[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50152-50219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24237]
[[Page 50151]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 9 et al.
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 50152]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 86, and 89
[AMS-FRL-5888-4]
RIN 2060-AF76
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing new emission standards for
nonroad diesel engines. The affected engines are used in most land-
based nonroad equipment and some marine applications. If these
standards are implemented as proposed, the resulting emission
reductions would translate into significant, long-term improvements in
air quality in many areas of the U.S. For engines in this large
category of pollution sources, the standards for oxides of nitrogen and
particulate matter emissions would be reduced by up to two-thirds from
current standards. Overall, the proposed program would provide much-
needed assistance to states facing ozone and particulate air quality
problems that are causing a range of adverse health effects for their
citizens, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related
illnesses.
DATES: EPA will hold a hearing on the proposed rulemaking on October 8,
1997. EPA requests comments on the proposed rulemaking by November 24,
1997. More information about commenting on this action and on the
public hearing and meeting may be found under Public Participation in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this proposal, including the Draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis are contained in Public Docket A-96-40,
located at room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20460. The docket may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for
copying docket materials.
Comments on this proposal should be sent to Public Docket A-96-40
at the above address. EPA requests that a copy of comments also be sent
to Alan Stout, U.S. EPA, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, 2565
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
The public hearing will be held at Ramada Hotel O'Hare, 6600 North
Mannheim Road, Rosemont, IL 60018, phone number (847) 827-5131. The
public hearing will begin at 9 a.m. and will continue until all
testimony has been presented. A transcript of the hearing will be
placed in the docket. Copies may also be obtained by arrangement with
the court reporter on the day of the hearing.
For further information on electronic availability of this
proposal, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stout, U.S. EPA, Engine Programs
and Compliance Division, (313) 741-7805; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that
manufacture or introduce into commerce new compression-ignition nonroad
engines, vehicles, or equipment, and entities that rebuild or
remanufacture nonroad compression-ignition engines. Regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Manufacturers of new nonroad diesel
engines and equipment.
Industry.......................... Rebuilders and remanufacturers of
nonroad diesel engines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether particular activities may be regulated by
this action, the reader should carefully examine the proposed
regulations, especially the applicability criteria in Sec. 89.1, and
the existing regulatory language in 40 CFR part 89. Questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity may be directed
to the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Regulatory Documents
The preamble, regulatory language and Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis (Draft RIA) are also available electronically from the EPA
Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost
already incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version of
this proposed rule is made available on the day of publication on the
primary Web site listed below. The EPA Office of Mobile Sources also
publishes Federal Register notices and related documents on the
secondary Web site listed below.
1. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/ (either select desired
date or use Search feature)
2. http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/ (look in What's New or under the specific
rulemaking topic)
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
A. Air Quality Problems Addressed in the Proposed Rule
1. Ozone
2. Particulate Matter
3. Contribution of Nonroad Engines to Emissions
B. Legislative and Regulatory History
1. U.S. Federal Action
2. State of California Action
3. Development of This Proposal
4. Harmonization
5. 2001 Feasibility Review
III. Description of Proposed Standards and Related Provisions
A. Emission Standards
B. Test Procedures
1. Test Cycles
2. Test Fuel
C. Durability
D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
E. Flexibility for Equipment Manufacturers
F. Flexibility for Post-Manufacture Marinizers
G. Control of Crankcase Emissions
H. Control of Smoke
I. Voluntary Low-Emitting Engine Program
IV. Technical Amendments
A. Rated Speed Definition
B. Other Technical Amendments
V. Technological Feasibility
A. Development of the Implementation Schedule
B. Development of Numerical Standards
C. Technological Approaches
D. Conclusions Regarding Technological Feasibility
VI. Projected Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Economic Impacts
C. Cost-Effectiveness
VII. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
B. Public Hearing
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. Statutory Authority
I. Introduction
Air pollution continues to represent a serious threat to the health
and well-being of millions of Americans and a large burden to the U.S.
economy. This threat exists despite the fact that over the past two
decades great progress has been made at the local, state, and national
levels in controlling emissions from many sources of air pollution. As
[[Page 50153]]
a result of this progress, many individual emission sources, both
stationary and mobile, pollute at only a fraction of their precontrol
rates. However, continued industrial growth and expansion of motor
vehicle usage threaten to reverse these past achievements. Today, many
states are finding it difficult to meet the current ozone and
particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by
the deadlines established in the Act.1 Furthermore, other
states that are approaching or have reached attainment of the current
ozone and PM NAAQSs will likely see those gains lost if current trends
persist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, significant efforts have been made on both a
national and state level to reduce air quality problems associated with
ground-level ozone, with a focus on its main precursors, oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).2 In addition, airborne particulate matter (PM) has
been a major air quality concern in many regions. As discussed below,
ozone and PM have been linked to a range of serious respiratory health
problems and a variety of adverse environmental effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\VOCs consist mostly of hydrocarbons (HC), including
nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The states have jurisdiction to implement a variety of stationary
source emission controls. In most regions of the country, states are
implementing significant stationary source NOX controls (as
well as stationary source VOC controls) for controlling acid rain,
ozone, or both. In many areas, however, these controls will not be
sufficient to reach and maintain the current ozone standard without
significant additional NOX reductions from mobile sources.
Generally, the Clean Air Act specifies that emission standards for
controlling NOX, HC, and PM emissions from new mobile
sources must be established at the federal level.3 Thus, the
states look to the national mobile source emission control program as a
complement to their efforts to meet air quality goals. The concept of
common emission standards for mobile sources across the nation is
strongly supported by manufacturers, which often face serious
production inefficiencies when different requirements apply to engines
or vehicles sold in different states or areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The CAA limits the role states may play in regulating
emissions from new motor vehicles and nonroad engines. California is
permitted to establish emission standards for new motor vehicles and
most new nonroad engines; other states may adopt California's
programs (sections 209 and 177 of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile source emission control programs have a history of
technological success that, in the past, has largely offset the
pressure from constantly growing numbers of vehicles and miles traveled
in the U.S. The per-vehicle rate of emissions from new passenger cars
and light trucks has been reduced to very low levels. Similarly,
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines for highway use have developed new
technological approaches over the past two decades that have
significantly reduced emissions from these engines; new standards
scheduled to take effect in 1998 will result in significant further
emission reductions from trucks and buses (58 FR 15781, March 24,
1993). As a result, increasing attention is now focused on the engines
used in a wide range of nonroad equipment.
Manufacturers of engines for nonroad applications have only
recently become subject to emission regulations. The lessons learned
from many years of reducing passenger car and heavy-duty truck
emissions are being applied to nonroad engines; however, extensive new
efforts are necessary to develop emission control techniques that
address unique characteristics of nonroad applications (such as special
engine cooling needs, dusty operating environments, marine use, etc.).
The broad range of engine sizes (from a few kilowatts of power to many
hundreds of kilowatts), the vast array of agricultural, construction,
industrial, and electrical generation applications into which nonroad
engines are installed, the large number of equipment manufacturers, and
the newness of many in this industry to emission control requirements
all combine to increase the challenge of reducing emissions from
nonroad engines. A more detailed discussion of the history of nonroad
engine emission control is included under Background (Section II.B.).
In addition, there are technological challenges inherent to nonroad
diesel-cycle engine design that must be addressed.4 While
diesel engines provide advantages in terms of fuel efficiency,
reliability, and durability, controlling NOX emissions is
generally considered a greater challenge for diesel engines than for
otto-cycle engines. Similarly, control of PM emissions, which are very
low for gasoline-fueled engines, represents a substantial challenge for
diesel engines. Part of this challenge for diesel engines is that most
traditional NOX control approaches tend to increase PM
emissions, and vice versa. A more complete discussion of technology
issues is presented under Technological Feasibility (Section V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Diesel-cycle engines, referred to simply as ``diesel
engines'' in this notice, may also be referred to as compression-
ignition (or CI) engines. These engines typically operate on diesel
fuel, but other fuels may be also be used. This contrasts with otto-
cycle engines (also called spark-ignition or SI engines), which
typically operate on gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice proposes a new set of emission standards for all
nonroad diesel engines, except for locomotive engines, engines used in
underground mining equipment, and marine engines rated over 37
kW.5 EPA's Supplemental Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Supplemental ANPRM), published on January 2, 1997, and the
comments received on that notice provide the framework for these new
emission standards (62 FR 200, January 2, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This proposal is based on metric units. With the exception
of engine power ratings, English units are included parenthetically
throughout the preamble. The conversion of engine power ratings is
included in Table 1, but is not repeated in the rest of the
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Air Quality Problems Addressed in the Proposed Rule
The emission standards proposed in this notice are intended to be a
major step in reducing the human health and environmental impacts of
ground-level ozone and particulate matter (PM). This section summarizes
the air quality rationale for these new emission standards and their
anticipated impact on nonroad diesel emissions.
1. Ozone
There is a large body of evidence showing that ground-level ozone,
which is formed from photochemical reactions of NOX and
VOCs, causes harmful respiratory effects, including chest pain,
coughing, and shortness of breath. Ozone most severely affects people
with compromised respiratory systems and children. In addition,
NOX itself can directly harm human health. Beyond their
effects on human health, other negative environmental effects are also
associated with ozone and NOX. Ozone has been shown to
injure plants and materials; NOX contributes to the
secondary formation of PM (nitrates), acid deposition, and the
overgrowth of algae in coastal estuaries. These environmental effects,
as well as the health effects described above, are described in the
Draft RIA. Additional information may be found in EPA's ``staff
papers'' and ``air quality criteria''
[[Page 50154]]
documents for ozone and nitrogen
oxides.6,7,8,9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. EPA, 1996, Review of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone, Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-96-007 (found in Air
Docket A-95-58).
\7\ U.S. EPA, 1996, Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants, EPA/600/P-93/004aF (found in Air Docket A-
95-58).
\8\ U.S. EPA, 1995, Review of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide, Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-95-005 (found in
Air Docket A-93-06).
\9\ U.S. EPA, 1993, Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of Nitrogen,
EPA/600/8-91/049aF (found in Air Docket A-93-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, many states are finding it difficult to show how they can
meet or maintain compliance with the current National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for ozone by the deadlines established in the
Act.10 There are 66 areas currently designated
``nonattainment'' for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local, state and federal organizations charged with initiating
programs to achieve cleaner air have mounted significant efforts in
recent years to reduce air quality problems associated with ground-
level ozone, and there are signs of partial success. The main
precursors of ozone, NOX, and VOCs appear to have been
reduced, and average levels of ozone seem to have begun gradually
decreasing. However, this progress is in jeopardy. EPA projects that
reductions in ozone precursors that will result from the full
implementation of current emission control programs will fall far short
of what would be needed to offset the normal emission increases that
accompany economic expansion. By the middle of the next decade, the
Agency expects that the downward trends will have reversed, primarily
due to increasing numbers of emission sources. As discussed below, EPA
expects that NOX levels will have returned to current levels
by around 2020 in the absence of significant new reductions. To the
extent that some areas are seeing a gradual decrease in ozone levels in
recent years, EPA believes that the expected increase in NOX
will likely result in an increase in ozone problems in the future.
NOX controls are an effective strategy for reducing
ozone where its levels are relatively high over a large region (as in
the Northeast and much of the Midwest, Southeast, and California). EPA
and states see regional control of NOX emissions, in
addition to local-scale VOC and NOX controls, as a key to
improving regional-scale air quality in many parts of the country.
Specifically, EPA believes that regional-scale reductions in
NOX emissions will be necessary for many areas to attain and
maintain compliance with the current ozone NAAQS. For the regions
listed above, the NOX reductions needed are very large
(greater than 50 percent from base 1990 emissions in many cases). New
programs to control emissions from both stationary and mobile sources
will be necessary in most of these areas, since it is unlikely that
cost effective controls of this magnitude can be achieved with either
source category alone. Although in some locations and circumstances
moderate reductions in local NOX emissions may be associated
with localized increases in ozone, the Agency is convinced that the
ultimate attainment goal of all nonattainment areas necessitates
continued reduction of regional-scale NOX emissions.
2. Particulate Matter
Particulate matter, like ozone, has been linked to a range of
serious respiratory health problems. Particles are deposited deep in
the lungs and result in effects including premature death, increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits, increased respiratory
symptoms and disease, decreased lung function (particularly in children
and individuals with asthma), and alterations in lung tissue and
structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. These effects
are discussed further in the Draft RIA for this rule. (Additional
information may be found in EPA's ``staff paper'' and ``air quality
criteria document'' for particulate matter. 11
12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. EPA, 1996, Review of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Partculate Matter, Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-96-013 (found in
Air Docket A-95-54).
\12\ U.S. EPA, 1996, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter, EPA/600/P-95/001aF (found in Air Docket A-95-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, there are 80 PM-10 nonattainment areas across
the U.S. (PM-10 refers to particles smaller than 10 microns in
diameter.) As is the case with NOX, levels of PM caused by
mobile sources are also expected to rise in the future. EPA believes
that this projected increase will occur for two reasons: because of the
expected continued increase in numbers of PM sources, including nonroad
diesel engines; and because NOX from diesel engines and
other sources is transformed in the atmosphere into fine secondary
nitrate particles.
Secondary nitrate particles account for a substantial fraction of
the airborne particulate in some areas of the country, especially in
the West. Measurements of ambient PM in some western U.S. urban areas
that are having difficulty meeting the current NAAQS for PM-10 have
indicated that secondary PM is a very important component of the
problem. Secondary nitrate PM (consisting mostly of ammonium nitrate)
is the major constituent of this secondary PM. For example, in Denver,
on days when PM levels are high, about 25 percent of the measured PM-
2.5 is ammonium nitrate. In the Provo/Salt Lake City area, secondary PM
comprises about 40 percent of the measured PM-10. Similarly, in the Los
Angeles Basin, secondary nitrate PM levels represent about 25 percent
of measured PM-10.13 Nitrate PM constitutes a smaller, but
often important, fraction of PM in other areas of the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Summary of Local-Scale Source Characterization Studies,
EPA-230-S-95-002, July, 1994 (Air Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the atmospheric chemistry of secondary PM formation has
common attributes to that of ozone, secondary PM also tends to be a
regional, rather than a strictly local phenomenon. For this reason, EPA
believes that regional-scale NOX controls, including control
of mobile NOX sources, are very effective in reducing
secondary PM over a significant area. For example, California's PM
State Implementation Plans for serious areas conclude that secondary
formation of nitrate particulate due to regional-scale NOX
emissions contributes to the particulate problem in the South Coast Air
Basin, Coachella Area, and the San Joaquin Valley. EPA and the State of
California believe that reduction of this fraction of the total PM will
require additional regional-scale reductions in NOX
emissions. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Memorandum to the docket from Carol Bohnenkamp, EPA Region
9, regarding regional nature of secondary nitratee PM in California,
July 30, 1997 (Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that mobile sources, including nonroad diesel engines,
contribute substantially to the fraction of ambient PM that is
generally considered controllable. (The largest fraction of ambient PM
is attributed to ``miscellaneous'' and ``natural'' sources, including
wind erosion, wildfires, and fugitive dust, which are difficult or
impossible to control.) As discussed in more detail in the next
section, mobile sources make up more than a quarter of ``controllable''
sources (i.e., excluding
[[Page 50155]]
miscellaneous and natural sources), with nonroad diesel engines
accounting for about 16 percent. In addition, secondary PM contributes
significant additional PM in some western PM nonattainment areas.
3. Contribution of Nonroad Engines to Emissions
Figure 1 shows EPA's current estimates of the NOX
emissions from the categories of nonroad diesel engines affected by the
proposed standards. For 1996, nonroad diesel engines are estimated to
represent about 27 percent of mobile source NOX and 13
percent of total NOX emissions. In the future, EPA projects
NOX emissions from these engines to drop slightly due to the
Tier 1 emission standards, but then begin to rise again as growth
overtakes the Tier 1 improvements. The contributions of the engines
covered by this proposal to mobile source NOX and total
NOX are projected to remain about constant.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 50156]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.019
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 50157]]
Similarly, Figure 2 presents the Agency's best current projections
for diesel PM emissions. EPA estimates that nonroad diesel engines
currently contribute about 440,000 tons, or 48 percent of
the directly emitted PM from mobile sources and 16 percent of total
controllable PM emissions. In the future, Figure 2 projects that
nonroad diesel PM emissions will steadily rise in the absence of new
emission standards. In addition to directly emitted PM, EPA estimates
that, as a national average, nonroad diesel engines currently
contribute approximately 130,000 tons of PM in the form of secondary
nitrate particles, based on the estimated 3,100,000 tons of
NOX emitted by these engines. Since NOX emissions
from these engines is expected to decrease slightly and then begin to
rise (see Figure 1), nitrate PM attributable to these engines can be
expected to follow the same pattern.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Emission Inventories Used in the Nonroad Diesel Proposed
Rule,'' EPA memorandum to Air Docket A-96-40 from Joe Somers, August
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this rule, EPA is for the first time proposing emission
standards for NMHC + NOX, PM, carbon monoxide (CO), and
smoke from engines rated under 37 kW. Engines in this category
contribute to emissions of each of these pollutants, including
emissions in nonattainment areas. Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA presents
the Agency's most recent estimates of emissions from all land-based
nonroad diesel engines and marine diesel engines rated under 37
kW.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See also, ``Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study--
Report and Appendices,'' EPA-21A-201, November 1991 (available in
Air Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Legislative and Regulatory History
1. U.S. Federal Action
Section 213(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act required that the Agency
study the emissions from all categories of nonroad engines and
equipment to determine, among other things, whether these emissions
``cause or significantly contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.''
Section 213(a)(2) further required EPA to determine whether the
emissions of CO, VOC, and NOX found in the above study
significantly contributed to ozone or CO emissions in more than one
nonattainment area. With a determination of significance, section
213(a)(3) requires the Agency to establish emission standards
regulating CO, VOC, and NOX emissions from new nonroad
engines and vehicles. EPA may also promulgate emission standards under
section 213(a)(4) regulating any other emissions from nonroad engines
that EPA finds contribute significantly to air pollution.
On June 17, 1994, EPA 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 (59 FR 31306, June
17, 1994). In the same notice, EPA set a first phase of emission
standards (``Tier 1 standards'') for nonroad diesel engines rated 37 kW
and above. The Tier 1 standards did not include engines used in
aircraft, underground mining equipment, locomotives, or marine vessels.
EPA has initiated separate rulemakings to adopt regulations appropriate
to different subgroups of nonroad engines, as described below.
EPA has taken several other actions under section 213, some of
which provide important background for this proposal and are discussed
here. The Agency recently published proposed emission standards for
locomotive engines, which are addressed separately by the Act under
section 213(a)(5) (62 FR 6366, February 11, 1997). Aircraft, which are
regulated under sections 231 through 234 of the Act, must comply with
emission standards finalized May 8, 1997 (62 FR 25356).
With regard to marine engines, EPA has finalized regulations for
recreational marine engines, including personal watercraft and outboard
engines (61 FR 52087, October 4, 1996).17 That final rule
sets no standards for diesel marine engines, though emission standards
were proposed for those engines (59 FR 55929, November 9, 1994; 61 FR
4600, February 7, 1996). The large diesel marine rule is currently
under development. However, as discussed in the Supplemental ANPRM,
emission standards for marine diesel engines rated under 37 kW are
included in the scope of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The final rule set no standards for sterndrive/inboards;
refer to the preamble of that rule for a discussion of that
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also established a first phase of regulations for small SI
engines, those rated under 19 kW (60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995). These
engines are used in handheld and nonhandheld applications like
chainsaws and lawnmowers. The Agency has also published an ANPRM for a
second phase of control for these engines (62 FR 14740, March 27,
1997). SI engines rated over 19 kW remain unregulated, though EPA has
begun work toward new emission standards for those engines.
2. State of California Action
The California Air Resources Board (California ARB) has the
authority to regulate emissions from all nonroad engines, except for
new engines used in locomotives and new engines used in farm and
construction equipment rated under 130 kW. So far, the California ARB
has adopted regulations for four groups of nonroad engines. First,
emission standards have been promulgated for new small off-road engines
rated under 19 kW, including both diesel and otto-cycle models. The
California ARB, as a signatory to the Nonroad Statement of Principles,
has indicated its intent to amend the regulations for small off-road
engines to be consistent with the Statement of Principles for diesel
engines rated under 19 kW in this notice. The California ARB has also
set emission standards for new land-based nonroad diesel engines rated
over 130 kW, which will be harmonized with the standards proposed in
this notice. The California ARB has also adopted emission standards for
nonroad recreational engines, including both compression-ignition and
the more prevalent spark-ignition models. EPA intends to work
cooperatively with the California ARB to develop new emission standards
for nonroad SI engines rated over 19 kW (including new EPA emission
standards applicable to engines for recreational vehicles). Finally,
the California ARB has approved a voluntary registration and control
program for existing portable equipment.
3. Development of This Proposal
In 1994 and 1995, states and environmental groups encouraged EPA to
adopt more stringent emission standards for highway and nonroad diesel
engines, in order to address the need for national pollution reduction
measures to improve air quality in many urban areas. In response, EPA
initiated discussions with engine manufacturers regarding future
emission controls for these engines, gathering input from other
interested parties as well. EPA, the California ARB, and engine
manufacturers subsequently developed and agreed on a Statement of
Principles supporting proposal of new emission standards for heavy-duty
highway engines starting with the 2004 model year, which were published
with an ANPRM on August 31, 1995 (60 FR 45580). These emission
standards were formally proposed on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421), with
signature on a final rule expected in 1997.
The Statement of Principles for highway engines included a
[[Page 50158]]
commitment by the signatories to also pursue appropriate standards for
nonroad engines, which was further discussed in the associated ANPRM.
Subsequently, EPA, the California ARB, and engine manufacturers
completed a similar Statement of Principles for nonroad diesel engines,
which was then published with a Supplemental ANPRM, announcing the
initiation of the rulemaking described in this document (62 FR 200,
January 2, 1997). The Nonroad Statement of Principles and the comments
received on the Supplemental ANPRM serve as a blueprint for the
emission standards and other regulatory provisions proposed in this
document.
In addition, in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA conducted outreach to small
businesses from various industry sectors to inform them of regulatory
provisions of this proposed rule that may affect them and to seek early
comment. As described below in Section VIII.B. (Regulatory Flexibility
Act), EPA convened a federal government panel which collected comments
and made recommendations about how the proposed program could reduce
the impact on small entities. Several provisions to provide flexibility
or relief for small businesses were recommended by small-entity
commenters and the panel and have been incorporated into this proposal.
4. Harmonization
As EPA has pursued the emission reductions from nonroad engines
needed to meet air quality goals, an important consideration has been
harmonization with standards adopted and under consideration in
California and Europe. The international nature of this industry, in
which many manufacturers sell engines and equipment globally, makes
harmonized standards and test procedures very important. Harmonized
programs can avoid costly multiple design configurations to meet
varying requirements, with associated cost savings to ultimate
purchasers. In addition, with regard to international trade,
harmonization reduces the cost of introducing a product into another
country. For these reasons, EPA has pursued a policy of harmonizing
with both California and the European Union (EU), to the extent this
can be accomplished under the air quality improvement goals and process
constraints of all of the parties, and to the extent it does not have a
significant adverse impact on EPA's overarching mission of improving
air quality in the United States.
To date, the goal of harmonization has been an important factor in
the context of this rule and, in fact, harmonization was a major
impetus behind the development of the Nonroad Statement of Principles.
EPA and the California Air Resources Board agreed in that document to
pursue harmonized standards and test procedures such that a nonroad
diesel engine family tested and certified by EPA could be sold in
California and, similarly, an engine family tested and certified in
California could be sold in the rest of the country. Regarding
international harmonization, the Statement of Principles signatories
expressed an intent to work with the European Union, Japan, and other
regulatory bodies in developing harmonized future standards, including
provisions for implementation flexibility.
Subsequent to the completion of the Nonroad Statement of
Principles, the responsible regulatory group in the EU issued a draft
directive proposing a new round of standards that are aligned with the
Tier 2 standards spelled out in this proposal.18 This
harmonization was a direct result of extensive discussions on potential
standards that would be mutually acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Common Position (EC) No. /96, Adopted by the Council On
________ With a View to Adopting Directive 96/ /EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council 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,'' draft dated November
12, 1996 (available in Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though harmonized to a great degree, the proposed EPA and EU
standards are not identical. In particular, the proposed EU standards
do not cover engines rated under 19 kW or above 560 kW and the EU
proposal does not include Tier 3 standards. In addition, the EU
proposed separate NOX and HC standards (in contrast to EPA's
proposed combined standards), and specified a somewhat different
implementation schedule. Nevertheless, the goal of harmonization
efforts, avoiding widespread duplicative design configurations, is
being addressed at this stage of proposing new standards. Beyond
standard levels and implementation dates, there are other differences
between EPA and EU programs, including approaches to averaging,
banking, and trading programs, flexibility provisions, and test
procedure specifications. EPA plans to continue its harmonization work
with governments in Europe and in other countries, in conjunction with
the usual public rulemaking process, to build on the substantial
successes to date. One major area in which a coordinated program will
be pursued is the evaluation and possible modification of the
certification test cycle discussed in Section III.B.
It should be noted that the small marine engines included in this
proposal are not currently addressed in the EU program. Therefore, the
ultimate success of international harmonization efforts with respect to
these engines depends on further efforts by regulating agencies. It
should also be noted that these engines are not covered by
International Maritime Organization NOX reduction efforts in
the context of the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
5. 2001 Feasibility Review
EPA proposes to conduct a special review, to be concluded in 2001,
to reassess the appropriateness of the Tier 2 standards for engines
rated under 37 kW and the Tier 3 standards for engines rated between 37
and 560 kW (including whether to propose the introduction of Tier 3
standards for PM). In addition to reviewing whether or not the proposed
standards are technologically feasible and otherwise appropriate under
the Clean Air Act, the Agency will examine the need for equipment
redesign due to the proposed standards and will take appropriate
action, such as proposing to relax or delay the standards, if
significant adverse impacts on the nonroad equipment industry are
identified.
Before making a final decision in this review, EPA intends to issue
a proposal and offer an opportunity for public comment on whether the
Tier 2 standards for engines rated under 37 kW and the Tier 3 standards
for engines rated between 37 and 560 kW continue to be consistent with
the Act and continue to be technologically feasible for implementation
according to the proposed schedule. Any Tier 3 PM standards would also
be proposed in such a notice. Following the close of the comment
period, EPA intends to issue a final Agency decision under section 307
of the Act.
If by 2001 EPA finds the emission standards are not feasible
according to the proposed schedule, or are otherwise not appropriate
under the Act, EPA will propose changes to the program, possibly
including adjustments to the levels of the standards. The adjusted
standards may be more or less stringent than those already established,
including the possibility of a new emission standard for particulate
matter. Any change to the specified certification test procedure,
including the possible adoption of a transient test cycle, will be
[[Page 50159]]
factored into the evaluation of the appropriateness of the numerical
standards. The standards finalized in the rulemaking initiated by this
proposal would stay in effect unless revised by subsequent rulemaking
procedure. The Supplemental ANPRM provides additional discussion of the
Agency's plans for the feasibility review.
Based on the information presented in the Draft RIA and in Section
V of this notice, EPA believes the proposed standards are
technologically feasible and otherwise appropriate under the Act.
Nonetheless, it is clear that a significant amount of research and
development will be needed to comply with the proposed standards. Over
the next several years, EPA will be actively engaged in programs to
evaluate technology developments and progress toward meeting the
proposed standards. This process will involve in-house programs,
coordination with the involved industries, and active interaction with
other stakeholders.
III. Description of Proposed Standards and Related Provisions
This proposed rulemaking includes a comprehensive program to reduce
emissions from nonroad diesel engines and equipment. The significant
potential benefits of controlling emissions from these engines provides
a major opportunity to address the nation's air quality problems. The
proposed program consists of stringent new emission standards,
requirements to ensure that engines maintain their level of emission
performance as they age, provisions providing compliance flexibility to
engine and equipment manufacturers, and a voluntary program to
encourage the introduction of low-emitting engines.
A. Emission Standards
EPA is proposing emission standards covering all nonroad diesel
engines except for locomotives, engines used in underground mining
equipment, and large (rated over 37 kW) engines used in marine
applications. Engines not included in this proposal are or will be
addressed by other federal programs. EPA is proposing a set of emission
standards that vary in level and implementation date, depending on the
rated power of the engine and other factors. The Agency believes that
the standards proposed in this notice are consistent with the Clean Air
Act requirement that standards represent the ``greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable'' given the criteria specified by the Act
(see Section V below).
In general, emission standards for engines rated between 37 and 560
kW are proposed in two tiers, building on the phase-in schedule adopted
in the Tier 1 rule (see Table 1). These standards approximate the
degree of control anticipated from existing and proposed standards
covering engines used in heavy-duty diesel highway vehicles, with
appropriate consideration of differences in the operational
characteristics of the engines and in the organization of the
industries. Specifically, the first set of proposed standards (Tier 2)
generally parallel the emission standards that apply beginning with
1998 model year highway engines (58 FR 15781, March 24, 1993). The
second set of proposed standards (Tier 3) parallel standards EPA has
proposed for 2004 model year diesel highway engines (61 FR 33421, June
27, 1996). The standards for engines rated over 37 kW would become
effective in the 2001 to 2006 time frame for Tier 2 levels and 2006 to
2008 for Tier 3 levels.
Table 1.--Emission Standards in g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Power Tier Model year NMHC + NOX CO PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kW<8 (hp<11)......................... Tier 1............... 2000 10.5 (7.8) 8.0 (6.0) 1.0 (0.75)
Tier 2............... 2005 7.5 (5.6) 8.0 (6.0) 0.80 (0.60)
8kW<19 (11hp<25).
Tier 2............... 2005 7.5 (5.6) 6.6 (4.9) 0.80 (0.60)
19kW<37 (25hp<50).
Tier 2............... 2004 7.5 (5.6) 5.5 (4.1) 0.60 (0.45)
37kW<75 (50hp<100).
Tier 3............... 2008 4.7 (3.5) 5.0 (3.7) ...........
75kW<130 (100hp<175).
Tier 3............... 2007 4.0 (3.0) 5.0 (3.7) ...........
130kW<225 (175hp<300).
Tier 3............... 2006 4.0 (3.0) 3.5 (2.6) ...........
225kW<450 (300hp<600).
Tier 3............... 2006 4.0 (3.0) 3.5 (2.6) ...........
450kW<560 (600hp<750).
Tier 3............... 2006 4.0 (3.0) 3.5 (2.6) ...........
kW560 (hp750).. Tier 2............... 2006 6.4 (4.8) 3.5 (2.6) 0.20 (0.15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards proposed in this notice for engines rated under 37 kW
would be the first EPA emission standards for these nonroad diesel
engines. The proposed Tier 1 standards would be phased in by power
category beginning in 1999, with Tier 2 standards phased in by power
category beginning in 2004. Tier 3 standards are not proposed for these
engines in this rule.
Table 1 lists the range of standards for the different power
categories, including all the tiers of proposed standards with the
affected model years. References throughout this notice to the engine
power ratings listed in Table 1 will identify only the kilowatt rating.
The reader may refer to the table for conversion between metric and
English units.
EPA is at this time proposing Tier 3 standards only for nonroad
diesel engines rated between 37 kW and 560 kW. For engines rated under
37 kW, the Agency believes it would be inappropriate to commit to Tier
3 standards at this time, since the industry is only now beginning to
address emission control requirements for the first time. The
uncertainties involved in proposing more than two tiers of standards
seem too great at this early stage in the regulation of these engines.
In the case of engines rated over 560 kW, the longer lead time EPA
believes is appropriate for these engines shifts the proposed
implementation schedule for these engines later than any other
[[Page 50160]]
engines for Tier 2 standards, starting with the 2006 model year. This
lead time reflects the longer product redesign cycles typical of these
large engines with very low sales volumes. The Agency's intent is to
avoid imposing unnecessary costs associated with frequently changing
standards. As is the case for engines rated under 37kW, the large
uncertainties that would be involved in proposing a third tier of
standards, in this case presumably for sometime after 2010, led to
EPA's decision not to propose such Tier 3 standards for these engines
at this time.
Where Tier 3 standards are proposed, the Agency is choosing not to
include more stringent PM standards. The Agency recognizes that there
is an inverse technological relationship between NOX and PM
emission control and believes that more stringent PM standards may
threaten the feasibility of the proposed Tier 3 NOX
standards. In addition, as discussed in Section III.B. below, the
Agency believes that investigation during the next few years may
conclude that a different emission test cycle is more appropriate for
nonroad engines, especially for PM emissions. For these reasons, EPA
believes that Tier 3 PM standards will be more appropriately discussed
in the context of the improved technical understanding that will exist
by the time of the 2001 Feasibility Review (see Section II.B.5. above).
The standards proposed in this docket assume the use of EPA's
existing steady-state (modal) test procedures. New steady-state test
cycles are proposed for constant-speed engines, marine propulsion
engines, and engines rated under 19 kW. The Agency and the industry are
working to better understand the sensitivity of nonroad diesel engine
emissions to the test cycle, as discussed in the next section.
EPA proposes to change from a measurement of total hydrocarbons to
nonmethane hydrocarbons. There is, however, no standardized method for
measuring methane in diesel engine exhaust. In the absence of such a
procedure, EPA is proposing to allow any of three options: (1) Measure
total hydrocarbons in place of nonmethane hydrocarbons, without
adjusting numerical values, (2) manufacturers may develop and use their
own procedure to analyze nonmethane hydrocarbons, with prior approval
from EPA, or (3) measure total hydrocarbons but subtract 2% from the
measured hydrocarbon mass to correct for methane. This assumed methane
fraction is based on data from two heavy-duty diesel
engines.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Springer, Karl J. (1979), ``Characterization of Sulfates,
Odor, Smoke, POM and Particulates from Light and Heavy-Duty
Engines--Part IX,'' Ann Arbor, Michigan: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. Publication No. EPA-
460/3-79-007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is aware of the flame ionization detector plus gas
chromatography method of determining nonmethane hydrocarbons (SAE
J1151) and requests comment on whether this procedure or any other
would be appropriate to measure methane. If such a procedure is
acceptable, EPA further requests comment on whether a uniform procedure
is preferable to the proposed options.
Finally, EPA is proposing to maintain the current smoke standards
for nonroad diesel engines rated over 37 kW. The Agency proposes to
extend the applicability of these standards to nonroad diesel engines
rated under 37 kW. This proposal is discussed in detail in Section
III.G.
B. Test Procedures
1. Test Cycles
The test cycle used to measure emissions is intended to simulate
some measure of actual operation in the field. Testing an engine for
emissions consists of exercising it over a prescribed duty cycle of
speeds and loads using an engine dynamometer. The nature of the test
cycle used for determining compliance with emission standards during
the certification process is critical in evaluating the likely
emissions performance of engines designed to those standards. To the
extent that in-use operation differs from the certification test, there
is the possibility that a certified engine will have higher than
expected emission rates in the field. EPA has addressed such concerns
in the past; for example, the highway heavy-duty engine test cycles
were changed to address transient operation (45 FR 4136, January 21,
1980) and, more recently, EPA has revised the test cycle for light-duty
vehicles (61 FR 54852, October 22, 1996).
Because of the potential inadequacies in the ability of test cycles
to ensure control in real-life conditions, EPA is very concerned that
engines may be designed to control emissions well during a
certification test only to emit at higher levels during field
operation. EPA has observed at times that manufacturers may tailor the
design of their engines to narrowly meet emission test requirements.
Also, engine manufacturers have a degree of discretion in how they
control engine operation across the whole range of engine operating
modes to balance competing demands for power, fuel economy and emission
control. The advent of electronic controls has greatly increased the
level of sophistication in controlling the full range of engine
operation. This advance also carries with it some uncertainty about
whether proper control of emission-related engine parameters is
maintained during engine operation that is not represented in the
certification test cycle. The current nonroad test cycle, with a
limited combination of steady-state speeds and loads, does not include
some operating modes that are commonly experienced in the field.
Originally, certification testing of heavy-duty highway engines was
conducted with steady-state test cycles (one cycle for diesel engines
and one for otto-cycle engines), in which an engine is operated at
several discrete modes of constant speed and load for measuring
emissions. EPA subsequently revised the highway engine test instead to
use transient cycles, which continuously vary speeds and loads. Current
test requirements for nonroad diesel engines are based on an eight-mode
steady-state test cycle similar to the original cycle for highway
engines. This test cycle was developed by the International
Organization for Standards (ISO) as part of Standard 8178 and is
designated as the C1 cycle.
EPA still believes that the C1 cycle is the most appropriate cycle
available at this time for ensuring that emissions are controlled in
the field. The Agency therefore proposes to continue to rely on the C1
cycle as the principal method of testing nonroad diesel engines.
NOX emission rates depend significantly on the degree of
engine loading (as a fraction of its rated capacity); i.e., higher
relative engine load, or load factor, corresponds with a greater mass
of NOX emissions for each combustion event. Testing on a
limited number of engines--with current technology--shows that total
NOX emissions from the C1 cycle are comparable to those
generated on the transient highway test procedure.20 Engine-
to-engine variability is significant, but available data is
insufficient to determine any directional difference in the average
results. This testing does not provide for conclusions on the
possibility of high in-use NOX emissions from engines that
are designed to control emissions only
[[Page 50161]]
in modes represented by the certification test procedure. The same
testing shows that HC emissions, while more sensitive to test cycle in
percentage terms, are formed at much lower levels. The set of engines
tested emitted on average about 0.7 g/kW-hr (0.5 g/hp-hr) of HC less on
the C1 cycle than on the highway test procedure, which is much less
than the variability observed for NOX emissions. Tested CO
emissions were significantly lower on the C1 cycle than on the highway
test procedure, which is reflected in the lower numerical emission
standards for nonroad engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Summary of Nonroad Compression Ignition Transient and
Steady-State NOX and PM Emissions Data,'' EPA memorandum
from Cleophas Jackson to Docket A-96-40, May 21, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluating the ability of a test cycle to appropriately measure PM
emissions, however, requires a review of different parameters than
evaluation of comparability for NOX emissions. Particulate
emissions, like NOX emissions, depend on engine load, but
are most sensitive to the degree of transient engine operation. Most
nonroad engines are used in applications that include substantial
transient operation in use, especially those used to propel motive
equipment. Equipment such as pumps and generators operate mostly or
exclusively at constant engine speeds, but they may may also depart
from steady-state operation due to variation in engine loads over time.
EPA believes that the proposed PM emission standards, with a steady-
state certification test, will result in a predictable improvement in
PM emissions from those engines used in constant-speed applications.
Engines experiencing a greater degree of transient operation will also
likely have lower rates of PM emissions, though the degree of that
reduction is harder to predict. The concern for ensuring an adequate
level of control of PM emissions from all nonroad engines has been the
principal motivation for EPA to look at the possibility of
incorporating an element of transient operation in the certification
test. While the proposal includes no testing with a transient cycle,
EPA will continue to pursue development of a transient cycle that can
be incorporated into certification testing, as described below.
The proposal includes additional cycles for specific engines. The
same numerical standards apply to all test cycles. Any engines that are
limited to operate only at a constant speed may, at the manufacturer's
option, use the ISO D2 cycle for emission testing. This cycle, which
omits idle and intermediate-speed modes from the C1 cycle, is
representative of engines such as generators, which are designed never
to run at these omitted speeds.21 Because of the more
limited range of engine operation in the D2 cycle, manufacturers must
ensure that engines certified with data generated with the D2 cycle are
used exclusively in constant-speed applications. Accordingly, these
engines must include labeling information indicating this limited
emission certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ For a description of the development of the D2 cycle, see
``Exhaust Emission Testing of Diesel Engines for Industrial
Applications,'' (Docket A-96-40, item II-D-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For engines rated under 19 kW, EPA proposes an additional test
cycle, the ISO G2 cycle, though manufacturers may also use the C1 or,
for constant-speed engines, the D2 cycle for these smaller engines. The
ISO G2 cycle includes the same modes as the D2 cycle and adds a mode
for operation at idle. This cycle was developed to represent the
operation of small diesel engines used primarily at rated speed, such
as in lawn and garden applications, generators, pumps, welders, and air
compressors. EPA has investigated the representativeness of this cycle
for engines rated under 19 kW and supports the use of this cycle at
this time. By capturing operation at rated speed for a variety of
engine loads and including operation at idle the G2 cycle seems
appropriate for the principal applications of these engines. The
Nonroad Statement of Principles specifies only the G2 cycle for engines
rated under 19 kW. Since that time, further deliberation has led EPA to
allow also the C1 cycle and, in the case of constant-speed engines, the
D2 cycle for these engines. As described above, the D2 cycle is
appropriate for those engines that are limited to operate only at rated
speed. By including more operating modes, the C1 cycle can be
considered more broadly representative of a wide range of engine
applications, including those rated under 19 kW. While the D2 cycle
clearly has a unique role in emission certification, the C1 and G2
cycles here present manufacturers with two optional procedures for all
the engines rated under 19 kW that are not certified under the D2
cycle. EPA therefore requests comment on whether it is appropriate or
desirable to allow use of both the C1 and G2 cycles for these engines.
EPA proposes that propulsion marine engines rated under 37 kW rely
on the E3 cycle for emission testing. The E3 cycle, which consists of
engine operation at four different engine speeds and four different
loads, was developed by ISO to represent the operation of propulsion
marine engines, and has been supported by an Agency
investigation.22 EPA nevertheless requests comment on
whether a similar candidate cycle for propulsion marine engines, the
ISO E5 cycle, would be equally or more appropriate. The E5 cycle
differs from the E3 cycle by including engine operation at idle. In
addition, EPA proposes an additional flexibility to marine engine
manufacturers to allow marine engines to be included in land-based
engine families. This flexibility would enable manufacturers to certify
propulsion marine engines on the C1 test cycle, which would be
appropriate for marine engines developed from land-based models.
Finally, EPA proposes that auxiliary marine engines subject to this
rule (i.e., engines installed on a marine vessel, but not used for
propulsion) should be tested using the G2, C1, or D2 test cycles, with
the constraints described above for the counterpart land-based nonroad
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Selection of Duty Cycle for High-Speed CI Marine Engines,''
EPA memorandum to Docket A-96-40 from Mike Samulski, February 19,
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the C1 cycle and the D2 cycle for constant-speed
engines, EPA has little data supporting the adequacy of the test cycles
described above; however, there also seems to be no information
indicating that these cycles are flawed. ISO committees developed the
various test cycles intending to capture a representative portion of
the in-use operation for particular groups of engines. EPA, supporting
efforts to harmonize emission certification requirements with those of
other countries, supports the use of ISO test cycles if EPA can find
that they are adequate for measuring and controlling in-use emissions.
As noted above, EPA has reviewed the E3 and G2 cycles and supports the
use of these cycles at this time. Technologies and emission control
strategies in the future may, however, become more sensitive to
variations in engine operation; EPA will therefore continue to explore
the potential benefits of a new or revised test cycle for certifying
engines.
The Supplemental ANPRM describes the need to review the adequacy of
the certification test procedure, especially as it relates to transient
operation in the field. The signatories to the Nonroad Statement of
Principles agreed to better characterize in-use engine operation and
evaluate the effectiveness of the current test procedure. In the event
that the current test procedure would be found inadequate to address
air quality concerns, EPA has committed to pursuing a revised test
procedure to address the problem. In so doing, the
[[Page 50162]]
Agency recognizes several constraints, including the need for a very
extensive effort to develop revised test cycles, the importance of the
objective of maintaining harmonization of international standards, and
the need to re-evaluate the numerical standards with any change in the
test procedure. Also, because of the time required to develop revised
test cycles and the additional time for engine manufacturers to
redesign engines with a new procedure, any change in the test cycle
would likely not apply before the implementation of Tier 3 standards.
EPA requests comment on appropriate test cycles for nonroad diesel
engines.
2. Test Fuel
In the 1994 final rule, EPA allowed manufacturers to test for
certification of PM emission levels using the low-sulfur test fuel
specified by the California ARB for nonroad diesel engines. EPA's
objective was to minimize any difference from the protocol previously
established for California, because EPA finalized PM standards for
engines rated over 130 kW only in response to industry's request to
adopt California's PM standard, which was not considered technology-
forcing. Under current regulations, testing with federal test fuel
involves an optional adjustment of measured PM levels to account for
the higher PM emissions associated with the higher fuel sulfur content.
EPA is now proposing PM standards that are expected to provide
meaningful reductions from all sizes of engines used nationwide. The
Clean Air Act accordingly requires EPA to ensure that the test
procedure, including fuel specifications, adequately represent in-use
operation. Typical nonroad diesel fuel sulfur levels outside of
California are about 0.33 weight percent, though nonroad equipment to
some degree utilizes highway fuels, which have a maximum allowable
sulfur level of 0.05 weight percent.23 California extends
the 0.05 weight percent limit to include both highway and nonroad
diesel fuel. Using the calculated adjustment to PM emission levels for
fuel sulfur finalized in 1994, the difference between 0.33 and 0.05
weight percent would correlate with a difference of 0.06 g/kW-hr (0.05
g/hp-hr) in PM emission levels. To the extent that in-use emissions are
higher with high-sulfur fuel, regulated engines could be operating at
levels that significantly exceed certification standards. This raises
concerns regarding whether the test fuel is representative of in-use
fuels. EPA therefore proposes to require that, beginning with Tier 2
emission standards (Tier 1 standards for engines rated under 37 kW),
testing with fuel based on federal specifications be conducted without
use of any adjustment to measured PM levels. Testing for
NOX, HC, CO, and smoke is not affected, since the 1994 final
rule already specified that federal test fuel was appropriate without
adjustment for measuring emissions of those pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``Estimates for In-use Nonroad Diesel Sulfur Levels,'' EPA
memorandum from David Korotney to Docket A-96-40, July 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers' likely continued interest in using California's test
fuel is consistent with EPA's goal of harmonizing certification
requirements where possible. EPA will therefore continue this practice
as an option for manufacturers. The Agency requests comment on whether
there should be an upward adjustment to measured PM levels when engines
are tested with low-sulfur fuel. EPA also requests comment on the
appropriate form of such a PM adjustment. The current equation for
adjusting PM measurements depends on the relationship of PM emission
levels to fuel sulfur content and could therefore be modified to adjust
PM measurements from testing with low-sulfur fuel. Such a calculation
would require selection of a representative in-use fuel sulfur level.
One possible resolution would be to adopt the sulfur specification
used for European testing. European test fuel specifications include a
fuel sulfur level between 0.1 and 0.2 weight percent sulfur. Testing
with fuel sulfur levels between 0.05 and 0.1 weight percent are
allowed, but are adjusted upward using the same adjustment equation
specified by EPA, referenced to a test fuel with 0.15 weight percent
sulfur.
EPA currently specifies test fuel with a range in fuel sulfur
levels from 0.05 to 0.5 weight percent. EPA solicits information
related to sulfur levels found in in-use fuels, including the degree to
which nonroad equipment utilizes highway-grade diesel fuel. EPA will
accordingly consider changes to the test fuel specifications to ensure
that the test fuel is representative of that used in the field.
Whether or not the manufacturers utilize low-sulfur test fuels and
any associated adjustment, EPA would intend to conduct confirmatory
testing with federal test fuels, which would not involve any adjustment
to measured PM levels.
C. Durability
To achieve the full benefit of the emissions standards, programs
are necessary to encourage manufacturers to design and build engines
with durable emission controls and encourage the proper maintenance and
repair of engines throughout their lifetime. The goal is for engines to
maintain good emission performance throughout their in-use operation.
When the Tier 1 standards for engines rated over 37 kW were
developed, deterioration was not expected to be a problem for two
reasons. First, the Tier 1 standards were not considered by EPA to be
technology forcing. Second, the focus was on NOX control and
NOX emissions were thought not to deteriorate from these
engines. As a result, there are few requirements in the current
regulations that address deterioration concerns for nonroad diesel
engines. As tighter standards are put into place, EPA believes that it
becomes necessary to adopt measures to address concerns about possible
in-use emission performance degradation.
EPA is proposing to make some changes to the existing durability
program, as the new standards are phased in, to help ensure that
engines are still meeting applicable standards in use. The specific
areas of the durability program that are being focused on here are
useful life, warranty period, deterioration factors, allowable
maintenance intervals, and rebuilding requirements.
a. Useful Life
Currently, nonroad diesel engines rated over 37 kW are defined, for
emission control purposes, to have a useful life of 8,000 hours or 10
years, whichever occurs first. The in-use testing liability period is
currently 6,000 hours or 7 years, whichever occurs first. Based on a
study performed for EPA, this is representative of the average time
until first rebuild for the majority of nonroad diesel
engines.24 EPA is proposing no changes to these
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ICF Incorporated, ``Industry Characterization: Nonroad
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Rebuilders,'' prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract 68-C5-0010, WAN 102,
January 3, 1997, (Docket A-96-40, item II-A-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes a shorter useful life and liability period for engines
rated under 37 kW. Based on EPA's current understanding, the smaller
engines have a shorter life expectancy than larger engines. This is
supported by data supplied to EPA on two small engines.25
According to comments received from some manufacturers, engines rated
under 37 kW that operate at higher rated
[[Page 50163]]
speeds (<3000 rpm) have a shorter life expectancy than engines rated
under 37 kW that operate at lower speeds.26 EPA believes
that these comments are reasonable. Table 2 presents the proposed
useful lives and in-use testing liability periods. EPA requests comment
on the appropriateness of the proposed useful lives for engines rated
under 37 kW (land-based and marine). EPA is also interested in any
durability data on nonroad diesel engines, especially those rated under
37 kW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Letter from Norman Weir, Yanmar Diesel America Corp., to
Don Kopinski, Environmental Protection Agency, March 10, 1997
(Docket A-96-40, II-D-27).
\26\ Letter from Dr. Hartmut Mayer, Euromot, to Donald Kopinski,
Environmental Protection Agency, January 16, 1997 (Docket A-96-40,
II-D-32).
Table 2.--Proposed Useful Life and Recall Testing Periods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Useful life Recall Hours
Power rating Rated engine speed ------------------ testing --------
Hours Years period Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 19 kW......... All............... 3000 5 2250 4
19-37kW......... Constant speed 3000 5 2250 4
engines 3000 rpm.
All others........ 5000 7 3750 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liability periods were proposed based on the ratio of useful life
and liability periods established for engines rated over 37 kW. The
purpose of the shorter liability periods is to ensure that engines used
in recall testing are not statistical outliers with poor emissions
durability. If a recall were ordered, all engines in that family would
be subject to the recall regardless of their age.
EPA also requests comment on the appropriateness of basing the
useful life on the typical time until first rebuild. The ICF report
cited above reports that the average time until retirement for nonroad
diesel engines is between 12,000 and 14,000 hours. According to this
information, no one would be liable for the emission performance of
these engines for a large percentage of their overall operation. EPA
understands, however, that an appropriate useful life is needed to
protect manufacturers from recall testing being based on engines that
continue to perform beyond the emission control design life and are not
representative of typical use.
b. Warranty Period
Tied to the useful life is the minimum warranty period imposed by
the Clean Air Act. Currently, the minimum warranty period for nonroad
diesel engines rated over 37 kW is 3,000 hours or 5 years of use,
whichever occurs first. EPA proposes to extend this minimum warranty
period to engines rated between 19 and 37 kW; however, for engines
rated under 19 kW, EPA proposes a warranty period of 1,500 hours or 3
years, whichever occurs first. A shorter warranty for engines rated
under 19 kW is proposed due to the shorter useful lives, and the three
year warranty period for small engines is consistent with current
warranty practice. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of the
proposed warranty period.
c. Deterioration Factors
In the Tier 1 nonroad engine rule, EPA did not require
manufacturers to accumulate operating time on durability data engines
or to generate deterioration factors for engine certification because
that rule focused almost entirely on modest reductions in
NOX emissions. Analysis of highway engine data at that time
led EPA to conclude that heavy-duty diesel engines do not generally
produce more NOX emissions as they get older. EPA believes
that this stability of emission control can be attributed to the fact
that diesel engine manufacturers have met emission standards through
internal improvements to the engine and fuel systems, rather than
relying on aftertreatment and other devices that would be more
susceptible to in-use degradation. In fact, engine deterioration in
current technology nonroad diesel engines could result in lower
NOX emission levels due to a loss in cylinder compression.
As NOX, HC, and PM standards are reduced and nonroad
diesel engine manufacturers introduce new technologies solely for
emission control purposes, such as aftertreatment, sophisticated fuel
delivery controls, and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), long-term
emissions performance becomes a greater concern. In addition, emission
deterioration characteristics are not well known for aftertreatment,
EGR, and other more sophisticated emission-control strategies.
EPA proposes to require the application of a deterioration factor
(DF) to all engines covered by this rule. The DF is a factor applied to
the certification emission test data to represent emissions at the end
of the useful life of the engine. Currently, DFs are required for
highway heavy-duty engines but are only required for nonroad diesel
engines rated over 37 kW if engines use aftertreatment technologies.
Deterioration factors would be determined by the engine manufacturers
in accordance with good engineering practices. EPA is not proposing a
specified procedure. The deterioration factors would, however, be
subject to EPA approval. EPA requests comment on the need for and
application of DFs.
It is not EPA's intent to force a great deal of data gathering on
engines using established technology for which the manufacturers have
the experience to develop appropriate DFs. New DF testing may not be
needed where sufficient data already exists. EPA's main interest is
that technologies with unproven durability in nonroad applications,
such as EGR, are demonstrated to meet the proposed emission
requirements throughout their useful lives. However, because this rule
creates a program that will introduce new standards and new
technologies over many years, the DF requirement is being proposed for
all engines so that EPA can be sure that reasonable methods are being
used to ascertain the capability of engines to meet standards
throughout their useful lives. This proposed DF program would allow EPA
to act in the traditional role of establishing emission performance
standards, rather than putting EPA in a position where it would appear
to be prejudging the durability of specific technologies and designs.
Similar to the provisions for highway engines, EPA proposes to
allow the nonroad engine manufacturers the flexibility of using
carryover and carryacross of durability emission data from a similar
engine that has either been certified to the same standard or for which
all of the data applicable for certification has been submitted. In
addition, EPA proposes to extend this flexibility to allow
deterioration data from highway engines to be used for similar nonroad
engine families.
EPA is especially concerned that an unnecessarily burdensome
durability
[[Page 50164]]
demonstration not be required for engines using established technology
for which the manufacturers have the experience to determine
appropriate deterioration factors. In these cases, EPA proposes to
allow nonroad engine manufacturers to perform an analysis, based on
good engineering practices, in place of actual service accumulation.
For instance, in the case where no durability data exists for a certain
engine but both smaller and larger engines using similar technology
have been shown not to deteriorate for NOX in use, it would
be possible to build a case showing no NOX deterioration for
that engine.
EPA proposes that engines using established technology, for the
purposes of this program, are engines that do not meet the proposed
Tier 3 NMHC+NOX and PM emission standards. However, EPA
specifically proposes to exclude engines using exhaust gas
recirculation or aftertreatment from being considered as using
established technology. In the case where a manufacturer believes that
a given engine is using established technology even though it meets the
Tier 3 NMHC+NOX and PM levels, EPA proposes that, prior to
applying for certification, the manufacturer would be able to petition
the Administrator to consider the given engine as using established
technology.
In the past, in on-highway engine certification, durability data
have been used for many years through carryover and carryacross of
data. One concern is that, with repeated incremental changes in a
nonroad engine design, the data would become unrepresentative for the
engine applying for certification. EPA requests comment on how to
ensure that carryover and carryacross data is appropriate (for example,
by including limit on how long data could be used). EPA also requests
comment on alternatives to the durability program described here which
would result in better, and more cost-effective, confirmation of in-use
emissions performance.
d. Allowable Maintenance Intervals
Manufacturers are currently required to furnish the ultimate
purchaser of each new nonroad engine with written instructions for the
maintenance needed to ensure proper functioning of the emission control
system. Generally, manufacturers require the owners to perform this
maintenance as a condition of their emission warranties. If such
required maintenance is more than the engine owner is likely to perform
due to cost or inconvenience, then in-use emissions deterioration can
result. For highway diesel engines, EPA imposes limits on the frequency
of maintenance that can be required of the engine owners for emission-
related items; these limits also apply to the engine manufacturer
during engine certification and durability testing. Further, the
performance of maintenance would be considered during any in-use recall
testing conducted by the Agency.
Currently, EPA specifies no minimum allowable maintenance intervals
for nonroad diesel engines. EPA believes, however, that allowable
maintenance intervals for nonroad engines are necessary to ensure that
the technology is practical in use. Because the actual maintenance
intervals for nonroad engines are likely to be similar to highway
engines, EPA believes that maintenance requirements should parallel
those for highway engines (40 CFR 86.094-25). EPA therefore proposes
the following minimum intervals for adjustment, cleaning, repair, or
replacement of various components.
At 1,500 hours and 1,500 hour intervals thereafter:
1. EGR related filters and coolers.
2. Positive crankcase ventilation valve.
3. Fuel injector tips (cleaning only).
At 3,000 hours and 3,000-hour intervals thereafter for engines
rated under 130 kW, 4,500-hour intervals thereafter for engines rated
over 130 kW:
1. Fuel injectors.
2. Turbocharger.
3. Electronic engine control unit and its associated sensors and
actuators.
4. PM trap or trap-oxidizer system.
5. EGR system (including all related control valves and tubing).
6. Catalytic convertor.
7. Any other add-on emissions-related component.
Add-on emission-related components are those whose sole or primary
purpose is to reduce emissions or whose failure will significantly
degrade emission control, yet not significantly affect the performance
of the engine.
Consistent with the definition for highway engine maintenance
requirements, EPA proposes to define the following components as
critical emission-related components:
1. Catalytic convertor.
2. Electronic engine control unit and its associated sensors and
actuators.
3. EGR system (including all related filters, coolers, control
valves and tubing).
4. PM trap or trap-oxidizer system.
5. Any other add-on emissions-related component.
If maintenance is scheduled on critical emission-related components
in-use, EPA proposes that the manufacturer be required to show the
reasonable likelihood that the maintenance will be performed in-use. In
the proposed regulations, EPA lists the same manufacturer options for
showing that maintenance is likely to be performed in-use as are
currently included in the highway program. This list includes showing
that performance would degrade without maintenance, survey data showing
that the maintenance is performed, using a visible signal system, free
maintenance provided by the manufacturer, and other methods approved by
the Administrator.
EPA requests comment on the need for allowable maintenance
intervals and the appropriateness of the intervals proposed here. EPA
also requests comment on the appropriateness and need for the proposed
critical emission-related scheduled maintenance requirements.
e. Rebuilding Requirements
EPA has two concerns regarding the rebuilding of nonroad diesel
engines, both related to new emission-related components that may be
added to the engine to meet the new standards. First, EPA is concerned
that during engine rebuilding, there may not be an incentive to check
and repair emission controls that do not affect engine performance.
Second, EPA is concerned that there may be an incentive to rebuild
engines to an older configuration due to real or perceived performance
penalties associated with technologies that would be used to meet the
standards proposed in this notice. Such practices would likely result
in a loss in emission control.
Under the current program, there are no specific rebuilding
requirements for nonroad diesel engines. However, there is a tampering
provision that states ``the manufacturer or rebuilder of the part may
certify according to 40 CFR 85.2112 that use of the part will not
result in a failure of the engine to comply with emission standards.''
27 For highway engines, engine rebuilding practices are
currently addressed in general terms under EPA policies established
under Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3) regarding tampering. Under a
separate action for highway heavy-duty engines, EPA has proposed to add
the highway policies to the regulations as they apply to tampering and
has also proposed new measures.28 EPA's intent is to propose
the same rebuilding requirements for nonroad diesel engines as those
[[Page 50165]]
proposed to be put into place for heavy-duty highway engines starting
with the 2004 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 40 CFR 89.1007.
\28\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Control of Emissions of
Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking,'' 61 FR 33421, June 27, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes that parties involved in the process of rebuilding or
remanufacturing engines (which may include the removal of the engine,
rebuilding, assembly, reinstallation and other acts associated with
engine rebuilding) must follow the provisions listed below to avoid
tampering with the engine and emission controls. The applicability for
these provisions is proposed to be based on the build date of the
engine. The rebuild requirements apply to any engine built on or after
the date that new standards, proposed in this rule, go into effect for
a specific engine category, regardless of the emission levels that the
engine is designed to achieve.
(1) EPA proposes that, during engine rebuilding, parties involved
must have a reasonable technical basis for knowing that the rebuilt
engine is equivalent, from an emissions standpoint, to a certified
configuration (i.e., tolerances, calibrations, and specifications).
(2) When an engine is being rebuilt and remains installed or is
reinstalled in the same piece of equipment, it must be rebuilt to a
configuration of the same or later model year as the original engine.
When an engine is being replaced, the replacement engine must be an
engine of (or rebuilt to) a configuration of the same or later model
year as the original engine.
(3) At the time of rebuild, emission-related codes or signals from
on-board monitoring systems may not be erased or reset without
diagnosing and responding appropriately to the diagnostic codes.
Diagnostic systems must be free of all such codes when the rebuilt
engines are returned to service. Further, such signals may not be
rendered inoperative during the rebuilding process.
(4) When conducting an in-frame rebuild or the installation of a
rebuilt engine, all emission-related components not otherwise addressed
by the above provisions must be checked and cleaned, repaired, or
replaced where necessary, following manufacturer recommended practices.
Under this proposal, any person or entity engaged in the process,
in whole or part, of rebuilding engines who fails to comply with the
above provisions may be liable for tampering. Parties would be
responsible for the activities over which they have control and as such
there may be more than one responsible party for a single engine in
cases where different parties perform different tasks during the engine
rebuilding process (e.g., engine rebuild, full engine assembly,
installation). EPA is not proposing any certification or in-use
emissions requirements for the rebuilder or engine owner. EPA requests
comment on the appropriateness of applying this rebuild program to
nonroad engines.
EPA is proposing to adopt modest record keeping requirements that
EPA believes are in line with customary business practices. The records
would be kept by persons involved in the process of nonroad engine
rebuilding or remanufacturing and shall include the hours at time of
rebuild and a list of the work performed on the engine and related
emission control systems, including a list of replacement parts used,
engine parameter adjustments, design element changes, and work
performed as described in item (4) of the rebuild provisions above. EPA
proposes that such records be kept for two years after the engine is
rebuilt.
Under this proposal, parties would be required to keep the
information for two years but would be allowed to use whatever format
or system they choose, provided that the information can be readily
understood by an EPA enforcement officer. EPA proposes that parties
would not be required to keep information that they do not have access
to as part of normal business practice. In cases where it is customary
practice to keep records for engine families rather than specific
engines, where the engines within that family are being rebuilt or
remanufactured to an identical configuration, such record keeping
practices are proposed to be satisfactory. Rebuilders would be able to
use records such as build lists, parts lists, and engineering
parameters that they keep of the engine families being rebuilt rather
than on individual engines, provided that each engine is rebuilt in the
same way to those specifications. EPA requests comments on the
appropriateness of the proposed record keeping requirements including
whether the records should be kept for a longer period of time such as
for five years.
D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
With this notice, EPA is proposing to replace the existing nonroad
engine averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program with a
comprehensive new program. The proposed program is intended to enhance
the flexibility offered to engine manufacturers that will be needed in
meeting the stringent NMHC + NOX standards and the PM
standards being proposed. The proposed changes to the ABT program have
been made in tandem with the proposed emission standards. This allows
EPA to propose the most stringent emission standards that should apply
with the proposed ABT program, while providing the flexibility and cost
benefits to manufacturers who have to meet the technical challenges of
the lower standards. It should be noted that as part of the 2001
feasibility review described earlier, the Agency plans to reassess the
appropriateness of the averaging, banking, and trading provisions
applicable to nonroad diesel engines and modify the provisions if
deemed necessary.
The proposed changes come in the context of the existing ABT
program for nonroad engines, which was adopted in 1994 (see 59 FR
31306, June 17, 1994). The existing program covers diesel engines rated
over 37 kW and is available for NOX emissions only. The
three aspects of the ABT program (averaging, banking, and trading) are
described in the following paragraphs.
Averaging means the exchange of emission credits among engine
families within a given engine manufacturer's product line. Averaging
allows a manufacturer to certify one or more engine families at levels
above the applicable emission standard (but below a set upper limit).
However, the increased emissions must be offset by one or more engine
families within that manufacturer's product line certified below the
same emission standard, such that the average emissions from all the
manufacturer's families (weighted by engine power and production
volume) are at or below the level of the emission standard. Averaging
results are calculated for each specific model year. The mechanism by
which this is accomplished is certification of the engine family to a
``family emission limit'' (FEL) set by the manufacturer, which may be
above or below the standard. An FEL that is established above the
standard may not exceed an upper limit specified in the ABT
regulations. Once an engine family is certified to an FEL, that FEL
becomes the enforceable emissions limit used to determine compliance
during assembly line testing and in-use compliance testing.
Banking means the retention of emission credits by the engine
manufacturer generating the credits for use in future model year
averaging or trading. Under the existing program, banked credits have a
three year life. EPA believes banking improves the feasibility of
meeting standards, including the development and early introduction of
advanced emission control technology, which allows certain engine
families to act as trail blazers for new technology. This can
[[Page 50166]]
help provide valuable information to manufacturers on the technology
prior to manufacturers needing to apply the technology throughout their
product line. It can also provide valuable information for use in other
regulatory programs. An incentive for early introduction arises because
the banked credits can subsequently be used by the manufacturer to ease
the compliance burden of new, more stringent standards.
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. Trading can be
advantageous to smaller manufacturers who might have limited
opportunity to optimize their costs through the use of averaging.
Trading can also be advantageous to larger manufacturers because
extending the effective averaging set through trading can allow for
overall optimization of costs across manufacturers.
As described later in this section, EPA is proposing significant
changes to the existing ABT program for nonroad diesel engines. Behind
these changes is the recognition that the proposed standards represent
a major technological challenge to the industry. ABT provisions can
ease the need to bring all engines into compliance during the exact
year the proposed new standards would take effect by allowing credits
to be used, for example, to temporarily offset emissions from some
particularly difficult to control engine line. While the existing ABT
provisions were designed with these same general goals in mind, EPA
believes that the nature of the challenge presented by standards
proposed in this notice justifies efforts to increase the flexibility
of the ABT program. The Agency wishes to maximize the flexibility and
incentives for early introduction of technology which ABT offers
without limiting the air quality benefits of the proposed standards.
This will help ensure that the proposed new standards will, in fact, be
attainable for the manufacturers, will be met at the lowest cost, and
will still achieve the expected emissions benefit from the proposed
standards.
The ABT program contained in this proposal would apply to all
nonroad diesel engines covered by this notice. The following discussion
of the proposed ABT provisions is divided into two sections. The first
section describes the proposed provisions for engines rated over 37 kW.
The second section describes the proposed provisions for those engines
rated under 37 kW, including land-based and marine engines, both of
which are currently unregulated by EPA. Readers are encouraged to
review the draft regulations for a fuller understanding of how the
proposed ABT program would operate. In addition to those areas
specifically highlighted, the Agency solicits comments on all aspects
of the proposed ABT changes, including comments on the benefit of these
changes to manufacturers in meeting the proposed emission standards and
any potential air quality impacts which might be associated with them.
1. Proposed Program for Engines Rated Greater Than or Equal to 37 kW
EPA is proposing to implement several new provisions upon
finalization of the proposed standards. The following section is
divided into two subsections and describes the proposed changes to the
ABT program for engines greater than or equal to 37 kW. The first
subsection describes the general provisions applicable to all engines.
The second subsection describes several provisions specific to engines
certified to the existing Tier 1 standards for engines greater than or
equal to 37 kW.
i. General Provisions: Beginning with the proposed Tier 2
standards, the form of the standard changes from separate HC and
NOX standards to a combined NMHC + NOX standard.
Therefore, once the proposed Tier 2 standards take effect, credits will
be based on combined NMHC + NOX values. In the Tier 2 time
frame, NMHC + NOX credits will be generated against the
proposed Tier 2 standards, which vary from 6.4 to 7.5 g/kW-hr (4.8 to
5.6 g/hp-hr), depending on the power rating of the engine. In the Tier
3 time frame, NMHC + NOX credits will be generated against
the proposed Tier 3 standards, which vary from 4.0 to 4.7 g/kW-hr (3.0
to 3.5 g/hp-hr), depending on the power rating of the engine.
The existing Tier 1 ABT program for nonroad engines does not cover
PM emissions. Based on the certification levels of Tier 1 engines, the
Tier 2 PM standards contained in the proposal will require
manufacturers to reduce the PM levels of their engines. In addition,
the proposed NMHC + NOX standards will affect the
manufacturer's ability to comply with the proposed PM standards due to
the tradeoff between NOX emissions and PM emissions which
exists for diesel engines. Therefore, beginning with the introduction
of Tier 2 engines, EPA is proposing to include PM emissions in the ABT
program in order to provide manufacturers with greater flexibility in
complying with the proposed PM standards. (As described later, EPA is
proposing to allow the early banking of PM credits from Tier 1 engines
under certain conditions.) All PM credits will be generated against the
proposed Tier 2 standards until EPA adopts subsequent PM standards.
Because EPA is proposing to include both NMHC + NOX and PM
in the ABT program, EPA is also proposing to prohibit manufacturers
from generating credits on one pollutant while using credits on another
pollutant all on the same engine family. EPA believes such a provision
is important given the tradeoff between NOX and PM emissions
which exists for diesel engines.
As discussed earlier, EPA is planning to assess the adequacy of the
current steady-state test procedure in an effort to determine if the
expected emission benefits are being realized in use. EPA is concerned
that PM reductions required on the current steady-state certification
test will not result in similar reductions in use and could possibly,
under some situations, even result in an increase in in-use emissions.
Given the lack of sufficient information to confirm these concerns, EPA
still believes it is appropriate to include PM emissions in the ABT
program at this time. However, should EPA determine that the current
test procedure is inadequate and the expected in-use emission benefits
are indeed not being fully realized, it would, of course, be
inappropriate to allow the unconsidered use of credits generated under
the current test procedure to demonstrate compliance under a future,
more appropriate test procedure. EPA would therefore need to reassess
the appropriateness of the PM provisions for any Tier 3 standards,
taking into consideration the amount of credits generated up to that
point or taking the expected credit balances into account in setting
the Tier 3 PM standard levels.
EPA is also proposing FEL upper limits that go with these new
proposed standards. EPA believes the proposed FEL upper limits provide
the manufacturers adequate compliance flexibility while protecting
against the introduction of unnecessarily high-emitting engines. EPA
requests comment on the appropriateness of the proposed upper limits.
EPA is proposing a NMHC + NOX FEL upper limit of 10.5 g/kW-
hr (7.9 g/HP-hr) for engines greater than or equal to 130 kW certified
in the Tier 2 time frame. The proposed NMHC + NOX FEL upper
limit is based on the existing Tier 1 NOX and HC standards
of 9.2 and 1.3 g/kW-hr (6.9 and 1.0 g/HP-hr), respectively.
[[Page 50167]]
Engines between 37 and 130 kW do not currently have to show compliance
with an HC standard. However, data from those engines currently
certified with EPA show that these engines are below the 1.3 g/kW-hr
(1.0 g/HP-hr) HC level. Therefore, EPA is proposing the same NMHC +
NOX FEL upper limit of 10.5 g/kW-hr for Tier 2 engines
greater than or equal to 37 kW and less than 130 kW. For Tier 3 engine
families, EPA proposes that the NMHC + NOX FEL upper limit
be the Tier 2 NMHC + NOX standards for the same power
category of engines.
For PM, EPA is proposing a PM FEL upper limit of 0.54 g/kW-hr (0.40
g/HP-hr) for engines greater than or equal to 130 kW certified in the
Tier 2 time frame. The proposed PM FEL upper limit is based on the
existing Tier 1 PM standard. Engines between 37 and 130 kW do not
currently have to show compliance with a PM standard. Therefore, EPA is
proposing a PM FEL upper limit of 1.2 g/kW-hr for Tier 2 engines
greater than or equal to 37 kW and less than 130 kW. This level
represents a typical PM level for uncontrolled engines based on an EPA
report.29 (EPA is not proposing a PM FEL upper limit beyond
Tier 2 because EPA is not proposing Tier 3 PM standards at this time.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study'' (NEVES), U.S.
EPA, EPA Report Number 21A-2001, November 1991 (available in Air
Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon finalization of the new standards, EPA is proposing to replace
the three year credit life provision of the existing ABT program with
no limit on credit life. EPA believes that unlimited life is warranted
given the stringency of the proposed standards. An unlimited credit
life will promote the feasibility of the proposed standards because it
increases the value of the credit to the manufacturer by providing
greater flexibility. It is consistent with the emission reduction goal
of ABT, not only because of the increased manufacturer incentive but
also because it eliminates the ``use or lose'' aspect of the existing
program's limit on credit life which creates the perverse incentive for
manufacturers to use credits as quickly as possible. As a result,
unused credits, which are extra emission reductions beyond what the EPA
regulations require, may remain off the market longer. EPA also
believes that removing credit life limits for the cleaner engines will
provide maximum incentive for the development and introduction of clean
engines with emission levels approaching the research objectives of the
Nonroad Statement of Principles which are 2.0 g/kW-hr (1.5 g/hp-hr)
NOX and 0.07 g/kW-hr (0.05 g/hp-hr) PM.
EPA is proposing to eliminate the ``buy high/sell low'' power
conversion factor provision of the existing ABT regulations and to
replace it with the sales-weighted average power value beginning in
Tier 2. Currently, when a manufacturer generates credits, the credits
are based on the minimum power configuration in a family. When a
manufacturer goes to use credits, the credits are based on the maximum
power configuration in the family. In other words, credit generation is
calculated based on the configuration which generates the least benefit
within the family while credit use is based on the configuration which
requires the most credits to comply. In some cases this can result in a
sizeable offset. Based on experience with the ABT program for highway
heavy-duty engines, EPA does not believe such an offset is necessary.
This provision tends to introduce a penalty for credit generating
engines, thus reducing the benefits of the ABT program for
manufacturers. Therefore, EPA proposes to base both credit generation
calculations and credit usage calculations on the sales-weighted
average power values within each engine family. EPA has already
proposed to incorporate this same change into the highway heavy-duty
diesel engine ABT program (61 FR 33421, June 27, 1996) and requests
comment on the appropriateness of such a change for the nonroad ABT
program.
EPA is proposing to include an adjustment in the calculation of
credits for the useful life of the engine. The existing ABT program
does not include any adjustment for useful life to the credit
calculations. All engines covered under the Tier 1 standards were
assumed to have the same useful life of 8,000 hours. Therefore, in
light of the fact that manufacturers are allowed to use credits across
all power categories under the existing Tier 1 program, it was not
necessary to adjust the value of the credits for different engine
lifetimes. However, as discussed earlier, EPA is proposing to adopt
useful life periods for engines below 37 kW that vary from 3,000 hours
to 5,000 hours. In addition, as discussed later, EPA is also proposing
to allow ABT credits to be used across some of the power categories
where useful life will vary. Therefore, in order to appropriately
determine the relative value of credits generated and the relative
amount of credits used by different engines over their regulatory
lifetime, EPA is proposing to include useful life in the equations used
to calculate credits generated or credits used under the ABT program.
Another factor applied in the highway heavy-duty engine program
that EPA is not proposing to include in the credit calculation for the
nonroad program is related to engine load factor. Load factor refers to
the percentage of maximum power at which an engine operates. An engine
class that operates at a higher load would burn more fuel, and
therefore, generate more emissions during an hour of operation.
Including the load factor in the equation would lead to a more accurate
estimation of in-use emissions and would be necessary if EPA were
proposing to allow credits from the nonroad ABT program to be
transferred to other emission trading programs, such as the Open Market
Trading Program. No adjustment to the credit calculations for load
factor is proposed under this rule because there do not appear to be
distinct and varied load factors for different types of engines
regulated under this rule. 30 As an indicator, the D2 and G2
test cycles have load factors of about 47% and the C1 test cycle has a
load factor that is generally around 505%. However, the
decision not to propose the inclusion of a load factor term to the
credit calculations should not be interpreted to mean that this factor
would not be appropriate for any future efforts. For example, marine
engines have two very distinct engine applications: recreational and
commercial. Commercial marine engines often have useful lives ten times
longer and load factors two times greater than recreational marine
engines. As noted below, EPA's diesel marine rule is currently under
development and may need to address these differences as part of that
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ There are a wide range of load factors for in-use nonroad
diesel engines which are a result of the wide variation of nonroad
equipment applications. However, EPA believes that any attempt to
track these load factors for the purposes of credit calculations
would be overly burdensome and would have no real emissions benefit
since the credits are only allowed to be used in within the nonroad
ABT program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed later in more detail in the equipment manufacturer
flexibility section, EPA is proposing that engine manufacturers be
given the option to trade the NMHC + NOX and PM credits
generated by their engines to equipment manufacturers. Equipment
manufacturers could use these credits to increase their options under
the equipment manufacturer flexibility provisions.
There are two remaining areas on which EPA is requesting comment.
First, EPA requests comment on the inclusion of engines certified to
meet the State of California's standards in the
[[Page 50168]]
proposed ABT program. Currently, manufacturers may not include engines
certified for California in the ABT program. Although the California
ARB is expected to adopt the same standards that EPA is proposing
today, they have not yet proposed such changes to their diesel nonroad
program. Therefore, EPA does not believe that it can propose to include
such engines in the revised ABT program at this time without knowing
the full details of California's program.
Second, EPA is requesting comment on whether there should be
restrictions on trading PM credits across the different power
categories for which EPA is proposing standards. Based on the emission
levels of Tier 1 engines certified with EPA, the PM levels of engines
between 75 and 130 kW appear to be similar to those of engines between
130 and 560 kW. (At this point, EPA has very little PM emissions data
on engines between 37 and 75 kW that are required to be certified by
January 1998.) Under the proposal, the Tier 2 PM standards for engines
less than 130 kW will be higher than the Tier 2 PM standards for
engines greater than 130 kW. Based on the limited certification
information, EPA has concerns that engines in one power category could
generate PM credits against higher standards and then use those credits
for showing compliance with another power category of engines with a
lower standard. For this reason, EPA is requesting comment on limiting
the use of PM credits to the power category in which the credits were
generated.
ii. Special Provisions for Tier 1 Engines: As described above, EPA
is proposing to replace the existing ABT program with a comprehensive
new program. Based on EPA's experience with Tier 1 certification and
because of implementation differences between the existing Tier 1
provisions and the proposed Tier 2 and later provisions, EPA is
proposing two changes that will specifically affect engines certified
to the existing Tier 1 standards. First, EPA is proposing a methodology
for calculating NOX credits earned with Tier 1 engines that
can be used for showing compliance with the proposed Tier 2 NMHC +
NOX standards. Second, EPA is proposing to allow engine
manufacturers to bank early PM credits that can be used once the
proposed Tier 2 standards take effect. Both of these proposed changes
are described in more detail below. The proposed changes in the general
provisions, described above, including the unlimited life, use of
average power for credit calculations, and useful life adjustment, will
also apply to engines certified to the existing Tier 1 engines. EPA
believes these changes are warranted for Tier 1 engines given the
stringency of the proposed standards. Also these proposed changes are
consistent with the feasibility of the proposed standards because they
increase the value of the credits to the manufacturer by providing
greater flexibility.
With regard to the generation of NOX credits from
engines certified to the existing Tier 1 standards, EPA is proposing to
continue to allow manufacturers to earn NOX credits, but not
NMHC + NOX credits. The NOX credits earned on
engines certified to the existing Tier 1 standards could be used to
show compliance with the proposed Tier 2 NMHC + NOX
standards. Under the existing Tier 1 regulations, manufacturers are
required to meet separate HC and NOX standards. However, as
noted earlier, beginning with the proposed Tier 2 standards, the form
of the standard changes to a combined NMHC + NOX standard.
Based on EPA certification information for engines between 130 and 560
kW, the sales-weighted average HC levels of Tier 1 engines are 0.5 g/
kW-hr, well below the 1.3 g/kW-hr standard. EPA believes the Tier 1 HC
standard did not require manufacturers to reduce HC emissions, and
therefore, allowing manufacturers to earn NMHC + NOX credits
against the combined Tier 1 HC and NOX standards would
provide manufacturers with false HC credits. For this reason, EPA is
proposing to allow manufacturers to earn NOX credits, and
not NMHC + NOX credits, on Tier 1 engines.
With regard to the calculation of NOX credits from Tier
1 engines that are to be banked or traded, EPA is proposing that an
adjustment be made in the calculation unless the engine on which the
credits were earned is below the applicable standards by a specified
amount. EPA believes an adjustment to the NOX credits from
certain Tier 1 engines is necessary to prevent the possibility of a
significant delay in the introduction of engines meeting the proposed
Tier 2 NMHC + NOX standards. Based on certification
information for current Tier 1 nonroad engines, if EPA allowed engine
manufacturers to generate NOX credits against the Tier 1
standard from all engines, they could potentially generate a large
number of NOX credits, and thereby significantly delay
compliance with the proposed Tier 2 standards. Furthermore, the smaller
incremental reductions from those engines only slightly below the
standard are less likely to represent the cleaner, pull-ahead
technologies which ABT is designed to encourage. However, these smaller
credits do represent early reductions and do have some value given the
stringency of the Tier 2 standards.
EPA is proposing to implement a trigger as a mechanism to
distinguish between Tier 1 engine families which are eligible for no
adjustment and those families which must be adjusted. For engine
families certified with a NOX FEL at or below 8.0 g/kW-hr
NOX, no adjustment would be applied to any NOX
credits. EPA has set 8.0 g/kW-hr NOX to be a reasonable
discriminator for pull-ahead technology based on the certification
levels and technologies used to comply with the existing Tier 1
standards. For engine families certified at a NOX FEL above
the 8.0 g/kW-hr trigger in the Tier 1 time frame, an adjustment that
reduces the value of the credits by 35 percent would be applied to the
NOX credits. EPA requests comment on the proposed level to
be used for adjusting the converted Tier 1 NOX credits. The
proposed level was selected based on a combination of factors. If the
rate is set too high, EPA would create a significant disincentive for
the introduction of progressively improved technology. There may also
be some incentive for manufacturers to marginally recalibrate engines
at higher NOX levels for improved operating characteristics
such as fuel economy. Conversely, if EPA set the rate too low (or
proposed no adjustment at all), there would be little incentive to
develop and implement truly cleaner technology than currently exists.
EPA believes an adjustment of 35 percent for credits generated at
NOX FELs above 8.0 g/kW-hr, strikes a balance between these
dynamics.
With regard to PM, EPA is proposing to allow early banking of PM
credits from Tier 1 engines, under certain conditions, as soon as the
proposed standards are finalized. Under the proposal, an engine will be
eligible to generate PM credits as long as the engine meets the Tier 1
NOX standard of 9.2 g/kW-hr. For those eligible engines, the
number of PM credits generated will be calculated against the proposed
Tier 2 standards and may only be used to show compliance once the Tier
2 PM standards take effect. EPA is not proposing to apply the trigger
or credit adjustment concept to PM credits because the proposed
provisions for PM credits already require credits generated in the Tier
1 time frame to be calculated against the significantly more stringent
proposed Tier 2 standards. Based on certification information for
current Tier 1 nonroad engines, if EPA allowed manufacturers to bank
credits against the relatively loose Tier 1 PM standard,
[[Page 50169]]
manufacturers could potentially generate a large number of PM credits,
and thereby significantly delay compliance with the proposed Tier 2
standards. EPA's main objective in ABT is to increase the feasibility
of the proposed standards by allowing manufacturers to meet more
stringent standards for certain engine families, allowing manufacturers
more flexibility and lead time in bringing emissions for more
problematic families down to the level of the standards. It is not
designed to allow manufacturers to delay compliance with new standards
for a long period of time for large numbers of engines. EPA requests
comment on the appropriateness of the 9.2 g/kW-hr NOX level
as a limiting factor for whether PM credits can be generated by an
engine family.
EPA requests comment on two additional changes for Tier 1 engines
that EPA is considering adopting upon finalization of the proposed
standards. First, EPA is considering adopting a safety net approach
regarding the use of the NOX credits generated from Tier 1
engines used in the Tier 2 time frame. As noted earlier, manufacturers
have the potential to earn a large number of credits from current Tier
1 engines that could be used to significantly delay the introduction of
engines meeting the Tier 2 standards. Although EPA doesn't expect this
situation will occur, EPA is considering adopting a provision that
would apply an additional 10 percent surcharge to the NOX
credits used by a manufacturer if they use credits to certify more than
20 percent of their fleet in the first or second year a Tier 2 standard
applies in a given power category. EPA believes such a provision would
provide manufacturers with sufficient compliance flexibility while, at
the same time, encouraging them to reasonably limit the number of
engines certified through ABT as the proposed standards take effect.
EPA requests comment on the level of both the surcharge and the level
at which the surcharge would apply.
Second, EPA is requesting comment on limiting the number of years
for which early PM credits would be available. Assuming EPA finalizes
the proposed standards prior to the beginning of the 1999 model year,
manufacturers would have the potential to bank early PM credits for
between two to seven years. This increases the chances that
manufacturers could potentially generate a large number of PM credits,
and thereby delay compliance with the proposed Tier 2 standards for
many engines. Therefore, EPA is requesting comment on limiting the
availability of early PM credits to the three years prior to when the
applicable Tier 2 standards take effect.
2. Proposed Program for Engines Rated Under 37 kW
As noted earlier, EPA is proposing standards for engines rated
under 37 kW, which are currently unregulated by EPA. Therefore, the
existing ABT program does not apply to such engines. EPA is proposing
provisions to include both land-based and marine engines rated under 37
kW in the ABT program. A number of provisions are being addressed for
these engines, including credit generation, credit life, credit
calculation, trading across power categories, credit exchange between
land-based and marine applications, and a special multi-year averaging
and banking program.
With regard to credit generation, EPA is proposing to make credits
available for both NMHC + NOX emissions and for PM emissions
as soon as the standards are finalized. However, because of the kinds
of technologies typically used by these engines, it is necessary to put
some restrictions on how they are generated. Specifically, EPA is
proposing that all credits generated from engines rated under 19 kW be
calculated against the proposed Tier 2 standards, even prior to the
Tier 2 time frame. This will apply for both NMHC + NOX
credits and PM credits. In other words, prior to the date when the
proposed Tier 2 standards become effective, manufacturers who want to
generate credits can generate credits only against the proposed Tier 2
standards, not the proposed Tier 1 standards. EPA believes this
strategy for generating emission credits from engines rated under 19 kW
is appropriate because the majority of engines in that power category
use indirect fuel injection designs, which tend to have significantly
lower NOX levels compared to direct injection engines and,
in most cases, NMHC + NOX levels significantly lower than
the proposed Tier 1 standards. For engines rated between 19 and 37 kW,
where direct injection engines are more common, EPA is proposing that
all engines generate credits against the applicable proposed standards,
but, as discussed below, EPA is requesting comment on whether credits
for engines between 19 kW and 37 kW should be generated against the
proposed Tier 2 standards even during the Tier 1 time frame.
Because engines rated under 37 kW are currently unregulated at the
Federal level, EPA cannot base the Tier 1 FEL upper limits on the
previously applicable standards. However, the California ARB currently
regulates nonroad diesel engines rated under 19 kW. Based on existing
California ARB standards for nonroad diesel engines rated under 19 kW,
EPA is proposing Tier 1 FEL upper limits for engines rated under 37 kW
of 16.0 g/kW-hr (12.0 g/hp-hr) for NMHC + NOX and 1.2 g/kW-
hr (0.9 g/hp-hr) for PM. The proposed FEL upper limits for the Tier 2
standards are the proposed Tier 1 standards.
With regard to credit life, EPA is proposing to adopt the unlimited
life provisions for engines rated under 37 kW, as described earlier for
engines rated over 37 kW, with one exception. Because of concerns over
the amount of credits manufacturers could earn on indirect injection
engines under the proposed Tier 1 standards and the potential for
significant delay in implementation of the Tier 2 standards, EPA is
proposing that all credits generated prior to the Tier 2 time frame on
engines rated under 19 kW expire at the end of 2007. With respect to
credit generation and usage calculations, EPA is proposing that
manufacturers use the sales-weighted average power for engines rated
under 37 kW, as described earlier for engines rated over 37 kW. The
inclusion of useful life in the calculation of credits, as described
earlier, will also apply to the proposed ABT program for engines rated
under 37 kW.
With respect to trading across power categories, EPA is proposing
two restrictions on such trading because of the concerns noted above
regarding the relatively low emissions from indirect injection engines.
First, EPA is proposing that manufacturers not be allowed to use
credits generated on engines rated under 19 kW to demonstrate
compliance for engines rated over 19 kW. Second, EPA is proposing to
prohibit manufacturers from trading credits earned on indirect
injection engines rated over 19 kW to other manufacturers. Under this
second proposed restriction, a manufacturer would still be allowed to
use such credits for averaging or banking purposes with other engines
it produces rated over 19 kW. EPA believes these trading restrictions
are important to alleviate concerns that indirect injection engines
could generate significant NMHC + NOX credits against the
proposed standards, which could then be traded to other manufacturers
to delay compliance in the higher power categories. As an alternative
to the proposed prohibition on trading credits from indirect injection
engines to other manufacturers, EPA requests comment on applying the
same limitation on
[[Page 50170]]
credit generation for engines greater than or equal to 19 kW and less
than 37 kW as are being proposed for engines below 19 kW. This
alternative would require that all credits, including credits generated
on Tier 1 engines, be generated against the proposed Tier 2 standards.
With respect to the exchange of credits across applications, EPA is
proposing that manufacturers not be allowed to use credits generated on
land-based engines to demonstrate compliance for marine engines. EPA
believes that trading from land-based nonroad engines to marine engines
is inappropriate for three reasons. First, allowing land-based credits
to offset marine emissions could neutralize the marine program. There
are many more land-based nonroad engines than there are marine engines,
and allowing these trades would allow manufacturers to effectively
trade out of the marine emission control requirements. Second, such a
program would penalize small marinizers whose business consists of
buying engines or engine blocks and modifying them for marine
applications, or other manufacturers of only marine engines. These
small marinizers would not have the same access to land-based credits
as large engine manufacturers who also marinize their own engines.
Allowing cross-application trading would give large manufacturers an
unfair competitive advantage, since large manufacturers could
effectively trade themselves out of the marine program whereas smaller
marinizers would have to make the investments necessary to reduce
emissions from their marine engines. Third, allowing land-based nonroad
engine credits to offset marine emissions raises concerns regarding the
geographic distribution of emission reductions. Specifically, the
emissions from diesel marine engines are concentrated only in port
areas while the emission from land-based nonroad are arguably spread
out more evenly across the country. This creates a level of uncertainty
as to whether the engines that generated the credits will be used in
the same nonattainment area as the marine engines whose emissions are
offset by the credits. While this problem is present to a certain
degree in all nonroad programs, it is also the case that marine engines
can be used in only one kind of area, and thus the ability to offset
potentially higher marine emissions with lower-emitting land-based
engines is limited.
While EPA is proposing not to allow manufacturers to use credits
generated on land-based engines to demonstrate compliance for marine
engines, EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers to use credits
generated on marine engines to demonstrate compliance for land-based
applications. This will benefit those engine manufacturers that only
manufacture marine engines, who otherwise would be limited to trading
emission credits among themselves or not trading at all. In addition,
EPA expects to propose that small diesel marine engines be included in
future diesel marine ABT program. This would create additional trading
opportunities for these engine manufacturers.
Last of all, EPA is proposing a special four-year averaging and
banking program for engines rated under 37 kW that would allow
manufacturers to create a negative balance of credits for the first two
years after the proposed Tier 1 standards are effective. This negative
balance would have to be eliminated by the end of the fourth year of
the Tier 1 standards. Based on discussions with engine manufacturers,
it appears the proposed Tier 1 dates for engines rated under 37 kW will
be challenging, especially for air-cooled direct injection engines.
Even though a number of the small engine manufacturers have signed the
Nonroad Statement of Principles that included the proposed Tier 1
standards, there may be some engine models that will not be ready by
the proposed implementation dates. Therefore, EPA believes the two year
allowance is important to ensure the feasibility of the proposed
standards given the short lead time that is expected between the time
the rule is expected to be finalized and the proposed implementation
dates of the Tier 1 standards. Under the proposed program,
manufacturers would be allowed to certify engines with FELs above the
proposed Tier 1 standards and generate ``negative credits'' for the
first two years after the proposed Tier 1 standards take effect. By the
end of the fourth year after the proposed Tier 1 standards take effect,
the manufacturer would be required to have certified enough engines
with FELs below the proposed Tier 1 standards such that they have
generated enough credits in order to pay back the negative credits,
along with a ten percent penalty for any negative balance of credits
carried over from one year to the next. Because of the penalty applied
to negative credit balances, EPA believes the multi-year averaging and
banking program will provide a small benefit to the environment in the
long run. Under this special program, manufacturers would not be
allowed to use emission credits obtained through trading with other
engine manufacturers to offset their negative credit balances. In
accordance with the above described provisions, separate programs would
apply for engines rated under 19 kW and for engines between 19 and 37
kW.
As noted earlier, EPA solicits comments on all aspects of the
proposed ABT changes, including comments on the benefit of these
changes to manufacturers in meeting the proposed emission standards and
any potential air quality impacts which might be associated with them.
E. Flexibility for Equipment Manufacturers
1. Overview of Approach to Providing Flexibility
EPA has often set engine emission standards that take full effect
at a set point in time, concurrently precluding the installation of
engines not certified to the new standards in vehicles or equipment. In
meeting with manufacturers of nonroad engines and equipment to develop
the Statement of Principles, EPA determined that a different approach
to implementing new standards might be needed to avoid unnecessary
hardship for equipment manufacturers (sometimes referred to as original
equipment manufacturers or OEMs), while achieving the desired
environmental benefits.
Some equipment manufacturers that do not make their own engines
have complained that the Tier 1 rule resulted in disruptions because
their engine suppliers did not always provide adequate lead time for
the equipment redesigns needed to accommodate engine design changes
such as mounting locations and heat rejection loads. The averaging,
banking, and trading program is of little help to them, because they,
as equipment manufacturers, have no control over which engines earn or
use credits. For some, even timely information on the new engine
designs has not solved the problem because of the sheer volume of
redesign work needed to change diverse product offerings with limited
engineering staffs. The manufacturers expressed a belief that the same
problem would accompany the transition to the proposed Tier 2
standards. By addressing this problem in the design of the Nonroad
Statement of Principles, the signatories were able to consider more
stringent standards earlier than would otherwise be feasible.
In response to these concerns, the Agency is proposing an OEM
transition program to provide equipment manufacturers with some control
of the transition process to new standards. This proposed program is
based on the provisions contained in the
[[Page 50171]]
Supplemental ANPRM, with modifications suggested in written comments,
in subsequent discussions with equipment manufacturers, and in the
report of the panel convened for this rule under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).31 The
program consists of six major elements, each directed at a specific
need. Although they involve certain planning and recordkeeping
responsibilities if taken advantage of, all of these elements are
voluntary. An OEM has the option to continue to do business as under
the current regulations, subject to the prohibited acts provisions of
40 CFR Part 89, Subpart K. The elements of the program are: (1) A
percent-of-production allowance for general applications, (2) a larger
percent-of-production allowance for agricultural equipment, (3) a
small-volume allowance, (4) continuance of the Tier 1 allowance to use
up existing inventories of engines, (5) access to averaging, banking,
and trading program credits, and (6) availability of hardship relief.
Each of these is discussed in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel for Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel
Engines'', May 23, 1997 (available in Air Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Elements of Proposed OEM Transition Program
a. Percent-of-Production Allowance for General Applications: This
proposed element allows each equipment manufacturer to install engines
not certified to new emission standards in a certain percentage of its
annual production for the U.S. market. For equipment with engines over
37 kW, in each year that a new Tier 2 standard first applies, an OEM
will be allowed up to 15 percent of its equipment produced for sale or
use in the U.S. to contain engines certified to Tier 1 standards. This
allowance drops to 5 percent in each of the next 6 years. These
allowances can provide substantial relief by allowing an OEM to
prioritize redesign work onto high volume models. Many manufacturers
have a substantial number of lower volume models with combined sales
within these percentages. The several years in which exemptions are
allowed accounts for the very limited engineering staffs available in
many companies for the needed redesign work. EPA believes that allowing
this latitude in the initial years of the standards is consistent with
the Clean Air Act and that, were it not available, many OEMs would
likely be unable to meet the redesign requirements necessitated by the
standards. This flexibility allows the vast majority of the equipment
population to be in compliance with these stringent standards more
quickly than would otherwise be possible.
As presented in the Supplemental ANPRM, this provision would apply
to equipment with engines under 37 kW as well, except that the 5
percent allowance would extend for 3 years instead of 6, and the
exempted equipment could use uncontrolled engines beginning in the Tier
1 time frame. Manufacturers of equipment with engines rated under 37 kW
objected to the shorter flexibility program duration proposed for their
equipment. They argued that the 1999 and 2000 Tier 1 implementation
dates that apply to them make it even more imperative that they receive
flexibility allowances at least as large as those applied to
manufacturers of large equipment. This concept was also put forward for
consideration by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel as
potentially beneficial in addressing small business concerns. EPA
believes that this concern has merit and also believes that the effect
of such an extension on the environmental benefit would be small.
Therefore the Agency is proposing, as a regulatory alternative, that
the provisions of the general percent-of-production allowance that
apply to manufacturers of large equipment be applied to manufacturers
of equipment using small engines as well. Comment is requested on which
of these regulatory alternatives is preferred. This alternative would
also apply to the special agricultural equipment allowance and the
small volume allowance (both discussed below) as well, so that no
distinction would be made between equipment above and below 37 kW.
Commenters on the Supplemental ANPRM also requested a somewhat
modified proposal from that outlined above. Under this modified
approach, OEMs could respread the fixed percentage allowances across
the years covered by the program. For example, instead of 15 percent of
its production in the first year and 5 percent in each of the next 6
years, an OEM could exempt 45 percent in the first year and none
thereafter, or save and spread its exemptions at 15 percent in each of
years five, six, and seven to accommodate Tier 3 product introductions.
EPA expects that this approach would not result in a significant
degradation of the environmental benefit, due to the low percentages
involved after the first year in the fixed percentage approach and the
likelihood that some OEMs would group exemptions earlier and some
later. The Agency believes that this added flexibility would provide
substantial benefit to the industry by allowing each OEM to make its
own determinations regarding which equipment is most in need of the
flexibility provisions. EPA is therefore proposing it as a regulatory
alternative to the fixed-percentage proposal. This concept was also put
forward for consideration by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
as potentially beneficial in addressing small business concerns (see
Section VIII.B.).
To simplify the program, EPA proposes that the allowance under this
alternative be framed as a 45 percent cumulative allowance over seven
years (30 percent over 4 years for engines rated under 37 kW if the
shorter duration alternative for these engines is adopted). The percent
of production of exempted equipment in the first year would be
subtracted from this starting allowance to determine the remaining
allowance, and so on. EPA requests comment on the percent-of-production
allowance and on which regulatory alternative is preferred.
Because actual production figures are not available when product
planning decisions must be made, OEM's will have to base these
decisions on projected production volumes. As a result, EPA will expect
manufacturers to factor actual production data into annual
redeterminations of remaining allowances and to adjust their product
plans accordingly, so that all compliance determinations are ultimately
based on actual production.
Another modification suggested by commenters is a provision to
allow transfer of exemptions between power categories, with appropriate
weightings to account for the differing environmental impacts of
different engines. The Agency believes that this flexibility could
provide substantial implementation benefits to some manufacturers, but
is concerned that substantial losses in environmental benefits could
result unless conservative correction factors could be devised. Many
parameters affect an engine's impact on the environment, including
size, life expectancy, average load factors, annual usage, and location
of use, making the determination of correction factors extremely
difficult. Of even more concern is the possible abuse of transferred
exemptions to disadvantage a smaller competitor. A large manufacturer
with a diverse product offering could stack exemptions into a market
niche it competes in, possibly allowing it to sell machines with
cheaper noncomplying engines for many years. EPA requests comment on
[[Page 50172]]
the transfer of exemptions, including possible ways of addressing these
concerns. EPA is especially interested in comments on the possible
allowance of exemption transfers limited to the two power categories
under 19 kW in Tier 1, because of the special challenges involved in
designing these small engines to control emissions by the
implementation date, and the relatively narrow power range for these
two categories, which may somewhat ease concerns about proper weighting
and exemption stacking.
b. Percent-of-Production Allowance for Agricultural Equipment: In
preparing the proposal, EPA was made aware of some special concerns in
the implementation of new emission controls on agricultural equipment.
First, because the prices of farm products are strongly influenced by
economic factors other than the cost of production, individual farmers
are often not able to pass cost increases for new machinery on to
consumers. Second, although many agricultural operations are quite
large, there remains a sizeable segment of this equipment user
community for which the rapid introduction of new technologies may be
problematic. This segment is characterized (to varying degrees) by: (1)
Small operations, often limited to family members, (2) remoteness from
dealer or factory repair facilities, (3) traditional reliance on user
maintenance, and (4) reticence to buy machines with unfamiliar
technologies such as electronic controls. Third, there are numerous
agricultural equipment models that service niche applications, for
which only a handful of machines are sold each year. Fourth, although
the international harmonization of standards is one of the goals of
this program, farm tractors have not yet been included in the proposed
regulations in the EU, and so control of emissions from these machines
in Europe may therefore lag that of other applications. Finally, there
are special challenges in redesigning some agricultural equipment for
modified engine designs, such as the potential for heat exchanger
plugging by airborne crop debris and the need for tractor hood profiles
that allow a clear view of crop rows. Although certain of these or
similar issues may apply individually to other equipment market
segments as well as the agricultural market, they combine in the
agricultural segment to warrant particular concern about a rapid
transition to new standards.
After considering these issues, the Agency is proposing to grant
more lead time for this equipment through a somewhat expanded OEM
transition provision. Specifically, in each year that a new Tier 2
standard (Tier 1 for engines rated under 37 kW) applies, an OEM will be
allowed up to 30 percent of its farm equipment produced for sale or use
in the U.S. to contain engines certified to Tier 1 standards
(uncertified for engines rated under 37 kW). This allowance drops to 15
percent in each of the next seven years (3 years for engines rated
under 37 kW if the shorter duration alternative for these engines is
adopted). A company that makes some farm equipment and some equipment
used in other applications, wishing to take advantage of both the
general and the special allowances, would make separate percent-of-
production determinations in each category. EPA is also proposing that
the provisions discussed above for exemption spreading apply to this
special allowance as well. This would in effect provide a 135 percent
cumulative allowance over eight years (75 percent over 4 years for
engines rated under 37 kW if the shorter duration alternative for these
engines is adopted).
EPA is aware that some ambiguity exists in the term ``farm''
equipment. The Agency desires that this expanded allowance be reserved
for equipment models that are clearly targeted for the agricultural
markets, but also recognizes that machines are sometimes put to diverse
uses. EPA believes that the current definition for ``farm equipment or
vehicle'' in 40 CFR 85.1602 is adequate for the purposes of this
program. This definition covers equipment primarily used in commercial
farm and logging activities. No routine record keeping or other
evidence would be required of OEMs to make such an a priori
determination. However, should EPA gather clear evidence of a
misapplication of this designation, a recalculation of exemptions under
the general application allowance would be required. Comment on this
approach and alternative suggestions are solicited.
It should be noted that, although this provision may have some
negative air quality implications, the impact of this expanded
allowance on air quality is mitigated somewhat by the typical locations
of this type of equipment. Much of this equipment is used in rural
areas of the country that are remote from urban nonattainment areas.
This is perhaps especially true of the small volume applications most
likely to be exempted in the transition program. Although the regional
transport of emitted pollutants over large distances is of concern, as
explained in Section II, it is reasonable to expect some falloff of
airborne concentrations of these pollutants over these distances.
Commenters on the Supplemental ANPRM suggested that companies that
make both agricultural equipment and other equipment be allowed to
transfer exemptions between these broad categories to further enhance
implementation flexibility. Though supporting the goal of increased
flexibility, EPA is concerned that substantial transfers of the large
special exemption allowance could slow the introduction of complying
construction, industrial, and utility machines, which is not justified
by the analysis above. The Agency is also concerned that this added
flexibility could provide an unfair competitive advantage to large
companies with diverse product lines, a concern reflected in the
comments as well. These concerns could be addressed by discounting
transferred exemptions to reflect environmental or business impact
differentials. However, at this time, EPA has no basis by which to
determine the appropriate discount levels and so is not proposing this
flexibility. Other commenters requested that the special allowance
provision be dropped entirely and the resulting exemption pool be
respread into the general allowance. However, the Agency believes that
this would not address the above-discussed concerns. EPA requests
comment on the special allowance proposal and on the suggestions made
in the Supplemental ANPRM comments.
c. Small Volume Allowance: The percent-of-production approach
outlined above may provide little benefit to small businesses focused
on a small number of equipment models. To respond to these concerns,
EPA is proposing that equipment manufacturers be allowed to exceed the
percent-of-production allowances described above during the same years
affected by the allowance program for general applications, provided
they limit the installation of Tier 1 engines (uncertified engines for
ratings under 37 kW) in each power category to a single equipment model
with an annual production level (for U.S. sales) of 100 pieces or less.
Though intended to ensure that the flexibility program does not
disadvantage small businesses, this provision would be available to all
equipment manufacturers. A manufacturer's use of this provision would
not affect the availability of the other elements of the OEM transition
program, although it would not be additive to the percent-of-production
allowances: an OEM could base its exemption count on the percent-of-
production allowance or the small
[[Page 50173]]
volume allowance in any power category in any year.
EPA proposes that the exemption spreading provisions for the
percent-of-production allowances discussed above, if adopted for these
allowances, apply to the small volume allowance as well. That is, a
manufacturer of a piece of equipment with an engine rated over 37 kW
may use Tier 1 engines in a total of 700 of these units produced over
the first seven years after the Tier 2 standard takes effect.
Similarly, a manufacturer of a piece of equipment with an engine rated
under 37 kW may use uncontrolled engines in a total of 400 of these
units produced over the first four years after the Tier 1 standard
takes effect, if the shorter duration allowance alternative is adopted
for these engines.
EPA is aware of two concerns that must be addressed with this
program element. First, a manufacturer may need to curtail sales of a
product that, though initially selling below 100 units annually,
experiences unanticipated sales growth marginally beyond this level;
there would be no time to redesign the product for the new tier of
standards. The Agency believes that the flexibility provided by the
exemption spreading measure discussed above would sufficiently address
this concern. A manufacturer with better than expected sales orders for
the exempted model would use up the total exemption allowance earlier
than expected, but, except in the last year that exemptions are
available when conservative planning may be called for, an annual
adjustment of the following year's exemptions would cover any
reasonable underestimate of sales.
The second concern regards the vagueness of the term ``model.''
Some OEMs may wish to take greater advantage of the small volume
allowance by grouping several small volume products under a single
model designation, possibly using ``submodel'' designations to
distinguish products. One method of addressing this would be to adopt a
regulatory definition of the term ``model'' for the purposes of this
program, such as requiring that products cannot be considered to be of
the same model designation unless they have exactly the same model
number, with no distinguishing lower level designations.
Another approach would be to simplify the program by not requiring
that the small volume exemption be limited to a single model. This has
the advantage of providing more flexibility to the OEMs by allowing any
number of models to be exempted, provided the combined annual
exemptions from all of these models does not exceed the allowed maximum
in any one power category. Some manufacturers have advocated this
approach. However, it has the disadvantages of increasing the number of
exemptions likely to be taken (thus possibly foregoing some
environmental benefit), and of moving away from the intent of the small
volume allowance, which is to help small OEMs with very limited product
offerings. EPA believes that these disadvantages are not serious, and
so is proposing this approach as an alternative to the single model
requirement. This concept was also put forward for consideration by the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel as potentially beneficial in
addressing small business concerns. EPA requests comment on the small
volume allowance and on which of the proposed regulatory alternatives
is preferred.
d. Continuance of the Existing Inventory Allowance: Paragraph
(b)(4) of 40 CFR 89.1003 states in part: ``Nonroad vehicles and
equipment manufacturers may continue to use uncertified nonroad engines
built prior to the effective date until uncertified engine inventories
are depleted; however, stockpiling of uncertified nonroad engines will
be considered a violation of this section.'' EPA proposes to extend
this provision to the Tier 1-to-Tier 2 and Tier 2-to-Tier 3 transitions
as well. A machine using such an engine would be considered under the
tier of emission standards to which the engine is subject, and would
therefore be treated as though it were produced in the previous year
for such purposes as calculating percent-of-production and small volume
allowances. It should also be noted that engines for which a
manufacturer uses averaging, banking, and trading program credits to
demonstrate compliance with EPA requirements will be treated in the OEM
transition program as though they fully meet the applicable emission
standards.
e. Access to Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program Credits:
Though not discussed in the Supplemental ANPRM, commenters suggested
that OEMs be provided additional flexibility by allowing them to
purchase credits generated by engine manufacturers in the nonroad
averaging, banking, and trading program. These credits would then be
retired in exchange for further allowances to build equipment
containing noncomplying engines. Although no guarantee could be made
that credits would be available at a reasonable price, this provision
would provide one more alternative in a range of options for OEMs to
consider in planning for the new engines. This concept was also put
forward for consideration by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
as potentially beneficial in addressing small business concerns.
The Agency is favorable to concepts such as this that provide
flexibility while tending to preserve the environmental benefit of the
program, and so is proposing this additional flexibility. EPA believes
this concept may actually benefit the environment by providing an
incentive for engine manufacturers to pull ahead clean technologies in
order to sell their credits at a profit. However, the Agency requests
comment on whether there may be, on the other hand, the potential for a
loss in environmental benefit through the creation of a market for
credits that would otherwise have gone unused, and on the advisability
of discounting credits used by OEMs to mitigate such losses. Comment is
also sought on the advisability of restricting this provision to those
applying for hardship relief, as discussed below.
The Agency is also soliciting comment on means of structuring the
program to minimize its complexity and to preclude double-counting of
credits. EPA is proposing that the credit amounts needed for each
additional allowance be simply determined by multiplying the difference
between the applicable standards times the midpoint of the applicable
power range. For example, an allowance for a machine using a 200 kW
(268 hp) Tier 1 engine in the Tier 2 time frame would require NMHC +
NOX credits totaling:
(1.3 + 9.2 - 6.6) g/kW-hr x 177.5 kW x 8,000 hr = 5.538 Mg,
because 1.3, 9.2, and 6.6 g/kW-hr (1.0, 6.9, and 4.9 g/hp-hr) are the
Tier 1 hydrocarbon, Tier 1 NOX, and Tier 2 NMHC +
NOX standards, respectively; 177.5 kW (237.9 hp) is the
midpoint of the 130 to 225 kW range, and 8,000 hours is the useful life
for this range. For the sake of simplification, EPA would assume that
Tier 1 hydrocarbon standards equate to NMHC levels, and that the 1.3 g/
kW-hr (1.0 g/hp-hr) hydrocarbon level applies to Tier 1 power
categories below 130 kW, for which there are no Tier 1 hydrocarbon
standards. For OEMs seeking to use credits for additional allowances to
install uncontrolled engines rated under 37 kW during Tier 1, EPA is
proposing that the credit calculation assume uncontrolled NMHC +
NOX and PM levels of 16.0 and 1.2 g/kW-hr (11.9 and 0.9 g/
hp-hr), respectively, based on a review of test data generated in the
California small engine program.
[[Page 50174]]
Finally, the Agency is proposing that OEMs wishing to use ABT program
credits would submit the same type of annual reports currently required
of engine manufacturers participating in the ABT program, to allow the
Agency to adequately track credits. Other credit use requirements and
restrictions of the ABT program that apply to engine manufacturers
would apply to equipment manufacturers as well.
f. Hardship Relief Provision: Commenters requested adoption of a
hardship appeal process by which an OEM, especially a small business,
could obtain relief by providing evidence that, despite its best
efforts, it cannot meet the implementation dates, even with the OEM
transition program provisions outlined above. Such a situation might
occur if an engine supplier without a major business interest in the
OEM were to change or drop an engine model very late in the
implementation process. This concept was also put forward for
consideration by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel as
potentially beneficial in addressing small business concerns. Based on
outreach the Agency has done in formulating this proposal, especially
to the small OEM community, EPA agrees that the concern of small
businesses about the uncertainty of timely supply may be valid, and
seeks to mitigate the possibility of business failures by providing
fair, objective criteria for hardship appeal that minimize the
potential loss in environmental benefit, minimize the Agency's
involvement in a business' financial affairs, and avoid straining
Agency resources.
The Agency is proposing a hardship relief provision under which
appeals must be made in writing, be submitted before the earliest date
of noncompliance, be limited to firms that fit the small business
criteria established by the Small Business Administration
,32 include evidence that failure to comply was not the
fault of the OEM (such as a supply contract broken by the engine
supplier), and include evidence that the inability to sell the subject
equipment will have a major impact on the company's solvency. The
Agency would work with the applicant to ensure that all other remedies
available under the flexibility provisions are exhausted before
granting additional relief, and would limit the period of relief to no
more than one year. Furthermore, the Agency proposes that applications
for hardship relief only be accepted during the first year after the
effective date of an applicable new emission standard. Comment is
solicited on all aspects of this proposal and on whether the Agency
should require those who receive relief to recover some of the lost
environmental benefit, such as by purchasing Blue Sky Series engines
described elsewhere in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 750 employees for manufacturers of construction equipment
and industrial trucks, 500 employees for manufacturers of other
nonroad equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Availability of Engines
EPA is proposing that engine manufacturers be allowed to continue
to build and sell the engines needed to meet the market demand created
by the OEM transition program described above. Commenters on the
Supplemental ANPRM expressed concern that the program will have minimal
value because engine suppliers may decide not to continue making the
older generation engines. Based on observation of current practice in
which older engine configurations are routinely built to support
replacement engine needs, EPA believes that engines will be made
available to make the transition program workable. Further comment is
solicited on this issue. Concerns that integrated manufacturers (who
build engines for installation in their own OEM products and for sale
to competitors) may purposely manipulate the production or prices of
these engines to disadvantage their competitors appear to the Agency to
be without merit, as this opportunity exists apart from EPA programs.
However, to provide additional assurances, the engine manufacturers
that signed the Nonroad Statement of Principles have agreed that, if
they decide to continue the production of such engines, they will make
them available for sale at reasonable prices to all interested buyers.
EPA does not believe that regulation codifying this commitment is
necessary or appropriate.
EPA is proposing that equipment manufacturers procuring engines for
use under the OEM transition program provide written assurance to the
supplying engine manufacturer that such engines are being procured for
this purpose. EPA requests comment on the need for a requirement that
engine manufacturers maintain or annually provide records on the
engines manufactured in support of the OEM transition program, in order
to help EPA prevent abuse of the program.
4. Enforcement and Record Keeping Requirements
The Agency desires to minimize the administrative burden to all
parties involved with the OEM transition program. OEMs choosing not to
take advantage of the allowances would have no requirements beyond
those already in place from the Tier 1 rule. For OEMs choosing to take
advantage of the allowances, EPA believes that the following
requirements will be sufficient to allow it to enforce the program. (1)
OEMs must keep records of the production of all pieces of equipment
with engines covered by this rule. These records must be kept until
December 31 of the year after the last year in which any of the
allowances are used by the company. (2) Such records must include
serial and model numbers and dates of production of equipment and
installed engines, rated power of each engine, and the calculations
used to determine the percent of production allowances taken in each
power category. (3) OEMs must make these records available to the
Agency upon request.
The Agency intends to conduct only limited audits of these records,
and expects that scrutiny by the OEMs of their competitors' products
will help identify potential candidates for audits. However, to further
aid this process and the early identification of affected OEMs who may
not be aware of the program requirements, EPA is considering also
requiring that each OEM submit a letter to the Agency after each year
in which allowances are utilized, providing some summary information,
such as the number of machines sold with and without engines certified
to the new standards. Comment is requested on the appropriateness of
such a requirement.
EPA is aware of two conflicting concerns about the OEM transition
program expressed by equipment manufacturers. On the one hand,
manufacturers seek the maximum control and flexibility possible in
implementing new standards. On the other hand, some manufacturers have
felt that the flexibility provisions contained in the Supplemental
ANPRM are already too complicated and that the suggested enhancements
make them more so. Unfortunately, the simpler approaches suggested to
date have involved a substantial loss in environmental benefits,
amounting to effectively delaying the standards. Therefore the Agency
has chosen to propose the collection of voluntary provisions discussed
above, recognizing that effort will be needed by both the Agency and
the industry to help manufacturers make best use of their options.
5. Alternative Concepts
Commenters on the Supplemental ANPRM suggested an alternative
approach for helping OEMs implement
[[Page 50175]]
the new standards, by which a period of one to three years would be
provided between availability of complying engines and the required
date for use of these engines in new equipment. EPA is not proposing
this approach because it would require a regulatory enforcement
mechanism to ensure that final production-ready prototype engines are
available long before the start of engine production on the required
implementation date for new standards. Without such a mechanism, engine
manufacturers could continue making design changes, delaying the
implementation of new standards indefinitely. EPA is unaware of any
such mechanism that would not also cause major disruptions in the
industry.
Others recommended that the Agency set standards on a cost-
effectiveness basis, application by application. Regulations would only
apply to engines in those applications with an overall environmental
impact high enough, and a cost of compliance low enough, to satisfy
some specified cost-effectiveness threshold. The Agency is not
proposing this approach for several reasons. First, this approach,
which makes cost-effectiveness the primary factor in determining
applicable standards, appears to be at odds with the standard setting
criteria of section 213 of the Clean Air Act, which is primarily
technology-based, with added consideration of cost, noise, energy, and
safety factors. Second, accurate determinations of application-specific
cost-effectiveness would be extremely difficult to make. Applications
would constantly move above and below the threshold as new information
and new design innovations are brought forth, creating uncertainty in
the industry. Third, many engine models are used in multiple
applications, possibly leading to multiple versions and higher costs.
Fourth, evaluation outcomes would depend arbitrarily on how
applications are defined. Many niche markets may have environmental
impacts that are low individually, but quite large in the aggregate.
Fifth, setting the threshold for cost-effectiveness would have inherent
problems of arbitrariness, and would likely be met with vastly
differing views in the public regarding the appropriateness of any
threshold. Finally, the exempted equipment would still have some air
quality impact, resulting in either a lower benefit of the program or
more stringent standards for the regulated engines.
F. Flexibility for Post-Manufacture Marinizers
EPA believes that post-manufacture marinizers affected by the
proposed standards may need some additional flexibility, beyond that
available in the ABT program, to meet the challenges of new standards.
By EPA's definition, a post-manufacture marinizer is someone who
produces marine diesel engines by substantially modifying a complete or
partially complete diesel engine, and who is not controlled by the
manufacturer of the base engines or by an entity that controls both of
them. For the purpose of this definition, ``substantially modify''
means changing an engine in a way that could change engine emission
characteristics.
In some ways the challenge of any new standards for these
marinizers would mirror that of nonroad equipment manufacturers, in
that changes made by the original engine manufacturers might require
changes in the parts and process involved in marinization. Because
marinizers would experience similar impacts from the proposed standards
as equipment manufacturers, EPA is requesting comment on extending some
or all of the equipment manufacturer flexibility provisions described
in Section III.E. to post-manufacture marinizers affected by this
proposal. EPA sees the hardship relief provision for small businesses
as perhaps especially appropriate for the post-manufacture marinizers,
many of which are small businesses, and so is proposing their inclusion
under this provision.
Unlike equipment manufacturers, however, marinizers generally
complete the final stages of engine production and thus would typically
be responsible for obtaining an EPA Certificate of Conformity with
standards, and would bear liability for the emissions of these engines
in use. One marinizer stated in EPA's outreach effort to small
businesses (see Section VIII.B.) that the impact on small marinizers
could be reduced if the proposed regulations allowed a post-manufacture
marinizer to rely on the original engine maker's certificate of
conformity, provided that the marinizer also demonstrates that it has
not altered the engine's performance or combustion parameters. EPA is
interested in pursuing certification streamlining options for
marinizers, but has concerns that the original engine manufacturers may
challenge their presumed liability in EPA enforcement actions directed
at these engines. Also, a simple demonstration of equivalent emissions
performance on pre- and post-marinized engines would not be sufficient
to address the Agency's primary concern, which is the possibility of
degradation of in-use emissions performance over time. EPA solicits
suggestions on how the post-manufacture marinizer certification process
might be streamlined while providing assurance of ongoing
responsibility and durable emissions control design.
G. Control of Crankcase Emissions
Crankcase emissions are those exhaust gases that, upon leaving the
combustion chamber, do not pass through the exhaust valve. Instead, the
gases discharge (blowby) into the crankcase via the clearance between
the piston and the cylinder wall. On certain engines (those engines
with open crankcases), these gases may eventually escape from the
crankcase to the atmosphere and are therefore named crankcase
emissions. Some manufacturers produce engines that route crankcase
vapors to the air intake system of the equipment; such a design is
called a closed crankcase. This method, also called positive crankcase
ventilation, recirculates blowby gases through a valve back to the
intake manifold to be burned in the combustion chamber.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, NEVES, Appendix I, Chapter 4, November 1991 (available in
Air Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1985, closed crankcases have been required in naturally
aspirated (nonturbocharged) highway diesel engines (45 FR 4136, January
21, 1980). Currently, turbocharged highway diesel engines are not
required to have crankcase emission controls due to special
difficulties in designing for closed crankcase. The problem with
recirculating blowby gases in turbocharged engines is that the
durability and effectiveness of turbocharger and aftercooler components
can be affected by recycling gases containing particulate matter and
corrosive gases.
There is limited data on crankcase emissions from nonroad diesel
engines. In fact, EPA is not aware of any studies that explicitly
investigate crankcase emissions from nonroad diesel engines. There are,
however, studies relating to highway crankcase emissions.34
Crankcase emission data from a 1977 study, in which three diesel
engines (two naturally aspirated engines and one turbocharged engine)
were tested. HC crankcase emissions ranged from 0.007 to 0.017 g/kW-hr
(0.005 to 0.013 g/hp-hr), which represents 0.2 to 4.1 percent of
corresponding exhaust emissions. PM crankcase emissions ranged from 0.9
to 2.9 percent of corresponding exhaust emissions. NOX
crankcase emissions represented only 0.01 to 0.1 percent of
corresponding
[[Page 50176]]
exhaust emissions. A more recent study performed by Southwest Research
Institute in 1993 provided similar crankcase emissions from one
turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engine, with HC, PM, and NOX
all at 0.01 g/kW-hr (0.01 g/hp-hr). None of the reported highway
engines had more than 500,000 miles of use, an important consideration
because of the expected increase in blowby gases as engines experience
wear.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ibid.
\35\ ``Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of
Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines,'' U.S. EPA, June 6,
1996 (Docket A-95-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to extend the closed crankcase requirement to nonroad
engines, including the exemption for turbocharged diesel engines. Many
naturally aspirated nonroad engines are already equipped with this
technology; for those nonroad engine models still manufactured with
open crankcases, EPA expects that closed-crankcase technology will be
readily transferable. EPA has included the cost of closing crankcases
in the analysis of the costs of complying with the proposed standards.
The proposed closed crankcase requirement applies to engines rated
over 37 kW concurrent with the Tier 2 standards. Manufacturers of
nonroad diesel engines rated under 37 kW are likely to have serious
difficulties fully complying with closed crankcase provisions on the
schedule proposed for Tier 1 emission standards, since this requirement
would first apply to these manufacturers starting in 1999. Thus, for
nonroad diesel engines rated under 37 kW, EPA proposes to delay the
requirement for closed crankcases until 2001, providing more lead time
for manufacturers of these engines. This delay will not have a major
environmental impact because it is short, directed at a small segment
of the engine market, and confined to a minor emission source relative
to exhaust emissions. EPA requests comment on the proposal to control
crankcase emissions and on the appropriateness of delaying the
requirement for closed crankcases for these small engines.
H. Control of Smoke
1. Proposed Numerical Standards and Procedures
In 1994, EPA finalized smoke standards for nonroad diesel engines
rated over 37 kW. The specified measurement method and calculations are
from 40 CFR 86, subpart I, which was developed for highway engines. EPA
concluded that the highway smoke test procedure would adequately test
non-road engines and thus control smoke. The standards for nonroad
engines are for engine smoke not to exceed averaged values of 20
percent on acceleration mode or 15 percent on lug mode and not to
exceed peak opacity levels of 50 percent on either the acceleration or
lug mode. EPA is proposing no changes to the smoke emission standards
and procedures currently in place.
EPA proposes to extend the smoke standards to multiple-cylinder
diesel engines rated under 37 kW, bringing these engines under the same
regulatory framework as the larger engines. While these new standards
may lead to lower smoke levels from some engines, the principal intent
of setting standards is to prevent increased levels of smoke as engines
are redesigned to comply with Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for gaseous
and particulate emissions. The same numerical standards would apply to
the small engines. With minor exceptions, the same procedure,
equipment, and calculation methods would also be used for these
engines.
Extending smoke standards to the smaller engines raises some
important issues. First, two-cylinder engines operating on the
specified test procedure may produce puffs of smoke that may make the
smoke measurement erratic. EPA proposes to permit the option of testing
these engines with a preconditioned muffler of the type used in the
field. Such an engine configuration is the same as that found in use,
and thus represents meaningful control of in-use smoke; however, the
smoke measurement response may be flattened out somewhat, resulting in
potentially reduced levels of measured smoke. Engines with more than
two cylinders will continue to be tested without a muffler, which is a
``worst case'' condition.
Second, specifying the correct exhaust pipe diameter requires
extrapolation of specifications found in 40 CFR 86, subpart I. The
current procedure calls for a 2 inch (5 cm) inside diameter exhaust
pipe for testing engines rated under 101 horsepower maximum (75 kW).
Yet, for constant visibility as a function of measured opacity (which
is, in turn, a function of pipe diameter), this test pipe diameter
should be smaller for engines with lower rated power. The same is true
for the larger engines, where the procedure specifies the use of a 5
inch (13 cm) inside diameter exhaust pipe for the testing engines with
a maximum rated power of 301 hp (225 kW) or greater. Consequently, the
Agency is proposing that engines rated between 50 and 100 horsepower
(37 and 75 kW) be tested with a 2 inch (5 cm) inside diameter exhaust
pipe, while engines rated under 50 horsepower (37 kW) should be tested
with an exhaust pipe of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm). Engines rated between 100
and 200 horsepower (75 and 150 kW) should be tested with the
established 3 inch (7.6 cm) pipe diameter. Similarly, engines rated
between 200 and 300 horsepower (150 and 220 kW) should be tested with
the established 4 inch (10.2 cm) pipe diameter. For engines rated
between 300 and 500 hp (225 and 373 kW), testing should be performed
with the 5 inch (13 cm) inside diameter exhaust pipe, while engines
rated over 500 horsepower (373 kW) should be tested with an exhaust
pipe of 6 inches (15.2 cm). Perspectives and data on all issues related
to testing these engines for smoke are solicited.
In applying the smoke standards and procedures to engines rated
under 37 kW, EPA proposes to exempt one-cylinder engines. EPA believes
that operation and testing of these engines is unique in ways that
would need to be addressed before applying smoke standards. For
example, it is not known if the smoke puffs emitted after each
combustion stroke can be accommodated by the test procedure and if so,
what the procedure features should be. The same is true of the
dynamometer control specification elements of the procedure. Also,
since there is no certainty as to the appropriate test procedure, there
is no basis for selecting numerical standards. EPA is therefore
proposing to postpone the regulation of smoke from these one-cylinder
engines until a later rulemaking. The Agency believes there will be
minimal air quality impact in the interim, since the large majority of
one-cylinder diesel engines are used in generator sets and other
steady-state applications; these engines therefore rarely experience
acceleration modes, which are the the principal focus of smoke
standards. EPA requests comment on the appropriate treatment of smoke
requirements for one-cylinder engines.
In addition, EPA proposes to omit the smoke requirements for
propulsion marine diesel engines rated under 37 kW. Manufacturers of
these engines have stated that this is reasonable for at least the
following two reasons. First, they state that smoke is not a problem
with propulsion marine diesel engines. Most marine engine manufacturers
already supply reduced-smoke engines because consumers demand low smoke
levels for their own personal comfort. Second, they state that there is
no reliable smoke test for propulsion marine engines, as the smoke test
designed for land-based nonroad engines does not exercise the engine
[[Page 50177]]
over the typical marine engine operating cycle, which is governed by
the propeller. EPA solicits comments on this issue.
2. Consideration of ISO Procedure
Since promulgation of the Tier 1 rule, an International Standards
Organization committee (ISO TC70/SC8/WG1) has been developing a smoke
test procedure specifically for nonroad engines. The EPA and regulated
industry recognize the value of harmonized test procedures and
standards limits. The Statement of Principles therefore states:
The Signatories support the completion and worldwide adoption of
the new smoke test being developed by the International Standards
Organization (ISO 8178-9). EPA intends to propose to replace its
current smoke test with the ISO test procedure for the sake of
harmonization and improved control of smoke, provided that it
provides for a level of smoke control at least as adequate as the
current test.
However, this ISO procedure has not been finalized and thus it is not
being proposed in this rulemaking. In anticipation of EPA's eventual
consideration of the ISO 8178-9 test procedure, the Agency welcomes
comments (including test data) addressing issues related to this
procedure.
The draft ISO 8178-9 test procedure has several important features
that distinguish it from the smoke test procedure developed for highway
engines. First, the duty cycle over which the engine is to be operated
is very similar to the procedure for highway engines, except that it
deletes the 200 rpm initial speed increase and first-shift feature of
the engine duty cycle. These types of operation are seldom, if ever,
found in nonroad equipment.
A second important difference is the use of a Bessel filter
algorithm to compute the peak, acceleration, and lug data from the
instantaneous smoke values given by the smoke meter. The Bessel
algorithm specified in the ISO procedure emulates a low-pass second-
order filter and uses iterative calculations to determine coefficients
that are a function of the smoke meter's physical and electrical
response times and the sampling rate. This Bessel filter method of
calculating results contrasts with the method specified in 40 CFR 86
subpart I, which calls for simple mathematical averages of one-half
second data. The ISO Bessel filter calculation procedure selects the
highest calculated value for each reported mode (acceleration, lug and
peak), using Bessel averaging times that are less than or equal to
those of the highway-based test procedure. The ISO procedure will
likely result in values that are greater than those generated from the
same data by the averaging procedure specified in 40 CFR 86 subpart I.
Information, addressing this question, including test data if possible,
is solicited.
Another issue is the form used for expressing the level of the
standards. The current form is units of opacity--20 percent
acceleration, 15 percent lug, and 50 percent peak. Opacity measurements
are, however, a function of the effective optical path length, which is
determined by the exit diameter of the exhaust pipe upon which the
smoke meter is mounted. The diameter of the exhaust pipe specified in
the current procedure is a function of engine power, as described
above. However, this creates a step-wise relationship in the level of
stringency as a function of engine power, which, at a minimum, creates
different levels of stringency for engines close to the horsepower cut
points. One solution is to express the measurements in units of light
absorption coefficient, k (inverse meters), which is the form that the
ISO committee has stated is the most technically correct. The numerical
level of the standards would be expressed in terms such as the standard
level, k, being a function (to some degree) of a parameter such as
displacement, engine power, or other basic engine descriptor, and some
constant. The EPA solicits data and comments on these issues.
3. In-Use Smoke Testing
Some state governments have expressed a desire for a smoke
regulatory program that would enable them to test in-use nonroad
engines in a manner that would permit action against gross emitters of
smoke. The main elements of such a program would be a certification
smoke requirement for new engines, EPA guidance for state in-use smoke
control programs (including an in-use smoke test procedure and
accompanying limit values), and a means by which the data from the two
programs can be related. The current smoke test procedure from part 86,
subpart I, does not provide data comparable to the most practical in-
use smoke test procedure (a snap acceleration with measured opacity).
Based on the current draft ISO 8178-9 certification smoke test
procedure, EPA believes this test will provide the desired linkage. The
Agency requests comment on the advisability of establishing such a
smoke control program and on any interim steps that should be pursued
while the ISO test is under development. Any such program would need to
meet the requirements of section 209 of the Act regarding preemption of
certain state programs.
I. Voluntary Low-Emitting Engine Program
a. Background
The Nonroad Statement of Principles includes a commitment to work
towards a goal of achieving emission levels in the future that are even
lower than those proposed in this notice. Specifically, the signatories
agreed to strive to develop engines capable of controlling
NOX emissions to 2.0 g/kW-hr (1.5 g/hp-hr) and PM emissions
to 0.07 g/kW-hr (0.05 g/hp-hr), while maintaining performance,
reliability, durability, safety, efficiency, and compatibility with
nonroad equipment.
Some technologies that will be pursued in the context of the
research agreement have already undergone significant development.
Officials representing certain cities, states, or regions in the U.S.
have expressed interest in developing incentive programs to encourage
the use of engines that go beyond federal emission standards. EPA also
would like to encourage manufacturers to initiate demonstration
projects to prove out these technologies in areas where there is a
particular need for superior emission controls. EPA is therefore
proposing a set of voluntary standards that may be used to earn a
designation as a low-emitting engine. The program, if successful, will
lead to the introduction and more widespread use of these low-emission
technologies.
Ongoing research has led to much improved prospects for a variety
of low-emitting diesel engine technologies. Some particulate traps are
now designed for regeneration without an active control system,
sometimes using fuel-based catalyst materials to reduce regeneration
temperature requirements. Selective catalytic reduction, long used very
effectively in stationary source applications, is now in several
demonstration heavy-duty vehicles. Plasma and thermoelectric techniques
are also under consideration for large particulate and NOX
reductions. EPA is very interested in seeing a demonstration of the
emission-control potential for these engines in nonroad applications,
especially related to the capability of maintaining low emission levels
over extended field operation.
Alternative fuels also have the potential to reduce emissions from
internal combustion engines. Alternative-fuel engines have made
significant inroads into some segments of the nonroad market. Forklifts
running on propane and generators fueled by
[[Page 50178]]
natural gas are the most visible examples of nonroad applications with
established roles for alternative fuels. Table 3 includes data derived
from the PSR PartsLink database for these and other applications in
which equipment with alternative-fueled engines was sold in 1995. This
information is approximate and does not reflect the use of battery-
powered equipment or any engine retrofits for fuel conversion.
Table 3.--Approximate Sales of Alternative Fuel Applications Marketed in
1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 Sales
-------------------------------------------
Application Natural
gas LPG Diesel Gasoline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forklift.................... 0 43,000 12,000 17,000
Generator................... 4,500 1,500 53,000 13,000
Gas Compressor.............. 2,400 0 0 0
Oil Field Equip............. 370 0 1,300 15
Terminal Tractor............ 0 230 3,700 750
Scrubber/Sweeper............ 10 170 6,200 3,400
Irrigation Set.............. 150 0 4,700 1,600
Refrigeration, A/C.......... 90 0 48,000 0
Pump........................ 40 0 10,000 6,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these existing uses of alternative fuels, ground
service equipment at airports provides a case study of the potential to
increase reliance on alternative fuels in the nonroad arena. A concern
for reducing emissions to improve local air quality and limit worker
exposures has led some airlines to see alternative fuels as a cost-
effective alternative for their existing diesel-fueled equipment.
Greater use of alternative fuels at airports has been limited by the
availability of engines. A challenge for the engine manufacturers is to
develop a nonroad alternative fuel engine without needing to charge a
large premium (to recoup R&D) that makes the engines unaffordable.
EPA's intent in pursuing a program of voluntary standards for low-
emitting engines is to help justify development of these nonroad
engines.
EPA believes that nonroad equipment is in some cases much better
suited to alternative fuels than are highway vehicles. Nonroad
equipment, when operated within a well-defined local area, often has
the advantage of central fueling. Also, several high-power engines
running consistently over long periods can consume great amounts of
fuel and generate correspondingly high emissions. Alternative fuels
have the potential to lower operating costs (for example, from less
expensive fuel and longer oil-change intervals) in addition to reducing
emissions.
b. Proposal for Blue Sky Series Engines
EPA proposes to adopt voluntary emission standards that
manufacturers could use to earn a designation of ``Blue Sky Series''
engines. The range of possible incentives to produce these engines are
described below.
Central to the purpose of the voluntary standards is the need to
demonstrate superior control of particulate emissions. Because of the
sensitivity of particulate emissions to test cycles, as described in
Section III.B., testing on a transient cycle is an important element of
the proposed program for Blue Sky Series engines. EPA has begun work
toward developing transient test cycles for nonroad equipment, but
there is not yet any established or proven nonroad transient cycle. The
highway test cycle, while not developed for nonroad engine operation,
would result in a significant degree of control for nonroad equipment.
EPA therefore proposes to specify the highway transient test cycle to
evaluate emission levels relative to the voluntary standards. A
commenter on the Supplemental ANPRM recommended that engine
manufacturers have the option of selecting alternative test cycles
applicable to specific engines or applications. EPA requests further
comment on alternative test cycles. If EPA adopts a transient test for
certifying nonroad engines in the future, the Agency will accordingly
re-evaluate the test cycle and standards for Blue Sky Series engines.
Manufacturers could certify to one of three levels to demonstrate
emission control that goes beyond the Tier 2 certification
requirements, as described in Table 4. The percentage reductions would
apply to all power categories. EPA requests comment on whether
simplifying the program to include only one or two emission levels to
qualify for the Blue Sky Series program would make it more effective.
Engines would need to meet all the requirements established to
demonstrate durability of emission controls, including allowable
maintenance, warranty, useful life, rebuild, and deterioration factor
provisions. Manufacturers would demonstrate compliance with the CO
standard by comparing the emission levels generated on the highway test
cycle with the numerical value of the CO standard for the applicable
tier of nonroad engines for that model year. Manufacturers would also
need to demonstrate compliance with applicable smoke standards.
Table 4.--Proposed Standards and Designations for Blue Sky Series
Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent reduction
relative to Tier 2
standards
Designation ---------------------
NMHC +
NOX PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Sky Series--Class A*......................... 35 35
Blue Sky Series--Class AA......................... 50 50
Blue Sky Series--Class AAA........................ 65 65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Class A option would no longer be available beginning any year
that the Tier 2 standards apply to a particular power range.
EPA recognizes that among the candidate engines for the Blue Sky
Series program are those low-emitting engines that have already been
designed and certified for highway use. EPA therefore requests comment
on whether it would be more appropriate to set the optional emission
standards based on established highway standards, defining, for
example, an engine meeting the 2004 highway emission standards as a
Blue Sky Series engine.
Repeating the certification process to develop and submit test data
to make a highway engine available for nonroad
[[Page 50179]]
use adds a significant hurdle to engines expected to sell in low
volumes for nonroad applications. EPA therefore proposes for the Blue
Sky Series engine program that manufacturers with highway-certified
engines may waive the testing requirements for obtaining nonroad
certification. This would include the need to comply with the
provisions related to the durability of emission controls. EPA,
however, would need to ensure that engine designs are not tailored to
the transient cycle with much higher emissions on a steady-state cycle.
To accommodate this, EPA would need to retain the ability to conduct
in-use testing to verify that engines are operating in steady-state
modes with substantially the same level of emission control. EPA
therefore proposes that NOX and PM emissions be no more than
20 percent higher on the appropriate nonroad steady-state test cycle
compared with the highway test cycle. This is intended to provide
relief for development testing needed to protect against in-use
liability, while preventing any active strategies designed specifically
for the transient test cycle at the expense of controlling emissions
during steady-state operation. For evaluation of the performance of one
of these engines in steady-state operation at any point in an engine's
useful life, the Agency would conduct paired data generated on both the
appropriate steady-state test cycle and the highway transient test
cycle.
Engine manufacturers could generate credits under the averaging,
banking, and trading program with Blue Sky Engines, provided that
emission testing is also conducted on the appropriate steady-state test
to facilitate calculation and exchange of credits. For this reason and
for avoiding the uncertainty associated with surrogate test cycles, EPA
would encourage manufacturers to conduct and submit steady-state test
data with their application for certification even without a
requirement to do so.
The Blue Sky Series program would begin immediately upon
promulgation and would continue through the 2004 model year. EPA would
evaluate the program to determine if it should be continued for 2005
and later engines, and if so, whether any changes are needed. This
evaluation will be considered as part of the 2001 Feasibility Review.
The experience gained with these engines and the Tier 3 resolution of
certification test cycles and PM standards will factor into this
evaluation.
c. Incentives for Producing Blue Sky Series Engines
Creating a program of voluntary standards for low-emitting engines,
including testing and durability provisions to help ensure their in-use
performance, will be a major step forward in advancing innovative
emission control technologies, because EPA certification will provide
protection against false claims of environmentally beneficial products.
For the program to be most effective, however, incentives for the
production of these engines must be created as well.
The Agency sees substantial potential for users and state and local
governments to establish these incentive programs. For example, the
increasing public concern about the effects of diesel engine emissions
on health raises the possibility that some construction companies will
purchase Blue Sky Series engines to protect its workers or the public
from localized emissions, especially if benefits can also be gained in
employee or public relations, such as with highly visible projects in
polluted city centers. Similarly, a mining company could select these
low-emitting engines for underground applications to minimize miners'
exposure to exhaust pollutants. A state or local government may be able
to add incentives for companies committing to rely on Blue Sky Series
engines in contract bidding on publicly-funded construction projects in
nonattainment areas. Some farmers may be willing to pay more for
equipment with the cleaner engines to lower their field exposure to
engine exhaust pollutants. In some of these applications, alternative
fuels may be readily available, possibly even providing a cost savings
compared to diesel fuel.
The Agency solicits ideas that could encourage the creation of
these incentive programs by users and state and local governments. EPA
also solicits comment on additional measures that that could be taken
at a federal level to encourage these engines as well. One measure
already suggested is adoption of a labeling program, by which EPA would
regulate the form and display of prominent labels on equipment with
Blue Sky Series engines. The Agency is not convinced at this point that
such labels would provide sufficient incentive for users to purchase
these engines to justify labeling requirements, but welcomes comment on
this suggestion.
The Agency is concerned that incentive programs not lead to a net
detriment to the environment through the double counting of benefits.
For example, a manufacturer of a Blue Sky Series engine that claims
credit under the averaging, banking, and trading program should not
also be allowed to generate State Implementation Plan credit for
emission reductions, such as under a state highway construction project
program that encourages Blue Sky Series engines. The Agency intends to
ensure that steps are taken to avoid such double counting of benefits.
IV. Technical Amendments
This proposed rule contains technical amendments to the procedures
previously adopted for nonroad diesel engines (40 CFR part 89). These
amendments result from the experience gained in conducting compliance
programs for the recently implemented Tier 1 standards. Also, EPA's
discussions with the industry on similar amendments related to testing
highway engines have been translated into changes to nonroad test
requirements where appropriate. This section describes proposed changes
to the definition of rated speed and related terms and a variety of
other modifications. A complete description of the technical amendments
is detailed in a memorandum to the docket.36
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ``Justification for Amendments to 40 CFR Part 89,'' EPA
memorandum from Greg Orehowsky to Docket A-96-40, August 21, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Rated Speed Definition
EPA is proposing changes to the definitions of rated speed and
intermediate speed. The current language allows the manufacturer to
specify both of these speeds. Since these speeds are used to generate
the test cycle, their definitions should permit only one rated and one
intermediate speed for each engine. The proposed language links these
speeds to speeds on the power and torque curves.
EPA is concerned that the current language allows a manufacturer to
specify rated and intermediate speeds to any speeds. A manufacturer may
specify these speeds to develop a less stringent test cycle. This test
cycle would allow an otherwise failing engine to meet emission
standards. Similarly, a manufacturer could take advantage of the
current definitions by specifying speeds that maximize credits
generated or minimize credits used in the Averaging, Banking, and
Trading program.
Rated speed is proposed to be defined as the full load governed
speed. The term full load is used to avoid confusion between the terms
governed speed and high idle speed. High idle speed is the no-load
governed speed. The maximum
[[Page 50180]]
full load speed is the highest speed with an advertised power greater
than zero. EPA is linking full load governed speed to advertisements at
this time since no adequate language has been developed that
mathematically defines full load governed speed as a point on the
torque or power curve. Power curves in manufacturer's advertisements
typically end at the governed speed. EPA believes that manufacturers
will continue to advertise the full range of power of its engine.
Therefore, manufacturers will not set rated speed at less than full
load governed speed. It is unlikely that manufacturers will advertise
powers beyond the full load governed speed since a manufacturer cannot
guarantee their customers power beyond this point.
The change in the definition of rated speed should not have any
effect on manufacturers. EPA does not believe that any manufacturer
will need to recertify their engines because of this new definition. By
linking the definition to advertisements, EPA will not require
manufacturers to perform an engine map for compliance testing. The
advertised value will be the test value.
EPA plans to evaluate the appropriateness of the rated speed
definition in a future test program. EPA would prefer to have a
technical definition of full load governed speed, possibly in terms of
rate of change of power. Given the large power range of engines covered
by these regulations, an adequate definition using a singular rate
could not be determined at this time. EPA will continue to evaluate
this possibility.
Since the steady state test cycles test engines at a maximum of
three engine speeds, it is important to test at speeds representative
of in-use operation to control emissions during in-use operation. As
the shapes of power and torque curves vary with future engine design,
the emissions from engines will vary. Testing at the full load governor
speed regulates emissions at this speed but may not effectively limit
emissions from the engine. As part of the planned evaluation of the
steady-state test procedure, EPA intends to evaluate whether another
speed, such as the speed at maximum power, is more effective at
controlling emissions.
EPA is proposing to amend the intermediate speed definition to be
consistent with the definition of intermediate speed for the smoke test
procedure. This definition will eliminate the possibility of a
manufacturer specifying an intermediate speed to lower emissions from
the engine. The proposed definition provides for testing at a median
engine speed while still linking the definition to the torque curve of
the engine and being a speed representative of in-use operation.
B. Other Technical Amendments
Additional amendments make a variety of clarifications and correct
typographical errors and omissions from the original rule. The most
significant of these are described in the following paragraphs.
The amendments change the criteria for test engine selection. The
current language bases test engine selection on the maximum fuel per
stroke at maximum power. However, EPA had intended in the original rule
to make the test engine selection based primarily on the highest fuel
per stroke at peak torque and secondarily on the highest fuel per
stroke at rated speed.
The calibration requirements for the gaseous emission measurement
analyzers are modified in various ways. The requirements for
measurement accuracy below fifteen percent of full scale are revised to
include a specific number of gas concentrations at the low end of the
calibration curve. Also, calibration requirements are simplified to
allow laboratories to calibrate only one analyzer range and still
ensure accurate measurements. Additional changes to calibration
requirements for other equipment are described in EPA's memorandum to
the docket.
Other modifications relate to the test sequence and calculation of
emission results. A ``mode'' is defined and the procedure for dealing
with void modes is included. The equations used to calculate emissions
during raw sampling are corrected. The amendments also correct errors
in the currently listed equations and include new equations that were
mistakenly omitted.
V. Technological Feasibility
The emission standards proposed above would apply to a broad range
of diesel engines used in a wide variety of nonroad applications.
Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act calls for EPA to establish
standards that provide for the ``greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the engines or vehicles
to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of applying such technology within the period of time available to
manufacturers and to noise, energy, and safety factors associated with
the application of such technology.'' This section describes EPA's
understanding of the range of technologies that will be available for
manufacturers to comply with the proposed standards. The costs
associated with these technologies are considered in Section VI.B. EPA
has concluded, as described in the Draft RIA, that the proposed
standards will have no significant negative effect on noise, energy, or
safety.
EPA has considered the diversity of the nonroad engine and
equipment industries and believes that the standards being proposed
will require the most advanced technology that will be available for
the various engines classes in this time frame. While meeting these
standards will be challenging, EPA believes compliance with the
standards will be feasible for manufacturers, as described in the
following discussion. In the course of the 2001 Feasibility Review, EPA
will verify the appropriateness of the Tier 2 standards for engines
rated under 37 kW and the Tier 3 standards for engines rated between 37
and 560 kW, including consideration of the same factors described
above. A more detailed description of the technologies and their
potential for controlling emissions is contained in the Draft RIA.
In developing the various numerical standards and implementation
dates proposed in this notice, EPA depended heavily on extending the
analysis of technological feasibility for the preceding proposal for
highway heavy-duty engines. While the proposed standards for highway
engines applied equally to all sizes of engines starting in the same
year, the standards proposed in this notice are a complex combination
of numerical values and applicable model years. Varying numerical
standards were considered necessary to account for the very wide range
of engines represented in nonroad applications. Also, because of the
range of engines offered by individual manufacturers, EPA agreed with
manufacturers that new standards could be implemented most
expeditiously by phasing the standards in at different times for
different power ranges. EPA applied a similar phase-in for the first
tier of nonroad emission standards promulgated in 1994.
A. Development of the Implementation Schedule
The timing of the new and revised standards was calculated to
maximize the introduction of emission-reduction technologies. For
engines rated under 37 kW, introducing new Tier 1 standards for 1999
and 2000 is very aggressive. EPA considered the five years of lead time
between Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards for these engines to be
[[Page 50181]]
necessary for manufacturers to recover their initial investment and
prepare for the next round of changes.
For engines rated between 37 and 560 kW, the Tier 2 standards
follow the introduction of comparable emission standards for highway
engines. Within this range, engines rated between 225 and 450 kW were
considered most susceptible to technologies transferred from highway
engines and were therefore scheduled to be the first engines subject to
the Tier 2 standards, starting in 2001. This provides three years
following implementation of EPA's 1998 highway NOX emission
standard of 5.4 g/kW-hr (4.0 g/hp-hr) for manufacturers to incorporate
highway-based technologies into nonroad engines to meet the Tier 2
standards, which are comparable to the 1998 highway standards. Other
power ratings within this range follow over the next three years.
Engines rated between 37 and 75 kW are the last ones in this group to
be subject to Tier 2 standards; this additional lead time (until 2004)
is due to the need for a greater effort to transfer technology from the
larger highway engines to these engines, many of which are naturally
aspirated. Proposed implementation of Tier 3 standards for these
engines is scheduled between two and four years following the
implementation of comparable emission standards for highway engines.
Also, implementation of Tier 3 standards between 2006 and 2008 allows
three to five years following implementation of the Tier 2 nonroad
standards for different power ratings. EPA believes that implementing
the proposed Tier 3 standards any sooner could either forego the
potential of transferring highway technology or pose an unreasonably
short period between the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for manufacturers
to recoup their costs for complying with Tier 2 standards.
Engines rated over 560 kW are in a unique category. Because of the
very low sales volumes of these engines, manufacturers need a longer
period to recoup their development costs. For that reason, these
engines and the associated equipment generally have much longer product
development cycles. EPA has accordingly proposed only one additional
tier of emission standard for these engines. Tier 2 standards would
then apply beginning in 2006, six years after the Tier 1 standards take
effect.
B. Development of Numerical Standards
The next paragraphs lay out the rationale for the numerical
standards in this proposal (see Table 1 for emission standards).
Individual technologies and the unique characteristics of various sizes
of engines are considered in greater detail in the next section.
Selecting the numerical standards involved a measure of extrapolation
of information available for highway engines, with additional judgment
to take into account the unique operating characteristics typical of
nonroad applications of the various power ranges. For nonroad engines
most similar to models available as highway heavy-duty engines, EPA
made a relatively straightforward adjustment of the technological
capabilities established for highway engines. Expectations for other
engines, especially smaller models, were adjusted according to their
size-related limitations, with the expectation that most of the control
technologies were adaptable to any size diesel engine.
1. NMHC + NOX
The targeted level of emission control for engines rated under 37
kW is based on engine designs utilizing direct injection, rather than
the lower-emitting indirect injection designs. The direct injection
engines have significantly better fuel economy; EPA therefore does not
want to set emission standards that preclude the use of direct
injection engines. The Tier 1 standards allow very little lead time,
which limits the degree of control achievable from these engines. EPA
chose a NMHC + NOX standard of 9.5 g/kW-hr (7.1 g/hp-hr) for
engines rated between 8 and 37 kW, expecting these engines to use
similar technologies to those adopted for larger Tier 1 engines in
response to EPA's 1994 rulemaking. Direct injection engines rated under
8 kW are expected to have a greater challenge reducing emissions in the
near term, due to the design constraints related to the smaller
cylinders and higher engine speeds, and would therefore be subject to a
NMHC + NOX standard of 10.5 g/kW-hr (7.8 g/hp-hr). The 1994
rulemaking set a NOX standard of 9.2 g/kW-hr (6.9 g/hp-hr)
for engines rated over 37 kW and an HC standard of 1.3 g/kW-hr (1.0 g/
hp-hr) for engines rated over 130 kW. The technologies needed to meet
this standard would generally involve combustion chamber optimization
and timing retard, both of which are well established for diesel
engines and should be readily adaptable to the smaller engine models.
The proposed Tier 2 and Tier 3 numerical standards for NMHC +
NOX emissions are derived most directly from highway
engines. Engines rated over 75 kW were believed to have little
difficulty in transferring technology developed for highway engines.
Two principal factors were considered in selecting the numerical
standard. First, though nonroad engines have much in common with their
highway counterparts, some aspects of operation in nonroad applications
differs significantly from that of highway engines. The main
distinction in nonroad applications is the lack of high-speed air for
cooling the engine and intake air (after being heated by a
turbocharger). Less effective heat transfer in the aftercooler
translates into higher combustion temperatures and higher levels of
NOX formation. Second, the different test cycles specified
for certification testing prevent a direct translation of numerical
standards; however, as described in Section III.B. above, test data
shows that NOX and HC levels are roughly comparable on the
highway test cycle and the primary nonroad test cycle (C1). Taking
these factors into consideration led EPA to choose numerical standards
for NMHC + NOX approximately 0.7 g/kW-hr (0.5 g/hp-hr)
higher than the comparable highway standards for nonroad engines rated
over 75 kW. The resulting NMHC + NOX standards are either
6.4 or 6.6 g/kW-hr (4.8 or 4.9 g/hp-hr) for Tier 2 engines and 4.0 g/
kW-hr (3.0 g/hp-hr) for Tier 3 engines.
Engines rated under 75 kW have additional distinctions relative to
highway engines. These engines are typically naturally aspirated, in
which case they do not have the benefit of a turbocharger and
aftercooler for controlling intake air characteristics. These engines
also have progressively smaller cylinder displacements and higher
rotation speeds, which increase the challenge of controlling the
combustion event. The proposed numerical standards for these engines
are therefore set higher than those for larger engines. The proposed
Tier 2 NMHC + NOX standard for all engines rated under 75 kW
is 7.5 g/kW-hr (5.6 g/hp-hr). Similarly, the proposed Tier 3 NMHC +
NOX standard for engines rated between 37 and 75 kW is 4.7
g/kW-hr (3.5 g/hp-hr)
2. PM
In 1994, EPA set a PM standard of 0.54 g/kW-hr (0.40 g/hp-hr),
using the steady-state ISO C1 cycle, for engines rated over 130 kW. EPA
is interested in the possibility of developing a nonroad transient test
for greater assurance of reduced PM emissions in the field. Because
there is still no such cycle established for nonroad engines, EPA is
proposing to adopt PM standards that represent the greatest degree of
control appropriate for testing on the current test cycles in the Tier
2 time frame, including engines of all power ratings.
[[Page 50182]]
More stringent PM standards for Tier 3 are not included in the
proposal, with the hope that questions related to test cycles can be
resolved in time for a subsequent action, if appropriate.
For engines rated over 130 kW, EPA proposes a Tier 2 PM standard of
0.20 g/kW-hr (0.15 g/hp-hr). For the same reasons described above for
NMHC and NOX emissions, EPA expects smaller engines to face
a greater challenge in controlling PM emissions. The proposed Tier 2 PM
standard for engines rated between 75 and 130 kW is therefore set at
0.30 g/kW-hr (0.22 g/hp-hr); the comparable standard for engines rated
between 37 and 75 kW is 0.40 g/kW-hr (0.30 g/hp-hr). For engines rated
under 37 kW, EPA is proposing new PM standards for both Tier 1 and Tier
2 engines. The near-term standards for Tier 1 engines are 1.0 and 0.80
g/kW-hr (0.75 and 0.60 g/hp-hr) for engines rated under 8 kW and
engines rated between 8 and 37 kW, respectively. Proposed Tier 2
standards are set at 0.80 and 0.60 g/kW-hr (0.60 and 0.45 g/hp-hr) for
engines rated under 19 kW and engines rated between 19 and 37 kW,
respectively.
3. CO
Formation of CO in diesel combustion is inhibited by the presence
of excess oxygen, resulting in relatively low CO emissions without any
active control strategies. Setting numerical standards for CO emissions
therefore serves largely to prevent unexpected problems. Where two
tiers of standards are set forth in this proposal, the numerical CO
standard is the same for both tiers. Again, the largest engines have
the lowest numerical standard.
C. Technological Approaches
Because the proposed emission standards for nonroad diesel engines
depend on the evaluation of technologies for complying with the
standards for highway engines, the discussion of technological
feasibility in that rulemaking is central to supporting the feasibility
of the proposed standards for nonroad engines. This analysis of diesel
engine technologies is contained in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA for the
highway rule.37 This analysis is considered and applied to
nonroad engines in Chapter 3 of the Draft RIA for this proposal, which
is summarized in the following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ``Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of
Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines,'' U.S. EPA, June 6,
1996 (Docket A-95-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By proposing multiple tiers of standards that extend well into the
next decade, EPA is providing engine manufacturers with substantial
lead time for developing, testing, and implementing emission control
technologies. This lead time and the coordination of standards with
those for highway engines allows time for a comprehensive R&D program
to integrate the most effective emission control approaches into the
manufacturers' overall design goals related to durability, reliability,
and fuel consumption.
To meet the emission standards proposed above, manufacturers would
need to move beyond the steps used to comply with the first phase of
nonroad engine controls. Understanding the control technologies applied
to engines complying with the Tier 1 standards is important in
assessing the feasibility of meeting more stringent numerical
standards. Engines rated between 75 and 560 kW have begun to comply
with the first nonroad emission standards, providing a clearer picture
of the starting point from which manufacturers of these engines will be
working to reduce emissions for subsequent emission standards. In the
case of manufacturers of engines rated under 37 kW, the standards
proposed in this notice would represent the first emission requirements
for these engines under EPA regulations; the starting point for
improving emissions would therefore be focused on basic engine
technology with new emission controls.
Highway heavy-duty engines will be subject to a 5.4 g/kW-hr (4.0 g/
hp-hr) NOX standard beginning in the 1998 model year. For
those manufacturers that produce engines for both highway and nonroad
service, variations on a single engine model are sometimes sold for
both markets. Because these engines have similar emission levels on the
eight-mode test, they could likely comply with the proposed Tier 2 NMHC
+ NOX standards with relatively minor modifications to adapt
the technology to nonroad applications. Similarly, Tier 3 standards are
intended to follow the highway engine standards proposed for the 2004
model year, with the expectation that technology transfer will be a
very important element of achieving compliance with the nonroad
standards. Even where engines are dedicated to nonroad applications,
the very similar engine design makes clear that much of the
technological development that has led to lower-emitting highway
engines can be transferred or adapted for use on nonroad engines.
Specifically, much of the improvement in highway engines has come from
``internal'' engine changes such as variation in fuel injection
variables (injection pressure, spray pattern, rate shaping), modified
piston bowl geometry for better air-fuel mixing, and improvements
intended to reduce oil consumption. Introduction and ongoing
improvement of electronic controls have played a vital role in
facilitating many of these improvements.
Other technological developments for highway heavy-duty engines
require a greater degree of development before they can be applied to
nonroad engines. Turbocharging is widely used now in nonroad
applications, especially in larger engines, because it improves power
and efficiency by compressing the intake air. Turbocharging can also
decrease PM emissions; however, changing an engine from naturally
aspirated to turbocharged may raise concerns about ``packaging,'' since
with the added turbocharger the equipment may have to be adapted to
accommodate a physically larger engine. The concern for packaging is
especially sensitive for small, compact equipment designs. Space
constraints, though, are generally a matter of cost rather than
feasibility and are further addressed in the discussion of cost to
equipment manufacturers. Turbochargers increase the power density of
engines, but switching to a smaller engine with equivalent power may
require substantial equipment redesign. EPA expects that, over the long
term, equipment specifications will be updated to take advantage of the
substantial growth in power density from all engines; however, the
difficulty of making this transition prevents any straightforward
analysis of addressing engine packaging concerns with more compact
engines.
Aftercooling is a well established highway engine technology that
has only recently been widely used in nonroad engines. The aftercooler
chills the hot air coming from the turbocharger before it enters the
cylinder, which decreases fuel consumption and helps prevent
NOX formation by reducing combustion temperatures. Air-to-
water aftercoolers, which use the engine's coolant to provide partial
cooling of the the intake air, can fit readily into most engine
applications. In the long term, manufacturers are expected to move
toward air-to-air aftercooling, which provides much better benefits for
fuel economy and NOX control. Because of the additional
space required for air-to-air aftercoolers (for a separate heat
exchanger and a bigger fan), these improved aftercoolers may in some
cases be integrated when equipment manufacturers are ready to rework
the overall designs for their equipment models.
[[Page 50183]]
In evaluating the feasibility of the proposed nonroad standards, it
is helpful to separately consider three broad categories of engines.
First, manufacturers of turbocharged nonroad diesel engines, most often
rated over 75 kW, generally have the flexibility to incorporate more
sophisticated technological innovations for performance, fuel economy,
and emission control, including those derived from counterpart highway
engines. Electronic controls offer great potential for improved control
of engine operating parameters for better performance and lower
emissions. Unit pumps or injectors would allow higher-pressure fuel
injection with rate shaping to carefully time the delivery of the whole
volume of injected fuel into the cylinder. Routing of the intake air
and the shape of the combustion chamber can be redesigned for improved
mixing of the air-fuel charge. Air-to-air aftercooling will likely gain
widespread use in turbocharged engines, primarily for its fuel
consumption and durability benefits, though it also lowers
NOX emissions. Manufacturers will be able to combine many of
these technologies to comply with Tier 2 standards. Tier 3 standards
will require deployment of additional technologies. Common rail
injection systems provide greater overall control of the fuel injection
strategy by maintaining a constant supply of high-pressure fuel at the
injectors. Also, exhaust gas recirculation will likely be introduced in
highway diesel engines over the next several years, providing valuable
experience in developing those systems for nonroad engines. EPA
believes these technologies will be important in achieving compliance
with Tier 3 emission standards. A more detailed treatment of the
feasibility of these engines meeting the proposed standards is included
in the regulatory impact analyses, as described above. Because the
long-term standards depend on significant progress in technology
development, EPA will be reviewing requirements for Tier 3 engines by
2001 to confirm that developments are progressing as expected.
The second category is the set of water-cooled naturally aspirated
engines, which are most often rated under 50 or 75 kW. The lack of
turbocharging (and aftercooling) and the greater sensitivity to
increased costs for these relatively inexpensive engines suggest that
manufacturers will likely depend on basic technologies to control
emissions to the necessary levels. Expected changes can be divided into
two broad categories. First, combustion optimization includes changes
to basic engine design for improved air-fuel mixing and management of
the combustion process. These changes might include retarded injection
timing, re-entrant piston bowl shapes, greater swirl of the intake air,
and improved ring design for lower oil consumption. Second, fuel
injection parameters provide many variables for the engine designer.
Manufacturers might modify fuel pumps, injectors, or controls to
achieve higher injection pressures, more rapid injection, better
control of injection timing (including rate shaping), and reduced sac
volume. In addition to exhaust emission control strategies, emissions
from the crankcase of naturally aspirated engines can be eliminated by
routing vapors from the crankcase directly to the air intake. These
technological developments are well understood and should provide
manufacturers with the tools needed to comply with Tier 1 and Tier 2
standards for engines rated under 37 kW. Similarly, engines rated
between 37 and 75 kW should be able to comply with Tier 2 standards
using these technologies; compliance with Tier 3 standards may in
addition require use of exhaust gas recirculation. EPA believes these
engines can meet the proposed emission standards without needing to
incorporate turbocharging. EPA believes that increasing the numerical
NMHC + NOX standard by 0.9 g/kW-hr (0.7 g/hp-hr) relative to
the larger engines appropriately compensates for the design constraints
imposed by these engines.
Third, many of the air-cooled diesel engines rated under 8 kW face
unique design challenges. The small cylinders and low cost of these
engines limit the flexibility of designing or adapting technologies to
control emissions. Tier 1 standards for these engines are therefore set
at less stringent levels than larger engines. To reach these levels,
manufacturers will need to rely on several of the strategies used for
other engines. For example, increasing swirl and redesigning piston
head geometries can be an effective way of improving fuel-air mixing in
small engines, with the additional benefit of allowing higher injection
pressures without increasing fuel wetting on the cylinder walls. The
position and design of piston rings can be improved to reduce the
contribution of engine oil to particulate emissions. Incorporating fuel
injectors that provide mechanically controlled rate shaping would allow
substantial control of NOX emissions at a low cost. Using
injectors with valve-closed-orifice nozzles would similarly control HC
emissions. Engines that operate within a relatively narrow range of
engine speeds can achieve a degree of charge-air compression with
intake manifold designs that rely on pulse tuning. The unique
characteristics of the smallest engines pose a challenge to the
designer, but these and other technologies are available for complying
with the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. Also, certification data from the
California ARB shows that most direct injection diesel engines rated
under 19 kW are currently emitting between 8 and 11 g/kW-hr (6 and 8 g/
hp-hr) NMHC + NOX; all these engines will need to improve,
but the current best performers support the feasibility of the Tier 1
and Tier 2 standards for all these engines.
Finally, any engines relying on natural aspiration technology are
also subject to the proposed requirement to eliminate crankcase
emissions. This requirement has long been in place for naturally
aspirated highway engines. EPA believes that the technology required to
close the crankcase is well established and easily transferrable to any
size of nonroad engine.
D. Conclusions Regarding Technological Feasibility
The standards set by this proposal are the most challenging that
can be justified in this time frame. Engine manufacturers will need to
use the available lead time to develop the necessary emission control
technologies, including transfer of technology from highway engines.
This development effort will require not only achieving the targeted
emission levels, but also ensuring that each engine will meet all
performance and emission requirements over its useful life. The
proposed standards clearly represent major reductions compared with
current emission levels.
Emission control technology for diesel engines is in a period of
rapid development in response to the range of emission standards
anticipated for the years ahead. This effort will need to continue to
meet the requirements in this proposal. However, the emission targets
are set in the framework of a long lead time, which provides
manufacturers the time they will need to apply emission control
technology developments to nonroad engines. Also, the experience gained
in response to EPA's emission standards for highway engines will be
invaluable in meeting the comparable requirements for nonroad engines.
Because the technology development for highway engines will to a large
extent constitute basic research of diesel engine combustion, this
effort will also benefit manufacturers that produce no highway engines.
[[Page 50184]]
On the basis of information currently available, EPA believes that
it is feasible for nonroad diesel engine manufacturers to meet the
standards proposed in this notice within the the proposed time frame,
using combinations of the technological approaches discussed above and
in the Draft RIA. In addition, EPA believes that the flexibilities
incorporated into this proposal will permit nonroad vehicle and
equipment manufacturers to respond to engine changes in an orderly way.
For both industries, EPA expects meeting these requirements will pose a
significant challenge. As described above, EPA plans to assess, as part
of the 2001 Feasibility Review, the appropriateness of the proposed
Tier 3 standards and the proposed Tier 2 standards for engines rated
under 37 kW.
VI. Projected Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
To assess the environmental impact of the proposed standards, EPA
has created a computer program for predicting emissions from the
nonroad equipment covered by this proposal. A memorandum describing the
computer program has been placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.38 Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA also contains a
thorough discussion of the methodology used to project the emission
inventories and emission reductions from nonroad equipment covered by
the proposed standards. The reader is directed to both of these
documents for more information on the environmental impact of this
proposal. EPA requests comment on all aspects of the computer program
and the methodology for projecting the emissions impact of the proposed
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ``Nonroad CI Nodeling Methodology and Request for
Comment,'' EPA memorandum from Peter J. Caffrey to Docket A-96-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of growth experienced in the nonroad market will have a
significant impact on the emission inventories and emission reductions
expected from the proposed standards. For this environmental impact
analysis, EPA has examined the impact of the proposed standards under
two different growth scenarios. (The growth rates used in the nonroad
modeling are compounded growth rates.) The first scenario uses the
growth rates developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The
BEA growth rates, which are based on a variety of economic indicators,
vary by nonroad segment (i.e., agriculture, construction, etc.) and
typically range from one to two percent per year. However, based on
trends in nonroad equipment sales, trends in nonroad fuel usage, and
the continuing strong performance of the U.S. economy, EPA believes
that the BEA growth rates may underestimate the future growth of the
nonroad market. Therefore, EPA has also modeled the impact of the
proposed standards using a moderately higher growth rate of three
percent for all nonroad segments. EPA believes the results from the two
growth scenarios serve to bracket the expected environmental impact of
the proposed standards. The following discussion of environmental
impacts presents the results from both the BEA growth scenario and the
three percent growth scenario. EPA requests comments on the
appropriateness of the BEA growth rates and the three percent growth
rate.
EPA modeled the impact of the proposed standards for
NOX, NMHC, and PM emissions. The modeling inputs
conservatively assume that equipment manufacturers take full advantage
of the flexibility provisions described earlier. EPA did not model the
impacts of the proposed standards on CO because CO emissions from
nonroad diesel equipment are a very small portion of the overall CO
inventory and the proposed standards are not expected to have a
significant impact on CO levels.
Because of the uncertainties about the degree to which the steady-
state test procedure will control PM emissions in use, especially from
the many nonroad engines that frequently operate in transient modes,
EPA cannot be certain that any assessment of expected PM emission
reductions made at this time will be completely accurate. Nevertheless,
EPA has attempted to make a reasonable estimate of these reductions by
assuming an in-use per-engine reduction equal to the difference between
the Tier 1 and proposed standards. The baseline levels used in this
analysis are consistent with the position taken in the Tier 1 rule that
no PM benefits are claimed from the Tier 1 PM standard. EPA believes
that this approach provides a reasonable estimate of PM benefits from
the proposed standards but actual benefits could vary significantly
from these levels.
Based on the results of the modeling, the expected emission
benefits from the proposed standards are quite substantial. Tables 5,
6, and 7 contain the nationwide NOX, NMHC, and PM
inventories, respectively, under the baseline scenario, which assumes
only the current Tier 1 standards are in effect, and under the control
scenario, which assumes the proposed standards take effect. (The PM
reductions contained in Table 7 are direct PM and do not include
secondary PM benefits, which are described below.) By 2020, the
emission reductions due to the proposed standards reach 50 percent for
NOX, 15 percent for NMHC, and 20 percent for PM. All
percentages are calculated relative to the baseline inventories, which
assumes only the current Tier 1 standards are in effect.
Table 5.--NOX Emissions Inventory From Nonroad Diesel Engines
[Short tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEA growth rates 3% growth rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year With the With the With the With the
current proposed current proposed
standards standards standards standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................ 2,920,000 2,890,000 3,150,000 3,120,000
2010............................................ 2,740,000 1,850,000 3,450,000 2,330,000
2020............................................ 3,070,000 1,460,000 4,520,000 2,150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50185]]
Table 6.--NMHC Emissions Inventory From Nonroad Diesel Engines
[Short tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEA growth rates 3% growth rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year With the With the With the With the
current proposed current proposed
standards standards standards standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................ 503,000 497,000 543,000 536,000
2010............................................ 582,000 509,000 730,000 638,000
2020............................................ 673,000 541,000 980,000 789,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.--PM Emissions Inventory From Nonroad Diesel Engines
[Short tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEA growth rates 3% growth rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year With the With the With the With the
current proposed current proposed
standards standards standards standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................ 478,000 476,000 515,000 513,000
2010............................................ 553,000 483,000 693,000 606,000
2020............................................ 639,000 534,000 931,000 778,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the effect of the proposed emission standards on
direct PM emissions noted above, the proposed standards are expected to
reduce the concentrations of secondary PM. Secondary PM is formed when
NOX reacts with ammonia in the atmosphere to yield ammonium
nitrate particulate. SAI, under contract with EPA, recently evaluated
the effect of the NOX reductions on the formation of nitrate
particulate.39 The report concluded that, as a national
average, each 100 tons of NOX reduction will result in about
4 tons of secondary PM reduction. This conversion rate varies from
region to region, and is greatest in the West. EPA estimates that the
approximately 1.6 million tons per year of NOX reduction
projected in 2020 resulting from this proposal (assuming BEA growth
rates) will result in a national average of about 64,000 tons per year
reduction in secondary PM. This level of secondary PM reduction
represents about 60 percent of the projected direct PM reductions
presented in Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Benefits of Mobile Source NOX Related
Particulate Matter Reductions,'' Systems Applications International,
EPA Contract No. 68-C5-0010, WAN 1-8, October 1996 (available in Air
Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Impacts
In assessing the economic impact of changing the emission
standards, EPA has made a best estimate of the combination of
technologies that an engine manufacturer might use to meet the new
standards at an acceptable cost. While equipment manufacturers bear no
responsibility for meeting emission standards, they will need to make
changes in the design of their equipment models to accommodate the new
engines. EPA's treatment of the impacts of the proposal therefore
includes an analysis of costs for equipment manufacturers. Full details
of EPA's cost and cost-effectiveness analyses can be found in Chapters
4 and 6 of the Draft RIA.
Estimated cost increases are broken into purchase price and total
life-cycle operating costs. The incremental purchase price for new
engines and equipment is comprised of variable costs (for hardware and
assembly time) and fixed costs (for R&D, retooling, and certification).
Total operating costs include any expected increases in maintenance or
fuel consumption. Cost estimates based on these projected technology
packages represent an expected incremental cost of engines as they
begin to comply with new emission standards. Costs in subsequent years
would be reduced by several factors, as described below. Separate
projected costs were derived for engines and equipment used in six
different ranges of rated power; costs were developed for engines near
the middle of the listed ranges. All costs are presented in 1995
dollars. Life-cycle costs have been discounted to the year of sale. EPA
requests comment on all aspects of the economic impact analysis.
1. Engine Technologies
The following discussion provides a brief description of those
technologies EPA projects will be needed to comply with the new
emission standards. In some cases it is difficult to make a distinction
between technologies needed to reduce emissions for compliance with
emission standards and those technologies that offer other benefits for
improved fuel economy, power density, and other aspects of engine
performance. EPA believes that without new emission standards,
manufacturers would continue research on and eventually deploy many
technological upgrades to improve engine performance or more cost-
effectively control emissions. Turbocharging, aftercooling, and
variable-valve timing are examples of technologies whose primary
benefit is for improved performance. Modifications to fuel injection
systems and the introduction of electronic controls will also continue,
regardless of any change in emission standards, to improve engine
performance. Some further development with a focus on NOX,
HC, and PM emissions will nevertheless play an important role in
achieving emission reduction targets.
A variety of technological improvements are projected for complying
with the multiple tiers of proposed emission standards. Selecting these
technology packages requires extensive engineering analysis and
judgment. The fact that manufacturers have nearly a full decade before
implementation of the most challenging of the proposed standards
ensures that technologies will develop significantly before reaching
production. This ongoing development will lead to reduced costs in
three ways. First, research will lead to enhanced effectiveness for
individual technologies, allowing manufacturers to use simpler packages
of emission
[[Page 50186]]
control technologies than we would predict given the current state of
development. Similarly, the continuing effort to improve the emission
control technologies will include innovations that allow lower-cost
production. Finally, manufacturers will focus research efforts on any
potential drawbacks, such as increased fuel consumption or maintenance
costs, attempting to minimize or overcome any negative effects.
A combination of technology upgrades are anticipated as a result of
the proposed emission standards. Modifications to basic engine design
features, such as piston bowl shape and engine block and head geometry,
can improve intake air characteristics and distribution during
combustion. For this analysis, EPA anticipates that manufacturers will
make these basic engine modifications for the first tier of proposed
standards. These redesigned engines are then expected to serve as a
platform for the other changes anticipated for the next tier of
standards. This will be less true for engines rated under 37 kW, which
have less time to incorporate design changes before Tier 1 standards
become effective. Manufacturers are expected to introduce electronic
controls on some engines. Advanced fuel-injection techniques and
hardware will allow designers to modify various fuel injection
parameters for higher pressure, further rate shaping, and some split
injection. For Tier 3 standards, EPA expects that many engines will see
further fuel injection improvements and will incorporate a moderate
degree of cooled exhaust gas recirculation. Details of the mix of
technologies included in the cost analysis can be found in Chapter 4 of
the Draft RIA.
While the following analysis projects a relatively uniform emission
control strategy for designing the different categories of engines,
this should not suggest that EPA expects a single combination of
technologies will be used by all manufacturers. In fact, depending on
basic engine emission characteristics, EPA expects that control
technology packages will gradually be fine-tuned to different
applications. Furthermore, EPA expects manufacturers to use averaging,
banking, and trading programs as a means to deploy varying degrees of
emission control technologies on different engines. EPA nevertheless
believes that the projections presented here provide a cost estimate
representative of the different approaches manufacturers may ultimately
take.
2. Engine Costs
The projected costs of these new technologies for meeting the
proposed standards are itemized in the Draft RIA and summarized in
Table 8. For the proposed Tier 1 standards for engines rated under 37
kW, estimated costs vary widely. Those engines that already operate
with emissions low enough to meet the proposed Tier 1 standards would
bear costs only for closing the crankcase and certifying the engine, or
about $20 per engine. For the remaining one-third of engines expected
to need reduced emissions, adding engine modifications leads to total
costs of around $70. The anticipated increase in operating costs would
similarly be focused on the minority of engines that need design
improvements, totaling about $220 in net present value (npv) over the
lifetime of those engines. The calculated sales-weighted composite
increase in both the purchase price and the operating costs for all
engines rated under 37 kW is $75 or less.
Table 8.--Projected Unit Costs--Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power (kW)
Cost category Year of -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
production 0-37 37-75 75-130 130-450 450-560 560+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental purchase price................................... 1 $53 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Life-cycle Operating costs (npv)............................. all 73 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental purchase price................................... 1 28 180 321 328 916 1214
Life-cycle Operating costs (npv)............................. all 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental purchase price................................... 1
6 ........... 322
111 424
177 436
194 1645
291 ...........
Life-cycle Operating costs (npv)............................. all ........... 89 103 125 180 ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2 standards, which apply to to the full range of power
ratings, involve higher estimated cost impacts. The set of technologies
anticipated for Tier 2 engines, including engine modifications,
improved fuel injection and some use of electronic controls, are not
expected to cause any increase in operating costs, as described in the
Draft RIA. The price of engines rated under 450 kW is expected to
increase by up to $330, while engines rated over 450 kW may see price
increases approaching or exceeding $1,000. The projected cost of
compliance with Tier 3 standards entails increases from Tier 2 costs
that follow a similar pattern to the increases for Tier 2 standards,
though the proposed Tier 3 standards apply only to engines rated
between 37 and 560 kW.
Characterizing these estimated costs in the context of their
fraction of the total purchase price and life-cycle operating costs is
helpful in gauging the economic impact of the proposed standards. ICF
conducted a study to characterize the range of current engine
costs.\40\ Although the incremental cost projections in Table 8
increase dramatically with increasing power rating, they in fact
represent a comparable price change relative to the total price of the
engine. The estimated cost increases for all engines are between 2 and
10 percent of estimated engine prices (after typical discounts and
rebates). Moreover, the cost savings
[[Page 50187]]
described below would further reduce the impact of the proposed
emission standards; long-term cost increases are expected to be 4
percent of total engine price or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``Engine Price (On-Highway and Nonroad) & Life-cycle Cost
Methodology,'' memorandum from Thomas Uden, ICF, Inc. to Alan Stout,
U.S. EPA, March 21, 1997 (available in Air Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way of evaluating the variation of compliance costs with
increasing power rating is to compare the ratio of projected cost to
rated power (in kilowatts). For the Tier 2 standards, engines rated
under 130 kW all have cost-per-kilowatt ratios near 3.5, while the
ratios for larger engines is around 1.5. This shows again that the
apparently high projected compliance costs for the largest engines,
upon closer analysis, are consistent with their greater size and price.
For the long term, EPA has identified two principal factors that
would cause the estimated incremental costs to decrease over time.
First, since fixed costs are assumed to be recovered over a fixed
period, these costs disappear from the analysis after they have been
fully recovered. This has a most striking effect on the projected costs
for engines rated over 450 kW, for which the much higher projected
costs are dominated by fixed costs. Second, the analysis incorporates
the expectation that manufacturers will apply ongoing research to
making emission controls more effective and less costly over time.
Research in the costs of manufacturing has consistently shown that as
manufacturers gain experience in production, they are able to apply
innovations to simplify machining and assembly operations, use lower
cost materials, and reduce the number or complexity of component
parts.\41\ The analysis incorporates the effects of this learning curve
by projecting that the variable costs of producing the low-emitting
engines decreases by 20 percent starting with the third year of
production and by reducing variable costs again by 20 percent starting
with the sixth year of production. Table 8 lists the projected costs
for each category of vehicle over time, including the set of numbers
that illustrate the projected reduction in long-term costs for Tier 3
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``Learning Curves in Manufacturing,'' Linda Argote and
Dennis Epple, Science, February 23, 1990, Vol. 247, pp. 920-924
(available in Air Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Equipment Costs
In addition to the costs directly associated with engines that are
redesigned to meet new standards, costs may also result from the need
to redesign the nonroad equipment in which these engines are used. Such
redesigns, though not generally technologically challenging, could
occur if the engine has a different shape or heat rejection rate, or is
no longer made available in the configuration previously used. Based on
their experience with the Tier 1 standards set in 1994, equipment
manufacturers have told EPA that the main barrier to accommodating
complying engines is the late delivery of such engines by engine
manufacturers, which cuts into the lead time that equipment
manufacturers need to properly redesign their equipment. Thus, attempts
were made in the developing this proposal to provide stability and
predictability in the setting of standards so engine and equipment
manufacturers can more easily plan their product releases and can
reasonably recoup the investment made to meet the standards.
In addition, the Tier 3 emission standards and implementation dates
for engines rated over 37 kW and Tier 2 emission standards and
implementation dates for engines rated under 37 kW are based on the
premise that no significant equipment redesign beyond that required to
accommodate engines meeting the previous tier of standards will be
required to accommodate the new engines. Equipment manufacturers may,
of course, choose to spread equipment redesigning over the time frame
for both first and second tiers of standards. This analysis accounts
for this flexibility by projecting one major redesign for each
equipment model, spreading the costs of these redesigns over both tiers
of standards. For each tier of standards, EPA projects that equipment
manufacturers will have sufficient opportunity to accommodate complying
engines and to market their product. EPA will consider the potential
for multiple design changes to equipment models during the 2001
Feasibility Review.
In assessing the economic impact of the proposed emissions
standards, EPA has made a best estimate of the modifications to
equipment that relate to packaging (installing engines in equipment
engine compartments), power train (torque curve), and heat rejection
effects of the new complying engines. The incremental purchase price
for new engines is comprised of fixed costs (for R&D and retooling) and
variable costs (for hardware and assembly time for a small percentage
of the equipment). In its analysis, EPA attributes all increases in
operating costs (i.e., expected increases in maintenance or fuel
consumption) to incremental engine costs, and thus, equipment costs do
not include operating costs. As described in the engine cost section
above, after a new standard takes effect, projected costs in subsequent
years would be reduced by several factors. Separate projected costs
were determined for equipment in the same ranges of power ratings used
for engine costs. Full details of EPA's equipment cost analysis can be
found in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA.
a. Projected Equipment Changes: Key measures being taken by engine
manufacturers to meet the Tier 1 standards set in 1994 are retarding
the injection timing and adding air-to-water aftercooling. EPA
projected in the Tier 1 rulemaking that, though the standards may lead
to some additional heat rejection, it would not add enough heat
rejection to require equipment changes such as increasing the cooling
capacity and cooling fan speed (i.e., change the size of radiators or
cooling fan blades). 42 However, equipment manufacturers
claim that such changes are occurring due to Tier 1 standards. For the
most part, this additional heat rejection occurred due to the retarded
injection timing, and thus some equipment manufacturers needed to
increase the size of their radiators to accommodate these Tier 1
engines. Some equipment manufacturers also increased the engine fan
speed for additional airflow and cooling (increasing engine fan size
can increase fan speed). In some cases, equipment manufacturers
experienced a small increase in fuel consumption. In many cases
equipment manufacturers needed to alter the engine compartment to
accommodate these changes as well as making room for added
turbochargers and aftercoolers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ U.S. EPA, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory
Support Document, ``Control of Air Pollution; Determination of
Significance for Nonroad Sources and Emission Standards for New
Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 Kilowatts (50
Horsepower),'' May 27, 1994 (found in Air Docket A-91-24, item VI-B-
1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A small percentage of equipment is projected to have modifications
to the radiator and the engine fan to compensate for some additional
heat rejection resulting from the proposed emission standards.
Equipment with direct injection engines rated under 37 kW (about one
third of the equipment in that size range) are expected to meet the
proposed standards through retarded injection timing, which is expected
to lead to some additional heat rejection. Some equipment/engines
introducing or improving air-to-water aftercooling may still require
more heat rejection and thus a somewhat larger radiator and fan,
because the engine coolant would be routed ( and thus heated up)
through both the radiator and the aftercooler. Many equipment
manufacturers are expected to install engines using air-to-
[[Page 50188]]
air aftercooling, which greatly reduces the heat load compared with
current air-to-water aftercooling models. Also, no more retarding of
the timing is expected for these engines as a result of the proposed
emission standards. Therefore, no increase in heat rejection and thus
in the size of the radiator and engine fan is expected for equipment
with air-to-air aftercooling. However, even with air-to-air
aftercooling, some equipment may need a larger engine fan (increase
engine fan size or speed), because there may be some reduction in the
airflow out of the engine compartment due to the aftercooler. In
addition, exhaust gas recirculation may lead to some additional heat
load in the Tier 3 time frame.
With sufficient lead time provided, engine and equipment
manufacturers are expected to have an opportunity to integrate several
changes not directly related to emission control (i.e., air-to-air
aftercooling). Therefore, the equipment changes are projected to be
needed only to compensate for some additional heat rejection. Thus, EPA
estimated that a small percentage of the equipment would have an
increase in the size of their radiators and cooling fans to accommodate
the new complying engines. In addition, for engine compartment
modifications (engine panels, brackets, etc.), EPA estimated that, for
all power ranges, a large percentage of the equipment would need
additional miscellaneous steel since it is expected that many nonroad
equipment models would need some additional steel in accommodating
complying engines.
b. Projected Equipment Costs: The costs of the projected equipment
changes due to the proposed standards are itemized in the Draft RIA and
summarized in Table 9. The effort for the R&D and tooling was estimated
for modifying equipment in all the above power categories based on
those changes needed to accommodate the engine technology modifications
described earlier in this preamble. In addition, variable costs for
engine compartment, radiator, and engine fan changes as described in
the above section were added for all the equipment power categories.
For all the power categories it was estimated that equipment
manufacturers would expend significant effort to generally redesign the
engine compartments of their equipment due to emissions control and its
related effects.
Table 9.--Projected Unit Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power (kW)
Tier -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-37 37-75 75-130 130-450 450-560 560+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1:
Equipment..................... $12 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Total Engine and Equipment.... 65 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Tier 2:
Equipment..................... 5 55 137 118 159 136
Total Engine and Equipment.... 33 235 458 446 1,075 1,350
Tier 3 short-term:
Equipment..................... ........... 18 46 39 53 ...........
Total Engine and Equipment.... ........... 340 470 475 1,698 ...........
Tier 3 long-term:
Equipment..................... ........... 1 2 4 4 ...........
Total Engine and Equipment.... ........... 112 179 198 295 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the proposed Tier 1 standards that apply to equipment with
engines rated under 37 kW, the estimated composite cost increase is $12
per piece of equipment. As described in the Engine Cost section, this
cost estimate is based on the determination that a large percentage of
the engines for this range of equipment already operate with emissions
low enough to meet the Tier 1 standards.
For Tier 2 standards, the low engine costs for equipment rated
under 75 kW reflect the relatively high sales volume of this range even
though most of the equipment would need relatively more effort for
accommodating complying engines versus equipment with engines rated
over 75 kW. The highest projected cost of $159 for equipment utilizing
engines rated between 450 and 560 kW demonstrates that high per-
equipment piece costs are due to amortizing large fixed costs over
small sales volumes even though most of the equipment in this large
power range would require relatively less effort in accommodating
complying engines. Also, the higher projected cost of $137 for
equipment with engines rated between 75 and 130 kW results from
amortizing slightly lower fixed costs compared to ratings under 75 kW
over a much smaller sales volume.
The projected incremental cost of complying with Tier 3 standards
are lower than that for Tier 2 standards, because EPA expects most of
the significant changes to equipment designs would occur for Tier 2
standards (the previous or first set of standards). For Tier 3
standards, equipment with engines rated between 37 and 560 kW are
expected to have incremental costs ranging from $18 to $53. In
addition, EPA estimated that, for equipment with engines rated under 37
kW, the incremental cost of Tier 2 standards is only $5.
As discussed in the Engine Cost section, characterizing both these
estimated incremental equipment and engine costs in the context of
their fraction of the total equipment purchase price is useful for
evaluating the economic impact of the proposed standards. EPA collected
quoted retail (list) prices on several equipment pieces to characterize
the range of current equipment prices. The combined incremental costs
estimated for equipment and engines together for all power ranges are
mostly under 2 percent of list prices with the exception of a few low
power rated equipment (e.g., a 3 kW centrifugal pump), which may have
relatively low sales prices and thus estimated incremental costs that
are up to 4 percent of list prices.
Furthermore, as described above in the Engine Cost section, the
cost savings below would further reduce the projected cost of the
proposed standards. For the long term, EPA has identified two principal
factors that would cause the estimated incremental costs to decrease
over time. First, since fixed costs are assumed to be recovered over a
ten-year period, these costs disappear from the analysis after the
first ten model years. Second, as
[[Page 50189]]
described further in the Engine Cost section, the analysis incorporates
the effects of a learning curve by projecting that the variable costs
of making equipment changes to accommodate low-emitting engines
decreases by 20 percent starting with the third year of production and
by reducing variable costs again by 20 percent starting with the sixth
year of production. Table 9 shows the schedule of projected equipment
costs for each category of equipment over time, and it also presents
the combined costs estimated for equipment and engines together. (The
combined engine and equipment costs presented in Table 9 do not include
increased operating costs.)
4. Aggregate Costs to Society
The above analysis develops unit cost estimates for each power
category. With current data for equipment sales for each category and
projections for the future, these costs can be translated into a total
projected cost to the nation for the proposed emission standards in any
year. Increased purchase prices and operating costs lead to aggregate
costs of about $3 million in the first year, increasing to a peak of
$320 million in 2008 as increasing numbers of engines become subject to
the proposed standards. The following years show declining aggregate
costs as the per-unit cost of compliance decreases, as described above,
to a low point of about $190 million in 2014. After 2014, stable engine
costs applied to a slowly growing market lead to slowly increasing
aggregate costs.
Commenters on the Supplemental ANPRM suggested that new nonroad
diesel engine standards would negatively impact other entities such as
equipment distributors/dealers, ultimate purchasers (e.g., farmers,
construction contractors, loggers), and suppliers of parts and services
for engines and equipment. In the segment of the economy involving
nonroad diesel engines and equipment, distributors/dealers and
purchasers are downstream of engine and equipment manufacturers, and
suppliers of parts and services are upstream. EPA recognizes that there
may be some potential impact on these entities from the proposed rule.
For example, as some commenters suggested, were a sudden large increase
in equipment prices to occur, it might result in a slowing of purchases
of new equipment, possibly causing upstream suppliers or downstream
dealers to lose business. As described in Section IV.B.3., EPA
estimates that the combined incremental costs for equipment and engines
together for all power ranges would generally be under 2 percent of the
list prices of equipment. Considering that price changes are already a
common occurrence in this market, EPA believes the impacts will be
minimal. Also, such small cost increments, together with the complexity
of this market, make it extremely difficult to quantitatively analyze
the impacts on entities upstream and downstream of engine and equipment
makers. Therefore, EPA included in the cost analysis only those
entities that are expected to be directly impacted by the proposed
rule.
C. Cost-Effectiveness
EPA has estimated the cost-effectiveness (i.e., the cost per ton of
emission reduction) of the proposed Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards
for the same power categories of nonroad equipment highlighted earlier
in this section. Chapter 6 of the Draft RIA contains a more detailed
discussion of the cost-effectiveness analysis. EPA requests comments on
all aspects of the cost-effectiveness analysis.
As described above in the Economic Impacts section, the projected
cost of complying with the proposed standards will vary by power
category and model year. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness will also
vary from model year to model year. For comparison purposes, the
discounted lifetime costs (including increased engine costs, equipment
costs and operating costs), emission reductions (in short tons), and
cost-effectiveness of the proposed NMHC + NOX standards are
shown in Table 10 for the same model years discussed above in the
Economic Impacts section. EPA believes this is a conservative estimate
because EPA assumed that all of the increased costs presented earlier
were attributable to NMHC+NOX control and none of the costs
were attributed to PM control. NOX reductions represent
approximately 90 percent of the total NMHC+NOX emission
reductions expected from the proposed standards.
Table 10.--Cost-effectiveness of the Proposed NMHC+NOX Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted
Discounted lifetime Discounted
Standard Power (kW) Year of lifetime NMHC+NOX lifetime cost-
production cost reductions effectiveness
(tons) (per ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1...................................... 0-37 1 $138 0.32 $440
Tier 2...................................... 0-37 1 33 0.04 790
........... 6 15 ............ 360
37-75 1 235 0.59 400
75-130 1 458 1.19 390
130-450 1 446 2.11 210
450-560 1 1,075 8.11 130
560 1 1,350 11.44 120
........... 6 207 ............ 20
Tier 3...................................... 37-75 1 430 0.62 700
6 217 ............ 350
75-130 1 573 0.94 610
6 325 ............ 350
130-450 1 601 1.71 350
6 356 ............ 210
450-560 1 1,878 6.08 310
6 522 ............ 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting the projected cost and emission benefit numbers presented
above by the populations of the individual power categories, EPA
calculated the cost-effectiveness of the proposed NMHC + NOX
standards for the entire nonroad diesel engine fleet. Table 11 contains
the resulting fleet-
[[Page 50190]]
wide cost-effectiveness results for the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards.
Table 11.--Fleet-wide Cost-effectiveness of the Proposed Nonroad NMHC +
NOX Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted lifetime cost-
Standard effectiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2.................................... $300/ton.
Tier 3--Short term........................ $400/ton.
Tier 3--Long term......................... $180/ton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparison to other PM control strategies, EPA has also
analyzed the cost-effectiveness of the proposed standards assuming half
of the increased costs were attributable to PM control. Such a fleet-
wide discounted lifetime cost-effectiveness represents the highest
figure that could be expected for cost-effectiveness of the proposed
standards and was calculated to provide an indication of the upper
bound of PM cost-effectiveness. The resulting fleet-wide discounted
lifetime cost-effectiveness of the proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 PM
standards was approximately $1,500 per ton.
In an effort to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the proposed
NMHC + NOX controls for nonroad engines, EPA has summarized
the cost-effectiveness results for three other recent EPA mobile source
rulemakings that required reductions in NOX (or NMHC +
NOX) emissions. The heavy-duty vehicle portion of the Clean
Fuel Fleet Vehicle Program yielded a cost-effectiveness of
approximately $1,500/ton of NOX, Phase II of the
Reformulated Gasoline Program yielded approximately $5,000/ton of
NOX, and the most recent NMHC + NOX standards for
highway heavy-duty diesel engines yielded a cost-effectiveness of $100-
$600/ton of NMHC + NOX. The cost-effectiveness of the
proposed NMHC + NOX standards for nonroad diesel engines
presented above are more favorable than the cost-effectiveness of both
the clean fuel fleet vehicle program and reformulated gasoline. The
cost-effectiveness of the proposed NMHC + NOX standards for
nonroad diesel engines is comparable to the cost-effectiveness of the
most recent NMHC + NOX standards for heavy-duty highway
diesel engines.
EPA has also summarized the cost-effectiveness results for two
other recent EPA mobile source rulemakings that required reductions in
PM emissions. The cost-effectiveness of the most recent urban bus
engine PM standard was estimated to be $10,000-$16,000/ton and the
cost-effectiveness of the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program was
estimated to be approximately $25,000/ton. The PM cost-effectiveness of
the proposed nonroad engine standards presented above are more
favorable than either of the urban bus programs.
In addition to the benefits of reducing ozone within and
transported into urban ozone nonattainment areas, the NOX
reductions from the proposed nonroad engine standards are expected to
have beneficial impacts with respect to crop damage, secondary
particulate, acid deposition, eutrophication, visibility, and forests,
as described earlier. Because of the difficulty of quantifying the
monetary value of these societal benefits, the cost-effectiveness
values presented do not assign any numerical value to these additional
benefits. However, based on an analysis of existing studies that have
estimated the value of such benefits in the past, the Agency believes
that the actual monetary value of the multiple environmental and public
health benefits that would be produced by large NOX
reductions similar to those projected under this proposal will likely
be greater than the estimated compliance costs. EPA requests comment on
including these benefits in an estimate of the cost-effectiveness of
the proposed standards.
VII. Public Participation
As mentioned above, EPA issued a Supplemental ANPRM releasing the
Nonroad Statement of Principles and announcing EPA's intent to formally
propose regulatory action relating to nonroad diesel emissions
consistent with the Statement of Principles. By the time the comment
period closed, the Agency had received more than 20 communications
relating to this program and the Supplemental ANPRM. Additional
comments have been received as a part of the Agency's special outreach
to small entities (see Section VIII.B.). These comments have been very
valuable in developing this proposal, and the Agency looks forward to
additional comment as the formal rulemaking process now begins. All of
these comments are available in the rulemaking docket and many of them
are discussed in the context of various issues in this preamble. EPA
has considered each of the comments and has attempted to address them
in this proposal.
A. Comments and the Public Docket
Publication of this notice opens a formal comment period for this
proposal. EPA will accept comments for the period indicated under
``DATES'' above. The Agency encourages all parties that have an
interest in the program described in this notice to offer comment on
all aspects of the action. Throughout this proposal are requests for
specific comment on various topics.
The most useful comments are those supported by appropriate and
detailed rationales, data, and analyses. The Agency also encourages
commenters that disagree with the proposed program to suggest and
analyze alternate approaches to meeting the air quality goals of this
proposed program. All comments, with the exception of proprietary
information, should be directed to the EPA Air Docket Section, Docket
No. A-96-40 before the date specified above.
Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly separate such information from other
comments by: (1) Labeling proprietary information ``Confidential
Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly
to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and
not to the public docket. This will help ensure that proprietary
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter
wants EPA to use a submission of confidential information as part of
the basis for the final rule, then a nonconfidential version of the
document that summarizes the key data or information should be sent to
the docket.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by EPA only to the extent allowed and in accordance with the procedures
set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies
the submission when it is received by EPA, it will be made available to
the public without further notice to the commenter.
B. Public Hearing
The Agency will hold a public hearing as noted in the DATES section
above. Any person desiring to present testimony at the public hearing
is asked to notify the contact person listed above at least five
business days prior to the date of the hearing. This notification
should include an estimate of the time required for the presentation of
the testimony and any need for audio/visual equipment. EPA suggests
that sufficient copies of the statement or material to be presented be
available to the audience. In addition, it is helpful if the contact
person receives a copy of the testimony or material prior to the
hearing.
The hearing will be conducted informally, and technical rules of
evidence will not apply. A sign-up sheet will be available at the
hearing for scheduling the order of testimony. A written transcript of
the hearing will be
[[Page 50191]]
prepared. The official record of the hearing will be kept open for 30
days after the hearing to allow submittal of supplementary information.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the
Executive Order (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993). The order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or,
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined
that this proposal is a ``significant regulatory action'' because the
proposed standards and other regulatory provisions, if implemented,
would have an annual effect on the economy in excess of $100 million. A
Draft RIA has been prepared and is available in the docket associated
with this rulemaking. This action was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order
12866. Any written comments from OMB and any EPA response to OMB
comments are in the public docket for this proposal.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act was amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-
121, to ensure that concerns regarding small entities are adequately
considered during the development of new regulations that affect them.
In response to the provisions of this statute, EPA has identified
industries subject to this proposed rule and has provided information
to and received comment from small entities and representatives of
small entities in these industries. The Agency has also convened a
panel under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as added
by SBREFA. The purpose of the Panel is to collect the advice and
recommendations of representatives of small entities that will be
affected by the rule and to report on those comments and the Panel's
findings as to issues related to the key elements of an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis under section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Those elements of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis are:
The number of small entities to which the proposed rule
will apply.
Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule, including the classes of small
entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
Other relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the proposed rule.
Any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
Once completed, the Panel report is provided to the Agency issuing
the proposed rule and included in the rulemaking record. In light of
the Panel report, the Agency is to make changes to the proposed rule or
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposed rule,
where appropriate.
EPA has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to
analyze the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small companies;
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis is found in Chapter 4 of
the Draft RIA. EPA's outreach to small entities and EPA's responses to
the recommendations of the Panel are described in the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis and summarized below. The Agency
continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcomes additional comments during the
rulemaking process on issues related to such impacts.
1. Applicable Small Businesses
The initial regulatory flexibility analysis analyzes four separate
but related industries that will be subject to this proposed rule and
that contain small businesses as defined by regulations of the Small
Business Administration (SBA): nonroad diesel engine manufacturing,
manufacturing of nonroad diesel equipment, post-manufacture marinizing
of diesel engines, and the rebuilding or remanufacturing of diesel
nonroad engines. According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR 121),
businesses with no more than the following numbers of employees or
dollars of annual receipts are considered ``small entities'' for
purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis:
Manufacturers of engines (includes marinizers)--1000
employees.
Equipment manufacturers
Manufacturers of construction equipment--750 employees.
Manufacturers of industrial trucks (forklifts)--750
employees.
Manufacturers of other nonroad equipment--500 employees.
Rebuilders/Remanufacturers of engines--$5 million.
2. Small Business Economic Impact Analysis
The initial regulatory flexibility analysis evaluates in detail the
financial impacts of the proposed standards on small manufacturers of
nonroad diesel equipment. Along with small manufacturers of equipment,
the potential impacts on small manufacturers of diesel engines, small
marinizers, and small engine rebuilders/remanufacturers were assessed
as part of the SBREFA Panel process as discussed below; however, a
detailed economic analysis was conducted only for equipment
manufacturers, for the following reasons. There is only one small
manufacturer of diesel engines affected by the proposed rule that meets
the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business criteria, and
this small engine manufacturer would have impacts from the proposal
that are similar to those impacts experienced by large nonroad engine
manufacturers, which are described in Section VI.B. of this proposal.
Marinizers are expected to experience impacts similar to those of
nonroad equipment manufacturers since changes made by the original
engine manufacturers might require changes in the parts and process
involved in marinization. Engine rebuilders/remanufacturers would not
be economically impacted by this proposed rule since as described in
Section III.C. of this proposal, the proposed provisions for these
entities would not require a change to their current practices.
As described in Section IV.B.4., commenters on the Supplemental
ANPRM suggested that new nonroad diesel engine standards would
negatively impact other small entities such as equipment distributors/
dealers, ultimate purchasers, and suppliers of
[[Page 50192]]
parts and services for engines and equipment. EPA recognizes that these
downstream and upstream small entities may be adversely impacted by the
proposed rule. However, for the reasons described in Section IV.B.4.,
EPA included in the cost analysis and the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis only those entities that are expected to be
directly impacted by the proposed rule. EPA asks for comments on the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on any downstream and upstream
small entities, with supporting data or methodologies to assist in
analyzing these impacts whenever possible.
The initial regulatory flexibility analysis applies an economic
measure known as the ``sales test'' to evaluate the economic impact of
the proposed standards on small manufacturers of nonroad diesel
equipment. The sales test involves calculation of annualized compliance
costs as a function of sales revenue. According to the sales test
results in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, an estimated 9
percent of small equipment manufacturers would be economically impacted
by greater than 1 percent by the proposed rule. Also, an estimated 5
percent of small equipment manufacturers would experience an impact
greater than 3 percent.
As described in Section III.E. of this proposal, this proposed rule
includes flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers (both large
and small manufacturers). As shown in the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, the flexibility provisions should reduce any
economic impacts of the proposed regulations on small equipment
manufacturers. However, the effects of the provisions are likely
conservatively estimated because the hardship relief provisions
described in Section III.E. were not included in the analysis. EPA
considers the flexibility provisions to be a significant regulatory
alternative since they meet the Agency's air quality objectives while
minimizing significant economic impacts on small equipment
manufacturers.
3. SBREFA Panel and Other Regulatory Alternatives
Consistent with SBREFA, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel on March 25, 1997 to collect the advice and
recommendations of representatives of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rule and to report on those comments. The
Panel, consisting of representatives of the Small Business
Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, and EPA, issued a
report on May 23, 1997.43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ ``Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel for Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel
Engines'', May 23, 1997 (available in Air Docket A-96-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, during the development of this proposal, EPA and the
SBREFA Panel were in contact with representatives of small nonroad
diesel equipment manufacturers, small nonroad diesel engine
manufacturers, small nonroad engine rebuilders/remanufacturers, and
small post-manufacture engine marinizers. In its final report, the
SBREFA Panel encouraged EPA to continue to seek information and conduct
analysis relating the number of small entities potentially affected by
this proposed rule. The Panel also encouraged EPA to consider the
potential overlap with Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) regulations related to ambient CO levels and to design the rule
to minimize the need for record keeping and reporting. The Agency
requests additional information, comments, and suggestions on the
number of small entities and the potential overlap with OSHA CO limits
in response to this proposal. Proposed measures to minimize record
keeping and reporting are discussed in Section III.E. of this proposal.
In addition, the Panel believed that a set of five alternatives to
the provisions outlined in the Supplemental ANPRM, considered as an
integrated package, would provide significant flexibility and burden
reduction for small entities subject to the proposed rule. The Panel
believed that EPA should consider conducting further analysis on these
five alternatives and proposing or soliciting comment on them in this
proposal. It is important to note that the Panel's findings are based
on the information available at the time the Panel report was drafted.
The Panel makes its report at an early stage of the process of
promulgating a rule and its report should be considered in that light.
EPA is proposing or soliciting comment in this proposal on the five
regulatory alternatives, based on EPA's analysis and agreement with the
Panel's findings (see Section III.E.). These alternatives meet the
Agency's air quality objectives while maximizing the compliance
flexibility for small manufacturers of nonroad equipment and small
marinizers. A more detailed discussion on EPA's outreach and these
significant regulatory alternatives is provided in the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (found in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA)
and in Section III.E. of this proposal.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. A copy
of any of the submitted Information Collection Requests (ICR) documents
may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Regulatory Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M St., S.W.;
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The following ICR
documents have been prepared by EPA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA ICR # Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0011.09........................... Selective Enforcement Auditing and
recordkeeping requirements for on-
highway HDE, nonroad compression
ignition engines, and on-highway
light-duty vehicles and light duty
trucks.
0095.10........................... Pre-certification and testing
exemption reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
0282.10........................... Emission Defect Information and
Voluntary Emission recall reports.
1684.04........................... Compression ignition non-road engine
certification application.
1695.03........................... Amendment to the Information
Collection Request Emission
Standards for New Nonroad Spark-
Ignition Engines.
1826.01........................... Information Collection for Equipment
Manufacturer Flexibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency proposes to collect information related to certification
results, durability, maintenance, and averaging, banking and trading.
This information will be used to ensure compliance with and enforce the
provisions in this rule. Section 208(a) of the Clean Air Act requires
that manufacturers provide information the Administrator may reasonably
require to determine compliance with the regulations; submission of the
information is therefore mandatory. EPA will consider confidential all
information meeting the requirements of Sec. 208(c) of the Clean Air
Act.
These collections of information have an estimated annual burden
averaging 3100 hours annually for a typical engine manufacturer. The
estimated likely respondents is 58 with annual operational and
maintenance costs of $195,000. However, the hours and annual cost of
information collection activities by a given manufacturer depends on
manufacturer-specific variables, such as the number of engine
[[Page 50193]]
families, production changes, emissions defects, and so forth. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more for
any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
This proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or
tribal governments. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of
these governmental entities. Nothing in the proposed program would
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined
that this rule contains federal mandates that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year for the private
sector. EPA believes that the proposed program represents the least
costly, most cost-effective approach to achieving the air quality goals
of the proposed rule. The cost-benefit analysis required by UMRA is
contained in the RIA. The reader is directed to Section VIII.A. above,
Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis, for further
information regarding these analyses.
IX. Statutory Authority
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7547(a), EPA conducted a study of emissions from nonroad engines,
vehicles, and equipment in 1991. Based on the results of that study,
EPA determined that emissions of NOX, VOCs (including HC),
and CO from nonroad engines and equipment contribute significantly to
ozone and CO concentrations in more than one nonattainment area (see 59
FR 31306, June 17, 1994). Given this determination, section 213(a)(3)
of the Act requires EPA to promulgate (and from time to time revise)
emissions standards for those classes or categories of new nonroad
engines, vehicles, and equipment that in EPA's judgment cause or
contribute to such air pollution. EPA has determined that the engines
that would be regulated under this proposal ``cause or contribute'' to
such air pollution. (See the June 1994 final rule and Section II.A.3.
above).
Where EPA determines that other emissions from new nonroad engines,
vehicles, or equipment significantly contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,
section 213(a)(4) authorizes EPA to establish (and from time to time
revise) emission standards from those classes or categories of new
nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment that EPA determines cause or
contribute to such air pollution. In the June 1994 final rule, EPA made
this determination for missions of PM and smoke from nonroad engines in
general and for CI nonroad engines rated over 37 kW. With this
document, EPA is making the same findings for nonroad diesel engines
rated under 37 kW. (See Section II.A.3. above).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 86
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Labeling, Motor vehicle engine pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 89
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Dated: August 29, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts
9, 86, and 89 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as set forth below.
[[Page 50194]]
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345
(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp.
p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4,
300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,
11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended in the table by removing the center
heading ``Control of Emissions From New and In-Use Nonroad Engines''
and the entries under that center heading and adding a new center
heading and entries in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Control of Emissions From New and In-Use Compression-Ignition Nonroad
Engines
89.1....................................................... 2060-0124
89.2....................................................... 2060-0124
89.114-89.120.............................................. 2060-0104
89.122-89.127.............................................. 2060-0104
89.129..................................................... 2060-0104
89.203-89.207.............................................. 2060-0104
89.209--89.211............................................. 2060-0104
89.304-89.331.............................................. 2060-0104
89.404-89.424.............................................. 2060-0104
89.505-89.510.............................................. 2060-0064
89.511-89.512.............................................. 2060-0064
89.603-89.605.............................................. 2060-0095
89.607-89.610.............................................. 2060-0095
89.611..................................................... 2060-0007
2060-0095
89.612..................................................... 2060-0095
89.801-89.803.............................................. 2060-0048
89.903..................................................... 2060-0124
89.905-89.911.............................................. 2060-0007
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
3. The heading of part 86 is revised as set forth above.
4. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
5. Section 86.884-8 as amended at 62 FR 47122 effective January 5,
1998, is amended by revising the table in paragraph (c)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.884-8 Dynamometer and engine equipment.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust
pipe
Maximum rated horsepower diameter
(inches)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HP50............................................ 1.5
50HP<100........................................ 2.0
100HP<200....................................... 3.0
200HP<300....................................... 4.0
300HP<500....................................... 5.0
HP500........................................... 6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 89--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE COMPRESSION-
IGNITION NONROAD ENGINES
6. The heading of part 89 is revised as set forth above.
7. The authority citation for part 89 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213,
215, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550,
and 7601(a)).
8. The following sections are redesignated as set forth in the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old designation New designation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
89.101-96.......................... 89.101
89.102-96.......................... 89.102
89.103-96.......................... 89.103
89.104-96.......................... 89.104
89.105-96.......................... 89.105
89.106-96.......................... 89.106
89.107-96.......................... 89.107
89.108-96.......................... 89.108
89.109-96.......................... 89.109
89.110-96.......................... 89.110
89.111-96.......................... 89.111
89.112-96.......................... 89.112
89.113-96.......................... 89.113
89.114-96.......................... 89.114
89.115-96.......................... 89.115
89.116-96.......................... 89.116
89.117-96.......................... 89.117
89.118-96.......................... 89.118
89.119-96.......................... 89.119
89.120-96.......................... 89.120
89.121-96.......................... 89.121
89.122-96.......................... 89.122
89.123-96.......................... 89.123
89.124-96.......................... 89.124
89.125-96.......................... 89.125
89.126-96.......................... 89.126
89.127-96.......................... 89.127
89.128-96.......................... 89.128
89.129-96.......................... 89.129
89.201-96.......................... 89.201
89.202-96.......................... 89.202
89.203-96.......................... 89.203
89.204-96.......................... 89.204
89.205-96.......................... 89.205
89.206-96.......................... 89.206
89.207-96.......................... 89.207
89.208-96.......................... 89.208
89.209-96.......................... 89.209
89.210-96.......................... 89.210
89.211-96.......................... 89.211
89.212-96.......................... 89.212
89.301-96.......................... 89.301
89.302-96.......................... 89.302
89.303-96.......................... 89.303
89.304-96.......................... 89.304
89.305-96.......................... 89.305
89.306-96.......................... 89.306
89.307-96.......................... 89.307
89.308-96.......................... 89.308
89.309-96.......................... 89.309
89.310-96.......................... 89.310
89.311-96.......................... 89.311
89.312-96.......................... 89.312
89.313-96.......................... 89.313
89.314-96.......................... 89.314
89.315-96.......................... 89.315
89.316-96.......................... 89.316
89.317-96.......................... 89.317
89.318-96.......................... 89.318
89.319-96.......................... 89.319
89.320-96.......................... 89.320
89.321-96.......................... 89.321
89.322-96.......................... 89.322
89.323-96.......................... 89.323
89.324-96.......................... 89.324
89.325-96.......................... 89.325
89.326-96.......................... 89.326
89.327-96.......................... 89.327
89.328-96.......................... 89.328
89.329-96.......................... 89.329
89.330-96.......................... 89.330
89.331-96.......................... 89.331
89.401-96.......................... 89.401
89.402-96.......................... 89.402
89.403-96.......................... 89.403
89.404-96.......................... 89.404
89.405-96.......................... 89.405
89.406-96.......................... 89.406
89.407-96.......................... 89.407
89.408-96.......................... 89.408
89.409-96.......................... 89.409
89.410-96.......................... 89.410
89.411-96.......................... 89.411
89.412-96.......................... 89.412
89.413-96.......................... 89.413
89.414-96.......................... 89.414
89.415-96.......................... 89.415
89.416-96.......................... 89.416
89.417-96.......................... 89.417
89.418-96.......................... 89.418
89.419-96.......................... 89.419
89.420-96.......................... 89.420
89.421-96.......................... 89.421
89.422-96.......................... 89.422
89.423-96.......................... 89.423
89.424-96.......................... 89.424
89.425-96.......................... 89.425
89.501-96.......................... 89.501
89.502-96.......................... 89.502
89.503-96.......................... 89.503
89.504-96.......................... 89.504
89.505-96.......................... 89.505
89.506-96.......................... 89.506
89.507-96.......................... 89.507
89.508-96.......................... 89.508
89.509-96.......................... 89.509
89.510-96.......................... 89.510
89.511-96.......................... 89.511
89.512-96.......................... 89.512
[[Page 50195]]
89.513-96.......................... 89.513
89.514-96.......................... 89.514
89.515-96.......................... 89.515
89.516-96.......................... 89.516
89.601-96.......................... 89.601
89.602-96.......................... 89.602
89.603-96.......................... 89.603
89.604-96.......................... 89.604
89.605-96.......................... 89.605
89.606-96.......................... 89.606
89.607-96.......................... 89.607
89.608-96.......................... 89.608
89.609-96.......................... 89.609
89.610-96.......................... 89.610
89.611-96.......................... 89.611
89.612-96.......................... 89.612
89.613-96.......................... 89.613
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In part 89, all internal section references are revised as
indicated in the above redesignation table.
Subpart A--[Amended]
10. Section 89.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4)
to read as follows:
Sec. 89.1 Applicability.
(a) This part applies to nonroad compression-ignition engines.
(b) * * *
(4) Engines used in marine vessels as defined in the General
Provisions of the United States Code, 1 U.S.C. 3 , if those engines
have a rated power at or above 37 kW.
11. Section 89.2 is amended by adding new definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 89.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Auxiliary marine diesel engine means a marine diesel engine that is
not a propulsion marine diesel engine.
Blue Sky Series engine means a low-emitting nonroad engine meeting
the requirements of Sec. 89.112(f).
* * * * *
Compression-ignition engine means an engine with operating
characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical Diesel
combustion cycle. The non-use of a throttle during normal operation is
indicative of a compression-ignition engine.
Constant-speed engine means an engine that is governed to operate
only at rated speed.
Crankcase emissions means airborne substances emitted to the
atmosphere from any portion of the engine crankcase ventilation or
lubrication systems.
* * * * *
Farm equipment or vehicle has the meaning contained in 40 CFR part
85, subpart Q.
Full load governed speed is the maximum full load speed as
specified by the manufacturer in the sales and service literature and
certification application. This speed is the highest engine speed with
an advertised power greater than zero.
* * * * *
Intermediate speed means peak torque speed if peak torque speed
occurs from 60 to 75 percent of rated speed. If peak torque speed is
less than 60 percent of rated speed, intermediate speed means 60
percent of rated speed. If peak torque speed is greater than 75 percent
of rated speed, intermediate speed means 75 percent of rated speed.
* * * * *
Marine diesel engine means a compression-ignition engine that is
intended to be installed on a vessel.
* * * * *
Post-manufacture marinizer means a person who produces a marine
diesel engine by substantially modifying a certified or uncertified
complete or partially complete engine; and is not controlled by the
manufacturer of the base engine or by an entity that also controls the
manufacturer of the base engine. For the purpose of this definition,
``substantially modify'' means changing an engine in a way that could
change engine emission characteristics.
* * * * *
Propulsion marine diesel engine means a marine diesel engine that
is intended to move a vessel through the water or direct the movement
of a vessel.
Rated speed is the maximum full load governed speed for governed
engines and the speed of maximum horsepower for ungoverned engines.
Specific emissions means emissions expressed on the basis of
observed brake power, using units of g/kW-hr. Observed brake power
measurement includes accessories on the engine if these accessories are
required for running an emission test (except for the cooling fan).
When it is not possible to test the engine in the gross conditions, for
example, if the engine and transmission form a single integral unit,
the engine may be tested in the net condition. Power corrections from
net to gross conditions will be allowed with prior approval of the
Administrator.
* * * * *
Tier 1 engine means an engine subject to the Tier 1 emission
standards listed in Sec. 89.112(a).
Tier 2 engine means an engine subject to the Tier 2 emission
standards listed in Sec. 89.112(a).
Tier 3 engine means an engine subject to the Tier 3 emission
standards listed in Sec. 89.112(a).
* * * * *
U.S.-directed production volume means the number of nonroad
equipment or vehicles units produced by a manufacturer for which the
manufacturer has reasonable assurance that sale was or will be made to
ultimate purchasers in the United States.
* * * * *
Vessel has the meaning given to it in 1 U.S.C. 3.
12. Section 89.3 is amended by adding new acronyms in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 89.3 Acronyms and abbreviations.
* * * * *
EGR Exhaust gas recirculation
* * * * *
NMHC Nonmethane hydrocarbon
* * * * *
PM Particulate matter
* * * * *
Sec. 89.4 [Removed and reserved]
13. Remove and reserve Sec. 89.4.
14. Section 89.6 is amended in paragraph (b)(1) by removing the
last entry in the table and adding a new entry in its place and in
paragraph (b)(2) by adding in alpha-numeric order a new entry to the
table to read as follows:
Sec. 89.6 Reference materials.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 89
Document No. and name reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
ASTM E29-93a: ``Standard Practice for Using
Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine
Conformance with Specifications''................... 89.120; 89.207;
89.509
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 89
Document number and name reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
SAE J1151 December 1991: ``Methane Measurement Using
Gas Chromatography''................................ 89.309
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart B--[Amended]
15. The newly designated Sec. 89.102 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) and
[[Page 50196]]
adding new paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.102 Effective dates, optional inclusion.
(a) This subpart applies to all engines described in Sec. 89.101
with the following power rating and manufactured after the following
dates:
(1) Less than 19 kW and manufactured on or after January 1, 2000;
(2) Greater than or equal to 19 kW but less than 37 kW and
manufactured on or after January 1, 1999;
(3) Greater than or equal to 37 kW but less than 75 kW and
manufactured on or after January 1, 1998;
(4) Greater than or equal to 75 kW but less than 130 kW and
manufactured on or after January 1, 1997;
(5) Greater than or equal to 130 kW but less than 560 kW and
manufactured on or after January 1, 1996;
(6) Greater than or equal to 560 kW and manufactured on or after
January 1, 2000.
* * * * *
(c) Engines meeting the voluntary standards described in
Sec. 89.112(f) may be designated as Blue Sky Series engines through the
2004 model year.
(d) Implementation flexibility for equipment and vehicle
manufacturers. Nonroad equipment and vehicle manufacturers and may take
any of the otherwise prohibited actions identified in
Sec. 89.1003(a)(1) with respect to the following nonroad equipment and
vehicles, subject to the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
The following allowances apply separately to each engine power category
subject to standards under Sec. 89.112:
(1) Percent-of-production allowances--(i) Farm equipment or
vehicles at or above 37 kW. For farm equipment or vehicles with engines
rated at or above 37 kW, a manufacturer may take any of the actions
identified in Sec. 89.1003(a)(1) [Alternative 1: for up to 30 percent
of its U.S.-directed production volume of such equipment and vehicles
in the first year that Tier 2 engine standards apply to such engines,
and for up to 15 percent of its U.S.-directed production volume in each
of the seven years following the first year,] [Alternative 2: for a
portion of its U.S.-directed production volume of such equipment and
vehicles during the eight years immediately following the date on which
Tier 2 engine standards first apply to engines used in such equipment
and vehicles, provided that the eight-year sum of these portions in
each year, as expressed as a percentage for each year, does not exceed
135, and] provided that all such equipment and vehicles or equipment
must contain Tier 1 engines;
(ii) Farm equipment or vehicles rated under 37 kW. For farm
equipment or vehicles with engines rated under 37 kW, a manufacturer
may take any of the actions identified in Sec. 89.1003(a)(1)
[Alternative 1: for up to 30 percent of its U.S.-directed production
volume of such equipment and vehicles in the first year that Tier 1
engine standards apply to such engines, and for up to 15 percent of its
U.S.-directed production volume in each of the three [seven] years
following the first year] [Alternative 2: for a portion of its U.S.-
directed production volume of such equipment and vehicles during the
four [eight] years immediately following the date on which Tier 1
engine standards first apply to engines used in such equipment and
vehicles, provided that the four[eight]-year sum of these portions in
each year, as expressed as a percentage for each year, does not exceed
75 [135]];
(iii) Other equipment rated at or above 37 kW. For all other
nonroad equipment and vehicles with engines rated at or above 37 kW, a
manufacturer may take any of the actions identified in
Sec. 89.1003(a)(1) [Alternative 1: for up to 15 percent of its U.S.-
directed production volume of such equipment and vehicles in the first
year that Tier 2 engine standards apply to such engines, and for up to
5 percent of its U.S.-directed production volume in each of the six
years following the first year,] [Alternative 2: for a portion of its
U.S.-directed production volume of such equipment and vehicles during
the seven years immediately following the date on which Tier 2 engine
standards first apply to engines used in such equipment and vehicles,
provided that the seven-year sum of these portions in each year, as
expressed as a percentage for each year, does not exceed 45, and]
provided that all such equipment and vehicles or equipment must contain
Tier 1 engines;
(iv) Other equipment rated under 37 kW. For all other nonroad
equipment and vehicles with engines rated under 37 kW, a manufacturer
may take any of the actions identified in Sec. 89.1003(a)(1)
[Alternative 1: for up to 15 percent of its U.S.-directed production
volume of such equipment and vehicles in the first year that Tier 1
engine standards apply to such engines, and for up to 5 percent of its
U.S.-directed production volume in each of the three [six] years
following the first year][Alternative 2: for a portion of its U.S.-
directed production volume of such equipment and vehicles during the
four [seven] years immediately following the date on which Tier 1
engine standards first apply to engines used in such equipment and
vehicles, provided that the four[seven]-year sum of these portions in
each year, as expressed as a percentage for each year, does not exceed
30 [45]].
(2) Small volume allowances. A nonroad equipment or vehicle
manufacturer may exceed the production percentages in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section in any of the years for which these percentages apply,
provided that in each regulated power category, the manufacturer's
excepted equipment and vehicles in that year does not exceed 100
units[, and is limited to a single equipment or vehicle model].
Potential Alternative for Paragraph (d)(2)
(d)(2) Small volume allowances. A nonroad equipment or vehicle
manufacturer may exceed the production percentages in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, provided that in each regulated power category, the
manufacturer's total of excepted equipment and vehicles over the years
in which the percent-of-production allowance applies does not exceed
100 units times the number of years in which the percent-of-production
allowance applies[, and is limited to a single equipment or vehicle
model].
(3) Emission credit-derived allowances. A nonroad equipment or
vehicle manufacturer may exceed the allowances in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2) of this section in any of the years for which these allowances
apply, by retiring sufficient NMHC + NOX and PM emission
credits obtained under the provisions of subpart C of this part.
Equipment or vehicles for which these emission credit-derived
allowances are used shall be excluded from the determinations required
in paragraph (e) of this section.
(i) The amount of emission credits, in megagrams, to be retired for
each additional allowance shall be determined separately for NMHC +
NOX and for PM as follows:
Emission credits = [(Previous level)--(New level)] x (Category
PR) x (UL) x (10 -6)
[[Page 50197]]
Where:
Previous level = 10.5 g/kW-hr NMHC + NOX and 0.54 g/kW-hr
PM if the equipment for which the allowance is being used has an
engine rated at or above 37 kW, or 16.0 g/kW-hr NMHC +
NOX and 1.2 g/kW-hr for PM if the equipment for which the
allowance is being used has an engine rated under 37 kW.
New level = The emission standard that would apply to the engine
used in the equipment if no allowance were to be used.
Category PR = The midpoint of the power range in Sec. 89.112
applying to the engine used in the equipment for which the allowance
is being used.
UL = The useful life for the engine family, in hours.
(ii) A nonroad equipment or vehicle manufacturer choosing to retire
emission credits must submit an end-of-the-year report in accordance
with the requirements of Sec. 89.211 in each year that credits are
retired.
(4) Inclusion of previous-tier engines. Equipment and vehicles
built with previous tier or noncertified engines under the existing
inventory provisions of Sec. 89.1003(b)(4) need not be included in
determining compliance with paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of
this section, at the manufacturer's option.
(e) Determination of compliance and recordkeeping. The following
shall apply to nonroad equipment or vehicle manufacturers who produce
excepted equipment or vehicles under the provisions of paragraph (d) of
this section:
(1) After each year in which excepted equipment or vehicles are
produced, a determination of compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section shall be made. This determination shall
be based on actual production information from the subject year and
shall be made within 3 months after the availability of such
information. Should any such determination reveal that a production
percentage allowance (or small volume allowance where applied) for a
power category has been exceeded for the subject year, the nonroad
equipment or vehicle manufacturer shall adjust that category's
percentage allowance and small volume allowance for the year after the
subject year. The percentage allowance shall be recalculated by
subtracting the excess percentage of excepted machines from the
percentage allowance that would otherwise apply in the year after the
subject year (from zero in the year after the final year of the
allowance). The small volume allowance shall be recalculated by
subtracting the excess number of excepted machines in the subject year
from 100 (from zero in the year after the final year of the allowance).
If both the recalculated percentage allowance and the recalculated
small volume allowance for the year after the subject year is less than
zero in any power category, then the manufacturer is in violation of
section 203 of the Act and Sec. 89.1003.
Potential Alternative for Paragraph (e)(1)
(e)(1) For each power category in which excepted equipment or
vehicles are produced, a determination of compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section shall be made. This
determination shall be made no later than December 31 of the year
following the last year in which allowances apply, and shall be based
on actual production information from the subject years. Should any
such determination reveal that both the percentage allowance and the
small volume allowance have been exceeded, then the manufacturer is in
violation of section 203 of the Act and Sec. 89.1003.
(2) A nonroad equipment or vehicle manufacturer shall keep records
of all equipment and vehicles excepted under the provisions of
paragraph (d) of this section, for each power category in which
exceptions are taken. These records shall include equipment and engine
model numbers, serial numbers, and dates of manufacture, and engine
rated power. In addition, the manufacturer shall keep records
sufficient to demonstrate the determinations of compliance required in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. All such records shall be kept until
at least two full years after the final year in which exceptions are
available for each power category.
(f) Hardship relief. Nonroad equipment and vehicle manufacturers,
and post-manufacture marinizers, that qualify as small entities under
13 CFR part 121 may take any of the otherwise prohibited actions
identified in Sec. 89.1003(a)(1) beyond those allowed under paragraph
(d) of this section, subject to approval by the Administrator and the
following requirements:
(1) Application for relief must be submitted to the Engine Programs
and Compliance Division of the EPA in writing prior to the earliest
date in which the applying manufacturer would be in violation of
Sec. 89.1003.
(2) Evidence must be provided that the conditions causing the
impending violation are not substantially the fault of the applying
manufacturer.
(3) Evidence must be provided that the applying manufacturer may be
forced to permanently close or sell its equipment-producing operation
if relief is not granted.
(4) Any relief granted must begin within one year after the
implementation date of the standard applying to engines being used in
the equipment for which relief is requested, and may not exceed one
year in duration.
(g) Allowance for the production of engines. Engine manufacturers
may take any of the otherwise prohibited actions identified in
Sec. 89.1003(a)(1) with regard to uncertified engines or Tier 1
engines, as appropriate, if the engine manufacturer has received
written assurance that the engine is required to meet the demand for
engines created under paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section.
16. The newly designated Sec. 89.104 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.104 Useful life, recall, and warranty periods.
(a) The useful life is based on the rated power and rated speed of
the engine.
(1) For all engines rated under 19 kW, and for constant speed
engines rated under 37 kW rated speeds greater than or equal to 3,000
rpm, the useful life is a period of 3,000 hours or five years of use,
whichever first occurs.
(2) For all other engines rated at or above 19 kW and under 37 kW,
the useful life is a period of 5,000 hours or seven years of use,
whichever first occurs.
(3) For all engines rated at or above 37 kW, the useful life is a
period of 8,000 hours of operation or ten years of use, whichever first
occurs.
(b) Engines are subject to recall testing for a period based on the
rated power and rated speed of the engines. However, in a recall,
engines in the subject class or category would be subject to recall
regardless of actual years or hours of operation.
(1) For all engines rated under 19 kW and for constant speed
engines rated under 37 kW with rated speeds greater than or equal to
3,000 rpm, the engines are subject to recall testing for a period of
2,250 hours or four years of use, whichever first occurs.
(2) For all other engines rated at or above 19 kW and under 37 kW,
the engines are subject to recall for a period of 3,750 hours or five
years of use, whichever first occurs.
(3) For all engines rated at or above 37 kW, the engines are
subject to recall for a period of 6,000 hours of operation or seven
years of use, whichever first occurs.
(c) Warranties imposed by the Clean Air Act for engines rated under
19 kW
[[Page 50198]]
are for 1,500 hours of operation or three years of use, whichever first
occurs. For engines rated at or above 19 kW, warranties imposed by the
Clean Air Act are for 3,000 hours of operation or five years of use,
whichever first occurs.
* * * * *
17. The newly designated Sec. 89.109 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.109 Maintenance instructions and minimum allowable maintenance
intervals.
(a) The manufacturer must furnish or cause to be furnished to the
ultimate purchaser of each new nonroad engine written instructions for
the maintenance needed to ensure proper functioning of the emission
control system. Paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section do not apply
to Tier 1 engines with rated power at or above 37 kW.
(b) Maintenance performed on equipment, engines, subsystems or
components used to determine exhaust emission deterioration factors is
classified as either emission-related or nonemission-related and each
of these can be classified as either scheduled or unscheduled. Further,
some emission-related maintenance is also classified as critical
emission-related maintenance.
(c) This paragraph (c) specifies emission-related scheduled
maintenance for purposes of obtaining durability data and for inclusion
in maintenance instructions furnished to purchasers of new nonroad
engines. The maintenance intervals specified below are minimum
intervals:
(1) All emission-related scheduled maintenance for purposes of
obtaining durability data must occur at the same hours of use intervals
that will be specified in the manufacturer's maintenance instructions
furnished to the ultimate purchaser of the engine under paragraph (a)
of this section. This maintenance schedule may be updated as necessary
throughout the testing of the engine, provided that no maintenance
operation is deleted from the maintenance schedule after the operation
has been performed on the test vehicle or engine.
(2) Any emission-related maintenance which is performed on
vehicles, engines, subsystems, or components must be technologically
necessary to assure in-use compliance with the emission standards. The
manufacturer must submit data which demonstrate to the Administrator
that all of the emission-related scheduled maintenance which is to be
performed is technologically necessary. Scheduled maintenance must be
approved by the Administrator prior to being performed or being
included in the maintenance instructions provided to the purchasers
under paragraph (a) of this section. The Administrator has determined
that emission-related maintenance in addition to or at shorter
intervals than those outlined in paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this
section is not technologically necessary to ensure in-use compliance
and therefore will not be accepted. However, the Administrator may
determine that maintenance even more restrictive (e.g., longer
intervals) than that listed in paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this
section is also not technologically necessary.
(3) For nonroad compression-ignition engines, the adjustment,
cleaning, repair, or replacement listed in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(c)(3)(iii) of this section shall occur at 1,500 hours of use and at
1,500-hour intervals thereafter.
(i) Exhaust gas recirculation system-related filters and coolers.
(ii) Positive crankcase ventilation valve.
(iii) Fuel injector tips (cleaning only).
(4) The adjustment, cleaning and repair in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)
through (c)(4)(vii) of this section shall occur at 3,000 hours of use
and at 3,000-hour intervals thereafter for nonroad compression-ignition
engines rated under 130 kW, or at 4,500-hour intervals thereafter for
nonroad compression-ignition engines rated at or above 130 kW.
(i) Fuel injectors.
(ii) Turbocharger.
(iii) Electronic engine control unit and its associated sensors and
actuators.
(iv) Particulate trap or trap-oxidizer system (including related
components).
(v) Exhaust gas recirculation system (including all related control
valves and tubing) except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c)(3)(i)
of this section.
(vi) Catalytic convertor.
(vii) Any other add-on emission-related component (i.e., a
component whose sole or primary purpose is to reduce emissions or whose
failure will significantly degrade emission control and whose function
is not integral to the design and performance of the engine).
(5)(i) The components listed in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through
(c)(5)(i)(F) of this section are currently defined as critical
emission-related components.
(A) Catalytic convertor.
(B) Electronic engine control unit and its associated sensors and
actuators.
(C) Exhaust gas recirculation system (including all related
filters, coolers, control valves, and tubing).
(D) Positive crankcase ventilation valve.
(E) Particulate trap or trap-oxidizer system.
(F) Any other add-on emission-related component (i.e., a component
whose sole or primary purpose is to reduce emissions or whose failure
will significantly degrade emission control and whose function is not
integral to the design and performance of the engine).
(ii) All critical emission-related scheduled maintenance must have
a reasonable likelihood of being performed in-use. The manufacturer
shall be required to show the reasonable likelihood of such maintenance
being performed in-use. Critical emission-related scheduled maintenance
items which satisfy one of the conditions defined in paragraphs
(c)(5)(ii)(A) through (c)(5)(ii)(F) of this section will be accepted as
having a reasonable likelihood of the maintenance item being performed
in-use.
(A) Data are presented which establish for the Administrator a
connection between emissions and vehicle performance such that as
emissions increase due to lack of maintenance, vehicle performance will
simultaneously deteriorate to a point unacceptable for typical driving.
(B) Survey data are submitted which adequately demonstrate to the
Administrator that, at an 80 percent confidence level, 80 percent of
such engines already have this critical maintenance item performed in-
use at the recommended interval(s).
(C) A clearly displayed visible signal system approved by the
Administrator is installed to alert the equipment operator that
maintenance is due. A signal bearing the message ``maintenance needed''
or ``check engine,'' or a similar message approved by the
Administrator, shall be actuated at the appropriate usage point or by
component failure. This signal must be continuous while the engine is
in operation and not be easily eliminated without performance of the
required maintenance. Resetting the signal shall be a required step in
the maintenance operation. The method for resetting the signal system
shall be approved by the Administrator. The system must not be designed
to deactivate upon the end of the useful life of the engine or
thereafter.
(D) A manufacturer may desire to demonstrate through a survey that
a critical maintenance item is likely to be performed without a visible
signal on a maintenance item for which there is no prior in-use
experience without the signal. To that end, the manufacturer may in a
given model year market up to 200 randomly selected vehicles per
critical emission-related maintenance item without such visible
signals, and monitor the performance of the critical
[[Page 50199]]
maintenance item by the owners to show compliance with paragraph
(c)(5)(ii)(B) of this section. This option is restricted to two
consecutive model years and may not be repeated until any previous
survey has been completed. If the critical maintenance involves more
than one engine family, the sample will be sales weighted to ensure
that it is representative of all the families in question.
(E) The manufacturer provides the maintenance free of charge, and
clearly informs the customer that the maintenance is free in the
instructions provided under paragraph (a) of this section.
(F) Any other method which the Administrator approves as
establishing a reasonable likelihood that the critical maintenance will
be performed in-use.
(iii) Visible signal systems used under paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(C) of
this section are considered an element of design of the emission
control system. Therefore, disabling, resetting, or otherwise rendering
such signals inoperative without also performing the indicated
maintenance procedure is a prohibited act.
(d) Nonemission-related scheduled maintenance which is reasonable
and technologically necessary (e.g., oil change, oil filter change,
fuel filter change, air filter change, cooling system maintenance,
adjustment of idle speed, governor, engine bolt torque, valve lash,
injector lash, timing, lubrication of the exhaust manifold heat control
valve, etc.) may be performed on durability vehicles at the least
frequent intervals recommended by the manufacturer to the ultimate
purchaser, (e.g., not the intervals recommended for severe service).
(e) Adjustment of engine idle speed on emission data engines may be
performed once before the low-hour emission test point. Any other
engine, emission control system, or fuel system adjustment, repair,
removal, disassembly, cleaning, or replacement on emission data
vehicles shall be performed only with advance approval of the
Administrator.
(f) Equipment, instruments, or tools may not be used to identify
malfunctioning, maladjusted, or defective engine components unless the
same or equivalent equipment, instruments, or tools will be available
to dealerships and other service outlets and:
(1) Are used in conjunction with scheduled maintenance on such
components; or
(2) Are used subsequent to the identification of a vehicle or
engine malfunction, as provided in paragraph (e) of this section for
emission data engines; or
(3) Unless specifically authorized by the Administrator.
(g) All test data, maintenance reports, and required engineering
reports shall be compiled and provided to the Administrator in
accordance with Sec. 89.124.
18. The newly designated Sec. 89.110 is amended by removing ``and''
at the end of paragraph (b)(9), by adding a semicolon at the end of
paragraph (b)(10), and by adding new paragraphs (b)(11) and (b)(12) to
read as follows:
Sec. 89.110 Emission control information label.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(11) Engines belonging to an engine family that has been certified
as a constant-speed engine using the test cycle specified in Table 2 of
appendix B to subpart E of this part must contain the statement on the
label: ``constant-speed only'';
(12)(i) Engines meeting the voluntary standards described in
Sec. 89.112(f)(1) to be designated as Blue Sky Series engines must
contain the statement on the label: ``Blue Sky--Class A''.
(ii) Engines meeting the voluntary standards described in
Sec. 89.112(f)(2) to be designated as Blue Sky Series engines must
contain the statement on the label: ``Blue Sky--Class AA''.
(iii) Engines meeting the voluntary standards described in
Sec. 89.112(f)(3) to be designated as Blue Sky Series engines must
contain the statement on the label: ``Blue Sky--Class AAA''.
* * * * *
19. The newly designated Sec. 89.112 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a), (b), and (d), and adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 89.112 Oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and
particulate matter exhaust emission standards.
(a) Nonroad engines to which this subpart is applicable must meet
the exhaust emission standards contained in Table 1 as follows:
Table 1.--Emission Standards (g/kW-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model
Rated brake power (kW) Tier year NOX HC NMHC+NOX CO PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kW<8................................ Tier 1.............. 2000 ...... ...... 10.5 8.0 1.0
Tier 2.............. 2005 ...... ...... 7.5 8.0 0.80
8kW<19................... Tier 1.............. 2000 ...... ...... 9.5 6.6 0.80
Tier 2.............. 2005 ...... ...... 7.5 6.6 0.80
19kW<37.................. Tier 1.............. 1999 ...... ...... 9.5 5.5 0.80
Tier 2.............. 2004 ...... ...... 7.5 5.5 0.60
37kW<75.................. Tier 1.............. 1998 9.2 ...... ........ ....... .......
Tier 2.............. 2004 ...... ...... 7.5 5.0 0.40
Tier 3.............. 2008 ...... ...... 4.7 5.0 .......
75kW<130................. Tier 1.............. 1997 9.2 ...... ........ ....... .......
Tier 2.............. 2003 ...... ...... 6.6 5.0 0.30
Tier 3.............. 2007 ...... ...... 4.0 5.0 .......
130kW<225................ Tier 1.............. 1996 9.2 1.3 ........ 11.4 0.54
Tier 2.............. 2003 ...... ...... 6.6 3.5 0.20
Tier 3.............. 2006 ...... ...... 4.0 3.5 .......
225kW<450................ Tier 1.............. 1996 9.2 1.3 ........ 11.4 0.54
Tier 2.............. 2001 ...... ...... 6.4 3.5 0.20
Tier 3.............. 2006 ...... ...... 4.0 3.5 .......
450kW<560................ Tier 1.............. 1996 9.2 1.3 ........ 11.4 0.54
Tier 2.............. 2002 ...... ...... 6.4 3.5 0.20
Tier 3.............. 2006 ...... ...... 4.0 3.5 .......
kW560.................... Tier 1.............. 2000 9.2 1.3 ........ 11.4 0.54
Tier 2.............. 2006 ...... ...... 6.4 3.5 0.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50200]]
(b) Exhaust emissions of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbon, and nonmethane hydrocarbon are measured using the
procedures set forth in subpart E of this part.
* * * * *
(d) In lieu of the NOX standards, NMHC + NOX
standards, and PM standards specified in paragraph (a) of this section,
manufacturers may elect to include engine families in the averaging,
banking, and trading program, the provisions of which are specified in
subpart C of this part. The manufacturer must set a family emission
limit (FEL) not to exceed the levels contained in Table 2. The FEL
established by the manufacturer serves as the standard for that engine
family. Table 2 follows:
Table 2.--Upper Limit for Family Emission Limits (g/kW-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model NMHC+ NOX
Rated brake power (kW) Tier year NOX FEL FEL PM FEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kW<8..................................... Tier 1................... 2000 ......... 16.0 1.2
Tier 2................... 2005 ......... 10.5 1.0
8kW<19........................ Tier 1................... 2000 ......... 16.0 1.2
Tier 2................... 2005 ......... 9.5 0.80
19kW<37....................... Tier 1................... 1999 ......... 16.0 1.2
Tier 2................... 2004 ......... 9.5 0.80
37kW<75....................... Tier 1................... 1998 14.6 ......... .........
Tier 2................... 2004 ......... 10.5 1.2
Tier 3................... 2008 ......... 7.5
75kW<130...................... Tier 1................... 1997 14.6 ......... .........
Tier 2................... 2003 ......... 10.5 1.2
Tier 3................... 2007 ......... 6.6
130kW<225..................... Tier 1................... 1996 14.6 ......... .........
Tier 2................... 2003 ......... 10.5 0.54
Tier 3................... 2006 ......... 6.6
225kW<450..................... Tier 1................... 1996 14.6 ......... .........
Tier 2................... 2001 ......... 10.5 0.54
Tier 3................... 2006 ......... 6.4
450kW<560..................... Tier 1................... 1996 14.6 ......... .........
Tier 2................... 2002 ......... 10.5 0.54
Tier 3................... 2006 ......... 6.4
kW560......................... Tier 1................... 2000 14.6 ......... .........
Tier 2................... 2006 ......... 10.5 0.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Naturally aspirated nonroad engines to which this subpart is
applicable shall not discharge crankcase emissions into the ambient
atmosphere. For engines rated under 37 kW, this provision applies to
all 2001 model year engines and later models. For engines rated at or
above 37 kW, this provision applies to all Tier 2 engines and later
models. This provision does not apply to engines using turbochargers,
pumps, blowers, or superchargers for air induction.
(f) Engines may be designated ``Blue Sky Series'' engines through
the 2004 model year by meeting the following voluntary standards, which
apply to all certification and in-use testing. Emissions are measured
using the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N.
Manufacturers may use an alternate procedure to demonstrate the desired
level of emission control if approved in advance by the Administrator.
Engines meeting the requirements to qualify as Blue Sky Series engines
must be capable of maintaining a comparable level of emission control
when tested using the procedures set forth in paragraph (c) of this
section and subpart E of this part. The numerical emission levels
measured using the procedures from this part may be up to 20 percent
higher than those measured using the procedures from 40 CFR part 86,
subpart N, and still be considered comparable. Engines designated as
Blue Sky Series engines must meet the requirements related to in-use
durability detailed in Secs. 89.104, 89.109, 89.118, and 89.130;
alternatively, manufacturers may fulfull these requirements with the
comparable provisions from 40 CFR part 86.
(1) Engines certified to voluntary standards at least 35 percent
below the numerical level established for Tier 2 engines, for both
particulate matter and NMHC + NOX, may be designated as a
``Blue Sky Series engine--Class A''. Manufacturers must also
demonstrate compliance with the numerical level established for CO
emissions from the applicable tier of engines, as described in
paragraph (a) of this section, and with the smoke emission standards
described in Sec. 86.113 of this chapter. This designation will no
longer be available beginning in the year for which Tier 2 standards
apply to an engine's power category.
(2) Engines certified to voluntary standards at least 50 percent
below the numerical level established for Tier 2 engines, for both
particulate matter and NMHC + NOX, may be designated as a
``Blue Sky Series engine--Class AA''. Manufacturers must also
demonstrate compliance with the numerical level established for CO
emissions from the applicable tier of engines, as described in
paragraph (a) of this section, and with the smoke emission standards
described in Sec. 86.113 of this chapter.
(3) Engines certified to voluntary standards at least 65 percent
below the numerical level established for Tier 2 engines, for both
particulate matter and NMHC + NOX, may be designated as a
``Blue Sky Series engine--Class AAA''. Manufacturers must also
demonstrate compliance with the numerical level established for CO
emissions from the applicable tier of engines, as described in
paragraph (a) of this section, and with the smoke emission standards
described in Sec. 86.113 of this chapter.
20. The newly designated Sec. 89.117 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.117 Test fleet selection.
(a) The manufacturer must select for testing, from each engine
family, the engine with the most fuel injected per stroke of an
injector, primarily at the
[[Page 50201]]
speed of maximum torque and secondarily at rated speed.
* * * * *
(d) For establishing deterioration factors, the manufacturer shall
select the engines, subsystems, or components to be used to determine
exhaust emission deterioration factors for each engine-family control
system combination. Whether engines, subsystems, or components are
used, they shall be selected so that their emission deterioration
characteristics may be expected to represent those of in-use engines,
based on good engineering judgment.
21. The newly designated Sec. 89.118 is amended by adding a new
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.118 Service accumulation.
* * * * *
(e) This paragraph (e) describes service accumulation requirements
for the purpose of deterioration factor development. Paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section also apply here.
(1) Service accumulation on engines, subsystems, or components
selected by the manufacturer under Sec. 89.117(d). The manufacturer
determines the form and extent of this service accumulation, consistent
with good engineering practice, and describes it in the application for
certification.
(2) Determination of exhaust emission deterioration factors. The
manufacturer determines the deterioration factors based on the service
accumulation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section and related testing,
according to the manufacturer's procedures.
(3) Alternatives to service accumulation and testing for the
determination of a deterioration factor. A written explanation of the
appropriateness of using an alternative must be included in the
application for certification.
(i) Carryover and carryacross of durability emission data. In lieu
of testing an emission data or durability data engine selected under
Sec. 89.117(d), and submitting data therefore, a manufacturer may, with
Administrator approval, use exhaust emission deterioration data on a
similar engine for which certification to the same standard has
previously been obtained or for which all applicable data required
under Sec. 89.124 has previously been submitted. This data must be
submitted in the application for certification.
(ii) Use of on-highway deterioration data. In the case where a
manufacturer produces a certified on-highway engine that is similar to
the nonroad engine to be certified, deterioration data from the on-
highway engine may be applied to the nonroad engine. This application
of deterioration data from an on-highway engine to a nonroad engine is
subject to Administrator approval, and the determination of whether the
engines are similar must be based on good engineering judgment.
(iii) Engineering analysis for established technologies. (A) In the
case where an engine family uses technology which is well established,
an analysis based on good engineering practices may be used in lieu of
testing to determine a deterioration factor for that engine family.
(B) Engines using exhaust gas recirculation or aftertreatment are
excluded from the provision set forth in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of
this section.
(C) Engines for which the certification levels are not at or below
the Tier 3 NMHC+NOX or PM standards described in Sec. 89.112
are considered established technology.
(D) Manufacturers may petition the Administrator to consider an
engine with a certification level below the Tier 3 NMHC+NOX
and PM standards as established technology. This petition must be based
on proof that the technology used is not significantly different than
that used on engines that have certification levels that are not below
the Tier 3 NMHC+NOX and PM levels.
(E) The manufacturer shall provide a written statement to the
Administrator that all data, analyses, test procedures, evaluations,
and other documents, on which the deterioration factor is based, are
available to the Administrator upon request.
22. The newly designated Sec. 89.119 is amended by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.119 Emission tests.
* * * * *
(d) Test fuels. EPA may use the fuel specified in either Table 4 or
Table 5 of Appendix A to subpart D of this part in confirmatory testing
or other testing on any test engine.
23. The newly designated Sec. 89.120 is amended by revising
paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.120 Compliance with emission standards.
* * * * *
(c) For each nonroad engine family, except Tier 1 engines with
rated power at or above 37 kW that do not employ aftertreatment, a
deterioration factor must be determined and applied.
(1) The applicable exhaust emission standards (or family emission
limits, as appropriate) for nonroad compression-ignition engines apply
to the emissions of engines for their useful life.
(2) Since emission control efficiency generally decreases with the
accumulation of service on the engine, deterioration factors will be
used in combination with emission data engine test results as the basis
for determining compliance with the standards.
(3)(i) This paragraph (c)(3) describes the procedure for
determining compliance of an engine with emission standards (or family
emission limits, as appropriate), based on deterioration factors
supplied by the manufacturer. Deterioration factors shall be
established using applicable emission test procedures. NMHC +
NOX deterioration factors shall be established based on the
sum of the pollutants. When establishing deterioration factors for NMHC
+ NOX, a negative deterioration (emissions decrease from the
official emissions test result) for one pollutant may not offset
deterioration of the other pollutant. Where negative deterioration
occurs for NOX or NMHC, the official exhaust emission test
result shall be used for purposes of determining the NMHC +
NOX deterioration factor.
(ii) Separate exhaust emission deterioration factors, determined
from tests of engines, subsystems, or components conducted by the
manufacturer, shall be supplied for each engine-system combination.
Separate factors shall be established for NMHC, CO, NOX,
NMHC + NOX, and exhaust particulate. For smoke testing,
separate factors shall also be established for the acceleration mode
(designated as ``A''), the lugging mode (designated as ``B''), and peak
opacity (designated as ``C'').
(iii) Compression-ignition nonroad engines not utilizing
aftertreatment technology (e.g., particulate traps). For NMHC, CO,
NOX, NMHC + NOX, and exhaust particulate, the
official exhaust emission results for each emission data engine at the
selected test point shall be adjusted by addition of the appropriate
deterioration factor. However, if the deterioration factor supplied by
the manufacturer is less than zero, it shall be zero for the purposes
of this paragraph (c).
(iv) Compression-ignition nonroad engines utilizing aftertreatment
technology (e.g., particulate traps). For NMHC, CO, NOX,
NMHC + NOX, and exhaust particulate, the official exhaust
emission results for each emission data engine at the selected test
point shall be adjusted by multiplication by the appropriate
deterioration factor. However, if the deterioration factor supplied by
the manufacturer is less than one, it shall be one for the purposes of
this paragraph (c).
(v) For acceleration smoke (``A''), lugging smoke (``B''), and peak
opacity
[[Page 50202]]
(``C''), the official exhaust emission results for each emission data
engine at the selected test point shall be adjusted by the addition of
the appropriate deterioration factor. However if the deterioration
supplied by the manufacturer is less than zero, it shall be zero for
the purposes of this paragraph (c).
(vi) The emission values to compare with the standards (or family
emission limits, as appropriate) shall be the adjusted emission values
of paragraphs (c)(3) (iii) through (v) of this section, rounded to the
same number of significant figures as contained in the applicable
standard in accordance with ASTM E29-93a, for each emission data
engine. This procedure has been incorporated by reference (see
Sec. 89.6).
(4) Every test engine of an engine family must comply with all
applicable standards (or family emission limits, as appropriate), as
determined in paragraph (c)(3)(vi) of this section, before any engine
in that family will be certified.
* * * * *
(e) For the purposes of setting an NMHC + NOX
certification level or FEL, one of the following options shall be used
for the determination of NMHC for an engine family. The manufacturer
must declare which option is used in its application for certification
of that engine family.
(1) THC may be used in lieu of NMHC for the standards set forth in
Sec. 89.112.
(2) The manufacturer may choose its own method to analyze methane
with prior approval of the Administrator.
(3) The manufacturer may assume that two percent of the measured
THC is methane (NMHC=0.98 x THC).
24. The newly designated Sec. 89.126 is amended by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.126 Denial, revocation of certificate of conformity.
* * * * *
(c) If a manufacturer knowingly commits an infraction specified in
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(4) of this section, knowingly commits any other
fraudulent act which results in the issuance of a certificate of
conformity, or fails to comply with the conditions specified in
Secs. 89.203(d), 89.206(c), 89.209(c) or 89.210(g), the Administrator
may deem such certificate void ab initio.
* * * * *
25. A new Sec. 89.130 is added to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 89.130 Rebuild practices.
(a) The provisions of this section are applicable to engines
subject to the standards prescribed in section Sec. 89.112 and are
applicable to the process of engine rebuilding (or rebuilding a portion
of an engine or engine system). This section does not apply to Tier 1
engines rated at or above 37 kW. The process of engine rebuilding
generally includes disassembly, replacement of multiple parts due to
wear, and reassembly, and also may include the removal of the engine
from the vehicle and other acts associated with rebuilding an engine.
Any deviation from the provisions contained in this section is a
prohibited act.
(b) When rebuilding an engine, portions of an engine, or an engine
system, there must be a reasonable technical basis for knowing that the
resultant engine is equivalent, from an emissions standpoint, to a
certified configuration (i.e., tolerances, calibrations,
specifications) of the same or newer model year as the original engine.
A reasonable basis would exist if:
(1) Parts installed, whether the parts are new, used, or rebuilt,
are such that a person familiar with the design and function of motor
vehicle engines would reasonably believe that the parts perform the
same function with respect to emission control as the original parts;
and
(2) Any parameter adjustment or design element change is made only:
(i) In accordance with the original engine manufacturer's
instructions; or
(ii) Where data or other reasonable technical basis exists that
such parameter adjustment or design element change, when performed on
the engine or similar engines, is not expected to adversely affect in-
use emissions.
(c) When an engine is being rebuilt and remains installed or is
reinstalled in the same equipment, it must be rebuilt to a
configuration of the same or later model year as the original engine.
When an engine is being replaced, the replacement engine must be an
engine of (or rebuilt to) a configuration of the same or later model
year as the original engine.
(d) At time of rebuild, emission-related codes or signals from on-
board monitoring systems may not be erased or reset without diagnosing
and responding appropriately to the diagnostic codes, regardless of
whether the systems are installed to satisfy requirements in
Sec. 89.109 or for other reasons and regardless of form or interface.
Diagnostic systems must be free of all such codes when the rebuilt
engine is returned to service. Such signals may not be rendered
inoperative during the rebuilding process.
(e) When conducting a rebuild without removing the engine from the
equipment, or during the installation of a rebuilt engine, all critical
emission-related components listed in Sec. 86.109-99(d) of this chapter
not otherwise addressed by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section
must be checked and cleaned, adjusted, repaired, or replaced as
necessary, following manufacturer recommended practices.
(f) Records shall be kept by parties conducting activities included
in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. The records shall
include at minimum the hours of operation at time of rebuild, a listing
of work performed on the engine, and emission-related control
components including a listing of parts and components used, engine
parameter adjustments, emission-related codes or signals responded to
and reset, and work performed under paragraph (e) of this section.
(1) Parties may keep records in whatever format or system they
choose as long as the records are understandable to an EPA enforcement
officer or can be otherwise provided to an EPA enforcement officer in
an understandable format when requested.
(2) Parties are not required to keep records of information that is
not reasonably available through normal business practices including
information on activities not conducted by themselves or information
that they cannot reasonably access.
(3) Parties may keep records of their rebuilding practices for an
engine family rather than on each individual engine rebuilt in cases
where those rebuild practices are followed routinely.
(4) Records must be kept for a minimum of two years after the
engine is rebuilt.
Subpart C--[Amended]
26. The newly designated Sec. 89.203 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.203 General provisions.
(a) The averaging, banking, and trading programs for
NOX, NMHC + NOX, and PM emissions from eligible
nonroad engines are described in this subpart. Participation in these
programs is voluntary.
(b) Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37 kW. (1) A nonroad engine
family is eligible to participate in the averaging, banking, and
trading program for NOX emissions and the banking and
trading program for PM emissions if it is subject to regulation under
subpart B of this part with certain exceptions specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. No averaging, banking, and trading program
[[Page 50203]]
is available for meeting the Tier 1 HC, CO, or smoke emission standards
specified in subpart B of this part. No averaging program is available
for meeting the Tier 1 PM emission standards specified in subpart B of
this part.
(2) Nonroad engines may not participate in the averaging, banking,
and trading programs if they are subject to state engine emission
standards, are exported, or use an alternate or special test procedure
under Sec. 89.114. Meeting the voluntary standards described in
Sec. 89.112(f) for Blue Sky Series engines does not preclude
participation in the averaging, banking, and trading programs; however,
participation in the averaging, banking, and trading programs depends
on manufacturers developing test data on a steady-state test cycle, as
specified in Sec. 89.410(a), for credit computation purposes.
(3) A manufacturer may certify one or more nonroad engine families
at NOX family emission limits (FELs) above or below the Tier
1 NOX emission standard, provided the summation of the
manufacturer's projected balance of all NOX credit
transactions in a given model year is greater than or equal to zero, as
determined under Sec. 89.207(a). A manufacturer may certify one or more
nonroad engine families at PM FELs below the Tier 2 PM emission
standard that will be applicable to those engine families.
(i) FELs for NOX may not exceed the Tier 1 upper limit
specified in Sec. 89.112(d).
(ii) An engine family certified to an FEL is subject to all
provisions specified in subparts B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this
part, except that the applicable FEL replaces the emission standard for
the family participating in the averaging, banking, and trading
program.
(iii) A manufacturer of an engine family with an NOX FEL
exceeding the Tier 1 NOX emission standard must obtain
NOX emission credits sufficient to address the associated
credit shortfall via averaging, banking, or trading.
(iv) An engine family with a NOX FEL below the
applicable Tier 1 standard may generate emission credits for averaging,
banking, trading, or a combination thereof. An engine family with a PM
FEL below the Tier 2 standard that will be applicable to that engine
family may generate emission credits for banking, trading, or a
combination thereof. Emission credits may not be used to offset an
engine family's emissions that exceed its applicable FEL. Credits may
not be used to remedy nonconformity determined by a Selective
Enforcement Audit (SEA) or by recall (in-use) testing. However, in the
case of an SEA failure, credits may be used to allow subsequent
production of engines for the family in question if the manufacturer
elects to recertify to a higher FEL.
(4) NOX credits generated in a given model year may be
used to address credit shortfalls with other engines during that model
year or in any subsequent model year except as noted under paragraph
(b)(5)(ii) of this section. PM credits may be used to address credit
shortfalls with Tier 2 and later engines greater than or equal to 37 kW
and Tier 1 and later engines less than 37 kW and greater than or equal
to 19 kW. Credits generated in one model year may not be used for prior
model years.
(5) Using Tier 1 NOX credits for showing compliance with
Tier 2 NMHC + NOX credits.
(i) A manufacturer may use NOX credits from engines
subject to the Tier 1 standards to address NMHC + NOX credit
shortfall with engines in the same averaging set subject to Tier 2 NMHC
+ NOX emission standards.
(ii) NOX credits generated from Tier 1 engines may not
be used to address credit shortfalls with engines subject to the Tier 3
NMHC + NOX standards.
(c) Tier 2 and later engines rated at or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and
later engines rated under 37 kW. (1) A nonroad engine family is
eligible to participate in the averaging, banking, and trading programs
for NMHC + NOX emissions and PM emissions if it is subject
to regulation under subpart B of this part with certain exceptions
specified in subsection (c)(2) of this section. No averaging, banking,
and trading program is available for meeting the CO or smoke emission
standards specified in subpart B of this part.
(2) Nonroad engines may not participate in the averaging, banking,
and trading programs if they are subject to state engine emission
standards, are exported, or use an alternate or special test procedure
under Sec. 89.114. Meeting the voluntary standards described in
Sec. 89.112(f) for Blue Sky Series engines does not preclude
participation in the averaging, banking, and trading programs; however,
participation in the averaging, banking, and trading programs depends
on manufacturers developing test data on a steady-state test cycle, as
specified in Sec. 89.410(a), for credit computation purposes.
(3)(i) A manufacturer may certify one or more nonroad engine
families at FELs above or below the applicable NMHC + NOX
emission standard and PM emission standard, provided the summation of
the manufacturer's projected balance of all NMHC + NOX
credit transactions and the summation of the manufacturer's projected
balance of all PM credit transactions in a given model year in a given
averaging set is greater than or equal to zero, as determined under
Sec. 89.207(b).
(A) FELs for NMHC + NOX and FELs for PM may not exceed
the upper limits specified in Sec. 89.112(d).
(B) An engine family certified to an FEL is subject to all
provisions specified in subparts B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this
part, except that the applicable FEL replaces the emission standard for
the family participating in the averaging, banking, and trading
program.
(C) A manufacturer of an engine family with an FEL exceeding the
applicable emission standard must obtain emission credits sufficient to
address the associated credit shortfall via averaging, banking, or
trading, within the restrictions described in Secs. 89.204(c) and
89.206(b)(4).
(D) An engine family with an FEL below the applicable standard may
generate emission credits for averaging, banking, trading, or a
combination thereof. Emission credits may not be used to offset an
engine family's emissions that exceed its applicable FEL. Credits may
not be used to remedy nonconformity determined by a Selective
Enforcement Audit (SEA) or by recall (in-use) testing. However, in the
case of an SEA failure, credits may be used to allow subsequent
production of engines for the family in question if the manufacturer
elects to recertify to a higher FEL.
(ii)(A) In lieu of generating credits under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of
this section, a manufacturer may certify one or more nonroad engine
families rated under 37 kW at family emission limits (FELs) above or
below the applicable NMHC + NOX emission standard and PM
emission standard. The summation of the manufacturer's projected
balance of all NMHC + NOX credit transactions and the
summation of the manufacturer's projected balance of all PM credit
transactions in a given model year, as determined under Sec. 89.207(b),
is allowed to be less than zero. Separate calculations shall be
required for the following two categories of engines: engines rated
under 19 kW and engines rated at or above 19kW and under 37 kW.
(B) A penalty equal to ten percent of the year end negative credit
balance shall be added to the negative credit balance. The resulting
negative credit balance shall be carried into the next model year.
(C) For engines rated under 19 kW, a manufacturer will be allowed
to carry
[[Page 50204]]
over a negative credit balance until December 31, 2003. For engines
rated at or above 19 kW and under 37 kW, a manufacturer will be allowed
to carry over a negative credit balance until December 31, 2002. As of
these dates, the summation of the manufacturer's projected balance of
all NMHC + NOX credit transactions and the summation of the
manufacturer's projected balance of all PM credit transactions must be
greater than or equal to zero.
(D) FELs for NMHC + NOX and FELs for PM may not exceed
the upper limits specified in Sec. 89.112(d).
(E) An engine family certified to an FEL is subject to all
provisions specified in subparts B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this
part, except that the applicable NMHC + NOX FEL or PM FEL
replaces the NMHC + NOX emission standard or PM emission
standard for the family participating in the averaging and banking
program.
(F) A manufacturer of an engine family with an FEL exceeding the
applicable emission standard must obtain emission credits sufficient to
address the associated credit shortfall via averaging or banking. The
exchange of emission credits generated under this program with other
nonroad engine manufacturers in trading is not allowed.
(G) An engine family with an FEL below the applicable standard may
generate emission credits for averaging, banking, or a combination
thereof. Emission credits may not be used to offset an engine family's
emissions that exceed its applicable FEL. Credits may not be used to
remedy nonconformity determined by a Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA)
or by recall (in-use) testing. However, in the case of an SEA failure,
credits may be used to allow subsequent production of engines for the
family in question if the manufacturer elects to recertify to a higher
FEL.
(4)(i) Except as noted in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii), (c)(4)(iii), and
(c)(4)(iv) of this section, credits generated in a given model year may
be used during that model year or used in any subsequent model year.
Except as allowed under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, credits
generated in one model year may not be used for prior model years.
(ii) Credits generated from engines rated under 19 kW prior to the
implementation date of the applicable Tier 2 standards, shall expire on
December 31, 2007.
(iii) Credits generated from engines rated under 19 kW under the
provisions of paragraph (c)(3)(ii) shall expire on December 31, 2003.
(iv) Credits generated from engines rated at or above 19 kW and
under 37 kW under the provisions of paragraph (c)(3)(ii) shall expire
on December 31, 2002.
(d) Manufacturers must demonstrate compliance under the averaging,
banking, and trading programs for a particular model year by 270 days
after the model year. Engine families without an adequate amount of
emission credits, except as allowed under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this
section, will violate the conditions of the certificates of conformity.
The certificates of conformity may be voided ab initio under
Sec. 89.126(c) for those engine families.
(e) Engine families may not generate credits for one pollutant
while also using credits for another pollutant in the same model year.
(f) An engine manufacturer may exchange NOX emission
credits, NMHC + NOX emission credits, and PM emission
credits to equipment or vehicle manufacturers in trading. Such credits
may be used within the provisions specified in Sec. 89.102(d)(3).
27. The newly designated Sec. 89.204 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.204 Averaging.
(a) Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37 kW. (1) A manufacturer may
use averaging to offset an emission exceedance of a nonroad engine
family caused by a NOX FEL above the applicable emission
standard. NOX credits used in averaging may be obtained from
credits generated by another engine family in the same model year,
credits banked in a previous model year, or credits obtained through
trading.
(2) Credits scheduled to expire in the earliest model year must be
used first, before using other available credits.
(b) Tier 2 and later engines rated at or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and
later engines rated under 37 kW. (1) A manufacturer may use averaging
to offset an emission exceedance of a nonroad engine family caused by
an NMHC + NOX FEL or a PM FEL above the applicable emission
standard. Credits used in averaging may be obtained from credits
generated by another engine family in the same model year, credits
banked in previous model years that have not expired, or credits
obtained through trading. The use of credits shall be within the
restrictions described in paragraph (c) of this section and
Sec. 89.206(b)(4).
(2) Credits scheduled to expire in the earliest model year must be
used first, before using other available credits.
(c) Averaging sets for emission credits. The averaging and trading
of NOX emission credits, NMHC + NOX emission
credits, and PM emissions credits will only be allowed between engine
families in the same averaging set. The averaging sets for the
averaging and trading of NOX emission credits, NMHC +
NOX emission credits, and PM emission credits for nonroad
engines are defined as follows:
(1) Eligible engines, other than marine diesel engines rated at or
above 19 kW, constitute an averaging set.
(2) Marine diesel engines rated at or above 19 kW constitute an
averaging set. Emission credits generated from marine diesel engines
rated at or above 19 kW may be used to address credit shortfalls for
eligible engines other than marine diesel engines rated at or above 19
kW.
(3) Eligible engines, other than marine diesel engines rated under
19 kW, constitute an averaging set.
(4) Marine diesel engines rated under 19 kW constitute an averaging
set. Emission credits generated from marine diesel engines rated under
19 kW may be used to address credit shortfalls for eligible engines
other than marine diesel engines rated under 19 kW.
28. The newly designated Sec. 89.205 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.205 Banking.
(a) Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37 kW. (1) A manufacturer of a
nonroad engine family with a NOX FEL below the applicable
standard for a given model year may bank credits in that model year for
use in averaging and trading in any subsequent model year.
(2) A manufacturer of a nonroad engine family may bank
NOX credits up to one calendar year prior to the effective
date of mandatory certification. Such engines must meet the
requirements of subparts A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this part.
(3)(i) A manufacturer of a nonroad engine family may bank PM
credits from Tier 1 engines under the provisions specified in
Sec. 89.207(b) for use in averaging and trading in the Tier 2 or later
timeframe provided the engine family is certified without an FEL above
the Tier 1 NOX standard.
(ii) Such engine families are subject to all provisions specified
in subparts B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this part, except that the
applicable PM FEL replaces the PM emission standard for the family
participating in the banking and trading program.
(b) Tier 2 and later engines rated at or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and
later engines rated under 37 kW. (1) A manufacturer of a nonroad engine
family with an NMHC + NOX FEL or a PM FEL below the
applicable standard for a given model year may bank credits in that
model year for use in averaging
[[Page 50205]]
and trading in any following model year.
(2) For engine rated under 37 kW, a manufacturer of a nonroad
engine family may bank credits prior to the effective date of mandatory
certification. Such engines must meet the requirements of subparts A,
B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this part.
(c) A manufacturer may bank actual credits only after the end of
the model year and after EPA has reviewed the manufacturer's end-of-
year reports. During the model year and before submittal of the end-of-
year report, credits originally designated in the certification process
for banking will be considered reserved and may be redesignated for
trading or averaging in the end-of-year report and final report.
(d) Credits declared for banking from the previous model year that
have not been reviewed by EPA may be used in averaging or trading
transactions. However, such credits may be revoked at a later time
following EPA review of the end-of-year report or any subsequent audit
actions.
29. The newly designated Sec. 89.206 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.206 Trading.
(a) Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37 kW. (1) A nonroad engine
manufacturer may exchange emission credits with other nonroad engine
manufacturers within the same averaging set in trading.
(2) Credits for trading can be obtained from credits banked in a
previous model year or credits generated during the model year of the
trading transaction.
(3) Traded credits can be used for averaging, banking, or further
trading transactions within the restrictions described in
Sec. 89.204(c).
(b) Tier 2 and later engines rated at or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and
later engines rated under 37 kW. (1) A nonroad engine manufacturer may
exchange emission credits with other nonroad engine manufacturers
within the same averaging set in trading.
(2) Credits for trading can be obtained from credits banked in
previous model years that have not expired or credits generated during
the model year of the trading transaction.
(3) Traded credits can be used for averaging, banking, or further
trading transactions within the restrictions described in
Sec. 89.204(c) and paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(4) Emission credits generated from engines rated at or above 19 kW
utilizing indirect fuel injection may not be traded to other
manufacturers.
(c) In the event of a negative credit balance resulting from a
transaction, both the buyer and the seller are liable, except in cases
involving fraud. Certificates of all engine families participating in a
negative trade may be voided ab initio under Sec. 89.126(c).
30. The newly designated Sec. 89.207 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.207 Credit calculation.
(a) NOX credits from Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37
kW. (1) For each participating engine family, emission credits
(positive or negative) are to be calculated according to one of the
following equations and rounded, in accordance with ASTM E29-93a, to
the nearest one-tenth of a megagram (Mg). This procedure has been
incorporated by reference (see Sec. 89.6). Consistent units are to be
used throughout the equation.
(i) For determining credit availability from all engine families
generating credits:
Emission credits = (Std--FEL) x (Volume) x (AvgPR) x (UL) x
(Adjustment) x (10-6)
(ii) For determining credit usage for all engine families requiring
credits to offset emissions in excess of the standard:
Emission credits = (Std--FEL) x (Volume) x (AvgPR) x (UL) x
(10-6)
Where:
Std = the applicable Tier 1 NOX nonroad engine emission
standard, in grams per brake horsepower hour.
FEL = the NOX family emission limit for the engine family
in grams per brake horsepower hour.
Volume = the number of nonroad engines eligible to participate in
the averaging, banking, and trading program within the given engine
family during the model year. Engines sold to equipment or vehicle
manufacturers under the provisions of Sec. 89.102(g) shall not be
included in this number. Quarterly production projections are used
for initial certification. Actual applicable production/sales
volumes is used for end-of-year compliance determination.
AvgPR = the average power rating of all of the configurations within
an engine family, calculated on a sales-weighted basis.
UL = the useful life for the engine family, in hours.
Adjustment = a one-time adjustment, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section, to be applied to Tier 1 NOX credits to
be banked or traded for determining compliance with the Tier 1
NOX standards or Tier 2 NOX+NMHC standards
specified in subpart B of this part. Banked credits traded in a
subsequent model year will not be subject to an additional
adjustment. Banked credits used in a subsequent model year's
averaging program will not have the adjustment restored.
(2) If an engine family is certified to a NOX FEL of 8.0
g/kW-hr or less, an Adjustment value of 1.0 shall be used in the credit
generation calculation described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section. If an engine family is certified to a NOX FEL above
8.0 g/kW-hr, an Adjustment value of 0.65 shall be used in the credit
generation calculation described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section. If the credits are to be used by the credit-generating
manufacturer for averaging purposes in the same model year in which
they are generated, an Adjustment value of 1.0 shall be used for all
engines regardless of the level of the NOX FEL.
(b) NMHC + NOX Credits from Tier 2 and later engines
rated at or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and later engines rated under 37 kW
and PM credits from all engines. (1) For each participating engine
family, NOX + NMHC emission credits and PM emission credits
(positive or negative) are to be calculated according to one of the
following equations and rounded, in accordance with ASTM E29-93a, to
the nearest one-tenth of a megagram (Mg). This procedure has been
incorporated by reference (see Sec. 89.6). Consistent units are to be
used throughout the equation.
(i) For determining credit availability from all engine families
generating credits:
Emission credits = (Std--FEL) x (Volume) x (AvgPR) x (UL) x
(10-6)
(ii) For determining credit usage for all engine families requiring
credits to offset emissions in excess of the standard:
Emission credits = (Std--FEL) x (Volume) x (AvgPR) x (UL) x
(10-6)
Where:
Std = the current and applicable nonroad engine emission standard,
in grams per brake horsepower hour, except for PM calculations where
it is the applicable nonroad engine Tier 2 PM emission standard, and
except for engines rated under 19 kW where it is the applicable
nonroad engine Tier 2 emission standard, in grams per brake
horsepower hour. (Engines rated under 19 kW participating in the
averaging and banking program provisions of Sec. 89.203(c)(3)(ii)
shall use the Tier 1 standard for credit calculations.)
FEL = the family emission limit for the engine family in grams per
brake horsepower hour.
[[Page 50206]]
Volume = the number of nonroad engines eligible to participate in
the averaging, banking, and trading program within the given engine
family during the model year. Engines sold to equipment or vehicle
manufacturers under the provisions of Sec. 89.102(g) shall not be
included in this number. Quarterly production projections are used
for initial certification. Actual applicable production/sales
volumes is used for end-of-year compliance determination.
AvgPR = the average power rating of all of the configurations within
an engine family, calculated on a sales-weighted basis.
UL = the useful life for the given engine family, in hours.
31. The newly designated Sec. 89.208 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.208 Labeling.
For all nonroad engines included in the averaging, banking, and
trading programs, the family emission limits to which the engine is
certified must be included on the label required in Sec. 89.110.
32. The newly designated Sec. 89.209 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.209 Certification.
(a) In the application for certification a manufacturer must:
(1) Declare its intent to include specific engine families in the
averaging, banking, and trading programs.
(2) Submit a statement that the engines for which certification is
requested will not, to the best of the manufacturer's belief, cause the
manufacturer to have a negative credit balance when all credits are
calculated for all the manufacturer's engine families participating in
the averaging, banking, and trading programs, except as allowed under
Sec. 89.203(c)(3)(ii).
(3) Declare the applicable FELs for each engine family
participating in averaging, banking, and trading.
(i) The FELs must be to the same number of significant digits as
the emission standard for the applicable pollutant.
(ii) In no case may the FEL exceed the upper limits prescribed in
Sec. 89.112(d).
(4) Indicate the projected number of credits generated/needed for
this family; the projected applicable production/sales volume, by
quarter; and the values required to calculate credits as given in
Sec. 89.207.
(5) Submit calculations in accordance with Sec. 89.207 of projected
emission credits (positive or negative) based on quarterly production
projections for each participating family.
(6)(i) If the engine family is projected to have negative emission
credits, state specifically the source (manufacturer/engine family or
reserved) of the credits necessary to offset the credit deficit
according to quarterly projected production, or, if the engine family
is to be included in the provisions of Sec. 89.203(c)(3)(ii), state
that the engine family will be included in those provisions.
(ii) If the engine family is projected to generate credits, state
specifically (manufacturer/engine family or reserved) where the
quarterly projected credits will be applied.
* * * * *
33. The newly designated Sec. 89.210 is amended by revising
paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.210 Maintenance of records.
* * * * *
(b) The manufacturer of any nonroad engine family that is certified
under the averaging, banking, and trading programs must establish,
maintain, and retain the following adequately organized and indexed
records for each such family:
(1) EPA engine family;
(2) Family emission limits (FEL);
(3) Power rating for each configuration tested;
(4) Projected applicable production/sales volume for the model
year; and
(5) Actual applicable production/sales volume for the model year.
(c) Any manufacturer producing an engine family participating in
trading reserved credits must maintain the following records on a
quarterly basis for each engine family in the trading program:
(1) The engine family;
(2) The actual quarterly and cumulative applicable production/sales
volume;
(3) The values required to calculate credits as given in
Sec. 89.207;
(4) The resulting type and number of credits generated/required;
(5) How and where credit surpluses are dispersed; and
(6) How and through what means credit deficits are met.
* * * * *
34. The newly designated Sec. 89.211 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.211 End-of-year and final reports.
(a) End-of-year and final reports must indicate the engine family,
the actual applicable production/sales volume, the values required to
calculate credits as given in Sec. 89.207, and the number of credits
generated/required. Manufacturers must also submit how and where credit
surpluses were dispersed (or are to be banked) and/or how and through
what means credit deficits were met. Copies of contracts related to
credit trading must be included or supplied by the broker, if
applicable. The report shall include a calculation of credit balances
to show that the summation of the manufacturer's use of credits results
in a credit balance equal to or greater than zero, except as allowed
under Sec. 89.203(c)(3)(ii).
* * * * *
(c)(1) End-of-year reports must be submitted within 90 days of the
end of the model year to: Director, Engine Programs and Compliance
Division (6405-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
(2) Final reports must be submitted within 270 days of the end of
the model year to: Director, Engine Programs and Compliance Division
(6405-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
* * * * *
35. The newly designated Sec. 89.212 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.212 Notice of opportunity for hearing.
Any voiding of the certificate under Secs. 89.203(d), 89.206(c),
89.209(c) and 89.210(g) will be made only after the manufacturer
concerned has been offered an opportunity for a hearing conducted in
accordance with Secs. 89.512 and 89.513 and, if a manufacturer requests
such a hearing, will be made only after an initial decision by the
Presiding Officer.
Subpart D--[Amended]
36. The newly designated Sec. 89.302 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.302 Definitions.
The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart.
For terms not defined in this part, the definitions in part 86,
subparts A, D, I, and N, of this chapter apply to this subpart.
37. The newly designated Sec. 89.304 is amended by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.304 Equipment required for gaseous emissions; overview.
* * * * *
(c) Analyzers used are a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) absorption
type for carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide analysis; a heated flame
ionization (HFID) type for hydrocarbon analysis; and a chemiluminescent
detector (CLD) or heated chemiluminescent detector (HCLD) for oxides of
nitrogen analysis. A gas chromatograph (GC) may also be required for
methane analysis. Sections
[[Page 50207]]
89.309 through 89.324 set forth a full description of analyzer
requirements and specifications.
38. The newly designated Sec. 89.307 is amended by revising
paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.307 Dynamometer calibration.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) The measured torque must be within either 2 percent of point or
1 percent of the engine maximum torque of the calculated torque.
(8) If the measured torque is not within the above requirements
adjust or repair the system. Repeat steps in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(6) of this section with the adjusted or repaired system.
* * * * *
39. The newly designated Sec. 89.308 is amended by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.308 Sampling system requirements for gaseous emissions.
* * * * *
(b) If water is removed by condensation, the sample gas temperature
shall be monitored within the water trap or the sample dewpoint shall
be monitored downstream. In either case, the indicated temperature
shall not exceed 7 deg.C.
40. The newly designated Sec. 89.309 is amended by removing and
reserving paragraph (a)(3) and revising paragraphs (a)(4)(iii),
(a)(5)(i)(C), and (a)(5)(i)(D) and adding paragraph (a)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 89.309 Analyzers required for gaseous emissions.
(a) * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(4) * * *
(iii) The FID oven must be capable of maintaining temperature
within 5.5 deg.C of the set point.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) For raw analysis, an ice bath or other cooling device located
after the NOX converter (optional for dilute analysis).
(D) A chemiluminescent detector (CLD or HCLD).
* * * * *
(6) Methane analysis. (i) Using a methane analyzer consisting of a
gas chromatograph combined with an FID, the measurement of methane
shall be in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J1151, ``Methane
Measurement Using Gas Chromatography.'' (Incorporated by reference
pursuant to Sec. 86.1(b)(2).)
(ii) As an option, the manufacturer may choose the analyzer to be
used for methane measurement with the prior approval of the
Administrator.
* * * * *
41. The newly designated Sec. 89.310 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(1) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.310 Analyzer accuracy and specifications.
(a) * * *
(1) Response time. As necessary, measure and account for the
response time of the analyzer.
* * * * *
(c) Emission measurement accuracy--Bagged sampling. (1) Good
engineering practice dictates that exhaust emission sample analyzer
readings below 15 percent of full-scale chart deflection should
generally not be used.
(2) Some high resolution read-out systems, such as computers, data
loggers, and so forth, can provide sufficient accuracy and resolution
below 15 percent of full scale. Such systems may be used provided that
additional calibrations of at least 4 non-zero nominally equally spaced
points, using good engineering judgement, below 15 percent of full
scale are made to ensure the accuracy of the calibration curves. If a
gas divider is used, the gas divider must conform to the accuracy
requirements specified in Sec. 89.312(c). The procedure in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section may be used for calibration below 15 percent of
full scale.
(3) The following procedure shall be followed:
(i) Span the l analyzer using a calibration gas meeting the
accuracy requirements of Sec. 89.312(c), within the operating range of
the analyzer, and at least 90% of full scale.
(ii) Generate a calibration over the full concentration range at a
minimum of 6, approximately equally spaced, points (e.g. 15, 30, 45,
60, 75, and 90 percent of the range of concetrations provided by the
gas divider). If a gas divider or blender is being used to calibrate
the analyzer and the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section
are met, verify that a second calibration gas between 10 and 20 percent
of full scale can be named within 2 percent of its certified
concentration.
(iii) If a gas divider or blender is being used to calibrate the
analyzer, input the value of a second calibration gas (a span gas may
be used for the CO2 analyzer) having a named concentration between 10
and 20 percent of full scale. This gas shall be included on the
calibration curve. Continue adding calibration points by dividing this
gas until the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section are met.
(iv) Fit a calibration curve per Secs. 89.319 through 89.322 for
the full scale range of the analyzer using the calibration data
obtained with both calibration gases.
* * * * *
42. The newly designated Sec. 89.312 is amended by revising
paragraphs (c)(2), (d), and (f) and adding a new paragraph (g) to read
as follows:
Sec. 89.312 Analytical gases.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Mixtures of gases having the following chemical compositions
shall be available:
C3H8 and purified synthetic air;
C3H8 and purified nitrogen (optional for raw
measurements);
CO and purified nitrogen;
NOX and purified nitrogen (the amount of NO2
contained in this calibration gas must not exceed 5 percent of the NO
content);
CO2 and purified nitrogen.
* * * * *
(d) Oxygen interference check gases shall contain propane with 350
ppmC75 ppmC hydrocarbon. The three oxygen interference
gases shall contain 21%1% O2,10%1%
O2, and 5%1% O2. The concentration
value shall be determined to calibration gas tolerances by
chromatographic analysis of total hydrocarbons plus impurities or by
dynamic blending. Nitrogen shall be the predominant diluent with the
balance oxygen.
* * * * *
(f) Hydrocarbon analyzer burner air. The concentration of oxygen
for raw sampling must be within 1 mole percent of the oxygen
concentration of the burner air used in the latest oxygen interference
check (%O2I). If the difference in oxygen concentration is
greater than 1 mole percent, then the oxygen interference must be
checked and, if necessary, the analyzer adjusted to meet the
%O2I requirements. The burner air must contain less than 2
ppmC hydrocarbon.
(g) Gases for the methane analyzer shall be single blends of
methane using air as the diluent.
43. The newly designated Sec. 89.314 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.314 Pre- and post-test calibration of analyzers.
* * * * *
(a) The calibration is checked by using a zero gas and a span gas
whose nominal value is between 75 percent
[[Page 50208]]
and 100 percent of full-scale, inclusive, of the measuring range.
(b) After the end of the final mode, a zero gas and the same span
gas will be used for rechecking. As an option,the zero and span may be
rechecked at the end of each mode or each test segment. The analysis
will be considered acceptable if the difference between the two
measuring results is less than 2 percent of full scale.
Sec. 89.316 [Amended]
44. The newly designated Sec. 89.316 is amended by removing and
reserving paragraph (b).
45. The newly designated Sec. 89.317 is amended by revising
paragraphs (g), (h), and (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.317 NOX converter check.
* * * * *
(g) Turn on the NOX generator O2 (or air)
supply and adjust the O2 (or air) flow rate so that the NO
indicated by the analyzer is about 10 percent less than indicated in
paragraph (f) of this section. Record the concentration of NO in this
NO+O2 mixture.
(h) Switch the NOX generator to the generation mode and
adjust the generation rate so that the NO measured on the analyzer is
20 percent of that measured in paragraph (f) of this section. There
must be at least 10 percent unreacted NO at this point. Record the
concentration of residual NO.
* * * * *
(k) Turn off the NOX generator O2 (or air)
supply. The analyzer will now indicate the NOX in the
original NO-in-N2 mixture. This value should be no more than
5 percent above the value indicated in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
46. The newly designated Sec. 89.318 is amended by revising
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.318 Analyzer interference checks.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) NOX analyzer water quench check. (i) This check
applies to wet measurements only. An NO span gas having a concentration
of 80 to 100 percent of full scale of a normal operating range shall be
passed through the CLD (or HCLD) and the response recorded as D. The NO
span gas shall then be bubbled through water at room temperature and
passed through the CLD (or HCLD) and the analyzer response recorded as
AR. Determine and record the bubbler absolute operating pressure and
the bubbler water temperature. (It is important that the NO span gas
contains minimal NO2 concentration for this check. No
allowance for absorption of NO2 in water has been made in
the following quench calculations. This test may be optionally run in
the NO mode to minimize the effect of any NO2 in the NO span
gas.)
* * * * *
(iv)(A) The maximum raw or dilute exhaust water vapor concentration
expected during testing (designated as Wm) can be estimated from the
CO2 span gas (or as defined in the equation in this
paragraph and designated as A) criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section and the assumption of a fuel atom H/C ratio of 1.8:1 as:
Wm(%)=0.9 x A(%)
Where:
A= maximum CO2 concentration expected in the sample system
during testing.
(B) Percent water quench shall not exceed 3 percent and shall be
calculated by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.004
47. The newly designated Sec. 89.319 is amended by revising
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), (d) introductory text, (d)(2), and
(d)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.319 Hydrocarbon analyzer calibration.
* * * * *
(b) Initial and periodic optimization of detector response. * * *
(1) Follow good engineering practices for initial instrument start-
up and basic operating adjustment using the appropriate fuel (see
Sec. 89.312(e)) and zero-grade air.
(2) Optimize the FID's response on the most common operating range.
The response is to be optimized with respect to fuel pressure or flow.
Efforts shall be made to minimize response variations to different
hydrocarbon species that are expected to be in the exhaust. Good
engineering judgement is to be used to trade off optimal FID response
to propane-in-air against reductions in relative responses to other
hydrocarbons. A good example of trading off response on propane for
relative responses to other hydrocarbon species is given in Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Paper No. 770141, ``Optimization of Flame
Ionization Detector for Determination of Hydrocarbon in Diluted
Automotive Exhausts''; author Glenn D. Reschke. It is also required
that the response be set to optimum condition with respect to air flow
and sample flow. Heated Flame Ionization Detectors (HFIDs) must be at
their specified operating temperature. One of the following procedures
is required for FID or HFID optimization:
(i) The procedure outlined in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
paper No. 770141, ``Optimization of a Flame Ionization Detector for
Determination of Hydrocarbon in Diluted Automotive Exhausts''; author,
Glenn D. Reschke. This procedure has been incorporated by reference.
See Sec. 89.6.
(ii) The HFID optimization procedures outlined in 40 CFR 86.331-79.
(iii) Alternative procedures may be used if approved in advance by
the Administrator.
(iv) The procedures specified by the manufacturer of the FID or
HFID.
* * * * *
(c) Initial and periodic calibration. Prior to introduction into
service, after any maintenance which could alter calibration, and
monthly thereafter, the FID or HFID hydrocarbon analyzer shall be
calibrated on all normally used instrument ranges using the steps in
this paragraph (c). Use the same flow rate and pressures as when
analyzing samples. Calibration gases shall be introduced directly at
the analyzer, unless the ``overflow'' calibration option of
Sec. 86.1310-90(b)(3)(i) of this chapter for the HFID is taken. New
calibration curves need not be generated each month if the existing
curve can be verified as continuing to meet the requirements of
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(1) Adjust analyzer to optimize performance.
(2) Zero the hydrocarbon analyzer with zero-grade air.
(3) Calibrate on each used operating range with propane-in-air
(dilute or raw) or propane-in-nitrogen (raw) calibration gases having
nominal concentrations starting between 10-15 percent and increasing in
at least six incremental steps to 90 percent (e.g., 15, 30, 45, 60, 75,
and 90 percent of that range) of that range. The incremental steps are
to be spaced to represent good engineering practice. For each range
calibrated, if the deviation from a least-squares best-fit straight
line is 2 percent or less of the value at each data point,
concentration values may be calculated by use of a single calibration
factor for that range. If the deviation exceeds 2 percent at each non-
zero data point and within 0.3 percent of full scale on the
zero, the best-fit non-linear equation which represents the data to
within these limits shall be used to determine concentration.
(d) Oxygen interference optimization (Required for raw). Choose a
range where the oxygen interference check gases will fall in the upper
50 percent.
[[Page 50209]]
Conduct the test, as outlined in this paragraph, with the oven
temperature set as required by the instrument manufacturer. Oxygen
interference check gas specifications are found in Sec. 89.312(d).
* * * * *
(2) Span the analyzer with the 21% oxygen interference gas
specified in Sec. 89.312(d).
* * * * *
(6) Calculate the percent of oxygen interference (designated as
percent O2I) for each mixture in paragraph (d)(4) of this
section as follows:
percent O2I=((B-C) x 100)/B
Where:
A= hydrocarbon concentration (ppmC) of the span gas used in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
B= hydrocarbon concentration (ppmC) of the oxygen interference check
gases used in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
C= analyzer response (ppmC) = A/D.
D= (percent of full-scale analyzer response due to A) x (percent
of full-scale analyzer response due to B).
* * * * *
48. The newly designated Sec. 89.320 is amended by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.320 Carbon monoxide analyzer calibration.
* * * * *
(c) Initial and periodic calibration. Prior to its introduction
into service, after any maintenance which could alter calibration, and
every two months thereafter, the NDIR carbon monoxide analyzer shall be
calibrated. New calibration curves need not be generated every two
months if the existing curve can be verified as continuing to meet the
requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(1) Adjust the analyzer to optimize performance.
(2) Zero the carbon monoxide analyzer with either zero-grade air or
zero-grade nitrogen.
(3) Calibrate on each used operating range with carbon monoxide-in-
N2 calibration gases having nominal concentrations starting
between 10 and 15 percent and increasing in at least six incremental
steps to 90 percent (e.g., 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 percent) of that
range. The incremental steps are to be spaced to represent good
engineering practice. For each range calibrated, if the deviation from
a least-squares best-fit straight line is 2 percent or less of the
value at each non-zero data point and within 0.3 percent of
full scale on the zero, concentration values may be calculated by use
of a single calibration factor for that range. If the deviation exceeds
these limits, the best-fit non-linear equation which represents the
data to within these limits shall be used to determine concentration.
* * * * *
49. The newly designated Sec. 89.321 is amended by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.321 Oxides of nitrogen analyzer calibration.
* * * * *
(c) Initial and periodic calibration. Prior to its introduction
into service, after any maintenance which could alter calibration, and
monthly thereafter, the chemiluminescent oxides of nitrogen analyzer
shall be calibrated on all normally used instrument ranges. New
calibration curves need not be generated each month if the existing
curve can be verified as continuing to meet the requirements of
paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Use the same flow rate as when
analyzing samples. Proceed as follows:
(1) Adjust analyzer to optimize performance.
(2) Zero the oxides of nitrogen analyzer with zero-grade air or
zero-grade nitrogen.
(3) Calibrate on each normally used operating range with NO-in-
N2 calibration gases with nominal concentrations starting at
between 10 and 15 percent and increasing in at least six incremental
steps to 90 percent (e.g., 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 percent) of that
range. The incremental steps are to be spaced to represent good
engineering practice. For each range calibrated, if the deviation from
a least-squares best-fit straight line is 2 percent or less of the
value at each non-zero data point and within 0.3 percent of
full scale on the zero, concentration values may be calculated by use
of a single calibration factor for that range. If the deviation exceeds
these limits, the best-fit non-linear equation which represents the
data to within these limits shall be used to determine concentration.
* * * * *
50. The newly designated Sec. 89.322 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.322 Carbon dioxide analyzer calibration.
(a) Prior to its introduction into service, after any maintenance
which could alter calibration, and bi-monthly thereafter, the NDIR
carbon dioxide analyzer shall be calibrated on all normally used
instrument ranges. New calibration curves need not be generated each
month if the existing curve can be verified as continuing to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Proceed as follows:
(1) Follow good engineering practices for instrument start-up and
operation. Adjust the analyzer to optimize performance.
(2) Zero the carbon dioxide analyzer with either zero-grade air or
zero-grade nitrogen.
(3) Calibrate on each normally used operating range with carbon
dioxide-in-N2 calibration or span gases having nominal
concentrations starting between 10 and 15 percent and increasing in at
least six incremental steps to 90 percent (e.g., 15, 30, 45, 60, 75,
and 90 percent) of that range. The incremental steps are to be spaced
to represent good engineering practice. For each range calibrated, if
the deviation from a least-squares best-fit straight line is 2 percent
or less of the value at each non-zero data point and within
0.3 percent of full scale on the zero, concentration values
may be calculated by use of a single calibration factor for that range.
If the deviation exceeds these limits, the best-fit non-linear equation
which represents the data to within these limits shall be used to
determine concentration.
* * * * *
51. The newly designated Sec. 89.324 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.324 Calibration of other equipment.
(a) Other test equipment used for testing shall be calibrated as
often as required by the instrument manufacturer or necessary according
to good practice.
(b) If a methane analyzer is used, the methane analyzer shall be
calibrated prior to introduction into service and monthly thereafter:
(1) Follow the manufacturer's instructions for instrument startup
and operation. Adjust the analyzer to optimize performance.
(2) Zero the methane analyzer with zero-grade air.
(3) Calibrate on each normally used operating range with
CH4 in air with nominal concentrations starting between 10
and 15 percent and increasing in at least six incremental steps to 90
percent (e.g., 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 percent) of that range. The
incremental steps are to be spaced to represent good engineering
practice. For each range calibrated, if the deviation from a least-
squares best-fit straight line is 2 percent or less of the value at
each non-zero data point and within 0.3 percent of full
scale on the zero, concentration values may be calculated by use of a
single calibration factor for that range. If the deviation exceeds
these limits, the best-fit non-linear equation
[[Page 50210]]
which represents the data to within these limits shall be used to
determine concentration.
52. The newly designated Sec. 89.328 is amended by revising
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.328 Inlet and exhaust restrictions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Equip the test engine with an air inlet system presenting an
air inlet restriction within 5 percent of the upper limit at maximum
air flow, as specified by the engine manufacturer for a clean air
cleaner. A system representative of the installed engine may be used.
In other cases a test shop system may be used.
(2) The exhaust backpressure must be within 5 percent of the upper
limit at maximum declared power, as specified by the engine
manufacturer. A system representative of the installed engine may be
used. In other cases a test shop system may be used.
53. The newly designated Sec. 89.330 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.330 Lubricating oil and test fuels.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Use petroleum fuel meeting the specifications in Table 4 in
Appendix A of this subpart, or substantially equivalent specifications
approved by the Administrator, for exhaust emission testing.
Alternatively, petroleum fuel meeting the specifications in Table 5 in
Appendix A of this subpart may be used in exhaust emission testing. The
grade of diesel fuel used must be commercially designated as ``Type 2-
D'' grade diesel fuel and recommended by the engine manufacturer.
* * * * *
54.-57. Tables 1 through 4 of Appendix A to subpart D are revised
to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart D--Tables
Table 1.--Abbreviations Used in Subpart D of This Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLD.............................. Chemiluminescent detector.
CO............................... Carbon monoxide.
CO2.............................. Carbon dioxide.
HC............................... Hydrocarbons.
HCLD............................. Heated chemiluminescent detector.
HFID............................. Heated flame ionization detector.
GC............................... Gas chromatograph.
NDIR............................. Non-dispersive infra-red analyzer.
NIST............................. National Institute for Standards and
Testing.
NO............................... Nitric Oxide.
NO2.............................. Nitrogen Dioxide.
NOX.............................. Oxides of nitrogen.
O2............................... Oxygen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Symbols Used in Subparts D and E of This Part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Term Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
conc................... Concentration (ppm by ppm
volume).
f...................... Engine specific parameter ...................
considering atmospheric
conditions.
FFCB................... Fuel specific factor for ...................
the carbon balance
calculation.
FFD.................... Fuel specific factor for ...................
exhaust flow calculation
on dry basis.
FFH.................... Fuel specific factor ...................
representing the hydrogen
to carbon ratio.
FFW.................... Fuel specific factor for ...................
exhaust flow calculation
on wet basis.
FR..................... Rate of fuel consumed..... g/h
GAIRW.................. Intake air mass flow rate kg/h
on wet basis.
GAIRD.................. Intake air mass flow rate kg/h
on dry basis.
GEXHW.................. Exhaust gas mass flow rate kg/h
on wet basis.
GFuel.................. Fuel mass flow rate....... kg/h
H...................... Absolute humidity (water g/kg
content related to dry
air).
i...................... Subscript denoting an ...................
individual mode.
KH..................... Humidity correction factor ...................
L...................... Percent torque related to %
maximum torque for the
test mode.
mass................... Pollutant mass flow....... g/h
nd,i................... Engine speed (average at 1/min
the i'th mode during the
cycle).
Ps..................... Dry atmospheric pressure.. kPa
Pd..................... Test ambient saturation kPa
vapor pressure at ambient
temperature.
P...................... Observed brake power kW
output uncorrected.
PAUX................... Declared total power kW
absorbed by auxiliaries
fitted for the test.
PM..................... Maximum power measured at kW
the test speed under test
conditions.
Pi..................... Pi = PM,i + PAUX,i........ ...................
PB..................... Total barometric pressure kPa
(average of the pre-test
and post-test values).
Pv..................... Saturation pressure at dew kPa
point temperature.
Ra..................... Relative humidity of the %
ambient air.
S...................... Dynamometer setting....... kW
T...................... Absolute temperature at K
air inlet.
Tbe.................... Air temperature after the K
charge air cooler (if
applicable) (average).
Tclout................. Coolant temperature outlet K
(average).
TDd.................... Absolute dewpoint K
temperature.
Td,i................... Torque (average at the N-m
i'th mode during the
cycle).
TSC.................... Temperature of the K
intercooled air.
Tref................... Reference temperature..... K
VEXHD.................. Exhaust gas volume flow m3/h
rate on dry basis.
VAIRW.................. Intake air volume flow m3/h
rate on wet basis.
PB..................... Total barometric pressure. kPa
VEXHW.................. Exhaust gas volume flow m3/h
rate on wet basis.
WF..................... Weighing factor........... ...................
WFE.................... Effective weighing factor. ...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Measurement Accuracy and Calibration Frequency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Item Calibration accuracy \1\ Calibration frequency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ Engine speed........... 2%............................................ 30 days.
2................ Torque................. 2%............................................ 30 days.
3................ Fuel consumption (raw 2% of engine maximum.......................... 30 days.
measurement).
4................ Air consumption (raw 2% of engine maximum.......................... As required.
measurement).
5................ Coolant temperature.... 2 deg.K....................................... As required.
6................ Lubricant temperature.. 2 deg.K....................................... As required.
7................ Exhaust backpressure... 0.5%.......................................... As required.
8................ Inlet depression....... 0.5%.......................................... As required.
9................ Exhaust gas temperature 15 deg.K...................................... As required.
[[Page 50211]]
10............... Air inlet temperature 2 deg.K....................................... As required.
(combustion air).
11............... Atmospheric pressure... 0.5%.......................................... As required.
12............... Humidity (combustion 3.0%.......................................... As required.
air) (relative).
13............... Fuel temperature....... 2 deg.K....................................... As required.
14............... Temperature with regard 2 deg.K....................................... As required.
to dilution tunnel.
15............... Dilution air humidity 3%............................................ As required.
(specific).
16............... HC analyzer............ 2%............................................ Monthly or as required.
17............... CO analyzer............ 2%............................................ Bi-monthly or as required.
18............... NOX analyzer........... 2%............................................ Monthly or as required.
19............... Methane analyzer....... 2%............................................ Monthly or as required.
20............... NOX converter 90%....................................................... Monthly.
efficiency check.
21............... CO2 analyzer........... 2%............................................ Monthly or as required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All accuracy requirements pertain to the final recorded value which is inclusive of the data acquisition system.
Table 4.--Federal Test Fuel Specifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Procedure (ASTM) \1\ Value (type 2-D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetane.................................. D613-86............................................ 42-48
Distillation Range:
IPB, deg.C......................... D86-90............................................. 171-204
10% point, deg.C................... D86-90............................................. 204-235
50% point, deg.C................... D86-90............................................. 243-283
90% point, deg.C................... D86-90............................................. 293-332
EP, deg.C.......................... D86-90............................................. 321-366
Gravity, API........................ D287-92............................................ 33-37
Total sulfur, % mass................ D129-91 or D2622-92................................ >0.05-0.5
Hydrocarbon composition:
Aromatics, % vol.................... D1319-89........................................... \2\ 10
Parafins............................ D1319-89........................................... (\3\)
Napthenes........................... ................................................... .................
Olefins............................. ................................................... .................
Flashpoint, deg.C (minimum)........ D93-90............................................. 54
Viscosity @ 38 deg.C, centistokes.. D445-88............................................ 2.0-3.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All ASTM procedures in this table have been incorporated by reference. See Sec. 89.6.
\2\ Minimum.
\3\ Remainder.
* * * * *
Appendix A, Table 5 [Amended]
58. Table 5 of Appendix A to subpart D is amended by revising the
heading to read as follows:
* * * * *
Table 5.--California Test Fuel Specifications
* * * * *
Subpart E--[Amended]
59. The newly designated Sec. 89.401 is amended by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.401 Scope; applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Exhaust gases, either raw or dilute, are sampled while the test
engine is operated using the appropriate test cycle on an engine
dynamometer. The exhaust gases receive specific component analysis
determining concentration of pollutant, exhaust volume, the fuel flow,
and the power output during each mode. Emissions are reported as grams
per kilowatt hour (g/kW-hr).
* * * * *
60. The newly designated Sec. 89.402 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.402 Definitions.
The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart.
For terms not defined in this part, the definitions in part 86,
subparts A, D, I, and N, of this chapter apply to this subpart.
61. The newly designated Sec. 89.404 is amended by revising
paragraph (b) and removing paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.404 Test procedure overview.
* * * * *
(b) The test is designed to determine the brake-specific emissions
of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate
matter. For more information on particulate matter sampling, see
Sec. 89.112(c). The test cycles consist of various steady-state
operating modes that include different combinations of engine speeds
and loads. These procedures require the determination of the
concentration of each pollutant, exhaust volume, the fuel flow, and the
power output during each mode. The measured values are weighted and
used to calculate the grams of each pollutant emitted per kilowatt hour
(g/kW-hr).
* * * * *
62. The newly designated Sec. 89.405 is amended by revising
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.405 Recorded information.
* * * * *
(d) Test data; pre-test.
(1) Date and time of day.
(2) Test number.
(3) Intermediate speed and rated speed as defined in Sec. 89.2 and
maximum observed torque for these speeds.
(4) Recorder chart or equivalent. Identify for each test segment
zero traces for each range used, and span traces for each range used.
[[Page 50212]]
(5) Air temperature after and pressure drop across the charge air
cooler (if applicable) at maximum observed torque and rated speed.
(e) Test data; modal.
(1) Recorder chart or equivalent. Identify for each test mode the
emission concentration traces and the associated analyzer range(s).
Identify the start and finish of each test.
(2) Observed engine torque.
(3) Observed engine rpm.
(4) Record engine torque and engine rpm continuously during each
mode with a chart recorder or equivalent recording device.
(5) Intake air flow (for raw mass flow sampling method only) and
depression for each mode.
(6) Engine intake air temperature at the engine intake or
turbocharger inlet for each mode.
(7) Mass fuel flow (for raw sampling) for each mode.
(8) Engine intake humidity.
(9) Coolant temperature outlet.
(10) Engine fuel inlet temperature at the pump inlet.
(f) Test data; post-test.
(1) Recorder chart or equivalent. Identify the zero traces for each
range used and the span traces for each range used. Identify hangup
check, if performed.
(2) Total number of hours of operation accumulated on the engine.
63. The newly designated Sec. 89.406 is amended by revising
paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.406 Pre-test procedures.
* * * * *
(b) Replace or clean the filter elements and then vacuum leak check
the system per Sec. 89.316(a). Allow the heated sample line, filters,
and pumps to reach operating temperature.
(c) * * *
(1) Check the sample-line temperatures (see Sec. 89.309 (a)(4)(ii)
and (a)(5)(i)(A)).
* * * * *
64. The newly designated Sec. 89.407 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.407 Engine dynamometer test run.
(a) Measure and record the temperature of the air supplied to the
engine, the fuel temperature, the intake air humidity, and the observed
barometric pressure during the sampling for each mode. The fuel
temperature shall be less than or equal to 43 deg.C during the
sampling for each mode.
* * * * *
(c) The following steps are taken for each test:
(1) Install instrumentation and sample probes as required.
(2) Perform the pre-test procedure as specified in Sec. 89.406.
(3) Read and record the general test data as specified in
Sec. 89.405(c).
(4) Start cooling system.
(5) Precondition (warm up) the engine in the following manner:
(i) For variable-speed engines:
(A) Operate the engine at idle for 2 to 3 minutes;
(B) Operate the engine at approximately 50 percent power at the
peak torque speed for 5 to 7 minutes;
(C) Operate the engine at rated speed and maximum horsepower for 25
to 30 minutes;
(ii) For constant-speed engines:
(A) Operate the engine at minimum load for 2 to 3 minutes;
(B) Operate the engine at 50 percent load for 5 to 7 minutes;
(C) Operate the engine at maximum load for 25 to 30 minutes;
(iii) Optional. It is permitted to precondition the engine at rated
speed and maximum horsepower until the oil and water temperatures are
stabilized. The temperatures are defined as stabilized if they are
maintained within 2 percent of point on an absolute basis
for 2 minutes. The engine must be operated a minimum of 10 minutes for
this option. This optional procedure may be substituted for the
procedure in paragraph (c)(5)(i)or (c)(5)(ii) of this section;
(iv) Optional. If the engine has been operating on service
accumulation for a minimum of 40 minutes, the service accumulation may
be substituted for the procedure in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii)
of this section.
(6) Read and record all pre-test data specified in Sec. 89.405(d).
(7) Start the test cycle (see Sec. 89.410) within 20 minutes of the
end of the warmup. (See paragraph (c)(13) of this section.) A mode
begins when the speed and load requirements are stabilized to within
the requirements of Sec. 89.410(b). A mode ends when valid emission
sampling for that mode ends. For a mode to be valid, the speed and load
requirements must be maintained continuously during the mode. Sampling
in the mode may be repeated until a valid sample is obtained as long as
the speed and torque requirements are met.
(8) Calculate the torque for any mode with operation at rated
speed.
(9) During the first mode with intermediate speed operation, if
applicable, calculate the torque corresponding to 75 and 50 percent of
the maximum observed torque for the intermediate speed.
(10) Record all modal data specified in Sec. 89.405(e) during a
minimum of the last 60 seconds of each mode.
(11) Record the analyzer(s) response to the exhaust gas during the
minimum of the last 60 seconds of each mode.
(12) Test modes may be repeated, as long as the engine is
preconditioned by running the previous mode. In the case of the first
mode of any cycle, precondition according to paragraph (c)(5) of this
section.
(13) If a delay of more than 20 minutes, but less than 4 hours,
occurs between the end of one mode and the beginning of another mode,
precondition the engine by running the previous mode. If the delay
exceeds 4 hours, the test shall include preconditioning (begin at
paragraph (c)(2) of this section).
(14) The speed and load points for each mode are listed in Tables 1
through 4 of Appendix B of this subpart. The engine speed and load
shall be maintained as specified in Sec. 89.410(b).
(15) If at any time during a test mode, the test equipment
malfunctions or the specifications in paragraph (c)(14) of this section
are not met, the test mode is void and may be aborted. The test mode
may be restarted by preconditioning with the previous mode.
(16) Fuel flow and air flow during the idle load condition may be
determined just prior to or immediately following the dynamometer
sequence, if longer times are required for accurate measurements.
(d) * * *
(2) Each analyzer range that may be used during a test mode must
have the zero and span responses recorded prior to the execution of the
test . Only the zero and span for the range(s) used to measure the
emissions during the test are required to be recorded after the
completion of the test .
* * * * *
65. The newly designated Sec. 89.408 is amended by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.408 Post-test procedures.
* * * * *
(e) For a valid test, the zero and span checks performed before and
after each test for each analyzer must meet the following requirements:
(1) The span drift (defined as the change in the difference between
the zero response and the span response) must not exceed 3 percent of
full-scale chart deflection for each range used.
(2) The zero response drift must not exceed 3 percent of full-scale
chart deflection.
66. The newly designated Sec. 89.410 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
[[Page 50213]]
Sec. 89.410 Engine test cycle.
(a) Test cycles. The manufacturer shall determine from of the
following test cycles the most appropriate cycle for each engine family
using the following guidelines. These cycles shall be used to test
engines on a dynamometer.
(1) The 8-mode test cycle described in Table 1 of Appendix B of
this subpart may be used for any land-based or auxiliary marine diesel
engine.
(2) The 5-mode test cycle described in Table 2 of Appendix B of
this subpart may be used for any constant-speed engine (see Sec. 89.2).
Any engine certified under this test cycle must meet the labeling
requirements of Sec. 89.110(b)(11).
(3) The 6-mode test cycle described in Table 3 of Appendix B of
this subpart may be used for any land-based or auxiliary marine diesel
engine rated under 19 kW.
(4) The 4-mode test cycle described in Table 4 of Appendix B of
this subpart is intended for all propulsion marine diesel engines.
Manufacturers may measure emissions from propulsion marine diesel
engines using the 8-mode test cycle described in Table 1 of Appendix B
of this subpart if the engine has been derived from a model already
certified with that cycle, if approved in advance by the Administrator.
(b) During each non-idle mode, hold the specified load to within 2
percent of the engine maximum value and speed to within 2
percent of point. During each idle mode, speed must be held within the
manufacturer's specifications for the engine, and the throttle must be
in the fully closed position and torque must not exceed 5 percent of
the peak torque value of mode 5.
(c) For any mode except those involving either idle or full-load
operation, if the operating conditions specified in paragraph (b) of
this section cannot be maintained, the Administrator may authorize
deviations from the specified load conditions. Such deviations shall
not exceed 10 percent of the maximum torque at the test speed. The
minimum deviations above and below the specified load necessary for
stable operation shall be determined by the manufacturer and approved
by the Administrator prior to the test run.
* * * * *
67. The newly designated Sec. 89.411 is amended by revising
paragraph (e)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.411 Exhaust sample procedure--gaseous components.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(5) If the difference between the readings obtained is 2 percent of
full scale deflection or more, clean the sample probe and the sample
line.
* * * * *
68. The newly designated Sec. 89.412 is amended by revising
paragraph (c)(3) and removing and reserving paragraph (g)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 89.412 Raw gaseous exhaust sampling and analytical system
description.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) The location of optional valve V16 may not be greater than 61
cm from the sample pump.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) [Reserved]
* * * * *
69. The newly designated Sec. 89.413 is amended by revising
paragraph (d) and removing paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.413 Raw sampling procedures.
* * * * *
(d) All heated sampling lines shall be fitted with a heated filter
to extract solid particles from the flow of gas required for analysis.
The sample line for CO and CO2 analysis may be heated or
unheated.
70. The newly designated Sec. 89.414 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.414 Air flow measurement specifications.
(a) The air flow measurement method used must have a range large
enough to accurately measure the air flow over the engine operating
range during the test. Overall measurement accuracy must be
2 percent of the maximum engine value for all modes. The
Administrator must be advised of the method used prior to testing.
* * * * *
71. The newly designated Sec. 89.415 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.415 Fuel flow measurement specifications.
The fuel flow rate measurement instrument must have a minimum
accuracy of 2 percent of the engine maximum fuel flow rate. The
controlling parameters are the elapsed time measurement of the event
and the weight or volume measurement.
72. The newly designated Sec. 89.418 is amended by revising
paragraphs (c) and (d), the table in paragraph (e), paragraphs (f)
introductory text and (f)(1), and the text of paragraph (g) preceding
the equation to read as follows:
Sec. 89.418 Raw emission sampling calculations.
* * * * *
(c) When applying GEXHW the measured ``dry''
concentration shall be corrected to a wet basis, if not already
measured on a wet basis. This section is applicable only for
measurements made on raw exhaust gas. Correction to a wet basis shall
be according to the following formula:
ConcWET = KW x Conc``dry''
Where:
KW is determined according to the equations in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this section.
(1) For measurements using the mass flow method (see
Sec. 89.416(a)):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.006
ALF=Hydrogen mass percentage of fuel = 13.12 for CH1.8 fuel.
[[Page 50214]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.007
=H/C mole ratio of the fuel.
(2) For measurements using the fuel consumption and exhaust gas
concentrations method (see Sec. 89.416(b)):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.009
or
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.010
K=3.5
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.012
(3) For both methods, H is calculated as specified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.013
(d) As the NOX emission depends on intake air
conditions, the NOX concentration shall be corrected for
intake air temperature and humidity with the factor KH given
in the following formula. For engines operating on alternative
combustion cycles, other correction formulas may be used if they can be
justified or validated. The formula follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.014
Where:
A=0.309 (f/a)-0.0266
B=-0.209 (f/a)+0.00954
T=temperature of the air in K
H=humidity of the inlet air in grams of water per kilogram of dry air,
in which:
[[Page 50215]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.015
or
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.016
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas u v w Conc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX........................................ 0.001587 0.00205 0.00205 ppm.
CO......................................... 0.000966 0.00125 0.00125 ppm.
HC......................................... 0.000478 -- 0.000618 ppm.
CO2........................................ 15.19 19.64 19.64 Percent.
Note: The given coefficients u, v, and w
are calculated for 273.15 deg.K (0 deg.C)
and 101.3 kPa. In cases where the reference
conditions vary from those stated, an error
may occur in the calculations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) The following equations may be used to calculate the
coefficients u, v, and w in paragraph (e) of this section for other
conditions of temperature and pressure:
(1) For the calculation of u, v, and w for NOX (as
NO2), CO, HC (in paragraph (e) of this section as
CH1.80), CO2, and O2:
Where:
w=4.4615.10-5 x M if conc. in ppm
w=4.4615.10-1 x M if conc. in percent
v=w
u=w/Air
M=Molecular weight
Air=Density of dry air at 273.15 deg.K (0 deg.C),
101.3 kPa=1.293 kg/m3
* * * * *
(g) The emission shall be calculated for all individual components
in the following way where power at idle is equal to zero:
* * * * *
Sec. 89.423 [Removed and reserved]
73. Remove and reserve the newly designated Sec. 89.423.
74. The newly designated Sec. 89.424 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a), (d)(6), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.424 Dilute emission sampling calculations.
(a) The final reported emission test results are computed by use of
the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.017
Where:
Awm=Weighted mass emission level (HC, CO, CO2,
PM, or NOX) in g/kW-hr.
gi=Mass flow in grams per hour, = grams measured during the
mode divided by the sample time for the mode.
WFi=Effective weighing factor.
Pi=Power measured during each mode (Power set = zero for the
idle mode)
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) Equations for H and KH are found in Sec. 89.418.
Wet concentration = Kw X dry concentration
Where:
Kw=
1-(/200) x CO2e(')-((1.608 x H)/(7000+1.608 x H)),
or
1-(/200) x CO2e(')-((1.608 x H)/(1000+1.608 x H))
for SI units.
CO2e(') = either CO2e or CO2e' as
applicable.
CO2e (') = average intergrated carbon dioxide concentration
(wet basis) in percent (for continuous measurement).
(e) The final modal reported brake-specific fuel consumption (bsfc)
shall be computed by use of the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24SE97.018
Where:
bsfc = brake-specific fuel consumption for a mode in grams of fuel per
kilowatt-hour (kW-hr).
M = mass of fuel in grams, used by the engine during a mode.
kW-hr = total kilowatts integrated with respect to time for a mode.
* * * * *
Sec. 89.425 [Removed and reserved]
75. Remove and reserve the newly designated Sec. 89.425.
76.-80. Appendix B to subpart E of part 89 is revised to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 89--Tables
Table 1.--8-Mode Test Cycle for Variable-Speed Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed
torque \2\ Minimum
Test segment Mode No. Engine speed \1\ (percent of time in Weighting
max. mode factors
observed) (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 1 Rated................. 100 5.0 0.15
1................................... 2 Rated................. 75 5.0 .15
1................................... 3 Rated................. 50 5.0 .15
1................................... 4 Rated................. 10 5.0 .10
2................................... 5 Int................... 100 5.0 .10
2................................... 6 Int................... 75 5.0 .10
2................................... 7 Int................... 50 5.0 .10
[[Page 50216]]
2................................... 8 Idle.................. 0 5.0 .15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Engine speed (non-idle): 2 percent of point. Engine speed (idle): Within manufacturer's
specifications. Idle speed is specified by the manufacturer.
\2\ Torque (non-idle): Throttle fully open for 100 percent points. Other non-idle points: 2 percent
of engine maximum value. Torque (idle): Throttle fully closed. Load less than 5 percent of peak torque.
Table 2.--5-Mode Test Cycle for Constant-Speed Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed
torque 2 Minimum
Mode No. Engine speed 1 (percent of time in Weighting
max. mode factors
observed) (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................... Rated....................... 100 5.0 0.05
2.......................................... Rated....................... 75 5.0 0.25
3.......................................... Rated....................... 50 5.0 0.30
4.......................................... Rated....................... 25 5.0 0.30
5.......................................... Rated....................... 10 5.0 0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Engine speed: 2 percent of point.
2 Torque: Throttle fully open for 100 percent point. Other points: 2 percent of engine maximum
value.
Table 3.--6-Mode Test Cycle for Engines Rated Under 19 kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed
torque 2 Minimum
Mode No. Engine speed 1 (percent of time in Weighting
max. mode factors
observed) (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................... Rated....................... 100 5.0 0.09
2.......................................... Rated....................... 75 5.0 .20
3.......................................... Rated....................... 50 5.0 .29
4.......................................... Rated....................... 25 5.0 .30
5.......................................... Rated....................... 10 5.0 .07
6.......................................... Idle........................ 0 5.0 .05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Engine speed (non-idle): 2 percent of point. Engine speed (idle): Within manufacturer's
specifications. Idle speed is specified by the manufacturer.
2 Torque (non-idle): Throttle fully open for operation at 100 percent point. Other nonidle points: 2
percent of engine maximum value. Torque (idle): Throttle fully closed. Load less than 5 percent of peak
torque.
Table 4.--4-Mode Test Cycle for Propulsion Marine Diesel Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Observed
speed \1\ power \2\ Minimum
Mode No. (percent of (percent of time in Weighting
max. max. mode factors
observed) observed) (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................... 100 100 5.0 020
2.......................................................... 91 75 5.0 .50
3.......................................................... 80 50 5.0 .15
4.......................................................... 63 10 5.0 .15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Engine speed: 2 percent of point.
\2\ Power: Throttle fully open for operation at 100 percent point. Other points: 2 percent of engine
maximum value.
Subpart F--[Amended]
81. The newly designated Sec. 89.505 is amended by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.505 Maintenance of records; submittal of information.
* * * * *
(e) All reports, submissions, notifications, and requests for
approvals made under this subpart are addressed to: Director, Engine
Programs and Compliance Division (6405-J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
82. The newly designated Sec. 89.506 is amended by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.506 Right of entry and access.
* * * * *
[[Page 50217]]
(g) A manufacturer is responsible for locating its foreign testing
and manufacturing facilities in jurisdictions where local law does not
prohibit an EPA enforcement officer(s) or EPA authorized
representative(s) from conducting the entry and access activities
specified in this section. EPA will not attempt to make any inspections
which it has been informed that local foreign law prohibits.
83. The newly designated Sec. 89.509 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.509 Calculation and reporting of test results.
(a) Initial test results are calculated following the applicable
test procedure specified in Sec. 89.508(a). The manufacturer rounds
these results, in accordance with ASTM E29-93a, to the number of
decimal places contained in the applicable emission standard expressed
to one additional significant figure. This procedure has been
incorporated by reference. See Sec. 89.6.
(b) Final test results are calculated by summing the initial test
results derived in paragraph (a) of this section for each test engine,
dividing by the number of tests conducted on the engine, and rounding
in accordance with the procedure specified in paragraph (a) of this
section to the same number of decimal places contained in the
applicable standard expressed to one additional significant figure.
* * * * *
84. The newly designated Sec. 89.512 is amended by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.512 Request for public hearing.
* * * * *
(b) The manufacturer's request must be filed with the Administrator
not later than 15 days after the Administrator's notification of the
decision to suspend or revoke, unless otherwise specified by the
Administrator. The manufacturer must simultaneously serve two copies of
this request upon the Director of the Engine Programs and Compliance
Division and file two copies with the Hearing Clerk of the Agency.
Failure of the manufacturer to request a hearing within the time
provided constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing. Subsequent to
the expiration of the period for requesting a hearing as of right, the
Administrator may, at her or his discretion and for good cause shown,
grant the manufacturer a hearing to contest the suspension or
revocation.
* * * * *
85. The newly designated Sec. 89.513 is amended by revising
paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows.
Sec. 89.513 Administrative procedures for public hearing.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) To the maximum extent possible, testimony will be presented in
written form. Copies of written testimony will be served upon all
parties as soon as practicable prior to the start of the hearing. A
certificate of service will be provided on or accompany each document
or paper filed with the Hearing Clerk. Documents to be served upon the
Director of the Engine Programs and Compliance Division must be sent by
registered mail to: Director, Engine Programs and Compliance Division
(6405-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460. Service by registered mail is complete upon
mailing.
* * * * *
Subpart G--[Amended]
86. The newly designated Sec. 89.602 is amended by revising the
definition for ``Fifteen working day hold period'' to read as follows:
Sec. 89.602 Definitions.
* * * * *
Fifteen working day hold period. The period of time between a
request for final admission and the automatic granting of final
admission (unless EPA intervenes) for a nonconforming nonroad engine
conditionally imported pursuant to Sec. 89.605 or Sec. 89.609. Day one
of the hold period is the first working day (see definition for
``working day'' in this section) after the Engine Programs and
Compliance Division of EPA receives a complete and valid application
for final admission.
* * * * *
87. The newly designated Sec. 89.603 is amended by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.603 General requirements for importation of nonconforming
nonroad engines.
* * * * *
(d) The ICI must submit to the Engine Programs and Compliance
Division of EPA a copy of all approved applications for certification
used to obtain certificates of conformity for the purpose of importing
nonconforming nonroad engines pursuant to Sec. 89.605 or Sec. 89.609.
In addition, the ICI must submit to the Engine Programs and Compliance
Division a copy of all approved production changes implemented pursuant
to Sec. 89.605 or subpart B of this part. Documentation submitted
pursuant to this paragraph must be provided to the Engine Programs and
Compliance Division within 10 working days of approval of the
certification application (or production change) by EPA.
88. The newly designated Sec. 89.604 is amended by revising
paragraphs (c)(4) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.604 Conditional admission.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) A copy of the written record is to be submitted to the Engine
Programs and Compliance Division of EPA within five working days of the
transfer date.
(d) Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subpart or U.S.
Customs Service regulations, an ICI may also assume responsibility for
the modification and testing of a nonconforming nonroad engine which
was previously imported by another party. The ICI must be a holder of a
currently valid certificate of conformity for that specific nonroad
engine or authorized to import it pursuant to Sec. 89.609 at the time
of assuming such responsibility. The ICI must comply with all the
requirements of Sec. 89.603, Sec. 89.604, and either Sec. 89.605 or
Sec. 89.609, as applicable. For the purposes of this subpart, the ICI
has ``imported'' the nonroad engine as of the date the ICI assumes
responsibility for the modification and testing of the nonroad engine.
The ICI must submit written notification to the Engine Programs and
Compliance Division of EPA within 10 working days of the assumption of
that responsibility.
89. The newly designated Sec. 89.605 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(vi), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.605 Final admission of certified nonroad engines.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The ICI attests that the nonroad engine has been modified in
accordance with the provisions of the ICI's certificate of conformity;
presents to EPA a statement written by the applicable Original Engine
Manufacturer (OEM) that the OEM must provide to the ICI, and to EPA,
information concerning production changes to the class of nonroad
engines described in the ICI's application for certification; delivers
to the Engine Programs and Compliance Division of EPA notification by
the ICI of any production changes already implemented by the OEM at the
time of application and their effect on emissions; and obtains from EPA
[[Page 50218]]
written approval to use this demonstration option; or
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) A report concerning these production changes is to be made to
the Engine Programs and Compliance Division of EPA within ten working
days of initiation of the production change. The cause of any failure
of an emission test is to be identified, if known;
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, EPA
approval for final admission of a nonroad engine under this section is
presumed to have been granted if the ICI does not receive oral or
written notice from EPA to the contrary within 15 working days of the
date that the Engine Programs and Compliance Division of EPA receives
the ICI's application under paragraph (a) of this section. EPA notice
of nonapproval may be made to any employee of the ICI. It is the
responsibility of the ICI to ensure that the Engine Programs and
Compliance Division of EPA receives the application and to confirm the
date of receipt. During this 15 working day hold period, the nonroad
engine is to be stored at a location where the Administrator has
reasonable access to the nonroad engine for the Administrator's
inspection. The storage is to be within 50 miles of the ICI's testing
facility to allow the Administrator reasonable access for inspection
and testing. A storage facility not meeting this criterion must be
approved in writing by the Administrator prior to the submittal of the
ICI's application under paragraph (a) of this section.
90. The newly designated Sec. 89.609 is amended by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.609 Final admission of modification nonroad engines and test
nonroad engines.
* * * * *
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, EPA
approval for final admission of a nonroad engine under this section is
presumed to have been granted if the ICI does not receive oral or
written notice from EPA to the contrary within 15 working days of the
date that the Engine Programs and Compliance Division of EPA receives
the ICI's application under paragraph (b) of this section. Such EPA
notice of nonapproval may be made to any employee of the ICI. It is the
responsibility of the ICI to ensure that the Engine Programs and
Compliance Division of EPA receives the application and to confirm the
date of receipt. During this 15 working day hold period, the nonroad
engine is stored at a location where the Administrator has reasonable
access to the nonroad engine for the Administrator's inspection. The
storage is to be within 50 miles of the ICI's testing facility to allow
the Administrator reasonable access for inspection and testing. A
storage facility not meeting this criterion must be approved in writing
by the Administrator prior to the submittal of the ICI's application
under paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
91. The newly designated Sec. 89.610 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.610 Maintenance instructions, warranties, emission labeling.
* * * * *
(b) Warranties. (1) ICIs must submit to the Engine Programs and
Compliance Division of EPA sample copies (including revisions) of any
warranty documents required by this section prior to importing nonroad
engines under this subpart.
* * * * *
92. The newly designated Sec. 89.611 is amended by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.611 Exemptions and exclusions.
* * * * *
(g) An application for exemption and exclusion provided for in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) of this section is to be mailed to: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Engine
Programs and Compliance Division (6405-J), 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Imports.
Subpart J--[Amended]
93. Section 89.903 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 89.903 Application of section 216(10) of the Act.
* * * * *
(b) EPA will maintain a list of nonroad engines that have been
determined to be excluded because they are used solely for competition.
This list will be available to the public and may be obtained by
writing to the following address: Chief, Selective Enforcement Auditing
Section, Engine Programs and Compliance Division (6405--J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
* * * * *
94. Section 89.905 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 89.905 Testing exemption.
* * * * *
(f) A manufacturer of new nonroad engines may request a testing
exemption to cover nonroad engines intended for use in test programs
planned or anticipated over the course of a subsequent one-year period.
Unless otherwise required by the Director, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division, a manufacturer requesting such an exemption need
only furnish the information required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (d)(2)
of this section along with a description of the record-keeping and
control procedures that will be employed to assure that the engines are
used for purposes consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.
95. Section 89.906 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)
introductory text, (a)(3)(iii)(D), and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.906 Manufacturer-owned exemption and precertification
exemption.
(a) * * *
(3) Unless the requirement is waived or an alternate procedure is
approved by the Director, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, the
manufacturer must permanently affix a label to each nonroad engine on
exempt status. This label should--
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) The statement ``This nonroad engine is exempt from the
prohibitions of 40 CFR 89.1003.''
* * * * *
(b) Any independent commercial importer that desires a
precertification exemption pursuant to Sec. 89.611(b)(3) and is in the
business of importing, modifying, or testing uncertified nonroad
engines for resale under the provisions of subpart G of this part, must
apply to the Director, Engine Programs and Compliance Division. The
Director may require such independent commercial importer to submit
information regarding the general nature of the fleet activities, the
number of nonroad engines involved, and a demonstration that adequate
record-keeping procedures for control purposes will be employed.
96. Section 89.911 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 89.911 Submission of exemption requests.
Requests for exemption or further information concerning exemptions
and/or the exemption request review procedure should be addressed to:
Chief, Selective Enforcement Auditing Section, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6405-J), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
[[Page 50219]]
97. Section 89.1003 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3),
(a)(5), (a)(6), and (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.1003 Prohibited acts.
(a) * * *
(3)(i) For a person to remove or render inoperative a device or
element of design installed on or in a nonroad engine, vehicle or
equipment in compliance with regulations under this part prior to its
sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, or for a person knowingly
to remove or render inoperative such a device or element of design
after the sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or
(ii) For a person to manufacture, sell or offer to sell, or
install, a part or component intended for use with, or as part of, a
nonroad engine, vehicle or equipment, where a principal effect of the
part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative a device
or element of design installed on or in a nonroad engine in compliance
with regulations issued under this part, and where the person knows or
should know that the part or component is being offered for sale or
installed for this use or put to such use; or
(iii) for a person to deviate from the provisions of Sec. 89.130
when rebuilding an engine (or rebuilding a portion of an engine or
engine system).
* * * * *
(5) For a person to circumvent or attempt to circumvent the
residence time requirements of paragraph (2)(iii) of the nonroad engine
definition in Sec. 89.2.
(6) For a manufacturer of nonroad vehicles or equipment to
distribute in commerce, sell, offer for sale, or introduce into
commerce a nonroad vehicle or piece of equipment, manufactured on or
after the model year applicable to engines in such vehicle or equipment
under Sec. 89.112, which contains an engine not covered by a
certificate of conformity.
(b) * * *
(4) Certified nonroad engines shall be used in all vehicles and
equipment manufactured on or after the applicable model years in
Sec. 89.112 that are self-propelled, portable, transportable, or are
intended to be propelled while performing their function, unless the
manufacturer of the vehicle or equipment can prove that the vehicle or
equipment will be used in a manner consistent with paragraph (2) of the
definition of nonroad engine in Sec. 89.2. For any model year for which
a new standard takes effect, nonroad vehicle and equipment
manufacturers may continue to use previous model year nonroad engines
until inventories of those engines are depleted; however, stockpiling
of noncertified nonroad engines will be considered a violation of this
section.
98. Section 89.1007 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 89.1007 Warranty provisions.
* * * * *
(c) For the purposes of this section, the owner of any nonroad
engine warranted under this part is responsible for the proper
maintenance of the engine. Proper maintenance includes replacement and
service, at the owner's expense at a service establishment or facility
of the owner's choosing, of all parts, items, or devices related to
emission control (but not designed for emission control) under the
terms of the last sentence of section 207(a)(3) of the Act, unless such
part, item, or device is covered by any warranty not mandated by this
Act.
[FR Doc. 97-24237 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P