to classify 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 are adopting the
following definition:
Sterndrive/inboard engine means a spark-ignition engine
that is used to propel a vessel, but is not an outboard engine or a
personal watercraft engine. A sterndrive/inboard engine may be either a
conventional sterndrive/inboard engine or a high-performance engine.
Engines on propeller-driven vessels, jet boats, air boats, and
hovercraft are all sterndrive/inboard engines.
SD/I high-performance 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 defining a high-
performance engine as an SD/I engine with maximum power 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 extending our basic nonroad exemptions to the SD/I engines
and vessels covered by this rule. 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.
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 extending 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. Starting January 1, 2009, Marine
SI engines meeting all the following criteria will therefore be
considered to be used solely for competition:
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.
We are also including a provision allowing us to approve an
exemption for cases in which an engine manufacturer can provide clear
and convincing evidence that an engine will be used solely for
competition even though not all the above criteria apply for a given
situation. This may occur, for example, if a racing association
specifies a particular engine model in their competition rules, where
that engine has design features that prevent it from being certified or
from being used for purposes other than competition.
Engine manufacturers will make their request for each new model
year. We will 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 generally
produced and sold in very small quantities, so manufacturers should be
able to identify which engines qualify for this exemption. We are
applying the same criteria to outboard and personal watercraft engines
and vessels. See Sec. 1045.620.
We are adopting a new exemption to address individuals who
manufacture recreational marine vessels for personal use (see Sec.
1045.630). Under this exemption, someone may install a used engine in a
new vessel where that engine is exempt from standards, subject to
certain limitations. For example, an individual may produce one such
vessel over a five-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 exemption does not apply for freshly manufactured
engines. This exemption 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. We
revised the provisions of the personal-use exemption since the proposal
to allow people to build a vessel with an exempted engine once every
five years instead of ten years. We believe this is more reflective of
a hobbyists interest in building a boat and using it before moving on
to the next building project.
C. Exhaust Emission Standards
We are adopting 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 provisions related to controlling exhaust
emissions from SD/I engines. See Section VI for a description of the
new requirements related to evaporative emissions.
(1) Standards and Dates
We are adopting exhaust emission standards of 5.0 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX and 75 g/kW-hr CO for SD/I engines, starting with the
2010 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 providing additional lead time for small businesses
as discussed in Section III.F.2. The new standards are 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.G
discusses the technological feasibility of these standards in more
detail.
The new standards are largely based on the use of small catalytic
converters
[[Page 59051]]
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, starting with 2008 model year engines, 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 new standard with
the proper calibrations, so no additional hardware will be needed to
control CO emissions.
Manufacturers have expressed concern that the 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 Final RIA and in the docket, the vast majority of SD/I
engines are based on automotive engine blocks sold by General
Motors.\93\ There are five basic engine blocks used, and recently GM
announced that it plans to discontinue production of the 4.3L and 8.1L
engine blocks. 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
around the time that manufacturers will be making the transition to
meeting new EPA emission standards. 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 they 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ ``GM Product Changes Affecting SD/I Engine Marinizers,''
memo from Mike Samulski, EPA, to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 GM's
total engine sales and thus did not weigh heavily in their 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 needs are not available in the interim, and that
it will be cost-prohibitive for them to produce their own engine
blocks.
EPA's SD/I standards start to take effect with the 2010 model year,
two years after the same standards apply in California. We believe a
requirement to extend the California standards nationwide after a two-
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 will 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. To address the challenge related to
the transition away from the current 4.3 and 8.1 liter GM engines, we
are including in the final rule a direct approval for a hardship
exemption allowing manufacturers to produce these engines for one
additional year without certifying them (see Sec. 1045.145). Starting
in the 2011 model year, we would expect manufacturers to have worked
things out such that they could certify their full product lineup to
the applicable standards.
Engines used on jet boats may have been classified under the
original definitions as personal watercraft engines. As described in
Section IV, engines used in jet boats or personal watercraft-like
vessels that are four meters or longer will be classified as SD/I
engines under the new definitions. Such engines subject to part 91
today will therefore need to continue meeting EPA emission standards as
personal watercraft engines through the 2009 model year under part 91,
after which they will need to meet the new SD/I standards under 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, but must meet the new emission
standards for SD/I engines under part 1045.
As described above, engines used solely for competition are not
subject to emission standards, but many SD/I high-performance engines
are sold for recreational use. SD/I high-performance engines have very
high power outputs, large exhaust gas flow rates, and relatively high
concentrations of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in the exhaust
gases. As described in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, applying
catalyst technology to these engines is not practical. California ARB
initially adopted the same HC+NOX standards that apply for
other SD/I engines with the expectation that manufacturers would simply
rely on emission credits from other SD/I engines. We believe a credit-
based solution is not viable for small business manufacturers that do
not have other products with which to exchange emission credits and
California ARB has modified their rule to also address this concern.
We are adopting standards for SD/I high-performance engines based
on the level of control that can be expected from recalibration with
electronically controlled fuel injection. These standards are phased in
over a two-year transition period. In the 2010 model year, the
HC+NOX emission standards are 20.0 g/kW-hr for engines at or
below 485 kW and 25.0 g/kW-hr for bigger engines. In 2011 and later
model years, the HC+NOX emission standards drop to 16.0 g/
kW-hr for engines at or below 485 kW and 22.0 g/kW-hr for bigger
engines. The CO standard is 350 g/kW-hr for all SD/I high-performance
engines. We believe this is achievable with more careful control of
fueling rates, especially under idle conditions. Control of air-fuel
ratios should result in improved emission control even after multiple
rebuilds. Note that small-volume manufacturers may delay complying with
the high-performance standards until 2013. In that year, the standard
will be the same as the 2011 standards for larger manufacturers.
We are adopting a variety of provisions to simplify the
requirements for exhaust emission certification and compliance for SD/I
high-performance engines, as described in Section IV.F. We have also
chosen not to apply the Not-to-Exceed emission standards to these
engines because we have very limited information on their detailed
emission characteristics and we are concerned about extent of testing
that would be required by the large number of affected engine
manufacturers that are small businesses.
We are also aware that there are some very small sterndrive or
inboard engines. In particular, sailboats may have small propulsion
engines for backup power. These engines will fall under the new
definition of sterndrive/inboard engines, even though they are much
smaller and may experience very different in-use operation. These
engines generally have more in common with marine auxiliary engines or
lawn and garden engines that are subject to land-based standards. We
are therefore allowing manufacturers to use engines that have been
certified to current land-
[[Page 59052]]
based emission standards for sterndrive and inboard installation, much
like we are adopting for outboard and personal watercraft engines (see
Sec. 1045.610).
The emission standards apply at the range of atmospheric pressures
represented by the test conditions specified in part 1065. This
includes operation at elevated altitudes. Since we expect most or all
SD/I engines to have three-way catalysts with closed-loop fuel control,
these engines should be able to include the ability to automatically
compensate for varying altitude. Manufacturers may choose to use an
altitude kit for demonstrating compliance with emission standards at
high altitudes as described for OB/PWC engines in Section IV.C.1.
Manufacturers using altitude kits would need to take a variety of steps
to describe their approach and ensure that such altitude kits are in
fact being used with in-use engines operating at high altitudes, as
described in Section IV.E.8.
(2) Not-to-Exceed Standards
We are adopting emission standards that apply over an NTE zone. The
NTE standards are in the form of a multiplier times the duty-cycle
standard for HC+NOX and for CO (see Sec. 1045.105. Section
III.D.2 gives an overview of the NTE standards and compliance
provisions and describes the NTE test procedures.
Manufacturers commented that certification to the NTE standards
requires additional testing for engine models that are already
certified to the new emission standards for California. In addition,
they expressed concern that they may need to recalibrate existing
engine models to meet the NTE standards. Manufacturers commented that
this would not be possible by the date of the duty cycle standard. For
engines already certified in California, manufacturers carry over
preexisting certification test data from year to year. Manufacturers
commented that additional time would be necessary to retest, and
potentially recalibrate, these engines for certification to the NTE
standards. To address these issues regarding lead time needed to retest
these engines, we are not applying the NTE standards for 2010-2012
model year engines that are certified using preexisting data (i.e.,
carryover engine families). For new engine models, manufacturers
indicated that they will be able to perform the NTE testing and duty-
cycle testing as part of their efforts to certify to the new standards.
Therefore the primary implementation date of 2010 applies to these
engines. Beginning in the 2013 model year, all conventional SD/I
engines must be certified to meet the NTE standards.
This NTE approach complements the weighted modal emission tests
included in this rule. These steady-state duty cycles and standards are
intended to establish average emission levels over several discrete
modes of engine operation. 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 will 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 adopting provisions for averaging, banking, and trading of
emission credits for conventional SD/I engines to meet the new
HC+NOX and CO standards (see Sec. 1045.105 and part 1045,
subpart H). See Section VII.C.5 of the preamble to the proposed rule
for a description of general provisions related to averaging, banking,
and trading programs. A description of the ABT provisions for the new
SD/I standards is provided in this section.
EPA proposed that manufacturers would not be able to earn credits
for one pollutant while using credits to comply with the emissions
standard for another pollutant. The proposed restriction was modeled on
similar requirements in other ABT programs where there was concern that
a manufacturer could use technologies to reduce one pollutant while
increasing another pollutant. Manufacturers are expected to comply with
the new SD/I standards by using a combination of improved engine
designs and catalysts. This should result in reductions in both
HC+NOX emissions and CO emissions compared to current
designs. While the technology is expected to reduce both
HC+NOX emissions and CO emissions, there could be situations
where the engines are capable of meeting one of the emission standards
but not the other. EPA does not want to preclude such engines from
being able to certify using the provisions of the ABT program and is
therefore dropping the proposed restriction from the final rule.
Credit generation and use is calculated based on the FEL of the
engine family and the standard. We are adopting FEL caps to prevent the
sale of very high-emitting engines. The HC+NOX FEL cap for
conventional SD/I engines is 16 g/kW-hr while the CO FEL cap is 150 g/
kW-hr and applies starting in 2010, except as noted below. These FEL
caps represent the average baseline emission levels of SD/I engines,
based on data described in the Final RIA. However, through the 2013
model year we are separately allowing small-volume engine manufacturers
to certify their four-stroke conventional SD/I engines without testing
by assuming an HC+NOX FEL of 22.0 g/kW-hr and a CO FEL of
150 g/kW-hr. Manufacturers using this provision would not be subject to
the FEL cap for those engine families.
We are specifying that SD/I engines are in a separate averaging set
from OB/PWC engines, with a limited exception for certain jet boat
engines as described below. This means that credits earned by SD/I
engines may be used only to offset higher emissions from other SD/I
engines. Likewise, credits earned by OB/PWC engines may be used only to
offset higher emissions from other OB/PWC engines (except where we
allow those credits to be used for certain jet boat engines).
Emission credits earned for SD/I engines will have an indefinite
credit life with no discounting. We consider these emission credits to
be part of the overall program for complying with the new 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.
Emission credit balances will be part of the analysis for determining
the appropriate level and timing of new standards, consistent with the
statutory requirement to establish standards that represent the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable, considering cost,
safety, lead time, and other factors. If we were to allow the use of
credits generated under the standards adopted in this rule to meet more
stringent standards adopted in a future rulemaking, we may need to
adopt emission standards at more stringent levels or with an earlier
start date than we would absent the continued use of existing emission
credits, depending on the level of emission credit banks.
Alternatively, we may adopt future standards without allowing the use
of existing emission credits.
Finally, manufacturers may include as part of their federal credit
calculation the sales of engines in California as long as they don't
separately account for those emission credits under the California
regulations. We originally proposed to exclude engines sold in
California that are subject to the California ABR standards. However,
we
[[Page 59053]]
consider California's current HC+NOX standards to be
equivalent to those we are adopting in this rulemaking, so we would
expect a widespread practice of producing and marketing 50-state
products. Therefore, as long as a manufacturer is not generating
credits under California's regulations for SD/I engines, we would allow
manufacturers to count those engines when calculating credits under
EPA's program. This is consistent with how EPA allows credits to be
calculated in other nonroad sectors, such as recreational vehicles.
(b) Early-Credit Approaches
We are adopting an early-credit program in which a manufacturer
could earn emission credits before 2010 with early introduction of
emission controls designed to meet the new standards (see Sec.
1045.145). For engines produced by small-volume SD/I manufacturers that
are eligible for the one-year delay described in Section III.F.2, early
credits could be earned before 2011. As proposed, use of these early
credits would be limited to the first three years that the new
standards apply. While we believe adequate lead time is provided to
meet the new 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 will 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
will generate credits through the use of catalysts.
Manufacturers will generate these early 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 Final RIA representing the average level observed for
uncontrolled engines. We also provide bonus credits for any small-
volume SD/I engine manufacturer that certifies early to the new
standards to provide a further incentive for introducing catalysts in
SD/I engines. The bonus credits will take the form of a multiplier
times the earned credits. The multipliers are 1.25 for being one year
early, 1.5 for being two years early, and 2.0 for being three years
early. For example, a small-volume manufacturer certifying an engine to
5.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOX in 2009 (two years early) will get a
bonus multiplier of 1.5. Early HC+NOX credits will therefore
be calculated using the following equation: credits [grams] = (16-5) mu
Power [kW] x Useful Life [hours] x Load Factor x 1.5. The specified
load factor is 0.207, which is currently used in the OB/PWC
calculations.
To earn these early credits, the engine must meet both the new
HC+NOX standard and the new CO standard. These early credits
will be treated the same as emission credits generated after the
emission standards start to apply. This approach provides an incentive
for manufacturers to pull ahead significantly cleaner technologies. We
believe such an incentive will lead to early introduction of catalysts
on SD/I engines and help promote earlier market acceptance of this
technology. We believe this early credit program will allow
manufactures to comply with the new standards in an earlier time frame
because it allows them to spread out their development resources over
multiple years. To ensure that manufacturers do not generate credits
for meeting standards that already apply, no EPA credits will be
generated for engines that are produced for sale in California.
(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 changing the definition of personal
watercraft to ensure that engines used on jet boats will no longer be
classified as personal watercraft engines but instead as SD/I engines
because jet boats are more like SD/I vessels. However, manufacturers in
many 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 a similar engine for use on what we
consider to be a jet boat.
Engines used in jet boats will be subject to SD/I emission
standards. However, we are providing some flexibility in meeting the
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 will allow manufacturers to use
emission credits generated from OB/PWC engines to demonstrate that
their jet boat engines meet the new HC+NOX and CO standards
for SD/I engines if the same or similar engine is certified as an
outboard or personal watercraft engine, 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 (see Sec. 1045.660
and Sec. 1045.701). Manufacturers will need to group SD/I engines used
for jet boats in a separate engine family from the outboard or personal
watercraft engines 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, 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
exceeds the newly adopted 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.
(d) SD/I High-Performance Engines
For the reasons described in Section III.C.1, the standards being
adopted for SD/I high-performance engines are less stringent than
originally proposed. As a result, we are not including the SD/I high-
performance engines in the ABT program. Manufacturers are required to
meet the emission standards for SD/I high-performance engines without
using emission credits.
(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 are requiring
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 straightforward.
(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 of the preamble to
[[Page 59054]]
the proposed rule describes how we require manufacturers to incorporate
laboratory aging in the certification process, how we limit the 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 specifying a useful life period of ten years or 480 hours of
engine operation, whichever comes first (see Sec. 1045.105).
Manufacturers are responsible for meeting emission standards during
this useful life period. This is consistent with the requirements
adopted by California ARB. We are further requiring 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 SD/I high-performance engines, we are specifying 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 useful life values are consistent with
the California ARB regulations for SD/I high-performance 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
will 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 allowing
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 will form the basis for establishing a shorter
useful life period for those engines. See Sec. 1045.105 for additional
detail in establishing a shorter useful life.
Jet boat engines that are certified in conjunction with outboard or
personal watercraft engine families are subject to the shorter useful
life period that applies for outboard or personal watercraft engines.
This is necessary to prevent a situation where the original
certification data is insufficient for certifying the jet boat engines
without some further testing or analysis to show that the engines meet
emission standards over a longer period.
(b) Warranty Periods
We are requiring that manufacturers provide an emission-related
warranty during the first three years or 480 hours of engine operation,
whichever comes first (see Sec. 1045.120). This warranty period
applies equally to emission-related electronic components on SD/I high-
performance engines. However, we are allowing shorter warranty periods
(in hours) 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 specifying a warranty period for emission-related
mechanical components of 3 years or 150 hours for high-performance
engines between 373 and 485 kW, and 1 year or 50 hours for high-
performance engines above 485 kW. These 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 require 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. These warranty requirements are consistent
with provisions that apply in most other programs for nonroad engines.
(6) Engine Diagnostics
We are requiring that manufacturers design their catalyst-equipped
SD/I engines to diagnose malfunctioning emission control systems
starting with the introduction of the final standards (see Sec.
1045.110). As discussed in the Final 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 requiring similar
diagnostic controls for OB/PWC 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 (upstream
of sensors and catalysts), 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 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 final rule, therefore, focus on detecting
inappropriate air-fuel ratios, which is the most likely failure mode
for three-way catalyst systems. The malfunction indicator 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 will accept a California-approved
system as meeting EPA requirements. The final regulations direct
manufacturers to follow standard practices defined in documents adopted
recently by the Society of Automotive Engineers in SAE J1939-5. See
Sec. 1045.110 for detailed information.
[[Page 59055]]
D. Test Procedures for Certification
(1) General Provisions
The marine engine test procedures are generally the same for both
SD/I and OB/PWC engines. This involves laboratory measurement of
emissions while the engine operates over 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. 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 high altitude.
The E4 duty cycle includes a weighting of 40 percent for idle. For
SD/I high-performance engines, commenters suggested that these engines
typically have substantial auxiliary loads and parasitic losses even
when the vessel does not need propulsion power. While the specified
duty cycle for SD/I high-performance engines is identical to that for
other Marine SI engines, we would expect manufacturers to use the
provisions of Sec. 1065.510(b)(3) to target a reference torque of 15
percent instead of zero at idle.
(2) Not-to-Exceed Test Procedures and Standards
We are adopting not-to-exceed (NTE) requirements similar to those
established for marine diesel engines. Engines will be required to meet
the NTE standards during normal in-use operation.
(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 will ensure real-
world emission control, rather than just controlling emissions under
certain laboratory conditions. This allows us to evaluate an engine's
compliance during in-use testing without removing the engine from the
vessel because the NTE requirements establish 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 establishing 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 emission control in use as in the laboratory.
Because the duty cycle we have adopted uses only five modes on an
average propeller curve to characterize marine engine operation, we are
concerned that an engine designed to that duty cycle will not
necessarily perform the same way over the range of speed and load
combinations seen on a boat. This 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 installed in a
specific boat with a particular propeller may operate differently based
on the design of the boat and how heavily the boat is loaded, among
other factors.
To ensure that engines control emissions over a wide range of speed
and load combinations normally seen on boats, we are including 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 will apply to all regulated pollutants during steady-state
operation. In addition, we are requiring 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 final 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 will have to be removed from the
vessel or care will 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, will not require additional
technology beyond what is used to meet the final 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, when properly calibrated, will meet the caps that
apply across the NTE zone. We therefore do not expect the final NTE
standards to cause manufacturers to need additional hardware. 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 Final RIA accounts for some additional testing,
especially in the early years, to provide manufacturers with assurance
that their engines will meet the NTE requirements.
(b) Shape of NTE Zone
We developed the NTE 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 Final RIA presents this data and describes the
development of the boundaries and conditions
[[Page 59056]]
associated with the 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 will be very hard for manufacturers and EPA to
implement in a meaningful way.
We anticipate that most, if not all SD/I engines subject to the NTE
standards will use three-way catalytic controls to meet the exhaust
emission standards. For that reason, this discussion focuses on the NTE
zone and subzones for catalyst-equipped engines. Catalysts are most
effective when the fuel-air ratio in the exhaust is near stoichiometry,
and engine manufacturers use closed-loop electronic control to monitor
and maintain the proper fuel-air ratio in the exhaust for optimum
catalyst efficiency. However, at high power, engine manufacturers must
increase the fueling rate to reduce the exhaust temperatures.
Otherwise, if the exhaust temperature becomes too high, exhaust valves
and catalysts may be damaged. During rich, open-loop operation at high
power, the catalyst is oxygen-limited and less effective at oxidizing
HC and CO. To address the issue of open-loop catalyst efficiency, we
created a high power subzone for catalyst-equipped engines. The shape
of this subzone is based on data presented in the RIA on engine
protection strategies.
Figure III-1 illustrates the final NTE zone for engines equipped
with catalysts. Section IV.D.5 discusses the NTE test procedures and
limits for non-catalyzed engines. The NTE zones and standards apply
depending on whether the engine has a catalyst or not, so outboard or
personal watercraft engines may be subject to the NTE approach
described in this section and sterndrive/inboard engines may be subject
to the NTE provisions described in Section IV.D.5. However, we expect
these situations to be rather uncommon.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08OC08.061
The final regulations 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 normally operate outside the
revised NTE zone in use (see Sec. 1045.515). We do 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 will still be responsible for all operation of an engine
on a vessel that will reasonably be expected to be seen in use, and
they will be responsible for ensuring that their specified operation is
indicative of real-world operation. EPA testing may include any normal
operation observed on in-use vessels, consistent with the applicable
regulatory provisions. In addition, if a manufacturer designs an engine
for operation at speeds and loads outside of the NTE zone, the
manufacturer is required to notify us so the NTE zone used to comply
with the applicable standards can be modified appropriately to include
this operation for that engine family.
(c) NTE Emission Limits
We are establishing NTE limits for the individual 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 Final RIA. See Section IV.D.5 for a discussion
[[Page 59057]]
of NTE limits for engines not equipped with catalysts.
For catalyst-equipped engines, the largest contribution of
emissions over the 5-mode duty cycle comes from open-loop operation at
Mode 1. In addition, the idle point (Mode 5) is weighted 40 percent in
the 5-mode duty cycle, but not included in the NTE zone. For this
reason, brake-specific emissions throughout most of the NTE zone are
less than the weighted average from the steady-state testing. For most
of the NTE zone, we are therefore establishing a limit equal to the
duty-cycle standard (i.e., NTE multiplier = 1.0). This means that these
engines may not have steady-state emissions at any point inside the NTE
zone, except in the subzone around full-load operation, that exceed the
HC+NOX or CO emission standards.
Emission data on catalyst-equipped engines also show higher
emissions near full-power operation. As discussed above, this is due to
the need for richer fuel-air ratios under high-power operation to
protect the engines from overheating. Under rich conditions, a three-
way catalyst does not effectively oxidize CO emissions. Therefore, we
are not setting an NTE limit in Subzone 1 for CO. Some
HC+NOX control is expected in Subzone 1 because a three-way
catalyst will efficiently reduce NOX emissions under rich
conditions. Similar to CO, HC emissions are not effectively oxidized in
a catalyst during rich operation. We are therefore establishing a
higher NTE limit of 1.5 for HC+NOX in Subzone 1. This limit
is based on emission control performance during open-loop operation.
(d) Excluded Operation
As with marine diesel engines, only steady-state operation is
included for NTE testing (see Sec. 1045.515). Steady-state operation
will 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 will 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 this provision in the future.
We are aware that 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. As with outboard and
personal watercraft engines, NTE testing excludes engine starting and
warm-up. We are allowing manufacturers to design their engines to
utilize engine protection strategies that will 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.
(e) Ambient Conditions
Variations in ambient conditions can affect emissions. Such
conditions include air temperature, water temperature, barometric
pressure, and humidity. We are applying the comparable ranges for these
variables as for marine diesel engines (see Sec. 1045.515). Within the
specified ranges, there is no provision to correct emission levels to
standard conditions. Outside of the specified ranges, emissions may be
corrected back to the nearest end of the range using good engineering
practice. The specified 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. NTE testing may take place at any humidity level, but
manufacturers may correct for humidity effects as described in Sec.
1065.670.
(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 will 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 are adopting field-testing provisions for all
SD/I engines. These field-testing procedures are described further in
Section IV.E.2.
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 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, for any sampling period, each 30-second
period of operation would be subject to the NTE standards. For example,
manufacturers may measure emissions for ten minutes. The engine's
emissions over the ten-minute period would need to meet the applicable
NTE standards, but each 30-second period of operation during the ten-
minute period should also be evaluated to determine that the engine
complies.
(g) Certification
We are requiring 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 new NTE zone (see Sec. 1045.205). The manufacturer must also
provide a detailed description of all testing, engineering analysis,
and other information that forms the basis for the statement. This
statement will be based on testing and, if applicable, other research
that supports such a statement, consistent with good engineering
judgment. We will 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.
[[Page 59058]]
E. Additional Certification and Compliance Provisions
(1) Production-Line Testing
There are several factors that have led us to conclude that we
should not finalize production-line testing requirements for SD/I
engines in this rulemaking. First, California ARB has not yet adopted
production-line testing requirements for these engines. Second, the
companies producing these engines are predominantly small businesses.
Third, the relatively short useful life and small sales volumes limit
the overall emissions effect from these engines. Fourth, we are aware
that marine engines may need additional setup time for testing to
simulate the marine configuration. We do not consider any of these
issues to be fundamental, but we believe it is best to defer further
consideration of a requirement for production-line testing until a
later rulemaking. This would allow us to better understand the degree
of compliance with emission standards, the effectiveness of diagnostic
controls, and California ARB's interest in requiring production-line
testing. However, 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.
(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 adopt 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. 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 for some reason, it is
unlikely that owners will cooperate.
While we are not establishing 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 will evaluate compliance with the not-to-exceed standards.
In addition, as described above for production-line testing, we may
require manufacturers to perform a reasonable degree of testing. This
may include testing 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 assessing EPA's compliance costs associated
with SD/I engines based on EPA's existing fees regulation. Section VI
describes a new fees category we are adopting, based on the cost study
methodology used in establishing EPA's original fees regulation, for
costs related to the final evaporative emission standards for both
vessels and equipment that are subject to this final rule.
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.\94\ 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, for light-duty motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 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 was premature
to assess fees for 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 now formally including SD/I engines
in the ``Other Engines and Vehicles'' category such that the baseline
fee is $839 for each certificate of conformity. Note that we will
continue to update assessed fees each year, so the actual fee in 2010
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 one company to produce engine blocks that
a second company modifies for use as a marine engine. Since our
regulations prohibit the sale of uncertified engines, we are
establishing 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 VIII.C.1 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
allowing 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 will 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. We are adopting similar provisions
for engines below 19 kW that are certified to Small SI standards as
described in Section III.C.1.
[[Page 59059]]
(6) Import-specific Information at Certification
We are requiring additional information to improve our ability to
oversee compliance related to imported engines (see Sec. 1045.205). In
the application for certification, we require the following additional
information: (1) The port or ports at which the manufacturer has
imported engines over the previous 12 months, (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. See Section 1.3 of the
Summary and Analysis of Comments for further discussion related to
naming test facilities in the United States.
(7) Alternate Fuels
See Section IV.E.7 for a discussion of requirements that apply to
spark-ignition SD/I engines that operate on fuels other than gasoline.
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 (RFA).
The purpose of the Panel was to collect the advice and recommendations
of representatives of small entities that could be affected by the
proposal 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 re-convened the Panel on August 17, 2006 to update
our review for the proposal. The Panel reports have been placed in the
rulemaking record for this final rule. 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
certain 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 rule will apply;
A description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the 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 rule; and
A description of any significant alternative to the rule
that accomplishes the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimizes any significant economic impact of the 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.
EPA used the size standards provided by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) at 13 CFR part 121 to identify small entities for
the purposes of its regulatory flexibility analysis. Companies that
manufacture internal-combustion engines and that employ fewer than 1000
employees are considered small businesses for the purpose of the RFA
analysis for this rule. Equipment manufacturers, boat builders, and
fuel system component manufacturers that employ fewer than 500 people
are considered small businesses for the purpose of the RFA analysis for
this rule. 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 the proposed rule.
The Panel reports are included in the rulemaking record for this
action. In light of the Panel report, and where appropriate, we
proposed a number of provisions for small business SD/I engine
manufacturers. With this final rule we are adopting many of the
flexibility options proposed with some changes due to the different
standards we are adopting for SD/I high-performance engines. In
addition, we are making a change to the criteria for determining which
companies are eligible for the flexibility options. The following
section describes the flexibility options being adopted as part of this
final rule and the criteria for determining which manufacturers are
eligible.
(2) Final Burden Reduction Approaches for Small-Volume SD/I Engine
Manufacturers
We are establishing 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 adopting a 250 employee limit. EPA
believes this limit will cover all the existing small business SD/I
engine manufacturers (as defined by SBA), but places a reasonable limit
on how large a company could grow before they are no longer eligible
for EPA's flexibilities for small volume engine manufacturers.
(a) Additional Lead Time
As recommended in the SBAR Panel report and as proposed, EPA is
establishing an implementation date of 2011 for conventional SD/I
engines produced by small volume engine manufacturers. In addition, EPA
is establishing an implementation date of 2013 for SD/I high-
performance engines produced by small volume engine manufacturers (see
Sec. 1045.145).
(b) Exhaust Emission ABT
In the proposal, EPA cited concerns raised by small businesses that
ABT could give a competitive advantage to large businesses and
requested comment on the desirability of credit trading between high-
performance and conventional SD/I marine engines. As described earlier
in Section III.C.1, EPA is adopting different standards for SD/I high-
performance engines than originally proposed. While we are adopting an
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) credit program for conventional
SD/I marine engines (see part 1045, subpart H), SD/I high-performance
engines are required to meet the new standards without an ABT program.
(c) Early Credit Generation for ABT
As recommended in the SBAR Panel report and as proposed, we are
adopting an early banking program in which small volume engine
manufacturers can earn bonus credits for certifying earlier than
required (see Sec. 1045.145). This program, combined with the
additional lead time for small businesses, will give small-volume SD/I
engine manufacturers ample opportunity to
[[Page 59060]]
bank emission credits prior to the implementation date of the standards
and will provide greater incentive for more small business engine
manufacturers to introduce advanced technology earlier across the
nation than will otherwise occur. The ABT program applies only to
conventional SD/I engines so the early credit provisions will not apply
to SD/I high-performance engines.
(d) Assigned Emission Rates for SD/I High-Performance Engines
In the proposal, EPA noted that engine manufacturers using emission
credits to comply with the standard will still need to test engines to
calculate how many emission credits are needed. To minimize this
testing burden, we proposed to allow manufacturers to use assigned
baseline emission rates for certification based on previously generated
emission data. As discussed above, we are adopting less stringent
standards for SD/I high-performance engines that do not allow for the
use of the ABT program for demonstrating compliance with the standards.
We are not adopting baseline HC+NOX and CO emission rates
for SD/I high-performance engines since the proposed levels were higher
than the standards being adopted and therefore are of no use without an
ABT program.
(e) Alternative Standards for SD/I High-Performance Engines
In the proposal, EPA cited concerns raised by small businesses that
catalysts had not been demonstrated on high-performance engines and
that they may not be practicable for this application and therefore
requested comment on the need for and level of alternative standards
for SD/I high-performance engines. As described in Section III.C.1, we
are adopting a less stringent set of exhaust emission standards for SD/
I high-performance engines than originally proposed.
In addition, as described in Section III.C.2, we are not adopting
NTE standards for SD/I high-performance engines (See Sec. 1045.105).
This is consistent with the SBAR Panel recommendation that NTE
standards not apply to SD/I high-performance engines.
(f) Broad Engine Families for SD/I High-Performance Engines
In the proposal, EPA noted that the testing burden could be reduced
by using broader definitions of engine families. As proposed, we are
adopting provisions to allow small businesses to group all their SD/I
high-performance engines into a single engine family for certification
(see Sec. 1045.230). A manufacturer will need to perform emission
tests only on the engine in that family that is most likely to exceed
an emission standard.
(g) Simplified Test Procedures for SD/I High-Performance 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
SD/I high-performance engines, EPA is adopting a provision that allows
for different equipment than is specified for the laboratory and with
less restrictive specifications and tolerances more typical of in-use
testing (see Sec. 1045.501(h)). These less restrictive specifications
will facilitate less expensive testing for businesses, with little or
no negative effect on the environment. The relaxation on these
specifications is especially helpful for testing high-performance
engines due to their high exhaust flow rates, temperatures, and
emission concentrations. This provision is available to all SD/I high-
performance engine manufacturers, regardless of business size.
(h) Reduced Testing Requirements for SD/I Engines
We are adopting provisions to allow small-volume engine
manufacturers to use an assigned deterioration factor to demonstrate
compliance with the standards for 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 specifying actual levels for the assigned
deterioration factors in this final rule. 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 proposed to exempt small-volume manufacturers of SD/I engines
from the production-line testing requirements. However, we are dropping
the production-line testing requirements for all SD/I engine
manufacturers. Therefore, no production-line testing will be required
of any SD/I engine manufacturer, whether large or small (see Sec.
1045.301).
(i) Hardship Provisions
We are adopting two types of hardship provisions for SD/I engine
manufacturers, consistent with the Panel recommendations. EPA used the
SBA size standards for purposes of defining ``small businesses'' for
its regulatory flexibility analysis. The eligibility criteria for the
hardship provisions described below reflect EPA's consideration of the
Panel's recommendations and a reasonable application of existing
hardship provisions. As has been our experience with similar provisions
already adopted, we anticipate that hardship mechanisms will be used
sparingly. First, under the unusual circumstances hardship provision,
any manufacturer subject to the new standards may 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 will
depend on the specific circumstances of the company and the situation
involved. As part of its application for hardship, a company will be
required to provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it will
achieve compliance with the standards. This hardship provision will be
available to all manufacturers of engines, equipment, boats, and fuel
system components subject to the new standards, regardless of business
size.
Second, an economic hardship provision allows small businesses
subject to the new standards to petition EPA for limited additional
lead time to comply with the standards (see Sec. 1068.250). A small
business must make the case that it has taken all possible business,
technical, and economic steps to comply, but the burden of compliance
costs would jeopardize 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 will be up to one
year, with the potential to extend the relief as needed. We anticipate
that
[[Page 59061]]
one to two years will normally be sufficient. As part of its
application for hardship, a company will be required to provide a
compliance plan detailing when and how it will achieve compliance with
the standards. This hardship provision will be available only to
qualifying small businesses.
Because boat builders in many cases will depend on engine
manufacturers to supply certified engines in time to produce complying
boats, we are also providing a hardship provision for all boat
builders, regardless of size, that will allow the builder to request
more time if they are unable to obtain a certified engine and they are
not at fault and will face serious economic hardship without an
extension (see Sec. 1068.255).
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. At this time, three engine
manufacturers have certified SD/I engines to these standards. Chapter 4
of the Final RIA presents data from these engines as well as detailed
data on several developmental SD/I engines with catalysts packaged
within water-cooled exhaust manifolds. Four of these developmental
engines were operated with catalysts in vessels for 480 hours. The
remaining developmental engines were tested with catalysts that had
been subjected to a rapid-aging cycle in the laboratory. Data from
these catalyst-equipped engines support the level of the standards.
SD/I high-performance engines have very high power outputs, large
exhaust gas flow rates, and relatively high concentrations of
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases. As a result, we
believe it is not practical to apply catalyst technology to these
engines. We are therefore adopting standards for SD/I high-performance
engines based on the level of control that can be expected from
recalibration with electronically controlled fuel injection.
(2) Implementation Dates
We anticipate that manufacturers will use the same catalyst designs
to meet the final 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 two-year delay
allows manufacturers adequate time to incorporate catalysts across
their product lines. Once the technology is developed for use in
California, it will be available for use nationwide. In fact, several
engine models currently certified to the California standards are
already available with catalysts nationwide. As discussed above, we are
accommodating the transition to new base engines by agreeing to one
year of hardship relief for companies that would otherwise need to
design and certify an engine for that one year before it becomes
obsolete.
(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 Final RIA, data on catalyst-equipped SD/I
engines show that emissions may be reduced by 70 to 80 percent for
HC+NOX and 30 to 50 percent for CO over the 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 expected 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 Final
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 will result
from corrosion or hydraulic lock. As discussed in the Final 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 will 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 to prevent overcooling from the water
jacket.
Four SD/I engines equipped with catalysts were operated in vessels
for 480 hours in 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 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
[[Page 59062]]
hours were accumulated on the boats. Although the accumulated hours are
well below the 480 hours performed on fresh water, the operation
completed showed no visible evidence of water reversion or damage to
the catalysts.
Three SD/I engine manufacturers have certified SD/I engines to the
California ARB standards, and some catalyst-equipped engines are
available for purchase nationwide. Manufacturers have indicated that
they have successfully completed durability testing, including extended
in-use testing on saltwater.
(4) Regulatory Alternatives
In developing the final 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 Final 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 will 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 will 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 standards had HC+NOX emission
rates appreciably lower that 5 g/kW-hr, 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 Final RIA did not
investigate larger catalysts for SD/I applications. The goal of the
testing was to demonstrate catalysts that will 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 final 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.
For SD/I high-performance engines, we originally proposed a
standard based on the use of catalysts and then considered a less
stringent alternative based on engine fuel system upgrades,
calibration, or other minor changes such as an air injection pump
rather than catalytic control. However, manufacturers commented that
catalysts are not practical for these engines due to the high exhaust
flow rates, high emission rates, and short time between rebuilds. In
the final rule, we are establishing standards that can be met through
the use of engine controls, similar to the alternative standard that
was analyzed in the proposal. Because we do not consider catalyst-based
standards to be feasible for high-performance engines at this time, we
did not model a more stringent alternative for these engines.
(5) Our Conclusions
We believe the final 2010 exhaust emission standards for SD/I
engines represent the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
in this time frame. Manufacturers of conventional SD/I engines can meet
the standards through the use of three-way catalysts packaged in the
exhaust systems upstream of where the water and exhaust mix.
Manufacturers are already selling engines with this technology. By 2010
there will be widespread experience in applying emission controls to a
large number of engine models.
As discussed in Section VII, we do not believe the final standards
will 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 adopting new HC+NOX and
CO exhaust emission standards for OB/PWC marine engines reflecting the
capabilities of these new technologies.
For outboard and personal watercraft engines, the current emission
standards regulate only HC+NOX emissions. As described in
Section II, we are making 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 new standards. In fact,
as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Final RIA, manufacturers are already
producing several models of four-stroke engines and direction-injection
two-stroke engines that meet the new standards. The most important
compliance step for the standards will be to retire high-emitting
designs that are still available and replace them with these cleaner
engines. We are not establishing 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 migrating the regulatory requirements for marine
spark-ignition 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 exhaust emission standards begin to apply in 2010. 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.
Engines and vessels subject to part 1045 are also 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 of the preamble to the proposed rule for
further discussion of these general compliance provisions.
[[Page 59063]]
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
(1) Definition of Outboard and Personal Watercraft Engines and Vessels
The final standards are intended to apply to outboard marine
engines and engines used to propel personal watercraft. We are changing
the definitions of outboard and personal watercraft to reflect this
intent. The original definitions of outboard engine and personal
watercraft marine engine adopted in 40 CFR part 91 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 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 will not be categorized as SD/I under the original
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 changing 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 adopting 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. Because jet boat engines may
be the same as OB/PWC engines, the regulations classified them as OB/
PWC engines unless the Agency classified them as SD/I due to comparable
technology and emissions as SD/I engines. However, as explained in the
proposed rule, we believe classifying such engines as personal
watercraft engines is inappropriate because it will subject the jet
boats to less stringent emission standards than other boats with
similar size, power, and usage characteristics, and thus potentially
lead to increased use of high-emitting engines in these vessels.
Because the current regulations authorize engines powering jet boats to
be treated as SD/I engines at the discretion of the Agency, but do not
compel such classification, we are finalizing amendments to the
definition to explicitly exclude jet boats and their engines from being
treated as personal watercraft engines or vessels. Instead, we are
classifying jet boat engines as SD/I engines.
The new definition conforms to the 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 for personal watercraft therefore excludes personal
watercraft-like vessels 4 meters or greater and jet boats. Thus,
engines powering such vessels will 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 definition of personal watercraft
engine. We are making one change to the ISO definition for domestic
regulatory purposes; we are removing 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
revising the definitions as follows:
Personal watercraft means a vessel less than 4.0 meters
(13 feet) in length that uses an installed spark-ignition 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.3 describes special provisions that will allow
manufacturers extra flexibility with emission credits if they want to
continue using outboard or personal watercraft engines in jet boats.
These engines will 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.
(2) Exclusions and Exemptions
We are maintaining the current 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 in Section VIII of the preamble to the proposed rule.
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 were difficult
to remove and that made it unsafe, impractical, or unlikely to be used
for noncompetitive purposes. We have more recently taken the approach
in other programs of more carefully differentiating competition and
noncompetition models, and are adopting these kinds of changes in this
rule. The changes to the provisions relating to competition engines
apply equally to all types of Marine SI engines. See Section III.B and
Sec. 1045.620 of the regulations for a full discussion of the new
approach.
We are incorporating a new exemption to address individuals who
manufacture recreational marine vessels for personal use as described
in Section III.B.2.
In the rulemaking for recreational vehicles, we chose not to apply
standards to hobby products by
[[Page 59064]]
exempting all reduced-scale models of vehicles that are not capable of
transporting a person (67 FR 68242, November 8, 2002). We are extending
that same provision to OB/PWC marine engines (see Sec. 1045.5).
C. Final Exhaust Emission Standards
We are requiring more stringent exhaust emission standards for new
OB/PWC marine engines. These standards can be met through expanded
reliance on four-stroke engines and two-stroke direct-injection
engines. This section describes the new requirements for OB/PWC engines
for controlling exhaust emissions. See Section VI for a description of
the final requirements related to evaporative emissions.
(1) Standards and Dates
We are requiring new HC+NOX standards for OB/PWC engines
starting in model year 2010 that will achieve more than a 60 percent
reduction from the 2006 standards (see Sec. 1045.103). We are also
establishing new CO emission standards. These standards will result in
meaningful CO reductions from many engines and prevent CO from
increasing for engines that already use technologies with lower CO
emissions. The new emission standards are largely based on
certification data from cleaner-burning four-stroke engines and two-
stroke direct-injection engines that are certified under part 91.
Section IV.H discusses the technological feasibility of these standards
in more detail. Table IV-1 presents the exhaust emission standards for
OB/PWC. The HC+NOX emission standards are the same as those
adopted by California ARB for 2008 and later model years. We are also
applying not-to-exceed emission standards over a range of engine
operating conditions, as described in Section IV.C.2.
Table IV-1: OB/PWC Exhaust Emission Standards [g/kW-hr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Power Emission standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC+NOX............................. P <= 4.3 kW 30.0
P > 4.3 kW 2.1 + 0.09 x (151 + 557/P\0.9\))
CO................................. P <= 40 kW 500--5.0 x P
P> 40 kW 300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: P = maximum engine power in kilowatts (kW).
Our implementation date allows two additional years beyond the
implementation date of the same standards in California. Manufacturers
generally sell their lower-emission engines, which are already meeting
the 2008 California standards, nationwide. However, the additional time
will give manufacturers time to address any models that may not meet
the upcoming California standards or are not sold in California. This
also accommodates the lead time concerns with the timing of this final
rule as expressed by the commenters.
The emission standards apply at the range of atmospheric pressures
represented by the test conditions specified in part 1065. This
includes operation at elevated altitudes. Since not all engines have
electronic engines with feedback controls to incorporate altitude
compensation, we are taking the same approach here as for Small SI
engines where a similar dynamic is in place. Specifically, we are
requiring that all engines must comply with emission standards in the
standard configuration (i.e., without an altitude kit) at barometric
pressures above 94.0 kPa, which corresponds to altitudes up to about
2,000 feet above sea level (see Sec. 1045.115). This will ensure that
all areas east of the Rocky Mountains and most of the populated areas
in Pacific Coast states will have compliant engines without depending
on engine adjustments. This becomes more important as we anticipate
manufacturers increasingly relying on technologies that are sensitive
to controlling air-fuel ratio for reducing emissions. For operation at
higher altitudes, manufacturers may rely on an altitude kit that allows
their engines to meet emission standards at higher elevations. In this
case, engine manufacturers must describe the kit specifications in
their application for certification and identify in the owner's manual
the altitude ranges for proper engine performance and emission control
that are expected with and without the altitude kit. The owner's 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. The regulations specify that
owners may follow the manufacturer's instructions to modify their
engines with altitude kits without violating the tampering prohibition.
See Section IV.E.8 for further discussion related to the deployment of
altitude kits where the manufacturers rely on them for operation at
higher altitudes.
The new 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
We are adopting emission standards that apply over an NTE zone. The
NTE standards are in the form of a multiplier times the duty-cycle
standard for HC+NOX and for CO (see Sec. 1045.105). Section
IV.D.5 gives an overview of the NTE standards and compliance provisions
and describes the NTE test procedures.
Manufacturers commented that certification to the NTE standards
requires additional testing even for engine models that are currently
certified to emission levels below the new duty-cycle based standards.
In addition, they expressed concern that they may need to recalibrate
existing engine models to meet the NTE standards. Manufacturers
commented that this would not be possible by 2010 because of the large
number of engine models. For most engines, manufacturers carry over
preexisting certification test data from year to year. Manufacturers
commented that additional time would be necessary to retest, and
potentially recalibrate, all these engines for certification to the NTE
standards. To address these issues regarding lead time needed to retest
these engines, we are not applying the NTE standards for 2010-2012
model year engines that are certified using preexisting data (i.e.,
carryover engine families). For new engine models, manufacturers
indicated that they will be able to perform the NTE testing and duty-
cycle testing as part of their efforts to certify to the new standards.
Therefore the primary implementation date of 2010 applies to these
engines. Beginning in the 2013 model year, all conventional OB/PWC
engines must be certified to meet the NTE standards.
[[Page 59065]]
This NTE approach complements the weighted modal emission tests
included in this rule. These steady-state duty cycles and standards are
intended to establish average emission levels over several discrete
modes of engine operation. 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 will 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
Engine manufacturers may use emission credits to meet OB/PWC
standards under part 91. We are adopting an ABT program for the new
HC+NOX emission standards that is similar to the previous
program (see part 1045, subpart H). A description of the ABT provisions
for the new OB/PWC standards is described below.
OB/PWC engine manufacturers that have generated HC+NOX
credits under the 2006 standards will be able to use those credits to
demonstrate compliance with the new HC+NOX standards being
adopted in this final rule. The credits generated under the 2006
standards are subject to a three-year credit life. Therefore, a
manufacturer will be able to use those credits for demonstrating
compliance with the new standards as long as the credits have not
expired.
We are allowing an indefinite life for emission credits earned
under the new standards for OB/PWC engines. We consider these emission
credits to be part of the overall program for complying with 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.
Emission credit balances will be part of the analysis for determining
the appropriate level and timing of new standards, consistent with the
statutory requirement to establish standards that represent the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable, considering cost,
safety, lead time, and other factors. If we were to allow the use of
credits generated under the standards adopted in this rule to meet more
stringent standards adopt in a future rulemaking, we may need to adopt
emission standards at more stringent levels or with an earlier start
date than we would absent the continued use of existing emission
credits, depending on the level of emission credit banks.
Alternatively, we may adopt future standards without allowing the use
of existing emission credits.
We are adopting the equation for calculating emission credits for
OB/PWC engines as proposed. This equation represents a simpler
calculation than is currently used for OB/PWC engines and is based on
the equation that is common in many of our other ABT programs. The
primary difference is that the regulatory useful life will 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 will be reported in units of kilograms rather than grams.
We are also adopting an averaging program for CO emissions. Under
this program, manufacturers can 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 not establishing a banking program for
CO emissions. As noted in the proposal, 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. Furthermore, because we
generally allow trading only with banked credits, we are not allowing
trading of CO emission credits.
EPA proposed that manufacturers would not be able to earn credits
for one pollutant while using credits to comply with the emissions
standard for another pollutant. We are dropping that provision for the
final rule. The proposed restriction was modeled on similar
requirements in other ABT programs where there was concern that a
manufacturer could use technologies to reduce one pollutant while
increasing another pollutant. The types of technologies manufacturers
are expected to use to comply with the new standards include direct-
injection two-stroke engines or four-stroke engines. Both of these
technologies should result in reductions in both HC+NOX
emissions and CO emissions compared to current designs. While the
technologies are expected to reduce both HC+NOX emissions
and CO emissions, there could be situations where these technologies
are capable of meeting one of the emission standards but not the other.
EPA does not want to preclude such engines from being able to certify
using the provisions of the ABT program and is therefore dropping the
proposed restriction from the final rule.
For OB/PWC engines subject to the new emission standards, we are
adopting FEL caps to prevent the sale of very high-emitting engines.
For HC+NOX, the FEL cap will be the applicable 2006 and
later model year HC+NOX standard, which is dependent on the
average power of an engine family. For CO, the FEL cap will be 150 g/
kW-hr above the newly adopted CO standard, which is also dependent on
the average power of an engine family. We believe these FEL caps will
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.
We are specifying that OB/PWC engines are in a separate averaging
set from SD/I engines, with an exception for certain jet boat engines.
This means that credits earned by OB/PWC engines may be used only to
offset higher emissions from other OB/PWC engines. Likewise, credits
earned by SD/I engines may be used only to offset higher emissions from
other SD/I engines. As described in Section III.C.2, manufacturers will
be able to use credits generated from OB/PWC engines to demonstrate
that their jet boat engines meet the HC+NOX and CO standards
for SD/I engines if the majority of units sold in the United States
from those related OB/PWC engine families are sold for use as OB/PWC
engines.
Finally, manufacturers may include as part of their federal credit
calculation the sales of engines in California as long as they don't
separately account for those emission credits under the California
regulations. We originally proposed to exclude engines sold in
California that are subject to the California ARB standards. However,
we consider California's current HC+NOX standards to be
equivalent to those we are adopting in this rulemaking, so we would
expect a widespread practice of producing and marketing 50-state
products. Therefore, as long as a manufacturer is not generating
credits under California's averaging program for OB/PWC engines, we
would allow manufacturers to count those engines when calculating
credits under EPA's program. This is consistent with how EPA allows
credits to be calculated in other nonroad sectors, such as recreational
vehicles.
(4) Durability Provisions
We are keeping the 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
[[Page 59066]]
years or 350 hours of operation, whichever comes first. (See Sec.
1045.103.)
We are updating 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. Accordingly, the new warranty period for outboard engines is
five years or 175 hours of operation, whichever comes first. The new
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 new
approach will slightly decrease the warranty period in terms of hours,
but will somewhat increase the period in terms of calendar years (or
months).
If the manufacturer offers a longer mechanical warranty for the
engine or any of its components at no additional charge, we are
requiring 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.
We are keeping the 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 are
requiring 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 will 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 specifying that manufacturers may not
schedule critical emission-related maintenance during the useful life
period (see Sec. 1045.125). This will prevent manufacturers from
designing engines with emission controls that depend on scheduled
maintenance that is not likely to occur with in-use engines.
D. Changes to OB/PWC Test Procedures
We are making 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 will 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 keeping the duty cycle specified for OB/PWC engines,
with two adjustments (see Sec. 1045.505). First, we are requiring that
manufacturers may choose to run the specified duty cycle as a ramped-
modal cycle. Second, we are changing the low-power test mode from a
specified 25 percent load condition to 25.3 percent load, which will
complete the intended alignment with the E4 duty cycle adopted by the
International Organization for Standardization.
(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 are defining 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. The nominal
value of maximum test speed is defined at that point where the length
of this line reaches its maximum value.
The engine mapping procedures in part 1065 that we referenced in
the proposal allow manufacturers to declare a value for maximum test
speed that is within 2.5 percent of the calculated (or measured)
nominal value. Based on the manufacturers' descriptions of the way they
instruct boat builders to match propellers to their engines, we have
included in the final rule a special allowance for manufacturers to
declare a value for maximum test speed that is up to 500 rpm below the
calculated value. This equates to about 8 percent of the calculated
value for most engines; however, we would never expect manufacturers to
select a value for maximum test speed that is above the nominal value,
so the total allowable range is not much greater than for other
engines. We also note that the maximum test speed for a four-stroke
engine that remains installed in a vessel is the highest engine speed
that can occur. As long as the propeller matching and other vessel
characteristics do not take the engine outside of the manufacturer's
specified range, the engine would need to meet the Not-to-Exceed
standards based on the in-use value for maximum test speed. These
provisions related to maximum test speed apply equally to OB/PWC
engines and SD/I engines.
(3) 40 CFR Part 1065
We are requiring that OB/PWC engines certified to the new exhaust
emission standards use the test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 instead
of those in 40 CFR part 91.\95\ Part 1065 includes detailed laboratory
and equipment specifications and procedures for equipment calibration
and emission measurements. These new procedures will apply starting
with the introduction of new exhaust standards,
[[Page 59067]]
though we will 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 new
standards, we will allow the carryover of any test data generated prior
to 2009 under the test procedures in 40 CFR part 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 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) Engine Break-in
Testing new engines requires a period of engine operation to
stabilize emission 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 will
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 requiring that low-hour marine spark-ignition
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
new allowance for up to 30 hours of engine operation is consistent with
what we have done for recreational vehicles and will 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
keeping 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.
(5) Not-to-Exceed Test Procedures and Standards
Section III.D.2 discusses the general concept and approach behind
NTE standards for Marine SI engines. In addition, Section III.D.2
presents specific zones and limits for catalyst-equipped marine
engines. We are applying the same general NTE testing provisions to OB/
PWC engines, including the same broad NTE zone and ambient conditions
(see Sec. 1045.515).
We anticipate that most OB/PWC engines subject to the NTE standards
will use engine-based controls to meet the exhaust emission standards.
For that reason, this discussion focuses on the NTE zone and subzones
for engines not equipped with catalysts. Data presented in Chapter 4 of
the RIA suggests that the emissions characteristics of marine engines
are largely dependent on technology type. Four-stroke engines tend to
have relatively constant emission levels throughout the NTE zone. In
contrast, two-stroke engines tend to have high variability in
emissions, not only within the NTE zone but between different engine
designs as well. Therefore, we developed separate NTE approaches and
standards for four-stroke and two-stroke engines. These approaches and
standards are discussed below.
(a) Four-Stroke Marine Engines
The NTE approach for four-stroke marine engines without catalysts
is similar to that for catalyst-equipped engines as described in
Section III. We are applying the same NTE zone; however, we are
establishing different subzones and emission limits based on data
presented in the Final RIA. Emission data for four-stroke marine
engines suggest that brake-specific emission rates are relatively
constant throughout the NTE zone. One exception is slightly higher
HC+NOX emissions at low power. To account for this, we are
subdividing the NTE zone to have a low-power subzone below 50 percent
of maximum test speed. In this low-power subzone, the HC+NOX
NTE limit is 1.6, while it is 1.4 for the remainder of the NTE zone.
The CO NTE limit is 1.5 throughout the NTE zone. Figure IV-1 presents
the NTE zone and subzones. These limits would apply to all non-
catalyzed four-stroke engines. See Section III.D.2 for a detailed
discussion of NTE requirements that apply for catalyst-equipped engines
(including OB/PWC engines).
As discussed above in Section IV.C.2, we are providing extra lead
time for 2010-2012 model year engines certified using preexisting data.
The purpose of this provision is to allow testing and calibration work
to better fit into product development cycles. We have received an
indication that a small subset of existing outboard engines may need
additional time to meet the 1.4 NTE limit at mid-range speeds due to
technological challenges associated with high-power supercharging.
Manufacturers have indicated that a slightly higher limit of 1.6 would
be feasible in the 2013 time frame, but additional time would be needed
for hardware changes to meet the 1.4 limit. To address this issue, we
are temporarily expanding Subzone 2 to include mid-range speeds up to
70 percent of maximum test speed for supercharged outboard engines
greater than 150 kW. Beginning with the 2015 model year, these engines
would be subject to the same NTE zone and standards as other four-
stroke engines.
[[Page 59068]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08OC08.062
(b) Two-Stroke Marine Engines
The emission data presented in Chapter 4 of the Final RIA for two-
stroke direct-injection marine engines suggest that these engines have
high variability in emissions, not only within the NTE zone but between
different engine designs as well. Due to this variability, we do not
believe that a flat (or stepped) limit in the NTE zone could be
effectively used to establish meaningful standards for these engines.
At the same time, we continue to believe that NTE standards are
valuable for facilitating in-use testing. We therefore developed a
weighted NTE approach specifically for these engines. In the long term,
we may consider further emission reductions based on catalytic control
applied to OB/PWC engines. In this case, we would revisit the
appropriateness of the weighted NTE approach in the context of those
standards.
Under the weighted NTE approach, emission data is collected at five
test points. These test points are idle, full power, and the speeds
specified in Modes 2 through 4 of the 5-mode duty cycle. Similar to the
5-mode duty cycle, the five test points are weighted to achieve a
composite value. This composite value must be no higher than 1.2 times
the FEL for that engine family.
The difference in this approach from the 5-mode duty cycle is that
the test torque is not specified. During an in-use test, the engine
would be set to the target speed and the torque value would be allowed
to float. The actual torque would depend on the propeller design, the
weight and condition of the boat, and other factors. In addition, the
engine speed at wide open throttle would be based on actual performance
on the boat. Because in-use engines installed in boats do not generally
operate on the theoretical propeller curve used to define the 5-mode
duty cycle, this approach helps facilitate NTE testing.
At each test mode, limits are placed on allowable engine operation.
These limits are generally based on the NTE zone presented above for
four-stroke engines, but there are two exceptions. First, the lower
torque limit at 40 percent speed is lowered slightly to better ensure
that an engine on an in-use boat is capable of operating within the NTE
zone. Second, the speed range is extended at wide-open throttle for the
same reason. Figure IV-3 presents the NTE zone and subzones. These
limits would apply to all non-catalyzed two-stroke engines. See Section
III.D.2 for a detailed discussion of NTE requirements that apply to
catalyst-equipped engines (including OB/PWC engines).
[[Page 59069]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08OC08.063
During laboratory testing, any point within each of the four non-
idle subzones may be chosen as test points. These test points do not
necessarily need to lie on a propeller curve. Note that measured power
should be used in the calculation of the weighted brake-specific
emissions.
(6) Test Fuel
As described below in Section V.D.3, we are adopting provisions
that will allow manufacturers to use a 10 percent ethanol blend for
certification testing of exhaust emissions from Small SI engines as an
alternative to the standard gasoline test fuel. We are adopting similar
provisions for Marine SI engines in this rule. This option to use a 10
percent ethanol blend will begin with the implementation date of the
new exhaust standards for both OB/PWC engines and SD/I engines. The
option to use a 10 percent ethanol blend would apply to PLT testing as
well if the manufacturer based their certification on the 10 percent
ethanol blend. The test fuel specifications are based on using the
current gasoline test fuel and adding ethanol until the blended fuel
has 10 percent ethanol by volume. While we will allow use of a 10
percent ethanol blend for certification, we expect to use our test fuel
without oxygenates for all confirmatory testing for exhaust emissions.
Therefore, an engine manufacturer will want to consider the impacts of
ethanol on emissions in evaluating the compliance margin for the
standard, or in setting the FEL for the engine family if it is
participating in the ABT program. We could decide at our own discretion
to do exhaust emissions testing using a 10 percent ethanol blend if the
manufacturer certified on that fuel.
Ethanol has been blended into in-use gasoline for many years and
its use has been increasing in recent years. Under provisions of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, ethanol is required to be
used in significantly greater quantities. We project that potentially
80 percent of the national gasoline pool will contain ethanol by 2010,
making ethanol blends (up to 10 percent) the de facto in-use fuel. As
ethanol blends become the main in-use fuel, we believe it makes sense
for manufacturers to optimize their engine designs with regard to
emissions, performance, and durability on such a fuel. While limited
data on Marine SI engines operated on a 10 percent ethanol blend
suggests the HC emissions will decrease and NOX emission
will increase or stay the same, these effects result in small decreases
in total HC+NOX emission levels, with the difference
generally being around 10 percent. CARB is currently running a test
program to look at the emission impacts of ethanol blends on a range of
Marine SI engines. Based on the results of that test program, we may
consider changes to the provisions allowing the use of a 10 percent
ethanol blend for certification and production-line testing.
E. Additional Certification and Compliance Provisions
(1) Production-Line Testing
We are continuing 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. The final rule includes a variety of amendments and
adjustments as described in the proposal. We may also require
manufacturers to perform production line testing under the selective
enforcement auditing provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E.
(2) In-Use Testing
We are also continuing the requirements related to the
[[Page 59070]]
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,
however, making a variety of changes and clarifications to the current
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 will 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 adopting 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 complete applications we receive by December 31
of a given calendar year for the following model year, we 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 have the option of
making their own selections for in-use testing. The regulations include
criteria to serve as guidance for manufacturers to make appropriate
selections. For example, we 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 will treat engine families differently for in-use testing if we
receive the application after December 31. This applies, for example,
if we receive a complete application for a 2010 engine family in
February 2010. In these cases, the engine family will automatically be
subject to in-use testing, without regard to the 25 percent limitation
that will 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 provision will eliminate the manufacturers'
ability to game the testing system by delaying a family of potential
concern until the next calendar year. We expect to receive few new
applications after the end of the calendar year. This will 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.
(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 we are not
requiring manufacturers to include crankcase emission 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 the regulatory useful life, 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, a potential
option to address a nonconformity is that 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 adopting a more general approach to addressing potential
noncompliance under the in-use testing program than is specified in 40
CFR part 91. The final regulations do not specify how manufacturers
could generate emission credits to offset a nonconforming engine
family. This new 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 will apply. For
example, we 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-
[[Page 59071]]
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 will 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 are adopting the field testing provisions
described below as an option for all OB/PWC and 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 in the field. 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 requiring
manufacturers to specify how they will intend to draw 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 are therefore
requiring manufacturers to design their engine control systems 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 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 new NTE standards. We are adopting the
requirement to meet the torque-broadcasting requirements in the 2013
model year, which aligns with the final implementation of the 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 engine families in
the scope of any eventual recall, as allowed by the Act.
In response to comments received from manufacturers, we have agreed
to adopt a provision allowing manufacturers to request hardship relief
under the in-use testing program if conditions outside their control
prevent them from completing the required testing. We would expect this
to be a rare occurrence, but this provision will allow us to
accommodate manufacturers if extreme unforeseen circumstances prevent a
manufacturer from completing a test program.
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 removing the requirement to select engines that
have had service accumulation representing less than 75 percent of the
useful life. This gives manufacturers the flexibility to test somewhat
older engines if they want to. Second, we are slightly adjusting 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 requiring that manufacturers
explain why they excluded any particular engines from testing. Finally,
we are requiring 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
accepting the pre-existing certification for these 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). We
allow this in a similar way for a limited number of engines certified
to the Small SI emission standards (see Sec. 1045.610). The number of
installed marine engines must generally be less then five percent of
the total U.S. sales of that engine model in all applications.
[[Page 59072]]
(6) Import-Specific Information at Certification
We are requiring additional information to improve our ability to
oversee compliance related to imported engines (see Sec. 1045.205). In
the application for certification, the following additional information
is necessary: (1) The port or ports at which the manufacturer has
imported engines over the previous 12 months, (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. See Section 1.3 of the
Summary and Analysis of Comments for further discussion related to
naming test facilities in the United States.
(7) Alternate Fuels
The emission standards apply to all spark-ignition engines
regardless of the fuel they use. Almost all Marine 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 are adding a clarification to the
regulations to describe how manufacturers would submit certification
data and divide such engines into engine families. We would expect a
manufacturer to submit test data on each fuel type. If manufacturers
produce engines that run only on one fuel where that dedicated-fuel
engine is identical to a dual-fuel engine with respect to that fuel,
those engines could be included in the same family. This is also true
for the second fuel. For example, if a manufacturer produces an engine
that can run on both gasoline and LPG and also produces that engine
model in gasoline-only and LPG-only versions without adjusting the
calibration or other aspects of that configuration, those engines may
all be included in the same engine family.
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 requiring that someone
performing such a fuel conversion to go through a certification
process. We will 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 provisions in part 91 that allow for fuel
conversions that can be demonstrated not to increase emission levels
above the applicable standard. We propose to apply this requirement
starting January 1, 2010. (See Sec. 91.1103 and Sec. 1045.645.)
(8) Special Provisions Related to Altitude
As described in Section IV.C.1, we are allowing manufacturers to
comply with emission standards at high altitudes using an altitude kit.
Manufacturers using altitude kits to comply at altitude must take steps
to describe their altitude kits in the application for certification
and explain their basis for believing that engines with these altitude
kits will comply with emission standards at high altitude.
Manufacturers must also describe a plan for making information and
parts available such that the widespread use of altitude kits will
reasonably be expected in high-altitude areas. For a more thorough
description of these compliance provisions, see the discussion in
Section V.E.5 for nonhandheld Small SI engines.
F. Other Adjustments to Regulatory Provisions
We are moving 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
provisions in the new language that may involve noteworthy changes from
the current regulations in part 91. 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 making 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. As a result, all engines within
an engine family must have the same approximate bore diameter and use
the same method of air aspiration (for example, naturally aspirated vs.
turbocharged). Under the previous regulation, manufacturers were
allowed the discretion to consider bore and stroke dimensions and
aspiration method for subdividing engine families beyond what was
required under the primary criteria 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 changes
the engine's combustion and emission control in important ways. We are
also requiring 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 were to produce an engine model that runs on natural gas
or another alternative fuel, that engine model should be in its own
engine family. See Section IV.E.7 for a discussion of dual-fuel
engines. Finally we are removing the provision currently in part 91
related to the engine-cooling mechanism. Manufacturers pointed out that
raw-water cooling and separate-circuit cooling do not have a
significant effect on an engine's emission characteristics.
The new regulatory language related to engine labels remains
largely unchanged from the previous requirements (see Sec. 1045.135).
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 warranty provisions are described above. We are adding 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 specifying 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 routine in-use testing. To the
extent 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 expect the manufacturer to factor the
in-use data
[[Page 59073]]
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 example, maximum engine power determines the applicable
CO standard for engines at or below 40 kW. For bigger engines, emission
credits are calculated based on total power output. As a result, we are
specifying that manufacturers determine their engines' maximum engine
power as the point of maximum engine power on the engine's nominal
power curve (see Sec. 1045.140). This value may be established as a
design value, but must be determined consistent with the engine mapping
procedures in Sec. 1065.510. The manufacturer must adjust the declared
value for maximum engine power if it does not fall within the range of
values from production engines.
The new requirements related to the application for certification
will 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 requiring that manufacturers submit projected sales volumes for
each family, rather than allowing manufacturers to 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 for such things as emission credit
calculations. We are also requiring 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 requiring 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 will apply this
provision and what we will require of manufacturers where we disagree
with a manufacturer's judgment.
We are also establishing new defect-reporting requirements. These
requirements are described in Section VIII of the preamble to the
proposed rule.
It is common practice for one company to produce engine blocks that
a second company modifies for use as a marine engine. Since our
regulations prohibit the sale of uncertified engines, we are
establishing 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 VIII.C.1 for more information.
G. Small-Business Provisions
The OB/PWC market has traditionally been made up of large
businesses. 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 new standards. As a result, we are
adopting only three small business regulatory relief provisions for
small business manufacturers of OB/PWC engines. We are allowing 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 extending the economic hardship relief to OB/PWC engine
manufacturers that qualify as small businesses (see Sec. 1068.250). We
are defining small business eligibility criteria for OB/PWC engine
manufacturers based on an employee cut-off of 250 employees.
In addition to the flexibilities noted above, all OB/PWC engine
manufacturers, regardless of size, will be able to apply for the
unusual circumstances hardship in Sec. 1068.245. Finally, all OB/PWC
vessel manufacturers that rely on other companies to provide certified
engines or fuel system components for their product will be able to
apply for the hardship provisions in 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. Recent certification
data for these types of engines show that these technologies may be
used to achieve emission levels significantly below the current exhaust
emission standards. In fact, California standards require a 65 percent
reduction beyond the current federal standards.
Our own analysis of recent certification data shows that most four-
stroke outboard engines and many two-stroke direct injection outboard
engines can meet the final 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 new 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 the two-stroke direct injection engines show emissions well
below the new standards. In addition, the majority of four-stroke
engines meet the new CO standards as well.
We therefore believe the HC+NOX and CO emission
standards will 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 Final RIA presents charts
that compare certification data to the new standards.
(2) Implementation Dates
We are implementing the new emission standards beginning with the
2010 model year. This gives two additional years beyond the
implementation date of the same standards in California. This
additional time may be necessary for manufacturers that do not 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 EPA's 2006
standards. Manufacturers have indicated that they are calibrating their
four-stroke and direct-injection two-stroke engines to meet the
California requirements. To meet the new standards, manufacturers'
efforts will 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
[[Page 59074]]
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, will 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
engine 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 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 a single combustion event
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 minimizes scavenging losses. Manufacturers currently offer
four-stroke marine engines with maximum engine power ranging from 1.5
to more than 250 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 Final 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 will be necessary.
(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 new
standards for engines at or 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 had 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 new standards for sterndrive and inboard
engines, we are not adopting OB/PWC standards that require the use of
catalysts. Catalyst technology would be necessary for significant
additional control of HC+NOX and CO emissions for these
engines. 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 final 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 new exhaust emission standards represent the greatest degree of
emission control achievable in the contemplated time frame. While
manufacturers can meet the standards with their full product line in
2010, requiring full compliance with a nationwide program earlier, such
as in the same year that California introduces new emission standards,
will pose an unreasonable requirement. Allowing two years 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 will be required to meet
emission standards substantially more stringent than we are adopting
has not been adequately demonstrated for outboard or personal
watercraft engines. As such, we believe the new 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
[[Page 59075]]
to outboard and personal watercraft engines may allow us to pursue more
stringent standards in a future rulemaking.
As discussed in Section VII, we do not believe the final standards
will 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 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 final rule is the result of a
Congressional mandate that springs from the new California ARB
standards. In 2003, 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.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 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 adding 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 to update 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.
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. Note, however, that part 1054
specifies that certain provisions do not apply for handheld engines
until sometime after 2010.
Engines and equipment subject to part 1054 are also 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 of the preamble to the proposed rule for
further discussion of these general compliance provisions.
B. Engines Covered by This Rule
This action includes more stringent 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 changing the level of exhaust emission standards for these
engines. As described in Section VI, we are also adopting new 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 engine
standards for that size engine.
(1) Engines Covered by Other Programs
The Small SI engine 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 certain offroad utility vehicles. However, if an
amphibious vehicle or other recreational vehicle with an engine at or
below 19 kW is not subject to standards under part 1051, its engine
will need to meet the Small SI engine standards. We also do not
consider vehicles such as go karts or golf carts to be subject to part
1051 because they are not intended for high-speed operation over rough
terrain; these engines are also subject to Small SI engine standards.
The Small SI engine 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 engine 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 finalizing more
stringent exhaust emission standards that will 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 engine 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 (or in later rulemakings) will also apply at the same
time. Since these engines are not required to meet the Small SI engine
standards we have not included them in the analyses associated with
this final rule.
(2) Maximum Engine Power and Engine Displacement
Under the current regulations, ``rated power'' and ``power rating''
are determined by the manufacturer with little or no direction for
selecting appropriate values. We are establishing an objective approach
to establishing the alternative term ``maximum engine power'' under the
regulations (see 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 engine standards. Determining
maximum engine power is therefore relevant only for those engines that
are approaching the line separating these two engine categories. We are
requiring that manufacturers determine and report maximum engine power
if their emission-data engine has a maximum modal power at or above 15
kW (at or
[[Page 59076]]
above 25 kW if engine displacement is at or below 1000 cc).
Similarly, the regulations depend on engine displacement to
differentiate engines for the applicability of different standards. The
regulations currently provide no objective direction or restriction
regarding the determination of engine displacement. We are defining
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-sectional area of the cylinders, the stroke length, and
the number of cylinders.
For both maximum engine power and displacement, the declared values
must be within the range of the values from production engines
considering normal production variability. This does not imply that
production engines need to be routinely tested or measured to verify
the declared values, but it serves to define a range of appropriate
values and provides a mechanism by which we can ensure that the
declared values conform to the production engines in question. If
production engines are found to have different values for maximum
engine power or displacement, 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 has adopted emission
standards for stationary compression-ignition engines sold or used in
the United States (71 FR 39154, July 11, 2006). EPA also recently
adopted emission standards for stationary spark-ignition engines in a
separate action (73 FR 3568, January 18, 2008). 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 stationary rule, stationary spark-
ignition engines below 19 kW are almost all sold into residential
applications so we believe it is not appropriate to include
requirements for owners or operators that will normally be part of a
program for implementing standards for stationary engines. As a result,
we indicated in the stationary rule that it is most appropriate to set
exhaust and evaporative emission standards for stationary spark-
ignition engines and equipment below 19 kW as if they were used in
nonroad applications. This will 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 a different regulatory approach for
engines used solely in 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 believe there are no particular 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 requiring that handheld and
nonhandheld equipment with engines meeting all the following criteria
will be considered as being 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.
We are also including a provision allowing us to approve an
exemption for cases in which an engine manufacturer can provide clear
and convincing evidence that an engine will be used solely for
competition even though not all the above criteria apply for a given
situation. This may occur, for example, if a racing association
specifies a particular engine model in the competition rules, where
that engine has design features that prevent it from being certified,
or from being used for purposes other than competition.
Engine manufacturers will make their request for each new model
year and we will 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.
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 extending 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. We discovered
while conducting the SBAR Panel described in Section VI.G that some
companies are producing noncompliant engines under this exemption. As a
result, we are keeping this exemption but are adding several provisions
to allow us to better monitor how it is used (see Sec. 1054.660). We
are also keeping the requirement that equipment manufacturers use
certified engines if they are available. We are updating 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 explicitly allowing 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 requiring 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 defining
``emergency rescue situations'' as firefighting or other situations in
which a person is retrieved from imminent danger. Finally, we are
clarifying that EPA may discontinue the exemption on a case-by-case
basis if we find that such 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 are applying the
provisions of this section for new equipment built on or after January
1, 2010.
The current regulations also specify an exemption allowing
individuals to import up to three nonconforming handheld or nonhandheld
engines one time. We are keeping this exemption with three adjustments
(see Sec. 1054.630). First, we are allowing this exemption only for
used equipment. Allowing
[[Page 59077]]
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 their possession. Second, we
are allowing such an importation once every five years but are
requiring 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 new
combination of provisions represents an appropriate balance between
preserving the enforceability of the exemption within the normal flow
of personal property for people coming into the country. Third, we are
no longer requiring submission of the taxpayer identification number
since this is not essential for ensuring compliance. We are applying
these changes starting January 1, 2010.
C. Final Requirements
A key element of the new requirements for Small SI engines is the
more stringent exhaust emission standards for nonhandheld engines. We
are also finalizing several changes to the certification program that
will apply to both handheld and nonhandheld engines. For example, we
are clarifying 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 adding 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 rule.
The timing for implementation of the new exhaust emission standards
is described below. Unless we specify otherwise, all the additional
regulatory changes will apply when engines are subject to the emission
standards and the other provisions under 40 CFR part 1054. This will be
model year 2012 for Class I engines and model year 2011 for Class II
engines. For handheld engines, we are generally requiring that
manufacturers comply with the provisions of part 1054, including the
certification provisions, starting in the 2010 model year. These new
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
from the Phase 2 standards.
(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 nonhandheld Small SI engines. As described in the Final 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
establish emission standards that are consistent with those adopted by
California ARB. We are finalizing 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
maintaining the existing CO standard of 610 g/kW-hr.
We are eliminating 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 revising the regulations such
that engines at or below 80 cc are subject to the Phase 3 standards for
handheld engines and equipment in part 1054 starting in the 2010 model
year. We are allowing engines at or below 80 cc to be used without
restriction in nonhandheld equipment. The 80 cc threshold aligns with
the California ARB program. For nonhandheld engines above 80 cc, we are
treating 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 new standards (either
with or without a catalyst), manufacturers may elect to rely on
emission credits 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 will be able to
generate sufficient credits to meet standards across the full product
line. (See Sec. 1054.101 and Sec. 1054.801.)
We are making 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 increasing each of the
specified weight limits by two kilograms, 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).
Finally, we are revising the list of applications identified in the
handheld definition as being subject to the handheld standards. We are
specifically adding hand-supported jackhammers or rammer/compactor to
the handheld definition as we have approved these types of applications
in the past as meeting the attributes laid out in the definition. We
are removing the ``one-person'' term from the auger description in the
handheld definition because some augers can be operated by two people,
but still have other attributes that would lead to the equipment being
considered handheld. We are also removing the specific mention of pumps
and generators from the handheld definition if they are below the
specified weight limit. With the change noted earlier that allows
manufacturers to use engines below 80cc in either handheld or
nonhandheld applications, we believe these applications no longer need
to be cited for special treatment in the handheld definition.
[[Page 59078]]
The regulations in part 90 allow manufacturers to rely on altitude
kits to comply with emission requirements at high altitude. We are
continuing this approach but are clarifying 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 will
ensure that all areas east of the Rocky Mountains and most of the
populated areas in Pacific Coast states will 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 in the owner's manual the altitude
ranges for proper engine performance and emission control that are
expected with and without the altitude kit. The owner's 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 adopting 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 requiring handheld engines to comply with the current
standards without altitude kits at barometric pressures above 96.0 kPa,
which will 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 (i.e.,
marine generator engines) are covered by the same regulations as land-
based engines of the same size. However, the marine generator 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. Manufacturers of
marine generator engines have recently developed advanced technology in
an effort to improve fuel consumption and CO emission controls 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 responsive to market demand. We are
establishing a CO standard of 5.0 g/kW-hr CO for marine generator
engines to reflect the recent trend in marine generator engine designs
(see Sec. 1054.105). We believe this standard is necessary to prevent
backsliding in CO emissions that could occur if new manufacturers were
to attempt to enter the market with less expensive, high-CO designs.
See Section II for a discussion of air quality concerns related to CO
emissions.
At this time, we are continuing the current regulatory approach for
wintertime engines (e.g., engines used exclusively to power equipment
such as snowthrowers and ice augers). Under this final rule, the
HC+NOX exhaust emission standards will be optional for
wintertime engines. However, if a manufacturer chooses to certify its
wintertime engines to such standards, those engines will be subject to
all the requirements as if the optional standards were mandatory. We
are adopting a definition of wintertime engines to clarify which
engines qualify for these special provisions.
All engines subject to standards must continue to control crankcase
emissions. In the case of snowthrower engines, crankcase emissions may
be vented to the ambient air as long as manufacturers take crankcase
emissions into account in demonstrating compliance with exhaust
emission standards.
(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 long-term 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 Phase 2
final rule expressed a remaining concern that manufacturers might not
select the most appropriate useful life value. This concern related to
both ensuring effective in-use emission control and 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 would be 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
[[Page 59079]]
commercial equipment and marketed as long-life products but are
certified to the minimum allowable useful life period.
After assessing several ideas, we chose to adopt 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 adopting
three provisions 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 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 useful life for that engine family. We
will encourage manufacturers to use the new provisions related to
preliminary approval in Sec. 1054.210 if there is any uncertainty
related to the useful life selection. We would rather work together
early to establish this in the certification process rather than
reviewing a completed application for certification to evaluate whether
the completed durability demonstration is sufficient.
Second, we are modifying 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 allowing manufacturers to select longer useful life values in 100-
hour increments, up to 3,000 hours for Class I engines and up to 5,000
hours for Class II engines. Durability testing for certification will
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 including the specified maximum values corresponding with the
applicable useful life for comparable diesel engines or Large SI
engines. We are not allowing for longer useful life values for handheld
engines.
Third, we are requiring 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 owner's manual. We believe
it is important for equipment manufacturers and consumers to be able to
find an unambiguous designation showing the engine manufacturer's
expectations about the useful life of the engine. Comments on the
proposed rule also indicated an interest in using descriptive terms to
identify the useful life on the label. We believe any terminology will
communicate less effectively than the numerical value of the useful
life, but we will allow manufacturers to use specified descriptive
terms in addition to the number of hours.
We are also including a provision in the final rule stating that
the useful life is defined as a five-year period if the engine has not
yet exceeded the specified number of operating hours during that time.
This is consistent with our other engine programs. This does not affect
the certification process. If we test an in-use engine within the five-
year useful life period and there is no clear indication that it has
not yet exceeded the specified number of operating hours, it would need
to meet applicable emission standards. Conversely, if an engine has not
yet exceeded the number of operating hours but the engine is six years
old, it is no longer required to meet emission standards.
(3) Averaging, Banking, and Trading
EPA has included averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) programs in
most of the emission control programs for highway and nonroad engines.
EPA's existing Phase 2 regulations for Small SI engines include an
exhaust ABT program (see 40 CFR 90.201 through 90.211). We are adopting
an ABT program for the Phase 3 HC+NOX exhaust emission
standards that is similar to the existing program (see part 1054,
subpart H). The new exhaust ABT program is intended to enhance the
ability of engine manufacturers to meet more stringent emission
standards. The exhaust ABT program is also structured to avoid delay of
the transition to the new exhaust emission controls. As described in
Section VI.D, we are establishing a separate evaporative ABT program
for fuel tanks used in Small SI equipment. Credits may not 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 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 averaging or trading for
future model years. 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 adopting any change in the general equation
under which emission credits are calculated, EPA is allowing
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. Furthermore, even though
we are not establishing new exhaust emission standards for handheld
engines, the handheld engine regulations are migrating to part 1054.
Therefore, handheld engines will be included in the new 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
[[Page 59080]]
regulations. For the exhaust ABT program, we are separating handheld
engines and nonhandheld engines into two distinct averaging sets
starting with the 2011 model year. Under the new 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 and 2012 as noted below. Likewise, credits can 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 will 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 more
careful accounting. Because manufacturers have been aware of this new
requirement since the proposal, keeping records to distinguish handheld
credits and nonhandheld credits will be relatively straightforward for
2006 and later model years.
We are making 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 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 adopting new exhaust requirements for handheld engines, we are
addressing this existing practice by specifying that an engine
manufacturer may use emission credits from their nonhandheld engines
for their handheld engines under certain conditions. Specifically, a
manufacturer may use credits from their nonhandheld engines for their
handheld engines 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.
Furthermore, we are limiting the number of handheld engines for which a
manufacturer can use emission credits from their nonhandheld engines to
30,000 per year. We believe these provisions allow 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. (See Sec.
1054.740.)
A second exception to the provision restricting credit exchanges
between handheld engines and nonhandheld engines arises because of our
handling of engines below 80cc. Under the new 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 will 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.
(See Sec. 1054.701.)
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
emission 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 establishing FEL caps to prevent the sale of
very high-emitting engines. Under the new FEL caps, manufacturers will
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 will be
40.0 g/kW-hr since these engines were Class I-B engines under the Phase
2 regulations and subject to this higher level.) For handheld engines,
where we are not adopting new exhaust emission standards, we are
maintaining the FEL caps as currently specified in the part 90 ABT
regulations.
For nonhandheld engines we are adding two special provisions
related to the transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3 standards in Sec.
1054.740. First, we are providing 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
establishing provisions to allow the use of Phase 2 credits for a
limited time under specific conditions. The following discussions
describe each of these provisions in more detail for Class I engines
and Class II engines separately.
For Class I engines, engine manufacturers can 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 will 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 will earn Transitional Phase
3 credits. The Transitional Phase 3 credits will 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 will
earn Enduring Phase 3 credits in addition to the Transitional Phase 3
credits described above. The Enduring Phase 3 credits will 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.
Engine manufacturers may certify their Class I engines using Phase
2 credits generated by Class I or Class II 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 transitional Phase 3 credits to demonstrate compliance with
the Phase 3 standards, subject to the cross-class credit restriction
noted below which applies prior to model year 2013. If these
Transitional Phase 3 credits are sufficient to demonstrate compliance,
the manufacturer may not use Phase 2 credits. If these Transitional
Phase 3 credits are insufficient to
[[Page 59081]]
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. If
manufacturers still need credits to demonstrate compliance, they may
then use their remaining Phase 3 credits (i.e., their Enduring Phase 3
credits or any other Phase 3 credits generated in 2012 or 2013, subject
to the cross-class credit restriction noted below which applies prior
to model year 2013).
The maximum number of Phase 2 HC+NOX exhaust emission
credits that manufacturers could use for their Class I engines will 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 will 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 will 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) will 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. If a manufacturer uses less than its
calculated total credits based on the 1.6 g/kW-hr limit in 2012, the
remainder will be available for use in 2013. This provision allows for
limited 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 will allow manufacturers to
substantially delay the introduction of Phase 3 emission controls.
For Class II engines, 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 will 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 will earn Transitional Phase 3 credits. The Transitional
Phase 3 credits will 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 will earn Enduring Phase 3 credits
in addition to the Transitional Phase 3 credits described above. The
Enduring Phase 3 credits will 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.
Engine manufacturers may certify their Class II engines using Phase
2 credits generated by Class I or Class II 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
transitional Phase 3 credits to demonstrate compliance with the Phase 3
standards, subject to the cross-class credit restriction noted below
which applies prior to model year 2013. If these Transitional credits
are sufficient to demonstrate compliance, the manufacturer may not use
Phase 2 credits. If these Transitional 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. If the
manufacturer still needs credits to demonstrate compliance, they may
then use their remaining Phase 3 credits (i.e., their Enduring Phase 3
credits or any other Phase 3 credits generated in 2011, 2012, or 2013,
subject to the cross-class credit restriction noted below which applies
prior to model year 2013).
The maximum number of Phase 2 HC+NOX exhaust emission
credits a manufacturer could use for their Class II engines will 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 will 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 will 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) will 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
will allow manufacturers to substantially delay the introduction of
Phase 3 emission controls.
To avoid the use of credits to delay the introduction of Phase 3
technologies, we are also not allowing manufacturers to use Phase 3
credits from Class I engines to demonstrate compliance with Class II
engines in the 2011 and 2012 model years. Similarly,
[[Page 59082]]
we are not allowing manufacturers to 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 exchanged across engine classes or traded among
manufacturers.
We are making one additional adjustment related to the exhaust ABT
program for engines subject to the new emission standards. We are
adopting a requirement 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
requiring that 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.
As described below in Section V.E.3, we are allowing equipment
manufacturers to install a limited number of Class II engines,
certified by engine manufacturers with a catalyst as Phase 3 engines,
into equipment without the catalyst. (This is only 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 engines based on the use
of a catalyst, EPA is concerned that engine manufacturers could be
earning exhaust ABT credits for engines that are sold but never have
the catalyst installed. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to
adjust such credits to account for the fact that equipment
manufacturers may in many cases legally install a non-catalyzed muffler
on an engine that is part of a family whose certification depends on
the use of a catalyst. Therefore, EPA is adopting a 0.9 adjustment
factor for calculating credits for engine families that are available
under the delegated assembly provisions and are also participating in
the TPEM program. In addition, EPA is including an option that will
allow engine manufacturers to track the final configuration of the
engines to determine the actual number of engines that were downgraded
under the TPEM program. A manufacturer would need to track sales for
all the equipment manufacturers purchasing the given engine family. The
engine manufacturer could use the resulting number of engines that were
not downgraded in its calculation of ABT credits for that specific
engine family. Engine manufacturers may specifically direct equipment
manufacturers not to participate in the TPEM program for certain engine
models, which would allow for a more straightforward accounting of the
number of engines that are downgraded under the TPEM program.
For all emission credits generated by engines under the Phase 3
exhaust ABT program, we are allowing an indefinite 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 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. Emission credit balances will be
part of the analysis for determining the appropriate level and timing
of new standards, consistent with the statutory requirement to
establish standards that represent the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable, considering cost, safety, lead time, and other
factors. If we were to allow the use of Phase 3 credits to meet future
standards, we may 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, depending on the level of Phase 3
credit banks. Alternatively, we could adopt future standards without
allowing the use of Phase 3 credits. The final requirements in this
rulemaking describe 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.
Finally, manufacturers may include as part of their federal credit
calculation the sales of engines in California as long as they don't
separately account for those emission credits under the California
regulations. We originally proposed to exclude engines sold in
California which are subject to the California ABR standards. However,
we consider California's current HC+NOX standards to be
equivalent to those we are adopting in this rulemaking, so we would
expect a widespread practice of producing and marketing 50-state
products. Therefore, as long as a manufacturer is not generating
credits under California's averaging program for small engines, we
would allow manufacturers to count those engines when calculating
credits under EPA's program. This is consistent with how EPA allows
credits to be calculated in other nonroad sectors, such as recreational
vehicles.
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 changes to the current test
procedures. Except as identified in the following sections, we are
preserving the testing-related regulatory provisions that currently
apply under 40 CFR part 90 for Phase 2 engines. Note that there is no
presumption that any previous approvals, guidance, or judgments related
to alternatives, deviations, or interpretations of the testing
requirements under the Phase 1 or Phase 2 program will continue to
apply; any decisions on such issues will be handled going forward on a
case-by-case basis.
(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 applying the procedures in part 1065 to nonhandheld
engines starting with new certification testing in 2013 and later model
years as specified in 40 CFR part 1054, subpart F. The procedures in
part 1065 identify new types of analyzers and update a wide range of
testing specifications, but leave intact the fundamental approach for
measuring exhaust emissions. There is no need to shift to the part 1065
procedures for nonhandheld engines before 2013. This allows
manufacturers time to make any necessary adjustments or upgrades in
their lab equipment and procedures. While any new certification testing
for nonhandheld engines will be subject to the part 1065 procedures
starting in model year 2013, manufacturers will be allowed to continue
certifying nonhandheld engines using carryover data generated under the
part 90 procedures.
We are not setting new exhaust emission standards for handheld
engines so there is no natural point in
[[Continued on page 59083]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]
[[pp. 59083-59132]] Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and
Equipment
[[Continued from page 59082]]
[[Page 59083]]
time for shifting to the part 1065 procedures. We nevertheless believe
handheld engines should also use the part 1065 procedures for measuring
exhaust emissions. We are requiring manufacturers to start using the
part 1065 procedures in the 2013 model year as described above for
nonhandheld engines. Manufacturers will be allowed to continue
certifying handheld engines using carryover data generated under the
part 90 procedures, but any new certification testing will be subject
to the part 1065 procedures starting with the 2013 model year.
We have taken several steps to address the concerns raised by
engine manufacturers related to the specified test procedures in part
1065. First, we have confirmed that the calculations in part 1065 yield
the same emission results for a given set of raw data from testing. The
two calculation methods resulted in differences that were less than 1
percent for both handheld and nonhandheld engines. We have identified a
variety of clarifications and adjustments that we need to make to the
equations in Sec. 1065.655 to ensure accurate calculations for engines
operating with rich air-fuel mixtures. Second, we have modified the
cycle-validation criteria in Sec. 1054.505 to more carefully reflect
achievable torque control for small engines. The new criteria are based
on a combination of specifications for continuous measurements and mean
values, including specification of absolute thresholds where a
percentage approach would not work for very small torque values. Third,
we are adjusting the fueling instructions in part 1065 to allow for
fuel-oil mixtures with two-stroke engines.
We also acknowledge that handheld engines that depend on special
fixtures for proper testing should be tested under the provisions of
Sec. 1065.10(c) for special test procedures. This would require that
manufacturers describe their test fixtures and make them available upon
request. Further effort may be required to incorporate more specific
requirements or specifications related to these test fixtures. We
expect to cooperate with government agencies from California and from
other countries in an effort to harmonize Small SI test procedures, for
part 1065 procedures generally and for these special test procedures in
particular.
(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 extending
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 Class I, Class I-B, and Class II engines subject to Phase 2
standards that are 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 questions about the interpretation of
these provisions. Our intent is that the current requirements specify
that testing be conducted as follows:
Full-load testing 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 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
will 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 will be maintained by the installed
governor without modification.
We are adopting the Phase 3 standards with adjustments to the
regulatory requirements currently described in 40 CFR part 90 (see
Sec. 1054.505). Since each of these 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
adjustments apply to handheld engines, we believe it is appropriate to
apply the changes for new testing with 2013 and later model year
engines for the reasons described above for adopting the test
procedures in part 1065.
First, for engines with installed governors we are requiring the
engine speed during the idle mode to be controlled by the governor. We
believe there is no testing limitation that will 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 requiring that manufacturers conduct
testing with user-selectable controls set to keep the engine operating
at low-speed idle if any production engines in the engine family have
such an option. For engines with no installed governor, part 1065
specifies that the engine should operate at the idle speed declared by
the manufacturer.
Second, we are allowing an option in which manufacturers will test
their nonhandheld engines using a ramped-modal version of the specified
duty cycle. We expect this testing to be equivalent to the modal
testing described above but it will 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 new
requirement we will allow manufacturers the option to select this type
of testing. Manufacturers must use the same test method for production-
line testing that they use for certifying the engine family.
Manufacturers may include results from both types of testing in their
application for certification, in which case they could use either
method for production-line testing. EPA's confirmatory testing will
involve the same type of testing
[[Page 59084]]
performed by the manufacturers 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 are making this more objective by stating that rated
speed is 3,600 rpm and intermediate speed is 3,060 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 adding regulatory provisions to clarify how
nonhandheld engines are operated to follow the prescribed duty cycle.
As described in part 90, we are requiring 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. This operation
is intentionally not representative of in-use operation, but disabling
the governor allows for more uniform testing that is not dependent on
the various governing strategies that manufacturers might use. To avoid
a situation where engines are designed to control emissions over the
test cycle, with less effective controls under similar modes of
operation that engines experience in use, we are adding a requirement
for manufacturers to provide an explanation in the application for
certification if air-fuel ratios are significantly different for
governed and ungoverned operation at wide-open throttle, especially for
fuel-injected engines. Manufacturers would need to explain why this
emission control strategy is not a defeat device. If we test engines
governed and ungoverned at wide open throttle, we would expect to see
little or no difference in emission rates. If we would observe higher
emission rates with governed engine operation, manufacturers would
again need to justify why this discrepancy is not a defeat device.
Engines with conventional carburetors offer a limited ability to
manipulate air-fuel ratios at different operating points, so in these
cases manufacturers would simply state that air-fuel ratios do not vary
significantly at governed and ungoverned points of full-load operation.
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 will need to
be controlled within an established range. Any EPA testing will be done
only with installed governors controlling engine speed in the standard
configuration, regardless of the method used by manufacturers for their
own testing. Any such engine with test results that exceed applicable
emission standards would be considered to fail, without regard to
emission results that might be different with testing in which the
governor is adjusted to target a given nominal speed.
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. However, we are concerned that
this approach allows manufacturers too much discretion for selecting a
rated speed for high-load testing. We are revising this approach to
specify that manufacturers must select a speed that best represents in-
use operation for the engine family if the in-use applications involve
operation centered on a given nominal speed (350 rpm).
Engine manufacturers generally also make their own equipment, so this
can often be established for engines in an engine family. For engine
families without such a predominant operating speed, we require that
engine manufacturers test their engines within 350 rpm of the speed at
which the engine produces maximum power. Some engine families may have
a dominant engine speed, but also include a variety of applications
that operate at different in-use speeds. We specify for these cases
that engine manufacturers must test at both of the test speeds
identified above, in which case EPA testing might also involve emission
measurements using either (or both) test speeds. We are further
requiring manufacturers to describe in their application for
certification how they select the value for rated speed.
(3) Test Fuel
We are requiring Phase 3 exhaust emission testing with a standard
test fuel consistent with the existing requirements under 40 CFR part
90 (see 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H). The existing regulatory
specifications allow for no oxygenates in the test fuel. Because
California ARB specifies a test fuel which contains the oxygenate MTBE
(but also allows for the use of EPA's test fuel), we understand that
some engine manufacturers will have emission data from engines that
meet EPA's Phase 3 standards based on testing to meet California's Tier
3 Small Off-Road Engine requirements for 2007 and later model years. In
some cases the test data will be based on California's oxygenated test
fuel, although manufacturers have the option to certify using a test
fuel such as that specified by EPA in 40 CFR part 90. To allow for a
quicker transition to the new EPA standards, we will allow for use of
this pre-existing exhaust emission test data (based on California's
oxygenated test fuel) for EPA certification purposes through the 2012
model year. Manufacturers could also use the California ARB test fuel
for their PLT testing, if they based their certification on that fuel.
The use of the California ARB data would be subject to the provisions
for carryover data for demonstrating compliance with the standards in
effect. (The carryover provisions for Phase 3 are specified in Sec.
1054.235.) While we will allow use of California ARB data for
certification through the 2012 model year, we will use our test fuel
without oxygenates for all confirmatory testing we perform for exhaust
emissions. We are limiting the timeframe for such a provision because
we ultimately want the exhaust emission test results to be performed
using the EPA specified test fuel.
In the proposal we noted our concerns about testing with oxygenated
fuels since this could affect an engine's air-fuel ratio, which in turn
could affect the engine's combustion and emission characteristics.
Because of the relatively recent dramatic increase in the use of
ethanol (another oxygenate) in the broad motor gasoline pool, we have
reexamined our position (as discussed below) and are adopting
provisions that will allow manufacturers to use a 10 percent ethanol
blend for certification testing for exhaust emissions from nonhandheld
engines, as an alternative to the standard test fuel. This option to
use a 10 percent ethanol blend will begin with the implementation date
of the Phase 3 exhaust standards. The use of the ethanol blend would
apply to production-line testing as well if the manufacturer based
their certification on the 10 percent ethanol blend. We are also
committing to using a 10 percent ethanol blend for all confirmatory
testing we perform for exhaust emissions under the provisions described
below.
Ethanol has been blended into in-use gasoline for many years, and
until as recently as 2005, was used in less than one-third of the
national gasoline pool.
[[Page 59085]]
However, ethanol use has been increasing in recent years and, under
provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, ethanol
will be required in significantly greater quantities. We project that
potentially 80 percent of the national gasoline pool will contain
ethanol by 2010, making ethanol blends up to 10 percent the de facto
in-use fuel. As ethanol blends become the primary in-use fuel, we
believe it makes sense for manufacturers to optimize their engine
designs with regard to emissions, performance, and durability on such a
fuel. We also believe manufacturers need to know that any confirmatory
testing we do on their engines will be performed on the same fuel the
manufacturer used for certification since the fuel can impact the
ability to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards.
Limited data of nonhandheld engine emissions tested on 10 percent
ethanol blends suggests the HC emissions will decrease and
NOX emissions will increase compared to emissions from the
same engine operated on current certification fuel without oxygenates.
Depending on the relative HC and NOX levels of the engines,
these offsetting effects can result in small increases or decreases in
total HC+NOX emission levels. Because the impact on
HC+NOX emissions can vary slightly from engine family to
engine family, we do not want manufacturers varying their certification
fuel from one family to another to gain advantage with regard to
emissions certification.
Therefore, if a manufacturer wishes to use a 10 percent ethanol
blend for certification, they should use the 10 percent ethanol blend
for all their Phase 3 nonhandheld engines for a given engine class by
the third year of the Phase 3 standard (i.e., by the 2014 model year
for Class I engines and by the 2013 model year for Class II engines).
During the transition period, we will perform any confirmatory testing
on the 10 percent ethanol blend if that is the fuel used by the
manufacturer for certification. At the end of the transition period, we
will perform any confirmatory testing on the 10 percent ethanol blend
if that is the fuel used by the manufacturer for certification, but
only if the manufacturer has certified all their nonhandheld engines in
that engine class on the 10 percent ethanol blend. If the manufacturer
has not certified all its engines in a given engine class on the 10
percent ethanol blend, we may decide to test the engine on our current
test fuel without oxygenates. (See Sec. 1054.145 and Sec. 1054.501.)
For handheld engines, where we do not have sufficient data on the
impact of ethanol blends on emissions, we are adopting a slightly
different approach. Manufacturers will have the option to use a 10
percent ethanol blend for certification beginning with the 2010 model
year. The option to use a 10 percent ethanol blend would apply to PLT
testing as well if the manufacturer based their certification on the 10
percent ethanol blend. While we will allow use of a 10 percent ethanol
blend for certification, we expect to use our test fuel without
oxygenates for all confirmatory testing for exhaust emissions.
Therefore, an engine manufacturer will want to consider the impacts of
ethanol on emissions in evaluating the compliance margin for the
standard, or in setting the FEL for the engine family if it is
participating in the ABT program. We could decide at our own discretion
to do exhaust emissions testing using a 10 percent ethanol blend if the
manufacturer certified on that fuel. It should be noted that both EPA
and the California ARB are currently running test programs to assess
the emission impacts of a 10 percent ethanol blend on a range of Small
SI engines, including handheld engines. Based on the results of that
test program, we may want to consider changes to the provisions
allowing the use of a 10 percent ethanol blend for certification and
PLT testing for handheld engines. If the results of the handheld engine
testing show that emissions are comparable on both fuels, we would
expect to revise the provisions for handheld engines and take a similar
approach to that described above for nonhandheld engines. (See Sec.
1054.501.)
The test fuel specifications for the 10 percent ethanol blend are
based on using the current gasoline test fuel and adding fuel-grade
ethanol until the blended fuel contains 10 percent ethanol by volume.
In addition, we recognize that in some cases using fuel-grade ethanol
may be less practical than using other grades and so we will allow the
use of other grades, provided they do not affect a manufacturer's
ability to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards. To
understand this allowance, it is helpful to remember that one of the
main purposes of certification is for the manufacturer to use test data
to show that the engines produced will conform to the regulations.
Implicit in this is the concept that if EPA were to test an engine in
the family according to the specified procedures, its measured
emissions would be below the standards. Allowing a manufacturer to
deviate from the specified test procedures could potentially hinder our
ability to determine whether the engines would meet the standards when
tested according to the specified procedures. Nevertheless, it is
possible to overcome this concern based on the expected impact of the
deviation on measured emissions and on the manufacturer's compliance
margin (that is, the degree to which the measured certification
emissions are below the standard). For example, we would conclude that
a deviation that was expected to change measured emission rates by less
than 0.1 g/kW-hr would clearly not affect a manufacturer's ``ability to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards'' if the certified
emission level was 1.0 g/kW-hr below the standard (or below the Family
Emission Limit). On the other hand, a deviation that was expected to
change measured emission rates by 0.1 to 0.5 g/kW-hr would affect a
manufacturer's ``ability to demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards'' if the compliance margin was only 0.5 g/kW-hr. Another way
to show that a deviation will not affect a manufacturer's ``ability to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards'' is to show through
engineering analysis that a deviation will actually cause measured
emissions to increase relative to the specified procedures.
It should be noted that this is the first time EPA regulations
specify the use of an ethanol test fuel for exhaust emissions testing
for certification purposes. It is likely that EPA will consider similar
test fuel changes in the future for other vehicle and engine categories
including those addressed in this final rule. As part of those
deliberations, it is possible that EPA could decide that the test fuel
specifications for the ethanol blend should be different than those
adopted in this rule. Should that occur, EPA would need to consider
whether changes to the test fuel specifications adopted in this rule
for the 10 percent ethanol blend are appropriate for Small SI engine
testing.
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 adopting some changes from
the procedures currently included in part 90 (see Sec. 1054.240 and
Sec. 1054.245). Much of the basis for these
[[Page 59086]]
changes comes from the experience gained in testing many different
engines in preparation for this final rule. First, we are discontinuing
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 allowing 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 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 allowing assigned deterioration factors for all engines
produced by small-volume nonhandheld engine manufacturers.
For the HC+NOX standard, we are specifying 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 will 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 for
a given pollutant 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 establishing the values for the assigned deterioration
factors for small-volume nonhandheld engine manufacturers in this final
rule. 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 began in 2007
and 2008). Because we are not promulgating new exhaust standards for
handheld engines, the assigned deterioration factor provisions adopted
for Phase 2 handheld engines are being retained.
Although we are not establishing 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 the durability of emission controls.
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
repeatedly until they accumulate the hours of operation equivalent to
the useful life for 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 changing the regulatory language regarding
service accumulation, the California ARB-approved durability cycles are
appropriate and acceptable to EPA for accumulating hours on handheld
engines for demonstrating the durability of emission controls.
(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 applying delegated-assembly provisions for nonhandheld
engines that are similar to those adopted for heavy-duty highway
engines. In fact, we have modified the proposed requirements and the
requirements that apply to heavy-duty highway engines (and to other
nonroad engines) such that a single set of requirements in part 1068
will simultaneously apply to all these engine categories. This combined
approach incorporates substantial elements of the program we proposed
for Small SI engines.
This approach generally requires 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 will 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 need a muffler or catalyst that is not covered by the
engine manufacturer's certification, the engine manufacturer will 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 will also identify in the application for certification
their plans to sell engines without emission-related components. We are
adopting several provisions to ensure that engines will eventually be
in their certified configuration. For example, engine manufacturers
will 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
[[Page 59087]]
the 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
requiring 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 can 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
allows the distributor to make arrangements with equipment
manufacturers to address design needs and perform oversight functions.
We will hold the engine manufacturer directly responsible if the
distributor fails to meet the regulatory obligations that will
otherwise apply to the engine manufacturer. However, starting in 2015,
we are allowing this approach only with our specific approval for
individual manufacturers and distributors. While this arrangement is
necessary to facilitate making engines available under the Transition
Program for Equipment Manufacturers, we are concerned that it will be
difficult for EPA and for manufacturers to properly ensure that all
engines are built up to a certified configuration when assembly
responsibilities are so far removed from the engine manufacturer. This
is underscored by a recent finding that an equipment manufacturer was
intentionally not following an engine manufacturer's instructions when
installing Small SI engines such that the final installation involved
an engine that was not in a certified configuration. In the years
before 2015, we expect that EPA and manufacturers will learn a lot
about delegated assembly, including the extent to which there are cases
in which engines are improperly assembled, whether those problems
represent intentional violations or mistakes as part of a good-faith
effort to meet applicable requirements. We will be prepared to judge
individual requests based on the experience gained under the initial
years of the Phase 3 standards. However, given the challenges
associated with engine manufacturers allowing distributors to act as
their agents with respect to delegated assembly, we expect
manufacturers to ask us to allow this only in unusual circumstances
when the standard approach would be very impractical. Also, depending
on the broader experience with this provision before 2015, we may
consider changing the regulation to allow this to continue without our
specific approval, for Small SI engines or for all types of engines. If
we find that there are substantial problems in implementing this
provision, we may also consider removing the allowance to continue
using distributors this way for delegated assembly past 2014.
Second, other distributors may receive shipment of engines without
exhaust systems, but they will add any aftertreatment components before
sending the engines on to equipment manufacturers. Engine manufacturers
will treat these distributors as equipment manufacturers for the
purposes of delegated assembly. Equipment manufacturers buying engines
from such a distributor will not have the option of separately
obtaining mufflers from muffler manufacturers. However, we would expect
distributors to cooperate with small equipment manufacturers to work
out any necessary arrangements to specify and design their components
and equipment. This second situation involves a more straightforward
compliance scenario so this provision does not expire. In both of these
scenarios, the engine manufacturer continues to be responsible for the
in-use compliance of all their engines.
Engine manufacturers will 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 will 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 can
be done with either of two approaches. First, a temporary label may be
applied such that it could 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 (or ``DEL ASSY'' where limited space requires an
abbreviation).
In addition, engine manufacturers will 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
requiring that audits involve at a minimum reviewing the equipment
manufacturer's production records and procedures, inspecting the
equipment manufacturer's production operations, and 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. Engine manufacturers would keep records of the audit results
and make these records available to us upon request. These auditing
specifications represent a minimum level of oversight. In certain
circumstances we may expect engine manufacturers to take additional
steps to ensure that engines are assembled and installed in their
certified configuration. For example, equipment manufacturers with very
low order volumes, an unclear history of compliance, or other
characteristics that will cause some concern may prompt us to require a
more extensive audit to ensure effective oversight in confirming that
engines are always built properly. Engine manufacturers must 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 will be handled as part of
the overall certification process.
We are requiring 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 will be divided over different equipment manufacturers
based on the number of engines sold to each equipment manufacturer. We
specify that these auditing rates are reduced to a maximum of four
equipment manufacturers per year starting in 2015.
[[Page 59088]]
In 2019 and later, manufacturers would continue to perform a maximum of
four audits annually, but we specify that audits may be divided evenly
to cover all equipment manufacturers over a ten-year period.
We are not adopting the proposed requirement for engine
manufacturers to establish an alphanumeric designation to identify each
unique catalyst design and instruct equipment manufacturers to stamp
this code on the external surface of the exhaust system. However,
manufacturers may choose to do this voluntarily as a means of more
readily assessing whether engines have been properly assembled.
We are requiring that all the same provisions apply for separate
shipment related to air filters if they are part of an engine's
certified configuration, except for the auditing. However, this does
not apply if manufacturers identify intake systems, including air
filters, by simply instructing equipment manufacturers to maintain the
pressure drop within a certain range. This is typical of the way many
exhaust systems are handled today. We will require auditing related to
air filters that are specifically identified in the application for
certification 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 is unnecessary.
The final 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. The point of final
equipment assembly for purposes of delegated assembly for
aftertreatment components is the point at which the equipment
manufacturer attaches a muffler to the engine. Engines observed in
production or inventory assembled with improper mufflers will be
considered to have been built contrary to the engine manufacturer's
installation instructions. Catalysts are invariably designed as part of
the muffler, so no reason exists for installing a different muffler
once a given muffler has been installed using normal production
procedures. If equipment manufacturers sell equipment without following
these instructions, they will be considered in violation of the
prohibited acts i.e., selling uncertified engines). If there is a
problem with any given equipment manufacturer, we will disallow
continued use of the delegated-assembly provisions for that equipment
manufacturer until the engine manufacturer has taken sufficient steps
to remedy the problem.
We are aware that the new 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,
we are requiring that engine manufacturers get written confirmation
from each equipment manufacturer before an initial shipment of engines
for a given engine model. This confirmation will document the equipment
manufacturer's understanding that they are using the appropriate
aftertreatment components. The written confirmation will be due within
30 days after shipping the engines and will 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 will gain a competitive advantage by
producing noncompliant products, and that engines in commerce will 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 we are requiring
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 will 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 will normally occur. To address this, we are specifying that
engine manufacturers must arrange to get a randomly selected catalyst
that will be used with the engine. The catalyst must come from any
point in the normal distribution from the aftertreatment component
manufacturer to the equipment manufacturer. The catalyst may come from
the engine manufacturer's own inventory as long as it is randomly
procured. Engine manufacturers are required to keep records showing how
they randomly selected catalysts.
See Section 2.8 of the Summary and Analysis of Comments for further
discussion of issues related to delegated assembly.
(3) Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers
Given the level of the new 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 establishing a set of provisions to provide
equipment manufacturers with reasonable lead time for transitioning to
the new standards. These provisions are similar to the program we
adopted for nonroad diesel engines (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
Equipment manufacturers will not be obligated to use any of these
provisions, but all equipment manufacturers that produce Class II
equipment are eligible to do so. We are also requiring that all
companies under the control of a common entity will be considered
together for the purposes of applying these allowances. Manufacturers
will 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 final rule, 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 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 will need to meet the Phase 2 standards. The maximum
number of ``allowances'' each manufacturer can use are based on 30
percent of an average year's production of Class II equipment. The
number of allowances is 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 is the total number of allowances an
equipment manufacturer may use under this transition program over four
years. Manufacturers can 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
[[Page 59089]]
determined by the equipment manufacturer. Equipment produced under
these provisions can 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 will 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 will not receive any allowances
under the transition program and will 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
Phase 3 standards will not count toward an equipment manufacturer's
allowances. Equipment using engines that are exempted from the Phase 3
standards for any reason will also not count toward an equipment
manufacturer's allowances. For example, we are allowing small-volume
engine manufacturers to continue producing 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, will
count as Phase 3 complying engines and will 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 this level of allowances responds to the need for lead time to
accommodate the workload related to redesigning equipment models to
incorporate catalyzed mufflers while ensuring a significant level of
emission reductions in the early years of the new program.
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 will allow for this connection. As a result, any equipment using
flex engines will not need to meet running loss standards.
(b) Coordination Between Engine and Equipment Manufacturers
We are establishing two separate paths for complying with
administrative requirements related to the new transition program,
depending on how the engine manufacturer chooses to make flex engines
available. Engine manufacturers choosing to use the delegated-assembly
provisions described above will be enabling equipment manufacturers to
make the decision whether to complete the engine assembly in the Phase
3 configuration or to use a non-catalyzed muffler such that the engine
will meet Phase 2 standards and will therefore need to be counted as a
flex engine. If engine manufacturers do not use the delegated-assembly
provisions, equipment manufacturers will 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. Note that in no case may an equipment
manufacturer remove a catalyzed muffler from an engine and replace it
with a noncatalyzed muffler; this would be a violation of the
prohibition against tampering.
(i) Compliance Based on Engine Manufacturers
Engine manufacturers will in many cases produce complete engines.
This will 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 are requiring that equipment manufacturers
request a certain number of flex engines from the engine manufacturer.
The regulatory provisions 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 requiring 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 requiring that
engine manufacturers producing complete flex engines under this program
identify on the engine label that they are flex engines. In addition,
equipment manufacturers are 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 labeling requirements 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 will need to meet Phase 2 standards with their
flex engines, they will not need to certify them for the current model
year. We are instead applying the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.265, which
require manufacturers to keep records showing that they meet emission
standards without requiring submission of an application for
certification.
(ii) Compliance Based on Equipment Manufacturers
We are adopting a different set of compliance provisions for engine
manufacturers that make arrangements to ship engines separately from
exhaust-system components. 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 in compliance with Phase 3 standards.
In this case, engine manufacturers will design and produce their
Phase 3 engines and label them accordingly. The normal path for these
engines covered by the delegated-assembly provisions will involve
shipment of the engine without an exhaust system to the equipment
manufacturer. The equipment manufacturer will 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 transition program, equipment manufacturers will 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 install a non-catalyzed muffler to make it compliant with
Phase 2 standards. Any such engines downgraded to Phase 2 standards
will count toward the equipment manufacturer's total number
[[Page 59090]]
of allowances under the transition program.
To make this work, engine manufacturers will need to take certain
steps to ensure overall compliance. First, engine manufacturers will
need to include emission data in the application for certification
showing that the engine meets 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 must meet in procuring a non-catalyst muffler. If the
Phase 3 engine without a catalyst will 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 will need to describe
the steps equipment manufacturers must 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 program,
engine manufacturers must generally 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. (As
described earlier in Section V.C.3, EPA is including an option that
will allow engine manufacturers to track the final configuration of the
engines to determine the actual number of engines that were downgraded
for the TPEM program.)
Equipment manufacturers using allowances under these provisions
must keep records that 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 requiring 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. 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.
Engine manufacturers might choose to produce Class II engines that
are compliant with the Phase 3 standards before the 2011 model year and
set up arrangements for separate shipment of catalyzed mufflers as
described in Section V.E.2. We 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 will 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 allowing 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 adopting a hardship provision for all equipment
manufacturers (see Sec. 1068.255). An equipment manufacturer will be
required to use all its allowances under the transition program
described above before being eligible to use this hardship.
(iii) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Equipment manufacturers choosing to participate in the transition
program will 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 will also
need to keep records of the number of flex engines they use under this
program.
We are also establishing certain notification requirements for
equipment manufacturers. Any manufacturer wishing to participate in the
new transition provisions need to notify EPA before producing equipment
with flex engines. 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 will want to
know the names of related companies operating under the same parent
company that are 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 will need to have the
information required in the notification to know how to use the
allowances.
We are establishing an ongoing reporting requirement for equipment
manufacturers participating in the Phase 3 transition program. Under
the program, participating equipment manufacturers will 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 must 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 will 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 specifying 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 is
defined as a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 pieces of
nonhandheld equipment 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 are 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.
[[Page 59091]]
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
annually, 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 creating special
provisions that will 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 will need to notify us before they produce
equipment with flex engines by January 31, 2010 if they believe the
standard allowances based on 30 percent of average annual production of
Class II equipment do not provide adequate lead time starting in the
2011 model year. Additional allowances may 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 will 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 will also need
to 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 will 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 before 2011. After a
company's status as a small- or medium-sized company has been
established based on the data, EPA is requiring that manufactures keep
that status even if a company's production volume grows during the next
few years, such that the company will no longer qualify as a small- or
medium-sized company. EPA believes 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, will 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, the combined company could, at its option, keep
the preexisting status for the individual portions of the combined
company. If the combined company chooses to keep the individual
designations, the combined company must submit the annual reports on
the use of allowances broken down for each of the previously separate
companies.
(d) Requirements for Importers and Imported Equipment
Under this final rule, only companies that manufacture equipment
can qualify for the relief provided under the Phase 3 transition
provisions. Equipment manufacturers producing equipment outside the
United States that comply with the provisions discussed below can enjoy
the same transition provisions as domestic manufacturers. Such
equipment manufacturers that do not comply with the compliance-related
provisions discussed below will not receive allowances. Importers that
do not manufacture equipment will 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 will allow transition provisions
to be used by equipment manufacturers producing equipment outside the
United States in the same way as equipment manufacturers producing
equipment domestically, at the option of the overseas manufacturer,
while avoiding the potential for importers to inappropriately use
allowances. These regulations apply equally to foreign equipment
manufacturers and to domestic equipment manufacturers that build
equipment outside the country that is eventually sold in the United
States.
All equipment manufacturers wishing to use the transition
provisions for equipment produced outside the United States must comply
with all the requirements discussed above. Along with the equipment
manufacturer's notification described earlier, an overseas equipment
manufacturer will have to comply with various compliance related
provisions (see Sec. 1054.626). These provisions are similar to those
adopted for nonroad diesel engines. As part of the notification, such
an equipment manufacturer will have to:
Agree to provide EPA with full, complete and immediate
access to conduct inspections and audits;
Name an agent in the United States for service;
Agree that any enforcement action related to these
provisions will 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 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 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.
In addition to these provisions, we are requiring equipment
manufacturers producing equipment for importation under the transition
program to comply with a bond requirement for equipment imported into
the United States. We believe a bond program is an important tool for
ensuring that importing equipment manufacturers are subject to the same
level of enforcement as equipment manufacturers producing equipment
domestically. Specifically, we believe a bonding requirement for these
equipment manufacturers is an important enforcement tool for ensuring
that EPA has the ability to collect any
[[Page 59092]]
judgments assessed against an overseas equipment manufacturer for
violations of these transition provisions.
Under a bond program, the participating equipment manufacturer will
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 equipment
manufacturer will 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, EPA is establishing other
bond requirements as well. An equipment manufacturer that is required
to post a bond under any of these provisions will be required to obtain
only one bond of the amount specified for those sections. Equipment
manufacturers may avoid the bond requirements based on the level of
assets in the United States, as described in Section V.E.6.
In addition to the equipment manufacturer requirements discussed
above, EPA is also requiring importers of equipment with flex engines
from a complying 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.
Therefore, the regulations require each importer to notify EPA prior to
their initial importation of equipment with flex engines. Importers
will be required to submit their notification before importing
equipment with flex engines from a complying equipment manufacturer.
The importer's notification will 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 requiring that any importer electing to import
to the United States equipment with flex engines from a complying
equipment manufacturer must submit annual reports to EPA. The annual
report will 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.
(e) Provisions for Rotation-Molded Fuel Tanks
Equipment manufacturers may face challenges in transitioning to
rotation-molded fuel tanks that meet the new permeation standards.
These modified fuel tanks may require equipment manufacturers to adjust
the designs of their equipment to ensure that the new fuel tanks can be
incorporated without problems. We are therefore allowing equipment
manufacturers to use noncompliant rotational-molded fuel tanks for two
additional years on limited numbers of 2011 and 2012 model year
equipment using Class II engines. Equipment manufacturers may use
noncompliant rotational-molded fuel tanks if the production volume of
the fuel tank design used in Class II equipment models is collectively
no more than 5,000 units in the 2011 model year. In the 2012 model
year, equipment manufacturers may use noncompliant rotational-molded
fuel tanks if the production volume of the fuel tank design used in
Class II equipment models is collectively no more than 5,000 units in
the 2012 model year, but the total number of exempted rotational-molded
fuel tanks across the manufacturer's Class II equipment is limited to
10,000 units. If production volumes are greater than 5,000 for a given
fuel tank design (or greater than 10,000 corporate-wide in 2012), all
those tanks must comply with emission standards. Tank designs would be
considered identical if they are produced under a single part number to
conform to a single design or blueprint. In addition, tank designs
would be considered identical if they differ only with respect to
production variability, post-production changes (such as different
fittings or grommets), supplier, color, or other extraneous design
variables. We originally proposed to allow noncompliant rotation-molded
fuel tanks for any equipment that was counted under the allowances
described in this section which used flex engines meeting Phase 2
exhaust emission standards. However, the approach being finalized today
could be applied to any equipment using Class II engines (subject to
the constraints noted above), whether or not the equipment uses a flex
engine.
(4) Equipment Manufacturer Recertification
It has generally been engine manufacturers that certify with EPA
for exhaust emissions because the standards are engine-based. However,
because the Phase 3 nonhandheld standards 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 that is part of an engine
manufacturers certified configuration. In this situation, the engine
will 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 covered by a certificate and therefore
needs to be certified with EPA.
To allow the possibility of an equipment manufacturer certifying
such an engine/muffler design with EPA, we are establishing a
simplified engine certification process for nonhandheld equipment
manufacturers (see Sec. 1054.612). Under the simplified certification
process, the nonhandheld equipment manufacturer will 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
will be representative for the equipment manufacturer's configuration.
The equipment manufacturer will 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 will not require production-line testing for these engines.
The equipment manufacturer will be responsible to meet all the other
requirements of an engine manufacturer under the regulations, including
labeling, warranty, defect reporting, payment of certification fees,
and other things. The useful life period selected for the original
certification will also apply for the equipment manufacturer's
streamlined certification. This provision is primarily intended for
easing the transition to new standards. Starting in the 2015 model
year, we are therefore limiting these recertification provisions to
small-volume emission families (sales below 5,000 units).
(5) Special Provisions Related to Altitude
For nonhandheld engines we are requiring compliance with our
standards at all altitudes, consistent
[[Page 59093]]
with other engine categories.\97\ However, since spark-ignition engines
without electronic control of air/fuel ratio cannot compensate for
changing air density, their emissions generally change with changing
altitude. In recognition of this technological limit, we are adopting
special testing and compliance provisions related to altitude. As
described in Section V.C.1, we are requiring that nonhandheld engines
meet emission standards without an altitude kit, but will allow, in
certain cases, testing at barometric pressures below 94.0 kPa (which is
roughly equivalent to an elevation of 2,000 feet above sea level) using
an altitude kit. (An altitude kit may be as simple as a single
replacement part for the carburetor that allows a greater volumetric
flow of air into the carburetor to make the engine operate as it would
at low altitudes.) Such kits were allowed under part 90 and we are
keeping the provisions that already apply in part 90 related to
descriptions of these altitude kits in the application for
certification. This includes a description of how engines comply with
emission standards at varying atmospheric pressures, a description of
the altitude kits, and the associated part numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Note that we are not changing exhaust standards for
handheld engines and are therefore codifying altitude provisions in
the new part 1054 that are consistent with those that apply under
part 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During certification, manufacturers will have two choices regarding
testing and compliance at barometric pressures below 94.0 kPa: (1) Test
engines for demonstrating compliance with the standards without an
altitude kit; or (2) test engines for demonstrating compliance with the
standards using an altitude kit. Those manufacturers choosing Option 2
will be required to identify the altitude range for which it expects
proper engine performance and emission control will occur 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. Manufacturers choosing Option 2 will also need
to describe a plan for making information and parts available to
consumers such that widespread use of altitude kits will reasonably be
expected in high-altitude areas. For nonhandheld engines, this will
involve all counties with elevations substantially above 4,000 feet
(see Appendix III to part 1068). 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).
Assuming we grant a certificate that includes a manufacturer's
reliance on an altitude kit during testing, any compliance testing at
higher altitudes (more precisely, lower barometric pressures) would be
conducted with the altitude kit installed on the engine according to
the manufacturer's instructions. Note that manufacturers would not be
required to submit test data from high-altitude testing in their
applications, provided they could demonstrate through engineering
analysis the basis for knowing the altitude kits will allow the engines
to meet the emission standards at high altitude. Any high-altitude
testing of an engine family that does not use these high altitude
provisions will be tested without an altitude kit installed.
We considered requiring manufacturers relying on altitude kits to
ensure that all engines sold in high-altitude areas were sold with
altitude kits installed, but determined that such a requirement would
have been burdensome to the manufacturers, impractical, and very
disruptive to the market, and may not work in practice. Certificate
holders will be the engine manufacturers, which generally have little
or no control over the location at which the sale to the ultimate
purchaser is made. In most cases, the engines will be sold to equipment
manufacturers and/or through distributors or large retailers. However,
even in cases when a manufacturer might have control over the location
at which the sale to the ultimate purchaser is made, it is not clear
that the manufacturer could ensure that every piece of equipment sold
in a high-altitude area has an engine with an altitude kit installed.
In light of these potential problems, we believe the approach being
finalized will be effective and is the most appropriate approach. It is
not tampering for a consumer not to install the altitude kit. We expect
it will be common practice for consumers to install altitude kits
because they are inexpensive, easy to install, and improve performance
at higher altitudes. Manufacturers have also emphasized that retailers
and consumers are well aware of the need to modify engines for proper
operation in high-altitude areas. Toward that end, we are requiring
manufacturers to make the information and parts sufficiently easy for
the consumer to obtain so that the manufacturer ``would reasonably
expect that altitude kits would be widely used in the high-altitude
counties.'' This approach should result in effective control of
emissions in high-altitude areas while still addressing the
manufacturers' concerns regarding control over distribution practices
and point of sale. In fact, it is worth noting that we expect this
overall approach to be more effective in achieving emission reductions
than the current regulations under Phase 2. Nevertheless, should we
determine that operation of engines in high-altitude areas without
altitude kits installed is widespread, we would reconsider the need for
additional requirements.
(6) Special Provisions for Compliance Assurance
EPA's experiences in recent years have highlighted the need for
more effective tools for preventing the introduction of noncompliant
engines into U.S. commerce. These include noncompliant engines sold
without engine labels or with counterfeit engine labels. We are
adopting 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 by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection. Current Customs regulations 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 will be an important advantage for EPA's
own compliance efforts to be able to enforce this requirement. We are
therefore modifying 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 will 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
making 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
[[Page 59094]]
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 requiring that all manufacturers demonstrate
several things before we will approve certification for their engines
(see Sec. 90.1103 and Sec. 1054.120). The following provisions apply
to manufacturers who certify engines, and include importers who certify
engines. First, we are requiring 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 requiring
manufacturers to provide a source of replacement parts within the
United States. For imported parts, this will require at least one
distributor within the United States.
Finally, we are requiring manufacturers to have a network of
authorized repair facilities or to take one of multiple alternate
approaches to ensure that owners will be able to get free repair work
done under warranty. In the proposal we specified that warranty-related
repairs may be limited to authorized repair facilities as long as
owners did not have to travel more than 100 miles for repairs (or
further in remote areas of the country). For companies without a
nationwide repair network, we proposed alternative methods for meeting
warranty obligations, including free shipping, free service calls, or
reimbursement of costs through local nonauthorized service centers.
Manufacturers suggested a different metric for demonstrating a
readiness to meet warranty obligations, focusing on maintaining
authorized service centers in every metropolitan area with a population
of 100,000 or greater (according to the 2000 census). We agree that the
suggested approach would provide an effective demonstration of a valid
warranty network and are including that in the regulation; however, we
believe it is still appropriate to include the proposed provisions
related to the 100-mile specification in the final rule. For example,
there may be some companies with a regional market that have an
effective network of repair facilities in that region, but not in other
parts of the country. In this circumstance, it is appropriate to allow
the manufacturer multiple paths for showing that it will be able to
respond effectively to all warranty claims nationwide. We are therefore
including the 100-mile approach as an additional alternative in the
regulations, as well as including a variety of adjustments to address
the concerns raised in the comments.
We believe these requirements are both necessary and effective for
ensuring proper warranty coverage for all owners. At the same time, we
are adopting a flexible approach that allows companies to choose from a
variety of alternatives for providing warranty service. We therefore
believe these requirements are readily achievable for any company. We
are therefore implementing these requirements starting with the 2010
model year. This should allow time for the administrative steps
necessary to arrange for any of the allowable compliance options
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, as well
as reporting of recurring defects. Manufacturers may also need to pay
penalties if there is a violation and may need to perform a recall if
their products are found to be noncompliant. 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 example, in certain circumstances we may meet with
specific company representatives, halt production, or seize assets. For
companies without staff or assets in the United States, these
alternatives are not available. Accordingly, we have limited ability to
enforce our 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 have substantial assets or operations in the
United States by avoiding some of the costs of complying with EPA
regulations.
To address this concern, we are adopting a requirement for
manufacturers of certified engines and equipment (including importers)
to post a bond to cover any potential compliance or enforcement actions
under the Clean Air Act. Manufacturers and importers will be exempt
from the bond requirement if they are able to sufficiently demonstrate
an assurance that they will meet any compliance- or enforcement-related
obligations. The bonding requirements apply for companies that do not
have fixed assets in the United States meeting the smallest applicable
thresholds from the following:
A threshold of $3 million applies for manufacturers that
have been certificate holders in each of the preceding ten years
without failing a test conducted by EPA officials or having been found
by EPA to be noncompliant under applicable regulations.
A threshold of $6 million applies for secondary engine
manufacturers or for equipment manufacturers that certify no engines
with respect to exhaust emission standards. A secondary engine
manufacturer is generally a certifying company that buys partially
complete engines for final assembly from another engine manufacturer.
A threshold of $10 million applies for companies that do
not qualify for the smaller specified bond thresholds.
The value of the bond must be at least $500,000, though a higher
bond value may apply based on multiplying the annual volume of
shipments by a per-engine rate. The per-engine bond amount is $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 is $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 marketed 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 will be based on the value of imported
products over
[[Page 59095]]
a one-year period. If a bond is used to satisfy a judgment, the company
will 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 will require the bond to remain in place for five years after the
company no longer imports Small SI engines.
These bonding requirements apply for 2010 and later model year
engines and are enforceable for all products introduced into U.S.
commerce starting January 1, 2010.
(d) Bond Requirements Related to Warranty
Warranty is an additional potential compliance obligation. Engine
manufacturers must service warranty claims for emission-related defects
that occur during the prescribed warranty period. We have experience
with companies that have faced compliance-related problems where it was
clear that they did not have the resources to make warranty repairs if
that were necessary. Such companies benefit from certification without
bearing the full range of associated obligations. We believe it is
appropriate to add a requirement to post a bond to ensure that a
company can meet their warranty obligations. The concern for being able
to meet these obligations applies equally to domestic and foreign
manufacturers. The biggest indicator of a manufacturer's ability to
make warranty repairs relates to the presence of repair facilities in
the United States. We are therefore adopting a bond requirement
starting with the 2010 model year for all manufacturers (including
importers) that do not have a repair network in the United States that
is available for processing warranty repairs (see Sec. 90.1007 and
Sec. 1054.120). Such a repair network will 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 will need to
post a bond as described above for compliance assurance. We will allow
companies that must post bond to arrange for warranty repairs to be
done at independent facilities. Note that a single bond payment will be
required for companies that must post bond for compliance-related
obligations, as described above, in addition to the bond for warranty-
related obligations.
(e) Restrictions Related to Naming Model Years
We are adopting the proposed provisions that restrict what model
years can be assigned to imported products. Importers can only declare
a model year up to one year before the calendar year of importation in
cases where new emission standards start to apply. We are adopting this
requirement for all engine categories subject to part 1068. See the
detailed discussion of this issue in Section VIII.C.
(f) Import-Specific Information at Certification
We are requiring 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 requiring
the following additional information starting with the 2010 model year:
(1) The port or ports at which the manufacturer has imported engines
over the previous 12 months, (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. See Section 1.3 of the Summary and
Analysis of Comments for further discussion related to naming test
facilities in the United States. 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 will generally direct the manufacturer to do testing at a facility
in the United States. The new provision allows the manufacturers to
make these arrangements ahead of time rather than relying on EPA's
selection of a test lab. Also, the current regulations state 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 requiring
that certifying manufacturers take steps to prevent this, but we are
including 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. This provision is effective immediately upon
completion of the final rule since it is an allowance and not a
requirement (see Sec. 90.114 and Sec. 1054.135).
(h) Partially Complete Engines
As described in Section VIII, we are clarifying the 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 will
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 allowing limited numbers of certified Small SI engines to be used
as marine propulsion engines without certifying to the Marine SI
emission standards in part 1045 (see Sec. 1045.610).
(8) Alternate Fuels
The emission standards apply to all spark-ignition engines
regardless of the fuel they use. Almost all 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 are adding a clarification to the
regulations to describe how manufacturers would submit certification
data and divide such engines into engine families. Manufacturers would
submit test data for each type of fuel. If a manufacturer certifies a
dual-fuel engine family, but produces engines that run only on one fuel
where that dedicated-fuel engine is identical to the certified dual-
fuel engine with respect to that fuel, those engines could be included
in the same family. This is also true for the second fuel. For example,
if a manufacturer produces an engine that can run on both gasoline and
LPG, and also produces that engine model in gasoline-only and LPG-only
versions, without adjusting the calibration or other aspects of each
respective configuration, those engines
[[Page 59096]]
may all be included in the same engine family. In effect, these engines
are covered by the original certificate because they are made to
conform to the description included in the original application for
certification except that they do not have the full functionality of
the dual-fuel engines.
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 requiring that someone
performing such a fuel conversion go through a certification process.
We will 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 not to increase emission levels above the
applicable standard. We are applying this requirement starting January
1, 2010. (See Sec. 90.1003 and Sec. 1054.635.)
(9) Other Provisions
We are also making 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 new warranty provisions are based on the requirements that
already apply under 40 CFR part 90. We are adding 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 value after
some degree of service accumulation to establish a deterioration
factor. For Marine SI engines, we are requiring 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 will 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 will prevent the engine from ever truly
having stabilized emission levels. Also, the low-hour emission test
should occur early enough for the deterioration factor to adequately
represent the deterioration over the engine's lifetime.
We are requiring 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 requiring
a combination of provisions to address this concern. First, we are
allowing 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 are specifying 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
requiring 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. 1054.240 and Sec. 1054.305).
We are clarifying 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
adopting a more accommodating approach for Small SI engines. In
particular, we are allowing 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 will 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 is replacement of air
filters. In larger spark-ignition engines, we do not 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 will cause filter
loading, so filter changes should be unnecessary to address this
conventional concern. We are concerned that the greater effect is from
fuel and oil that may deposit on the back side of the filter,
especially from crankcase ventilation into the intake. This effect will
go undetected if there are no measurements with filters that have
experienced significant engine operation. We believe it would be
appropriate for this rulemaking to allow manufacturers to clean or
change air filters as long as manufacturers perform emission
measurements before and after these maintenance steps. It would be best
to perform testing with each air filter change; however, we would find
it acceptable if manufacturers tested engines before and after every
other air filter change. This approach allows for continued air filter
changes, consistent with our testing to establish the feasibility of
the Phase 3 emission standards, but properly identifies the effect on
emissions. We are taking a similar approach for maintenance with spark
plugs, except that tests must occur before and after each step to clean
or replace the spark plugs. We will be interested in a future
rulemaking to set emission standards based on less optimistic
assumptions regarding the degree of air filter and spark plug
maintenance with in-use equipment.
[[Page 59097]]
See Section 2.4 of the Summary and Analysis of Comments for a more
detailed discussion related to maintenance.
We are defining criteria for establishing engine families that are
very similar to what is currently specified in 40 CFR part 90. We are
requiring that engines with turbochargers be in a different family than
naturally aspirated engines since that will 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
for any manufacturer. We are also specifying that engines must have the
same number and arrangement of cylinders and approximately the same
total displacement. 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 will 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
changing 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 will 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 establish a new
duty cycle for these engines but we are requiring 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 requiring that engine
distributors and equipment manufacturers that replace installed
governors must get a new certificate of conformity for those engines to
avoid a tampering violation.
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 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 rule will apply;
A description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the 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 rule; and
A description of any significant alternative to the rule
that accomplishes the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimizes any significant economic impact of the rule on small
entities.
The report of the Panel has been placed in the rulemaking record
for this final rule.
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 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
the proposed rule. The Panel report is included in the rulemaking
record for this final rule. In light of the Panel report, and where
appropriate, we proposed a number of provisions for small business
engine manufacturers and small business equipment manufacturers. We are
adopting all the flexibility options as proposed. The following section
describes the flexibility options being adopted in this final rule.
(2) Burden Reduction Approaches for Small-Volume Nonhandheld Engine
Manufacturers
We are incorporating 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.
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 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
[[Page 59098]]
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 retaining 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 will
include all 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 allowing engine manufacturers exceeding the production cut-off
level noted above but having fewer than 1,000 employees to request
treatment as a small-volume engine manufacturer (see Sec. 1054.635).
In such a case, the manufacturer will need to provide information to
EPA demonstrating that the manufacturer has fewer employees than the
1,000 cut-off level to be approved as a small-volume engine
manufacturer.
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 will 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 the testing
requirements immediately upon losing its small-volume status. In such
cases, the engine manufacturer can contact EPA and request additional
time, subject to EPA approval, before they would be required to meet
the testing requirements that generally apply to engine manufacturers.
(a) Assigned Deterioration Factors
We are allowing small-volume engine manufacturers to 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 establishing actual levels for the assigned deterioration
factors with this final rule. EPA intends to analyze emissions
deterioration information that becomes available over the next few
years to determine what deterioration factors will 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 exempting small-volume engine manufacturers from the
production-line testing requirements (see Sec. 1054.301). Therefore,
small-volume engine manufacturers will not be required to perform
production-line testing on any of their engine families.
(c) Additional Lead Time
We are allowing small-volume engine manufacturers to delay
implementation of the Phase 3 exhaust emission standards for two years
(see Sec. 1054.145). Small-volume engine manufacturers will 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 will be able
to apply this delay to all 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 can 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 will also be able to learn from some of the hurdles
overcome by larger manufacturers.
(d) Broad Engine Families
We are also allowing small-volume engine manufacturers to 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 allowing small-volume engine manufacturers
to group all 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 establishing two types of hardship provisions for
nonhandheld engine manufacturers consistent with the Panel
recommendations. As has been our experience with similar provisions
already adopted, we anticipate that hardship mechanisms will be used
sparingly. First, under the unusual circumstances hardship provision,
any manufacturer subject to the new standards may 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 will
depend on the specific circumstances of the company and the situation
involved. As part of its application for hardship, a company will be
required to provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it will
achieve compliance with the standards. This hardship provision will be
available to all manufacturers of engines, equipment, boats, and fuel
system components subject to the new standards, regardless of business
size.
Second, an economic hardship provision allows small businesses
subject to the new standards to petition EPA for limited additional
lead time to comply with the standards (see Sec. 1068.250). A small
business must 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 will be up to one year, with the potential to extend the
relief as needed. We anticipate that one to two years will normally be
sufficient. As part of its application for
[[Page 59099]]
hardship, a company will be required to provide a compliance plan
detailing when and how it will achieve compliance with the standards.
This hardship provision will be available only to qualifying small
businesses.
(3) Burden Reduction Approaches for Small-Volume Nonhandheld Equipment
Manufacturers
We are establishing 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. That is useful for small-volume equipment
manufacturers that may need more lead time to redesign their equipment
to accommodate the new Phase 3 engine designs.
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 retaining 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 will be based on the average annual U.S.-directed
production of nonhandheld equipment over 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 will
include almost all 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 allowing equipment manufacturers which exceed the production cut-
off level noted above, but comply with SBA's employee-based definition
(e.g., 500 employees for equipment manufacturers, 750 employees for
construction equipment manufacturers, and 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
must provide information to EPA demonstrating that the manufacturer has
fewer employees than the applicable employee cut-off level to be
approved as a small-volume equipment manufacturer.
(a) Additional Lead Time
As described in Section V.E.3., EPA is implementing 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. However,
for small-volume equipment manufacturers, EPA is allowing a higher
level of allowances. Small-volume equipment manufacturers can install
Phase 2 engines at a level of 200 percent of an average annual
production level of Class II equipment. Small-volume equipment
manufacturers can use these allowances over the same four year period
of the transition program noted above (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 establishing a simplified engine certification procedure for
all equipment manufacturers, including small-volume equipment
manufacturers (see Sec. 1054.612). 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 establishing a hardship provision for
all nonhandheld equipment manufacturers, regardless of size. The
provision will allow an equipment manufacturer to request more time if
they are unable to obtain a certified engine and they are not at fault
and will face serious economic hardship without an extension (see Sec.
1068.255).
G. Technological Feasibility
(1) Level of Standards
We are promulgating new, more stringent exhaust HC+NOX
standards for Class I and II Small SI engines. We are also establishing
a new CO standard for Small SI engines used in marine generator
applications.
For the 2008 model year manufacturers have certified nearly 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 predominantly 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 will comply with
the new Phase 3 standards. Also, several families were very close to
the new emission standards. This suggests that, even accounting for the
relative increase in stringency associated with the Phase 3
requirements, some families either will not need to do anything or will
require only modest reductions in their emission performance to meet
the new standards. However, many engine families clearly will have to
do more to improve their emission controls.
Based on our own testing of advanced technology for these engines,
our engineering assessments, and statements from the affected industry,
we believe the new 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 establishing 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 maintaining the existing CO
standard of 610 g/kW-hr. We expect manufacturers to meet these
standards by improving engine combustion and adding catalysts on most
engines.
For spark-ignition engines used in marine generators, we are
promulgating a more stringent Phase 3 CO emission
[[Page 59100]]
standard of 5.0 g/kW-hr. This will apply equally to all sizes of
engines subject to the Class I and II Small SI engine 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 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
engine 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 new 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
VII.
In our test program to assess the feasibility of achieving the
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 need to
improve the durability of their basic engine designs, ignition systems,
or fuel metering systems for some engines 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. Each of the engines achieved the
requisite emission limit for HC+NOX (i.e., 8.0 g/kW-hr).
Based on this work and information from one manufacturer of emission
controls, we believe either a catalyst-based system or electronic
engine controls appear sufficient to meet the standard. Recent
certification data also suggests a number of Class II engines may be
able to comply with the new standard with engine modifications only.
Finally, similar 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 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. Based on
these attributes and our testing of two twin-cylinder engines, we
conclude that the Phase 3 HC+NOX standard is technically
feasible.
Nonetheless, we also found that multi-cylinder engines may present
a unique concern with the application of catalytic control technology
under atypical operating 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 could
combine with hot exhaust gases from the other, properly operating
cylinder. This condition can 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
will 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 to use
electronic fuel injection to meet the Phase 3 standard without
employing catalytic aftertreatment. Engine families that already use
these fuel metering systems and are reasonably close to complying with
the new requirement are likely to need only additional calibration
changes to the engine management system for compliance. In addition, we
expect that some engine families that 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 new 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 in anticipation of the
proposed rule. In that program, we fitted two single-cylinder Class II
engines with an electronic control unit and fuel system components
developed for motor-scooters and small-displacement motorcycles for
Asian markets. 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 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., liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas). Based on our
engineering evaluation of current and likely emission control
[[Page 59101]]
technology for these engines, we conclude that there are no special
concerns relative to achieving the Phase 3 HC+NOX standard.
Turning to the 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 new 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 as 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 converted
their marine generator product lines to new designs which can reduce CO
emissions by more than 99 percent. These manufacturers stated that this
action is to reduce the risk of CO poisoning in response to demands
from boat builders. These low-CO emission designs use closed-loop
electronic fuel injection and catalytic control. Both of these
manufacturers have certified low-CO engines capable of complying with
the new standards. These manufacturers also use electronic controls to
monitor catalyst function.
(4) Consideration of Regulatory Alternatives
In developing the final emission standards, we considered what was
achievable with catalyst technology. Our technology assessment work
indicated that the new 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 Final 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
involving a 50 percent reduction for Class I engines and a 65-70
percent reduction for Class II engines. Chapter 11 of the Final 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 finalizing
and the use of a more active catalyst. For Class II engines this would
likely require the widespread use of closed-loop fuel injection systems
rather than carburetors and some other engine upgrades in addition to
the use of three-way catalysts.
We believe it is not appropriate at this time to adopt more
stringent exhaust emission standards for Small SI engines. Our key
concern is lead time. More stringent standards will require three to
five years of lead time beyond the 2011 model year start date we are
allowing for the program contained in this final rule. We believe it
will be more effective to implement the new 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 Phase 3 exhaust emission standards for nonhandheld
Small SI engines will achieve significant emission reductions.
Manufacturers will likely meet the new standards with a variety of
strategies including catalysts packaged in mufflers, engine
modifications, and fuel-injection systems. Test data from readily
available technologies have demonstrated the feasibility of achieving
the new emission levels.
As discussed in Section VII, we believe the new standards will have
no negative effects on energy, noise, or safety and may lead to some
positive effects.
VI. Evaporative Emissions
A. Overview
In this final rule, we are also establishing standards for
controlling evaporative emissions from fuel systems in marine vessels
and equipment powered by Small SI engines. These new standards include
requirements for controlling permeation and diurnal emissions from
marine vessels and permeation and running loss emissions from Small SI
equipment.
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 will
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. 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.
Other sources of evaporative emissions include diffusion and
refueling. Diffusion emissions occur when vapor escapes the fuel tank
through an opening as a result of random molecular motion, independent
of changing temperature. Although we are not adopting a specific
standard for diffusion emissions, we expect that these emissions will
be controlled through the running loss and diurnal emission controls.
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. We are continuing to work with manufacturers to develop
industry standards for refueling emission control, and we are adopting
a requirement that manufacturers use fuel system designs
[[Page 59102]]
that will help facilitate a reduction in fuel spillage.
B. Fuel Systems Covered by This Rule
The new evaporative emission standards will 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 required only for certain types
of equipment, as described below. These standards will apply only to
new products.
We are incorporating the regulations related to evaporative
emission standards in 40 CFR part 1060, as described in Section VI.C.
Also, as described in Section VIII, we are allowing component
manufacturers and some equipment manufacturers to certify products
under the provisions of part 1060 with respect to recreational vehicles
and Large SI engine. We have also adopted requirements for controlling
evaporative emissions from marine compression-ignition engines that
operate on volatile liquid fuels (such as methanol or ethanol). Now
that we are adopting final requirements in part 1060, we are including
a reference to part 1060 for these marine compression-ignition engines.
The following definitions are important in establishing which
components are covered by the new standards: ``evaporative,'' ``fuel
system,'' ``fuel line,'' ``portable nonroad fuel tank,'' and
``installed marine fuel tank.'' See the full text of these definitions
in the final regulations at Sec. 1060.801.
Note in particular that the new standards will apply to fuel lines,
including hose or tubing that contains liquid fuel. This includes fuel
supply lines but not vapor lines or vent lines that are 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
Final RIA suggest that permeation rates through vapor lines and vent
lines are already lower than the new 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
new standards also do not apply to primer bulbs exposed to liquid fuel
only for priming, but would apply to primer bulbs that are directly in
the fuel supply line. This standard will 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 will be considered a vapor
line and not subject to the new fuel line permeation standard.
A special note applies to fuel systems for auxiliary marine
engines. These engines must meet exhaust emission standards that apply
to land-based 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 applying the Marine SI evaporative emission standards and
certification requirements to the fuel systems for both auxiliary and
propulsion marine engines on marine vessels. We apply a similar
approach for nonroad engines installed in motor vehicles (such as
generators used to power motor homes). These engines must meet exhaust
emission standards for nonroad engines, but the evaporative
requirements apply under the motor-vehicle program.
Our evaporative emission standards for automotive applications are
based on a comprehensive measurement from the whole vehicle. However,
the evaporative standards in this final rule are generally based on
individual fuel-system components. For instance, we are promulgating
permeation standards for fuel lines and fuel tanks rather than for the
equipment as a whole.\98\ We have taken 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 typically 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 will 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 is 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 will 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 requiring
engine or equipment manufacturers to certify that they meet the running
loss standard. We will 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 final emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ An exception to component certification is the design
standa