[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3950-4036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-941]
[[Page 3949]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 90
Phase 2 Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines at or
Below 19 Kilowatts; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 3950]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 90
[FRL-5942-9]
RIN 2060-AE29
Phase 2 Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
At or Below 19 Kilowatts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action proposes a second phase of regulations to
control emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines at or below
19 kilowatts (25 horsepower). These engines are used principally in
lawn and garden equipment, both in nonhandheld applications such as
lawnmowers, and also in handheld applications such as trimmers and
chainsaws. The proposed standards are expected to result in a 30
percent reduction of emissions of hydrocarbons plus oxides of nitrogen
from the current Phase 1 standards. If adopted, the standards would
result in important reductions in emissions which contribute to
excessively high ozone levels in many areas of the United States.
DATES: Written comments on this NPRM must be submitted on or before
March 13, 1998. EPA will hold a public hearing on February 11, 1998
starting at 10:00; requests to present oral testimony must be received
on or before February 6, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No. A-96-
55, Room M-1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.
20460. Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in this
docket and may be viewed from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The
docket may also be reached by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided
in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for
photocopying. The public hearing will be held in Ann Arbor, MI at a
location to be determined; call (313) 668-4278 for further information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Larson, Office of Mobile
Sources, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, (313) 668-4278,
larson.robert@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Regulated Entities
II. Legal Authority and Background
III. Overview of Proposed Provisions
A. More Stringent Standards and a Shift to Cleaner Technology
1. Nonhandheld Engine HC+NOX Emission Standards
2. Handheld Engine HC+NOX Emission Standards
3. Useful Life Categories
B. Assuring Emission Reductions are Achieved In-use
1. Traditional Compliance Programs for Mobile Sources
2. Compliance Programs for the Small SI Engine Industry
3. The Proposed Phase 2 Compliance Program
4. Alternative Compliance Program Options
IV. Description of Proposed Program
A. Standards and Related Provisions
1. HC+NOX Emission Standards
2. NMHC+NOX Emission Standards for Class I and II
Natural Gas Fueled Nonhandheld Engines
3. CO Emission Standards
4. Useful Life Categories
5. Certification Averaging, Banking and Trading Program
6. Certification Fuel
B. Test Procedures
1. Test Cycle: Requirement for the Use of a Speed Governor
Operation for Testing of Nonhandheld Engines
2. Test Cycle: Adjustments for Weightings for 2-mode Cycle for
Handheld Engines
3. Measurement of NMHC Emissions From Natural Gas Fueled
Nonhandheld Engines
C. Field/Bench Adjustment Program
1. Background and Principles
2. General Methodology
3. Practical Requirements of the Program
4. Alternative Methodology Considered
D. Compliance Program
1. Certification
2. Production Line Testing
3. In-use Emission Testing
4. Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives to Mandatory Recall
E. Flexibilities
1. Overview of Approach to Providing Compliance Flexibilities
2. Proposed Production Volume Cutoffs
3. General Flexibilities
4. Phase-In Flexibilities
5. Flexibilities for Small Volume Engine Manufacturers and Small
Volume Engine Families
6. Flexibilities for Small Volume Equipment Manufacturers and
Small Volume Equipment Models
7. Engine Availability
F. Nonregulatory Programs
1. Voluntary ``Green'' Labeling Program
2. Voluntary Fuel Spillage and Evaporative Emission Reduction
Program
3. Particulate matter and Hazardous Air Pollutant Testing
Program for Handheld Engines
G. General Provisions
1. Model Year Definition and Annual Production Period
Flexibilities During the Transition to Phase 2
2. Definition of Handheld Engines
3. Small Displacement Nonhandheld Engine Class
4. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Fueled Indoor Power Equipment
5. Dealer Responsibility
6. Engines Used in Recreational Vehicles
7. Engines Used in Rescue and Emergency Equipment
8. Replacement Engines
V. Environmental Benefit Assessment
A. Roles of HC and NOX in Ozone Formation
B. Health and Welfare Effects of Tropospheric Ozone
C. Estimated Emissions Impact of Proposed Regulations
D. Health and Welfare Effects of CO Emissions
E. Health and Welfare Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions
F. Particulate Matter
VI. Economic Impacts
A. Engine Technologies
B. Engine Costs
1. Nonhandheld Engine Costs
2. Handheld Engine Costs
C. Equipment Costs
1. Nonhandheld Equipment Manufacturers
2. Handheld Equipment Manufacturers
D. Operating Costs
Nonhandheld Engines
Handheld Engines
E. Cost per Engine and Cost-effectiveness
1. Cost per Engine
2. Cost-effectiveness
VII. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
B. Public Hearing
C. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility
I. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that
manufacture or introduce into commerce new small spark-ignition nonroad
engines or equipment. Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Manufacturers or importers
of new nonroad small (at or
below 19 kW) spark-ignition
engines and equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your company is regulated by this action, you
[[Page 3951]]
should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 90.1 of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
II. Legal Authority and Background
Authority for the actions set forth in this rule is granted to EPA
by 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)).
In the summer of 1992, EPA initiated a convening process to
determine the feasibility of a negotiated rulemaking for the
development of the regulatory program for small nonroad spark-ignited
(SI) engines at or below 19 kilowatts (hereafter referred to as ``small
SI engines''). An August 1992 report recommended an ``Exploratory
Meeting'' which was held November 1992. Following meetings in January
and June 1993, the group decided to pursue a regulatory negotiation
process for the development of Phase 2 regulations for these engines,
while EPA developed a first phase of controls for small SI engines
through the traditional rulemaking process.
On July 3, 1995, EPA published the Phase 1 final rule, Emission
Standards for New Nonroad Spark-ignition (SI) Engines At or Below 19
Kilowatts, hereafter referred to as the Phase 1 small SI engine
regulations.1 The Phase 1 small SI engine regulations
established an effective date of model year 1997. Although the Phase 1
regulations were the first to establish nationwide new engine emission
standards for this industry, the federal regulations were developed to
harmonize with the Tier I 2 standards established by
California's Air Resources Board.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995, codified at 40 CFR part 90. The
docket for the Phase 1 small SI engine rulemaking, EPA Air Docket
#A-93-25, is incorporated by reference.
\2\ The California utility and lawn and garden equipment engine
(utility engine) emission regulations are contained in Title 13,
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Sections 2400-2407.
\3\ Since the July 3, 1995 promulgation of the Phase 1 program,
four changes have been made to Phase 1. First, provisions for
allowing a streamlined certification process were promulgated May 8,
1996, 61 FR 20738. Second, revisions to the national security
exemption provisions were promulgated October 4, 1996, 61 FR 52088.
Third, revisions to the carbon monoxide (CO) emission standards for
Class I and II engines, and provisions related to crankcase
emissions, were promulgated, November 13, 1996, 61 FR 58296.
Finally, provisions relating to replacement engines and 2-stroke
engines in nonhandheld applications were published August 7, 1997,
62 FR 42637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The engines covered by the existing Phase 1 rule include
nonhandheld engines (Class I and II) used in applications such as
lawnmowers, generator sets and riding mowers, and handheld engines,
(Class III, IV and V), used in applications such as trimmers, edgers,
brush cutters, leaf blowers, leaf vacuums, chain saws, augers and
tillers. The proposed Phase 2 rules contained in today's notice would
apply to the same types of engines and applications covered by Phase 1.
On September 30, 1993, the charter for the Small Nonroad Engine
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee was filed with Congress. The
purpose of the committee was to help EPA develop Phase 2 small SI
engine regulations. The committee consisted of eleven members
representing the range of stakeholders.4 The committee
adopted protocols and formed four task groups to examine key issues and
bring recommendations to the full committee. The task groups included:
Test Procedure; Technology; Certification; and Public Education and
Market Incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The organizations participating in the regulatory
negotiations as members of the Committee were: the American Lung
Association (ALA); the Auger and Power Equipment Manufacturers
Association (APEMA); the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA); the
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA); the Natural
Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC); the North American Equipment
Dealers Association (NAEDA); the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
(OPEI); the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association
(PPEMA); the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(STAPPA/ALAPCO); the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; and
U.S. EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee and the task groups met numerous times between
September 1993 and February 1996, with the final committee meeting on
February 16, 1996, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. During the course of its
work, the committee addressed many issues, including: applicability of
the rule; engine/equipment classification; test procedures for engines;
standards and standard structure; effective dates and lead time of the
program; certification, enforcement and compliance strategies; in-use
program; market-based incentive programs; public education programs;
technologies; and dealer responsibility.
The committee developed data and draft language to address most of
these issues, both through the work of the task groups and the work of
the committee as a whole. However, the committee did not reach
consensus on an agreement in principle or draft regulatory language
during the course of the negotiations. While the committee did not
achieve consensus, the regulatory negotiation process produced
substantial useful information and provided EPA with input from
numerous key stakeholders which has helped EPA develop the Phase 2
small SI engine regulatory program being proposed today.5 In
addition, during the meetings there was much useful discussion which
has helped EPA understand the perspectives of the interests represented
at the table.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA initially established EPA Air Docket A-93-29 for the
Phase 2 rulemaking; this docket contains background materials on
this Phase 2 rulemaking, as well as materials related to the Small
Nonroad Engine Negotiated Rulemaking process. EPA Air Docket A-93-29
is hereby incorporated by reference.
\6\ The final report by the facilitators to the regulatory
negotiation process can be found in EPA Air Docket A-93-29, Item
#II-A-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the final meeting of the regulatory negotiation committee
in February 1996, EPA proceeded to develop the Phase 2 rule. EPA and
other interested parties continued working to find areas of agreement
on how certain aspects of a Phase 2 program would be addressed in the
proposed rule. As these discussions proceeded, the involved parties
worked together to develop written documents, Statements of Principles
(SOPs), which have partly formed the basis of today's Phase 2 NPRM (see
62 FR 14740, March 27, 1997). A Statement of Principles (SOP) is a
joint written statement by the U.S. EPA and supporting parties
outlining a comprehensive plan for developing a proposed rulemaking. In
this case, the two SOPs lay out the framework for a proposal for Phase
2 regulations covering small handheld and nonhandheld spark-ignited
nonroad engines, respectively.
The ``Handheld SOP'', addressing issues affecting engines used in
handheld equipment, was signed in May 1996 by EPA, the Auger and Power
Equipment Manufacturers Association (APEMA), the North American
Equipment Dealers Association (NAEDA), the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association (PPEMA), the State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO), and the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. The ``Nonhandheld SOP'', addressing issues affecting
engines used in nonhandheld equipment, was signed in December 1996 by
EPA, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corporation,
U.S.A., Kohler Company, Kubota, Mitsubishi Engine North America, Inc.,
Onan Corporation, Suzuki Motor Corporation, Tecumseh Products Company,
The Toro Company,
[[Page 3952]]
and Wis-Con Total Power Corporation. While the two SOPs set out a
framework for EPA's development of the proposed Phase 2 program, the
Agency wishes to stress that they do not represent final decisions
regarding Phase 2 or bind EPA as to how provisions in the final rule
must be promulgated.
EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in
March 1997 (see 62 FR 14740, March 27, 1997) which announced the
signing of the two SOPs and requested comments on all aspects of the
SOPs for purposes of developing today's proposal. EPA also specifically
requested information on small business issues in the ANPRM.
Significant comments received on the ANPRM are discussed in the context
of the description of the program contained in today's proposal.
III. Overview of Proposed Provisions
EPA is proposing today a second phase of regulations for small SI
engines 19 kW and below (hereafter referred to as small SI engines).
Two principal goals of the proposed Phase 2 rule are to encourage a
shift to cleaner engine technology, and to assure that the air quality
benefits anticipated by the rule are achieved in actual use. To achieve
these goals, the proposed Phase 2 program builds on the current Phase 1
program in two key ways. First, today's proposal includes more
stringent standards for hydrocarbons (HC) plus oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) emissions, with a requirement that engines meet these
emission standards through their useful lives.7 Second, the
proposal adds an in-use component to the Phase 1 compliance program to
assure that the emission benefits are achieved in actual use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA is proposing a set of values for the useful life of the
engines for regulatory purposes. The term ``useful life'' refers to
these regulatory useful life categories, which are discussed in more
detail in Section IV.A.4 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is clear from the analysis supporting this proposed rule (see
Sections V, VI and VII, and draft Regulatory Support Document), further
emission reductions from future model year small SI engines beyond
those achieved through the Phase 1 program can be achieved in a cost-
effective manner. Uncontrolled, small SI engines contribute
approximately 3.4 percent of the national HC emission inventory, 9.3
percent of the mobile source HC emission inventory, and 34.4 percent of
the nonroad mobile source HC emission inventory.
The Phase 1 small SI regulations are expected to reduce the HC
emissions from these engines by 32 percent. However, even with Phase 1
controls in place, small SI engines continue to contribute
significantly to the emission inventory that leads to ozone
concentrations in nonattainment areas. After Phase 1, small SI engines
contribute approximately 3.1 percent HC nationally, 8.4 percent of
mobile source HC, and 31.6 percent of the nonroad mobile source HC
inventory (note that these values do not reflect changes in inventories
from other sectors).
In addition, further control of HC+NOX emissions from
future model year small SI engines beyond Phase 1 levels, as proposed
in today's notice for Phase 2 controls, is achievable through
technology that will be available for the engines to which the
standards would apply, considering cost, lead time noise, energy and
safety factors. For nonhandheld engines, proposed Phase 2 emission
levels are expected to be achieved through a combination of
modifications to current engine technologies, and conversions to
cleaner, more durable technology such as overhead valve engine
technology. For handheld engines, proposed Phase 2 emission levels are
expected to be achieved through improvements to current 2-stroke engine
technologies (see discussion in Section IV.A of this preamble).
If the Phase 2 program is adopted as proposed, many elements of the
existing Phase 1 program would remain essentially the same in the Phase
2 program. First, the types of engines covered by the proposed Phase 2
rule would remain essentially the same as those covered in the Phase 1
program (see discussion, Section IV.G). In addition, EPA would retain
the five engine class categorization from Phase 1 for regulatory
purposes as in Table 1 (see discussion, Section IV.G.3). Third, the
Phase 1 criteria for determining whether an engine family would be
allowed to certify to less stringent handheld standards would be
retained (see Section IV.G.2).
Table 1.--Small SI Engine Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonhandheld Handheld
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<225 cc.........................="">225 cc. <20 cc............="" 20=""> 50 cc
and <50 cc.="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" in="" addition,="" other="" elements="" of="" the="" existing="" phase="" 1="" program="" that="" would="" remain="" essentially="" unchanged="" in="" this="" proposed="" phase="" 2="" program="" include:="" (1)="" applicability="" of="" the="" rule="" and="" definitions="" (see="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 90,="" subpart="" a),="" except="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" iv.g;="" (2)="" certification="" requirements="" (see="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 90,="" subpart="" b),="" except="" for="" the="" proposed="" requirements="" to="" determine="" deterioration="" factors="" and="" to="" certify="" that="" engines="" meet="" the="" standards="" through="" their="" useful="" lives="" (see="" section="" iv.d.1),="" and="" proposed="" flexibilities="" for="" small="" volume="" engine="" manufacturers="" (see="" section="" iv.e);="" (3)="" provisions="" regarding="" test="" equipment="" and="" test="" procedures="" (see="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 90,="" subparts="" d="" and="" e),="" except="" for="" minor="" changes="" addressed="" in="" section="" iv.b;="" (4)="" provisions="" for="" selective="" enforcement="" audits="" (seas),="" (see="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 90,="" subpart="" f),="" except="" that="" for="" the="" phase="" 2="" program="" sea="" would="" exist="" primarily="" as="" a="" backstop="" to="" manufacturer-run="" production="" line="" testing="" program="" (see="" section="" iv.d.2;="" and="" (5)="" provisions="" pertaining="" to="" importation="" of="" nonconforming="" engines,="" emission-related="" defect="" reporting="" requirements,="" voluntary="" emission="" recall="" program,="" exclusion="" and="" exemption="" of="" nonroad="" engines="" from="" regulations,="" prohibited="" acts="" and="" general="" enforcement="" provisions,="" and="" emission="" warranty="" and="" maintenance="" instructions="" (see="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 90,="" subparts="" g,="" i,="" j,="" k,="" and="" l),="" except="" for="" provisions="" for="" ordered="" recall="" (see="" proposed="" sec.="" 90.808)="" and="" compliance="" flexibilities="" for="" small="" volume="" equipment="" manufacturers="" (see="" proposed="" sec.="" 90.1003).="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" the="" appropriateness="" of="" retaining="" these="" elements="" of="" the="" phase="" 1="" program="" in="" phase="" 2.="" elements="" new="" to="" the="" regulatory="" requirements="" for="" small="" si="" engines="" included="" in="" today's="" proposed="" phase="" 2="" program="" include:="" (1)="" proposed="" emission="" standard="" levels="" and="" useful="" life="" categories="" (see="" proposed="" amendments="" to="" subpart="" b,="" and="" section="" iv.a);="" (2)="" a="" certification="" [[page="" 3953]]="" averaging,="" banking="" and="" trading="" program="" for="" nonhandheld="" engines="" (see="" proposed="" subpart="" c,="" and="" section="" iv.a.5);="" (3)="" procedures="" for="" the="" determination="" of="" deterioration="" factors="" at="" the="" time="" of="" certification="" (see="" proposed="" amendments="" to="" subpart="" b,="" and="" section="" iv.d.1;="" (4)="" a="" manufacturer-run="" production="" line="" testing="" program,="" called="" cumsum="" (see="" proposed="" subpart="" h,="" and="" section="" iv.d.2);="" and="" (5)="" in-use="" testing="" programs="" for="" nonhandheld="" and="" handheld="" engines,="" with="" an="" in-use="" credit="" program="" for="" handheld="" engines="" (see="" proposed="" subparts="" m="" and="" n,="" and="" section="" iv.d.3).="" in="" addition,="" this="" proposal="" contains="" a="" number="" of="" flexibilities="" to="" ease="" the="" transition="" to="" this="" more="" stringent="" phase="" 2="" program,="" some="" which="" would="" apply="" to="" all="" manufacturers,="" and="" others="" which="" would="" be="" targeted="" to="" ease="" the="" transition="" specifically="" for="" small="" production="" volume="" manufacturers="" (see="" discussion,="" section="" iv.e).="" finally,="" today's="" notice="" also="" describes="" epa's="" intent="" to="" pursue="" a="" voluntary="" ``green="" labeling''="" program="" and="" a="" voluntary="" fuel="" spillage="" reduction="" program="" for="" nonhandheld="" and="" handheld="" engines,="" and="" a="" particulate="" matter="" (pm)="" and="" hazardous="" air="" pollutant="" testing="" program="" for="" handheld="" engines="" (see="" section="" iv.f).="" the="" programs="" proposed="" today="" for="" nonhandheld="" and="" handheld="" engines="" are="" similar="" in="" many="" respects.="" they="" also="" have="" some="" important="" differences.="" the="" intertwining="" issues="" of="" more="" stringent="" standards="" and="" assurance="" of="" emission="" reductions="" in="" use="" can="" be="" addressed="" in="" a="" number="" of="" ways.="" the="" remainder="" of="" this="" section="" provides="" an="" overview="" of="" the="" phase="" 2="" program="" goals="" of="" encouraging="" a="" shift="" to="" cleaner="" technology="" and="" assuring="" that="" emission="" reductions="" are="" achieved="" in-use,="" and="" a="" description="" of="" the="" basic="" proposed="" programs="" for="" nonhandheld="" and="" handheld="" engines="" for="" achieving="" these="" goals.="" a.="" more="" stringent="" standards="" and="" a="" shift="" to="" cleaner="" technology="" epa="" is="" proposing="" today="">X emission standards for
nonhandheld and handheld engines that are expected to achieve important
reductions of emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The
standards for Classes II-V would be fully phased-in by the 2005 model
year, with Class I levels effective in the 2001 model year. Engines
would be required to meet these levels throughout their useful lives.
For nonhandheld engines, a certification averaging, banking and trading
program is proposed as an integral part of feasibility of the proposed
HC+NOX emission standards (see Section IV.A.5). A more
complete discussion of the justification of the level of the standards
and the technologies expected to meet these levels can be found in
Section IV.A. This section contains a brief overview of the proposed
nonhandheld engine emission standards, the proposed handheld emission
standards, and the proposal for useful life categories for nonhandheld
and handheld engines.
1. Nonhandheld Engine HC+NOX Emission Standards
The emission standards proposed today for nonhandheld engines,
indicated in Table 2, represent an approximate 25 percent reduction in
HC+NOX levels from Phase 1 levels. These standards are
expected to be achieved in a cost-effective manner by modifications to
current engine technologies and, especially in the case of Class II
engines, by conversion of current side valve (SV) technology engines to
cleaner, more durable technology, such as overhead valve (OHV)
technology engines. For Class I, where engine sales are currently
dominated by side-valve (SV) technology engines, the proposed levels
are expected to result in cleaner and more emissions durable SV
technology engines, but are not in themselves expected to result in
conversion of SV engines to OHV or comparably clean and durable engine
technology. These modifications to SV engines can be accommodated by
2001, the proposed effective date for the Phase 2 standard for Class I
engines. For Class II engines, the proposed levels are expected to
result in complete conversion to clean OHV or comparable technology. To
allow this more significant design change, the proposed Phase II
standards are gradually decreased from 2001 through 2005.
Table 2.--HC+NOX Emission Standards for Nonhandheld Engines in Grams/Kilowatt-Hour
[g/kW-hr] 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Model year Model year Model year Model year
Engine class 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I........................................ 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Class II....................................... 18.0 16.6 15.0 13.6 \2\ 12.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Optional non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOX emission standards for natural gas fueled engines only, and
carbon monoxide (CO) emission standards, are also proposed in today's notice, and are discussed in Section
IV.A.
\2\ The 12.1 g/kW-hr Class II standard assumes a phase-in from 50 percent in model year 2001 to 100 percent in
model year 2005 of OHV or comparably clean and durable technology.
A key aspect of the proposed Phase 2 program for nonhandheld
engines is the belief that low emission standards for nonhandheld
engines can be met through engine technology that can be low emitting
both when the engine is new, and also when the engine has experienced
hour accumulation to the engine's useful life. Therefore, these Phase 2
standards are based on useful life emission performance.
a. OHV and SV Engine Technologies. EPA believes that features
inherent to the design of OHV technology engines are superior to those
of SV engines and allow for lower new engine emissions as well as lower
emission deterioration characteristics. In general, the combustion
chamber and cylinder head design of OHV technology engines give these
engines the potential to produce lower emissions both when new and also
in-use. These engines have potential to exhibit lower emissions when
new due to location of the combustion chamber directly over the piston,
rather than partly to the side of the piston as in SV technology
engines. This location allows a shorter combustion time, shorter flame
propagation, better fuel combustion, and better cooling
characteristics. In addition, OHV technology engines are designed with
lower surface to volume ratios, which enhance fuel combustion. OHV
technology engines also have the potential to exhibit improved in-use
engine durability characteristics due to the location of the valves in
the cylinder head rather than in the block, which affords more uniform
exposure of the valves to heat sources and thus lower distortion of
valves and valve seats. However, the Agency recognizes that the design
of the engine is all-important,
[[Page 3954]]
and that it is possible to improve features of both SV and OHV
technology engines to enhance new and in-use emission characteristics
(e.g., cylinder heads, advanced carburetion, fuel injection). The
Agency requests comment on the fundamental supposition of this rule
that OHV technology engines have the potential to be superior to SV
technology engines for new and in-use emissions characteristics.
Further discussion of SV and OHV technology engines is contained in
Section IV.A and Chapter 3 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document
(RSD).
b. Class I Use of OHV Technology. The nonhandheld small SI engine
market has traditionally been dominated by SV technology engines, with
SV technology engines accounting for as much as 90 percent of engine
sales in Class I and 65 percent of engine sales in Class II. The
majority of Class I SV engines are used in low cost, consumer products
such as walk-behind mowers. Recently, the market has been moving
towards OHV for Class II, in recognition of OHV advantages in engine
performance, engine durability, fuel economy, and emissions
characteristics. These advantages would be expected to be more
important in commercial equipment which tend to make up significant
market for Class II engines. For Class I engines, there has not been
this same trend to OHV technology.
One barrier to increased penetration of OHV technology engines into
the Class I market, which is dominated by residential, low cost
equipment, may have been the cost associated with the conversion of
product lines from SV technology to OHV technology. These conversion
costs to the engine manufacturer are expected to be in the range of $5
to $14 per engine, depending on volume; cost to the consumer would
likely be even higher (see Section VI for further discussion of these
costs). For residential, low cost equipment, the OHV engine's
advantages in performance and durability may not outweigh the
associated higher purchase price when compared to equipment using less
expensive SV equipment, at least in the near term and in light of the
lead time EPA is proposing for the proposed Class I standard. If
consumers of residential equipment are particularly price sensitive,
they may choose not to purchase new equipment if priced higher due to
the use of an OHV engine. Rather, to the extent four stroke SV engines
tend to continue providing operable service, consumers may choose to
spend money on equipment maintenance, extending both the life of the
equipment and the number of hours the existing, non-Phase II SV engines
would be used. If this happens, sales of cleaner, Phase II engines
could be depressed and the extended use of SV engines toward the end of
their useful life would add disproportionately to emission from small
engines as the emission performance of these engines tends to continue
deteriorating with use. Moreover, promulgation of a more stringent
Class I standard, combined with the proposed Class II standard, would
raise questions about the need for providing significantly longer lead
time before the standards became effective. Additionally lead time
might be necessary to allow manufacturers to invest the greater level
of engineering and production resources necessary to convert both Class
I and Class II engines to OHV technology for their entire product line
as could be necessary for a nationwide program. This additional lead
time could delay the environmental benefits of the program.
Due to uncertainties as to consumer acceptance of OHV engines in
typical Class I equipment applications if required nationwide and how a
more stringent Class I standard might effect lead time for the program
as a whole and the resulting uncertainty of emissions benefit, the
Agency is not at this time proposing Class I standards which would
mandate the conversion of Class I engines to OHV technology. However,
EPA is requesting comments on the likely impacts of such a standard.
Even if it is not appropriate to adopt more stringent Class I standards
now, in the future, as uncertainties regarding consumer acceptance of
OHV Class I engines and other issues are resolved, EPA will be able to
re-evaluate the stringency of the proposed standard and pursue any
necessary and appropriate revisions. Additionally, the experience in
California will likely provide useful information.
While today's proposed emission standard for Class I engines are
not expected to require additional conversion from SV to OHV
technology, EPA does desire to encourage the production and sale of OHV
engines into the Class I market on a mass volume basis. In order to
encourage this, EPA has entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)
with two individual engine manufacturers.8-10 These two
companies currently represent over 80 percent of all Class I engine
sales. The two MOUs detail the specifics of Class I OHV engine
demonstration programs which are designed as experiments to explore the
consumer acceptance and feasibility of developing low cost OHV
technology which can be applied to mass production Class I engines. The
two programs include a series of reports to EPA on the level of
success, impediments encountered, market response, costs, emission
rates, and so forth. The two Class I OHV demonstration programs will
begin prior to the proposed effective dates for the Phase 2 rule. While
the MOUs are outside the scope of the regulatory process, if
successful, this voluntary program may generate considerable emission
benefits in addition to those anticipated to result from the proposed
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8-10\ Copies of these MOUs are in EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Items
II-B-03 and II-B-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the proposed voluntary ``green labeling'' program is
designed to encourage manufacturers to produce engines that are
substantially below the standards proposed today. In Class I in
particular, manufacturers may decide for market reasons to convert
current SV engines to OHV or comparably clean and durable technology
engines, in order to qualify for the ``green label'' (see discussion of
the program in Section IV.F.1).
EPA requests comment on the general issue of the impact of moving
to OHV technology for Class I engines, including the potential impact
on sales of new equipment, the extended use of existing SV engines, the
impact of a more stringent Class I standard on the ability of
manufacturers to meet the proposed Class II standard under the proposed
schedule, any options in addition to the voluntary ``green labeling''
program which would encourage the sale of clean OHV technology engines
and the implications for emissions impact which would likely result
from these actions.
c. Class II Use of OHV Technology. The 12.1 g/kW-hr HC +
NOX emission standard proposed to take effect in the 2005
model year for Class II engines is expected to result in complete
conversion to clean OHV or comparably clean and durable engine
technology. As is discussed below in Section IV.A, this is an
aggressive standard for Class II engines. The transition to OHV
technology should be eased by the phase-in of the standard and the
certification averaging, banking, and trading provisions proposed today
for nonhandheld engines.
2. Handheld Engine HC+NOX Emission Standards
The standards proposed today for handheld engines represent an
approximate 35 percent reduction from Phase 1 levels, to be phased-in
on a
[[Page 3955]]
percentage of production basis between the 2002 and 2005 model year, as
indicated in Table 3. These standards are expected to be achieved in a
cost-effective manner by use of improved 2-stroke technology engines
(as discussed in more detail in Section IV.A).
Table 3.--HC+NOX Emission Standards for Handheld Engines
[In g/kW-hr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC+NOX
emission Model year Model year Model year Model year
Engine class standard (g/ 2002 2003 2004 2005
kW-hr) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III...................................... 210
Class IV....................................... 172 20 40 70 100 1
Class V........................................ 116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The standards would be phased-in on the basis of percentage of total eligible sales. In this proposed rule,
``eligible sales'' or ``U.S. sales'' is defined as Phase 2 engines sold for purposes of being used in the
United States, and includes any engine exported and subsequently imported in a new piece of equipment, but
excludes any engine introduced into commerce, by itself or in a piece of equipment, for use in a state that
has established its own emission requirements applicable to such engines pursuant to a waiver granted by EPA
under section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act.
Two-stroke technology engines have traditionally been the dominant
engine design used for handheld equipment applications. These engines
have been well suited to meet the weight, multipositional use, and
power requirements of these applications. However, 2-stroke technology
engines also have very high engine emissions, compared with 4-stroke
technologies, due in large part to fuel scavenging losses.
With the advent of emission control requirements federally and in
California, research into other technologies to further control
emissions from engines used in handheld applications has occurred.
Promising technologies include light weight 4-stroke technology
engines, and 2-stroke technology engines with aftertreatment. However,
little is known about the in-use performance, in-use emissions
characteristics and cost of these technologies, or how appropriate it
is to consider these technologies across the full range of handheld
equipment applications. Because of these uncertainties, today's
standards would not require conversion to 4-stroke engine technology or
the use of aftertreatment for handheld engines. However, EPA wants to
encourage introduction of technologies into today's market which are
cleaner than required by the proposed standards. For example, EPA
recognizes that some engine manufacturers have recently developed and
marketed cleaner, lightweight 4-stroke engines for use in handheld
equipment. The Agency believes potentially cleaner 4-stroke engines, 2-
stroke engines with aftertreatment and other advanced two-stroke
technologies may enter the market to a limited extent on a national
level during the time frame of the Phase 2 program. EPA's goal is to
encourage development of such technology, and EPA believes that the
proposed ``green labeling'' program, (discussed in Section IV.F.1)
should provide important incentives to manufacturers to introduce
cleaner technologies on a national basis. In addition, the Agency
intends to conduct a technology review and a possible Phase 3
rulemaking to address the possibility that technological advances and/
or cost reductions may occur after promulgation of the Phase 2 rule
that could make greater, but still cost-effective reductions feasible
in handheld engine emission levels.
3. Useful Life Categories
Today's proposal would require that engines meet the proposed
emission standards throughout their useful lives. EPA is today
proposing multiple useful life categories, indicated in Tables 4 and 5,
given the numerous applications in which these engines are used, and
wide variation in expected engine useful life in these different
applications. In addition, the use of these engines in applications
which experience primarily commercial rather than primarily consumer or
residential usage can also impact the useful life of the engine.
Table 4.--Useful Life Categories for Nonhandheld Engines
[Hours]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Category Category
C B A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I................................ 66 250 500
Class II............................... 250 500 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Useful Life Categories for Handheld Engines
[Hours]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Commercial
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III, IV and V........................... 50 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing that at the time of certification, engine
manufacturers would have the responsibility to select the useful life
period which most typically represents the in-use operating periods for
the majority of engines in the engine family, based on information
about that engine family including design and durability information,
as well as information about the equipment in which the engine is
expected to be used. Manufacturers would label the engine according to
the useful life selection. See Section IV.A.4 for further discussion of
the proposed useful life provisions for nonhandheld and handheld
engines.
B. Assuring Emission Reductions are Achieved In-use
The goal of the in-use component of the proposed Phase 2 program is
to provide assurance that the emission reduction benefits anticipated
by the program are achieved in actual use. This section describes how
EPA's traditional compliance programs for mobile sources achieve this
goal, outlines various challenges in designing a compliance program for
the small SI industry, provides an overview of the compliance program
proposed today for nonhandheld and handheld engines, and discusses
alternative compliance program options.
[[Page 3956]]
1. Traditional Compliance Programs for Mobile Sources
EPA has traditionally used three-step compliance programs to
implement and enforce mobile source emission standards. For a given
engine family, the first of the three steps is certification, where,
based on emission data from test engines, which are often prototype
engines, EPA issues a license to the engine manufacturer known as a
certificate of conformity. This license enables the manufacturer to
introduce engines covered under the certificate into commerce in the
United States. This step typically includes some means of projecting
the emissions characteristics of the engine family over its useful
life. If the manufacturer demonstrates according to the regulatory
provisions that the engine family meets the emission standards for the
useful life of the engines, EPA issues a certificate of conformity.
The second step is production line testing where the engine
manufacturer demonstrates that actual production line engines meet
emission standards. Production line testing provides an opportunity for
EPA and the manufacturer to verify that designs approved based on
certification testing are translated into mass production engines that
meet standards and to catch production problems before they become in-
use problems.
The last step involves the testing of in-use engines to ascertain
whether the engines continue to meet standards during their useful
lives in the hands of typical customers. EPA has the authority under
Section 207(c) of the Clean Air Act to require a mandatory recall of
vehicles or engines that have been shown not to comply with standards
for their useful life. Such recalls are instigated based on evidence of
nonconformities discovered through a variety of means, the most common
of which are cases in which nonconformities are found either through
production line testing or through in-use testing programs. In EPA's
on-highway emission control programs, EPA's recall authority and recall
practices have provided clear incentives to manufacturers to produce
emissions durable engines and vehicles.
2. Compliance Programs for the Small SI Engine Industry
The Phase 1 emission control program for small SI engines does not
follow this typical three-step compliance program. This is because,
unlike other programs, the Phase 1 program includes ``new engine''
standards only, that is, standards that the engines must meet when new,
without the requirement that they continue to meet those standards in-
use throughout their useful lives. As such, while the Phase 1 program
contains programs for certification and production line testing (in the
form of EPA initiated Selective Enforcement Audits), the program does
not contain a requirement for manufacturers to project the emissions
characteristics of the engine family over its useful life at the time
of certification (e.g., to determine a deterioration factor, or ``df'',
for the engine family), nor does it contain mandatory in-use testing
provisions. EPA promulgated such a program for Phase 1 for several
reasons, including the belief that for a first phase of emission
controls, significant emission reductions would occur in this sector
even with the ``new engine'' standards. Equally important was the lack
of data available to the Agency at the time of the rulemaking on which
to base an in-use program (e.g., information supporting appropriate
regulatory useful life periods and engine deterioration rates). In
addition, EPA made clear its intention to address in-use issues in a
second Phase of regulation.
In addition to determining appropriate useful life periods and
engine emission deterioration characteristics for this proposed Phase 2
program, the Agency has also faced a key challenge of how to conduct an
effective in-use testing program for these engines, and whether or not
a recall program modeled on the traditional on-highway recall program
could be an effective compliance tool for this sector of the nonroad
engine industry. As EPA has begun to regulate a wide range of nonroad
engines pursuant to Section 213 of the Clean Air Act, it has become
evident that a mandatory recall program, as has been traditionally
conducted for the on-highway industry, may not be the most effective
program for some sectors of the nonroad engine industry, as compared
with other means of assuring compliance in-use. This is especially true
for the small SI engine industry, in which many of the engines are
installed in consumer products which are not registered and thus would
be difficult to track in the event of a recall, and in which the cost
of conducting a potential recall could be large relative to the cost of
the actual engines being recalled.
For certain nonroad engine industry sectors, such as the spark-
ignition marine engine sector and the small SI engine sector, EPA has
sought to develop alternative programs designed to provide reasonable
means to address emissions exceedances identified through production
line testing and in-use testing programs. For example, the spark-
ignition marine engine program includes a voluntary in-use credit
program that EPA expects will be an effective way to address
exceedances identified through in-use testing, and the program also
includes provisions for the use of certification credits to address
exceedances identified through production line testing (see 40 CFR Part
91).
EPA believes that these alternative programs, designed to provide a
means to address emission exceedances, should meet several criteria in
order to be considered as effective as EPA's traditional mandatory
recall programs. First, they should provide an incentive to
manufacturers to build emission-durable engines. Second, they should be
practical to implement. Third, they should provide an incentive to
perform accurate testing. Fourth, such programs should offset
additional emissions that occur as a result of the exceedence of the
standards. Finally, such programs should not be unduly burdensome to
manufacturers.
The compliance programs proposed today for small SI nonhandheld and
handheld engines are intended to meet these criteria. While EPA retains
the authority to order a recall if a substantial number of engines are
found to be in nonconformity, and while this Phase 2 proposal does
include regulatory language governing EPA's action in ordering recalls
(see proposed Subparts I and M), EPA anticipates considering programs
which would be effective alternatives to ordering a mandatory recall of
Phase 2 certified engines. Instead, EPA would expect these alternatives
to recall would address the exceedances of the emission standards in
ways that meet the five criteria identified above. For nonhandheld
engines, in some cases, the use of certification credits would be
allowed to offset exceedances of the family emission limit
11, 12 in the event of PLT exceedances. For handheld
engines, the use of in-use credits would be allowed as one means of
addressing potential exceedances of standards in the event of
exceedances determined through production line testing or in-use
testing programs. For both nonhandheld and handheld engines, other
possible alternatives for addressing exceedances of emissions standards
would include voluntary recall and other possible alternative projects
(these issues are discussed
[[Page 3957]]
further in Section IV.D of this preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11, 12\ For nonhandheld engines participating in the averaging,
banking, and trading program described in more detail in Section
IV.A.5, compliance would be demonstrated with the family emission
limit, or FEL, rather than the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Proposed Phase 2 Compliance Program
Today's program proposes ``in-use'' standards for the first time
for this industry.13 New elements of the Phase 2 compliance
program include processes for determining deterioration factors
(``dfs'') at the time of certification, a manufacturer-run Production
Line Testing program, and in-use testing components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The fact that the proposed Phase 2 emissions standards are
``in-use'' standards, compared with the Phase 1 standards which are
``new engine'' standards, together with the fact that these engines
do experience emissions deterioration over time, is why, when
compared numerically with the Phase 1 levels, Phase 2 levels in fact
are higher in the case of Class I. Despite this apparent numerical
discrepancy, EPA still anticipates important reductions from all
engine classes as a result of the proposed Phase 2 standards. Since
Phase 2 designs will account for in-use deterioration, in-use
emission levels will be lower under the proposed Phase 2 regulations
compared to Phase 1 engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Certification and In-Use Testing. Today's proposal includes
three different approaches to certification df determination and in-use
testing, based on engine class and engine technology, which are
discussed briefly below. These approaches comprise the basic program
proposed today. EPA is also proposing additional procedures for some
engine classes and engine technologies to increase the flexibility of
the rule.14 All the approaches are discussed in more detail
in Section IV.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For example, for nonhandheld OHV technology engines,
manufacturers would have an option to use a ``calculated df'' rather
than the ``assigned df'' described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, for nonhandheld OHV technology engines, manufacturers would
be allowed to apply an assigned deterioration factor or ``assigned df''
to new engine test values at the time of certification to determine a
useful life certification value. Compared to an alternative of testing
an engine over its full useful life to determine deterioration, these
engines would be allowed to undergo this lower burden certification
effort, in return for participation in an industry-wide OHV field
durability and in-use emission performance demonstration program (as
described in Sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.3). Second, for nonhandheld side-
valve technology engines and engines with aftertreatment, manufacturers
would certify their engines based on accumulating hours on the engines
to the engines' full useful lives at the time of certification. This
relatively heavier burden at the time of certification is balanced by a
decreased in-use testing burden. Following full useful life
certification, these engines would not be subject to further in-use
testing requirements. Third, for all handheld engines, manufacturers
would certify their engines to full useful life standards at the time
of certification using new engine test values and dfs determined based
on ``good engineering judgment.'' Handheld engine manufacturers would
then conduct an in-use testing program, by which each manufacturer
would age and emissions test engines to ensure compliance in-use. A
handheld engine manufacturer would in-use test up to 25 percent of its
engine families each year.
Other than the addition of the requirements to demonstrate that
engines meet the emission standards throughout their useful lives, and
to determine a deterioration factor at the time of certification, the
certification procedures proposed today for the Phase 2 program are
essentially the same as those for Phase 1. In particular, EPA is
proposing to retain a streamlined certification application form and
process, with simple procedures for electronic submittal of
information, as discussed further in Section IV.D.1.
ii. Production Line Compliance. Today's proposal would add a
manufacturer-run Production Line Testing program known as CumSum to
replace a Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) program as the primary
method of determining the compliance of new production engines. SEA
would remain an optional or backstop program depending upon the class
of engine, as described in Section IV.D.2.
iii. Aging Engines To Their Useful Lives. EPA believes that aging
engines in field usage in typical representative applications would be
the most accurate possible program for verifying in-use emissions. As
such, the proposed OHV field durability and in-use emissions
performance program (``Field Durability Program'') is designed to
produce significant quantities of reliable test data from OHV engines
aged in typical field usage, and to verify that the conclusions used in
the certification process with respect to the durability of OHV engines
are accurate.
While aging engines in typical field usage would be the optimal
program for assuring the emission reductions are being achieved in use,
EPA recognizes that costs associated with aging engines in the field
and administering a field aging program could be higher than, for
example, costs of a bench aging program. It is for this reason that EPA
is proposing that for full useful life certification for nonhandheld
side-valve technology engines or engines with aftertreatment, and for
in-use testing for handheld engines, manufacturers may age engines on
bench cycles, in lieu of field aging, provided that a field/bench
adjustment factor has previously been established, as discussed in
Section IV.C. EPA requests comment on the proposal to allow
manufacturers in some cases to age engines on bench cycles in lieu of
field aging.
In addition, for nonhandheld engine manufacturers, who could be
field aging engines for the OHV Field Durability Program and also for
the field/bench adjustment program, EPA is proposing a cap on the
number of field engine tests required in a given year. EPA requests
comments on all aspects of the compliance program proposed today for
Phase 2 small SI engine regulation.
4. Alternative Compliance Program Options
The program proposed today for Phase 2 regulation of small SI
engines is essentially the same as the program described in the ANPRM
for this rulemaking. EPA received comments on the ANPRM relating to the
differences between the nonhandheld and handheld sides of the industry,
and the merits of applying concepts and programs outlined for one side
of the industry to the other. One commenter stressed that the
nonhandheld and handheld engine industries are very different in
composition, in marketing, in technology, as well as in application.
This commenter suggested that the program for nonhandheld engines
described in the ANPRM is an integrated whole, with each provision
linked to other provisions, and that it would be a mistake to graft
parts of the handheld program on to the nonhandheld program. Another
commenter suggested that the Agency should take a comprehensive and
balanced view of the program for the two sides of the industry, and
that elements of the two proposals should be used to create a simpler
and more effective regulation.
EPA is concerned that any changes to the programs being proposed
today should be considered carefully as to their impact on the program
as a whole, given linkages between the various elements of the programs
proposed today. For example, the compliance program proposed for
nonhandheld OHV technology engines is designed as an integrated whole.
The proposal to allow manufacturers to use the assigned dfs for
certification is reasonable because it is linked to the proposal for an
industry-wide OHV Field Durability Program designed to verify the
assumptions with respect to stable and low dfs. In addition, EPA
believes this
[[Page 3958]]
conversion of engines to OHV or comparably clean and durable
technology, together with the OHV Field Durability Program, is one of
the strongest elements of today's proposal, an element which links
stringent standards forcing clean technology with a field testing
program to verify that those emission reductions are being achieved in
use.
However, EPA believes that there are multiple ways to design
effective programs for reducing emissions from small SI engines, and
for ensuring that those reductions are achieved in use. EPA requests
comment on alternative compliance options. For example, EPA requests
comment on an option which would allow nonhandheld manufacturers to
establish certification dfs for SV engines and engines with
aftertreatment through good engineering judgment (instead of the
proposed program for full useful life aging for certification), linked
to a program for field aging SV engines and engines with aftertreatment
to verify the dfs established through good engineering judgment. EPA
also requests comment on applying the in-use testing program proposed
today for handheld engines to the nonhandheld side of the industry. EPA
requests comments on these or other ways in which programs for the two
sides of the industry could be designed to achieve the goals of
providing assurance of environmental benefits in-use, easing the
implementation burden for EPA and the industry, and achieving greater
commonality in the programs for the two sides of the industry, where
appropriate.
IV. Description of Proposed Program
Section IV of today's document contains a description of the
programs proposed for nonhandheld and handheld small SI engines for
Phase 2 regulations, including discussion of standards and related
provisions, test procedures, a field/bench adjustment program,
compliance programs, flexibilities, nonregulatory programs, and other
general provisions.
A. Standards and Related Provisions
This section provides a detailed discussion of the standards being
proposed for the Phase 2 program, as well as related provisions
including useful life categories, certification averaging, banking, and
trading provisions, and certification fuel.
The Agency is aware of the levels which the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) is considering for their Tier 2 standards for
their Utility, Lawn, and Garden Engine regulation. The CARB Tier 2
levels are more stringent and occur in a shorter time frame than the
levels being proposed by the Agency for a Federal Phase 2 program.
Although EPA's approach is not structured identically with CARB
regulations, EPA believes there are two valid reasons for the
distinction. First, Congress has recognized the need for California to
maintain its own mobile source emission control program (see section
209 of the CAA) because it faces difficult and distinct air pollution
problems and, as a result, may need to adopt measures more stringent
than those that apply in the nation as a whole (see, e.g., Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1110-11
(D.C. Cir. 1979)). Second, EPA's nonroad emission standards are not
allowed to be more stringent than is achievable for this nationwide
program after consideration of cost and lead time according to section
213(a)(3) of the CAA. Although California is constrained by similar
criteria per the authorization criteria of section 209(e),
consideration of such criteria is limited to the State of California.
The Agency must consider cost and lead time when nonroad emission
regulations affect the nation as a whole. As discussed in the remainder
of this section, the Agency believes the standards contained in today's
proposal meet the section 213(a)(3) requirements to consider cost and
lead time in setting Federal standards.
1. HC+NOX Emission Standards
The Agency believes the level of the standards contained in today's
proposal would achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through application of technology which will be available
and considering lead time under the proposed schedule of compliance,
noise, energy, safety, and cost factors associated with applying such
technology to a nationwide program. The sections below discuss how EPA
addressed and weighed these factors in developing the proposed
standards.
EPA is proposing in-use HC+NOX standards of 25 g/kW-hr
effective in model year 2001 for Class I engines, and 12.1 g/kW-hr to
be phased-in between model years 2001 and 2005 for Class II engines, as
presented in Table 6. EPA expects that the Class II levels would result
in a complete shift in engine technology from side-valve (SV) to
cleaner overhead valve (OHV) or comparably clean and durable technology
by 2005.
Table 6. HC+NOX Emission Standards for Nonhandheld Engines
[In g/kW-hr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Model year Model year Model year Model year
Engine class 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I........................................ 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Class II....................................... 18.0 16.6 15.0 13.6 12.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing in-use HC+NOX emissions levels for
Class III, IV and V engines to be phased-in between model years 2002
and 2005 based on a percentage of U.S. sales as presented in Table 7.
Table 7.--HC+NOX Emission Standards for Handheld Engines
[In g/kW-hr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC+NOX
emission Model year Model year Model year Model year
Engine class standard (g/ 2002 2003 2004 2005
kW-hr) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III...................................... 210
Class IV....................................... 172 20 40 70 100
[[Page 3959]]
Class V........................................ 116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the nonhandheld Phase 2 program, for handheld engines, the
phase-in process of mandatory percentages would result in Phase 1 and
Phase 2 handheld engines being produced in the same model year, i.e.,
at least 20 percent of the engines produced in model year 2002 would be
Phase 2 engines subject to the Phase 2 program, and up to 80 percent of
the handheld engines produced in model year 2002 would be Phase 1
engines subject to the Phase 1 program, followed by a 40/60 split in
model year 2003, and a 70/30 split between Phase 2/Phase 1 engines in
model year 2004.
The remainder of this section describes the analysis and supporting
data for the proposed HC+NOX standards for Class I
nonhandheld engines, Class II nonhandheld engines, and Class III, IV,
and V handheld engines. Each of these subsections is organized into the
following topics: (i) Historical Sales Trends by Engine Technology--
Historical trends are important to consider when assessing the range of
field proven technologies. Historical trends assist in understanding
what technologies have been demonstrated in actual use, what
manufacturers' current production capabilities are, and the
availability of new and in-use emission performance data; (ii) In-use
HC and NOX Emission Performance of Uncontrolled Engines--The
Agency presents this information to highlight the in-use performance
characteristics associated with small engine technologies and the need
for careful consideration of the in-use performance of various control
technologies. Phase 1 new engine emission performance data is available
from Federal certification data. However, in-use emission performance
on engines pulled from the field is limited; therefore, a discussion of
the in-use performance of uncontrolled engines is warranted; (iii) New
Engine and In-use HC and NOX Performance of Phase 1
Technology Engines--A summary of the information available on the new
and in-use emission performance of Phase 1 engines is presented. This
information is used to assess the current status of the small engine
industry, which is critical for the Agency's analysis when trying to
predict the impact of technology changes on the industry; (iv)
Technologies Considered for Phase 2 HC+NOX Standards--
Discussion of the technologies the Agency considered when determining
the level of the proposed standards is presented. This includes a
discussion of new and in-use emission performance of each technology,
and the per engine cost associated with each technology, and; (v)
Proposed Phase 2 HC+NOX Standard--A discussion of the Phase
2 standards the Agency is proposing, including information on why the
proposed standards are achievable, the proposed lead time, and a
discussion and request for comment on more stringent standards (such as
the CARB Tier 2 levels).
a. HC+NOX Emission Standard for Class I Nonhandheld
Engines. This section presents information used by the Agency to
determine the appropriate level for the proposed HC+NOX
exhaust emission standards for nonhandheld Class I engines. A more
detailed explanation of the engine technologies and costs described in
this section is contained in the Draft Regulatory Support Document
(RSD) for this proposal, a copy of which is available in the public
docket for this rule.
i. Class I Historical Sales Trends by Engine Technology
Class I engine (<225 cc="" nonhandheld="" engines)="" sales="" have="" historically="" been="" dominated="" by="" low="" cost="" four-stroke="" side-valve="" engines.="" two-stroke="" gasoline="" class="" i="" engines="" are="" currently="" less="" than="" 10="" percent="" of="" annual="" sales="" and="" will="" continue="" to="" decline="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" phase="" 1="" emission="" standards,="" which="" effectively="" calls="" for="" their="" phase-out="" by="" 2003="" due="" to="" their="" high="" hc="" emissions.="" prior="" to="" 1986,="" ohv="" engines="" represented="" less="" than="" one="" percent="" of="" annual="" class="" i="" engine="" sales.="" in="" the="" past="" decade="" ohv="" engines="" have="" begun="" to="" penetrate="" the="" class="" i="" marketplace,="" but="" they="" have="" hovered="" between="" 10="" and="" 15="" percent="" of="" total="" u.s.="" sales="" for="" the="" past="" eight="" years.="" ii.="" in-use="" hc="" and="">X Emission Performance of Uncontrolled
Class I Engines
Unregulated Class I engines have demonstrated high new engine
emission rates for HC and CO, and low levels of NOX, as well
as poor in-use performance (large deterioration factors) for HC and CO,
with little deterioration of new engine NOX
values.15 HC deterioration has been shown to be greater than
two times the new engine value in as little as four years of engine
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See ``Emission Tests of In-use Small Utility Engines''
Southwest Research Institute, Sept. 1991, EPA Air Docket A-91-24,
Item #II-A-8, and ``Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study'' U.S.
EPA Report #21A-2001, Nov. 1991, EPA Air Docket A-91-24, Item #II-A-
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. New Engine and In-use HC and NOX Performance of Phase 1
Class I Technology Engines
Phase 1 engines have improved new engine emission performance over
uncontrolled engines, and may have improved in-use performance. The
Draft RSD for this proposal contains publicly available information on
engine families from all engine classes certified to the Phase 1
program. This information shows both SV and OHV technology can meet the
Phase 1 Class I new engine standard.
The Agency has recently examined information presented by several
engine manufacturers concerning emissions deterioration from Phase 1
technology Class I side-valve and over-head valve engines.16
A more detailed discussion of this data is presented in the Draft RSD.
This information covers over 50 Class I engines field aged by
manufacturers, with usage varying from 20 to 300 hours. Table 8
contains a summary of the HC+NOX deterioration factors
resulting from an analysis of this data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See ``Tier 1 Deterioration Factors for Small Nonroad
Engines'', Sept. 1996, a report by Air Improvement Resources,
available in EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-D-11.
[[Page 3960]]
Table 8.--Summary of In-use Deterioration of Phase 1 Technology Class I
Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Class I
OHV SV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated HC+NOX df at 66 Hours................... 1.35 1.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of this information indicates Class I SV HC+NOX
deterioration is higher than Class I OHV engines. The lower new engine
emission levels of Class I OHV over SVs combined with lower in-use
deterioration results in better in-use emission performance for Class I
OHV engines compared to Class I SV engines.
iv. Technologies Considered for Phase 2 Class I HC+NOX
Standards
The Agency analyzed the emission performance and cost of several
technologies which could be applied to Class I engines, including
improvements to existing SV engines, conversion of existing SV engines
to OHV technology, and the application of catalytic converters to
existing SV and OHV engines. Four-stroke SV technology utilizes an
engine configuration in which the intake and exhaust valves are located
to one side of the combustion chamber (also called an L-head design),
as compared to four-stroke OHV technology in which the intake and
exhaust valves are located directly above the combustion chamber.
Catalytic converters are add-on after treatment devices which operate
by chemically reducing or oxidizing exhaust gases. The Draft RSD for
this proposal contains additional information regarding these three
technologies.
As discussed previously, the majority of Class I engines utilize SV
technology. Table 8 shows that Class I SV technology have
HC+NOX deteriorations on the order of 1.87 times new engine
levels at 66 hours of use. Combining this with the Phase 1
certification level of 16.1 g/kW-hr HC+NOX indicates an in-
use level of approximately 30 g/kW-hr HC+NOX. The Agency
believes additional reductions can be achieved with improvements to
existing Phase 1 SV engines. A more detailed discussion of these
improvements is contained in the Draft RSD. A summary of the
improvements are: lowering of new engine emission levels achieved
through enleanment of intake air-fuel ratio; improvements to valve seat
material which will lower in-use distortion, resulting in decreased
valve leakage and deposit formation; improvements in cylinder ring
design, which will result in better combustion chamber sealing and
lower oil consumption and lower combustion chamber deposits; continued
structural improvements to cylinder design to lower cylinder distortion
inherent in side-valve configurations; and addition of valve stem seals
to limit the creepage of oil into the combustion chamber. As presented
in the Draft RSD, the Agency estimates the improvements to Class I SV
engines would cost the manufacturer as much as $4 to $7 per engine,
depending on the engine family volume. The Agency estimates changes
would result in improvements to both new and in-use emission
performance, combining for a 10 to 20 percent improvement in the in-use
HC+NOX performance beyond Phase 1 designs.
As indicated by Table 8, Phase 1 OHV engines have better in-use
performance compared to Phase 1 SV engines. A new engine level equal to
the Phase 1 standard of 16.1 g/kW-hr combined with a HC+NOX
df of 1.35 at 66 hours results in an in-use emission rate of 21.7 g/kW-
hr. This level is well below the performance of Class I SV engines,
therefore the Agency has considered the conversion of existing Class I
SV to OHV engines in developing the proposed Phase 2 levels. Based on
the Federal Phase 1 new engine certification data analyzed for this
proposal, the average Class I OHV engine emits around 10.5 g/kW-hr.
Based on the deterioration information presented in Table 8 and design
improvements discussed elsewhere, the Agency estimates a well designed
nonhandheld OHV engine could have an HC+NOX deterioration
factor of 1.3. Assuming a 10 percent compliance margin, these specific
Class I OHV engines could achieve an average in-use emission level of
around 15 g/kW-hr. However, it should be noted that only about 10
percent of current Class I engines are OHV designs. The performance of
these specific engines may not be representative of what would occur if
all Class I engines were converted to OHV technology.
Federal certification data indicates a small number of Class I
engines have certified to the Federal Phase 1 standards using catalyst
technology. Though it is technologically feasible to apply catalysts to
both SV and OHV engines, the Agency has little information regarding
in-use durability and emission performance of engines equipped with
catalysts. As discussed previously, the in-use emission performance of
small engines is a critical component of the analysis EPA has
undertaken in the development of the Phase 2 proposal. The Agency's
experience with on-highway catalyst technology has shown considerable
in-use deterioration of catalysts can occur. In recent years several
technical papers have been published regarding catalyst durability on
small engines, however, these papers have relied on laboratory
durability programs, such as aging catalysts on dynamometers
17. The Agency is not aware of any actual field-aged in-use
catalyst durability information. The Agency requests comment on the
relationship between laboratory durability data and in-use field data,
any information on typical in-use aged catalyst performance, and all
available data on individual catalysts aged under typical in-use
conditions experienced by equipment using Class I engines. The Agency
requests additional information regarding new engine emission
performance, in-use emission performance, and cost of catalyst
technology for Class I SV and OHV engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Papers
930076, 932445, 941807, and 961735 for bench aged catalyst
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Proposed Phase 2 Class I HC+NOX Standard
The Agency is proposing a corporate average exhaust emission level
of 25 g/kW-hr HC+NOX for Class I engines beginning in model
year 2001 (for discussion of the averaging, banking, and trading
program, see Section IV.A.5). The Agency believes this level is
technologically achievable, and, as discussed previously, can be met by
improvements to existing Class I SV engines. The Agency has performed
an analysis using the existing Phase 1 certification data (which
contains confidential sales projections) combined with reasonable
assumptions for in-use deterioration. This analysis indicates an
averaging standard of 25 g/kW-hr is achievable with improvements to
existing SV engines and considering the emission performance of
existing Phase 1 OHV engines. A standard of 25 g/kW-hr would not
require an increase in the penetration of Class I OHV sales.
Manufacturers would need to make improvements to existing SV engine
families which would require improvements to several engine components.
However, major retooling of engine production lines would not be
required. In addition, the use of ABT provides manufacturers with
considerable flexibility for determining the most appropriate
expenditure of resources when deciding which engine families will need
specific improvements to meet the proposed levels. The lead time
between the
[[Page 3961]]
finalization of this rule and model year 2001 would be sufficient for
manufacturers to meet the proposed HC+NOX level.
The Agency has considered emission standard levels more stringent
than the proposed 25 g/kW-hr HC+NOX. As discussed above, a
level more stringent than 25 g/kW-hr could be met by the conversion of
existing SV technology engines to OHV technology. The Agency's analysis
of existing Phase 1 certification data combined with confidential sales
information indicates an in-use level of around 15 g/kW-hr could be met
by current Phase 1 Class I OHV engines with some design improvements to
assure in-use emissions durability. However, these Class I OHV engines
represent only about 10 percent of Class I sales; it is uncertain what
level of emission could be achieved by complete conversion to OHV
technology. As discussed previously, the percentage of Class I OHV
engine sales has remained fairly constant for the past eight years,
despite superior durability, performance, and fuel economy. Several
Class I engine manufacturers, including the two largest which represent
the majority of the market in terms of sales, have discussed with the
Agency their past attempts to sell low cost OHV engines, likely in
competition with less expensive SV engines. Manufacturers have
indicated they have seen little success in drawing consumers away from
the even lower cost Class I SV engines. Engine manufacturers have
indicated that the principle reason for the failure of OHVs to
penetrate further into the Class I market is the cost difference
between the two engine technologies, and consumers' unwillingness to
pay this premium. Several engine manufacturers have indicated that low
cost Phase 1 Class I SV engines have manufacturing costs on the order
of $60 to $70 per engine. Engine manufacturers contend that for these
low cost engines, the cost increase to purchase an OHV engine is large
enough to prevent a larger market penetration by OHV engine, at least
when they would have to compete in the market with SV engines (see 62
FR 14752, ``Class I OHV Demonstration Program''). The Agency estimates
the manufacturer's cost for conversion to OHV to be between $5 and $14
per engine. Engine manufacturers have indicated concern over what they
perceive to be the potentially dramatic impacts on the Class I engine
sales which would result from a standard which requires conversion to
OHV technology. As discussed in the Overview Section III.A, above, EPA
is also concerned that possible adverse impact on sales and the
potential need for additional lead time could result in reduction in at
least the near term emission benefits anticipated by this proposal. The
Agency requests comment on the market concerns expressed by engine
manufacturers, on the potential impact on lead time associated with
more stringent Class I standards and on the potential for delay in at
least the near term emission reduction benefits available from Class I
engines if more stringent standards were adopted.
The Agency is aware of the emission standards being considered by
CARB for the CARB Tier 2 Utility, Lawn, and Garden Engine (ULGE)
regulation. The Agency's current understanding is that CARB is
considering Class I engine in-use standards of 16.1g/kW-hr
NMHC+NOX to be met by model year 2000, followed by a
standard of 12.0g/kW-hr in model year 2004. In their comments to the
ANPRM, California recommended a nationwide level of control equivalent
to that being considered by CARB. Further, CARB suggested these
standards could be met with the use of available technology,
specifically, total conversion to OHV technology to achieve compliance
with a 16.1 g/kW-hr NMHC+NOX standard and the addition of
catalyst control to meet a 12.0 g/kW-hr NMHC+NOX standard.
EPA understands that CARB is still evaluating its Tier 2 ULGE program
and may adopt regulations which differ from these specific levels or
implementation dates or both. As discussed under Section IV.A of this
proposal, section 209 of the CAA allows California to set its own
standards, considering criteria as they apply to the State of
California. However, as discussed later in this section, the Agency
requests comment on whether application of these emission control
technologies as being considered by CARB are appropriate for a Federal
program at this time, the level of emission control expected from such
application of these technologies and what adjustments to the proposed
Federal program might be necessary to accommodate standards which would
require such widespread application of OHV and catalyst technology.
The Agency has considered the potential impacts associated with the
conversion of Class I SVs to OHV technology. Due to uncertainties as to
consumer acceptance of OHV engines in typical Class I equipment
applications and as to how a more stringent Class I standard might
effect lead time for the program as a whole and the resulting
uncertainty of emissions benefits, the Agency has chosen not to propose
Class I standards which would mandate the conversion of Class I engines
to OHV or comparably clean technology. However, the Agency requests
comment on such an option. EPA specifically requests additional
supporting information regarding this issue to be made available to the
Agency through the public comment process on this proposed rule to
supplement that which informed EPA's analysis of CARB's proposed Tier 2
levels and EPA's cost estimates of converting Class I engines to OHV.
The Agency requests comment on all aspects of the proposed Class I
standards.
b. HC+NOX Emission Standard for Class II Nonhandheld
Engines.This section presents information used by the Agency to
determine the appropriate level for the proposed HC+NOX
exhaust emission standards for nonhandheld Class II engines. A more
detailed explanation of the engine technologies and costs described in
this section is contained in the Draft RSD for this proposal, a copy of
which is available in the public docket.
i. Class II Historical Sales Trends by Engine Technology
Class II engine sales have been dominated by 4-stroke SV engines in
the past. As described in the Draft RSD, Class II engines were
predominantly SV technology in the 1970's and early 1980's. Beginning
in about 1985, OHV engines have steadily increased their annual sales
penetration into the Class II market, averaging about a 3 percent
increase per year; by 1995 OHV engine sales represented approximately
35 percent of the Class II market, with the remaining 65 percent being
SV engines.
ii. In-use HC and NOX Emission Performance of Uncontrolled
Class II Engines
Information regarding new engine and in-use emission performance of
uncontrolled Class II engines is limited. While some new engine data is
available, the Agency does not have in-use emission information on
uncontrolled Class II engines. The limited new engine information from
uncontrolled engines comes from the CARB Technical Support Document for
the CARB ULGE program.18 The Agency used this information to
estimate the new engine emission factors for the 1991 Nonroad Engine
and Vehicle Emission Report. Those estimates were between 15.2 and 15.4
g/kW-hr for
[[Page 3962]]
typical new engine Class II HC+NOX emission factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ California Air Resources Board Mail Out #92-06, Technical
Support Document for California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test
Procedure for 1994 and Subsequent Model Year Utility and Lawn and
Garden Equipment Engines, January 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. New Engine and In-use HC and NOX Performance of Phase 1
Class II Technology Engines
Table 9 is a summary of the new engine emission values for gasoline
fueled SV and OHV engine families certified to the Federal Phase 1
regulations as of September 1997.
Table 9.--Summary of Federal Phase 1 Class II Gasoline Fueled Engine Families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average new HC+NOX Minimum new HC+NOX Maximum new HC+NOX
Technology Number of families (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Phase 1 OHV............................................. 64 9.0 5.3 12.9
Federal Phase 1 SV.............................................. 14 11.3 9.4 12.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values in Table 9 are an average of the certified new engine
rates. EPA has access to manufacturers' confidential sales estimates
for model year 1997. Using these projections the sales weighted new
engine HC+NOX emission rate is 11.7g/kW-hr for Class II SV
engines, and 8.3g/kW-hr for Class II OHV. This certification data shows
that OHV new engine HC+NOX emissions tend to be lower than
SV emissions.
In 1996 the Agency received a report from several engine
manufacturers regarding the deterioration of Phase 1 technology Class
II SV and OHV engines.19 A more detailed discussion of this
information is contained in the Draft RSD for this proposal. Table 10
contains a summary of this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Tier 1 Deterioration Factors for Small Nonroad Engines''
September 1996, a report by Air Improvement Resources, available in
EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-D-11.
Table 10.--Summary of In-Use Deterioration Factors for Phase 1 Class II
Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Class II
II OHV SV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated HC+NOX df 250 hours..................... 1.4 1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Technologies Considered for Phase 2 Class II HC+NOX
Standards
The Agency analyzed the emission performance and cost of several
technologies which could be applied to Class II engines, including
improvements to existing SV engines, conversion of existing SV engines
to OHV technology, improvements to existing OHV engines, and the
application of catalytic converters to existing SV and OHV engines. The
Draft RSD for this proposal contains additional information regarding
these technologies.
The Agency considered the costs and emission performance potential
which would result from manufacturers making improvements to Phase 1
Class II SV engines. As discussed in the Draft RSD, several areas for
improvement potentially exist, including: improvements to carburetors
to lower variability and maintain more precise air/fuel control;
enhancements to the cylinder structural integrity; improvements to
valve stems and valve seats; and changes in piston ring design. These
improvements would lower production variability and improve both new
engine and in-use emission performance. The Agency estimates these
changes would cost the manufacturer as much as $7 to $20 per engine
depending on engine family volume and the improvements required.
However, the Agency believes the improvement in the in-use emission
performance from Phase 1 levels would be small. All spark-ignited
engines have a lean performance limit, i.e., an air/fuel ratio beyond
which additional enleanment will result in unstable combustion and poor
engine performance. The basic design of the SV combustion chamber
results in a lean performance limit which is reached relatively soon
(compared to OHV technology). Improvements in the in-use performance
can be made, but the Agency believes these improvements will also be
relatively small. The Agency estimates that the improvements to SV
technology considered would result in an overall 10 to 20 percent
reduction in the in-use emissions from Phase 1 SV levels. With the
Phase 1 Class II new engine standard equal to 13.4 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX, and a Phase 1 Class II SV df of 1.6, the Phase 1 in-
use emission rate is 20.1g/kW-hr at 250 hours. A 10 to 20 percent
reduction translates to an in-use emission rate between 16.8 and 18.9
g/kW-hr.
As described above in Section IV.A.1.a, the principal difference
between SV and OHV engines is the location of the intake and exhaust
valves with respect to the combustion chamber; in SV engines the valves
are located to one side of the combustion chamber, while in OHV the
valves are located at the top of the combustion chamber directly above
the piston. The OHV location offers many performance advantages over
the SV engine, including lower valve seat distortion, lower combustion
chamber surface-to-volume ratio, and the ability to run stably at
leaner air-fuel ratios. These differences are described in more detail
in the Draft RSD. These differences can result in better new engine and
in-use HC+NOX emission performance for OHV over SV
technology. Based on confidential Phase 1 Class II OHV Federally
certified engine families sales projections, the Agency believes an
average new engine emission rate of 9.3 g/kW-hr, which includes a 10
percent compliance margin, is achievable from OHV technology engines.
This would result in an in-use emission level of 12.1 g/kW-hr (1.3 *
9.3 g/kW-hr), which is a 42 percent reduction from Phase 1 SV levels
(Phase 1 SV = 13.4 g/kW-hr * 1.6 = 20.1 g/kW-hr). As presented in the
Draft RSD, the Agency estimates the conversion of Class II SV to OHV
technology would cost the manufacturer between $10 and $17 per engine,
depending on the engine family volume. Engine manufacturers have
indicated the higher cost associated with conversion of Class II SV to
Class II OHV technology is reasonable because the equipment using Class
II engines is typically more expensive than the equipment targeted
toward the residential market, and the increased cost resulting from
conversion to OHV design would not have a significant adverse impact on
Class II engine sales. While EPA has no independent information on
consumer price sensitivity for equipment using Class I engines, it is
understandable that the higher price of this equipment and the typical
commercial use of such equipment could allow the performance, fuel
efficiency, and durability benefits of Class II OHV engines to outweigh
the incremental impact on equipment price.
[[Page 3963]]
The Agency also considered improvements to existing Phase 1 OHV
engines in determining the appropriate level of the Class II standard.
In many cases, engine manufacturers have already optimized new engine
emission performance and have incorporated improvements to engine
designs to optimize in-use emission performance. However, as discussed
in the Draft RSD, the Agency believes that for some Class II OHV engine
families internal engine improvements can still be made which would
result in lower new engine and/or better in-use performance. These
changes include leaner carburetor calibrations to lower new engine
HC+NOX, optimization of combustion chamber design, and
improvements to oil control. As discussed previously, the sales
weighted new engine Phase 1 Class II OHV HC+NOX level is
8.3g/kW-hr, and as shown in Table 10, the Class II HC+NOX df
is estimated to be 1.4 at 250 hours. The Agency believes changes to
existing Class II OHV engines will primarily improve in-use emission
performance. As presented in the Draft RSD, the Agency estimates these
changes would cost the manufacturer as much as $3 to $8 per engine,
depending on the engine family production volume and the improvements
required. However, the Agency believes many engine families have
already incorporated these design improvements. Based on existing
Federal certification data and the deterioration information contained
in Table 10, the Agency estimates these improvements will result in an
in-use HC+NOX deterioration rate of 1.3 at 250 hours, and
average new engine emission rates (including a ten percent compliance
margin) of 9.3 g/kW-hr, for an average in-use emission rate of 12.1 g/
kW-hr.
Federal certification data indicates a small number of Class II SV
and OHV engines families have certified to the Federal Phase 1
standards using catalyst technology. However, the majority of these
engines are intended for indoor use on applications such as generators
or floor buffers, where lowering CO emissions appears to be the primary
focus. The majority of these catalyst equipped Class II engine families
operate on propane fuel. No catalyst equipped Class II engine families
have certified to the Phase 1 rule for use in lawn and garden
equipment. Though it is technologically feasible to apply catalysts to
both SV and OHV engines, the Agency has little information regarding
in-use emission performance of engines equipped with catalysts. The
Agency's experience with on-highway catalyst technology has shown that
considerable in-use deterioration can occur. As previously discussed in
the Class I standard section, information on laboratory aged small
engine catalysts has appeared in recent years in the technical
journals. The Agency requests comment on the relationship between
laboratory and field aged catalyst durability data, any information on
typical in-use aged catalyst performance and all available data on
individual catalysts aged under typical in-use conditions experienced
by equipment using Class II engines. The Agency requests additional
information regarding the new engine emission performance, in-use
emission performance, and cost of catalyst technology for Class II
engines, particularly Class II engines designed for lawn and garden
type applications.
v. Proposed Phase 2 Class II HC+NOX Standard
The Agency is proposing a corporate average HC+NOX
emission standard of 12.1 g/kW-hr which will be phased in over five
years, beginning in model year 2001. Based on the information presented
in this section, the Agency believes an in-use level of 12.1g/kW-hr can
be met by the conversion of Phase 1 SV engines to OHV technology, and
by internal improvements to some existing Phase 1 OHV engines.
The proposed standards would require significant production line
changes for many Class II engine manufacturers to convert existing SV
models to OHV designs, as well as modifications to some Phase 1 OHV
models which may need internal improvements to meet the 12.1 g/kW-hr
level. To accommodate a smooth transition of existing SV engine family
production lines to the new OHV technology or other comparably clean
technology, the Agency is proposing a five year phase-in period,
starting with a level of 18 g/kW-hr in 2001 and ramping down to the
final year level of 12.1 in model year 2005. The Agency expects the
proposed standards for Class II engines would result in increased
penetration of and virtual total conversion to clean OHV technology by
2005. However, the proposal does not preclude other technologies from
meeting the proposed standard.
The Agency recognizes that there are large differences in
technology mixes currently being produced by Class II engine
manufacturers. Some Class II engine manufacturers have already made
significant investments in OHV technology prior to and during the Phase
1 program. For some of these manufacturers the standards in the early
years of the Phase 2 phase-in (i.e., the 2001 standard of 18g/kW-hr and
the 2002 standard is 16.6 g/kW-hr) may not require additional
reductions in Class II engine emissions. At the same time, the Phase 1
standards do not require a shift to clean, durable OHV technology or
comparably clean technology, and several Class II engine manufacturers
currently produce a significant number of SV engines. For manufacturers
who are relying on SV technology the proposed phase-in period will
allow them to shift their production to new, cleaner technology which
is capable of meeting the 2005 standard of 12.1g/kW-hr. The Agency
believes the phase-in standards will address the inequities among
manufacturers' current technology mixes but will also require
manufacturers to produce the clean, durable 12.1g/kW-hr engines in
2005. Manufacturers have indicated the early banking provision will
pull ahead clean technology and ease the transition to the 12.1
standard. However, due to the wide discrepancy between manufacturers'
current technology mixes, some manufacturers may generate significant
credits during the phase-in period. The Agency has recently performed
an analysis, based on Federal Phase 1 certification data, which
indicates under some conditions, early banking would result in
significant credits being generated during the phase-in period which
may in fact undermine the Agency's assumptions that the 12.1 standard
in model year 2005 would require a virtual 100 percent shift to OHV or
comparably clear technology for Class II engines. To insure the EPA's
goals are met, the Agency is proposing a declining set of caps on how
high the sales-weighed average level of HC+NOX family
emission limits (FELs) could be for Class II engine families beginning
in 2005. A discussion of this proposal is contained in Section IV.A.5.
Engine manufacturers have commented that, while 12.1 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX can be met with engines designed for a typical 250-
hour useful life, engines designed for the longer proposed useful life
categories of 500 and 1000 hours need a higher standard due to their
higher expected df as measured over these longer hour
periods.20 Specifically, they recommend a 500-hour engine
standard of 13.0 g/kW-hr and a 1000-hour standard of 14.0 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX. In arriving at these recommendations, the
manufacturers
[[Page 3964]]
assumed the new engine emission levels would be the same regardless of
useful life category; this is also assumed by the Agency in developing
its proposal. However, while the manufacturers also predict
improvements in in-use emission durability, they do not expect these
improvements would allow a constant deterioration factor (full useful
life emission level divided by new engine emission level) regardless of
useful life category. Rather, the manufacturers expect improved
durability would allow typical deterioration factors of around 1.4 for
500-hour engines and 1.5 for 1000-hour engines. In making these
recommendations, the manufacturers acknowledge that they have not
provided any data or analyses to validate their recommendations, but
also argue that the Agency has no full useful life data for these
higher hour categories which substantiate the feasibility of the
Agency's proposed standards. EPA requests any additional data and other
pertinent information which would help the Agency reassess the
appropriate level of standards for the 500-hour and 1000-hour engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See the discussion in the March 27, 1997, ANPRM, 62 FR
14740, and the Memo to the Docket regarding the October 3, 1997
meeting between U.S. EPA and the Engine manufacturers Association,
EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-E-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the May, 1997 CARB Workshop on their Tier 2 standards, the
Agency believes CARB may propose a Tier 2 in-use standard of 12.0 g/kW-
hr NMHC+NOX in model year 2000, followed by a level of 9.4
g/kW-hr NMHC+NOX in model year 2004. CARB's 12.0 level may
be achievable with OHV technology and is very similar to the Agency's
proposed Phase 2 level. CARB's 9.4 g/kW-hr level is more stringent than
the Agency's 12.1 g/kW-hr proposal. CARB suggests an in-use 9.4g/kW-hr
standard would require technology beyond conversion to OHV, such as an
OHV engine equipped with a catalyst. The Agency believes the costs and
lead time which could be necessary to achieve a 9.4 g/kW-hr level for a
national program would be considerably greater than the program
contained in today's proposal. However, as discussed under Section IV.A
of this proposal, section 209 of the CAA allows California to set their
own standards, considering criteria as they apply to the State of
California. However, as discussed below, the Agency requests comment on
whether the application of the technology anticipated by the standards
being considered by CARB would be appropriate for a Federal program at
this time.
The Agency requests comment on all aspects of the proposed Class II
standards, and especially requests data, analyses and other information
on the expected emission performance capability of Class II engines
designed for in-use operating lives of 500 hours and 1000 hours.
c. HC+NOX Emission Standards for Class III, IV and V
Handheld Engines. This section presents information used by the Agency
to determine the appropriate level for the proposed HC+NOX
exhaust emission standards for handheld engines (engine Class III, IV
and V). A more detailed explanation of the engine technologies and
costs described in this section is contained in the Draft RSD for this
proposal, a copy of which is available in the public docket for this
rule.
i. Class III, IV and V Historical Sales Trends by Engine Technology
Handheld engine sales have historically been dominated by crankcase
charge scavenged two-stroke engines (``traditional 2-strokes'').
Historical sales data indicate that until the recent introduction by
one manufacturer, Ryobi, of a 4-stroke trimmer, 100 percent of gasoline
engine powered handheld equipment used traditional 2-stroke engines.
ii. In-use HC and NOX Emission Performance of Uncontrolled
Class III, IV and V Engines
Information on uncontrolled 2-stroke engines is limited. However,
what information is available indicates 2-stroke technology has the
potential to experience high rates of in-use deterioration of HC, on
the order of two times the new engine value.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See ``Emission Tests of In-use Small Utility Engines''
Southwest Research Institute, September 1991, EPA Air Docket A-91-
24, Item #II-A-8, ``Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study'' U.S.
EPA Report #21A-2001, November 1991, EPA Air Docket A-91-24, Item
#II-A-10, ``Emission Testing of In-use Handheld Engines'' Southwest
Research Institute, March 1994, EPA Air Docket A-93-25, Item #II-A-
06, and ``Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Support
Document, Control of Air Pollution, Emission Standards for New
Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines at or Below 19 kilowatts'' U.S. EPA,
May 1995, EPA Air Docket A-93-25, Item #V-B-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This same information indicated that little in-use deterioration of
NOX emissions occur from traditional 2-stroke engines.
iii. New Engine and In-use HC and NOX Performance of Class
III, IV and V Phase 1 Technology Engines
Federal Phase 1 certification data shows that over 150 two-stroke
engine families have been certified for the 1997 and 1998 model years.
A summary of the emission performance of these Phase 1 technology
engine families is shown in Table 11.
Table 11.--Summary of Federal Phase 1 Handheld 2-stroke Engine Families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average new HC+NOX Minimum New HC+NOX Maximum New HC+NOX
Engine class Number of families (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III....................................................... 4 216 177 258
Class IV........................................................ 131 189 97 236
Class V......................................................... 19 136 90 161
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average emission rates for the Phase 1 Class III, IV and V
traditional 2-stroke engines are 28 percent, 23 percent and 18 percent
below the combined Phase 1 HC and NOX standards. Federal
certification data also show three Class IV four-stroke technology
engine families and three Class IV two-stroke with catalysts engine
families have been certified to the Federal rule. The average
HC+NOX certification levels for these engine families are 27
and 165 g/kW-hr respectively.
Information on in-use emission performance of Phase 1 technology 2-
strokes is also limited. In preparation for the Phase 1 regulation,
several members of the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers
Association (PPEMA) ran a test program which included manufacturer
controlled field testing of seven Phase 1 technology 2-stroke engines,
six aged to 50 hours, and one to 225 hours.22 This data
shows relatively low deterioration in HC+NOX emissions, with
dfs ranging from slightly less than 1.0 to approximately 1.2 at 50
hours, and slightly less than 1.0 for the 225 hour engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Appendix C of ``Regulatory Support Document, Control of
Air Pollution, Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition
Engines at or Below 19 kilowatts'' U.S. EPA, May 1995, EPA Air
Docket A-93-25, Item #V-B-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3965]]
The Agency has little information on the in-use performance of 4-
stroke handheld technology or on handheld catalyst technology.
iv. Technologies Considered for Phase 2 Class III, IV and V
HC+NOX Standards
The Agency analyzed the emission performance and cost of several
technologies which could be applied to handheld engines. These include
improvements to existing 2-stroke engines, conversion of existing 2-
stroke engines to 4-stroke technology, and the application of catalytic
converters to existing 2-stroke engines. The Draft RSD for this
proposal contains additional information regarding these technologies.
For Phase 1 2-stroke technology engines, fuel lost during the
scavenging process represents the largest fraction of exhaust HC
emissions, and HC emissions represent greater than 95 percent of the
exhaust HC+NOX emissions. The Agency believes several types
of improvements can be made to Phase 1 technology 2-stroke engines. The
following is a summary of potential areas for lowering
HC+NOX emissions: (1) improvements in carburetors to reduce
production variability and tighter air/fuel ratio control; (2) redesign
of the combustion chamber to promote more complete combustion; (3)
optimizing port shapes and timing to reduce scavenging losses; (4)
leaner carburetor calibrations to reduce HC emissions; and (5) tighter
manufacturing tolerances for engine components to reduce component
variation. These improvements are discussed in more detail in the Draft
RSD. As described in the Draft RSD, the Agency estimates the cost of
these improvements would cost the manufacturer as much as $2 to $6 per
engine, depending on the production volume of the engine family and the
improvements required. The Agency would expect these changes to lower
the new and in-use emission rates of Phase 1 two-stroke technology
engines. PPEMA members have indicated they believe a well designed,
properly maintained 2-stroke engine is capable of performing with no
in-use deterioration of HC+NOX emissions. Based on the small
amount of in-use data from Phase 1 technology engines, the Agency
estimates the in-use performance of an improved Phase 1 technology 2-
stroke engine would deteriorate approximately 10 percent during its
useful life. The Agency estimates that for the majority of handheld
engines, improvements to Phase 1 2-stroke designs would result in a 30
percent reduction in the in-use emission rates from Phase 1 designs.
The Agency also analyzed the benefits and associated costs which
would occur from the conversion of existing 2-stroke handheld engines
to 4-stroke designs. Two engine manufacturers, Ryobi and Honda, have
successfully demonstrated that 4-stroke designs are viable in at least
some handheld equipment applications, notably a string trimmer
application. However, the Agency is uncertain that 4-stroke technology
would be viable in all handheld applications, particularly those
applications which require high power and low weight, such as large,
commercial chainsaw applications, where the lower power-to-weight ratio
of 4-stroke engines may impede equipment performance. Four-stroke
technology does not have the scavenging loss problem associated with
traditional 2-strokes. Therefore 4-stroke exhaust HC emissions are
substantially below those of a 2-stroke design. Federal Phase 1
certification data for Class IV engines indicates a 4-stroke string
trimmer produces new engine HC+NOX emission rates of about
27 g/kW-hr, which is approximately 80 percent below the Phase 1
standard. Deterioration information on small displacement 4-stroke
engines is limited, and the Agency has no deterioration information on
handheld 4-stroke engines. The Agency has heard from one small engine
manufacturer that the smaller 4-stroke engines would likely have higher
deterioration than Class I OHV 4-stroke engines, which is on the order
of 1.4 at 66 hours.23 The Agency requests comment and
additional information on the deterioration of smaller 4-stroke
engines. As described in the Draft RSD, the Agency estimates the cost
of converting an existing handheld 2-stroke to a 4-stroke engine would
cost the manufacturer between $7 and $10 per engine, depending on the
production volume of the engine family.
The Agency also considered the application of catalytic convertors
to Phase 1 2-stroke technology. One handheld engine manufacturer,
Husquvarna, has certified three engine families to the Phase 1 rule
which utilize a 2-stroke engine with catalyst. This engine has been
designed for lower scavenging losses to reduce engine out emissions,
has improved fuel metering, and also uses a catalyst to further reduce
exhaust emissions. EPA's testing of this engine showed new engine
emission results for HC+NOX at the nominal carburetor
setting on the order of 90 g/kW-hr, which is 63 percent below the
combined Phase 1 Class IV HC+NOX new engine standard. The
Agency does not have information regarding the actual in-use
performance of this or other catalyst equipped 2-stroke engines. The
Agency estimates the cost of adding a catalytic convertor to an
improved 2-stroke handheld engine would cost the manufacturer between
$6 and $12 per engine, depending on the production volume of the
family. This cost estimate does not include any of the additional
improvements to the Phase 1 technology 2-stroke mentioned previously,
such as combustion chamber improvements or scavenging design
improvements. As previously discussed, such improvements to existing 2-
stroke designs would cost the manufacturer an additional $2 to $6 per
engine. Therefore, the Agency estimates an improved 2-stroke design
with a catalytic convertor would cost the manufacturer from $8 to $18
per engine. Comments are requested on these cost estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Item # II-E-08 in EPA Air Docket A-96-55 referencing a
meeting between EPA and Honda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Class III, IV and V Proposed Phase 2 HC+NOX Standard
The Agency is proposing an in-use HC+NOX standard of
210, 172 and 116 g/kW-hr for Class III, IV and V engines, respectively.
As presented in Table 7, the proposed standards would begin in model
year 2002, with a requirement that 20 percent of a manufacturer's U.S.
sales meet the standards, followed by an increased percentage each year
until model year 2005, when 100 percent of a manufacturer's U.S. sales
would be required to meet the proposed standards.
The Agency expects the proposed in-use standards can be met
primarily through improvements to existing Phase 1 technology 2-stroke
engines. As presented previously, the Agency believes improvements to
Phase 1 technology 2-stroke engines should result in approximately a 30
percent reduction in the in-use emissions of Phase 1 engines, which
would be required to meet the proposed standards.
PPEMA members have indicated the proposed standards would require
significant research and development time as well as a large capital
investment to change existing production capabilities. The proposed
phase-in period plus the lead time anticipated after this rule is
finalized will allow manufacturers at least 6 years to make the
necessary changes to existing product lines in order to meet the
proposed standards, which should accommodate the manufacturers'
concerns regarding lead time.
[[Page 3966]]
The Agency has not proposed a handheld standard which would require
catalyst or 4-stroke technology. The Agency's experience with on-
highway technology indicates catalysts and engine technology evolved
together to prevent significant in-use deterioration. As previously
discussed in the section on the Class I engine standard, publicly
available information on bench aged catalysts used on 4-stroke engines
has become available in recent years. The Agency requests comment on
the relationship between bench aged and typical in-use aged catalyst
performance, and all available data on individual catalysts aged under
typical in-use conditions experienced by handheld equipment. The Agency
requests additional information on the new and in-use emission
performance of catalyst-equipped handheld engines. Two engine
manufacturers have introduced 4-stroke engines into string trimmer
applications. There are likely some applications, such as high power
chainsaws, where 4-stroke technology may not be feasible as a power
unit because of weight concerns. As previously discussed, the Agency
estimates that conversion to 4-stroke designs would cost the
manufacturer between $7 and $10 per engine. PPEMA has reported that in
1993 and 1994 the average retail price of a 2-stroke gasoline powered
string trimmer or leaf blower was approximately $100, and the average
retail price of a chainsaw was approximately $200. PPEMA members, who
do not currently manufacture 4-stroke handheld products, have expressed
concern regarding what they perceive to be the potential negative
impacts on sales which would result from a large increase in engine
costs, such as the cost of conversion to 4-stroke technology for
handheld engines. While EPA has no independent information on consumer
price sensitivity, it is concerned that the higher cost of equipment
which would likely result if catalyst or 4-stroke technology were
necessitated by a more stringent standard could result in significant
financial burden if the industry were to absorb the cost impact or
adverse impact on sales if the increase in cost were passed along to
the consumer. EPA is also concerned that mandating near term conversion
to 4-stroke technology could significantly increase the lead time
necessary before implementing the standards and delay the emission
benefits of the standards. The Agency requests comment on the market
concerns expressed by these engine manufacturers as well as the
potential impact on lead time of a more stringent standard and
information on the cost to the consumer and in-use emissions
performance if 2-stroke engines were required to be equipped with a
catalyst.
The Agency believes that during the next several years additional
information regarding the in-use performance of new technologies, such
as handheld 4-strokes, or traditional 2-strokes equipped with
catalysts, may become available, perhaps in response to the CARB Tier 2
program. In addition, EPA recognizes that technological advances and/or
cost reductions may occur after promulgation of the Phase 2 rule that
could make greater, but still cost-effective reductions feasible in
handheld emission levels. The Agency proposes to conduct a technology
review to address this possibility. In this review, EPA expects to
examine issues including the potential for further reductions from
existing 2-stroke engines, stratified charge 2-stroke technology,
direct injection 2-stroke injection, the use of catalysts on handheld
engines, and the conversion to 4-stroke technology. Following a
technical review, the Agency intends to publish a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in 2001 announcing any possible amendments to the standard
levels or other program elements, or EPA's intention to maintain the
existing handheld standards or program. The Agency expects that the
final rulemaking would be completed by 2002 and, if adopted, Phase 3
standards would be phased in on a percentage basis and over of a period
of time similar to Phase 2, beginning no earlier than model year 2007.
This schedule is intended to provide a minimum five year period before
the implementation of any Phase 3 standards in order to allow
manufacturers to recoup their investments in Phase 2 technology and
ensure the cost-effectiveness of the Phase 2 program.
The Agency is aware that CARB is considering a Tier 2 standard for
all handheld engines of 72 g/kW-hr HC+NOX, which is more
stringent than the levels being proposed for the Federal program. CARB
has stated this level could be met by the complete conversion of
existing 2-stroke technology to 4-stroke technology. The Agency
believes the costs and lead time which would be necessary to achieve a
72 g/kW-hr level for a national program could be considerably higher
than the program contained in today's proposal. However, as discussed
under Section IV.A of this proposal, section 209 of the CAA allows
California to set its own standards, considering criteria as they apply
to the State of California. However, as discussed below, the Agency
requests comment on whether 4-stroke technology for all handheld
applications would be appropriate for a Federal program at this time.
The Agency requests comment on all aspects of the proposed handheld
standards, and on what adjustments to the proposed Federal program
might be necessary to accommodate such standards.
d. Proposed California Standards. As mentioned previously, the
State of California has proposed standards for both handheld and
nonhandheld small SI engines which are considerably more stringent than
the standards which the Agency is proposing today. In this proposal,
the Agency has noted several reasons why the level of control being
considered by California is not being proposed today, including
uncertainties regarding cost, the possible impact of potential price
increases on consumer sales, and the lead time necessary for the
industry should they be required to adopt the required changes in
technology nationwide. However, EPA requests comment on the feasibility
in the Federal program of requiring such technology as anticipated by
the standards being considered by California, the level of emission
control which would result, the costs of such technology for a
nationwide program, and any impact on lead time necessary to allow the
adoption of such levels of control nationwide.
2. NMHC+NOX Emission Standards for Class I and II Natural
Gas Fueled Nonhandheld Engines
EPA is proposing optional separate standards for Class I and Class
II natural gas fueled engines only, due to the fact that for these
engines methane has very low ozone forming potential, i.e., low
reactivity. The total hydrocarbon (THC or HC) emissions from Phase 1
technology 4-stroke gasoline engines is between 5 and 10 percent
methane by mass. For natural gas engines, methane is on the order of 70
percent of total HC mass emissions. For natural gas fueled nonhandheld
engines, the Agency is proposing an optional NMHC+NOX
standard, as presented in Table 12.
[[Page 3967]]
Table 12.--NMHC + NOX Emission Standards for Natural Gas Fueled Nonhandheld Engines
[g/kW-hr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Model year Model year Model year Model year
Engine class 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I........................................ 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Class II....................................... 16.7 15.3 14.0 12.7 11.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These proposed NMHC+NOX standards have been adjusted so
that these standards are of equivalent stringency to the
HC+NOX standards for gasoline fueled engines, i.e., 11.3 g/
kW-hr NMHC+NOX is a deteriorated new engine
NMHC+NOX level, assuming a new engine THC+NOX
level of 9.3 g/kW-hr, a NMHC+NOX deterioration factor of
1.3, and a new engine split of 54 percent NMHC, 6 percent methane and
40 percent NOX.
The Agency is proposing that for natural gas fueled engines, the
standard be based on the level of NMHC+NOX reduction which a
Phase 2 technology gasoline fueled nonhandheld engine could be expected
to meet, not on the performance of a Phase 2 technology natural gas
fueled engine. Natural gas fueled engines represent less than 1 percent
of annual small engine sales and EPA recognizes that this is a
technology that as a matter of environmental policy it may be desirable
to encourage. The Agency believes very little environmental benefit
would occur from basing this optional NMHC+NOX standard on
the performance of Phase 2 technology natural gas engines. In
consideration of the energy and safety factors associated with using
natural gas technology rather than gasoline technology, EPA is
proposing the NMHC+NOX standard at a level that gives
manufacturers a greater incentive, as a result of the ABT program, to
use natural gas technology. The Agency requests comment on this
approach, and on whether it poses a meaningful risk of allowing over
generation of positive credits in the ABT program.
The NMHC+NOX standard would require an additional
testing burden for natural gas engine manufacturers, because these
manufacturers would need an additional emission analyzer to measure the
methane content of the exhaust gas. However, because natural gas engine
manufacturers have requested this optional NMHC standard, and the
Agency does not see any adverse effects for the formation of ozone, the
Agency believes it is appropriate for this proposal. EPA is not
proposing NMHC + NOX standards for handheld engines. EPA is
not aware of any natural gas fueled handheld applications. Therefore,
no NMHC+NOX standard is needed.
The Agency is aware that CARB may use a NMHC+NOX
standard for all handheld and nonhandheld engine manufacturers. At this
time, EPA does not believe an emissions benefit would occur by
replicating this action for the Federal program. The Agency would need
to adjust all standards downward to maintain equivalent stringency and
require all manufacturers to begin testing for methane. If
manufacturers of small SI engines were able to selectively target
reductions in NMHC as compared to THC, an NMHC standard may be of some
value to manufacturers. However, the Agency is not aware of small
engine technologies which have this potential, other than natural gas
fueled engines, which represent less than 1 percent of annual sales.
Therefore, because a national NMHC standard would result in increased
testing cost for little or no benefit, the Agency is not proposing NMHC
standards for all small engines at this time.
3. CO Emission Standards
In addition to HC and NOX standards, the Phase 1 final
rulemaking (60 FR 34582) put in place a cap on the level of CO
emissions from small SI engines. That cap was subsequently modified for
Class I and II engines (61 FR 58296). In today's action EPA is
proposing that the Phase 1 CO standards be adjusted to reflect in-use
standards and to maintain the same level of stringency as afforded by
the Phase 1 standards. Specifically, EPA proposes to take the Phase 1
standards and multiply them by the projected CO dfs over the useful
lives of the engines to arrive at the Phase 2 in-use CO standards. For
Class I and II engines, available data indicates that the df ranges
considerably between less than 1.0 and something in excess of 2.0
depending on the engine. For Class III, IV and V engines, available
data indicates that the df for CO ranges more narrowly and typically
falls between 1.0 and 1.1. Consequently, EPA proposes that the
following in-use CO standards in Table 13 apply for the Phase 2
program:
Table 13.--In-Use CO Emission Standards for Small SI Engines
[In g/kW-hr]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Class
----------------------------------
I II III IV V
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO Standard (g/kW-hr)................ 610 610 805 805 603
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These CO standards would not be subject to the averaging, banking,
and trading provisions of the rule available for nonhandheld engines.
Rather, these standards would serve as caps on the CO emissions allowed
from all engine families.
EPA is proposing that for Class I and Class II engines, the
proposed CO levels would be effective in the 2001 model year for a
manufacturer's entire product line. For Class III, IV and V engines,
those engine families complying with Phase 2 HC+NOX levels
under the proposed phase-in for HC+NOX standards for
handheld engines would be required to also comply with CO levels on the
same phase-in schedule. This seemingly disparate treatment for handheld
and nonhandheld is consistent with the other provisions of the program
(e.g., phase-in from Phase 1 to Phase 2 for handheld but not for
nonhandheld engines) and protects manufacturers from having to have
engine families comply with Phase 2 CO requirements prior to those same
engine
[[Page 3968]]
families being subject to the other Phase 2 requirements.
EPA believes it is appropriate not to go beyond the Phase 1
stringency for CO emissions for two main reasons. First, in most parts
of the country CO is primarily a wintertime problem (November through
February), while the vast majority of engines covered by this
rulemaking are used almost exclusively during the summer months. As a
result, most additional CO emission reductions resulting from any
increase in the stringency of the standard would not occur at a time
when they would provide nonattainment areas with measurable benefit
toward meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
CO.
Second, CO is a diminishing ambient air quality
problem.24 There has been approximately an 80 percent
reduction in the number of nationwide exceedances of the NAAQS for CO
since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and this trend is expected
to continue without further tightening of CO requirements for small SI
engines. Many of the CO nonattainment areas in 1990 have already been
redesignated as being in attainment, many more are in the process of
requesting redesignation, and many of those not currently requesting
redesignation are expected to before the time the Phase 2 standards
would go into effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See ``National Air Pollution Emission Trends, 1900-1995,''
EPA-454/R-96-007, October 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, these two reasons indicate that it does not make
sense to pursue more stringent CO standards at the national level for
small SI engines at this time. Should this situation change, EPA can
take appropriate action at that time.
While EPA does not believe it is appropriate at this point in time
to pursue more stringent CO standards for small engines, we
nevertheless do believe it is important to maintain the current level
of stringency for CO. As discussed in the Phase 1 rulemaking,
uncontrolled small SI engines do contribute approximately 1 percent of
the emissions toward the national winter CO inventory.25 As
a result, while emissions from small SI engines represent a small piece
of the inventory, they are significant. Furthermore, many small SI
engines are used outside in close proximity to the equipment users,
raising possible concerns over user health effects. A recent National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Alert 26 raised
serious health concerns regarding the operation of gasoline powered
engines inside buildings or other partially enclosed spaces due to
potential CO poisoning. The NIOSH Alert contains a list of suggested
practices for the proper use of equipment powered by small gasoline
engines which should be followed. The NIOSH alert does not recommend a
more stringent CO standard for gasoline powered small SI engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study--Report, U.S.
EPA, November 1991, EPA Air Docket A-91-24, Item #II-A-10.
\26\ ``Preventing Carbon Monoxide Poisoning from Small Gasoline-
Powered Engines and Tools,'' Department of Health and Human Services
Publication #96-118. Information on how to obtain this publication
is contained in EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even without a more stringent CO standard for Phase 2, CO emissions
from small engines will likely continue to decrease as manufacturers
improve production quality (reduce tolerances and variability) and
improve durability to meet the more stringent HC+NOX
standards proposed for Phase 2. To the extent that this does occur, and
Phase 2 engines are shown to clearly achieve the Phase 2 CO emission
standards, the proposal would allow EPA the flexibility to waive the
reporting of CO emissions in the future, thereby decreasing the
compliance costs associated with the program as it transitions to one
more focussed on HC+NOX emissions. EPA requests comment on
this aspect of the proposed rule. To the extent that engines do exceed
the Phase 2 CO emission standard, EPA could also consider in the future
setting a more stringent CO standard, taking into account cost, lead
time, energy and safety factors as required by the Clean Air Act.
4. Useful Life Categories.
Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act provides that regulations
promulgated for nonroad engines shall apply to the useful lives of the
engines. EPA is proposing that engine families meet the proposed Phase
2 emission standards throughout their useful lives, a requirement new
to this Phase 2 program for small SI engines. Small SI engines can
experience a wide range of useful lives, depending upon the
applications and usage patterns, even within a single engine class. EPA
believes that the three useful life categories each for Class I and
Class II engines, and the two useful life categories each for Class
III, IV and V engines proposed today would provide a means of sorting
engines for regulatory purposes to reflect expected usage, without
establishing an overly complex system of useful life categories. So
that consumers have the best information available as to the emission
durability of the engine being purchased, EPA is proposing that an
indication of the useful life hours be included on the engine's
certification label. Finally, in order to ensure that the air quality
benefits anticipated by the proposed rule will in fact accrue, EPA is
proposing that manufacturers select the useful life category most
appropriate for the engine family. This section discusses the useful
life categories proposed today for nonhandheld and handheld engines,
proposed provisions for inclusion of the useful life hours on the
engines' label, and proposed provisions relating to manufacturer
selection of the appropriate useful life category.
a. Useful Life Hours. EPA is proposing three useful life categories
each for Class I and Class II nonhandheld engines, and two useful life
categories each for Class III, IV and V handheld engines, as shown in
Tables 14 and 15. These categories are based on information of the
ranges of useful lives experienced by the engines in these Classes.
Table 14.--Nonhandheld Engine Useful Life Categories
[Hours]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Category Category
C B A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I................................ 66 250 500
Class II............................... 250 500 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 15.--Handheld Engine Useful Life Categories
[Hours]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Residential'' ``Commercial''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III........................... 50 300
Class IV............................ 50 300
Class V............................. 50 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is aware that the small SI engine and equipment industry is
comprised of a wide variety of equipment with a wide range of usage
patterns. Handheld and nonhandheld engines are designed for many
different types of applications, with each application having specific
design criteria, resulting in different expected lifetimes. The most
obvious example of these differences is the distinction between
commercial (or professional) operators and residential (or home)
operators. In general, commercial operators, such as commercial lawn-
care companies or rental companies, expect to accumulate high numbers
of hours on equipment on
[[Page 3969]]
an annual basis, while a residential operator, such as a residential
chain saw owner, expects to accumulate a relatively low number of hours
on an annual basis. Several organizations have investigated the issues
related to average life and annual use of equipment powered by small SI
engines, including industry organizations, the California Air Resources
Board, and EPA (see Chapter 3 of the Draft RSD for a summary of several
of these reports).
On the nonhandheld engine side, a 1992 phone survey of over 6,000
households collected information on usage rates for consumer-owned
walk-behind and ride-on mowers, showing that on average consumers
accumulated 100 hours of use on walk-behind mowers (typical of Class I
``residential'' engines) over a five year period of time, and 207 hours
of use on ride-on mowers over a six year (five and six years being the
estimates of when one-half of the mowers are no longer in service, or
``B-50'' life, 27 for walk-behind and ride-on mowers,
respectively).28 On the handheld side, a 1990 study
demonstrated the large disparity between consumer and professional use,
with consumer equipment expected life time estimates ranging from 53 to
80 hours, and professional equipment expected life time estimates
ranging from 225 to 536 hours.29 A 1990 study of both
nonhandheld and handheld equipment in residential and commercial
applications showed a large disparity in average lifespan between
equipment used by residential and commercial applications, with
residential equipment implied average lifespan estimates ranging from
35 to 394 hours, and commercial equipment implied average lifespan
estimates ranging from 274 to 3024 hours.30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The ``B-50'' is the point at which one-half of the
equipment are no longer in service. For regulatory purposes, EPA
anticipates that engines would be certified to a ``useful life''
which most accurately reflects this ``B-50'' value. Thus, for a
Class II engine family certified to the 250 hour useful life
category, half of those engines would be expected to no longer be in
service after 250 hours.
\28\ ``Useful Life, Annual Usage, and In-Use Emissions of
Consumer Utility Engines,'' memo from the OPEI CAAC In-Use Working
Group to Ms. Gay MacGregor, U.S. EPA, EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #
II-D-13.
\29\ ``A 1989 California Baseline Emissions Inventory for Total
Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Portable Two-Stroke
Power Equipment,'' prepared by Heiden Associates, Inc., for the
Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association, July 24, 1990,
available in EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-D-14.
\30\ ``Utility Engine Emission report,'' prepared by Booz, Allen
and Hamilton Inc., for the California Air Resources Board, November
20, 1990, available in EPA Air Docket A-93-25, Item #II-I-02. These
implied average lifespan estimates were calculated from average
annual use and estimated ``B-50'' values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these sources of information, EPA is proposing for
regulatory purposes three useful life categories for nonhandheld
engines, and two useful life categories for handheld engines. The
determination of which useful life category is appropriate for a
specific engine is largely dependent on its intended application. For
example, Class II engines going into a consumer ride-on mower
application may most appropriately have a regulatory useful life of
``250 hours.'' The longer useful life categories would be appropriate
for engines placed into ``commercial'' types of usage. For example, a
Class II engine going into a ``commercial'' generator set application,
may most appropriately have a regulatory useful life of 1000 hours. EPA
believes that a number of features of engine and/or equipment design
are reflective of the intended or expected usage of the engines. As
discussed below, manufacturers would be expected to have information on
the intended application of their engines which support their useful
life category selections.
EPA received comments on the ANPRM arguing that the Class I
shortest useful life (66 hours) is too short, and that the minimum
lifetime compliance period for Class I engines should be set at 120 or
125 hours to reflect an average six year life with an average use of 20
hours a year for mower engines. While the Agency agrees that 120 or 125
hours may be more representative of the ``B-50'' life of residential
Class I engines, EPA selected 66 hours as sufficient to determine the
emission durability performance characteristic of engines in this Class
I design category. EPA did so under the assumptions that certifying
Class I engines to 66 hours rather than 120 or 125 hours would still
provide adequate assurance of in-use emission performance over the life
of the engines without the added burden which would be incurred with
testing to the higher hours. If this proves not to be the case, EPA
would likely have to adjust the useful life, deterioration factors and
standards accordingly to provide such assurance. EPA requests comment
on the tradeoff between compliance demonstration and in-use compliance
assurance associated with the 66 hour useful life proposal.
For handheld engines, the 50 hours category reflects
``residential'' usage, and the 300 hour category reflects
``commercial'' usage. For example, a trimmer in residential use may
most appropriately be certified to a regulatory useful life of 50
hours, while a chainsaw in commercial use may more appropriately be
certified to a useful life of 300 hours. Again, EPA believes that a
number of features of engine and/or equipment design are reflective of
the intended or expected usage of the engines. As discussed below,
manufacturers would be expected to have information in support of their
useful life category selections for handheld engines.
EPA received comments on the ANPRM arguing that an intermediate
useful life category for some handheld products might be appropriate,
for example, in the case of products with intended useful lives of 150
hours. EPA believes that the 50 and 300 hour useful life hour
categories are sufficient to distinguish residential and commercial
usage, respectively. EPA has not received additional data in support of
an intermediate useful life, and believes that it is desirable to avoid
a proliferation of useful life categories. Thus, EPA is not proposing
an intermediate useful life category for handheld engines. However, EPA
requests comment and data on the issue of whether an intermediate
category is appropriate, what would be the appropriate hours for an
intermediate category, and what features of an engine with an
intermediate useful life might distinguish it from engines more
appropriately certified to a 50 or a 300 hour useful life.
EPA also received comments on the ANPRM regarding the use of
``residential'' and ``commercial'' to indicate the useful life for
handheld engines. Several commenters suggested that the terms
``residential'' and ``commercial'' are potentially misleading to
consumers of handheld engines. One commenter was concerned that dealers
would have the responsibility to ``qualify'' a buyer of equipment, and
in the event of injury, the dealer would be at risk for having sold the
wrong buyer the wrong equipment. This commenter suggested instead that
EPA categorize engines in terms of power, size, weight, or other
factors that clearly would not risk making dealers think they have a
responsibility to classify the expertise of the buyer. A second
commenter suggested EPA could base the useful life on technical
properties of engines such as ``half crank'' and ``full crank'' rather
than ``commercial'' and ``residential.'' A third industry commenter
suggested that it is unnecessary and unwise for manufacturers to
differentiate handheld engine families by the terms ``residential'' and
``commercial,'' since these terms are not airtight, and in fact have
substantial overlap for some models. This commenter suggested using
useful life categories ``A'' and ``B'' instead, where a Category A
engine (or
[[Page 3970]]
engine family) would be ``a handheld engine model or family designated
by the manufacturer, at the time of certification, as an engine
intended primarily for commercial use. Such an engine or family would
be subject to testing requirements and warranty obligations for its
regulatory useful life. The regulatory useful life of a Category A
engine shall be 300 hours.'' A Category B engine (or engine family)
would be ``an engine model or family designated by the manufacturer, at
the time of certification, as an engine intended primarily for
residential use. Such an engine or engine family would be subject to
testing requirements and warranty obligations for its regulatory useful
life. The regulatory useful life of a Category B engine shall be 50
hours.''
EPA agrees that commercial and residential are not airtight terms.
However, EPA is proposing the following definitions for these terms and
requests comments on these definitions. A ``residential engine'' would
mean a handheld engine for which the engine manufacturer makes the
statement to EPA that such engine and the equipment it is installed in
by the engine manufacturer, where applicable, is not produced,
advertised, marketed or intended for commercial or professional usage.
A ``commercial engine'' would mean a handheld engine that is not a
residential engine.
In response to the commenter's concerns about dealer
responsibilities, EPA believes that inclusion of the terms
``residential'' and ``commercial'' should not pose a risk to dealers,
and that the proposed duty of engine manufacturers to certify and label
their engines for purposes of emissions durability would not transfer
into a duty on the dealer's part to restrict sale of ``commercial''
products to ``residential'' purchasers. EPA requests comment on all
aspects of the proposal for handheld useful life categories and the
proposed definitions of ``commercial'' and ``residential'', or other
alternative designations for the 50 and 300 hour useful life
categories. In particular, EPA requests comment on eliminating the use
of residential and commercial as regulatory terms, and simply retaining
the ``50'' and ``300'' hour useful life categories.
In summary, the Agency's analysis indicates there is a large
disparity in the useful life of engines within all five engine classes.
The Agency is interested in striking a compromise between the need for
representative useful lives, and the reality that different engines
within a single class are designed for vastly different usage patterns.
For this reason the Agency believes it is appropriate to have multiple
useful life categories, but the Agency believes there should be a limit
on the number of categories, to prevent an overly complex
categorization system. Based on the information presented in this
section, the Agency believes the proposed useful life categories
presented in Tables 14 and 15 are appropriate. The Agency requests
comment on these proposed useful life categories.
b. Useful Life on the Engine's Label. EPA is proposing that
manufacturers would indicate their selection of useful life category by
adding information concerning the engine's ``emissions compliance
period'' to the engine's label. This information would be an important
tool for consumers and purchasers of engines. EPA anticipates that
manufacturers will use the useful life hours of the engine as a
marketing tool. For example, a manufacturer might advertise that an
engine family is emissions durable to 1000 hours, or is certified by
EPA as a ``commercial'' engine. Thus, the requirement that
manufacturers indicate the emissions compliance period on the engine's
label would also have potential as a marketplace mechanism to help
encourage manufacturers to select longer useful life categories.
For nonhandheld engines, EPA is proposing that the manufacturer
would add to the compliance statement on the engine's label,
``EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD: [useful life] HOURS.'' In addition,
consistent with the ANPRM, EPA is proposing as an option for
nonhandheld manufacturers, rather than indicating the useful life in
hours, the manufacturer may add to the compliance statement on the
engine's label ``EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD: CATEGORY [A, B, OR C].
REFER TO OWNER'S MANUAL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.'' In this case, the
owner's manual would be required to contain the statement: ``This
engine has been shown to meet emission standards for a period of
[useful life] hours.'' EPA is proposing this option in light of
concerns voiced by manufacturers that putting the useful life of the
engine, in hours, on the engines' label, could be misleading to
consumers in that the emissions compliance period may or may not
represent the expected lifetime of the engine. Nevertheless, EPA
believes that putting the engine's useful life in hours on the engine's
label could serve as an important mechanism to educate and inform
consumers as to the emissions durability of the product they are
considering. EPA requests comment on whether the option to allow a
manufacturer to instead designate the useful life by using Category [A,
B or C] on the engine's label, with information on the emissions
compliance period in hours in the owners manual, is an effective
substitute to achieve this goal of educating consumers.
In the case of handheld engines, the manufacturer would add to the
compliance statement on the engine's label, for residential engines,
``EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD: 50 HOURS,'' and for commercial engines,
``EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD: 300 HOURS.'' Again, EPA believes that
including the useful life, in hours, on the engine's label, is an
important mechanism for educating consumers as to the emissions
durability of the engine. EPA requests comment on whether requiring the
designation ``EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD: 50 RESIDENTIAL HOURS,'' or
``EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD: 300 COMMERCIAL HOURS'' would be more
effective as the proposed requirement to only include the emissions
compliance period, by hours, on the label. Similar to the option for
nonhandheld engines, EPA is requesting comment on an option which would
allow handheld engine manufacturers to use label statements which
include a useful life category code (such as A, B, or C) and
referencing the owner's manual to determine what the code means.
c. Manufacturer selection of useful life category. One of EPA's
goals in the proposed Phase 2 program is to assure that engines are
emissions durable for their useful lives, so that the air quality
benefits anticipated for the rule are in fact achieved. EPA believes
that the selection of the appropriate useful life category for an
engine family is essential to achieving this goal. An appropriate
useful life selection is important from an emissions compliance
durability perspective, in terms of assuring that engines meet the
appropriate emissions standards for the period of time that they are
expected to be in service. However, EPA is concerned that since the
useful life of engines, in hours, would be included in certification
credit calculations for nonhandheld engines, and in-use credit
calculations for handheld engines, and since these credits have real
value, a manufacturer may have an important incentive to choose a
useful life category for a particular family to maximize the
manufacturer's credit balance, rather than to reflect the most accurate
useful life selection for that family.
For example, in the case of a nonhandheld engine family whose FEL
is significantly below the standard and is therefore generating
substantial
[[Page 3971]]
credits, a manufacturer could generate four times as many certification
credits if that family were certified to 1000 hours rather than 250
hours. Similarly, for a handheld engine family whose in-use test
results are well below the standard, that family could generate six
times as many in-use credits if certified to 300 hours rather than 50
hours. However, in cases where the credit generating engine is not
expected to be used for 1000 hours (or 300 hours, in the handheld
example), those clean air benefits may never be realized if the typical
engine for that family is scrapped substantially before reaching 1000
hours of use. The ``surplus'' credits might be used to make up for
higher emissions of other engine families even though the credits were
generated based on an overestimation of the useful life. On the other
hand, for engines which are emitting above the standard, the
manufacturer might have an incentive to certify to the shortest useful
life period, to minimize the credits needed to offset that engine's
higher emissions. This could become an even greater concern if that
engine is in fact expected to be placed into an application which
experiences longer hours of use than indicated by the selected useful
life category.
From an air quality perspective, a consumer education perspective,
as well as from a marketing or competitive perspective, EPA believes
that selection of an appropriate useful life is important, and
certifying an engine to an inappropriate or inaccurate useful life
presents serious problems. However, no one technical feature of an
engine model would necessarily dictate that it be placed in one or
another useful life category, and the distinctions between the useful
life categories proposed today are not based on objective technical
differences between engines (e.g., half crank, full crank).
EPA also recognizes that historically engine manufacturers have not
always tracked the sale of engines, and may not have been able to
ascertain the type of application in which an engine is used. On the
other hand, EPA is also aware that in many cases manufacturers are able
to determine the end application for a particular engine, and that in
many cases an engine is designed for a specific end use.
Manufacturers, stressing that the nonhandheld SOP, as reflected in
the March 1997 ANPRM, discussed useful life selection as being solely
at the manufacturer's discretion, have maintained that marketing and
competitive concerns would ensure that manufacturers select the most
accurate and appropriate useful life category, and that additional
requirements that manufacturers support their useful life selections
are not needed. EPA understands that manufacturers have strong views
regarding the nonhandheld SOP's discussion of useful life selection.
However, the SOP indicates that it would be appropriate to certify
engines to longer useful life categories when they are intended for
longer hours of operations in-use. The signatories of the SOP further
recognized that the greater use of an engine during the ozone season
directly relates to its impact on air quality. In addition, since the
signing of the SOP, EPA has become concerned that a number of various
incentives are at play for the manufacturer when it comes to selection
of a useful life category for an engine, including the requirement to
demonstrate the engines' emissions durability, testing requirements and
warranty obligations, generation or use of emissions credits, consumer
education, and marketing and competitive issues. EPA is concerned that
a manufacturer might inappropriately select useful life categories for
certification so as to put itself in a position of competitive
advantage compared to other manufacturers that fairly and accurately
select useful life categories, and that the risk of this could cause
other manufacturers to follow suit in order to remain competitive.
Therefore, to assure that no individual manufacturer is unfairly
biasing its useful life selections in order to take advantage of the
credits programs, EPA is proposing that all manufacturers would declare
the applicable useful life category for each engine family at the time
of certification, and would be required to retain at their facilities
data appropriate to support their selections of useful life categories,
to be furnished to the Administrator upon request. The manufacturer
would be required to select the category which most closely
approximates the actual useful lives of the equipment into which the
engines are expected to be installed. The rule would also require
manufacturers to have data supporting their selections sufficient to
show that the majority of engines or a sales weighted average of
engines of that family are used in applications having a useful life
best represented by the chosen category. EPA would not expect to
request such data unless there is evidence of problems with a
manufacturer's useful life selections. Such problems might be
indicated, for example, if all or the major portion of a manufacturer's
credit-generating engine families were certified to the longest useful
life categories, or if all or the major portion of a manufacturer's
credit-using engine families were certified to the shortest useful life
categories.
EPA is proposing that data in support of a useful life category
selection could include: surveys of the life spans of the equipment in
which the engines are installed; engineering evaluations of field aged
engines to ascertain when engine performance deteriorates to the point
where usefulness and/or reliability is impacted to a degree sufficient
to necessitate overhaul or replacement; warranty statements and
warranty periods; marketing materials regarding engine life; failure
reports from engine customers; and engineering evaluations of the
durability, in hours, of specific engine technologies, engine
materials, or engine designs. EPA expects that retaining these types of
data at their facilities would not be unduly burdensome to
manufacturers, and that in most cases these types of data would be
information that the manufacturer already has on hand. EPA requests
comment on these types of data and their usefulness in helping to
distinguish the most accurate and appropriate useful life category for
a particular engine family.
Finally, EPA proposes that in the event that EPA reviewed data
provided by the manufacturer in support of the useful life selection,
and upon review of that and such other information available and
discussion with the manufacturer EPA believed that a different useful
life category would be more appropriate, the Agency would work with
that manufacturer to determine a more appropriate selection of useful
life categories. EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal.
5. Certification Averaging, Banking and Trading Program
With today's notice, EPA is proposing a certification averaging,
banking and trading (ABT) program for nonhandheld small SI engines. The
proposed program would be the first ABT program for nonhandheld small
SI engines. The Phase 1 rule did not include an ABT program due to
uncertainties regarding the in-use emission levels of engines certified
to the Phase 1 standards. (The Phase 1 standards apply to ``new''
engines and do not require any determination of in-use deterioration as
the proposed Phase 2 standards do.)
The Agency is not proposing a certification ABT program for
handheld engines at this time. Based on the levels of the proposed
standards and discussion with engine manufacturers, EPA does not
believe a certification ABT program is warranted or desired for
[[Page 3972]]
handheld engines. The Agency specifically requests comment on this
issue. As discussed later, EPA is proposing an in-use credit program
for handheld small SI engines that would be used to address potential
in-use emission exceedances. The reader is directed to Section IV.D.3
of today's notice for further details of the proposed in-use credit
program for handheld engines.
The nonhandheld small SI engine ABT program proposed today is a
market-based incentive program designed to provide an incentive for
early introduction of clean technologies, and provides engine
manufacturers with additional flexibility for meeting the proposed
HC+NOX standards, while protecting the environmental
benefits of the program. Implementation of the program should also
reduce the cost of controlling HC+NOX emissions from
nonhandheld engines.
EPA believes that the proposed ABT program is consistent with the
statutory requirements of section 213 of the Clean Air Act. Although
the language of section 213 is silent on the issue of averaging, it
allows EPA considerable discretion in determining what regulations are
most appropriate for implementing section 213. The statute does not
specify that a specific standard or technology must be implemented, and
it requires EPA to consider costs, lead time, and other factors in
making its determination of ``the greatest degree of emissions
reduction achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available.'' As noted in the proposal
for Tier I nonroad compression-ignition engine standards, which also
contained a certification ABT program, section 213(a)(3) also indicates
that EPA's regulations may apply to nonroad engine classes in the
aggregate, and need not apply to each nonroad engine individually (see
58 FR 28809, May 17, 1993).
At the same time, EPA believes that any ABT program must be
consistent with the statutory requirement that standards reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of available technology. EPA believes the proposed ABT
program is fully consistent with such a requirement. The proposed
HC+NOX emission standard of 25.0 g/kW-hr for Class I engines
and the series of declining HC+NOX standards for Class II
engines were developed under the assumption that an ABT program would
take effect at the same time as proposed standards, once adopted. In
fact, as discussed earlier in Section IV.A.1, the conclusion that the
proposed standards for Class I and Class II engines are feasible for
all affected nonhandheld engines within the time available to
manufacturers, is based in part on the availability of the proposed ABT
program. In addition, the flexibilities provided to engine
manufacturers via an ABT program should allow compliance with the
proposed standard at a lower cost than may otherwise be the case. It is
also possible that ABT allows the standard to be implemented sooner
since, for example, not every family may need to be redesigned to meet
the lower standard. If each engine family had to comply with the
standards, the standards might be higher and/or the standards might
need to be implemented later.
As noted above, the three aspects of the proposed ABT program are
averaging, banking, and trading. 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. However, the increased emissions would have to 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 in a given model year from all the manufacturer's families
(weighted for engine power, useful life, load factor, and sales) are at
or below the level of the emission standard. Averaging results would be
calculated for each specific model year and, as proposed today, would
be calculated for each engine class. The mechanism by which this is
accomplished would be 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 could
not exceed an upper limit specified in the ABT regulations. Once an
engine family is certified to an FEL, that FEL would become the
enforceable emissions limit used for compliance purposes and each
engine in the engine family would be subject to compliance with the
FEL.
Banking means the retention of emission credits by the engine
manufacturer generating the credits for use in future model year
averaging or trading. EPA believes that banking, including today's
proposed provision which would allow early banking under certain
conditions during the two years prior to implementation of the
standards, would improve the feasibility of meeting standards by
encouraging the development and early introduction of advanced emission
control technology, allowing certain engine families to act as
trailblazers for new technology. This can help provide valuable
information to manufacturers on the technology prior to manufacturers
needing to apply the technology throughout their product lines. An
incentive for early introduction arises because the banked credits
could 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 then can 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.
EPA is proposing that participation in the proposed ABT program for
Phase 2 nonhandheld small SI engines would be voluntary. For those
manufacturers who choose to utilize the program, compliance of
individual engine families with their FELs would be determined and
enforced in the same manner as compliance with the emission standards
in the absence of an ABT program. In addition, except where
specifically permitted in the case of production line testing failure
(see section IV.D.2. of today's notice), the final number of credits
available to the manufacturer in each engine class at the end of a
model year after considering the manufacturer's use of credits from ABT
would have to be greater than or equal to zero. Specific elements of
the proposed ABT program for nonhandheld small SI engines are discussed
below.
a. Calculation of Credits. Credits would be calculated as a
function of the difference between the applicable Phase 2 emission
standard and the FEL, the power, the useful life, the load factor, and
the number of eligible engines sold of the engine family participating
in the program. (Since the standards are expressed in terms of grams/
kW-hour, the ``power'' and ``load factor'' variables are included to
allow averaging across engines designed to different power.) EPA would
expect manufacturers to follow the regulations for establishing its
engine families and not disaggregate their families into multiple
families or combine their existing families into fewer families to
maximize credit generation or minimize credit usage.
[[Page 3973]]
EPA is proposing the following equation for calculating the emission
credits from a given engine family, whether generating positive or
negative credits.
Credits=(Standard-FEL) x (Power) x (Useful Life) x (Load Factor) x
(Sales)
``Standard'' represents the applicable Phase 2 emission standard as
proposed by EPA. ``FEL'' is the family emission limit for the engine
family as established by the manufacturer. ``Power'' represents the
engine's maximum modal power produced during the certification test
cycle. For those engine families that contain more than one
configuration with different power ratings, EPA is proposing that the
``Power'' term be the sales-weighted maximum modal power determined
across all configurations within the engine family. EPA assumes
manufacturers know the general power characteristics of each of their
engine configurations they are producing, and therefore, determining
the power information necessary for the ABT calculations will not place
any additional testing burden on manufacturers. EPA requests comment on
this assumption.
``Useful Life'' is the useful life category to which the engine
family is certified, and represents the period of time for which the
manufacturer is responsible for compliance with the emissions
standards. ``Load Factor'' refers to the fraction of rated power at
which the engine operates in use, on average. For the two main
certification test cycles, referred to as cycle ``A'' and cycle ``B'',
which EPA believes represent typical in-use operation, a load factor of
0.47 is proposed. For alternative test cycles, as approved by EPA, the
load factor would need to be calculated based on the characteristics of
the test procedure as described in the proposed regulations.
``Sales'' represents the eligible number of Phase 2 engines sold in
the United States in the applicable model year, excluding those engines
subject to California regulations. Manufacturers would be allowed to
use sales projections for initial certification. However, actual sales
based on the location of the point of first retail sale (for example,
retail customer or dealer) would have to be submitted at the end of the
model year to verify end-of-year compliance. The Agency is proposing
that manufacturers exclude engines subject to California's emission
standards from the estimates of eligible engine sales because
California will likely require all engines sold in California to meet
its own tighter HC+NOX standards. If California engines were
included, then the credits generated by California sales would allow
more engines with higher emission rates to be sold in states outside of
California. This would detract from the goals of the Phase 2 program,
and possibly undermine the emissions reductions expected to be achieved
by the program throughout the country. Engines sold outside of the
United States, including Canada and Mexico, would also be excluded from
the manufacturer's estimates of sales unless those engines are
subsequently imported back into the United States in a new piece of
nonhandheld equipment.
Because only those engines sold in the United States, excluding
engines subject to California's standards, would be included in the ABT
program, manufacturers would need to determine the number of such
engines sold each year to yield accurate estimates of credit generation
and usage. Due to the difficulty in tracking point of first retail
sales in the nonhandheld market compared to other markets (e.g., the
on-highway segment where a more direct engine and vehicle distribution
system exists), EPA is requesting comments on alternative methods
manufacturers could use to determine their eligible sales for credit
calculations. One possible option would be to allow engine
manufacturers to query their customers, on an annual basis, to
ascertain the percentage of Phase 2 engines of each family that
constitute eligible sales. Based on the results of the query, the
Agency could allow manufacturers to extrapolate those results, assuming
they received responses sufficient to cover some high percentage of
their sales, say 90 percent or more, to its total sales of engines in
the United States. The Agency is open to considering other alternative
methods for tracking engines for credit calculation purposes that
provide high levels of confidence that eligible sales are accurately
counted. EPA specifically requests comments on such alternatives and
other information that would further address the Agency's concerns that
eligible sales estimates be as accurate as possible. In addition, the
Agency requests comments on appropriate methods for estimating the
export of engines and the sales of engines subject to California's
standards, since one method for estimating eligible sales for ABT
purposes could be to deduct these two groups from total sales.
As discussed in Section IV.E of today's notice, EPA is proposing
several compliance flexibility provisions for engine manufacturers and
equipment manufacturers that would allow the limited use of Phase 1
engines in the Phase 2 time frame. To avoid penalizing manufacturers
that produce engines to be used under the proposed flexibility
provisions, EPA is proposing that manufacturers exclude such engines
from the ABT program calculations. In other words, engine manufacturers
would not be required to use credits to certify these Phase 1 engines
used for the proposed flexibility provisions even though they would
likely exceed the proposed Phase 2 standards.
Another proposed flexibility provision described in Section IV.E of
today's notice would allow engine manufacturers to certify beyond the
2005 model year Class II side-valve engine families with annual sales
of less than 1,000 units to an HC+NOX cap of 24.0 g/kW-hr.
For such engine families, EPA is proposing that manufacturers do not
need to include such families in the ABT program calculations for 2005
and later model years. For the interim years, 2001 through 2004, a
manufacturer could also exclude Class II side-valve engine families
with annual sales of less than 1,000 units from the ABT program
calculations as long as the deteriorated HC+NOX emission
level of the engine is less than 24.0 g/kW-hr. Class II side-valve
engine families with annual sales of less than 1,000 units that are
certified above the 24.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOX level must be
included in the manufacturers' ABT calculations during the interim
years.
EPA is proposing an upper limit on the level of emissions allowed
from those engine families a manufacturer wishes to include in the ABT
program. Under the proposal, manufacturers would not be allowed to
certify engines that have FELs above the upper limits described below.
Typically, when EPA adopts an ABT program, the upper limit is set at
the level of the previous standard. However, because the Phase 1
standards did not require manufacturers to take into account
deterioration over the useful life of the engine as the proposed Phase
2 standards do, EPA believes it is appropriate to use the Phase 1
standards as the basis for calculating the upper limits and apply a
deterioration factor to determine the equivalent deteriorated level of
the Phase 1 emission standards. Based on the predominant side-valve
engine technology certified under the Phase 1 program, EPA estimates
that a typical Phase 1 engine would have emissions at the end of the
useful life period about twice its new engine emission
level.31
[[Page 3974]]
Therefore a deterioration factor of 2.0 is appropriate for estimating
the equivalent useful life level of engines designed to meet the Phase
1 standards. Based on the Phase 1 HC+NOX standards and a
deterioration factor of 2.0, EPA is proposing HC+NOX upper
limits of 32.2 g/kW-hr for Class I engines and 26.8 g/kW-hr for Class
II engines. Therefore, a manufacturer would be allowed to certify an
engine family only if the HC+NOX FEL were at or below these
proposed levels (and only if they had the appropriate number of credits
to offset the family's credit needs). For families not participating in
the ABT program, each family must comply with the standard which in
effect is an analogous upper limit. EPA requests comment on the
appropriateness of the proposed upper limits for engine families
included in the ABT program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See ``Summary of EPA Analysis Regarding Upper Limits for
Phase 2 Averaging, Banking & Trading Program for Nonhandheld
Engines'', Item #II-B-05 in EPA Air Docket A-96-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to concerns over the amount of credits manufacturers could
accumulate, as described below, EPA is proposing a declining set of
caps on how high the sales-weighted average level of HC+NOX
FELs could be for Class II engine families beginning in 2005. Based on
the certification information of Phase 1 nonhandheld engines submitted
by manufacturers to EPA and assumptions about typical deterioration
factors and compliance margins, it appears that some engine
manufacturers have the potential to earn significant credits from their
Class II engines prior to the 2005 model year. (Because the proposed
emission standard for Class I engines assumes side-valve technology and
because most Class I engines are expected to remain side-valve
technology, it does not appear that there would be the same potential
for significant credit generation by Class I engine manufacturers.)
Manufacturers who adopt OHV technology earlier than anticipated by the
proposed Class II phase-in standards appear best positioned to
accumulate significant credits. The ability to generate credits during
the transition years would occur primarily because the typically lower-
emitting OHV engines could earn credits up to the proposed applicable
model year standards (which, as noted earlier, would decline for each
model year between 2001 and 2005 and assume an industry changeover to
the cleaner OHV engines from the higher-emitting side-valve engines).
The environment benefits when a manufacturer produces engines
which, on average, are cleaner than required during the transition
years. However, EPA is concerned that some manufacturers, because their
current product line is predominantly made up of OHV technology, would
be able to accumulate significant credits during the phase-in years
without any additional effort to improve emission performance. These
credits could be, in turn, used by such manufacturers beginning in 2005
to, in effect, delay the need for that manufacturer to produce engines
meeting the proposed 2005 model year standard. This action could put
such manufacturers in a competitively advantageous position compared to
manufacturers who did not have substantial credits and therefore needed
to produce a product line which, on average, met the 2005 model year
standard. Such action could similarly undermine the goal of this rule
(and the SOP) to have 100 percent OHV technology (or similar technology
meeting the 2005 model year standards) in place across the industry for
Class II by 2005.
In order to ensure that this transition to cleaner technology
occurs by the 2005 model year and to minimize the risk of credit
``build-up'' resulting in a delay of conversion to OHV or OHV-
comparable technology, EPA is proposing that a manufacturer's sales-
weighted average of Class II HC+NOX FELs may not exceed 13.6
g/kW-hr in 2005, 13.1 g/kW-hr in 2006, and 12.6 g/kW-hr in 2007 or
later. EPA believes this approach would ensure that Class II engines
are converted to OHV or OHV-comparable technology by roughly 2005 while
still encouraging the early introduction of cleaner, more durable
technology and ensuring that manufacturers have the flexibility they
need to comply with the proposed standards. EPA requests comment on the
proposed caps and alternative approaches that would ensure the
introduction of OHV or OHV-comparable technology by approximately 2005
while maintaining the flexibility offered to manufacturers by ABT and
the encouragement to pull ahead cleaner, more durable technology.
As described earlier, EPA is proposing separate NMHC+NOX
standards for natural gas-fueled engines which are intended to be as
stringent as the proposed HC+NOX standards for the remaining
nonhandheld small SI engines. All credit calculations for natural gas-
fueled engines would be calculated against those standards. In
addition, because the proposed standards are equivalent in stringency,
and the market for nonhandheld natural gas-fueled small SI engines is
extremely small (i.e., less than 0.1 percent of current nonhandheld
sales), EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers to freely exchange
NMHC+NOX credits from nonhandheld engines fueled by natural
gas with HC+NOX credits from nonhandheld engines fueled by
fuels other than natural gas in the ABT program.
b. Life of Credits. For all credits generated by Class I and Class
II engines under the certification ABT program, EPA is proposing an
unlimited credit life. EPA believes that unlimited life for these
credits will promote the feasibility of the proposed Phase 2 Class I
and Class II standards because it increases the value of these credits
to the manufacturer by providing greater flexibility for the use of the
credits. It is consistent with the general emission reduction goal of
ABT programs, not only because of the increased manufacturer incentive
but also because it reduces the incentive for manufacturers to use
their 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. It should be noted that EPA
would expect to reconsider the appropriate life of Phase 2 emission
credits in connection with any post-Phase 2 rulemaking for nonhandheld
engines.
c. Early Use of the ABT Program. EPA is proposing that
manufacturers be allowed to use the ABT program prior to implementation
of the Phase 2 standards to provide an incentive to accelerate
introduction of cleaner technologies into the market. The Agency
believes that making bankable credits available prior to 2001 would
reward those manufacturers who take on the responsibility of complying
with the proposed standards sooner than required and would result in
early environmental benefits. Under the proposed provisions,
manufacturers would be allowed to begin using portions of the ABT
program starting two model years before the proposed standards take
effect provided the manufacturer certifies and complies with the
proposed 2001 model year standards of 25.0 g/kW-hr for Class I engines
and 18.0 g/kW-hr for Class II engines for their entire product line in
a given nonhandheld engine class. The manufacturer could show it is in
compliance with the proposed standards for each individual engine
family or on average using the averaging provisions of the proposed ABT
program. If a manufacturer meets this condition, the manufacturer could
generate early credits to be banked for use in the 2001 or later model
years
[[Page 3975]]
from only those engines certified below 16.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOX
for Class I engines and below 12.1 g/kW-hr for Class II engines (or
15.0 g/kW-hr NMHC+NOX for Class I natural-gas fueled engines
and 11.3 g/kW-hr for Class II natural-gas fueled engines). However, all
early credits would be calculated against the initial Phase 2 standards
of 25.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOX for Class I engines and 18.0 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX for Class II engines (or the corresponding
NMHC+NOX standards of 23.0 g/kW-hr and 16.7 g/kW-hr,
respectively, for natural-gas fueled engines). If the manufacturer
certifies its product line to the proposed Phase 2 standards early
through the use of averaging, the manufacturer could bank credits for
use in 2001 and later, but could only bank credits from those engines
which were not needed to show early compliance with the proposed Phase
2 standards. In other words, manufacturers would not be allowed to bank
credits from engines whose credits were already used to offset other
engines with FELs above the proposed Phase 2 standards. This would
prevent manufacturers from ``double counting'' credits needed to show
early compliance with the proposed standards. Manufacturers would not
be allowed to trade their early credits to other manufacturers until
the 2001 model year or later.
In establishing the proposed set of declining standards for Class
II engines, EPA assumed a certain phase-in of OHV or comparably clean
and durable technology. As described in the March 1997 ANPRM, the
proposed series of Class II HC+NOX standards were based on
the assumption that 50 percent of Class II engines would employ OHV or
comparably clean and durable technology in 2001 (i.e., could meet a
12.1 g/kW-hr HC+NOX standard without the use of credits).
For the remaining years, the phase-in schedule assumed for ``OHV
emission performance'' (``OEP'') technology was 62.5 percent in 2002,
75 percent in 2003, 87.5 percent in 2004, and 100 percent in 2005. EPA
believes this phase-in of OHV or comparably clean and durable
technology is important due to the inherent emission benefits
anticipated from this technology in use. Related to the concerns
discussed above regarding credit life for pre-2005 credits, the Agency
is concerned that manufacturers of Class II engines could bank early
credits and use such credits to continue certifying a line of engine
families that do not meet the OEP production phase-in schedule assumed
by EPA in establishing the proposed standards. Therefore, EPA is
proposing that manufacturers only be allowed to use early banked
credits beginning in 2001 or later if they are meeting the OEP
production phase-in schedule estimates for that model year. EPA
believes prohibiting the use of early banked credits unless
manufacturers meet such conditions will encourage the manufacturers to
meet the OEP production phase-in schedule assumed in developing the
proposed Phase 2 standards.
d. Cross-Class Exchange of Credits for Certification Purposes.
Today's proposal contains limitations on the cross-class exchange of
credits during certification. The limitations are meant to assure the
ABT program fulfills its intended function of encouraging a transition
to cleaner, more durable technology for both classes of nonhandheld
engines and achieves the expected environmental benefits of the
program. The proposed limitations are also intended to assure that the
proposed ABT program does not affect competition between engine
manufacturers.
With regard to encouraging cleaner, more durable technology, the
proposed schedule of standards for Class II engines was established
with the assumption that engine manufacturers will phase-in OHV
technology over roughly the five year period from 2001 to 2005 based on
the schedule noted earlier. In order to encourage manufacturers to
follow the assumed OEP production phase-in schedule, EPA is proposing
that limited cross-class exchange of credits for certification
purposes, as noted below, would be allowed only if a manufacturer's
Class II engine production meets or exceeds the assumed OEP production
phase-in schedule for Class II engines presented earlier.
With regard to competition in the nonhandheld market, about two-
thirds of nonhandheld engine manufacturers currently produce both Class
I and Class II engines. The remaining one-third of the nonhandheld
engine manufacturers produce only Class II engines. At this time, EPA
is not aware of any nonhandheld engine manufacturers that only produce
Class I engines. Allowing manufacturers to exchange credits across
engine classes could cause a competitive disadvantage for those
manufacturers who only produce Class II engines because they would not
have the advantage of being able to use positive credits from Class I
engines. Therefore, with regard to the cross-class exchange of credits,
EPA is proposing that manufacturers would be allowed to exchange
credits from credit generating Class II engines to credit using Class I
engines for certification purposes. However, due to the competitive
concerns noted above, EPA is not proposing to allow the exchange of
credits from credit generating Class I engines to credit using Class II
engines for certification purposes.
e. Use of Credits to Address Nonconformity Determined After
Certification. As noted elsewhere in today's notice, EPA is proposing a
number of provisions that address post-certification compliance aspects
of the proposed standards. In two specific cases, EPA is proposing to
allow manufacturers to use credits from the certification ABT program
to address noncompliance determined after the time of certification. As
noted in the discussion on compliance, EPA does not believe that the
typical type of enforcement action that could be taken when a
substantial nonconformity is identified (i.e., an engine family recall
order) would generally be workable for nonhandheld small SI engines
given the nature of the nonhandheld market. Whereas handheld engine
nonconformities after certification would be addressed through the use
of in-use credits, EPA is not proposing an in-use credit program for
nonhandheld engines, as discussed in Section IV.D.
Instead, EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers to use
certification ABT credit to address two different types of
nonconformance. First, manufacturers would be allowed to use ABT
credits to offset limited emission shortfalls for past production of
engines determined through the Production Line Testing (PLT) program as
described in Section IV.D.2. of today's notice. Second, manufacturers
would be allowed to use ABT credits to offset emission shortfalls from
Class II OHV engines that arise as a result of an adjustment to
deterioration factors originally determined through good engineering
judgement, as described in Section IV.E of today's notice. Under the
proposed provisions, manufacturers would be allowed to use all credits
available to them to offset such emission shortfalls. EPA does not
believe it is necessary to limit the use of cross-class credits for
these situations. Allowing manufacturers to exchange credits from one
class to another should not raise the same concerns with regard to new
engine competition as noted earlier because the manufacturer is
addressing a nonconformance problem for engines that have already been
sold and used in the field for a significant period of time. EPA
requests comment on the proposed provisions for using certification ABT
credits to address nonconformance with
[[Page 3976]]
the Phase 2 emission standards determined after certification.
EPA is not proposing to allow manufacturers to use ABT credits to
remedy a past production nonconformance situation in the Selective
Enforcement Audit (SEA) program. As described in today's notice, EPA is
planning to primarily rely on the PLT program to monitor the emissions
performance of production engines. However, in the case of nonhandheld
engines only, manufacturers would in some cases have the option of
traditional SEA in lieu of PLT as a production line compliance program.
In addition, SEAs could be conducted in cases where EPA has evidence of
improper testing procedures or nonconformities not being addressed
through PLT. As discussed in section IV.D.3, if EPA determines that an
engine family is not complying with the standards as the result of an
SEA, EPA plans to work with the manufacturer on a case-by-case basis to
determine an appropriate method for dealing with the nonconformity. The
option(s) agreed upon by EPA and the engine manufacturer may, or may
not, include the use of ABT credits to make up for any ``lost''
emission benefits uncovered by the SEA.
As noted earlier, EPA solicits comments on all aspects of the
proposed ABT program, including comments on the benefit of the program
to manufacturers in meeting the proposed emission standards and any
potential air quality impacts which might be associated with them.
6. Certification Fuel
The program for nonhandheld engines discussed in the March 1997
ANPRM specified that the proposed range for eligible certification
fuels for Phase 2 would be the same as under Phase 1. The program for
handheld engines in the ANPRM was silent on this issue. EPA received
comment on the ANPRM that the continued use of Phase 1 certification
fuels for Phase 2 testing is appropriate so long as the same fuel may
be used to certify handheld engines under both EPA and CARB
regulations.
EPA is proposing today that certification test fuel requirements
for the Phase 2 program would remain the same as in the Phase 1
program, as specified at 40 CFR 90.308(b). While California ``Phase 2''
reformulated gasoline is not a proposed certification test fuel, EPA
believes that continuation of the Phase 1 program for Phase 2 would
continue to provide a means of harmonizing the Federal and California
programs. As described in the February 1997 Draft U.S. EPA Small Engine
Certification Guidance, Section X ``Certification Fuel'', manufacturers
have four options for choice of certification fuel for Phase 1
32; EPA is proposing that these options would continue for
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See ``U.S. EPA Small Engine Certification Guidance, Draft,
February 19, 1997,'' available in EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-
C-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first option is to use average in-use gasoline specified at 40
CFR Part 90, Subpart D, Appendix A, Table 3. The second option is
federal certification fuel (e.g., Indolene), specified at 40 FR
86.1313-94(a), Table N94-1. Third, manufacturers may use other fuels,
such as natural gas, propane, methanol, or others, under conditions
described at 40 CFR 90.308(b)(2) and (3). Fourth, manufacturers may
request EPA approval for certification testing on fuels such as
California ``Phase 2'' reformulated gasoline, which do not meet the
requirements for ``other fuels'' under 40 CFR 90.308(b)(2) or (3). For
this option, manufacturers would request EPA approval of an alternate
test procedure (e.g., alternate test fuel) under 40 CFR 90.120(b)(1).
Manufacturers may elect to use an alternative test procedure provided
it yields results equal to the results from the specified test
procedures (e.g., test fuels described at 40 CFR 90.308(b)), its use is
approved by EPA, and the basis for equivalent results is fully
described in the manufacturer's certification application (see 40 CFR
90.120(b)(1)). EPA would work with manufacturers to assist them in
making the required technical demonstrations to show equivalency of the
emission results. The continuation of these Phase 1 certification fuel
requirements would continue to provide mechanisms for manufacturers to
use the same fuel for certification to both EPA and California Air
Resources Board regulations, as specified above.
B. Test Procedures
Test procedures are contained in today's proposal which would be
used by engine manufacturers for the purpose of measuring emissions and
determining emission rates for regulated emissions for certified
engines. The test procedures being proposed today are in most respects
identical to the procedures required for the certification of Phase 1
engines. Test procedures were discussed during the Regulatory
Negotiation process, with the key issue being the appropriateness of
the Phase 1 test cycles for Phase 2 engines. The draft Regulatory
Support Document for this proposal contains a summary of the test
procedure issues addressed during the Regulatory Negotiation process.
In general, the Agency believes the Phase 1 test procedures are
appropriate for measuring engine emissions from Phase 2
engines.33 In today's action, EPA is proposing the Phase 1
test procedures with the following minor changes. First, nonhandheld
engines sold with an engine rotational speed governor would have to use
the governor for speed control while running the appropriate test
cycle. Second, the mode weightings for the handheld test cycle, Cycle
C, would be adjusted to 0.85 for Mode 1 and 0.15 for Mode 2. Finally,
appropriate changes to the test procedure and emission calculations
have been proposed for the measurement of methane from natural gas
fueled engines in order to determine non-methane hydrocarbon emissions
for natural gas fueled nonhandheld engines. These proposed changes are
discussed below. EPA requests comment on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ For a discussion on the adequacy of the Phase 1 test
procedure, see Chapter 1.1 in ``Regulatory Support Document, Control
of Air Pollution, Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition
Engines At or Below 19 kilowatts'' U.S. EPA, May 1995, EPA Air
Docket A-93-25, Item #V-B-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Test Cycle: Requirement for the Use of a Speed Governor Operation
for Testing of Nonhandheld Engines
Many small engines manufactured today make use of a speed control
governor (``governor'') to regulate engine rotational speed. In
general, the governor is a mechanically or electronically controlled
device that attempts to maintain engine rotational speed in a
particular range as the engine experiences different loads. A typical
example is the walk-behind mower, where the governor is designed to
control engine throttle position in response to various loads to
maintain the engine's rotational speed, and thus, mower blade rotating
speed, to provide an adequate grass cut. For the Phase 1 test
procedure, manufacturers are allowed to over-ride or disconnect the
speed governing device and use an external piece of equipment, i.e., a
throttle controller, for the purpose of replicating the speed and load
conditions required by the test cycle (see 40 CFR 90.409(a)(3)). After
the finalization of the Phase 1 rule during the regulatory negotiation
process, the Test Procedure Task Group formed by the Regulatory
Negotiation committee recognized that the use of the engine's designed
governor, not an external throttle controller, may be a more accurate
prediction of an engine's in-use performance. The Test Procedure Task
Group members generally agreed that a
[[Page 3977]]
Phase 2 test procedure should require the use of the engine's speed
governor for speed control during the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for
those engines which are equipped by the manufacturer with a speed
governor. However, there was not general agreement or detailed
discussion of the specific requirements of how the speed governor
should be used during the FTP. At this time the Agency believes the
most appropriate method to operate engines on the speed governor for an
emissions test would be to use fixed throttle operation for the 100
percent load mode, and then to use the engine governor for all
subsequent power modes (75 percent, 50 percent, 25 percent and 10
percent). For each power mode, the engine speed governor set-point
would be adjusted to the nominal test cycle set-point, 85 percent of
rated speed for Cycle A, and 100 percent rated speed for Cycle B. This
test method allows for a consistent and repeatable method of
determining the 100 percent load condition, yet would allow the
engine's governor to regulate speed for the remaining load conditions.
This method is also straightforward and would be relatively simple to
implement in a laboratory. The Agency requests comment on this test
method and on other test methods which may be more appropriate.
2. Test Cycle: Adjustments for Weightings for 2-Mode Cycle for Handheld
Engines
The Agency is proposing a change in the weighting factors for the
handheld test procedure. For the Phase 1 rule, a weighting factor of 90
percent is applied to the 100 percent power mode, and a factor of 10
percent is applied to the idle mode, in order to combine the modal
results for the final weighted emission value. The Agency is proposing
for Phase 2 that a weighting factor of 85 percent is used for the 100
percent power mode, and 15 percent be used for the idle mode. This
proposal is based on a study performed by members of PPEMA during the
regulatory negotiation process.34 PPEMA members collected
real-time speed and throttle position data on several types of handheld
equipment used during actual in-use operation. This data was analyzed
and combined with estimates of annual use, load factors, and annual
sales to weight the results of the field testing. EPA's summary of this
report is contained in the Draft RSD. The Agency agrees with the
report's conclusion that a more appropriate set of weighting factors
for handheld engines is 85 percent for the 100 percent power mode and
15 percent for the idle mode. Therefore this change is being proposed
for Phase 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See ``Hand Held Composite Duty Cycle Report'', February
1995, prepared by members of the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association, available in EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item
# II-D-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Measurement of NMHC Emissions From Natural Gas Fueled Nonhandheld
Engines
In order to accommodate the proposed optional non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) standard for natural gas fueled nonhandheld engines,
the Agency is proposing to incorporate by reference the appropriate
sections from 40 CFR Part 86 which relate to the measurement of methane
emissions from spark-ignited engines. These appropriate sections were
published as part of a final rulemaking titled ``Standards for
Emissions From Natural Gas-Fueled, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas-Fueled
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, and Certification Procedures
for Aftermarket Conversions'' see 59 FR 48472, published on September
21, 1994. The specific sections being incorporated can be found in the
proposed regulatory language contained in this proposal at
Sec. 90.301(d) and Sec. 90.401(d).
C. Field/Bench Adjustment Program
The ANPRM contemplates a so-called ``bench field correlation
program'' for both handheld and nonhandheld small spark ignited
engines.35 For handheld engines, it is part of the in-use
testing program (ANPRM, Appendix A, Section J(2)); for nonhandheld
engines, it is part of the certification program (ANPRM, Appendix B,
Sections 4(a) and (b)). In either case, the basic premise for these
programs is the same: to allow manufacturers to age engines on the
bench to demonstrate expected compliance in-use, it is necessary to
demonstrate the ``correlation'' between field aging and bench aging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The use of the term ``correlation'' was meant to describe
an adjustment factor that can be applied to bench-aged engines to
approximate field-aged conditions, and not a true statistical
correlation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ANPRM sets out slightly different requirements for the proposed
handheld and nonhandheld programs. Specifically, the ANPRM stipulates
that the handheld correlation program would be conducted under EPA
guidance; a portion of the engines would be aged in situations in which
the manufacturer does not exercise control over the engines'
maintenance, or limit their usage such that the engines are no longer
used in a way that is representative of typical in-use engines; the
full federal test procedure would be used; all pollutants would be
measured; residential engines would be aged to their full regulatory
life but commercial engines could be aged to 75 percent of their full
regulatory life; samples sizes would be determined in the NPRM process;
and there would be periodic spot checks of the correlation (ANPRM,
Annex A, Section J(2)).
The ANPRM provisions for the nonhandheld engines are less
comprehensive. For this category, the correlation program was
specifically discussed for engines using side-valve or aftertreatment
technologies. In addition, the ANPRM describes a simple ``correlation''
method (ratio of mean emission rates); would require periodic re-
calculation (every other year for the first five years of the program
and then every five years thereafter, e.g., 2001, 2003, 2005, 2010,
2015, etc.); and calls for changes in the correlation to apply
prospectively only.
In today's NPRM, EPA is proposing a unified program, to be called
the ``field/bench adjustment program,'' 36 that would apply
to both nonhandheld engines that use side-valve or aftertreatment
technologies and to handheld engines. EPA believes it is appropriate to
design one program to apply to both categories of engines both because
it is less complicated for manufacturers that produce both kinds of
engines and because it simplifies the compliance program for
administrative purposes. EPA seeks comment on the application of the
same program and methodology to both categories of engines. The
remainder of this section will set out the background for field/bench
adjustment and the principles of such a program, a proposed
methodology, and various practical requirements for the application of
the program. It will end with a brief discussion of an alternative
methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ This nomenclature more accurately reflects the purpose of
the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Background and Principles
There are at least three ways to demonstrate compliance with in-use
standards such as those proposed in today's rule. In general, the most
representative way is to demonstrate compliance on engines that have
been aged to their full regulatory lives by actual end-users. This
ensures that the emissions reflect actual in-use conditions, including
the presence of dirt and other matter such as clippings, operation at
several degrees of orientation, operation in very hot ambient
temperatures, etc. At the same time, consumer-based field aging is
[[Page 3978]]
difficult, not the least because it is cumbersome to organize a program
with a sufficient number of end-users. In addition, it may take some
end-use consumers years to put an appropriate number of hours on the
engine through normal use.
The second method is to demonstrate compliance on engines that have
been aged to their full regulatory lives on the bench. While this
method can be more practical for the manufacturer, it also abstracts
away many operational or environmental conditions that can affect
deterioration.
The third way, and the way being proposed in today's notice, is a
consolidation of some elements of the other two methods. Under it,
manufacturers could bench age engines and then adjust the emission test
results to reflect actual in-use conditions as represented by field
aging. This would be accomplished by developing a field/bench
adjustment factor that would be applied to emissions from bench-aged
emissions to simulate field aging.
Thus, the objective of this field/bench adjustment program is to
develop an adjustment factor based on the mathematical relationship
between emissions from field-aged and bench-aged engines. For obvious
reasons, it is very important to design a field/bench adjustment
program that will yield an adjustment factor that is as closely related
as possible to the true relationship between field and bench aging. Any
deviation will result in an adjustment factor that either under-
corrects or over-corrects the bench results, the ultimate result being
an impact on the stringency of the emission limits. In addition, this
field/bench adjustment program should take advantage of statistical
techniques, both to take into account the inherent uncertainty in
sampling 37 and to allow EPA to impose some restrictions on
the use of this simplified compliance method. In today's notice, EPA is
proposing to allow manufacturers to use the simple ratio of the field
and bench mean emission results as an adjustment factor if the width of
a confidence interval around the bench-aged and field-aged mean
emission rates does not exceed a certain percentage of the standard.
This restriction would limit the emission results for each sample,
permitting a closer fix on the true population relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ To take full advantage of the field/bench adjustment
program, engine manufacturers will presumably prefer to bench and
field age only a relatively small number of engines. Thus, the
results of the program will heavily depend on the characteristics of
the sample (it is generally the case that a different sample would
have different emission results and a different adjustment factor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. General Methodology
Drawing on the elements of the ``bench field correlation program''
set out in the ANPRM and the criteria discussed above, EPA is proposing
the following methodology to calculate the adjustment factor that would
be applied to bench-aged emissions to approximate field aging. EPA
seeks comments on all aspects of this program.
Two samples of engines would be aged, one in the field and one on
the bench. The aging procedures for all engines in the field sample
would be the same, and the aging procedures for all engines in the
bench sample would be the same. The manufacturer would develop a test
plan which would specify the conditions under which the engines would
be aged on the bench and in the field. EPA would reserve the right to
review any test plan, for handheld or nonhandheld engines, and to
require the manufacturer to revise it if it does not reflect
appropriate testing conditions. This review would enable EPA to
exercise some oversight of the program without requiring the entire
program to be performed under EPA guidance, as anticipated in the
handheld program described in the ANPRM. With regard to sample size,
today's proposed program contains only two constraints: the bench-aged
and field-aged samples must initially be of equal size and must contain
at least three engines. This minimum number is necessary to perform the
statistical tests described below.
Next, each engine would be tested on the full federal test
procedure after it has been run for its useful life. Then, for each
sample, the mean HC+NOX emission rate would be calculated
and two independent confidence intervals would be constructed, one
around the mean of the field-aged engines, and one around the mean of
the bench-aged engines, using the student's T distribution and a 90%
confidence level.
The formula for the confidence interval would be:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JA98.000
where
x is the sample mean,
t(1-/2; n-1) is the appropriate parameter from Student's t
table,
depending on the level of confidence chosen by EPA,
s is the sample standard deviation, and
n is the number of engines in the sample.
The width of each confidence interval would then be compared to the
``maximum allowable interval width'' proposed today. EPA is proposing
+/-20% of the standard as the maximum allowable interval width. If the
confidence intervals around each of the field-aged and bench-aged means
each are no wider than the maximum allowable interval width (e.g, +/
-20% of the standard), then the adjustment factor that would be applied
in the future to bench-aged engines to simulate field aging would be
the ratio of the means (x.8F/
x.8B), provided this ratio is greater than or
equal to one.
EPA is proposing that these constraints be applied to both handheld
and nonhandheld engines, but seeks comment as to whether the confidence
levels and maximum allowable interval widths should be different among
them. EPA chose 90% confidence levels for constructing the confidence
intervals for the field-aged and bench-aged engines, and +/-20% of the
standard maximum allowable interval widths, based on computer
simulations 38, 39; however, manufacturers or others
commenting on this proposal may have information that suggest other
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38, 39\ See ``Simulation to Determine Confidence Level and
Maximum Allowable Interval Width for Field/Bench Adjustment Factor
Program,'' EPA Air Docket A-93-29, Item #II-B-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed program, if either or both of the confidence
intervals do not pass the above-described statistical test, the
manufacturer would have the choice of three remedies. First, the
manufacturer could increase the size of the failing sample and repeat
the statistical tests with the increased number of engines. Often,
increasing the size of the sample will lead to a smaller sample
variance, although this is not always the case with small samples. A
manufacturer could repeat this remedy as many times as desired. Note
that it would not be necessary to increase the size of both samples;
only the sample that failed the statistical test would need to be
increased. Alternatively, if the statistical tests are failed, the
manufacturer could adjust the test plan and rerun the program, subject
to EPA approval. In the third alternative, the manufacturer could
choose to age all engines in the field for the purposes of the
compliance program.
3. Practical Requirements of the Program
This section describes several practical elements of this proposed
field/bench adjustment program and how it would work if adopted as
proposed.
[[Page 3979]]
a. Initial Field/Bench Adjustment Factor Calculation. The ANPRM
does not discuss an initial date by which the first correlation would
have to be performed, and thus the first adjustment factor calculated.
EPA is today proposing that a manufacturer may propose a field/bench
adjustment program test plan up to 48 months prior to certification for
Phase 2, and if EPA did not reject the proposed test plan within 90
days of submission of a complete test plan, the proposed test plan
would automatically be accepted. EPA is also proposing that, at least
90 days before beginning bench aging for certification or in-use
testing purposes, the manufacturer would provide a report to EPA for
approval describing the aging and testing conducted for the field/bench
adjustment program. This timing would ensure that adjustment factors
have been established in time for demonstrating compliance with Phase 2
standards. EPA is also proposing that the initial field/bench
adjustment program be performed on engines representative of Phase 2
engines.
b. Periodic Rechecks. The ANPRM contemplates that both the handheld
and the nonhandheld correlation programs would require the correlation
to be periodically rechecked, although only for the nonhandheld engines
was a specific recheck schedule provided (every other year for the
first five years of the program and every five years thereafter, e.g.,
2001, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2015, etc.). In today's notice, EPA is
proposing that the recheck period be the same for both handheld and
nonhandheld engines. However, EPA suspects that the recheck period
described in the ANPRM's nonhandheld program may be more comprehensive
than is necessary. Specifically, it may be the case that the field/
bench adjustment factor will not need to be checked so often,
especially if technologies, production tolerances, and emission results
do not change that much from year to year. As a result, EPA is
proposing that the field/bench adjustment factor be re-estimated as
often as every five years as determined by EPA on a case-by-case basis,
except that EPA may require more frequent rechecks in model years prior
to the 2006 model year. EPA seeks comment on this proposed recheck
schedule. EPA also proposes that any new adjustment factor subsequent
to a recheck be applied regardless of how similar it is to the
adjustment factor from the previous correlation effort. However, the
new adjustment factor would apply only prospectively, beginning with
the next model year. EPA seeks comment on whether a longer lead time
should be specified, for example, requiring the new adjustment factor
to be applied with the engine model being certified at least six months
after the new adjustment factor is determined. This would allow more
time for engine manufacturers to adjust their designs, if necessary.
Finally, EPA is not proposing any restrictions on the direction of
modification of the field/bench adjustment factor that may results from
future rechecks: it could be revised up or down, but not below 1.0.
c. Hours to Age. EPA is proposing that all bench-aged engines be
aged to their full regulatory lives. Field-aged nonhandheld engines and
field-aged residential handheld engines would also be aged to their
full regulatory lives. However, following the program described in the
ANPRM, under the proposed program field-aged commercial handheld
engines could be field-aged to a minimum of 75 percent of their full
regulatory lives. This flexibility is proposed today to reflect
concerns that it may be hard to age these engines in the field due to
equipment problems not related to emissions and engine durability which
might be experienced at the end of the useful life. At the same time,
as described below, field aging need not be done by actual end users
but, instead, could be done by the manufacturer using a test plan that
mimics as closely as possible actual field use. Under these conditions,
the equipment may be less likely to break. Field aging to a minimum of
75 percent of regulatory useful life is being proposed as a cost
savings measure for commercial engines which have the longest
regulatory useful lives. Furthermore, EPA believes that test results on
commercial engines aged to at least 75 percent of their regulatory
useful lives can be appropriately extrapolated to the full regulatory
useful life of the engine due to the generally more durable design of
commercial engines which would tend to result in more predictable
emission determination performance. Therefore, EPA seeks comment on the
costs and benefits associated with field aging handheld commercial
engines to their full regulatory lives. Finally, EPA is proposing that
all engines in the same sample (bench or field) be aged to the same
number of hours.
d. Test Plan. EPA is proposing that the manufacturer develop a test
plan for both field and bench aging. All such test plans would be
required to use the federal test procedure. The handheld program
described in the ANPRM specified that ``a portion of the field engines
will be aged in individual usage or fleets where the manufacturer does
not carry out or exercise control over the engines' maintenance, or
limit their usage such that engines are no longer used in a way that is
representative of typical in-use conditions.'' Manufacturers would have
three ways to field-age engines: in individual usage, in an independent
fleet, or in a fleet that may be controlled by the manufacturer but
over which the manufacturer does not control the maintenance process or
inappropriately limit use. EPA proposes to extend this choice to both
handheld and nonhandheld engines. However, EPA proposes that, if the
manufacturer chooses to field-age the engines in a non-independent
fleet, the applicable test plan must explain how the engines will be
used to approximate, as closely as possible, actual in-use conditions,
and also the kind of maintenance program to be followed, which should
approximate expected in-use maintenance by end-users. The key is to
ensure that the engines will experience similar load demands and
environmental factors. For example, in the case of lawn mowers, the
test plan for a non-independent fleet would have to specify how the
engine would be exercised in a way to be representative of typical in-
use conditions, which likely include cutting both high and low grass,
under wet and dry conditions, etc. Alternatively, if the manufacturer
chooses to age the engines in an independent fleet, the test plan would
have to detail how the use of the engine will be documented and how the
user will ensure that it is used in a variety of different conditions.
Finally, EPA could review this test plan and could require changes if
the plan does not adequately approximate in-use conditions.
e. Technology Subgroups. For both individual-manufacturer and
industry-wide programs (see f., below), the analysis could be done on
engine technology subgroups which could be expected to have similar
emission deterioration characteristics, that is, groups of engine
families from one or more manufacturers having similar size,
application, useful life and emission control equipment. It would not
be appropriate for engines with significant differences in in-use
emissions performance characteristics to be included in the same
technology subgroup. Manufacturers would be required to provide a
justification satisfactory to EPA that the engines families would be
expected to have similar emission deterioration characteristics, and
would thus be
[[Page 3980]]
appropriately grouped in the same technology subgroup.
f. Individual-Manufacturer or Industry-Wide Estimation. EPA is
proposing that the above-described field/bench adjustment program and
estimation of the field/bench adjustment factor can be performed on
either an individual-manufacturer basis or on an industry-wide basis.
Any manufacturer who wants to use a field/bench adjustment factor
instead of field aging engines would have to either conduct its own
program, or participate in an industry-wide program. In other words,
the engines that will benefit from the application of an adjustment
factor would have to be included in the sample used to estimate that
adjustment factor. This requirement would ensure that a manufacturer
could not simply apply a field/bench adjustment factor estimated by
another manufacturer that may not reflect the performance of the
engines to which it is applied.
An industry-wide analysis would be subject to several additional
constraints. First, EPA is proposing that all manufacturers
participating in the same sample use the same test plan, except that
maintenance schedules could vary across manufacturers to reflect
differences in manufacturer-specified maintenance guidance to end-
users. This is to reflect the fact that although manufacturers may pool
their emissions results in the industry-wide program, they may want to
test their engines separately. This uniformity is important to avoid
biased aggregation of results. Second, the sample of engines used to
estimate the field/bench adjustment factor would have to include at
least one bench engine and one field engine from the same engine family
from each participating manufacturer, but no fewer than three bench-
aged engines three field-aged engines per technology subgroup. EPA
seeks comment on whether the emissions should be sales weighted, to
give a better picture of emissions across the category. EPA requests
comment on how such a sales weighting procedure could be accomplished
and still protect the confidentiality of sales information that might
be covered by the confidential business information provisions of 90
CFR part 2. Third, EPA proposes to limit entries into and exits from
the industry-wide program: a manufacturer could enter or drop out only
before the adjustment factor goes into use for the first time. This
will prevent constant revision of the adjustment factor. If a
manufacturer drops out of the industry-wide adjustment program, the
field/bench adjustment factor would have to be recalculated, both for
that manufacturer and the industry. This is necessary to ensure that
the field/bench adjustment factor reflects only the experience of the
engines to which it will be applied. Presumably, a manufacturer will
drop out only if its individual adjustment factor is more favorable
than the industry-wide adjustment factor. Thus, if the industry-wide
adjustment factor is not recalculated, then it will understate the
experiences of the engines to which it will be applied. EPA seeks
comment on whether such restrictions are necessary.
g. Restriction on Using Test Results for Other Purposes. One
comment on the ANPRM requested that engine manufacturers be allowed to
combine certification, correlation, and in-use testing for a family,
such that bench results from the bench aged engines from the field/
bench adjustment program can be used to satisfy in-use testing
requirements. EPA proposes to allow test results from engines used for
the field/bench adjustment program to be considered for purposes of
determining handheld deterioration factors based on good engineering
judgment. EPA believes this is appropriate because in the handheld
certification program compliance is determined by applying a
deterioration factor to new engines. Thus, the actual engines that are
used for certification are not the field-aged engines. However, the
test results from the field/bench adjustment program would not be
acceptable to satisfy the in-use testing requirements for handheld
engines, since this would create a situation in which engines that were
used to estimate a parameter for the compliance program are also used
to demonstrate compliance. Similarly, EPA would not allow the test
results from the field/bench adjustment program to be used for
demonstrating certification for the nonhandheld program. The
nonhandheld engine compliance program relies on emission results from
engines aged to their full regulatory lives. As in the handheld engine
in-use testing example above, if the engines used in the field/bench
adjustment program were also allowed to be used to demonstrate
compliance, this would create a situation in which engines that were
used to estimate a parameter for the compliance program are also used
to demonstrate compliance. Finally, EPA proposes to prohibit emission
results from engines tested to determine compliance with other parts of
today's program from being used for purposes of calculating the field/
bench adjustment factor. This restriction is necessary because
otherwise manufacturers could choose among all of their test results
and submit only the best emission results from a fairly large pool of
engines, thus biasing the field/bench adjustment calculation. EPA does
not believe this restriction will be burdensome, since manufacturers
will be able to estimate a field/bench adjustment factor with as few as
two engines (one bench-aged, one field-aged) if they participate in an
industry-wide program, or six engines (three bench-aged and three
field-aged) if they decide to establish their own adjustment factor.
h. Other Pollutants. The handheld program described in the ANPRM
contemplated that all pollutants be measured. EPA is proposing that CO
emissions be measured and adjustment factors for CO be determined for
both the nonhandheld and handheld programs. However, EPA believes that
the data set upon which statistical tests used to establish appropriate
adjustment factors for HC+NOX are determined are sufficient
to establish the relationship between CO emissions in the field and on
the bench. Therefore, EPA proposes to allow manufacturers to use the
same set of data to calculate a CO adjustment factor as would be used
to establish the HC+NOX field/bench adjustment factor. EPA
requests comment on this proposal.
4. Alternative Methodology Considered
EPA believes that the methodology described above is most
appropriate because it balances the desires of industry for a simple
program with the desire of EPA to put reasonable statistical
constraints on the program without making it too difficult to perform
or apply. However, there are other methods that can be used. Notably,
EPA considered a statistical methodology in which a confidence interval
would be constructed around the ratio of the means, and the adjustment
factor would be the upper bound of that confidence
interval.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See ``Simulation to Determine Confidence Level and Maximum
Allowable Interval Width for Field/Bench Adjustment Factor
Program,'' EPA Air Docket A-93-29, Item #II-B-01. For a description
of this alternative approach, see ``A Procedure for Adjustment of
Emissions Results for Bench Aged Small Engines,'' located in EPA Air
Docket A-96-55, Item #II-D-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While both techniques attempt to apply statistical concepts, this
alternative methodology could be considered in some ways more
statistically sound than the one proposed above. However, it may be
practically more difficult to use. Most importantly, the adjustment
factor derived from this alternative methodology would be sensitive to
the number of engines tested: a larger
[[Page 3981]]
number of engines will most often result in a smaller adjustment
factor, although this need not always be the case. Thus, manufacturers
will be faced with either testing a large number of engines to ensure
the smallest adjustment factor (closest to the straight ratio of the
sample means) or using a larger adjustment factor with concomitant
effects on the adjusted emission rate. EPA is concerned that this
dynamic could lead manufacturers to test a large number of both bench-
aged and field-aged engines. In addition, the adjustment factor derived
from this alternative methodology will always be a conservative
estimate of the relationship between bench and field-aged results,
because it is the upper bound of the confidence interval, and it will
always be greater than the simple ratio of the means. Yet, it is not
clear why choosing a conservative adjustment factor is preferable to a
simple ratio of the sample means. Nevertheless, EPA seeks comment on
the use of this methodology and other alternative approaches as opposed
to the proposed methodology.
D. Compliance Program
This section discusses the three step compliance program proposed
today for the Phase 2 regulation of small SI engines, consisting of
certification, production line testing, and in-use emission testing. As
discussed above in Section III, today's proposal contains three basic
elements new to the Phase 2 program. First, manufacturers would be
required at the time of certification to account for emissions
deterioration throughout the useful life of the engines. Second, EPA is
today proposing a manufacturer-run production line testing program to
replace the existing Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) program as the
primary method of determining the compliance of new production engines.
Finally, EPA is proposing in-use emission testing programs for
nonhandheld and handheld engines. EPA is also proposing appropriate
remedies to address noncompliance with emission standards. Such
remedies include mandatory recall but would also consider alternatives
to mandatory recall, in the event of nonconformities found through
production line testing or in-use testing programs. The basic proposed
program for nonhandheld and handheld engine compliance is described in
this section; Section IV.E outlines certain compliance flexibilities
which may be made available to certain manufacturers depending on a
manufacturer's size, the class of engines, or other factors.
1. Certification
The certification process as required in the Act is an annual
process. The Act prohibits the sale, importation or introduction into
commerce of regulated engines when not covered by a certificate. The
certification process proposed in this notice differs from that
required in Phase 1 in that it would require the manufacturer to
demonstrate that the engines will meet standards throughout their
useful lives. To account for emission deterioration over time,
manufacturers would be required to either age engines out to their full
useful lives to obtain certification, or to adjust their certification
test results by assigned or calculated deterioration factors (dfs), as
is currently done under other EPA mobile source rules. Where
appropriate and with suitable justification, dfs would be allowed to be
carried over from one model year to another and from one engine family
to another. This section describes nonhandheld and handheld engine
certification provisions, provisions for certification to CO standards,
and EPA efforts to streamline the certification process.
a. Nonhandheld Certification. This notice proposes that
certification for Class I and Class II nonhandheld engines continue as
in Phase 1 except for the inclusion of an estimation of in-use
deterioration. This deterioration estimate would be used to predict
full useful life emission performance which would then be the basis for
certification compliance decisions. The method for estimating in-use
deterioration for certification purposes would depend on the type of
engine technology.
i. Side-Valve Engines and Engines with Aftertreatment. For all
side-valve engines and engines with aftertreatment, this notice
proposes that one engine from each engine family would either be field
aged in a representative application to its full useful life, or bench
aged to its full useful life to demonstrate compliance with the
standards.41 If a manufacturer chose the bench aging option,
it would be required to use a bench cycle approved in advance by the
Administrator, adjusting the results using the field/bench adjustment
factor established through the process described above at Section IV.C.
In either case, the manufacturer would be required to run the full test
procedure described in this rule when the engine is stabilized,
accumulate hours on the engine, and then run a full test procedure at
full useful life hours to determine a test value for certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ For nonhandheld engines participating in the averaging,
banking and trading program described in more detail above in
Section IV.A.5, compliance would be demonstrated with the family
emission limit (FEL) rather than the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final field-aged results or the final adjusted results of the
fully bench-aged engines would be compared against the applicable
standard to determine compliance at the time of certification. In
addition, a df would be calculated from the final test results compared
against low hour stabilized test results. While not directly used in
the certification program, this df would be used to adjust the results
of engines tested in Production Line Testing program described below in
Section IV.D.2.
For Class II SV engines and Class II engines with aftertreatment
certified to the 250 hour useful life category, the manufacturer would
have the option to bench age the engine to less than the full useful
life and calculate a df at the engine's full useful life using a method
of data extrapolation acceptable to the Administrator, as described
below in Section IV.E.
ii. Overhead Valve Engines. As discussed elsewhere in this notice,
EPA expects the Phase 2 rule to result in a virtually complete
technological shift for Class II nonhandheld engines from SV to OHV or
comparably clean and durable technology engines. In addition, EPA
believes that OHV technology engines have the potential to show low and
stable emissions deterioration characteristics as compared with SV
technology engines.
EPA is today proposing that manufacturers of OHV technology engines
be allowed to use an industry-wide assigned df for certification
purposes. This program should allow manufacturers to focus more of
their efforts on transitioning to a cleaner technology, by reducing the
certification test burden on the engine manufacturers at the beginning
of the Phase 2 program. EPA believes that offering manufacturers the
opportunity to use an industry-wide assigned df rather than calculated
dfs is reasonable for OHVs. A key element of the proposal for an
assigned df is the proposed requirement that all manufacturers of OHV
technology engines would participate in an industry-wide OHV Field
Durability and In-use Performance Demonstration Program (``Field
Durability Program'') described in Section IV.D.3, below. This program
would be designed to demonstrate the validity of the assigned df by
producing significant amounts of data from real field-aged engines. If
the OHV Field Durability Program data indicate that the assigned df is
inappropriate, EPA would conduct a
[[Page 3982]]
rulemaking to modify these proposed provisions to correct the assigned
df program. This section describes the assigned df program for OHV
engines, as well as an option for manufacturers to calculate dfs
through field testing engines at the time of certification.
Assigned dfs For OHV Nonhandheld Engines
EPA is proposing that manufacturers of OHV technology engines would
be allowed to use a multiplicative assigned df of 1.3 for OHV engines
in all useful life categories for projecting emissions deterioration
for compliance purposes. In the ANPRM, EPA discussed a value of 1.3 as
the assigned df value for Class I and Class II OHV technology engines
in the shortest useful life categories (i.e., 66 and 250 hours,
respectively). In addition, EPA indicated that it would consider during
the rulemaking process whether or not to propose an assigned df for all
useful life categories, and if so, what the appropriate assigned df
values would be. EPA indicated that the assigned df for Class II OHVs
in the 500 and 1000 hour useful life categories would likely fall
between 1.3 and 1.5. In addition, if an assigned df of 1.5 at 1000
hours, for example, appeared to be the appropriate value, EPA would
propose a standard for the 1000 hour category adjusted by ratio to the
proposed 12.1 g/kW-hr standard proposed for the 250 hour category.
EPA received comment on the ANPRM that the assigned df should be
higher than 1.3 for the higher useful life categories, with a
corresponding higher emission standard for the higher useful life
categories. This commenter suggested that the application of a 1.3 df
to longer useful life periods could reduce product offerings and impose
unjustified costs on small equipment manufacturers. EPA received a
similar recommendation for higher dfs for the 500 and 1000-hour useful
life categories.42 Specifically, an assigned df of 1.4 and a
HC+NOX compliance standard of 13.0 g/kW-hr were recommended
for 500-hour engines and an assigned df of 1.5 and a HC+NOX
compliance standard of 14.0 were recommended for 1000-hour engines. In
making these recommendations, the represented manufacturers argued that
EPA had no full life emission performance information for these
categories of engines. Although acknowledging they were providing no
data to substantiate their recommendation, these manufacturers believe
these higher dfs and emission standards provide a better assessment of
equivalent stringency for these categories of engines compared to 250-
hour engines certified with a 1.3 df to a 12.1 g/kW-hr standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Memo to the Docket regarding the October 3, 1997
meeting between U.S. EPA and the Engine Manufacturers Association,
EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-E-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also received comment that use of assigned dfs should be
limited to small volume manufacturers as a cost savings measure, and
that the use of experimentally-derived dfs is preferable to the use of
assigned dfs. This commenter argues that if the assigned df level is
set too high, it could penalize those manufacturers who develop
extremely durable engines, but if an assigned df were set too low, the
result could be an underestimation of the emissions impact associated
with an engine family or even the entire category. A final commenter
asserted that assigned dfs are a bad idea; that the program described
in the ANPRM results in a program in which future standards are
uncertain due to the possibility of another rulemaking to adjust dfs;
and that in the interval, engines may exceed the in-use standards
because there is little incentive for manufacturers to reduce the
deterioration rates of their engines.
EPA believes an industry-wide assigned df combined with the OHV
Field Durability Program to validate assumptions as to the durability
of OHV technology engines is a sound program. The Agency fully expects
the assigned df to accurately reflect the industry-wide average df of
OHV engines certified to the proposed standards at least in the near
term. As manufacturers gain improved capabilities to produce OHV
engines (as would be expected as an increasing proportion of small
engines become OHVs), the industry-wide df could shift to a lower
value. There is no expectation, however, for a shift to a higher
average df. The OHV Field Durability Program is expected to yield
significant quantities of in-use data designed to verify the
assumptions as to the emissions durability characteristics of OHV
technology engines underlying today's proposal. The future standards
are not uncertain if the industry average assigned dfs prove to be low
and stable, as anticipated by this proposed rule.
EPA is today proposing a 1.3 assigned df for all useful life
categories for Class I and Class II engines, based on EPA analysis of
available test data on engines aged in the field, provided by engine
manufacturers.43 While the data are limited, the data on
Class II engines designed for longer useful life periods do not point
to any value other than 1.3 for an assigned df for longer useful life
hours. While no data were available on Class I engines designed for
longer useful lives, EPA believes that a 1.3 assigned df at longer
useful lives is a reasonable value. Longer useful life engines are
designed for enhanced durability, and this is reflected in the
emissions deterioration of the engines as well, with longer useful life
engines experiencing the same emissions deterioration at longer hours
as do short useful engines at short hours. Additional information on
the derivation of the proposed assigned df of 1.3 is contained in the
docket to this rulemaking.44 Commenters who suggested a
value other than 1.3 for assigned dfs at longer useful life hours did
not supply data in support of their recommendations. However, EPA
recognizes that the data upon which this proposal is based are very
limited. EPA requests additional data on which to base the analysis for
determining values for assigned dfs for OHV engines at longer useful
lives. In particular, EPA requests comment on and any data supporting
the assigned df and level of standards recommended by engine
manufacturers (that is, 1.4 df and 13.0 g/kW-hr for 500-hour engines,
and 1.5 df and 14.0 g/kW-hr for 1000-hr engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See ``Tier 1 Deterioration Factors for Small Nonroad
Engines'', September 1996, a report by Air Improvement Resources,
available in EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-D-11.
\44\ See ``Summary of EPA Analysis of Nonhandheld Engine HC and
NOX Exhaust Emission Deterioration Data for 500 Hour
Useful Life Class II OHV Engines,'' EPA Memorandum, August 4, 1997,
available in EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-B-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA is concerned that an industry-wide assigned df could
reduce the incentive for a manufacturer to improve the durability of
its engines. If manufacturers would be able to rely on an assigned df
for certification performance regardless of in-use emission
performance, manufacturers could design and produce engines which
actually had much higher in-use deterioration than the assigned df.
Manufacturers would be motivated to do so if they receive cost or other
advantages from such a strategy. This is a real possibility since, in
general, less expensive designs such as those with larger production
tolerances or no oil control rings would also be expected to have
higher emission deterioration. To protect against this, EPA is
proposing limits on the use of assigned dfs. Specifically, EPA is
proposing that if it determines the manufacturer's actual in-use sales
weighted average df for a
[[Page 3983]]
useful life category (e.g., all OHV families certified to a 500-hour
useful life) exceeds the assigned df by more than 15 percent (i.e.,
actual in-use df is 1.5 or greater), then EPA may require the
manufacturer to generate engine family-specific dfs for one or more
engine families in that useful life category. Similarly, if EPA
determines that a family has an actual in-use df greater than 1.8, then
EPA may require the manufacturer to generate an engine-specific df for
that family. In either case, if EPA requires such engine-specific dfs,
they would be determined on the basis of data from three field-aged
engines per engine family. This level of testing is the same as that
for the program being proposed for a manufacturer which opts to not use
the assigned dfs for certification (see discussion in the following
section, ``Calculated dfs for OHV Nonhandheld Engines''). EPA requests
comment on the proposed thresholds for limits on the use of the 1.3
assigned df.
EPA recognizes that a requirement to generate an engine-family
specific df for certification could be especially burdensome or perhaps
practically impossible without disrupting production if the requirement
was placed on the manufacturer close to the anticipated start of
production for that family. EPA would take such issues into
consideration when making any determination to require an engine-
family-specific df to be generated.
EPA requests comment on all aspects of today's proposal for
assigned dfs and calculated dfs for OHV technology engines, including
the proposals for incentives for improving deterioration
characteristics of OHV technology engines, and protections against
misuse of the assigned dfs. EPA also requests additional data on which
to determine the assigned dfs for OHV engines.
Calculated dfs for OHV Nonhandheld Engines
EPA views assigned dfs for OHV technology engines as the program
engine manufacturers would most often select due to lower costs for
certification. However, it is desirable to allow manufacturers of
engines having improved durability characteristics to demonstrate and
take credit for these lower dfs. Therefore, EPA is proposing as an
option a procedure whereby a manufacturer could generate its own dfs
for all engine families within a useful life category, in lieu of
applying the assigned df for those families.
The assigned df is based on industry average data with some actual
dfs above 1.3 and others below 1.3. EPA anticipates that manufacturers
would choose the option of calculating their own dfs, over the option
of selecting the 1.3 assigned df, in cases in which their engines
exhibit superior deterioration characteristics. EPA is concerned that,
if only these engines with superior deterioration characteristics are
removed from the evaluation of the industry-wide assigned df values,
then the industry average would be influenced upwards.
Therefore, to partially mitigate this concern, EPA is proposing
that if a manufacturer chooses to establish its own df for one engine
family in a useful life category, then it would be required to do so
for all of its engine families within that useful life category. Thus
the manufacturer would determine specific dfs for all of its families
in that useful life category. In considering the types of data that
would be required for manufacturer-determined dfs, EPA balanced the
need for the program to be reasonable and practicable, yet rigorous
enough to provide confidence in the dfs.
EPA is today proposing that calculated dfs for the full product
line of OHV engines in a particular useful life category could be
generated by field aging a minimum of three engines per engine family
in a representative application to their regulatory useful lives. Each
engine would be emission tested at least twice for all regulated
pollutants using the full test procedure described in this rule. The
first test point would occur after the engine had been stabilized by
bench or field aging. The second test point would occur after the
engine had been field aged to its useful life. The df for that engine
family would be determined based on test data by dividing the average
emissions at the full useful life by the average stabilized emissions
for that family. If the manufacturer elects to conduct more than one
test at either test point then the average of the data would be used.
All test data would have to be at or below the standard (FEL, if
applicable). EPA is also proposing that calculated dfs may cover
families and model years in addition to the one upon which they were
generated if the manufacturer submits a justification acceptable to EPA
at the time of certification that the affected engine families can be
reasonably expected to have similar emission deterioration
characteristics.
The Agency is proposing for manufacturers who choose to develop
their own OHV dfs by field aging three engines per engine family that
these engines must be actual field-aged engines and not bench-aged even
if adjusted by a field/bench adjustment factor. The proposed assigned
dfs with df verification through the OHV Field Durability Program is
the primary program for Class I and II OHV engines. The Agency believes
that any alternative to the primary program for nonhandheld OHV engines
must generate emission data of similar accuracy as that on which the
assigned df and OHV Field Durability Program is based. Without this
requirement, the primary program would be undermined. The Agency has
proposed a field/bench adjustment program for handheld engines and for
non-OHV technology Class I and II engines. In both of those programs
the Agency has proposed a level of confidence which would have to be
met before a field/bench adjustment factor would be allowed, and is
therefore a compromise between data accuracy and test burden (see
Section IV.C). The test burden associated with the assigned df and OHV
Field Durability Program has been limited to an appropriate level
because it is covered by a maximum number of field aged engines that a
manufacturer would be required to test on an annual basis (see Section
IV.D.3.c ``Maximum Rates for Field Tested Nonhandheld Engines'').
However, the proposed OHV Field Durability Demonstration does not
permit a compromise on the accuracy of the field test data which would
result from a field/bench adjustment program. Therefore, the Agency
believes it is not appropriate that an alternative (i.e., manufacturer
calculated dfs) to this primary program should allow such a compromise.
The Engine Manufacturers Association 45 has recommended to
the Agency that manufacturers be allowed to determine their own OHV dfs
by performing a field/bench adjustment program. The Agency requests
comment on this suggestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Memo to the Docket regarding the October 3, 1997
meeting between U.S. EPA and the Engine Manufacturers Association,
EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Item #II-E-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the ANPRM, EPA indicated that it would consider during the
rulemaking process the appropriateness of reserving certification
credits pending verification of the dfs through in-use testing for
families for which the manufacturer generates its own df. EPA believes
that today's proposal for field aging three engines per engine family
for calculating dfs provides adequate data up front to provide
assurance as to the deterioration of these engines, and obviates the
need to reserve certification credits pending in-use testing. However,
engines for which the manufacturer calculates its own df would be
subject to the OHV Field Durability Program. EPA requests comment on
the proposal not to reserve certification credits
[[Page 3984]]
pending verification of the dfs through in-use testing.
Finally, to provide flexibility during the phase-in of the 12.1 g/
kW-hr Class II standard, EPA is proposing that manufacturers choosing
to establish their own dfs for the 500 and 1000 hour useful life
categories for Class II OHV engine families may, with the advance
approval of the Administrator, base their dfs on good engineering
judgement (subject to future verification, as discussed below in
Section IV.E).
b. Handheld Certification. This notice proposes that the
certification of handheld engines continue as in Phase 1, except that
manufacturers would be required to generate and apply a df to their
stabilized emission results. EPA is proposing that manufacturers would
be allowed to establish a df for each engine family based on
technically appropriate analysis of test data on that engine family (or
engine families of sufficiently similar design to be expected to have
the same emissions durability) to reflect the emission deterioration
expected to occur over the useful life of the engine. Manufacturers
would be required to retain test data and description of their analysis
to support their choice of dfs and to furnish this information to EPA
upon request. EPA may reject the manufacturer's choice of df if it has
evidence that the actual df is significantly higher or if the test data
and analysis do not support the manufacturer's determination of a df.
Data in support of the df could include data from the field/bench
adjustment factor program as well as data from the in-use testing
program.
EPA believes that the proposal to allow manufacturers flexibility
in determining the test data necessary to establish dfs for handheld
engine families is a reasonable program designed to assure the
environmental benefits of the program are met without placing an undue
burden on manufacturers at the time of certification. EPA requests
comment on all aspects of the proposed provisions for certification of
handheld engines and determination of emission deterioration factors
for compliance purposes.
c. Certification to CO Emissions Standards. EPA is proposing that
provisions for establishing CO emission dfs for use in the
certification and production line testing programs would be the same as
the provisions for established HC+NOX (or
NMHC+NOX) emission dfs, except in the case of OHV technology
engines for which the manufacturer elected to use an assigned df. For
these engines, the manufacturer would be allowed to establish a df for
CO emissions using good engineering judgment.
d. Streamlining of the Certification Process. Since the
promulgation of the Phase 1 rule, EPA has taken great strides to reduce
the volume of information that must be submitted to obtain
certification. A direct final rule published on May 8, 1996 (61 FR
20738), greatly reduced the reporting requirements necessary to obtain
certification under the Phase 1 program. This proposal would continue
the reduced reporting requirements, adding only information items
related to new provisions required for the Phase 2 program.
EPA has also made strides to facilitate the electronic submittal of
certification materials. Certification applications can currently be
submitted on a computer disk, and the Agency hopes soon to be able to
receive applications through a telephone data link. Further, EPA is
working with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in an effort to
develop a common application format that would reduce the certification
burden for manufacturers. EPA anticipates that for the Phase 2 program,
EPA and CARB would accept the same application format and would have
the same application submittal process.
2. Production Line Testing
This section addresses the production line testing program proposed
today for nonhandheld and handheld engines. EPA is proposing that
manufacturers conduct a manufacturer-run production line testing (PLT)
program using the Cumulative Sum (CumSum) procedure, as the primary
program for ensuring the emission performance of production
engines.46 The Phase 1 rule relies upon a traditional
Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA) program for production line
compliance. SEA is a statistical sampling and testing scheme that must
be initiated by EPA and provides a snapshot indication of whether a
given engine family complies with applicable standards or FELs at a
given point in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The CumSum procedure has been promulgated for marine
engines in EPA's spark-ignition marine rule at 40 CFR Part 91 (61 FR
52088, October 4, 1996). In this section, ``PLT'' refers to the
manufacturer-run CumSum procedure, or other manufacturer-run
production line testing procedure approved by EPA. ``PLT'' does not
include Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA), which is addressed
separately in Section IV.D.2.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposed Phase 2 PLT program, manufacturers would conduct
continuous production line testing of all engine families and feed the
results of that testing back into their design and production
processes. CumSum is a statistical sampling and testing procedure which
results in random periodic sampling and testing of engines from each
engine family. The proposed CumSum procedure is useful both as an
assessment tool for EPA and a quality control tool for engine
manufacturers. The CumSum procedure assures that all configurations are
susceptible to testing proportional to their production, and provides
for continuous testing throughout the model year (except in cases in
which an engine family shows clear compliance with the standards, in
which cases testing can halt early, in as few as two engines). The
CumSum procedure also allows manufacturers to monitor their own
production and to fit production line testing into their normal
production quality control procedures. The procedure is capable of
detecting significant changes in the average level of a process, while
ignoring minor fluctuations that are simply acceptable variation in the
process. In summary, EPA believes that the CumSum procedure provides an
effective measure for meeting EPA's goal of assuring that production
engines comply with the applicable standards or FEL before they leave
the production facility.
As testing of each engine family begins with a new model year, the
CumSum process computes an action limit and a test statistic based on
the deteriorated test results for each pollutant for each family. As
new data are received, both the action limit and the test statistic are
updated. The action limit and the test statistic are functions of the
standard deviation of the sample. If the test results are clearly below
the standard or FEL, and the standard deviation of the test result is
appropriately low, the process will declare a halt to testing. With
very low emitting engines, this can occur in as few as two tests. If
test data are highly variable or the test results are very close to the
standard or FEL, testing may proceed to as many as thirty tests per
family (the proposed maximum test limit) spread equally throughout the
model year. If the test statistic crosses the action limit for two
sequential tests, then the process indicates a nonconformity and the
manufacturer would be required to take corrective measures.
EPA is proposing a manufacturer-run PLT program for both
nonhandheld and handheld engines. However, for nonhandheld engines,
while PLT is the preferred option, EPA also is proposing an alternative
program under which manufacturers would have the option to elect to be
subject to the traditional SEA program (rather than PLT), as described
in Section IV.D.2.d, below. In addition,
[[Page 3985]]
EPA is proposing to retain SEA for ``backstop'' purposes when
manufacturer-run PLT is being conducted for nonhandheld and handheld
engines, as described below. Under the proposal, in some cases, some
manufacturers or engine families may have the option not to conduct
production line testing requirements, including manufacturers of very
clean engine families, or manufacturers or families which qualify for
small volume flexibilities, as described in Section IV.E. The following
discussions outline the proposed CumSum procedure, reporting of PLT
results, procedures in the event of PLT failures, the use of SEA, and
other topics related to production line compliance testing.
a. The CumSum Procedure. The proposed CumSum procedure is outlined
in this section. At the start of each model year, manufacturers would
begin to test each newly-certified engine family at a rate of one
percent of production. After conducting two tests, a manufacturer would
determine the required sample size for the rest of the model year
according to the sample size equation.47 For carry-over
engine families, to reduce testing burden, the manufacturer would
determine the necessary sample size by conducting one test, then
combining the test result with the last test result from the previous
model year, and finally calculating the required sample size for the
rest of the model year according the sample size equation. Tests would
be required to be distributed evenly throughout the remainder of the
model year. After each new test, the sample size would be recalculated
with the updated sample mean, sample standard deviation, and 95 percent
confidence coefficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ For more discussion of the sample size equation, see
Proposed Procedure for Quality Audits of Marine and Small Engines: A
Cumulative Sum Approach, Item #IV-B-03 in EPA Air Docket A-92-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The manufacturer would be allowed to stop testing at any time
throughout the model year if the sample mean for each pollutant is less
than or equal to the applicable standard or FEL, and if the number of
tests required of the manufacturer, as calculated by the sample size
equation, is less than the number of tests conducted. However, if at
any time throughout the model year the sample mean for any pollutant is
greater than the applicable standard or FEL, and if the manufacturer
has not reached a ``fail'' decision, the manufacturer would be required
to continue testing that engine family at the appropriate sampling
rate.
The maximum required sample rate for an engine family, regardless
of the result of the sample size equation, would be the lesser of three
tests per month to a maximum of 30 per year, or one percent of
projected annual production, distributed evenly throughout the model
year. For example, if the sample size equation produces a value of 252
tests for a family with annual production of 20,000 engines, a
manufacturer could elect to test only three engines per month to a
maximum of 30 per year, instead of either 21 per month (which would be
required if 252 tests were distributed evenly throughout the model
year), or 17 per month (which would be required if one percent of
annual production were distributed evenly throughout the model year).
Although the sample size equation may calculate sample sizes
greater than the proposed maximum sample rates, EPA believes that above
some sample size, the cost of testing would become unnecessarily
burdensome for manufacturers of small SI engines. Further, EPA believes
that the proposed maximum sample rates (e.g., 30 engines) are
sufficiently large to adequately characterize the emission levels of
the engine family for the purpose of making a compliance decision.
After determining the appropriate sample size, the manufacturer would
construct a CumSum equation for each regulated pollutant for each
engine family. Following each emission test, manufacturers would update
current CumSum statistics for each pollutant according to the CumSum
equation. Manufacturers would continue to update the CumSum statistics
throughout the model year.48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ For more discussion of maximum sample rates and updating
CumSum statistics, see Proposed Procedure for Quality Audits of
Marine and Small Engines: A Cumulative Sum Approach, Item #IV-B-03,
in EPA Air Docket A-92-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers could elect to test additional engines provided that
testing of the additional engines is performed in accordance with the
applicable federal testing procedures for small SI engines. Such
testing could be used, for example, to bracket a nonconformity
determined through the CumSum procedure, and such bracketing could be
used to reduce a manufacturer's liability for past production. If a
manufacturer elects to perform additional testing, the results would
not be included in the CumSum equation. However, the results of
additional tests would be included in the quarterly reports to EPA.
Manufacturers would be required to randomly select which engines are to
be included in the CumSum program prior to any knowledge of the
emission levels of CumSum engines or engines used for additional
testing.
In cases where the CumSum sample size equation indicates that
testing can be halted, the CumSum process indicates that there is 95
percent probability for each pollutant that the mean emission level for
the engine family is below the applicable standard (or FEL). In cases
where the test statistic exceeds the action limit for two consecutive
tests, then EPA is highly confident, based on extensive computer
simulations of the CumSum program, that the mean emission level of the
engine family for that pollutant exceeds the standard (or FEL), i.e.,
that the engine family is in noncompliance for that pollutant. The risk
that a complying engine family will incorrectly be determined to be
noncomplying (manufacturer risk) is set at similar levels as in EPA's
historical SEA program. The risk that a noncomplying engine family will
incorrectly be determined to be in compliance (consumer risk) is set at
improved (lower) levels as in EPA's SEA program. The Agency requests
comment on all aspects of the proposed production line testing program
and CumSum procedure. For more information on the derivation of the
sample size and CumSum equations and some examples of the CumSum
procedure, see the document ``Proposed Procedure for Quality Audits of
Marine and Small Engines: A Cumulative Sum Approach'' (EPA Air Docket
A-92-28, Item # IV-B-03).
b. Reporting of CumSum Results. EPA proposes that production line
emission test results, as well as sample size calculations and CumSum
calculations, would be reported to EPA on a quarterly basis. The Agency
would then review the test data, sample size and CumSum calculations to
assess the validity and representativeness of each manufacturer's
production line testing program. If the CumSum process determines that
an engine family is in noncompliance, the manufacturer would be
required to report the emission test results and the appropriate sample
size and CumSum equation calculations within two working days of the
occurrence of the noncompliance.
EPA received comments on the ANPRM recommending that, in the event
of a PLT failure, manufacturers should be required to report such
exceedances within thirty days of discovering the failure, suggesting
that thirty days provides a reasonable time for manufacturers to
evaluate and verify test data and determine the existence of any
production line problems. EPA
[[Page 3986]]
believes that thirty days is too long a period for the Agency to not be
made aware of a PLT failure. Such delays would not occur, for example,
under a traditional SEA program. In the event of a traditional SEA, EPA
is aware immediately of the existence of an SEA failure, and can
immediately begin working with the manufacturer to remedy the problem.
EPA is proposing that the appropriate PLT test results be reported
within a two working days, a time period consistent with that
promulgated for the gasoline marine PLT program. A two-day delay in
reporting would not unnecessarily delay EPA's ability to begin to work
with manufacturers during that time to determine an appropriate
response to a PLT failure. As discussed below, the manufacturer would
have 30 days after the date of the last test before any suspension or
revocation of a certificate for the engine family would occur. The
manufacturer could use that time to determine the existence of
production line problems.
EPA also received a comment that manufacturers should not be
required to report all resultant test data to EPA quarterly (e.g.,
extensive raw test data in addition to calculated emissions results).
This commenter suggests that the submission of a completed CumSum
summary data sheet, permitting EPA to confirm that an engine family is
in PLT compliance and to see where in the CumSum process compliance was
attained, should be sufficient for quarterly reporting, and that
manufacturers could maintain raw PLT data for a reasonable period of
time and make such data available to EPA upon request.
It is not clear which raw data this commenter would prefer be
allowed to be retained at the manufacturer's facility. EPA is proposing
that manufacturers would submit to EPA on a quarterly basis pertinent
engine information, individual test results, relevant CumSum
calculations, and other information at Section 90.709(e) of the
proposed regulations. EPA does not believe that this reporting
requirement is overly burdensome. EPA expects that manufacturers will
keep track of PLT data electronically, and EPA intends to develop a
standard CumSum summary data sheet to facilitate electronic submittal
of data for the quarterly reports. EPA requests comments on these
proposed provisions.
c. Production Line Testing Failures. If an engine family is
determined to be in noncompliance, or a manufacturer's submittal to EPA
reveals that production line tests were not performed in accordance
with applicable federal testing procedures, under the proposal EPA
could suspend or revoke the manufacturer's certificate of conformity in
whole or in part for that engine family subject to a thirty day waiting
period (discussed in more detail below in Section IV.D.2.c.iv). EPA
could reinstate a certificate of conformity subsequent to a suspension,
or reissue one subsequent to a revocation, after the manufacturer
demonstrates that improvements or modifications have brought the engine
family into compliance. The proposed regulations include provisions for
a hearing in which a manufacturer may challenge EPA's decision to
suspend or revoke a certificate of conformity based on the CumSum
procedure.
EPA is proposing procedures whereby a manufacturer could remedy the
emissions problems from engines produced prior to the PLT failure. In
EPA's traditional SEA program, SEA failures have typically been
addressed by a recall of the past production engines for the failing
family. Future production engines are expected to be brought into
compliance by either adjustments to the certification FEL, in cases
where the manufacturer is participating in a certification ABT program,
or through appropriate engine and emission control system
modifications. As discussed in Section III of this preamble, above, EPA
is proposing alternative remedies in the event of PLT failures, given
the likely difficulties of applying a traditional recall program to the
small SI engine industry. For handheld engines, these procedures
include the use of in-use credits or other alternative remedies. For
nonhandheld engines, these procedures include the use of certification
credits through the adjustment of a family's FEL or other alternative
remedies. These procedures are discussed below.
i. Handheld Engines
EPA is proposing that when handheld manufacturers experience PLT
failures, the excess emissions from engines that have already been
introduced into commerce could be addressed by the application of in-
use credits or another alternative remedy. In-use credits are discussed
in detail in Section IV.D.3, below. The emission performance of future
production would be addressed through a running change to the existing
configuration or certification of a new configuration such that
compliance is demonstrated.
ii. Nonhandheld Engines
Unlike the proposed program for handheld engines, the program
proposed today for nonhandheld engines does not include provisions for
in-use credit generation. Since in-use credits would not be available,
and since recall of small SI engines is not likely to be effective, for
nonhandheld engine manufacturers who use averaging, banking and trading
to obtain certification, this notice proposes that, in the event of a
CumSum failure, the manufacturer would be permitted to adjust its
certification FEL to a level for which compliance could be
demonstrated. This adjustment would apply to both past and future
production of that family.
EPA has held in past programs that manufacturers should be liable
for their FELs, and that the past production of that family is subject
to recall if the family exceeds its FEL during an SEA. The Agency
continues to believe that manufacturers should set FELs appropriately
based upon adequate testing and engineering analysis. Thus, while
proposing that nonhandheld engine manufacturers would be permitted to
adjust FELs for past production of an engine family, EPA expects that
the need for manufacturers to change an engine family's FEL
retroactively in the event of CumSum failures should be rare or
nonexistent. If there are substantial occurrences of the need to adjust
FELs retroactively, this would suggest that manufacturers are not
correctly setting FELs carefully and accurately for individual
families, in which case the Agency should appropriately revisit this
provision.
EPA is also proposing that nonhandheld manufacturers who experience
CumSum failures could adjust their FELs even if they did not have
adequate credits, provided that they could obtain the necessary credits
by the end of the model year following the model year in which the
production line failure occurs. If sufficient credits were still not
obtained, the manufacturer would have two more years to obtain them,
but would then be required to use credits on a 1.2 to 1 basis (i.e.,
such credits would be discounted twenty percent). Unlike in the
proposed handheld engine in-use credit program, in which manufacturers
would have opportunities to generate additional credits, the
nonhandheld certification ABT program would not afford such
opportunities. Thus, EPA believes it is reasonable in the program for
nonhandheld small SI engines to provide additional time for
manufacturers to acquire certification credits necessary to offset PLT
exceedances. Requiring future model year credits to be discounted if
used to remedy past production on
[[Page 3987]]
noncompliance assures that the manufacturer will not benefit
economically from delayed compliance with the standards.
Because EPA believes manufacturers should set FELs accurately and
carefully, and to encourage manufacturers to set FELs accurately, EPA
is proposing that these provisions (e.g., the retroactive use of
credits, and the ability to carry a credit ``deficit'') would only
apply in the case of a manufacturer who fails no more than one engine
family in a given model year, or who fails more than one engine family
but the total production of those families is no greater than 10
percent of the manufacturer's U.S. sales. EPA requests comment on all
aspects of this retroactive use of certification credits and its likely
impact on the accuracy of the FELs determined at certification.
iii. Alternative Programs and Voluntary Recall
In the event of PLT failures, EPA prefers that handheld
manufacturers use in-use credits for past production engines and that
nonhandheld engines be recertified to a higher FEL which may require
the application of certification credits, rather than some other
alternative to recall. However, EPA is proposing that in the case of
handheld or nonhandheld engines where the manufacturer did not have and
could not obtain adequate in-use or certification credits, as
appropriate, a manufacturer could conduct a voluntary recall, if it
could show that an appropriate response rate was likely. EPA would also
consider the appropriateness of alternative projects. These projects
are essentially alternatives to recall and would be designed to provide
an environmental benefit as well as an economic incentive to the
manufacturer to produce complying engines. Guidelines for such projects
are discussed in more detail in Section IV.D.4, below. A mandatory
recall could be ordered by EPA for past production engines pursuant to
proposed Sec. 90.808 in cases where the manufacturer could not obtain
appropriate credits and was unwilling to perform an alternative project
acceptable to EPA.
iv. Suspensions and Revocations
EPA is proposing for engine families that fail production line
compliance testing, that EPA would have the authority to suspend or
revoke the certificate for that family. However, no suspension or
revocation for a family could occur before thirty days after the date
of the last test. During the thirty day period, EPA intends to work
diligently with the manufacturer, as it always has in the case of SEA
failures, to provide certification of appropriate production line
changes. Further, this notice proposes that EPA would approve or
disapprove a manufacturer's production line change within fifteen days
of receipt, or the change would be considered automatically approved.
EPA believes that these waiting periods are reasonable to afford
manufacturers and EPA sufficient time to work together to address
problems, without the concern that EPA would hastily suspend or revoke
the certificate of a family determined to be in nonconformity by a
production line testing program. EPA believes that the proposed time
frames are reasonable, and are consistent with longstanding EPA
practices in the SEA program of providing a waiting period following an
audit failure. In such failures, EPA works closely with the
manufacturer to arrive at a solution for the problem engine family.
With on-highway engines, such solutions have typically involved a
recall of engines that have already been produced along with the
recertification of the family to a new FEL, or the certification of a
replacement engine configuration. As discussed above, for small SI
engines, such solutions could involve the use of certification or in-
use credits, voluntary recalls, or other alternative remedies. EPA has
never caused an assembly line to shut down because of an audit failure
and does not intend to start such a practice where other alternatives
can be used.
d. Selective Enforcement Audits (SEA). While EPA is proposing the
CumSum manufacturer-run PLT program as the preferred production line
testing program for the Phase 2 program, EPA still sees a function for
traditional SEA and is therefore not proposing to eliminate traditional
SEA altogether. EPA is proposing that for both nonhandheld and handheld
manufacturers, SEA would remain as a ``backstop'' for EPA to use in
cases where there is evidence of improper testing procedures or
nonconformities not being addressed by the CumSum process.
As mentioned earlier, the Agency is also proposing an alternative
program under which nonhandheld manufacturers could choose not to
conduct manufacturer-run PLT program, in which case all families would
continue to be subject to an SEA program as under Phase 1. Although
currently not preferred by the Agency, EPA is considering this option
since it was included in the ANPRM and received support from the
nonhandheld industry. EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of
providing this option, and on whether it would be better to require PLT
for all families. Only one approach, either PLT with SEA as a
``backstop'', or manufacturers having the choice to use either PLT or
SEA as the primary program, will be adopted as the final rule for
nonhandheld manufacturers.
Under this alternative program, EPA is also proposing that
nonhandheld engine manufacturers be limited in their ability to switch
back and forth between PLT and SEA. Manufacturers involved in PLT would
be required to implement that approach for a minimum of three
consecutive model years and to provide EPA with notice one complete
model year prior to the model year for which they were planning to opt
out. In addition, a manufacturer would not be allowed to opt out of PLT
while carrying a negative certification credit balance. However, a
manufacturer would be allowed to opt in to PLT at any time.
Finally, where small volume engine manufacturers or small volume
engine families would be entitled to exemptions from the PLT program
under the proposal (see Section IV.E), those families would remain
subject to SEA, although EPA would be unlikely to issue test orders
without evidence of nonconformity.
In the event of an SEA failure for handheld engine manufacturers,
EPA is proposing that the option to use in-use credits or another
alternative to recall would be available to remedy past production
engines. For future production, the manufacturer would be expected to
modify the engine to come into compliance with all applicable
standards.
In the event of an SEA failure for nonhandheld engine
manufacturers, the manufacturer would have the option to adjust the FEL
for future production of the engine family. EPA would address a remedy
for the past production in the event of an SEA failure on a case-by-
base basis, seeking to both preserve the environmental benefits of the
program, maintain incentives to accurately set FELs in advance, and
minimize the burden on the industry. Such a remedy might include, for
example, a combination of measures such as mandatory PLT for
appropriate time periods and portions of production, recertification of
all or part of an engine family, and generation of credits to remedy
exceedances over an appropriate period of time. However, consistent
with past practice, EPA does not anticipate allowing the retroactive
use of certification credits to remedy past production failures
determined via
[[Page 3988]]
SEA, or the carryover of any credit deficits, as would be allowed if
the manufacturer chooses to conduct manufacturer-run PLT. Since SEA
only evaluates production line performance during a ``snap shot'' in
time and not throughout the entire production period, it would be
inappropriate to use credits generated on the basis of total annual
production to correct the SEA failure. Instead, a manufacturer would
likely be expected to recall the noncomplying family or conduct an
alternative remedy proposed by the manufacturer and accepted by EPA.
EPA requests comments on the proposed provisions related to remedies
for SEA failures.
EPA received a comment on the ANPRM that handheld manufacturers
should be permitted to elect to be subject to routine SEA testing, as
they currently are under Phase 1 emissions regulations, rather than
conducting manufacturer-run PLT. This commentor suggested that
manufacturers may desire to elect SEA for reasons of cost, confidence
in their quality control, or familiarity with SEA, and that such an
option could enhance the flexibility and reduce the cost of the PLT
process, while at the same time assuring new engine compliance with
Phase 2 emissions regulations.
EPA is not proposing routine SEA testing for handheld
manufacturers. EPA believes that a manufacturer-run PLT program such as
CumSum is a superior method of assuring that both handheld and
nonhandheld production line engines meet the standards, that testing
occurs continuously throughout the model year, and that each
configuration is susceptible to testing. In addition, PLT affords
benefits to the manufacturers of identifying problems early and
addressing them without the disruption of an EPA-initiated SEA. EPA
believes it is most useful and appropriate that manufacturers be
responsible for and bear the burden of continuously monitoring their
own emissions.
Under the production line compliance program proposed today, EPA
expects that nonhandheld manufacturers may in some cases choose SEA as
their primary production line compliance program, for cost reasons or
fear of the unknown. However, EPA believes that the downsides of the
choice of SEA as the primary production line compliance program are
potentially great for all involved. EPA believes that in choosing SEA,
the manufacturers would be foregoing an effective quality control tool
for monitoring their own production, and would risk expensive and
disruptive SEAs. In addition, EPA would not get the same coverage of
engine families in the testing process. The regulations proposed today
reflect the option, consistent with the program outlined in the ANPRM,
for nonhandheld manufacturers in some cases to choose either PLT or SEA
as the primary production line compliance program. However, EPA is also
proposing in the alternative that the nonhandheld production line
compliance program would be the same as the handheld program. That is,
the manufacturer would not have the option to choose SEA as the primary
production line compliance method. Rather, manufacturer-run PLT would
be the primary program in all cases, with SEA existing as a backstop.
Again, EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of the proposed
program which allows nonhandheld manufacturers the option to elect
routine SEA testing in lieu of PLT testing. EPA also requests comment
on the option that nonhandheld manufacturers would use only PLT as the
primary production line compliance program, with SEA existing as a
backstop, and the effectiveness of this option in providing assurance
of environmental benefits in-use, easing the implementation burden for
EPA and the industry, and achieving greater commonality in the
compliance programs for the handheld and nonhandheld sides of the small
SI engine industry.
e. Annual Limits for SEA. The Phase 1 program contains annual
limits on the number of SEAs the Agency may perform each year on a
manufacturer, based on their number of engine families and sales. The
Phase 1 annual limits serve to restrict the maximum number of audits
for most manufacturers to a quantity equal to one fifth of the number
of engine families (see 40 CFR 90.503(f)(1)). However, under the Phase
1 program, any test which the family fails or for which testing is not
completed does not count against the annual limit (see 40 CFR
90.503(f)(3)). In addition, even if the annual limit is reached, EPA
may initiate additional SEA testing to test families for which evidence
exists indicating noncompliance (see 40 CFR 90.503(f)(4)).
EPA is not proposing any changes to the Phase 1 SEA annual limit
provisions for Phase 2 except for the additional proposed provision
that EPA may initiate additional SEA testing beyond the annual limit
for families or configurations which the Administrator has reason to
believe are not being appropriately represented or tested in production
line testing (see proposed Sec. 90.503(f)(4)).
EPA also requests comment on an option, not proposed, to raise the
annual limit by one or two families for each failing audit in a given
model year in cases where manufacturers choose SEA as the primary
production line compliance program, should the regulations allow SEA as
the primary production line compliance program. While this option is
not included in the proposed regulatory text, EPA requests comment on
the potential benefits or costs of this option for a higher number of
potential routine SEAs for manufacturers who experience SEA failures.
EPA requests comment on all aspects of the proposal for annual limits
for SEAs under the proposed Phase 2 program.
f. Alternate Statistical Procedures for Production Line Testing.
Consistent with the program outlined in the March 1997 ANPRM, EPA is
proposing that manufacturers conducting manufacturer-run PLT could
propose test schemes for EPA approval on a case-by-case basis other
than the CumSum procedures described in this section and proposed in
today's notice. EPA believes that this is reasonable because there may
be situations where a single test scheme is not appropriate for a
specific engine family or company. However, EPA also believes that it
is desirable to avoid a multiplicity of testing schemes, and is
concerned about the burden this could place on the Agency if multiple
testing schemes are analyzed and developed with individual
manufacturers. This notice proposes that EPA would have the right to
review any alternate procedure to determine the ability of the
procedure to (1) produce substantially the same levels of ``producer
risk'' and ``consumer risk'' as the CumSum Procedure, i.e., the risk to
a manufacturer that a complying family would fail in PLT testing, or
the risk to the public that a failing family would pass in PLT testing;
(2) to provide for continuous rather than point-in-time sampling; and
(3) to include an appropriate decision mechanism for determining
noncompliance upon which the Administrator can suspend or revoke the
certificate of conformity. Further, it would be the requesting
manufacturer's responsibility to provide an analysis and documentation
that demonstrated the alternative satisfied these criteria. EPA would
expect to reject any alternate statical procedure that did not fully
satisfy these proposed criteria.
g. Test Procedures for PLT. EPA believes that the best way to
determine whether new engines meet certification
[[Page 3989]]
standards is to test them under the test used at certification.
Therefore, EPA is proposing that the manufacturer-run PLT program
proposed in this notice would require testing based on the full federal
test procedure as used for certification and described in Subpart E of
the attached regulations. EPA recognizes the potential need to permit
minor adjustments to the test procedure to accommodate production line
testing. Consistent with other compliance test programs for mobile
sources, the proposed regulations allow the Administrator to approve
such test procedure adjustments.
h. Harmonization of Production Line Testing with CARB. EPA is
interested in finding ways to harmonize the production line testing
requirements proposed today for Phase 2 with any production line
testing requirements manufacturers must meet for the California small
engine regulatory program. In particular, EPA would expect that data
from production line testing of a 50-state family conducted for a
California Quality Audit program could be acceptable for the CumSum
process, if the subject engines are sold nationwide and test engines
are appropriately selected and tested. EPA will also continue to work
with the California Air Resources Board to harmonize reporting formats,
and similar information needs.
3. In-use Emission Testing
EPA believes that a critical element in the success of its small SI
engine program is ensuring that manufacturers build engines that
continue to meet emission standards beyond certification and production
stages and comply with standards for their full regulatory useful
lives. Section 213(d) of the CAA specifically subjects nonroad engines
to the in-use compliance provision of section 207.49 EPA has
authority to subject manufacturers to in-use testing (conducted by the
Agency or by the manufacturer under section 208 of the Act) and to
remedy any noncompliance (for example, by recall and repair of engines)
for the full regulatory useful life of an engine. In-use compliance
enforcement has proven to be an effective incentive for manufacturers
to build emission durable motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Section 207(c) of the Act authorizes EPA to enforce
compliance by vehicles and engines to applicable standards in actual
use. Manufacturers are subject to recall ``[i]f the Administrator
determines that a substantial number of any class or category of
vehicles or engines, although properly maintained and used, do not
conform to the regulations * * * when in actual use * * *''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as discussed above in Section III, in the case of small SI
engines, EPA does not believe that a mandatory in-use compliance
program which relies on recall, for example, is likely to be as
effective and practical as it has proven to be in EPA's on-highway
programs. Small SI engines differ from motor vehicles in that they are
not registered and are therefore difficult to track so that their
owners can be notified. Many are not easily transported to a servicing
dealer for repair. The in-use programs described below are therefore
designed to provide data on in-use performance and to provide
incentives to manufacturers to produce emission-durable engines without
relying on the use of recall. While the Production Line Testing
programs described previously are very similar, the in-use programs
proposed in this notice differ significantly for the two sides of the
industry. Again, EPA requests comment on alternative in-use testing
programs, such as applying the in-use testing program proposed for
handheld engines to the nonhandheld side of the industry, as well as
applying the field durability program proposed for OHV engines to side-
valve engines, engines with aftertreatment, and/or handheld engines.
a. Nonhandheld Side-Valve Engines and Engines with Aftertreatment.
For nonhandheld side-valve engines and engines with aftertreatment, the
in-use program would consist of a certification program in which the
engines would be aged to their full useful lives during the
certification process and no certificates would be issued unless the
engine family can first be shown to meet standards (or FELs) for its
useful life, as described above in Section IV.C and Section IV.D.1. EPA
believes that a program which does not rely on in-use testing after
certification especially makes sense for Class II SV technology engines
which are expected to be phased out by 2005. In addition, EPA would
have data on SV technologies aged in the field for the field/bench
adjustment factor program; if EPA suspected serious problems with
regard to whether the emissions reductions anticipated by this rule
were in fact being achieved, EPA would address these concerns through
appropriate programmatic changes. EPA requests comment on the
appropriateness of this full useful life certification to predict the
in-use emissions durability of SV engines and engines with
aftertreatment.
b. Nonhandheld OHV Field Durability and In-use Performance
Demonstration Program. For overhead valve nonhandheld engines, the
proposed in-use program would be one whose primary function is to
verify that the industry-wide deterioration factors predicted for the
OHV engines are indeed correct. The proposed OHV field durability and
in-use performance demonstration program (``Field Durability Program'')
would generate significant quantities of emission data from engines
aged in real field usage in representative pieces of equipment. If
EPA's belief that the dfs of these engines are stable and predictable
proves to be incorrect after receiving these data, or the assigned dfs
specified in this rulemaking are significantly different than those
that occur in real field usage of Phase 2 engines, then EPA would
initiate appropriate programmatic changes through the regulatory
process.
The proposed Field Durability Program is designed to provide data
on the deterioration of OHV engines in actual field usage. EPA is
proposing that engines for the program would be selected from or placed
into service with residential or professional users. This program would
be designed to provide a representative picture of actual in-use
emissions, including representative age, maintenance, and sales mix of
engines in the field. To the extent practical, engines would be
selected from residential customers or professional users, in order to
most accurately reflect actual usage patterns such as number of cold
starts, typical maintenance patterns, and overwintering. However, EPA
would also allow engines to be selected from manufacturers' fleets,
provided the engines and their operation and maintenance are typical of
in-use engines. Each engine in the program would be baseline tested at
a number of hours equal to the break-in hours used in certification.
The engine would then be field aged in an appropriate piece of
equipment to full useful life, at which time the engine would be
removed and retested. The df would be determined mathematically from
the two test points from each engine.
Data from the OHV Field Durability and In-Use Emissions Performance
Demonstration Program would not be designed to provide a basis for EPA
to make in-use compliance determinations as to whether a particular
engine family complies with its standard or FEL at the end of its
useful life. Rather, the program is primarily designed to determine
whether, in the aggregate, the industry-average assigned dfs for OHV
engines are valid. Given the number of manufacturers expected to
produce OHV engines and participate in this program, the program would
generate meaningful volumes of real in-use data which would yield
results indicating whether assigned dfs are realistic.
[[Page 3990]]
This notice proposes that the OHV Field Demonstration Program
testing could be spread over multiple years. EPA proposes that
manufacturers provide a schedule to EPA each year of the engine
families and approximate quantities of engines they intend to produce
for U.S. sales over the coming four year period, as well as estimates
of the number of field aged engines that would be tested each year for
the field/bench adjustment program (see Section IV.C) and for
calculating dfs for OHV engines at the time of certification (see
Section IV.D.1). In addition, manufacturers may wish to recommend a
proposed testing plan for the Field Durability Program that, for
example, best fits testing into their marketing, production, test
facility and budgetary constraints. EPA would consider such information
in determining the engine families to be field tested over that time
period as part of the OHV Field Durability Program.
Manufacturers have indicated their desire to perform industry-wide
OHV Field Durability Program testing to try to reduce the number of
engines that must be field aged. EPA is proposing that it would
consider requests by manufacturers to work together when it reviews a
manufacturer's plan for engine families to be field aged. EPA will
review proposals for joint testing to evaluate how thoroughly they
cover a portion of overhead valve engine sales, whether they will
provide statistically useful quantities of data, and other factors to
help EPA ascertain whether OHV dfs from certification are accurate and
appropriate.
c. Maximum Rates for Field Tested Nonhandheld Engines. EPA believes
that emission data from real field-aged engines would serve a crucial
role in validating the use of assigned dfs, calculated dfs, and the
aging cycles used for bench-aged certification of side-valve engines.
While recognizing the importance of and need for these data, EPA is
also sensitive to the cost and testing burden associated with directing
large numbers of engines to be field aged and tested in a given year.
In today's action, EPA is proposing that in any one year the Agency
would not require field testing for the OHV Field Durability Program
such that, when added to the field testing a manufacturer performs for
the optional certification df generation or for the field/bench
adjustment program, it would require the manufacturer to emission test
more than 24 total engines that were field aged to their full useful
life. EPA believes that this number will provide important quantities
of data without placing an undue burden on manufacturers. EPA is
proposing that it would have the right to require field testing to the
maximum amount, and expects that the maximum testing may be required in
the initial years of the program. Manufacturers would have the option
to field test more engines than required by EPA. EPA anticipates it
would reduce the testing burden as appropriate, especially for smaller
manufacturers, in subsequent years should, for example, EPA determine
that the data being developed is quite stable from year to year.
The discussion of the Field Durability Program in the March 1997
ANPRM indicated EPA would provide ``appropriate delays or waivers from
the requirement of the bench correlation program in years when a
manufacturer also runs the field durability program'' (see 62 FR
14754). In the development of this proposal, EPA considered the need to
propose procedures to provide for EPA granting delays or waivers from
the requirements of the field/bench adjustment program in years when a
manufacturer also runs the OHV Field Durability Program. In today's
action, EPA is proposing no formal process by which manufacturers would
request a waiver from the requirements of the field/bench adjustment
program. EPA believes that the need for delays or waivers is obviated
by the cap on the number of fully field aged engines EPA would be able
to require to be tested in any one year.
The discussion of the Field Durability Program outlined in the
March 1997 ANPRM also suggested that EPA would propose an appropriate
scaling of the field engine test burden for smaller volume
manufacturers (see 62 FR 14754). For this proposal, EPA considered
proposing a cap on the number of field tested engines of fewer than 24
engines per year for smaller nonhandheld manufacturers by sales volume.
However, EPA believes that a scaling back of the test burden would not
be appropriate. Such a scaling would most appropriately be based on the
inability of manufacturers to sustain the costs associated with the OHV
Field Durability program; however, the ability to sustain the costs of
the program would not appear to differ significantly among
manufacturers. Therefore, EPA is proposing the same cap on the field
engine test burden for all manufacturers. EPA believes that this 24
engine per year cap is a manageable burden on the smaller volume
manufacturers as well as the larger volume manufacturers. The Agency
does not anticipate identifying families certified by manufacturers who
would qualify as small volume engine manufacturers for in-use testing,
unless there was evidence of a nonconformity (see discussion in Section
IV.E). EPA requests comment on all aspects of the applicability of a
cap to the number of field aged engines that EPA could require to be
tested in any one year.
d. In-Use Testing Program for Handheld Engines. In today's action,
EPA is proposing an in-use testing program for handheld engines similar
to that promulgated in the gasoline spark-ignition marine engine rule
(see 40 CFR Part 91, Subpart I). As in the marine rule, EPA is also
proposing an in-use credit program, as well as a number of criteria for
evaluating other alternatives to mandatory recall. Mandatory recall is
the primary remedy for noncompliance. However, as in the marine
program, EPA is interested in considering options to mandatory recall
and, if implemented, will monitor the use of these alternatives to make
sure they are as effective as anticipated. EPA believes that the
successful implementation of the in-use credits program and the other
alternatives would provide a comprehensive remedy to address in-use
emission noncompliance, as well as incentives to manufacturers to
produce emission-durable engines, without the use of recall. The
program for handheld engines proposed today differs from the gasoline
marine engine program in that the engines may be bench-aged rather than
field-aged, at the manufacturer's option, provided the manufacturer has
previously established an adjustment factor between the bench aging
cycle and field aging through the program described above at Section
IV.C. EPA requests comment on the technical requirements which would
allow bench-aged engines to represent the emission performance of
field-aged products.
i. In-use Testing for Handheld Engines
EPA is today proposing an in-use testing program for handheld
engines which would make all engine families potentially subject to
mandatory in-use testing by the manufacturer. The manufacturer would
age the test engines in the field to their full useful lives.
Alternatively, the manufacturer could choose to age the engines on a
bench cycle to their full useful lives, providing that an adjustment
factor had previously been established between the bench-aged and
field-aged results, through the procedures described above in Section
IV.C. The engines would then be emission tested for all regulated
pollutants using the full test procedure described in this proposed
rule. The number of engines per engine family tested would vary
depending on test results. Except for small volume and carry-over
engine families, the
[[Page 3991]]
minimum number of test engines would be four. For each engine that
failed any pollutant, the manufacturer would test two additional
engines, up to a maximum of ten. Small volume engine manufacturers
would begin by testing two engines, adding two more for each failing
engine up to the same maximum (see discussion of provisions for small
volume engine manufacturers and other flexibilities in Section IV.E).
Carry-over engine families would start with one engine. In the end, the
emissions for each pollutant would be averaged and the family average
compared against the appropriate standard to ascertain compliance. The
in-use testing program proposed is designed as a method to provide
adequate data on which to make compliance decisions, while allowing the
testing of families which are found to emit below standard to conclude
as expeditiously as possible.
Manufacturers would provide a schedule to EPA each year of the
engine families and approximate quantities of engines they intend to
produce for U.S. sale over the coming four year period. EPA would then
select engine families to be in-use tested by the manufacturer over
that time period or a fraction of that time period. EPA would identify
no more than 25 percent of a manufacturer's families for in-use testing
in any one year.
EPA received a comment on the ANPRM that it would be equally
effective and potentially less costly to permit engine manufacturers to
select the engine families for in-use testing. This would allow
manufacturers to schedule in-use testing to better conform to
production, marketing and budgetary constraints, and to choose their
own mixture of commercial and residential engines to test each year.
This commenter added that manufacturers could provide a testing
schedule in advance to enable EPA to raise any concerns it has with a
manufacturer's test plans.
EPA believes it is important to retain the authority to select
engine families for in-use testing that potentially show risk of higher
emissions in-use than predicted at the time of certification.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to retain the authority select the engine
families for in-use testing. However, EPA would work with manufacturers
in an attempt to schedule testing to take into account production,
marketing, test facility and budgetary constraints and would invite
manufacturers to recommend a testing program which best suits their
needs.
ii. In-Use Credit Program for Handheld Engines
As discussed above, the proposed in-use credit program for handheld
engines is designed to address in-use nonconformities of handheld
engines without the need for ordering manufacturers to conduct recalls
of nonconforming engines. A reasonable means must exist to address in-
use noncompliance that provides incentives to manufacturers to build
emission-durable engines, that can be implemented practically, that
encourages additional in-use testing, that offsets additional emissions
resulting from noncompliance, and that is not unduly burdensome. EPA
believes that the successful implementation of the proposed in-use
credit program described below could be part of a comprehensive remedy
to address in-use noncompliance, and that EPA would not, in practice,
order mandatory recall of Phase 2 engines. When a manufacturer
determines its average in-use emission levels for each pollutant, it
would compare those numbers against the applicable standards. Emission
levels below the standards could generate in-use credits. Emission
levels above the standard would require the use of in-use credits. The
credit formula as proposed here would be a function of the sales of the
engine family, the difference between the family emission average and
the applicable standard, the power rating of the engine, load factor,
and the useful life of the engine.
In-use credits could be used to remedy emission exceedances of
previously produced engines determined to be in nonconformity by in-use
testing, production line testing or SEA failures. They would not be
useable in handheld certification, and they would not be transferrable
to nonhandheld engines, due to the considerable differences between the
handheld and nonhandheld programs. Unlike certification credits for
nonhandheld engines, they would not be useable for offsetting the high
emissions from prospective production of an engine family following a
PLT or SEA failure. In such cases, the manufacturer would be required
to make a product change to improve emission performance of future
production.
EPA is proposing that these in-use credits could be used at any
time during the Phase 2 program, and that any future rulemaking
concerning Phase 3 standards would address the use of the Phase 2
credits in Phase 3. EPA believes this unlimited life for in-use credits
during the Phase 2 handheld program is justified since, if an engine
demonstrates that it can remain under standards for its full useful
life, then an environmental benefit has occurred and the manufacturer
is entitled to that benefit for later use. However, unlimited life is
not being extended beyond the Phase 2 program at this point, given the
concern that Phase 2 credits could be used to effectively delay the
implementation date of any Phase 3 standards. EPA requests comments on
all aspects of credit life for in-use credits in the handheld in-use
credits program.
A manufacturer could use in-use credits to average against in-use
failures identified in that model year's testing. It could bank the
credits for use in a later model year or trade the credits to another
manufacturer. Manufacturers could test additional families and would
generate or require additional credits according to that testing.
However, the manufacturer would be required to report all in-use
testing to EPA, including any test engines that were deleted from the
aging process or testing process, and to provide to EPA a technical
justification to support the deletion.
No restrictions are proposed on the application of in-use credits
from one handheld engine class to another. EPA is not aware of any
environmental or competitive concerns with allowing unrestricted use of
in-use credits across handheld engine classes. EPA requests comments on
the need for cross-class averaging restrictions, and the impact of
having or not having them.
EPA is also proposing an adjustment factor to increase credits
earned as the in-use testing sample size increases, similar to the
program promulgated for the gasoline marine engine rule (see 40 CFR
91.1307). The proposal for an adjustment factor is reasonable because
EPA's statistical certainty of the sample mean generally will increase
with sample size.
In addition, EPA is proposing a provision that would require
manufacturers to apply in-use test results to two past and one future
model year when the engine family being tested meets the carryover
criteria for those model years. EPA contemplates that manufacturers
would not make frequent significant changes to engine families and that
carryover certification would be common. Essentially, under this
provision, the test results from one model year could apply to up to
four model years; the one subject to testing, the two previous model
years and the next model year. In-use credits would be generated or
required, as appropriate. EPA requests comment on the
[[Page 3992]]
appropriateness of and the need for these provisions.
The handheld in-use credit program is meant, in part, to obviate
the need to resort to a traditional recall program, and the Agency
wants to ensure that this alternative program, or any other
alternatives considered, provide incentives to manufacturers to design
engine configurations that will comply with standards for their entire
useful lives. EPA believes that manufacturers should make every effort
to prove out their designs prior to certification so that in-use
nonconformities will not occur. Therefore, this notice proposes that
credits be discounted by 10 percent before they are used. This would
require a manufacturer to obtain or generate credits sufficient to
offset 110 percent of the emissions from a family found to be in
noncompliance. This discount is consistent with that applied to in-use
credits in the gasoline marine rule. Comment is requested on the
appropriateness of such discounting and on the appropriate size of the
discount.
4. Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives to Mandatory Recall
This proposal contemplates that for handheld engines, in-use
credits would be the primary method of addressing emission
nonconformities determined through in-use testing or production line
testing, whether through the use of credits banked or averaged, or
credits purchased through available sources. For nonhandheld engines,
EPA is proposing that in some cases, the use of certification credits
would be allowed as a method of addressing emission exceedances
determined through production line testing (as discussed above in
Section IV.D.2).
However, EPA is also proposing that manufacturers have available
alternatives to using in-use credits or certification credits, if they
lack sufficient credits and are unable to obtain them, that would still
avoid necessitating an order for mandatory recall. One such alternative
could be for the manufacturer to conduct a voluntary recall. However,
EPA would consider other alternatives as well. This proposal contains a
number of criteria for evaluating alternatives to determine whether
they meet the goals of addressing the environmental impact of the in-
use problem while providing incentives to the manufacturer to produce
emission-durable engines. EPA intends to allow a manufacturer to
implement a reasonable alternative that met these criteria prior to
making a determination of substantial nonconformity under section 207
of the Act.
In evaluating alternatives to mandatory recall, EPA would consider
alternatives which (1) represent a new initiative that the manufacturer
was not otherwise planning to perform at that time and that has a nexus
to the emission problem demonstrated by the subject engine family; (2)
cost substantially more than foregone compliance costs and consider the
time value of the foregone compliance costs and the foregone
environmental benefit of the subject family; (3) offset at least 100
percent of the exceedance of the standard; and (4) are able to be
implemented effectively and expeditiously and completed in a reasonable
time.
These proposed criteria would function as ground rules for
evaluating projects to determine whether their nature and burden is
appropriate to remedy the environmental impact of the nonconformity
while providing assurance to the manufacturer that EPA would not
require excessive projects.
In addition to being evaluated according to the above criteria, EPA
is proposing that alternatives would be subject to a cost cap, as
contemplated by the proposal for handheld engines in the March 1997
ANPRM. EPA proposes a cost cap of 75 percent above and beyond the
foregone costs adjusted to present value, provided the manufacturer can
appropriately itemize and justify these costs. EPA believes that this
is an appropriate value which is both ``substantial'' and sufficient to
encourage manufacturers to produce emission durable engines and
maintain positive in-use credit balances.
In deciding what cost cap to propose, EPA believes a figure of 75
percent more than the foregone costs adjusted to present value is
consistent with and informed by the principles inherent in the criteria
for evaluating alternatives to recall. For example, criterion (2) would
require that the alternative must cost substantially more than the
costs the manufacturer was able to forego by producing a nondurable
engine, and consider the time value of those foregone costs.
EPA believes that manufacturers should prove out the in-use
durability of their designs carefully before certification and desires
to set the cost cap for alternative projects high enough that
manufacturers will take measures to carefully evaluate in-use
durability before certification and to bank and maintain substantial
in-use credits to handle an unforeseen problem. EPA believes that a
cost cap which would merely measure the foregone costs, and adjust them
to their present value would not provide the appropriate incentive,
because the manufacturer would ``break even'' and may become
indifferent between assuring in-use durability up front and addressing
it only when durability problems are detected.
EPA is proposing in this rule that in-use credits be discounted by
10 percent when they are used. If in-use credits are marketed freely
and their price is determined by what it costs to generate them, a
manufacturer would pay at least 10 percent more than it cost another
manufacturer to comply with the standards and generate the credits.
This suggests that the minimum figure for the cap should be at least 10
percent of the failing manufacturer's foregone costs, after those costs
have been adjusted to the present value. Given that under the proposal
no more than one fourth of a manufacturer's families would be subject
to in-use testing in a given year, a manufacturer that produces a non-
durable, non-carryover family has at most a 25 percent chance that EPA
would be aware that such a non-durable family was being produced. A
reasonable individual might risk a 10 percent cost penalty if the risk
of actually having to pay it was never more than 25 percent. EPA can
not estimate the savings a manufacturer may reap by building a non-
durable engine, and therefore can not compute the expected value of the
savings when the 25 percent risk factor is added in.
EPA believes a figure of 75 percent more than the foregone costs
adjusted to present value would be both ``substantial'' and sufficient
to encourage manufacturers to produce emission durable engines and
maintain positive in-use credit balances. EPA notes that these projects
are alternatives to recall and that a recall with a response rate
similar to those in the motor vehicle program would likely have a much
higher cost than would be permitted under a 75 percent cap. EPA
considered proposing that the cap be tied to the cost of purchasing in-
use credits on the open market, but is concerned that these
alternatives would be needed when there are no in-use credits available
for sale. Further, based on EPA experience with other ABT programs,
there is no guarantee that routine sales of credits would ever occur.
EPA requests comment on the appropriate cap and the appropriate
methodology for determining the cap, and the difficulties that could be
faced in trying to ascertain foregone costs.
E. Flexibilities
This section addresses a variety of flexibilities proposed today to
ease the transition from the Phase 1 to the Phase 2 program, to ensure
that the Phase 2
[[Page 3993]]
standards are cost-efficient and achievable, and to reduce the
compliance burden while maintaining the environmental benefits of the
rule. Following an overview of the approach to providing compliance
flexibilities, and a discussion of the proposed cutoffs for determining
whether a manufacturer, an engine family, or an equipment model would
qualify for the flexibilities proposed today, this section describes
the flexibility provisions proposed today, including general
flexibilities, phase-in flexibilities, flexibilities to address the
concerns of small volume engine manufacturers, flexibilities to address
the concerns of small volume equipment manufacturers, and provisions to
encourage engine availability. While some of these flexibilities may
overlap, EPA is proposing these flexibilities as a means to reduce the
compliance costs of the proposed rule for those that can least afford
them, while maintaining the environmental benefits of the proposed rule
and adopting the most stringent emissions standards achievable. EPA
requests comment on the proposed flexibilities individually and as a
whole.
1. Overview of Approach to Providing Compliance Flexibilities
In this proposal, EPA has attempted to facilitate compliance by
creating provisions that help avoid unnecessary hardship for engine and
equipment manufacturers but that still achieve the desired
environmental benefits. EPA believes that these provisions will help to
avoid disruption of supplies of engines needed by equipment
manufacturers and will enable both engine and equipment manufacturers
to more easily and economically make the transition from Phase 1 to
Phase 2. These provisions will also help ensure that the stringent
standards proposed in the rule are achievable with technology that will
be available during the Phase 2 time frame.
Some engine manufacturers have expressed concern that the Phase 2
program might be too burdensome for engine families with small volume
production or for small volume manufacturers. These manufacturers have
stated that, without some kind of relief, these burdens will lead them
to stop producing certain engines rather than bear the additional
costs. The engines most likely to be affected are special engines
designed for niche markets. For these markets, there could be
significant consequences to equipment manufacturers and operators if
production of special engines were to cease. To address these concerns,
EPA is proposing several compliance flexibilities intended especially
to reduce the compliance burden on small volume products or small
volume engine or equipment manufacturers.
2. Proposed Production Volume Cutoffs
EPA has developed proposed cutoffs to determine whether a
manufacturer or engine/equipment family would qualify for the
flexibilities proposed today. These cutoffs are described here, with a
more detailed discussion in Chapter 9 of the Draft RSD. EPA decided not
to propose the Small Business Administration's definition of ``small
business'' as the criterion for a manufacturer to qualify for the
proposed flexibilities (the SBA definition is either 500 or 1000
employees, depending on the SIC code of the industry). This is because,
of 15 engine manufacturers qualifying as ``small business'' by the SBA
definition, at least three produce large volumes of engines, between
75,000 and 700,000 units, and have very high annual income. EPA
believes these companies will not experience significant burdens in
complying with the proposed Phase 2 program. Instead, EPA is proposing
the following production volume cutoffs 50 for qualifying
for the flexibilities proposed today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Annual production volume of U.S. sales, as defined by these
proposed regulations. Note that the vast majority of ``small''
manufacturers together produce a very small fraction of the engines;
a few very large manufacturers produce the large majority of the
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, nonhandheld engine manufacturers would be considered ``small
volume engine manufacturers'' when their total annual production is
10,000 units or less; handheld engine manufacturers would be considered
``small volume engine manufacturers'' when their total annual
production is 25,000 units or less. While over 50 percent of the
nonhandheld engine manufacturers, and up to 30 percent of the handheld
engine manufacturers could qualify under this proposed cutoff, fewer
than 1 percent of the engines sold in the U.S. would be covered by
these cutoffs.
Second, nonhandheld small volume engine families would be those
families of 1000 units of less; handheld small volume engine families
would be those families of 2,500 units or less. These proposed
thresholds were selected as high enough to include approximately 30
percent of the engine families in each category, while low enough to
account for less than 1 percent of the engines sold. At these levels,
EPA believes a reasonable amount of flexibility could be provided to a
significant number of manufacturers without undue risk of loss in
emission control. In comments to the ANPRM, PPEMA has recommended
10,000 units or less as a definition for small volume handheld
families. Since this definition will impact the number of engines
families within a manufacturer that could be exempt from PLT testing,
EPA is uncertain as to why a larger sales volume cut-off is both
appropriate from an enforcement perspective and of particular benefit
to the manufacturer. EPA requests information on the necessity for
expanding its small volume engine family definition to include larger
volume family sales such as recommended by PPEMA (and a comparable
volume for nonhandheld engine families), especially regarding the cost
benefit to specific individual manufacturers, and the impact such a
higher number would have on the confidence EPA would have that its PLT
compliance program adequately evaluates the emission performance of the
manufacturer's production.
Third, equipment manufacturers using nonhandheld engines would be
considered ``small volume equipment manufacturers'' when their total
annual output across all models is 2500 units or less; equipment
manufacturers using handheld engines would be considered ``small volume
equipment manufacturers'' when their total annual output across all
models is 5000 units or less. Again, while over 80 percent of the
nonhandheld equipment manufacturers, and up to 67 percent of the
handheld equipment manufacturers could qualify under this proposed
cutoff, fewer than 2 percent of the nonhandheld engines and 1 percent
of the handheld engines sold in the U.S. would be covered under these
thresholds.
Finally, equipment models using nonhandheld engines would be
considered ``small volume equipment models'' when 500 or fewer units
are produced per year; equipment models using handheld engines would be
considered ``small volume equipment models'' when 2500 or fewer units
are produced per year. On the nonhandheld side up to 3 percent of the
equipment sold in the U.S. would be considered small volume equipment
models. On the handheld side, up to 3.5 percent of the equipment sold
in the U.S. would be considered small volume equipment models.
3. General Flexibilities
The program proposed today contains several general provisions
intended to facilitate compliance for engine manufacturers. One
proposed flexibility, available to both handheld and
[[Page 3994]]
nonhandheld engine manufacturers, is the ability to carry-over
certification from one year to the next. This would reduce
certification costs after the first year for those engines using
technology that does not change significantly from year to year.
In addition, today's proposal contains two sets of proposed
standard structure flexibilities which differ for handheld and
nonhandheld engine manufacturers. For handheld engine manufacturers,
the standards proposed in today's rule would be phased in, on a
percentage of sales basis, which would facilitate compliance by
allowing a manufacturer to spread initial compliance costs out over
several years. It would also provide an opportunity for engine
manufacturers to continue to supply Phase 1 engines to various
equipment manufacturers, including the small volume equipment
manufacturers that would also benefit from the special flexibilities
described below.
For nonhandheld engine manufacturers, a declining corporate average
standard for Class II nonhandheld engines would achieve those same
goals. In addition, nonhandheld engine manufacturers would benefit from
the certification averaging, banking, and trading program, which would
help reduce compliance costs by allowing manufacturers to meet the
standards with the most cost-effective technologies. Today's proposal
would also allow manufacturers of nonhandheld overhead valve engines to
use an assigned deterioration factor for nonhandheld overhead valve
engines, further easing the compliance burden by reducing the number of
tests needed to determine compliance.
For equipment manufacturers, EPA is proposing that the current
provisions of 40 CFR 90.1003(b)(4) applicable for the transition from
uncontrolled to Phase 1 emission regulations would also apply in
concept during the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Under today's
proposal, equipment manufacturers would be allowed to continue to use
Phase 1 engines until their stocks of engines are depleted, provided
they do not engage in ``stockpiling'' (i.e., build up of an inventory
of engines outside of normal business practices).
4. Phase-In Flexibilities
In addition to these general flexibilities, EPA is proposing two
other provisions that would be applicable to all manufacturers of
certain kinds of nonhandheld engines to ease compliance during the
phase-in of the standards and ensure their achievability. First,
because manufacturers' testing capacities may be substantially
constrained during the transition to fully-phased-in standards, EPA is
proposing to allow manufacturers of Class II OHV nonhandheld engines
who elect not to use assigned dfs to use good engineering judgment to
establish deterioration factors for the 500 and 1000 hour useful life
categories during the phase-in of the 12.1 g/kW-hr Class II standard,
subject to the approval of the Administrator. Recognizing the need to
verify deterioration factors established based on good engineering
judgment, EPA is proposing that, beginning in 2006, the Administrator
may direct manufacturers to verify such deterioration factors using the
same process as that for calculating deterioration factors described in
Section IV.D.1 above (i.e, aging at least three engines in the field
and calculating the deterioration factor based on the average of the
test data). EPA is also proposing that the manufacturer would be
allowed to offset any emission shortfalls resulting from a low
deterioration factor through the use of certification credits (see
discussion, Section IV.A.5) or other compensating measures approved by
the Administrator.
Second, EPA is proposing an additional flexibility for
manufacturers of Class II nonhandheld engines that use side-valve
technology engines or engines with aftertreatment. During the
transition to the Phase 2 standards, for engines which the manufacturer
commits to cease production by the end of the 2004 model year,
manufacturers would have the option to age engines for less than their
full useful lives and extrapolate the deterioration factor to the full
useful life using good engineering judgment.51 Again,
demonstration of such good engineering judgment would need to be made
to the satisfaction of the Administrator. For the engine families which
the manufacturer commits to phase out, engines certified to 250 hours
could be aged for 120 hours, engines certified to 500 hours could be
aged to 250 hours, and engines certified to 1000 hours could be aged to
500 hours. This flexibility, like the previous one, is intended to
reduce the testing burden during the phase-in of the 12.1 g/kW-hr
standard. However, EPA is not proposing to extend this flexibility to
Class II engines which the manufacturer does not commit to cease
production. In essence, this flexibility is designed to reduce the
compliance burden at the start of the program for engines that are to
be phased out, and thus to allow manufacturer to focus their resources
on transitioning to engines that will meet the 2005 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ As described in Section IV.D.1 of this preamble, Class II
side-valve engines and engines with aftertreatment would be able to
certify through a bench aging certification program, provided that a
field/bench adjustment factor had been established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Flexibilities for Small Volume Engine Manufacturers and Small Volume
Engine Families
EPA is proposing five compliance flexibilities to ensure the
achievability of the standards and reduce the compliance burden on
small volume engine manufacturers and small volume engine families, as
follows.
First, small volume engine manufacturers could opt out of mandatory
production line testing. This option would apply only to nonhandheld
engine manufacturers with a total annual production of 10,000 engines
or less and to handheld engine manufacturers with a total annual
production of 25,000 engines or less. These engines would be subject to
SEA testing. However, EPA anticipates little such testing unless it
receives evidence of nonconformities or other problems.
Second, manufacturers of small volume nonhandheld engine families
(those with total annual production of 1000 engines or less) and
manufacturers of small volume nonhandheld engine families (those with
total annual production of 2500 engines or less) could opt out of
mandatory production line testing for those engine families. As above,
these engines would remain subject to SEA testing, which would likely
only occur if EPA had evidence of nonconformity.
Third, manufacturers of very clean engine families, that is, those
whose HC+NOX certification levels are at least 50 percent
below the standard (or FEL, if applicable) could also opt out of
mandatory production line testing for those families. These engines
would also be subject to SEA testing, although EPA sees little
likelihood of conducting SEAs on engines certified substantially below
the standard (or FEL). EPA seeks comment on the margin below the
standard (or FEL) necessary to qualify for this exemption.
Fourth, small volume Class II side-valve technology engine families
(whose annual production is 1,000 engines or less) would be allowed to
meet an HC+NOX standard of 24 g/kW-hr, which represents the
Phase 1 standard adjusted for deterioration. Note that these families
could also opt out of mandatory production line testing, consistent
with provision 2 above. This flexibility is intended to ensure that
manufacturers can continue to produce these small
[[Page 3995]]
volume engines, many of which are used in niche-market specialty
equipment.
Fifth, small volume engine manufacturers could defer compliance
with Phase 2 handheld requirements and Class II nonhandheld standards
until the last year of the phase in. For handheld engines, this would
mean that the engine manufacturer could, at its option, produce Phase 1
engines exclusively through the 2004 model year, with full Phase 2
compliance required in 2005. For nonhandheld Class II engines, the
engines would be subject to the Phase 2 requirements beginning in 2001,
but would not have to comply with the actual Phase 2 corporate average
standards until the 2005 model year. These manufacturers could certify
Class II engines to a standard of 24 g/kW-hr through 2004. These
engines would neither use nor generate certification credits. If a
small volume engine manufacturer desired to generate credits prior to
the 2005 model year, it could do so for those engines certified below
the applicable corporate average emission standard. Note that,
consistent with the first provision above, these families would not
have to be tested under mandatory production line testing. This
flexibility is intended to provide another mechanism to reduce impact
on small volume engine manufacturers and help ensure that manufacturers
can continue to produce engines for specialty equipment.
EPA is not proposing to specifically exempt from in-use testing any
group of engines to which in-use testing requirements are applicable
based on the group's or the manufacturer's size. The Agency believes
that all engines should meet their standards (or FELs, as applicable)
for their full useful life and that manufacturers should design engines
to be emission durable. It is therefore appropriate that all engines to
which in-use testing or demonstration requirements are applicable be
subject to in-use testing. However, under this proposal, the choice of
engines which would require in-use testing or demonstration is EPA's.
EPA would not be inclined to identify for mandatory in-use testing a
very small volume engine family or a family certified by a very small
company unless there was evidence of a nonconformity. EPA requests
comment on the appropriateness of this position.
6. Flexibilities for Small Volume Equipment Manufacturers and Small
Volume Equipment Models
Several equipment manufacturers who do not make their own engines
have expressed concern that the transition to the Phase 2 program may
disrupt their production because engine suppliers do not always provide
adequate lead time for equipment redesigns needed to accommodate engine
design changes. Engine changes could affect mounting and connection
locations, heat rejection loads, and engine compartment requirements,
for example. In addition, some equipment manufacturers cannot implement
equipment design changes quickly, even with timely information from
manufacturers because of the sheer volume of redesign work needed to
change diverse product offerings with limited engineering staffs.
EPA believes that the engine manufacturer flexibilities described
above will extend the availability of engines currently used by small
volume equipment manufacturers and will help ease the transition from
Phase 1 to Phase 2 for those entities. However, to respond more
directly to concerns raised by equipment manufacturers, EPA is
proposing three compliance flexibilities to help enable equipment
manufacturers to make the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 engines.
First, EPA is proposing to temporarily exempt small volume
equipment manufacturers from the requirement to use Phase 2 engines in
cases where no Phase 2 engines with appropriate physical and
performance characteristics are available to fit existing equipment
models. This exemption would apply to those equipment manufacturers
whose annual output across all models uses 2500 or fewer nonhandheld
engines, or 5000 or fewer handheld engines, and would last through the
third year after the last applicable phase-in date for that class of
engines. Thus, for example, small volume equipment manufacturers who
use Class II nonhandheld engines in an existing piece of equipment
could continue using Phase 1 engines through the end of the 2008 model
year, in cases where no suitable Phase 2 engines are available to fit
existing equipment models.
Second, EPA is proposing to delay the impact of the Phase 2
requirements on individual small volume equipment models in cases where
no suitable Phase 2 engines are available to fit existing equipment
models. A small volume model, as proposed, is one with 500 or less
units produced per year for nonhandheld equipment, and 2500 or fewer
units produced per year for handheld equipment. These small volume
models could continue to use Phase 1 engines throughout Phase 2, except
as discussed below. EPA is proposing that this exemption would be
allowed only for those equipment models in which a certified Phase 2
engine will not fit, and would apply only to models in production prior
to the effective date of the Phase 2 standards. This is to avoid
encouraging manufacturers to bring out new models designed to use Phase
1 engines after the Phase 2 standards have gone into effect. This
exemption would also apply only so long as the equipment is not
significantly modified. EPA believes that if the equipment manufacturer
takes steps to significantly redesign a particular model, the use of a
Phase 2 engine should be included. Finally, this exemption could apply
only through the applicability of the Phase 2 program. EPA seeks
comments on each of these restrictions, especially with regard to how
they would affect equipment manufacturers who might incur a significant
change in the cost of the engine if they were required to switch to a
Phase 2 engine as the result of a significant model redesign.
Finally, EPA is proposing a hardship relief provision by which any
equipment manufacturer could obtain relief to continue using Phase 1
engines, by demonstrating to the Administrator's satisfaction that,
despite its best efforts, the manufacturer cannot meet the
implementation dates without incurring substantial economic hardship,
even with the transition flexibilities described above, due to
unforeseeable factors beyond the equipment manufacturer's control. Such
a situation may occur if an engine supplier were to change or drop an
engine model very late in the implementation process. The intent of
this provision is to recognize the concerns of equipment manufacturers
about the uncertainty of timely supply of engines that meet equipment
requirements by providing fair, objective criteria for hardship appeal
that minimize the potential loss in environmental benefit, minimize the
Agency's involvement in the financial affairs of the affected equipment
manufacturer, and avoids straining the Agency's resources.
As proposed, this hardship relief provision would require requests
to be made in writing, submitted before the earliest date of
noncompliance, include evidence that failure to comply was
unforeseeable and was not the fault of the equipment manufacturer (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
[[Page 3996]]
before granting further relief, and would limit the period of relief to
no more than one year. Furthermore, the Agency proposes that
applications for hardship relief could only be submitted through the
first year after the last effective date of the phase-in period. EPA
seeks comment on all aspects of this flexibility provision and on
whether the Agency should require those who receive relief to cover
some of the lost environmental benefit, such as purchasing lower
emitting engines.
7. Engine Availability
EPA recognizes that the above-described equipment manufacturer
flexibility provisions are of little use if Phase 1 engines are not
available. Therefore, to help ensure availability of Phase 1 engines
necessary for the above relief provisions to have full effect, EPA is
proposing that engine manufacturers be allowed to build and sell the
engines needed to meet the market demand created by these
flexibilities. Specifically, EPA is proposing to continue to apply the
Phase 1 compliance provisions to these engines. Thus, these Phase 1
engines would not be subject to Phase 2 useful life, production line
testing or in-use demonstration requirements contained in today's
program, since Phase 1 engines are not currently subject to those
provisions. EPA desires to minimize any disincentives that engine
manufacturers may have to producing these engines for small volume
equipment users and is therefore proposing that these engines would be
counted only to the extent necessary to determine the availability of
the specific flexibility item that was being applied. These engines
would not count in any other calculation of compliance with phase in
requirements or against any other ceilings or limits proposed in this
rule. These engines would not be required to use any emission credits
nor would they be permitted to generate any such credits.
However, to prevent abuse of the ability to continue to produce
Phase 1 engines, EPA believes it is necessary to impose some
restrictions on the continued manufacture and sale of those engines.
Therefore, EPA is proposing that equipment manufacturers procuring
engines for use under the flexibility programs described above 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 to EPA records on the engines manufactured in support
of the equipment manufacturer flexibilities described above, or whether
EPA should rely on equipment manufacturer records.
F. Nonregulatory Programs
The following is a description of three nonregulatory programs
which, though outside of the scope of the regulation, could yield
important environmental benefits from the small SI engine sector. The
first program is a voluntary incentive and recognition program for low-
emitting nonhandheld and handheld engines, which would take the form of
a ``green labeling'' program to identify engines which have emissions
significantly lower than required by the proposed standards. The second
program is a voluntary fuel spillage reduction program for nonhandheld
and handheld engines. The third program is a particulate matter (PM)
and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) testing program for handheld engines.
These programs are described in the remainder of this section.
1. Voluntary ``Green'' Labeling Program
EPA is very interested in encouraging the design, production, and
sale of small engines which are substantially cleaner than would be
required by today's proposed Phase 2 programs. EPA plans to implement a
voluntary program which would include consumer labeling of engines and
equipment with superior emission performance as a way of providing
public recognition and also allowing consumers to easily determine
which engines have especially clean emission performance. At this time,
EPA is considering a threshold of around 50 percent of the proposed
standard (e.g., around 12.5 g/kW-hr for Class I engines) as the level
below which engines would qualify for ``green'' labeling. To develop
the details of such a program, the Agency requests comment on all
aspects of the program, including the threshold for determining a
``green'' engine, whether the sales weighted certification level after
dfs are applied should be used to establish the eligibility of an
engine family, the design of and information to be included on the
label, and other matters relevant to the successful implementation of
the program. The Agency requests comment on program recommendations as
part of today's proposal. In particular, the Agency seeks information
on when such a program must be in place to effectively impact the sale
of especially clean Phase 2 engines. The Agency is interested in
working closely with consumer groups, engine and equipment
manufacturers and others with an interest in making this program work.
The Agency invites comment on the interest of any of these groups in
working with the Agency to develop and implement this program.
2. Voluntary Fuel Spillage and Evaporative Emission Reduction Program
EPA is planning to develop a voluntary fuel spillage and
evaporative emission reduction program specifically for the small
engine industry and its customers. While this program would not impose
enforceable requirements on engine manufacturers subject to this
rulemaking, it is important to reduce fuel spillage and other sources
of evaporative emissions. Every year, millions of gallons of gasoline
are lost during refueling. It is estimated that if a few ounces are
spilled during each refueling of lawn and garden equipment, they would
total about 17 million gallons of gasoline, most of which evaporates
into the air to contribute to the ground-level ozone problems. To
reduce and prevent this pollution, a variety of measures will be
needed, most involving increased public awareness and education.
The Agency believes it is appropriate to develop and implement a
program targeted at the small SI industry and its customers to
encourage public awareness and act as an incentive for technology
investments. The Agency is interested in a voluntary partnership
program which would involve EPA, engine manufacturers and equipment
manufacturers, regional, state, and local air pollution agencies,
health and environmental organizations, fuel container manufacturers,
and other interested parties who would all contribute to the successful
development and implementation of a voluntary fuel spillage and
evaporative emission reduction program.
While the design of such a program will benefit from the thoughtful
input of all partners, the program would likely encourage the
development of technology that will assist equipment users in reducing
spills and evaporative emissions, provide recognition for implementing
technology developments that will assist equipment users in reducing
spills, and provide education and training to commercial operators of
equipment and to those persons who influence individuals doing the
refueling (such as equipment sales staff or small engine course
instructors), and similar target audiences.
Initial steps in this program involve identifying interested
partners and convening a meeting to discuss the roles and
responsibilities of each partner. The Agency seeks comment on the
proposed voluntary partnership program, interest
[[Page 3997]]
in participating in this partnership, appropriate strategies and target
audiences, and other matters pertinent to establishing this program.
3. Particulate Matter and Hazardous Air Pollutant Testing Program for
Handheld Engines
While section 213(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act allows EPA to
establish standards for nonroad emissions of any air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,
today's notice does not propose to establish emission standards in
Phase 2 for particulate matter (PM) or non-hydrocarbon hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) listed under section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
However, EPA and other parties have agreed that a PM and HAP test
program will be conducted (see 62 FR 14746). The Portable Power
Equipment manufacturers Association (PPEMA), in cooperation with EPA,
will conduct a test program to evaluate and quantify emissions of PM
and HAP including, but not limited to, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
benzene, toluene, and 1,3 butadiene. EPA anticipates that testing will
be conducted on Phase 2 technology handheld engines, with a sufficient
magnitude of engines tested to represent the range of new basic
technologies used to comply with Phase 2 small engine standards. EPA
expects that the information generated by this program will be useful
in informing any future implementation of section 213(a)(4) regarding
small SI engines.
G. General Provisions
This section includes a description of certain other general
provisions proposed in today's notice, including provisions related to
annual production period flexibilities during the transition to Phase
2, the definition of handheld engines, a small displacement nonhandheld
engine class, propane fueled indoor power equipment, dealer
responsibility, engines used in recreational vehicles, engines used in
rescue and emergency equipment, and replacement engines.
1. Model Year Definition and Annual Production Period Flexibilities
During Transition to Phase 2
The programs for nonhandheld and handheld engines proposed today
would be effective beginning with the 2001 and 2002 model years,
respectively. EPA is not proposing to change the Phase 1 definition of
model year for Phase 2. That is, model year (MY) would continue to mean
the manufacturer's annual new model production period which includes
January 1 of the calendar year, ends no later than December 31 of the
calendar year, and does not begin earlier than January 2 of the
previous calendar year. When a manufacturer has no annual new model
production period, model year would mean calendar year (see 40 CFR
90.3). Under no circumstances would the model year definition be
allowed to be interpreted to let existing models ``skip'' annual
certification by pulling ahead the production of every other model
year.
In addition, in order to provide additional lead time for the
implementation of the program for nonhandheld engines, EPA is proposing
to adopt similar flexibilities for the beginning of the Phase 2 program
for nonhandheld engines as were available for the Phase 1 program (see
40 CFR 90.106 (a) and (b)). Thus, for the start up of Phase 2, EPA is
proposing that every manufacturer of new nonhandheld engines produced
during or after model year 2001 would be required to certify those
engines to the Phase 2 program requirements. Nonhandheld engines
manufactured during an annual production period beginning prior to
September 1, 2000, would be allowed to certify to Phase 1 standards.
However, annual production periods beginning prior to September 1,
2000, would not be allowed to exceed 12 months in length. In effect,
all nonhandheld engine families would be required to be certified to
the Phase 2 program by September 1, 2001. EPA is not proposing this
provision for handheld engines, which have both a later effective date
as well as a phase-in of the Phase 2 program based on percentage of
engine sales. EPA requests comment on whether similar provisions for
handheld engines should be adopted (except that in the case of handheld
engines, September 1 of each year would be the date that the percentage
of engine sales requirements for Phase 2 certification would have to be
met). EPA requests comments on all aspects of these provisions relating
to annual production periods in the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2
certified engines.
2. Definition of Handheld Engines
EPA is not proposing any changes to the criteria listed in Phase 1
used to determine whether engines could be classed as Class III, IV or
V. For Phase 2, EPA would continue to make determinations of
applicability of the Class III, IV, or V standards based on the
criteria found at 40 CFR 90.103(a)(2). During Phase 1, the
multipositional use criterion has been used by EPA to make handheld
determinations for certain two-person earth augurs, breakers and
rammers, and power shovels. In each case, the manufacturer presented
evidence to the satisfaction of the Agency demonstrating the
multipositional use of the equipment, and provided a discussion of any
constraints on engine design imposed by the usage of the equipment. The
interpretation of multipositional use by EPA has been made relative to
the equipment category and the technology available to meet the
constraints imposed by the usage of the equipment.
EPA received comment on the ANPRM that EPA should revise the
definition of handheld.52 This commenter suggests that the
Phase 1 definition of handheld restricts the replacement of 2-strokes
by significantly cleaner 4-stroke engines, making it difficult to
introduce a significantly cleaner engine for a product application.
This commenter suggests that a different handheld definition and
interpretation would improve the environment and permit the continued
use of necessary products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See comments from Honda, Item #II-D-07 in EPA Air Docket A-
96-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that the current interpretation of criteria used to
determine applicability of Class III, IV and V standards addresses this
concern. Provided the 4-stroke engines are capable of performing the
same intended functions as 2-stroke engines used in similar handheld
applications, then EPA would likely determine that the 4-stroke engine
also meets the criteria for applicability of the Class III, IV or V
standards.
3. Small Displacement Nonhandheld Engine Class
EPA has considered whether there is a need for changes or additions
to the five classes of small SI engines for regulatory purposes. In
particular, the Agency has considered whether there is a need for
addition of a new, small displacement class that would be considered
``nonhandheld.'' In comments on the ANPRM, one commenter specifically
requested EPA to consider proposing a new class, as follows: the new
class would be nonhandheld engines with displacements less than 75cc,
and be subject to an in-use standard of 72.4 g/kW-hr with useful life
categories of 125 hours and 250 hours. The commenter believes a new
class for nonhandheld is needed for several reasons. The commenter
believes the existing Phase 1 standards did not contemplate small
displacement nonhandheld engines, yet the Phase 1 rule left a void in
the market
[[Page 3998]]
which could be filled by small displacement nonhandheld engines. The
commenter believes the Phase 1 standards prevented less than 75 cc 2-
stroke engines from being certified into some nonhandheld applications
which utilize small displacement engines, but that the proposed Phase 2
Class I standard is too stringent for less than 75 cc 4-strokes to
meet.
The Agency is not proposing the addition of a new small
displacement nonhandheld class. The Agency believes that the proposed
Class I standard, which can be met through averaging, will allow a full
range of small displacement nonhandheld engines to certify to the
proposed Phase 2 standards. If the proposed Class I standard can be met
through averaging, the creation of a new displacement class with a
higher standard could result in a smaller environmental benefit from
the Phase 2 program.
The Agency understands it is possible that some nonhandheld
applications which use small displacement engines may no longer be able
to utilize two-stroke engines if the Phase 2 standards are adopted as
proposed, but believes that complying engines, perhaps of larger
displacement, can be used. EPA requests additional information on this
issue and the extent of its occurrence. The Agency also once again
requests comment on the need for a new small displacement class, in
particular, whether the proposed average Class I standard is sufficient
to cover smaller displacement engines. The Agency also requests comment
on the displacement cutoff (75cc), standard (72.4g/kW-hr), and useful
lives (125 hours and 250 hours) suggested by the ANPRM commenter.
4. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Fueled Indoor Power Equipment
Manufacturers of equipment using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) have
argued that their situation deserves special consideration within the
Phase 2 regulations.53 The type of equipment they produce is
often designed specifically for indoor use including, for example,
floor washing and buffing equipment. The relatively low sales (likely
fewer than 10,000 annually nationwide for the industry) and the fact
that many of these manufacturers likely sell less than one thousand
pieces of equipment annually means that both individually and
collectively they account for a very small portion of the small SI
engines sold annually. LPG is a popular fuel for indoor equipment due
to the proven ability to calibrate LPG-fueled engines to operate at
very low carbon monoxide (CO) levels. Low CO performance is especially
important for indoor equipment to minimize CO exposure to the operator
and others in the building. The Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA) has set maximum CO standards for indoor ambient
concentrations and some states have adopted even tighter indoor CO
standards. While these are ambient standards, not emission limits for
individual pieces of equipment, equipment manufacturers, to
successfully market in this area, must be assured their equipment emits
very low levels of CO and thus can be routinely used indoors without
causing violations of OSHA or state indoor air quality requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See EPA Air Docket A-96-55, Items #II-D-02, II-D-04, and
II-D-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the specialized nature of their equipment places unique
demands on these engines and due to the typically low sales volumes of
many of the pieces of equipment, many of these indoor equipment
manufacturers must not only design and produce their equipment but also
to a significant extent are responsible for the modification of engines
to power their equipment. In a number of cases these indoor equipment
manufacturers buy gasoline-fueled engines and convert them to operate
on LPG.
While manufacturers of LPG-fueled indoor power equipment must power
their equipment with engines which meet all the requirements of the
small engine Phase 1 rules, the manufacturers argue that the proposed
Phase 2 rules would add significantly to their burden. While meeting
the proposed federal HC+NOX Phase 2 standard should not be
particularly difficult for LPG engines compared to gasoline-fueled
engines, the combined need to also achieve very low CO emission levels
in order to not cause violations of indoor ambient CO standards may
present a design challenge. The necessary controls may well exceed
those required to meet just the Phase 2 standards and may include, for
example, the use of electronically controlled fuel systems and perhaps
catalysts. This could add significant cost to a relatively few engines.
Even at a higher cost, those equipment manufacturers currently being
supplied LPG-fueled engines by an original engine manufacturer are
concerned that their suppliers may decide it is not worth the effort to
supply engines complying with the Phase 2 standards. For those
equipment manufacturers modifying engines to operate on LPG at low CO
levels, the same technical challenges are faced while their ability to
spread the development costs across their engines is limited by the low
number of engines modified.
While EPA has not done a thorough cost analysis for the impact of
Phase 2 standards on this unique segment of the industry, EPA is
persuaded that the technical challenges faced by this segment are
significant. Many of these manufacturers would be considered ``small
volume engine manufacturers'', with engines produced in ``small volume
engine families'', under the criteria proposed today, and would
therefore qualify for proposed compliance flexibilities for small
volume engine manufacturers and small volume engine families. These
include both additional flexibilities in the phase-in of the Phase 2
standard, and also an option to opt out of mandatory production line
testing. In effect, the additional phase-in flexibilities would allow
nonhandheld manufacturers of indoor LPG-fueled power equipment engines,
whose annual production of small SI engines is 10,000 units or less, to
continue producing Class II nonhandheld engines which meet a Phase 1
equivalent standard (24 g/kW-hr) until 2005. Beginning in 2005, when
the Phase 2 standards are proposed to be fully phased in for gasoline-
fueled engines, these LPG-fueled engines are proposed to also be
required to meet the Phase 2 HC+NOX standards. This extra
lead time would allow manufacturers to spread their development efforts
over several additional years, for those manufacturers choosing or
required to make their own fuel modifications. In addition, while these
engine families would be certified to the Phase 2 program, the cost of
the proposed compliance program for these manufacturers would be
minimized, as these manufacturers and engine families would likely
qualify for the proposed flexibilities that would allow manufacturers
to carry-over certification from one year to the next and to opt out of
mandatory production line testing. The provisions for small volume
engine manufacturers and small volume engine families are discussed in
more detail in Section IV.E.
Comments are requested on the impact of this proposed phase-in
flexibility and other proposed compliance program flexibilities on the
technical and economic ability of the indoor power equipment engine
industry segment to successfully comply with the Phase 2 standard
beginning in 2005, and any air quality impact concerns such a delayed
implementation might cause.
EPA is also requesting comment on the possible deletion of the
existing Sec. 90.1003(b)(3). EPA believes this
[[Page 3999]]
provision may be of only limited utility for this program and believes
it could prove problematic for small SI engines. This provision
provides that certain activities connected to conversion of engines to
alternative fuels will not be regarded as tampering. At one point, the
existing regulatory paragraph makes reference to ``vehicle'' standards,
of which, of course, there are none in the small SI program. Further,
it might be misconstrued as requiring an engine modifier to reinstall
hardware that was removed in the conversion process after the
conversion was complete. Under such a misreading, a modifier engaged in
converting gasoline engines to operate on propane might be viewed as
having to reinstall the original gasoline carburetor on an engine after
conversion, even if that were not feasible.
Existing converters of small SI engines are currently certifying
their products on the alternative fuel or are operating under EPA's
tampering enforcement Memorandum 1-A. In light of this, for small SI
engines, EPA believes that the discussion of the tampering implications
of alternative fuel conversions for small SI engines could be best
handled by the application of Memorandum 1-A. EPA does not expect that
existing engine modifiers would be harmed by the deletion of this
paragraph.
Text similar to existing Sec. 90.1003(b)(3) is found in other
nonroad rules. EPA intends, at some future date, to review the
appropriateness and usefulness of this language in those rules.
5. Dealer Responsibility
This proposal contains no new constraints or responsibilities for
dealers and repair facilities from the Phase 1 rule. Dealers and repair
shops, like all other persons, would continue to be prohibited from
tampering or causing tampering. Tampering refers to the removal or
rendering inoperative of any device or element of design installed on
or in an engine for purposes of emission control.
During the Phase 2 regulatory negotiation process, the issue of
dealer responsibility was frequently raised out of concern that
increasingly sophisticated control technologies would result in greater
numbers of tampered engines being brought in for service. Another
concern was that the Phase 2 rule not require that repair parts for
emission control systems be obtained from the engine manufacturer.
While all persons, including dealers and repair facilities, are
prohibited from tampering or causing tampering, they are not prohibited
from working on tampered engines. Under EPA tampering policies, dealers
and repair facilities are not expected to restore tampered products to
their originally certified and functioning configuration unless the
repair is to the tampered system or a component of the tampered system.
In such a case, the dealer or repair facility should restore the system
to a certified and properly functioning condition, but need not conduct
emission testing to verify compliance with emission standards. With
regard to the use of emission control repair parts, dealers and repair
facilities may use parts represented by their manufacturers to be
functionally equivalent to original equipment parts.
6. Engines Used in Recreational Vehicles
EPA is not proposing any changes to the provision in the Phase 1
rule that engines used in recreational vehicles would not be subject to
the small SI engine regulations. EPA continues to believe that these
engines are more appropriately regulated under a rulemaking separate
from this small SI engine program. Thus, these engines would remain
outside the scope of the program when Phase 2 takes effect. The
Agency's rationale for excluding engines used to propel recreational
vehicles was presented in the preamble for the Phase 1 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (see 59 FR 25403, 25414), and the Agency
addressed the comments received on this topic in the Phase 1 Response
to Comments document (see Section 3.8 ``Non-Coverage of Recreational
Propulsion Engines'', EPA Air Docket A-93-25, Docket Item V-C-01). As
discussed in the Preamble for the Phase 1 NPRM, ``EPA's primary reason
for this exclusion is the extremely transient operation of the products
in which these engines are used, which limits the ability of the
proposed steady state test procedure to adequately represent exhaust
emissions. This exclusion is not based on a determination that these
engines do not contribute to air pollution and therefore need not be
controlled.'' (59 FR 25414) EPA continues to be concerned that the test
procedures covering the Phase 1 and Phase 2 engines may not be
appropriate for engines used to propel recreational vehicles.
Engines used in recreational vehicles are defined at 40 CFR
90.1(b)(5), in part, as having a rated speed greater than or equal to
5,000 RPM and having no installed speed governor. While EPA is not
proposing any changes to the provisions which exclude recreational
vehicles from this rule, EPA does wish to clarify that some engines
with installed ``speed governors'' and with ungoverned rated speed
above 5000 rpm still qualify as recreational. For example, engines used
in typical recreational vehicles such as snowmobiles and 4-wheel ATVs
which, when designed for use by children have ``speed governors''
installed for safety purposes to limit the top speed of the vehicle,
have been found by EPA to be ``recreational vehicles'' in
implementation of Phase 1. These vehicles are still operated in a
typical fashion for recreational vehicles up to that top speed. During
the development of the Phase 1 rule, the Agency was not aware of the
existence of snowmobiles designed for children, and therefore not aware
of the existence of snowmobiles with ``speed governors.'' The Agency
would like to clarify that EPA continues to believe snowmobiles should
not be covered under this rule, including snowmobiles designed for use
by children which may in fact have a ``speed governor'' installed for
safety purposes.
7. Engines Used in Rescue and Emergency Equipment
In consideration of safety factors associated with compliance with
the Phase 2 program, today's proposal includes a provision that would
exempt engines which are used exclusively in emergency and rescue
equipment from compliance with any standards if the equipment
manufacturer can demonstrate that no certified engine is available to
power the equipment safely and practically. Although under Phase 1 EPA
has received no reports of problems caused by the need to use certified
engines in emergency and rescue equipment, EPA is concerned that such
problems could arise. EPA foresees this exemption applying especially
to handheld items used to work in tight places to perform such tasks as
cutting metal to extricate passengers from wrecked vehicles, if the
size, heat or other characteristics of the certified engine would
render its use unsafe. EPA does not foresee this exemption applying to
portable generators, compressors or hydraulic pumps that may be used to
power rescue equipment from a distance, since such devices are not as
subject to the size, weight and other considerations surrounding a tool
that contains its own source of power.
EPA proposes this exemption to avoid any possible conflict between
emission control and public safety. EPA wishes to reduce the chance
that a piece of rescue equipment will go out of production or become
more cumbersome because of the need to use certified engines. EPA sees
no significant air quality impact
[[Page 4000]]
from such an exemption, because it would apply only to engines that are
few in number and are subject to infrequent use for very short periods
of time. In fact, EPA is not currently aware of any engine that is used
exclusively in emergency or rescue equipment. The exemption, as
proposed, would apply to engines and equipment produced during the
remainder of the Phase 1 period as well as Phase 2 engines and
equipment.
8. Replacement Engines
After promulgation of the Phase 1 rule, equipment manufacturers
approached EPA with concerns that, once the rule took effect, they
would not be able to obtain replacement engines to repair certain items
of more expensive equipment such as commercial mowing and construction
equipment when their engines fail. The equipment manufacturers provided
evidence that many Phase 1 engines, especially Class II nonhandheld
engines, would be configured differently from uncertified engines and
would not fit in the engine compartments of some pre-regulatory
equipment. The equipment manufacturers explained that occasional engine
failures are often best remedied by replacing the engine. Commercial
operators, many of whom are small businesses, may not be able to afford
the downtime associated with waiting for an extensive engine repair. In
effect, repairing the engines becomes more costly than replacing the
engines, and may be less environmentally beneficial. EPA evaluated
these concerns and gathered information from engine manufacturers,
equipment manufacturers and their associations. EPA concluded that
permitting the sale of uncertified replacement engines, which likely
constitute less than one percent of annual small SI engine sales, was a
cheaper alternative that was no worse for air quality than the repair
or rebuilding of the failed engines, which were not prohibited by the
Phase 1 rule. On August 7, 1997 (62 FR 42638), EPA issued a direct
final rule amending the Phase 1 rule to allow engine manufacturers to
sell uncertified engines for replacement purposes subject to certain
controls designed to prevent abuse.54 These controls require
that the engine manufacturer ascertain that there is no currently
certified engine that will fit in the equipment, that the engines be
labeled for replacement purposes only, and that the engine manufacturer
or its agent take ownership and possession of the old engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The docket for this rulemaking, EPA Air Docket #A-97-25, is
incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An environmental group has recently expressed concern to EPA about
the replacement engine provisions for small SI engines published in the
direct final rule described above. This group recommends that
additional constraints and controls should be placed on the sale of
these engines to prevent abuse since these engines either will not be
built to comply with any standards, or will be built to comply with
Phase 1 standards after those standards have been superseded by Phase 2
standards.
In today's notice, EPA is proposing to continue the replacement
engine provision with an accommodation necessary to address Phase 1
engines after the implementation of Phase 2. EPA is also proposing
additional requirements to address the concerns of the environmental
group and better ensure that the ability to use replacement engines is
not abused.
During Phase 2, the universe of small SI engines will expand to
include uncertified engines, Phase 1 engines and Phase 2 engines.
Consequently, the provision as proposed would be amended to permit
uncontrolled engines to be sold for pre-regulatory equipment, and Phase
1 engines to be sold for equipment built with Phase 1 engines, subject
to certain constraints. EPA has no reason to believe that this
provision will result in significant adverse air quality impacts. In
fact, many replacement engines for older equipment will be certified
Phase 2 engines. This provision provides flexibility and cost savings
for equipment operators. It affects primarily commercial equipment
where the equipment cost is high enough to justify major engine repairs
or replacement and the usage of the equipment is such that downtime for
repairs is costly. Replacement engines are not typically used in
handheld equipment, nor in lower cost nonhandheld items such as walk
behind mowers. A more detailed discussion of the rationale for the
replacement engine provision can be found in the preamble to the direct
final rule cited above.
Although EPA does not believe that replacement engines will cause
any significant air quality impacts, it is proposing to add safeguards
and reporting and record keeping requirements to further ensure against
abuse. EPA is proposing to amend the existing replacement engine
provisions to require: (1) that manufacturers follow specific
guidelines when ascertaining that no certified engine is available
which can suitably repower a specific item of equipment; (2) that old
engines being replaced are destroyed; (3) that engine manufacturers
report to EPA annually the number of uncertified engines sold under the
replacement engine provisions; (4) that manufacturers keep records,
accessible to EPA, of the purchasers, quantities and equipment
applications of replacement engines; and (5) that there be a limit on
the time period for which uncertified replacement engines are normally
available. EPA requests comment on the need for these additional
requirements, and the burden they may pose to industry, equipment
operators and engine distributors.
V. Environmental Benefit Assessment
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been set for
criteria pollutants which adversely affect human health, vegetation,
materials and visibility. Concentrations of ozone (O3) are
impacted by HC and NOX emissions. Ambient concentrations of
CO are, of course, impacted by CO emissions. EPA believes that the
standards proposed today would reduce emissions of HC and
NOX and help most areas of the nation in their progress
towards compliance with the NAAQS for ozone. The following provides a
summary of the roles of HC and NOX in ozone formation, the
estimated emissions impact of the proposed regulations, and the health
and welfare effects of ozone, CO, hazardous air pollutants, and
particulate matter.
Much of the evaluation of the health and environmental effects
related to HC, NOX and CO found in this section is also
discussed in the draft Regulatory Support Document (RSD), and in the
March 1997 ANPRM. EPA encourages comments on the Agency's beliefs
expressed in this proposal and in the RSD, a copy of which is in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
A. Roles of HC and NOX in Ozone Formation
Both HC and NOX contribute to the formation of
tropospheric ozone through a complex series of reactions. In a recent
report, researchers emphasize that both HC and NOX controls
are needed in most areas of the United States.55 EPA's
primary reason for controlling emissions from small SI engines is the
role of their HC emissions in forming ozone. Of the major air
pollutants for which NAAQS have been designated under the CAA, the most
widespread problem continues to be ozone, which is the most prevalent
photochemical oxidant and an
[[Page 4001]]
important component of smog. The primary ozone NAAQS represents the
maximum level considered protective of public health by the EPA. Ozone
is a product of the atmospheric chemical reactions involving oxides of
nitrogen and volatile organic compounds. These reactions occur as
atmospheric oxygen and sunlight interact with hydrocarbons and oxides
of nitrogen from both mobile and stationary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ National Research Council, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in
Urban and Regional Air Pollution, National Academy Press, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A critical part of this problem is the formation of ozone both in
and downwind of large urban areas. Under certain weather conditions,
the combination of NOX and HC has resulted in urban and
rural areas exceeding the national ambient ozone standard by as much as
a factor of three. Thus it is important to control HC over wider
regional areas if these areas are to come into compliance with the
ozone NAAQS.
B. Health and Welfare Effects of Tropospheric Ozone
Ozone is a powerful oxidant causing lung damage and reduced
respiratory function after relatively short periods of exposure
(approximately one hour). The oxidizing effect of ozone can irritate
the nose, mouth, and throat causing coughing, choking, and eye
irritation. In addition, ozone can also impair lung function and
subsequently reduce the respiratory system's resistance to disease,
including bronchial infections such as pneumonia.
Elevated ozone levels can also cause aggravation of pre-existing
respiratory conditions such as asthma.56 Ozone can cause a
reduction in performance during exercise even in healthy persons. In
addition, ozone can also cause alterations in pulmonary and
extrapulmonary (nervous system, blood, liver, endocrine) function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Review of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone--Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information: OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-450/2-
92-001, June 1989, pp. VI-11 to 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The newly revised primary NAAQS 57 for ozone based on an
8-hour standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) is set at a level that,
with an adequate margin of safety, is protective of public health. EPA
also believes attainment of the new primary standard will substantially
protect vegetation. Ozone effects on vegetation include reduction in
agricultural and commercial forest yields, reduced growth and decreased
survivability of tree seedlings, increased tree and plant
susceptibility to disease, pests, and other environmental stresses, and
potential long-term effects on forests and ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See 62 FR 38896, Friday, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High levels of ozone have been recorded even in relatively remote
areas, since ozone and its precursors can travel hundreds of miles and
persist for several days in the lower atmosphere. Ozone damage to
plants, including both natural forest ecosystems and crops, occurs at
ozone levels between 0.06 and 0.12 ppm.58 Repeated exposure
to ozone levels above 0.04 ppm can cause reductions in the yields of
some crops above ten percent.59 While strains of some crops
are relatively resistant to ozone, many crops experience a loss in
yield of 30 percent at ozone concentrations below the pre-revised
primary NAAQS.60 The value of crops lost to ozone damage,
while difficult to estimate precisely, is on the order of $2 billion
per year in the United States.61 The effect of ozone on
complex ecosystems such as forests is even more difficult to quantify.
However, there is evidence that some forest types are negatively
affected by ambient levels of ozone.62 Specifically, in the
San Bernadino Mountains of southern California, ozone is believed to be
the agent responsible for the slow decline and death of ponderosa pine
trees in these forests since 1962.63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-10.
\59\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-10.
\60\ See 62 FR 38856, Friday, July 18, 1997.
\61\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-22.
\62\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-27.
\63\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, by trapping energy radiated from the earth, tropospheric
ozone may contribute to heating of the earth's surface, thereby
contributing to global warming (that is, the greenhouse
effect),64 although tropospheric ozone is also known to
reduce levels of UVB radiation reaching the earth's surface, the
increase of which is expected to result from depletion of stratospheric
ozone.65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ NRC, Rethinking the Ozone Problem, p. 22.
\65\ The New York Times, September 15, 1992, p. C4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Estimated Emissions Impact of Proposed Regulation
The emission standards proposed in today's action should reduce
average in-use exhaust HC+NOX emissions from small SI
engines 30 percent beyond Phase 1 standards by year 2025, by which time
a complete fleet turnover is realized. This translates into an annual
nationwide reduction of roughly 134,674 tons of exhaust
HC+NOX in year 2025 over that expected from Phase 1.
Reductions in CO beyond Phase 1 levels, due to improved technology, is
also to be expected by year 2025.
Along with the control of all hydrocarbons, the proposed standards
should be effective in reducing emissions of those hydrocarbons
considered to be hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including benzene and
1,3-butadiene. However, the magnitude of reduction would depend on
whether the control technology reduces the individual HAPs in the same
proportion as total hydrocarbons.
These emission reduction estimates are based on in-use population
projections using estimates of annual engine sales, engine attrition
(scrappage), activity indicator, and current new engine and proposed
in-use emission factors. Data on activity indicators were based on the
Phase 1 small SI regulation. Estimates of annual engine sales for years
from 1973 to 1995 were based on engine data available from the PSR
databases 66 and national shipment data provided by Outdoor
Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association (PPEMA), and a study done for the California
Air Resources Board by Booz Allen & Hamilton (BAH). Sales projections
into the future were for the most part based on estimates of population
growth for the United States. Attrition rates (survival probability
that an engine remains in service into a specific calendar year) for
all engines included in this analysis were developed on the assumption
that the equipment attrition function may be represented by a two-
parameter Weibull cumulative distribution function. The in-use emission
factors are based on a multiplicative deterioration factor which is a
function of the square root of the hours of equipment usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Power Systems Research, Engine Data and Parts Link data
bases, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the analysis summarized in Table 18, the emission inventories
were developed for the five regulated engine classes as well as for all
pieces of equipment using engines covered by this proposed rule. Using
estimated engine sales and attrition, EPA projected the total in-
service engine population for each year from 1973 to 2025. EPA
projected the total annual nationwide HC, NOX and CO
emissions from small SI engines included in the proposal under the
baseline (that is, with Phase 1 controls applied) and controlled (Phase
2) scenarios.
For the controlled scenario, EPA assumed that for both handheld and
[[Page 4002]]
nonhandheld engines the standards would be phased in on a percentage of
production basis as proposed in today's notice. Deterioration factors
were determined using manufacturer-supplied in-use emission data and
other relevant information.
Table 18.--Projected Annual Nationwide Exhaust HC+NOX Emissions
[tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without proposed Tons reduced
Year controls (Phase With proposed from Phase 1 Percentage
1) controls revised baseline reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................... 378,700 378,700
2005.................................... 368,195 297,873 70,322 19.1
2010.................................... 389,641 279,061 110,580 28.4
2015.................................... 414,626 292,829 121,797 29.4
2020.................................... 439,413 309,221 130,192 29.6
2025.................................... 452,973 318,299 134,674 29.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For simplicity in modeling the projected emission reductions, the
Agency has assumed in the emissions inventory model that under the
Phase 2 program, each engine would meet the proposed standard for the
minimum useful life category: i.e., Class I engines meet the proposed
standards at 66 hours; Class 2 engines at 250 hours; and Classes III,
IV, and V at 50 hours. Therefore, the Agency has under estimated the
emission benefits of the proposed standards, because some engines will
be certifying to the longer useful life categories, and therefore a
greater emission reduction than predicted in Table 18 will occur. The
Agency will attempt to address this issue for a more accurate
prediction of the emission benefits of the proposed program for the
final rule.
In addition to the reductions in exhaust HC+NOX
emissions, the Agency is also estimating the proposed standards would
result in a small reduction in HC refueling emissions (refueling
emissions are HC emissions caused from fuel spillage and vapor
displacement during the refueling of a small engine). As discussed in
the RSD, refueling emissions represent approximately an additional
89,000 tons/year of HC in 2025 without Phase 2 controls. The Agency
estimates that refueling emissions would be reduced under Phase 2 by
the percent reduction in fuel consumption under Phase 2. The Agency
estimates the proposed Phase 2 program would result in approximately a
9 percent reduction in fuel consumption by 2025. Therefore, the Agency
estimates refueling emissions would be reduced by 9 percent. A 9
percent reduction in refueling emissions equates to an approximate
8,000 ton/year reduction in HC emissions in 2025.
D. Health and Welfare Effects of CO Emissions
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas which can be
emitted or otherwise enter into ambient air as a result of both natural
processes and human activity. Although CO exists as a trace element in
the troposphere, much of human exposure resulting in elevated levels of
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) in the blood is due to incomplete fossil fuel
combustion, as occurs in small SI engines.
The concentration and direct health effect of CO exposure are
especially important in small SI engines because the operator of a
small SI engine application is typically near the equipment as it
functions. In some applications, the operator must be adjacent to the
exhaust outlet and is in the direct path of the exhaust as it leaves
the engine. According to numbers published in the Nonroad Engine and
Vehicle Emission Study (NEVES), a 4-stroke, 2.9 kW lawnmower engine
emits 1051.1 g/hr CO, while a 2-stroke, 2.9 kW engine emits 1188.4 g/hr
CO.
A Swedish study 67-69 on occupational exposure to 2-
stroke chainsaw exhaust concludes, among other things, that a rich
fuel-air mixture results in high levels of CO emissions (a mean
exposure rate of 37.0 mg/m3). The work conditions that gave
rise to the most intense problems for loggers were deep snow, thick
forest stands and calm weather. The main discomforts experienced by
loggers from chainsaw exhaust were cough and eye, nose and throat
irritation. In view of the discomfort experienced by loggers and the
complex nature of the exposure to chainsaw exhaust, it was recommended
that action be taken to reduce exposure by making technical
modifications to the engine or control exhaust emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67-69\ Occupational Exposure to Chain Saw Exhausts in Logging
Operations, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J48, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The toxicity of CO effects on blood and tissues, and how these
effects manifest themselves as organ function changes, have also been
topics of substantial research efforts. Such studies provided
information for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for CO. The current primary and secondary NAAQS for CO are 9 parts per
million for the one-hour average and 35 parts per million for the
eight-hour average.
E. Health and Welfare Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
The focus of today's action is reduction of HC emissions as part of
the solution to the ozone nonattainment problem. However, direct health
effects are also a reason for concern due to direct human exposure to
emissions from small SI engines during operation of equipment using
such engines. Of specific concern is the emission of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). In some applications, the operator must be adjacent
to the exhaust outlet and is in the direct path of the exhaust as it
leaves the engine. Today's proposed regulations should be effective in
reducing HAPs such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene, in so far as these are
components of the HC emissions being reduced by the Phase 2 standards.
Benzene is a clear, colorless, aromatic hydrocarbon which is both
volatile and flammable. Benzene is present in both exhaust and
evaporative emissions. Health effects caused by benzene emissions
differ based on concentration and duration of exposure. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified benzene
as a Group I carcinogen., namely an agent carcinogenic to humans.
Exposure to benzene has also been linked with genetic changes in humans
and animals. 1,3-butadiene is a colorless, flammable
[[Page 4003]]
gas at room temperature. This suspected human carcinogen is insoluble
in water and its two conjugated double bonds make it highly reactive.
1,3-butadiene is formed in internal combustion engine exhaust by the
incomplete combustion of the fuel and is assumed not present in
evaporative and refueling emissions.
Epidemiologic studies of occupationally exposed workers were
inconclusive with respect to the carcinogenity of 1,3-butadiene in
humans. IARC has classified 1,3-butadiene as a Group 2A, probable human
carcinogen. Other adverse noncancer health effects due to very high
levels of exposure include heart, blood and lung diseases.
Since air toxic levels generally decrease in proportion to overall
emissions once emission control technology is applied, the amount of
benzene and 1,3-butadiene produced by new small SI engines should
diminish after this rule becomes effective. Consequently, exposure to
HAPs from new small SI engines would be reduced, as would associated
health and environmental effects. Although there is little data on
direct health effects of small SI engines, the Swedish study concludes
benzene emissions from chain saw engines as being rather high. No study
has been conducted involving the health effects of HAP emissions
specifically from small SI engines. The Agency requests additional
information on this topic.
F. Particulate Matter
Particulate matter, a term used for a mixture of solid particles
and liquid droplets found in the air, has been linked to a range of
serious respiratory health problems. These fine particles are of health
concern because they easily reach the deepest recesses of the lungs.
Batteries of scientific studies have linked particulate matter,
especially fine particles (alone or in combination with other air
pollutants), with a series of significant health problems including
premature death, aggravated asthma and chronic bronchitis and increased
hospital admissions. EPA has recently (July 1997) announced new NAAQS
standards for particulate matter (PM) , by adding two new primary PM2.5
standards set at concentrations of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
(g/m3), annual arithmetic mean, and
65g/m3, 24-hour average, to provide increased
protection against the PM-related health effects found in community
studies. EPA believes that the new standards will protect and improve
the lives of millions of Americans.
Separate from the proposed rule, which would not establish emission
standards for PM or toxic air contaminants listed under section 112(b)
of the Clean Air Act, an agreement with PPEMA to conduct PM/HAP testing
program for handheld engines in cooperation with EPA has been reached.
Testing under the program would be conducted on Phase 2 technology
handheld engines at EPA, industry, and/or independent facilities. The
test program is to be designed to evaluate and quantify emissions of
particulate matter and toxics including, but not limited to:
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, toluene and 1,3 butadiene.
VI. Economic Impacts
EPA has calculated the cost effectiveness of this proposed rule by
estimating costs and emission benefits from these engines. EPA made
best estimates of the combination of technologies that an engine
manufacturer might use to meet the new standards, best estimates of
resultant changes to equipment design, engine manufacturer compliance
program costs and engine fuel savings in order to assess the expected
economic impact of the proposed Phase 2 emission standards. Emission
benefits are taken from the results of the environmental benefit
assessment (Section V, above). The cost-effectiveness result of this
rule is $390 per ton of HC+NOX when fuel savings are not
taken into account. When fuel savings are also considered, the cost-
effectiveness calculation results in -$700 per ton of
HC+NOX. This section describes the background and analysis
behind these results.
The analysis for this proposed rulemaking is based on data from
engine families certified to EPA's Phase 1 standards. It does not
include any engine families or production volumes that are covered by
CARB's Tier 1 standard. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) will
implement emission standards for many of these engines a year or two
prior to the proposed federal Phase 2 regulations. Therefore, this rule
only accounts for costs for each engine sold outside California and
those engines sold in California that are not covered by the CARB Tier
II rulemaking, such as those used in farm and construction equipment.
Although EPA expects that engines already designed to meet CARB's
earlier standards would incur no additional design cost to meet federal
standards, no effort was made to estimate which models would be sold in
California and subject to the earlier California standards. Rather for
the purpose of this proposal, any Phase 1 engine design that would need
to be modified to meet Phase 2 standards was assumed to incur the full
cost of that modification including design cost. Similarly, the cost to
equipment manufacturers was assumed to be fully attributed to this
federal rule even if an equipment manufacturer would have to make the
same modifications in response to the CARB Tier 2. Therefore, in both
of these cases, the cost to the manufacturer due to these proposed
rules is likely over estimated. EPA requests comment on these
assumptions. The details of EPA's cost and cost-effectiveness analyses
can be found in Chapters 4 and 7 of the Draft RSD.
A. Engine Technologies
Table 19 lists the changes in technology, compared to Phase 1
engines, that have been considered in the cost estimation for this
rulemaking. As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, the proposed
standards would require different engine improvements amongst the five
classes and engine designs within those classes.70 For
example, several Class I SV models are expected to require some
internal improvements to reduce new engine out emissions and several
additional components to increase emission durability. For the purposes
of this cost analysis, Class II standards are assumed to require that
engines be of clean OHV design. For Classes III-V, the proposed
standards for the handheld engines are assumed to require improved
scavenging techniques, for the two stroke engines, to be developed to
reduce the approximately 30 percent of the air/oil/fuel mixture that
traditionally escapes from these engines unburned. This analysis
assumes that engine manufacturers would not be required to adopt
advanced technologies such as catalysts or fuel injection systems.
Manufacturers who did adopt such technologies would choose to do so for
other perceived benefits. Therefore, the cost of such optional
technology is not included in this cost estimate. Additional detail
regarding the impact of these modifications can be found in Chapter 3
and 4 of the Draft RSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Currently, carbureted two-stroke, four-stroke side-valve
and four-stroke overhead valve engine designs comprise the vast
majority of engines used in nonhandheld and handheld applications.
[[Page 4004]]
Table 19.--Potential Technology Improvements Per Class and Engine Design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Engine design Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............... 4 stroke--SV................. Carburetor
Improvements.
Combustion Chamber
Improvements and
Intake System.
Improved Oil
Consumption (Piston
oil control rings,
valve stem seals).
I............... 4 stroke--OHV................ None necessary.
I............... 2 stroke..................... None necessary.
II.............. 4 stroke--SV................. Conversion to clean
OHV.
II.............. 4 stroke--OHV................ Piston and piston ring
improvements.
Improved combustion and
intake system.
III-V........... 2 stroke..................... Carburetor
Improvements.
Improved Scavenging and
Combustion Chamber
Design.
Manufacturing Tolerance
Improvements.
IV.............. 4-stroke..................... None necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Engine Costs
The engine cost increase is based on incremental purchase prices
for new engines and is comprised of variable costs (for hardware,
assembly time and compliance programs), and fixed costs (for R&D and
retooling). Variable costs were applied on a per engine basis and fixed
costs were amortized at seven percent over five years. Engine
technology cost estimates were based on the study by ICF and EF&EE in
October 1996 entitled ``Cost Study for Phase Two Small Engine Emission
Regulations''. Details of the assumed costs and analysis can be found
in Chapters 4 and 7 of the Draft RSD.
1. Nonhandheld Engine Costs
Based on analysis of the EPA Phase 1 certification database, and
use of the ABT program available to nonhandheld engines, it is assumed
that four high production Class I SV engine families will need to
incorporate all those technologies listed in Table 19. Incorporation of
these technologies will require the engine manufacturer to incur both
variable and fixed costs.
Analysis of Class II engine families, from the EPA Phase 1
certification database and use of the ABT calculation, shows that a
number of Class II SV engine families will be converted to OHV engine
design and a large number of OHV engine families will need to
incorporate emission improvements. Such technologies will require both
variable and fixed expenditures.
The proposed Phase 2 emission standards for this diverse industry
would impact companies differently depending on the existing product
offerings. Some companies currently manufacture very clean Class II OHV
engines geared toward the commercial market and would be required to
make very few changes in their current models. Companies that target
the consumer market with SV and perhaps less expensive OHV engines
would require application of the emission reduction technologies.
2. Handheld Engine Costs
Analysis of the Phase 1 certification database for handheld engines
shows that nearly all engine families of two stroke design will require
technologies to reduce engine emissions. Redesign of the existing two-
stroke engine is allocated to fixed costs as companies perform R&D,
build prototypes and perform numerous emission tests to achieve
production-ready models.
C. Equipment Costs
While equipment manufacturers would bear no responsibility for
meeting emission standards, they may need to make changes in the design
of their equipment models to accommodate the Phase 2 engines. EPA's
treatment of the impacts of the proposal therefore includes an analysis
of costs for equipment manufacturers. The 1996 PSR EOLINK database was
utilized as the source of information for equipment manufacturers,
models and sales estimates for all classes. The costs for equipment
conversion was derived from the ICF/EF&EE cost study 71 and
improved through the work by ICF and EPA on the small business impact
analysis. Full details of EPA's cost analysis can be found in Chapter 4
of the Draft RSD. EPA has assumed that capital costs would be amortized
at seven percent over ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ ICF and Engine, Fuel and Emissions Engineering,
Incorporated; ``Cost Study for Phase Two Small Engine Emission
Regulations'', Draft Final Report, October 25, 1996, in EPA Air
Docket A-93-29, Item #II-A-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Nonhandheld Equipment Manufacturers
Based on engine technologies estimated for this rulemaking, it is
assumed that Class I engine redesign would have no impact on equipment
manufacturers since the proposed standard would not require external
changes or adversely impact the engine's performance.
The Class II engine change from SV to OHV design will have the
largest impact on equipment changes. Review of the PSR database for
equipment manufacturers that utilize Class II SV engines reveals that
the majority (90 percent) of small engine equipment is produced from 32
companies with the remaining 353 companies representing only 10 percent
of the overall production.
EPA's work analyzing small business impacts, as summarized in the
work with ICF Incorporated,72 indicates that many of the
small businesses, indicated by the PSR database to use SV Class II
engines, have already converted or are in the process of converting to
using OHV engine design due to market forces or changes in their engine
manufacturer's offerings. These companies tend to produce professional
or commercial equipment and competition has driven the use of OHV
engines. The study also revealed that at least one equipment
manufacturer that produces a large volume of equipment, has already
switched their lines from SV to OHV. For today's proposal, EPA assumed
only the one large manufacturer has already incurred the costs of
converting to the use of OHV engine. For the purpose of this proposal,
EPA has assumed that any switch from SV to OHV engines by equipment
manufacturers is a cost incurred due to this proposal. The cost
estimates were based on equipment application (garden tractor, tiller,
commercial turf, etc.) and in the case of the commercial turf
equipment, on the power of the engine within that application.
Flexibilities within this proposal which may lessen
[[Page 4005]]
the impact of the costs of this rulemaking to equipment manufacturers
were also not taken into account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ ``Small Business Impact Analysis of New Emission Standards
for Small Spark-Ignition Nonroad Engines and Equipment'', ICF
Incorporated, September 1997, located in EPA Air Docket A-96-55,
Item#II-A-01 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Handheld Equipment Manufacturers
The majority of technologies assumed in this analysis for handheld
engines, see Table 19, include only internal redesign and thereby no
change in the external design of the handheld engine is expected.
Therefore, it is assumed that the outer dimensions and performance
characteristics would be similar to the existing models and therefore
the handheld equipment would not require any changes. Equipment costs
have been included for manufacturers of augers who will need to
incorporate changes to the transmission boxes in order to incorporate
different speed-torque signatures of Phase 2 compliant engines.
D. Operating Costs
The total life-cycle operating costs for this proposed rulemaking
include any expected decreases in fuel consumption. Life cycle costs
have been calculated per class using the nonroad small engine emission
model. The model calculates fuel savings from the year 2001-2026 and
takes into account factors including equipment scrappage, projected
yearly sales increase per equipment type and engine power. Details on
the assumptions and calculations on fuel savings are included in
Chapter 4 and 7 of the Draft RSD.
1. Nonhandheld Engines
No fuel consumption savings have been assumed from Class I engines.
The addition of oil control piston rings and valve stem seals are not
expected to affect fuel economy or maintenance requirements and changes
to carburetion are expected to be only slight. The Class II SV engine
conversion to OHV design is expected to result in improved fuel economy
since data show that OHV engines can run at leaner air to fuel ratio's
than SV engines.
2. Handheld Engines
Redesigned two-stroke engines are assumed to result in significant
fuel savings as fuel/oil/air scavenging is significantly reduced.
E. Cost Per Engine and Cost-Effectiveness
1. Cost Per Engine
Total costs for this proposed rulemaking vary per year as engine
families are phased-in to compliance with the Phase 2 standards over
several years, capital costs are recovered and compliance programs are
conducted. The term ``uniform annualized cost'' is used to express the
cost of this rulemaking over the years of this analysis.
The methodology used for estimating the uniform annualized cost per
engine is as follows. Cost estimates from 1996 and 1997 model years,
for technology and compliance programs respectively, were estimated and
increased at an inflation rate of 4 percent per year to the years in
which they were assumed to be incurred. For engine technology costs,
one set of technologies per class and engine design was assumed (see
Table 19). The Phase 1 database was then analyzed to determine the
number of engine families per class that would likely incorporate the
emission reduction technologies. The estimated costs per year were then
calculated by multiplying the number of engine families and
corresponding production volume by the fixed and variable costs per
technology grouping, respectively. Retail markups used are 16 percent
by the engine manufacturer, 5 percent by the equipment manufacturer and
5 percent by the mass merchandiser. All markups are based on industry
specific information from Phase 1. For compliance program costs, each
program was outlined and assigned costs based on the likely number of
participants or engine families to be included in each program which
were determined from the Phase 1 certification database. The costs per
year were discounted seven percent to the first year of Phase 2
regulation, 2001 for nonhandheld and 2002 for handheld engine classes,
respectively. A uniform annualized cost was then calculated. Costs per
engine are calculated from the uniform annualized cost for the first
full year of implementation of the Phase 2 standard, 2005, and the last
year of this analysis, 2026. The average cost per engine is calculated
from these two values and the results are presented in Table 20.
The yearly fuel savings (tons/yr) per class were calculated from
the nonroad small engine emission model. The tons/yr were converted to
savings ($) per year through conversion to gallons per year multiplied
by $0.765 (a 1995 average refinery price to end user). The yearly fuel
savings were discounted by 3 percent to the first year of Phase 2
regulation, 2001 for nonhandheld engines and 2002 for handheld engines.
The yearly results were totaled and then divided by an annualized
factor to yield the uniform annualized fuel savings. The engine
lifetime fuel savings for each engine class was calculated for the
production years of 2005 and 2026. The average of these two values was
utilized as the average fuel savings per engine per class is shown in
Table 20. In particular, EPA notes that its estimate of fuel savings
for Class II engine conversion to OHV technology is greater than the
estimated cost of this conversion and thus would be economically
beneficial to the consumer. EPA requests comment on its analysis of the
fuel economy benefit for Class II conversion from SV to OHV technology
and information as to why the market has not responded with a greater
penetration of the more fuel efficient OHV technology.
The average resultant cost per engine class is calculated by
subtracting the average fuel savings from the average cost, see Table
20. See Chapter 7 of the Draft RSD for more details of this analysis.
Table 20.--Engine Life Time Fuel Savings and Resultant Cost Per Engine
[Costs based on uniform annualized costs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Savings per Resultant cost
Class engine engine per engine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............................................................... $0.87 $0.00 $0.87
II.............................................................. 10.54 33.20 ($22.66)
III............................................................. 0.74 0.45 0.29
IV.............................................................. 1.92 0.99 0.92
V............................................................... 16.21 4.12 12.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4006]]
2. Cost Effectiveness
EPA has estimated the cost-effectiveness (i.e., the cost per ton of
emission reduction) of the proposed HC+NOX standard over the
typical lifetime of the small SI equipment that would be covered by
today's proposed rule. EPA has examined the cost-effectiveness by
performing a nationwide cost-effectiveness in which the net present
value of the cost of compliance per year is divided by the nationwide
emission benefits per year over a period of 26 years. This is
sufficient time to achieve fleet turnover. The resultant cost-
effectiveness is $390 cost/ton HC+NOX without fuel savings.
Chapter 7 of the Draft RSD contains a more detailed discussion of the
cost-effectiveness analysis. EPA requests comments on all aspects of
the cost-effectiveness analysis.
The overall cost-effectiveness of this rule on HC+NOX
emission reductions, with fuel savings, is shown in Table 21. Table 21
contains the cost effectiveness of other nonroad rulemakings, which
contain fuel savings, to which the cost-effectiveness of this
rulemaking can be compared.
Table 21.--Cost-effectiveness of the Proposed Standards With Fuel
Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPV cost/NPV ton
Standard (with fuel Pollutants
savings)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Small SI Engines <19 kw="" -$700="">X
Phase 2.
Small SI Engines <19 kw="" phase="" 1.="" $217="">X
Spark Ignition Marine Engines... $1000 HC
Proposed Nonroad CI Standards... $180-$400 HC+NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
The Agency welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed
rulemaking. All comments (preferably in duplicate), with the exception
of proprietary information, should be directed to the EPA Air Docket
Section, Docket No. A-96-02 (see ADDRESSES). Commenters who wish to
submit proprietary information for consideration should clearly
separate such information from other comments by:
Labeling proprietary information ``Confidential Business
Information'' and,
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 labeled as confidential business information as part of the
basis for the final rule, then a nonconfidential version of the
document, which 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 by 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, the submission
may be made available to the public without notifying the commenters.
B. Public Hearing
Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the
public hearing (see DATES) should, if possible, notify the contact
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least two business days
prior to the day of the hearing. The contact person should be given an
estimate of the time required for the presentation of testimony and
notification of any need for audio/visual equipment. A sign-up sheet
will be available at the registration table the morning of the hearing
for scheduling those who have not notified the contact earlier. This
testimony will be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis, and
will follow the testimony that is arranged in advance.
The Agency recommends that approximately 50 copies of the statement
or material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution
to the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an
advance copy of any statement or material to be presented at the
hearing at least two business days before the scheduled hearing date.
This is to give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before
the hearing. Advance copies should be submitted to the contact person
listed.
C. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents
Materials relevant to this proposed rule are contained in Docket
No. A-96-55, located at the Air Docket, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
DC 20460, and may be reviewed in Room M-1500 from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30
p.m. Monday through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable
fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying docket materials.
The preamble, regulatory language and draft Regulatory Support
Document are also available electronically from the EPA internet Web
site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost you already
incur for internet connectivity. The text of the 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 these notices on
the secondary Web site listed below.
Internet (Web)
http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/
(Either select desired data or use search feature)
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.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, 73 the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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;
[[Page 4007]]
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof;
(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.
A regulatory support document which presents EPA's analysis of the
cost impacts of this proposed rule is available for review in the
public docket. EPA estimates that the proposed standards and other
regulatory provisions, if adopted, would not have an annual effect on
the economy of more than $100 million, a criterion which is a major
determinant in defining an ``economically significant regulatory
action.'' Although not ``significant'' based on this criterion, the
rule may adversely affect in a material way that sector of the economy
involved with the production of small spark-ignition engines or
equipment utilizing such engines. As such, this action was submitted to
OMB for review. Any written comments from OMB and any EPA response to
OMB comments are in the public docket for this proposal.
B. 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. Copies
of the ICR document may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Regulatory
Information Division, EPA, 401 M Street, SW (2137), Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Table 22 provides a listing of this proposed rulemaking's
information collection requirements along with the appropriate
information collection request (ICR) numbers. The cost of this burden
has been incorporated into the cost estimate for this rule. The Agency
has estimated that the public reporting burden for the collection of
information required under this rule would average approximately 6702
hours annually for a typical engine manufacturer. The hours spent by a
manufacturer on information collection activities in any given year
would be highly dependent upon manufacturer specific variables, such as
the number of engine families, production changes, emission defects
etc.
Table 22.--Public Reporting Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
EPA ICR No. Type of information No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
151490......................... Certification.......... 2060-0338
23420.......................... Averaging, banking and 2060-0338
trading.
N/A............................ Production line testing N/A
1675.01........................ In-use testing......... 2060-0292
N/A............................ In-use credits......... N/A
0095.07........................ Pre-certification and 2060-0007
testing exemption.
0012........................... Engine exclusion 2060-0124
determination.
0282........................... Emission defect 2060-0048
information.
1673.01........................ Importation of 2060-0294
nonconforming engines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW (PM-
223Y), Washington DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will
contain responses to OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for
obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising and small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative. EPA has estimated the rule to cost the private sector an
annualized cost of $90 million per year . However, the Agency has
appropriately considered cost issues in developing this proposal as
required by section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, and has designed
the proposed rule such that it will in EPA's view be a cost-effective
program. Because small governments would not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this proposed rule, the Agency is not required to
develop a plan with regard to small governments.
D. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For the reasons set out below, this proposed rule would
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
EPA has identified industries that would be subject to this
proposed rule and has contacted small entities and small entity
representatives to gain a better understanding of potential impacts of
the proposed Phase 2 program on their businesses. This
[[Page 4008]]
information was useful in estimating potential impacts of this rule on
affected small entities, the details of which are fully discussed in
Chapter 8 of the Draft RSD. Small not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions are not expected to be impacted by
this proposal. Thus EPA's impact analysis focuses on small businesses.
For purposes of the impact analysis, ``small business'' is defined by
number of employees or dollars of annual receipts according to Small
Business Administration (SBA) regulations. The analysis focuses
especially on impacts to manufacturers of Class II nonhandheld and
Classes III-V handheld engines and equipment, since Class I side-valve
engines are only expected to need minor modifications.
The economic impact of the proposed rule on engine and equipment
manufacturers defined as small by the SBA was evaluated using a ``sales
test'' approach which calculates annualized compliance costs as a
function of sales revenue. The ratio is an indication of the severity
of the potential impacts. The results of the analysis suggest that of
those small entities analyzed, one small business engine manufacturer
and two small business equipment manufacturers would experience an
impact of greater than one percent of their sales revenue. However,
none of these small entities would experience an impact greater than
three percent of their sales revenue. These three companies represent
approximately five percent of the total small business manufacturers on
which the analysis was based. Given this, and the ratio levels at which
these companies are projected to be impacted (i.e., less than three
percent), EPA expects today's proposal to have a light impact on small
business entities. The analysis assumes no passthrough of costs in
price increases and thus can be characterized as depicting worst case
impacts.
While the Agency does not consider these impacts to be significant,
the Agency desires to minimize impacts to the extent possible for those
companies which may be adversely affected and to ensure that the
proposed emissions standards are achievable. Thus, flexibility
provisions for the proposed rule (discussed in Section IV.E) were
developed based on information gained through discussions with
potentially affected small entities. Many of the flexibilities being
proposed in today's rule should benefit both engine and equipment
manufacturers qualifying as small. Some, but not all, of these
provisions were considered in the impact assessment on small entities
(see Chapter 8 of the Draft RSD). Those flexibilities not considered,
including a hardship relief provision described in Section IV.E, were
developed too late in the rule development process to be included in
the impact assessment, but as they were added in order to further
ensure the achievability of the proposed standards it is expected that
they would further reduce the impacts of the proposed rule. EPA
requests comment as to whether these proposed provisions adequately
address the needs of affected manufacturers, and small entities in
particular.
The results of the impact analysis show minimal impacts on small
businesses. EPA expects impacts may be negligible if small companies
take advantage of those additional flexibilities not considered in the
analysis, and if companies pass through most of their costs to
customers as was indicated as likely by most small companies contacted.
Furthermore, EPA's outreach activities with small entities indicated
that many engine and equipment manufacturers have already made the
switch from side-valve engine technology to producing or using overhead
valve engine technology for reasons other than today's proposed rule,
and therefore may not incur substantial additional costs as a result of
this program. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and therefore a regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposal has
not been prepared. 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. In spite of the expected minimal impacts on small
entities, the Agency is continuing its efforts to notify other small
business engine and equipment manufacturers of this rule and inform
them of their opportunities for providing feedback to the Agency.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 90
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Nonroad source pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Warranties.
Dated: December 23, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 90--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215,
216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7522,
7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)).
Subpart A--General
2. Section 90.1 is amended by removing the period at the end of
paragraph (b)(5)(iv) and adding a semicolon in its place, by adding
paragraphs (b)(6) and (d) and by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Engines that are used exclusively in emergency and rescue
equipment where no certified engines are available to power the
equipment safely and practically, but not including generators,
alternators, compressors or pumps used to provide remote power to a
rescue tool. The equipment manufacturer bears the responsibility to
ascertain on an annual basis and maintain documentation available to
the Administrator that no appropriate certified engine is available
from any source.
(c) Engines subject to the provisions of this subpart are also
subject to the provisions found in subparts B through N of this part,
except that subparts C, H, M and N of this part apply only to Phase 2
engines as defined in this subpart.
(d) Certain text in this part is identified as pertaining to Phase
1 or Phase 2 engines. Such text pertains only to engines of the
specified Phase. If no indication of Phase is given, the text pertains
to all engines, regardless of Phase.
3. Section 90.3 is amended by adding the following definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 90.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Aftertreatment means the passage of exhaust gases through a device
or system such as a catalyst whose purpose is to chemically alter the
gases prior to their release to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
Commercial Engine means a handheld engine that is not a residential
engine.
DF or df means deterioration factor.
Eligible sales or U.S. sales means Phase 2 engines sold for
purposes of being used in the United States, and includes any engine
exported and
[[Page 4009]]
subsequently imported in a new piece of equipment, but excludes any
engine introduced into commerce, by itself or in a piece of equipment,
for use in a state that has established its own emission requirements
applicable to such engines pursuant to a waiver granted by EPA under
section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *
Family Emission Limit or FEL means an emission level that is
declared by the manufacturer to serve in lieu of an emission standard
for certification, production line testing, Selective Enforcement
Auditing, and in-use testing for engines participating in the
averaging, banking and trading program. An FEL must be expressed to the
same number of decimal places as the applicable emission standard.
* * * * *
HC+NOX means total hydrocarbons plus oxides of nitrogen.
In-use credit means an emission credit that represents the
difference between the mean in-use emission results of a regulated
pollutant, CO, HC+NOX or NMHC+NOX, and the
applicable certification emission standard. In-use results below the
standard lead to the calculation of positive in-use credits, while in-
use results above the standard lead to the calculation of negative in-
use credits.
* * * * *
NMHC+NOX means nonmethane hydrocarbons plus oxides of
nitrogen.
* * * * *
Overhead valve engine means an otto-cycle, four-stroke engine in
which the intake and exhaust valves are located above the combustion
chamber within the cylinder head. Such engines are sometimes referred
to as ``valve-in-head'' engines.
Overhead valve emission performance or OEP engine means a Class II
overhead valve engine, or a Class II non-overhead valve engine that
complies with the applicable 2005 model year emission standards without
using emission credits.
Phase 1 engine means any handheld or nonhandheld engine, that was
produced under a certificate of conformity issued under the regulations
in this part and that is not a Phase 2 engine.
Phase 2 engine means any handheld engine as defined in this subpart
that is subject to the standards that begin to phase-in in the 2002
model year; and any nonhandheld engine as defined in this subpart of
the 2001 model year or later including those 1999 and 2000 model year
engines certified under early banking provisions described in this
part. Any engines exempted from the Phase 2 standards under this part
are excluded from coverage under this definition.
* * * * *
Residential engine means a handheld engine for which the engine
manufacturer makes a written statement to EPA as part of its
certification application that such engine and the equipment it is
installed in by the engine manufacturer, where applicable, is not
produced, advertised, marketed or intended for commercial or
professional usage.
Round, rounded or rounding means, unless otherwise specified, that
numbers will be rounded according to ASTM-E29-93a, which is
incorporated by reference in this part pursuant to Sec. 90.7.
* * * * *
Side valve engine means an otto-cycle, four stroke engine in which
the intake and exhaust valves are located to the side of the cylinder,
not within the cylinder head. Such engines are sometimes referred to as
``L-head'' engines.
Small volume engine family means any handheld engine family whose
eligible sales in a given model year are projected at the time of
certification to be no more than 2,500 engines; or any nonhandheld
engine family whose eligible sales in a given model year are projected
at the time of certification to be no more than 1,000 units.
Small volume engine manufacturer means, for handheld engines, any
engine manufacturer whose total eligible sales of handheld engines
subject to regulation under this part are projected at the time of
certification of a given model year to be no more than 25,000 handheld
engines; and, for nonhandheld engines, any engine manufacturer whose
total eligible sales of nonhandheld engines are projected at the time
of certification of a given model year to be no more than 10,000
nonhandheld engines.
Small volume equipment manufacturer means, for handheld equipment,
any equipment manufacturer whose production of handheld equipment
subject to regulation under this part or powered by engines regulated
under this part, does not exceed 5000 pieces for a given model year or
annual production period excluding that equipment intended for
introduction into commerce for use in a state that has established its
own emission requirements applicable to such equipment or engines in
such equipment, pursuant to a waiver granted by EPA under section
209(e) of the Clean Air Act. For nonhandheld equipment, the term
``small volume equipment manufacturer'' has the same meaning except
that it is limited to 2500 pieces rather than 5000.
Small volume equipment model means, for handheld equipment, any
unique model of equipment whose production subject to regulations under
this part or powered by engines regulated under this part, does not
exceed 2500 pieces for a given model year or annual production period
excluding that equipment intended for introduction into commerce for
use in a state that has established its own emission requirements
applicable to such equipment or engines in such equipment, pursuant to
a waiver granted by EPA under section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act. For
nonhandheld equipment, the term ``small volume equipment model'' has
the same meaning except that it is limited to 500 pieces rather than
2500.
Technology subgroup means a group of engine families from one or
more manufacturers having similar size, application, useful life and
emission control equipment; e.g., Class III, residential, non-catalyst,
two stroke engine used in generator set applications.
* * * * *
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Certification Provisions
4. Section 90.103 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text, and paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) and by adding paragraphs (a)(6)
through (a)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.103 Exhaust emission standards.
(a) Exhaust emissions for new Phase 1 and Phase 2 nonroad spark
ignition engines at or below 19 kilowatts (kW), shall not exceed the
following levels. Throughout this part, NMHC+NOX standards
are applicable only to natural gas fueled engines at the option of the
manufacturer, in lieu of HC+NOX standards. The tables for
Phase 1 and Phase 2 exhaust emissions levels follow:
[[Page 4010]]
Table 1.--Phase 1 Exhaust Emission Standards
[Grams per kilowatt-hour]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrocarbons +
oxides of Carbon Oxides of
Engine displacement class nitrogen Hydrocarbons monoxide nitrogen (NOX)
(HC+NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............................................... 16.1 .............. 519 ..............
II.............................................. 13.4 .............. 519 ..............
III............................................. .............. 295 805 5.36
IV.............................................. .............. 241 805 5.36
V............................................... .............. 161 603 5.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Phase 2 Nonhandheld Exhaust Emission Standards by Model Year
[Grams per kilowatt-hour]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year
----------------------------------------------------------------
Engine class Emission requirement 2005 and
2001 2002 2003 2004 later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.................... HC+ NOX................. 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
NMHC+NOX................ 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
CO...................... 610 610 610 610 610
II................... HC+NOX.................. 18.0 16.6 15.0 13.6 12.1
NMHC+NOX................ 16.7 15.3 14.0 12.7 11.3
CO...................... 610 610 610 610 610
Assumed OEP Percentage.. 50 62.5 75 87.5 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Phase 2 Handheld Exhaust Emission Standards Showing Phase-In by Aggregate Percentage of Sales
[Grams per kilowatt-hour]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standard Model year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine class 2005 and
HC+NOX CO 2002 2003 2004 later
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III............................... 210 805 ........... ........... ........... ...........
IV................................ 172 805 20 40 70 100
V................................. 116 603 ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(2) of this section, two stroke
engines used to power lawnmowers or other nonhandheld equipment may
meet Phase 1 Class III, IV or V standards and requirements, as
appropriate, through model year 2002 subject to the provisions of
Sec. 90.107(e), (f) and (h). Such engines shall not be included in any
computations of Phase 2 nonhandheld credits or sales nor in any
computations used to ascertain compliance with Phase 2 phase-in
requirements for handheld engines.
* * * * *
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(2) of this section, engines used
exclusively to power products which are used exclusively in wintertime,
such as snowthrowers and ice augers, at the option of the engine
manufacturer, need not certify to or comply with standards regulating
emissions of HC, NOX, HC+NOX or
NMHC+NOX , as applicable. If the manufacturer exercises the
option to certify to standards regulating such emissions, such engines
must meet such standards. If the engine is to be used in any equipment
or vehicle other than an exclusively wintertime product such as a
snowthrower or ice auger, it must be certified to the applicable
standard regulating emissions of HC, NOX, HC+NOX
or NMHC+NOX as applicable.
(6) During the phase-in of Phase 2 emission requirements for
handheld engines, as applicable, those engine families not certified to
Phase 2 requirements shall be certified to and shall meet Phase 1
requirements.
(7) Manufacturers of Phase 2 Class II engines must comply with the
OEP percentages shown in Table 2 of this section in each model year in
cases where the manufacturer desires to engage in cross class averaging
of emission credits as permitted under subpart C of this part, and in
cases where the manufacturer desires to use credits banked by itself or
another manufacturer in the 1999 or 2000 model year as permitted under
subpart C of this part. Compliance with OEP percentages shall be
determined by dividing the manufacturer's eligible sales of Class II
engines that are overhead valve engines or are certified at or below
the 2005 HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) standard, by the
manufacturer's total eligible sales of Class II engines for the subject
model year. Side valve engine families with annual US sales of less
than 1000 may be excluded from the calculation.
(8) Notwithstanding the standards shown in Table 2 of this section,
the HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) standard for Phase 2 Class
II sidevalve engine families with annual production of 1000 or less
shall be 24.0 g/kW-hr (22.0 g/kW-hr) for model years 2005 and later.
Engines produced subject to this provision may not exceed this standard
and are excluded from the averaging,
[[Page 4011]]
banking and trading program and any related credit calculations after
the 2004 model year. During the 2001 through 2004 model years these
engines are subject to applicable Phase 2 standards, but shall not
require the application of certification credits if their
HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) certification level is 24.0 g/
kW-hr (22.0 g/kW-hr) or less.
(9) Notwithstanding the standards shown in Table 2 of this section,
small volume engine manufacturers as defined in this part may, at their
option, certify Phase 2 Class II engines to an HC+NOX
(NMHC+NOX) standard of 24.0 g/kW-hr (22.0 g/kW-hr) through
the 2004 model year. Such engines shall not exceed this standard and
are excluded from the averaging, banking and trading program through
the 2004 model year.
* * * * *
5-6. Section 90.104 is amended by adding introductory text and
paragraphs (d) through (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.104 Compliance with emission standards.
Paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section apply to Phase 1 engines
only. Paragraphs (d) through (i) of this section apply only to Phase 2
engines.
* * * * *
(d) The exhaust emission standards (FELs, where applicable) for
Phase 2 engines set forth in this part apply to the emissions of the
engines for their full useful lives as determined pursuant to
Sec. 90.105.
(e) For all Phase 2 engines:
(1) If all test engines representing an engine family have
emissions, when properly tested according to procedures in this part,
less than or equal to each Phase 2 emission standard (FEL, where
applicable) in a given engine displacement class and given model year,
when multiplicatively adjusted by the deterioration factor determined
in this section, that family complies with that class of emission
standards for purposes of certification. If any test engine
representing an engine family has emissions adjusted multiplicatively
by the deterioration factor determined in this section, greater than
any one emission standard (FEL, where applicable) for a given
displacement class, that family does not comply with that class of
emission standards.
(2) Except as otherwise permitted under this section, each
manufacturer of handheld engines must comply with the Phase 2 phase-in
schedule shown in Sec. 90.103. Compliance with the Phase 2 phase-in
schedule shall be determined each model year by dividing the
manufacturer's total eligible sales of Phase 2 handheld engines of that
model year by the manufacturer's total eligible sales of handheld
engines subject to regulation under this part.
(3) In each model year during the Phase 2 phase-in period for
handheld engines (i.e. model years 2002, 2003, and 2004), manufacturers
of handheld engines shall project, updating as appropriate, and make
available to the Administrator upon request, the sales figures
necessary to complete the calculation required in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section. Within 270 days after the end of each model year in the
Phase 2 phase-in period, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the
Administrator showing its calculation of compliance with the phase-in
schedule.
(4) Small volume manufacturers of handheld engines as defined in
this part are not subject to the phase-in requirements applicable to
the 2002, 2003 or 2004 model years.
(f) Each manufacturer of nonhandheld engines must comply with all
provisions of the averaging, banking and trading program outlined in
subpart C of this part for each engine family participating in that
program.
(g)(1) Deterioration factors for HC+NOX and
NMHC+NOX emissions for all nonhandheld OHV Phase 2 engines
without aftertreatment may be taken from Table 1 of this section or may
be calculated according to the process described in paragraph (h) of
this section. Except where the Administrator directs a nonhandheld
engine manufacturer to calculate a df under paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3)
of this section, if a manufacturer elects to calculate a df for an
engine family, it must do so for all families of that class in the same
useful life category. Where a manufacturer elects to take an
HC+NOX or NMHC+NOX df from the table, it may use
good engineering judgment to determine an appropriate CO df, provided
it maintains and makes available to the Administrator upon request,
such rationale and supporting data used to determine the CO df.
(2) If the Administrator has evidence for a given class and useful
life category indicating that a sales weighted average of a
manufacturer's actual dfs of those families for which an assigned df is
being used, exceeds the assigned df by more than 15%, the Administrator
may require the manufacturer to submit appropriate data to establish a
df for some or all of the engine families. Such data may be generated
through the process described in paragraph (h) of this section or
through another process approved by the Administrator.
(3) If the Administrator has evidence indicating that the actual df
of an engine family for which a manufacturer is using an assigned df,
exceeds 1.8, the Administrator may require the manufacturer to submit
appropriate data to establish a df for that engine family. Such data
may be generated through the process described in paragraph (h) of this
section or through another process approved by the Administrator.
(4) Table 1 follows:
Table 1.--Assigned HC+NOx and NMHC+NOx Deterioration Factors for Nonhandheld Phase 2 Overhead Valve Engines
Without Aftertreatment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I........................... Usefule life (hours)................. 66 250 500
Deterioration factor................. 1.3 1.3 1.3
Class II.......................... Useful life (hours).................. 250 500 1000
Deterioration factor................. 1.3 1.3 1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Manufacturers shall obtain an assigned df or calculate a df, as
appropriate, for each regulated pollutant for all Phase 2 handheld and
nonhandheld engine families. Such dfs shall be used, as applicable, for
certification, production line testing, and Selective Enforcement
Auditing. For handheld engines, and nonhandheld engines not using
assigned dfs from Table 1 of this section, manufacturers shall
calculate dfs for each pollutant through one of the following options:
(1) For handheld engines, dfs shall be determined using good
engineering judgment and reflect the exhaust emission deterioration
expected over the useful life of the engine except that no df may be
less than 1.0. EPA may reject a df if it has evidence that the df is
not appropriate for that family. The manufacturer must retain actual
emission test data to support its choice of df and furnish that data to
the Administrator upon request. Acceptable
[[Page 4012]]
data sources include, but are not limited to:
(i) In-use data from an earlier model year of this family or a
closely related family;
(ii) Data from engines used in the field/bench adjustment program
described in subpart M of this part.
(2) For nonhandheld engines:
(i) On at least three test engines representing the configuration
chosen to be the most likely to exceed HC+NOX
(NMHC+NOX) emission standards, (FELs where applicable), and
constructed to be representative of production engines pursuant to
Sec. 90.117, conduct full Federal test procedure emission testing
pursuant to the regulations of Subpart E of this part at the number of
hours representing stabilized emissions pursuant to Sec. 90.118.
Average the results and round to the same number of decimal places
contained in the applicable standard, expressed to one additional
significant figure. Conduct such emission testing again following field
aging in actual usage to a number of hours equivalent to the applicable
useful life hours, plus or minus five percent. Average the results and
round to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable
standard, expressed to one additional significant figure. Divide the
full useful life average emissions for each regulated pollutant by the
stabilized average emission results and round to two significant
figures. The resulting number shall be the df, unless it is less than
1.0, in which case the df shall be 1.0; or
(ii) On at least three test engines representing the configuration
chosen to be the most likely to exceed HC+NOX
(NMHC+NOX) emission standards (FELs where applicable), and
constructed to be representative of production engines pursuant to
Sec. 90.117, conduct full Federal test procedure emission testing
pursuant to the regulation of Subpart E of this part at no fewer than
three points as follows: at the number of hours representing stabilized
emissions pursuant to Sec. 90.118; again following field aging in
actual usage to a number of hours equivalent to the applicable useful
life hours, plus or minus five percent; and also at no fewer than one
point spaced approximately equally between the other two. The test
results for each pollutant shall be rounded to the same number of
decimal places contained in the applicable standard, expressed to one
additional significant figure and plotted as a function of hours on the
engine, rounded to the nearest whole hour. The best fit straight line,
determined by the method of least squares, shall be drawn. Using this
line, interpolate the emissions of each pollutant at 12 hours and at a
number of hours equal to the applicable useful life. Divide the
interpolated useful life emissions by the interpolated emissions at 12
hours and round this figure to two significant figures. The resultant
number shall represent the df unless it is less than 1.0, in which case
the df shall be 1.0; or
(iii) Perform another process, approved in advance by the
Administrator, which will have the objective of adequately ascertaining
the relationship of field aged emissions at full useful life with those
tested with stabilized emissions at low hours; or
(iv) For manufacturers of Class II overhead valve engines
certifying to 500 or 1000 hour useful lives, such manufacturers may
establish dfs for such engines based on good engineering judgment that
has been proposed in advance and determined to be satisfactory to the
Administrator, for certification of model years 2001 through 2004. The
Administrator may, in model year 2006 or later, direct the manufacturer
to verify, in a period of time the Administrator determines to be
reasonable, such dfs using methods described in paragraphs (h)(2)(i),
(ii) or (iii) of this section. If the dfs established by the
manufacturer under this provision underestimate the dfs determined by
the methods under paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section,
by 15% or more, the Administrator shall provide the manufacturer with a
period of two model years in which to obtain sufficient certification
emission credits from other nonhandheld engines to cover the credit
shortfall calculated by substituting the df determined under this
provision for the original df in the equation in Sec. 90.207(a).
(3) Calculated deterioration factors may cover families and model
years in addition to the one upon which they were generated if the
manufacturer submits a justification acceptable to the Administrator in
advance of certification that the affected engine families can be
reasonably expected to have similar emission deterioration
characteristics.
(i)(1) Except as allowed in paragraph (i)(2) of this section,
nonhandheld sidevalve engines or nonhandheld engines with exhaust
aftertreatment shall be certified by field aging one engine in actual
usage or by bench aging one engine on an aging cycle determined to
represent field aged engines under Sec. 90.1207 and Sec. 90.1208, to
its full useful life followed by emission testing using applicable test
procedures under this part. Emission test results for such bench aged
engines shall be adjusted using adjustment factors calculated under
Sec. 90.1208 to determine the certification levels. The dfs for such
engines shall be calculated during this bench aging process using the
techniques described in paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this
section, except that bench aging of one engine may be used in place of
field aging. In calculating the dfs of bench aged nonhandheld sidevalve
engines or nonhandheld engines with aftertreatment, the emission test
data at the number of hours equal to full useful life, shall first be
multiplied by the adjustment factor applicable to that engine family
and determined under Sec. 90.1208.
(2) Sidevalve Class II or aftertreatment-equipped Class II engines
for which the manufacturer commits in writing, at the time of
certification, to cease production by the end of the 2004 model year,
are eligible for reduced certification testing, at the manufacturer's
option. Bench aging or field aging for the certification of such
engines may be stopped at 120 hours for engines having a useful life of
250 hours as determined pursuant to regulations in this part; at 250
hours for engines having a useful life of 500 hours; and at 500 hours
for engines having a useful life of 1000 hours. In such cases, based on
emission results from stabilized engines and engines aged as described
in this paragraph (i), the manufacturer shall project emissions to 250,
500 or 1000 hours, as applicable, using good engineering judgment
acceptable to the Administrator. The manufacturer shall then adjust
bench aged emissions (if applicable) with the adjustment factor
determined pursuant to Sec. 90.1208 for purposes of certification and
computation of credits or credit needs. The manufacturer shall compute
dfs for bench aged engines from the adjusted emission levels using good
engineering judgment acceptable to the Administrator. For field aged
engines, the manufacturer shall compute dfs from the projected 250, 500
or 1000 hour emissions, as applicable, using good engineering judgment
acceptable to the Administrator.
7. Section 90.105 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 90.105 Useful life periods for Phase 2 engines.
(a) Manufacturers shall declare the applicable useful life category
for each engine family at the time of certification as described in
this section. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, such
category shall be that category which most closely
[[Page 4013]]
approximates the actual useful lives of the equipment into which the
engines are expected to be installed. Manufacturers shall retain data
appropriate to support their choice of useful life category for each
engine family. Such data shall be sufficient to show that the majority
of engines or a sales weighted average of engines of that family are
used in applications having a useful life best represented by the
chosen category. Such data shall be furnished to the Administrator upon
request.
(1) For handheld engines:
(i) Engines declared by the manufacturer at the time of
certification as residential, as defined in Sec. 90.3, shall have a
useful life for purposes of regulation under this part of 50 hours.
(ii) Engines declared by the manufacturer at the time of
certification as commercial, as defined in Sec. 90.3, shall have a
useful life for purposes of regulation under this part of 300 hours.
(2) For nonhandheld engines: Manufacturers shall select a useful
life category from Table 1 of this section at the time of
certification, as follows:
Table 1.--Useful Life Categories for Nonhandheld Engines (Hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Category Category
C B A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I................................ 66 250 500
Class II............................... 250 500 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Data to support a manufacturer's choice of useful life
category, for a given engine family, may include but are not limited
to:
(i) Surveys of the life spans of the equipment in which the subject
engines are installed;
(ii) Engineering evaluations of field aged engines to ascertain
when engine performance deteriorates to the point where usefulness and/
or reliability is impacted to a degree sufficient to necessitate
overhaul or replacement;
(iii) Warranty statements and warranty periods;
(iv) Marketing materials regarding engine life;
(v) Failure reports from engine customers; and
(vi) Engineering evaluations of the durability, in hours, of
specific engine technologies, engine materials or engine designs.
(b) [Reserved]
8. Section 90.106 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
new paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.106 Certificate of conformity.
(a)(1) Except as provided in Sec. 90.2(b), every manufacturer of
new engines produced during or after model year 1997 must obtain a
certificate of conformity covering such engines; however, engines
manufactured during an annual production period beginning prior to
September 1, 1996 are not required to be certified.
(2) Except as required in paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
nonhandheld engines manufactured during an annual production period
beginning prior to September 1, 2000 are not required to meet Phase 2
requirements.
(b) * * *
(3) Manufacturers who commence an annual production period for a
nonhandheld engine family between January 1, 2000 and September 1, 2000
must meet Phase 2 requirements for that family only if that production
period will exceed 12 months in length.
* * * * *
9. Section 90.107 is amended by adding a semicolon at the end of
paragraph (d)(5), by removing ``and'' at the end of paragraph (d)(9),
by removing the period at the end of paragraph (d)(10) and adding a
semicolon in its place, and by adding new paragraphs (d)(11) and
(d)(12) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.107 Application for certification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(11) This paragraph (d)(11) is applicable only to Phase 2 engines.
(i) Manufacturers of nonhandheld engines participating in the
Averaging, Banking and Trading Program as described in Subpart C of
this part shall declare the applicable Family Emission Limit (FEL) for
HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX).
(ii) Provide the applicable useful life as determined under
Sec. 90.105;
(12) In cases where the regulations in Sec. 90.114(f) are
applicable, a copy of the language to be included in the documents
intended for the ultimate purchaser to describe the emission compliance
period.
* * * * *
10. Section 90.108 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 90.108 Certification.
* * * * *
(c) For certificates issued for engine families included in the
averaging, banking and trading program as described in subpart C of
this part:
(1) All certificates issued are conditional upon the manufacturer
complying with the provisions of subpart C of this part and the
averaging, banking and trading related provisions of other applicable
sections, both during and after the model year of production.
(2) Failure to comply with all applicable averaging, banking and
trading provisions in this part will be considered to be a failure to
comply with the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was
issued, and the certificate may be determined to be void ab initio.
(3) The manufacturer shall bear the burden of establishing to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the conditions upon which the
certificate was granted were satisfied or waived.
(d) The Administrator may, upon request by a manufacturer, waive
any requirement of this part otherwise necessary for the issuance of a
certificate. The Administrator may set such conditions in a certificate
as he or she deems appropriate to assure that the waived requirements
are either satisfied or are demonstrated, for the subject engines, to
be inappropriate, irrelevant or met by the application of a different
requirement under this chapter. The Administrator may indicate on such
conditional certificates that failure to meet these conditions may
result in suspension or revocation or the voiding ab initio of the
certificate.
11. Section 90.113 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding two sentences to the beginning of paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.113 In-use testing program for Phase 1 engines.
(a) This section applies only to Phase 1 engines. In-use testing
requirements for Phase 2 engines are found in subpart M of this part.*
* *
* * * * *
12. Section 90.114 is amended by removing ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (c)(9), by removing the period at the end of paragraph
(c)(10) and adding a semicolon in its place, and by adding new
paragraphs (c)(11), (c)(12) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.114 Requirement of certification--engine information label.
* * * * *
(c)* * *
(11) For nonhandheld Phase 2 engines, the useful life category as
determined by the manufacturer pursuant to Sec. 90.105. Such useful
life category shall be shown by one of the following statements to be
appended to the statement required under paragraph (c)(7) of this
section:
(i) ``EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD: [useful life] HOURS''; or
(ii) ``EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD: CATEGORY [fill in C, B or A as
indicated and appropriate from the chart in Sec. 90.105], REFER TO
OWNER'S
[[Page 4014]]
MANUAL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION'';
(12) For handheld Phase 2 engines, the useful life category as
determined by the manufacturer pursuant to Sec. 90.105. Such useful
life category shall be shown by the following statement to be appended
to the statement required under (c)(7) of this section: ``EMISSIONS
COMPLIANCE PERIOD: [ 50 or 300, as applicable] HOURS''.
* * * * *
(f)(1) Manufacturers electing to use the labeling language of
paragraph (c)(11)(ii) of this section must provide in the documents
intended to be conveyed to the ultimate purchaser, the statement:
The Emissions Compliance Period referred to on the label
entitled ``Important Engine Information'' indicates the number of
operating hours for which the engine has been shown to meet Federal
emission requirements. For engines less than 225 cc displacement,
Category C= 66 hours, B= 250 hours and A = 500 hours. For engines of
225 cc or more, Category C = 250 hours, B = 500 hours and A = 1000
hours.
(2) The manufacturer must provide, in the same document as the
statement in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a statement of the
engine's displacement or an explanation of how to readily determine the
engine's displacement. The Administrator may approve alternate language
to the statement in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, provided that the
alternate language provides the ultimate purchaser with a clear
description of the number of hours represented by each of the three
letter categories for the subject engine's displacement.
13. Section 90.116 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(6) and
(d)(7) and adding paragraphs (d)(8) through (d)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.116 Certification procedure--determining engine displacement,
engine class, and engine families.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) The location of valves, where applicable, with respect to the
cylinder (e.g., side valves or overhead valves);
(7) The number of catalytic converters, location, volume and
composition;
(8) The thermal reactor characteristics;
(9) The fuel required (e.g., gasoline, natural gas, LPG); and
(10) The useful life category.
* * * * *
14. Section 90.117 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.117 Certification procedure--test engine selection.
(a) For Phase 1 engines, the manufacturer must select, from each
engine family, a test engine that the manufacturer determines to be
most likely to exceed the emission standard. For Phase 2 engines, the
manufacturer must select, from each engine family, a test engine of a
configuration that the manufacturer determines to be most likely to
exceed the HC+NOX [NMHC+NOX] Family Emission
Limit (FEL), or HC+NOX [NMHC+NOX] standard if no
FEL is applicable.
* * * * *
15. Section 90.118 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.118 Certification procedure--service accumulation and usage of
deterioration factors.
* * * * *
(e) For purposes of establishing whether Phase 2 engines comply
with applicable exhaust emission standards or FELs, the test results
for each regulated pollutant as measured pursuant to Sec. 90.119 shall
be multiplied by the applicable df determined under Sec. 90.104 (g),
(h) or (i). The product of the two numbers shall be rounded to the same
number of decimal places contained in the applicable standard, and
compared against the applicable standard or FEL, as appropriate.
16. Section 90.122 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d)(4) as follows:
Sec. 90.122 Amending the application and certificate of conformity.
(a) The engine manufacturer must notify the Administrator when
either an engine is to be added to a certificate of conformity, an FEL
is to be changed, or changes are to be made to a product line covered
by a certificate of conformity. * * *
* * * * *
(d)* * *
(4) If the Administrator determines that a revised FEL meets the
requirements of this subpart and the Act, the appropriate certificate
of conformity will be amended, or a new certificate will be issued to
reflect the revised FEL. The certificate of conformity is revised
conditional upon compliance with Sec. 90.207(b).
* * * * *
17. Subpart C, which was formerly reserved, is added to part 90 to
read as follows:
Subpart C--Certification Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions for
Nonhandheld Engines
Sec.
90.201 Applicability.
90.202 Definitions.
90.203 General provisions.
90.204 Averaging.
90.205 Banking.
90.206 Trading.
90.207 Credit calculation and manufacturer compliance with emission
standards.
90.208 Certification.
90.209 Maintenance of records.
90.210 End-of-year and final reports.
90.211 Request for hearing.
Subpart C--Certification Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions
for Nonhandheld Engines
Sec. 90.201 Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart C are applicable to all Phase 2
nonhandheld spark-ignition engines subject to the provisions of subpart
A of this part except as provided in Sec. 90.103(a). These provisions
are not applicable to any Phase 1 engines or to any Phase 2 handheld
engines. Participation in the averaging, banking and trading program is
voluntary, but if a manufacturer elects to participate, it must do so
in compliance with the regulations set forth in this subpart. The
provisions of this subpart are applicable for HC+NOX
(NMHC+NOX) emissions but not for CO emissions.
Sec. 90.202 Definitions.
The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart.
The following definitions also apply to this subpart:
Averaging means the exchange of emission credits between engine
families within a given manufacturer's product line.
Banking means the retention of emission credits by the manufacturer
generating the emission credits or obtaining such credits through
trading, for use in future model year averaging or trading as permitted
in this part.
Emission credits represent the amount of emission reduction or
exceedance, by an engine family, below or above the applicable
HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) emission standard,
respectively. FELs below the standard create ``positive credits,''
while FELs above the standard create ``negative credits.'' In addition,
``projected credits'' refer to emission credits based on the projected
applicable production/sales volume of the engine family. ``Reserved
credits'' are emission credits generated within a model year waiting to
be reported to EPA at the end of the model year. ``Actual credits''
refer to emission credits based on actual applicable sales volume as
contained in the end-of-year
[[Page 4015]]
reports submitted to EPA. Some or all of these credits may be revoked
if EPA review of the end-of-year reports or any subsequent audit
action(s) reveals problems or errors of any nature with credit
computations.
Point of first retail sale means the point at which the engine is
first sold directly to an end user. Generally, this point is the retail
engine or equipment dealer. If the engine is sold first to an equipment
manufacturer for installation in a piece of equipment, the equipment
manufacturer may be the point of first retail sale if the equipment
manufacturer can determine with reasonable certainty whether the engine
is or is not exported or destined for retail sale in a state that has
adopted applicable emission standards pursuant to a waiver granted by
EPA under section 209(e) of the Act once it has been installed in a
piece of equipment.
Trading means the exchange of emission credits between
manufacturers.
Sec. 90.203 General provisions.
(a) The certification averaging, banking, and trading provisions
for HC+NOX and NMHC+NOX emissions from eligible
engines are described in this subpart.
(b) A nonhandheld engine family may use the averaging, banking and
trading provisions for HC+NOX and NMHC+NOX
emissions if it is subject to regulation under this part with certain
exceptions specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
HC+NOX and NMHC+NOX credits shall be
interchangeable subject to the limitations on credit generation, credit
usage, cross class averaging and other provisions described in this
subpart.
(c) A manufacturer shall not include in its calculation of credit
generation and may exclude from its calculation of credit usage, any
new engines:
(1) Which are exported, unless the manufacturer has reason or
should have reason to believe that such engines have been or will be
imported in a piece of equipment; or
(2) Which are subject to state engine emission standards pursuant
to a waiver granted by EPA under section 209(e) of the Act, unless the
manufacturer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that
inclusion of these engines in averaging, banking and trading is
appropriate.
(d) For an engine family using credits, a manufacturer may, at its
option, include its entire production of that engine family in its
calculation of credit usage for a given model year.
(e) A manufacturer may certify engine families at Family Emission
Limits (FELs) above or below the applicable emission standard subject
to the limitation in paragraph (f) of this section, provided the
summation of the manufacturer's projected balance of credits from all
credit transactions for each engine class in a given model year is
greater than or equal to zero, as determined under Sec. 90.207.
(1) A manufacturer of an engine family with an FEL exceeding the
applicable emission standard must obtain positive emission credits
sufficient to address the associated credit shortfall via averaging,
banking, or trading.
(2) An engine family with an FEL below the applicable emission
standard may generate positive emission credits for averaging, banking,
or trading, or a combination thereof.
(3) In the case of an SEA failure, credits may be used to cover
subsequent production of engines for the family in question if the
manufacturer elects to recertify to a higher FEL. Credits may not be
used to remedy a nonconformity determined by a Selective Enforcement
Audit (SEA) or by in-use testing, except that the Administrator may
permit the use of credits to address a nonconformity determined by an
SEA where the use of such credits is one component of a multi-part
remedy for the previously produced engines and the remedy, including
the use of credits and the quantity of credits being used, is such that
the Administrator is satisfied that the manufacturer has strong and
lasting incentive to accurately verify its new engine emission levels
and will set or reset its FELs for current and future model years so
that production line compliance is assured.
(4) In the case of a production line testing failure pursuant to
subpart H of this part, a manufacturer may revise the FEL based upon
production line testing results obtained under subpart H of this part
and upon Administrator approval pursuant to Sec. 90.122(d). The
manufacturer may use certification credits to cover both past
production and subsequent production of nonhandheld engines as needed.
(f) No engine family may have an FEL that is greater than 32.2 g/
kW-hr for Class I engines or 26.8 g/kW-hr for Class II engines.
(g)(1) All credits generated under this subpart will be designated
as Class I or Class II credits, as appropriate. Except as described in
Sec. 90.204(b), credits generated in a given model year by an engine
family subject to the Phase 2 emission requirements may only be used in
averaging, banking or trading, as appropriate, for any nonhandheld
engine family of the same class for which the Phase 2 requirements are
applicable. Credits generated in one model year may not be used for
prior model years, except as allowed under Sec. 90.207(c) or
Sec. 90.104(h)(2)(iv).
(2) For the 2005 model year and for each subsequent model year,
manufacturers of Class II engines must provide a demonstration that the
sales weighted average FEL for HC+NOX (including
NMHC+NOX FELs), for all of the manufacturer's Class II
engines, will not exceed 13.6 g/kW-hr for the 2005 model year, 13.1 g/
kW-hr for the 2006 model year and 12.6 g/kW-hr for the 2007 and each
subsequent Phase 2 model year. Such demonstration shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Administrator, shall be provided at the
time of the first Class II certification of that model year and shall
be based on projected eligible sales for that model year.
(h) Manufacturers must demonstrate compliance under the averaging,
banking, and trading provisions for a particular model year by 270 days
after the end of the model year. An engine family generating negative
credits for which the manufacturer does not obtain or generate an
adequate number of positive credits by that date from the same or
previous model year engines will violate the conditions of the
certificate of conformity. The certificate of conformity may be voided
ab initio pursuant to Sec. 90.123 for this engine family.
Sec. 90.204 Averaging.
(a) Negative credits from engine families with FELs above the
applicable emission standard must be offset by positive credits from
engine families having FELs below the applicable emission standard, as
allowed under the provisions of this subpart. Averaging of credits in
this manner is used to determine compliance under Sec. 90.207(b).
(b) Cross-class averaging, i.e. the use of credits from Class I
engines to cover Class II engines and vice versa, is permitted only for
the two situations described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this
section and only when the affected Class II manufacturer meets the
following minimum sales percentages for Class II overhead valve
emission performance engines in that model year: 2001 (50%); 2002
(62.5%); 2003 (75%); 2004 (87.5%) and 2005 and later (100%). A
manufacturer's sales percentage of overhead valve emission performance
engines is determined by dividing the manufacturer's eligible sales (as
defined in this part) of Class II overhead valve emission performance
[[Page 4016]]
engines certified under this part by the manufacturer's total eligible
sales of Class II engines certified under this part, and multiplying
the resultant quotient by 100.
(1) Cross class averaging is allowed for credit exchanges from
credit generating Class II engines to credit using Class I engines.
(2) Cross class averaging is allowed for credit exchanges from
Class I engines to Class II engines where credits are necessary to
address production line testing failures as permitted in Sec. 90.207 or
to address credit shortfalls that arise due to testing pursuant to
Sec. 90.104(h)(2)(iv) .
(c) Subject to the limitations in Sec. 90.204(b), credits used in
averaging for a given model year may be obtained from credits generated
in the same model year by another engine family, credits banked in
previous model years, or credits of the same or previous model year
obtained through trading. The restrictions of this paragraph
notwithstanding, credits from a given model year may be used to address
credit needs of previous model year engines as allowed under
Sec. 90.207(c).
(d) The use of Class II credits from the 1999 and 2000 model years
(early banking) is subject to regulation under this subpart and also to
the provisions of Sec. 90.103(a)(7).
Sec. 90.205 Banking.
(a) Beginning with the 2001 model year, a manufacturer of an engine
family with an FEL below the applicable emission standard for a given
model year may bank credits in that model year for use in averaging and
trading. Negative credits may be banked only according to the
requirements under Sec. 90.207(c). Credits may also be banked in model
years 1999 and 2000 subject to the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section.
(b) A manufacturer may bank credits for a given class of engines in
the 1999 and 2000 model years for use in the 2001 and later model
years, provided:
(1) For Class I credits: the manufacturer certifies its entire
Class I production to the applicable 2001 model year requirements.
HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) credits may only be banked from
engine families certified below 16.0 g/kW-hr (15.0 g/kW-hr) where those
credits are not needed to bring the manufacturer's total Class I sales
into compliance with the 2001 model year standard.
(2) For Class II credits: the manufacturer certifies its entire
Class II product line to the applicable 2001 model year requirements.
HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) credits may only be banked from
engine families certified below 12.1 (11.3 g/kw-hr) for engines where
those credits are not needed to bring the manufacturer's total Class II
sales into compliance with the 2001 model year standard.
(3) Engines certified under the provisions of this paragraph are
subject to all of the requirements of this part applicable to Phase 2
engines.
(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.
Sec. 90.206 Trading.
(a) An engine manufacturer may exchange emission credits with other
nonhandheld engine manufacturers in trading.
(b) Credits for trading can be obtained from credits banked in
previous model years or credits generated during the model year of the
trading transaction.
(c) Traded credits can be used for averaging, banking, or further
trading transactions.
(d) Traded credits are subject to the limitations on cross-class
averaging, use for past model years, and the use of credits from early
banking as set forth in Sec. 90.204(b), (c) and (d).
(e) 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 pursuant to Sec. 90.123.
Sec. 90.207 Credit calculation and manufacturer compliance with
emission standards.
(a) (1) For each engine family, HC+NOX
[NMHC+NOX] certification emission credits (positive or
negative) are to be calculated according to the following equation and
rounded to the nearest gram. Consistent units are to be used throughout
the following equation:
Credits = Sales x (Standard--FEL) x Power x Useful life x Load
Factor
Where:
Sales = eligible sales as defined in this part. Annual sales
projections are used to project credit availability for initial
certification. Eligible sales volume is used in determining actual
credits for end-of-year compliance determination.
Standard = the current and applicable Small SI engine
HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) emission standard in grams
per kilowatt hour as determined in Sec. 90.103.
FEL = the family emission limit for the engine family in grams
per kilowatt hour.
Power = the sales weighted maximum modal power, in kilowatts, as
calculated from the applicable federal test procedure as described
in this part. This is determined by multiplying the maximum modal
power of each configuration within the family by its eligible sales,
summing across all configurations and dividing by the eligible sales
of the entire family.
Useful Life = the useful life in hours corresponding to the
useful life category for which the engine family was certified.
Load Factor = For Test Cycle A and Test Cycle B, the Load Factor
= 47% (i.e. 0.47).
(2) For approved alternate test procedures, the load factor in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be calculated according to the
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JA98.001
Where:
%MTT modei = percent of the maximum FTP torque for
mode i.
%MTS modei = percent of the maximum FTP engine
rotational speed for mode i.
WF modei = the weighting factor for mode i.
(b) Manufacturer compliance with the emission standard is
determined on a corporate average basis at the end of each model year.
A manufacturer is in compliance when the sum of positive and negative
emission credits it holds for each class is greater than or equal to
zero, except that the sum of positive and negative credits for a given
class may be less than zero as allowed under paragraph (c) of this
section.
(c)(1) A manufacturer may use credits from a later model year to
address dfs of model year 2001 through 2004 Class II engines certified
to 500 or 1000 hours, when the dfs are shown to be underestimated
pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 90.104(h)(2)(iv).
(2) If, as a result of production line testing as required in
subpart H of this part, a nonhandheld engine family is determined to be
in noncompliance pursuant to Sec. 90.710, the manufacturer may raise
its FEL for past and future production as necessary. Further, a
manufacturer may carry a negative credit balance (known also as a
credit deficit) for the subject class and model year and for the next
three model years.
[[Page 4017]]
The credit deficit may be no larger than that created by the
nonconforming family. If the credit deficit still exists after the
model year following the model year in which the nonconformity
occurred, the manufacturer must obtain and apply credits to offset the
remaining credit deficit at a rate of 1.2 grams for each gram of
deficit within the next two model years. The provisions of this
paragraph are subject to the limitations in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(d) Regulations elsewhere in this part notwithstanding, if a
nonhandheld engine manufacturer experiences two or more production line
testing failures pursuant to the regulations in subpart H of this part
in a given model year, the manufacturer may raise the FEL of previously
produced engines only to the extent that such engines represent no more
than 10% of the manufacturer's total eligible sales for that model
year. For any additional engines determined to be in noncompliance, the
manufacturer must conduct offsetting projects approved in advance by
the Administrator.
(e) If, as a result of production line testing under this subpart,
a manufacturer desires to lower its FEL it may do so subject to
Sec. 90.708(c).
(f) Except as allowed at paragraph (c) of this section, when a
manufacturer is not in compliance with the applicable emission standard
by the date 270 days after the end of the model year, considering all
credit calculations and transactions completed by then, the
manufacturer will be in violation of these regulations and EPA may,
pursuant to Sec. 90.123, void ab initio the certificates of engine
families for which the manufacturer has not obtained sufficient
positive emission credits.
Sec. 90.208 Certification.
(a) In the application for certification a manufacturer must:
(1) 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 be in noncompliance under Sec. 90.207(b) when all
credits are calculated for all the manufacturer's engine families.
(2) Declare an FEL for each engine family for HC+NOX
(NMHC+NOX). The FEL must have the same number of significant
digits as the emission standard.
(3) Indicate the projected number of credits generated/needed for
this family; the projected applicable eligible sales volume, by
quarter; and the values required to calculate credits as given in
Sec. 90.207.
(4) Submit calculations in accordance with Sec. 90.207 of projected
emission credits (positive or negative) based on quarterly production
projections for each family.
(5)(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.
(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.
(b) All certificates issued are conditional upon manufacturer
compliance with the provisions of this subpart both during and after
the model year of production.
(c) Failure to comply with all provisions of this subpart will be
considered to be a failure to satisfy the conditions upon which the
certificate was issued, and the certificate may be determined to be
void ab initio pursuant to Sec. 90.123.
(d) The manufacturer bears the burden of establishing to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the conditions upon which the
certificate was issued were satisfied or waived.
(e) Projected credits based on information supplied in the
certification application may be used to obtain a certificate of
conformity. However, any such credits may be revoked based on review of
end-of-year reports, follow-up audits, and any other verification steps
considered appropriate by the Administrator.
Sec. 90.209 Maintenance of records.
(a) The manufacturer must establish, maintain, and retain the
following adequately organized and indexed records for each engine
family:
(1) EPA engine family identification code;
(2) Family Emission Limit (FEL) or FELs where FEL changes have been
implemented during the model year;
(3) Maximum modal power for each configuration sold;
(4) Projected sales volume for the model year; and
(5) Records appropriate to establish the quantities of engines that
constitute eligible sales as defined in Sec. 90.202 for each power
rating for each FEL.
(b) Any manufacturer producing an engine family participating in
trading reserved credits must maintain the following records on a
quarterly basis for each such engine family:
(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. 90.207;
(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.
(c) The manufacturer must retain all records required to be
maintained under this section for a period of eight years from the due
date for the end-of-model year report. Records may be retained as hard
copy or reduced to microfilm, ADP diskettes, and so forth, depending on
the manufacturer's record retention procedure; provided, that in every
case all information contained in the hard copy is retained.
(d) Nothing in this section limits the Administrator's discretion
in requiring the manufacturer to retain additional records or submit
information not specifically required by this section.
(e) Pursuant to a request made by the Administrator, the
manufacturer must submit to the Administrator the information that the
manufacturer is required to retain.
(f) EPA may, pursuant to Sec. 90.123, void ab initio a certificate
of conformity for an engine family for which the manufacturer fails to
retain the records required in this section or to provide such
information to the Administrator upon request.
Sec. 90.210 End-of-year and final reports.
(a) End-of-year and final reports must indicate the engine family,
the class (I or II), the actual sales volume, the values required to
calculate credits as given in Sec. 90.207, 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 must include a calculation of credit balances to
show that the credit summation for each class of engines is equal to or
greater than zero (or less than zero in cases of negative credit
balances as permitted in Sec. 90.207(c)). For engines subject to the
provisions of Sec. 90.203(g)(2), the report must include a calculation
of the sales weighted average HC+NOX (including
NMHC+NOX) FEL.
(b) The calculation of eligible sales for end-of-year and final
reports must be based on the location of the point of first retail sale
(for example, retail customer
[[Page 4018]]
or dealer) also called the final product purchase location. Upon
advance written request, the Administrator will consider other methods
to track engines for credit calculation purposes that provide high
levels of confidence that eligible sales are accurately counted.
(c)(1) End-of-year reports must be submitted within 90 days of the
end of the model year to: Manager, Engine Compliance Programs Group
(6403-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.
(2) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, final reports
must be submitted within 270 days of the end of the model year to:
Manager, Engine Compliance Programs Group (6403-J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.
(d) Failure by a manufacturer to submit any end-of-year or final
reports in the specified time for any engines subject to regulation
under this part is a violation of Sec. 90.1003(a)(2) and section 213(d)
of the Clean Air Act for each engine.
(e) A manufacturer generating credits for banking only who fails to
submit end-of-year reports in the applicable specified time period (90
days after the end of the model year) may not use the credits until
such reports are received and reviewed by EPA. Use of projected credits
pending EPA review is not permitted in these circumstances.
(f) Errors discovered by EPA or the manufacturer in the end-of-year
report, including errors in credit calculation, may be corrected in the
final report.
(g) If EPA or the manufacturer determines that a reporting error
occurred on an end-of-year or final report previously submitted to EPA
under this section, the manufacturer's credits and credit calculations
must be recalculated. Erroneous positive credits will be void except as
provided in paragraph (h) of this section. Erroneous negative credit
balances may be adjusted by EPA.
(h) If within 270 days of the end of the model year, EPA review
determines a reporting error in the manufacturer's favor (that is,
resulting in an increased credit balance) or if the manufacturer
discovers such an error within 270 days of the end of the model year,
EPA shall restore the credits for use by the manufacturer.
Sec. 90.211 Request for hearing.
An engine manufacturer may request a hearing on the Administrator's
voiding of the certificate under Secs. 90.203(h), 90.206(e), 90.207(f),
90.208(c), or 90.209(f), pursuant to Sec. 90.124. The procedures of
Sec. 90.125 shall apply to any such hearing.
Subpart D--Emission Test Equipment Provisions
18. Section 90.301 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.301 Applicability.
(a) This subpart describes the equipment required in order to
perform exhaust emission tests on new nonroad spark-ignition engines
and vehicles subject to the provisions of subpart A of this part.
Certain text in this subpart is identified as pertaining to Phase 1 or
Phase 2 engines. Such text pertains only to engines of the specified
Phase. If no indication of Phase is given, the text pertains to all
engines, regardless of Phase.
* * * * *
(d) For Phase 2 Class I and Phase 2 Class II natural gas fueled
engines, the following sections from 40 CFR part 86 are applicable to
this subpart. The requirements of these sections which pertain
specifically to the measurement and calculation of non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust emissions from otto cycle heavy-duty engines
must be followed when determining the NMHC exhaust emissions from Phase
2 Class I and Phase 2 Class II natural gas fueled engines. Those
sections are: 40 CFR 86.1306-90 Equipment required and specifications;
overview, 40 CFR 86.1309-90 Exhaust gas sampling system; otto-cycle
engines, 40 CFR 86-1311-94 Exhaust gas analytical system; CVS bag
sampling, 40 CFR 86.1313-94(e) Fuel Specification--Natural gas-fuel, 40
CFR 86.1314-94 Analytical gases, 40 CFR 86.1316-94 Calibrations;
frequency and overview, 40 CFR 86.1321-94 Hydrocarbon analyzer
calibration, 40 CFR 86.1325-94 Methane analyzer calibration, 40 CFR
86.1327-94 Engine dynamometer test procedures, overview, 40 CFR
86.1340-94 Exhaust sample analysis, 40 CFR 86.1342-94 Calculations;
exhaust emissions, 40 CFR 86.1344-94(d) Required information--Pre-test
data, 40 CFR 86.1344-94(e) Required information--Test data.
19. Section 90.302 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 90.302 Definitions.
The definitions in Sec. 90.3 apply to this subpart. The following
definitions also apply to this subpart.
Intermediate speed means the engine speed which is 85 percent of
the rated speed.
Natural gas means a fuel whose primary constituent is methane.
Rated speed means the speed at which the manufacturer specifies the
maximum rated power of an engine.
Subpart E--Gaseous Exhaust Test Procedures
20. Section Sec. 90.401 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) and (d)
to read as follows;
Sec. 90.401 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) Certain text in this subpart is identified as pertaining to
Phase 1 or Phase 2 engines. Such text pertains only to engines of the
specified Phase. If no indication of Phase is given, the text pertains
to all engines, regardless of Phase.
(d) For Phase 2 Class I and Phase 2 Class II natural gas fueled
engines, the following sections from 40 CFR part 86 are applicable to
this subpart. The requirements of these sections which pertain
specifically to the measurement and calculation of non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust emissions from otto cycle heavy-duty engines
must be followed when determining the NMHC exhaust emissions from Phase
2 Class I and Phase 2 Class II natural gas fueled engines. Those
sections are: 40 CFR 86.1327-94 Engine dynamometer test procedures,
overview, 40 CFR 86.1340-94 Exhaust sample analysis, 40 CFR 86.1342-94
Calculations; exhaust emissions, 40 CFR 86.1344-94(d) Required
information--Pre-test data, and 40 CFR 86.1344-94(e) Required
information--Test data.
21. Section 90.404 is amended by adding a sentence after the first
sentence of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.404 Test procedure overview.
* * * * *
(b) * * * For Phase 2 Class I and II natural gas fueled engines the
test is also designed to determine the brake-specific emissions of non-
methane hydrocarbons. * * *
* * * * *
22. Section 90.409 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 90.409 Engine dynamometer test run.
(a) * * *
(3) For Phase 1 engines, at the manufacturer's option, the engine
can be run with the throttle in a fixed position or by using the
engine's governor (if the engine is manufactured with a governor). In
either case, the engine speed and load must meet the requirements
specified in paragraph (b)(12) of this section. For Phase 2 Class I and
Class II engines equipped with an engine speed governor, the governor
must be used to control engine speed during all test cycle modes except
for Mode 1, and no external throttle control
[[Page 4019]]
may be used. For Phase 2 Class I and Class II engines equipped with an
engine speed governor, during Mode 1 fixed throttle operation may be
used to determine the 100% torque value.
* * * * *
23. Section 90.410 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.410 Engine test cycle.
* * * * *
(b) For Phase 1 engines and Phase 2 Class III, IV, V, and Phase 2
Class I and II engines not equipped with an engine speed governor,
during each non-idle mode, hold both the specified speed and load
within five percent of point. During the idle mode, hold
speed within ten percent of the manufacturer's specified
idle engine speed. For Phase 2 Class I and II engines equipped with an
engine speed governor, during Mode 1 hold both the specified speed and
load within five percent of point, during Modes 2-5, hold
the specified load with five percent of point, and during
the idle mode hold the specified speed within ten percent
of the manufacturer's specified idle engine speed (see Table 1 in
Appendix A to subpart E of this part for a description of test Modes).
* * * * *
24. In Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 90, Table 2 is revised to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 90--Tables
* * * * *
Table 2.--Test Cycles for Class I-V Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed
(4) Rated speed
(4) Intermediate speed Idle
Mode Points A Cycle................ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6
Load Percent--A Cycle.............. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 100 75 50 25 10 0
Weighting.......................... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 9% 20% 29% 30% 7% 5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mode Points B Cycle................ 1 2 3 4 5 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 6
Load Percent--B Cycle.............. 100 75 50 25 10 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0
Weighting.......................... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 9% 20% 29% 30% 7% 5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mode Points C Cycle................ 1 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2
Load Percent--C Cycle.............. 100 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0
Weighting for Phase 1 Engines...... 90% ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 10%
Weighting for Phase 2 Engines...... 85% ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 15%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart F--Selective Enforcement Auditing
25. Section 90.503 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(3) and
(f)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.503 Test orders.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Any SEA test order for which the family or configuration, as
appropriate, fails under Sec. 90.510 or for which testing is not
completed will not be counted against the annual limit.
(4) When the annual limit has been met, the Administrator may issue
additional test orders to test those families or configurations for
which evidence exists indicating nonconformity, or for which the
Administrator has reason to believe are not being appropriately
represented or tested in Production Line Testing conducted under
subpart H of this part, if applicable. An SEA test order issued
pursuant to this provision will include a statement as to the reason
for its issuance.
26. Section 90.509 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.509 Calculation and reporting of test results.
* * * * *
(b)(1) 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 to the same number of decimal places contained in the
applicable standard. For Phase 2 engines only, this result shall be
expressed to one additional significant figure.
(2) Final deteriorated test results (for Phase 2 test engines only)
are calculated by applying the appropriate deterioration factors, from
the certification process for the engine family, to the final test
results, and rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in
the applicable standard.
* * * * *
27. Section 90.510 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.510 Compliance with acceptable quality level and passing and
failing criteria for selective enforcement audits.
* * * * *
(b) A failed engine is a Phase 1 engine whose final test results
pursuant to Sec. 90.509(b), for one or more of the applicable
pollutants exceed the emission standard. For Phase 2 engines, a failed
engine is a Phase 2 engine whose final deteriorated test results
pursuant to Sec. 90.509(b), for one or more of the applicable
pollutants exceed the emission standard (FEL, if applicable).
* * * * *
28. Section 90.512 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.512 Request for public hearing.
* * * * *
(b) The manufacturer's request shall be filed with the
Administrator not later than 15 days after the Administrator's
notification of his or her decision to suspend, revoke or void, unless
otherwise specified by the Administrator. The manufacturer shall
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, in his or her discretion
and for good cause shown, grant the manufacturer a hearing to contest
the suspension, revocation or voiding.
* * * * *
Subpart G--Importation of Nonconforming Engines
29. Section 90.612 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.612 Exemptions and exclusions.
* * * * *
(g) Applications for exemptions and exclusions provided for in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) of this section are to be mailed to: U.S.
Environmental
[[Page 4020]]
Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Engine Compliance Programs
Group (6403-J), Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention: Imports.
30. Subpart H, which was previously ``reserved'', is added to part
90 to read as follows:
Subpart H--Manufacturer Production Line Testing Program
Sec.
90.701 Applicability.
90.702 Definitions.
90.703 Production line testing by the manufacturer.
90.704 Maintenance of records; submittal of information.
90.705 Right of entry and access.
90.706 Engine sample selection.
90.707 Test procedures.
90.708 Cumulative Sum (CumSum) Procedure.
90.709 Calculation and reporting of test results.
90.710 Compliance with criteria for production line testing.
90.711 Suspension and revocation of certificates of conformity.
90.712 Request for public hearing.
90.713 Administrative procedures for public hearing.
Subpart H--Manufacturer Production Line Testing Program
Sec. 90.701 Applicability.
(a) Except as described in paragraph (b) of this section, the
requirements of this subpart are applicable to all Phase 2 nonroad
engines subject to the provisions of subpart A of this part.
(b) The requirements of this subpart are applicable to all handheld
engine families described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
otherwise exempted in this part. Manufacturers of nonhandheld engine
families described in paragraph (a) of this section may choose between
the Production Line Testing Program described in this subpart for all
of their engine families and the Selective Enforcement Auditing Program
described in Subpart F of this part for all of their engine families,
subject to the restrictions of paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Nonhandheld engine manufacturers shall notify EPA of their
selection when they begin their first Phase 2 model year's
certification.
(d) A manufacturer of nonhandheld Phase 2 engines may change from
the Production Line Testing program described in this subpart to the
Selective Enforcement Auditing program described in Subpart F of this
part and vice versa, provided that:
(1) It does so for all of its engine families at the same time;
(2) When changing from Production Line Testing to Selective
Enforcement Auditing, it has remained under Production Line Testing for
a minimum of three model years;
(3) It provides written notice to EPA one complete model year prior
to the model year for which it is requesting to change from Production
Line Testing to Selective Enforcement Auditing;
(4) It provides written notice to EPA thirty (30) days prior to the
date for which it is requesting to change from Selective Enforcement
Auditing to Production Line Testing; and
(5) It is not carrying a negative credit balance at the time it
changes from Production Line Testing to Selective Enforcement Auditing.
(e) The procedures described in this subpart are optional for small
volume engine manufacturers and small volume engine families as defined
in this part, and for engine families certified to a level at least 50%
below the applicable HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) standard
(FEL if applicable). Engine families for which the manufacturer opts
not to conduct testing under this subpart pursuant to this paragraph
shall be subject to the Selective Enforcement Auditing procedures of
Subpart F of this part.
Sec. 90.702 Definitions.
The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart.
The following definitions also apply to this subpart.
Configuration means any subclassification of an engine family which
can be described on the basis of gross power, emission control system,
governed speed, injector size, engine calibration, and other parameters
as designated by the Administrator.
Test sample means the collection of engines selected from the
population of an engine family for emission testing.
Sec. 90.703 Production line testing by the manufacturer.
(a) Manufacturers of small SI engines shall test production line
engines from each engine family according to the provisions of this
subpart.
(b) Production line engines must be tested using the test procedure
specified in subpart E of this part except that the Administrator may
approve minor variations that the Administrator deems necessary to
facilitate efficient and economical testing where the manufacturer
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that such
variations will not significantly impact the test results. Any
adjustable engine parameter must be set to values or positions that are
within the range recommended to the ultimate purchaser, unless
otherwise specified by the Administrator. The Administrator may specify
values within or without the range recommended to the ultimate
purchaser.
(c) The Administrator, on the basis of a written application from a
manufacturer, may approve alternate methods to evaluate production line
compliance, where such alternate methods are demonstrated by the
manufacturer to:
(1) Produce substantially the same levels of producer and consumer
risk as the Cum Sum procedure described in this subpart that mean
emissions of an engine family are below the appropriate standards (FEL,
where applicable);
(2) Provide for continuous rather than point-in-time sampling; and
(3) Include an appropriate decision mechanism for determining
noncompliance upon which the Administrator can suspend or revoke the
certificate of conformity.
Sec. 90.704 Maintenance of records; submittal of information.
(a) The manufacturer of any new small SI engine subject to any of
the provisions of this subpart must establish, maintain, and retain the
following adequately organized and indexed records:
(1) General records. A description of all equipment used to test
engines in accordance with Sec. 90.703. Subpart D of this part sets
forth relevant equipment requirements in Secs. 90.304, 90.305, 90.306,
90.307, 90.308, 90.309, 90.310 and 90.313.
(2) Individual records. These records pertain to each production
line test conducted pursuant to this subpart and include:
(i) The date, time, and location of each test;
(ii) The number of hours of service accumulated on the test engine
when the test began and ended;
(iii) The names of all supervisory personnel involved in the
conduct of the production line test;
(iv) A record and description of any adjustment, repair,
preparation or modification performed prior to and/or subsequent to
approval by the Administrator pursuant to Sec. 90.707(b)(1), giving the
date, associated time, justification, name(s) of the authorizing
personnel, and names of all supervisory personnel responsible for the
conduct of the repair;
(v) If applicable, the date the engine was shipped from the
assembly plant, associated storage facility or port facility, and the
date the engine was received at the testing facility;
(vi) A complete record of all emission tests performed pursuant to
this subpart (except tests performed directly by EPA), including all
individual
[[Page 4021]]
worksheets and/or other documentation relating to each test, or exact
copies thereof, in accordance with the record requirements specified in
Secs. 90.405 and 90.406; and
(vii) A brief description of any significant events during testing
not otherwise described under paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
commencing with the test engine selection process and including such
extraordinary events as engine damage during shipment.
(3) The manufacturer must establish, maintain and retain general
records, pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for each test
cell that can be used to perform emission testing under this subpart.
(b) The manufacturer must retain all records required to be
maintained under this subpart for a period of one year after completion
of all testing required for the engine family in a model year. Records
may be retained as hard copy (i.e., on paper) or reduced to microfilm,
floppy disk, or some other method of data storage, depending upon the
manufacturer's record retention procedure; provided, that in every
case, all the information contained in the hard copy is retained.
(c) The manufacturer must, upon request by the Administrator,
submit the following information with regard to engine production:
(1) Projected production or actual production for each engine
configuration within each engine family for which certification has
been requested and/or approved;
(2) Number of engines, by configuration and assembly plant,
scheduled for production or actually produced.
(d) Nothing in this section limits the Administrator's discretion
to require a manufacturer to establish, maintain, retain or submit to
EPA information not specified by this section.
(e) All reports, submissions, notifications, and requests for
approval made under this subpart must be addressed to: Manager, Engine
Compliance Programs Group (6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC 20460.
(f) The manufacturer must electronically submit the results of its
production line testing using EPA's standardized format. The
Administrator may exempt manufacturers from this requirement upon
written request with supporting justification.
Sec. 90.705 Right of entry and access.
(a) To allow the Administrator to determine whether a manufacturer
is complying with the provisions of this subpart or other subparts of
this part, one or more EPA enforcement officers may enter during
operating hours and upon presentation of credentials any of the
following places:
(1) Any facility, including ports of entry, where any engine to be
introduced into commerce or any emission-related component is
manufactured, assembled, or stored;
(2) Any facility where any test conducted pursuant to this or any
other subpart or any procedure or activity connected with such test is
or was performed;
(3) Any facility where any test engine is present; and
(4) Any facility where any record required under Sec. 90.704 or
other document relating to this subpart or any other subpart of this
part is located.
(b) Upon admission to any facility referred to in paragraph (a) of
this section, EPA enforcement officers are authorized to perform the
following inspection-related activities:
(1) To inspect and monitor any aspect of engine manufacture,
assembly, storage, testing and other procedures, and to inspect and
monitor the facilities in which these procedures are conducted;
(2) To inspect and monitor any aspect of engine test procedures or
activities, including test engine selection, preparation and service
accumulation, emission test cycles, and maintenance and verification of
test equipment calibration;
(3) To inspect and make copies of any records or documents related
to the assembly, storage, selection, and testing of an engine; and
(4) To inspect and photograph any part or aspect of any engine and
any component used in the assembly thereof that is reasonably related
to the purpose of the entry.
(c) EPA enforcement officers are authorized to obtain reasonable
assistance without cost from those in charge of a facility to help the
officers perform any function listed in this subpart and they are
authorized to request the manufacturer to make arrangements with those
in charge of a facility operated for the manufacturer's benefit to
furnish reasonable assistance without cost to EPA.
(1) Reasonable assistance includes, but is not limited to,
clerical, copying, interpretation and translation services; the making
available on an EPA enforcement officer's request of personnel of the
facility being inspected during their working hours to inform the EPA
enforcement officer of how the facility operates and to answer the
officer's questions; and the performance on request of emission tests
on any engine which is being, has been, or will be used for production
line or other testing.
(2) By written request, signed by the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, and served on the manufacturer, a manufacturer may
be compelled to cause the personal appearance of any employee at such a
facility before an EPA enforcement officer. Any such employee who has
been instructed by the manufacturer to appear will be entitled to be
accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel.
(d) EPA enforcement officers are authorized to seek a warrant or
court order authorizing the EPA enforcement officers to conduct the
activities authorized in this section, as appropriate, to execute the
functions specified in this section. EPA enforcement officers may
proceed ex parte to obtain a warrant or court order whether or not the
EPA enforcement officers first attempted to seek permission from the
manufacturer or the party in charge of the facility(ies) in question to
conduct the activities authorized in this section.
(e) A manufacturer must permit an EPA enforcement officer(s) who
presents a warrant or court order to conduct the activities authorized
in this section as described in the warrant or court order. The
manufacturer must also cause those in charge of its facility or a
facility operated for its benefit to permit entry and access as
authorized in this section pursuant to a warrant or court order whether
or not the manufacturer controls the facility. In the absence of a
warrant or court order, an EPA enforcement officer(s) may conduct the
activities authorized in this section only upon the consent of the
manufacturer or the party in charge of the facility(ies) in question.
(f) It is not a violation of this part or the Clean Air Act for any
person to refuse to permit an EPA enforcement officer(s) to conduct the
activities authorized in this section if the officer(s) appears without
a warrant or court order.
(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) from conducting the entry and
access activities specified in this section. EPA will not attempt to
make any inspections which it has been informed local foreign law
prohibits.
Sec. 90.706 Engine sample selection.
(a) At the start of each model year, the small SI engine
manufacturer will begin
[[Page 4022]]
to randomly select engines from each engine family for production line
testing at a rate of one percent of the projected eligible sales of
that family. Each engine will be selected from the end of the assembly
line.
(1) For newly certified engine families: After two engines are
tested, the manufacturer will calculate the required sample size for
the model year for each pollutant
(HC+NOX(NMHC+NOX) and CO) according to the Sample
Size Equation in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For carry-over engine families: After one engine is tested, the
manufacturer will combine the test with the last test result from the
previous model year and then calculate the required sample size for the
model year for each pollutant according to the Sample Size Equation in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b)(1) Manufacturers will calculate the required sample size for
the model year for each pollutant for each engine family using the
Sample Size Equation in this paragraph. N is calculated for each
pollutant from each test result. The higher of the two values for the
number N indicates the number of tests required for the model year for
an engine family. N is recalculated for each pollutant after each test.
Test results used to calculate the variables in the following Sample
Size Equation must be final deteriorated test results as specified in
Sec. 90.709(c):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JA98.002
Where:
N = required sample size for the model year.
t95 = 95% confidence coefficient. It is dependent on the
actual number of tests completed, n, as specified in the table in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. It defines one-tail, 95% confidence
intervals.
o = actual test sample standard deviation calculated from the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JA98.003
xii = emission test result for an individual engine.
x = mean of emission test results of the actual sample.
FEL = Family Emission Limit or standard if no FEL.
n = The actual number of tests completed in an engine family.
(2) The following table specifies the actual number of tests (n) &
1-tail confidence coefficients (t95):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
n t95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................................... 6.31
3............................................................... 2.92
4............................................................... 2.35
5............................................................... 2.13
6............................................................... 2.02
7............................................................... 1.94
8............................................................... 1.90
9............................................................... 1.86
10.............................................................. 1.83
11.............................................................. 1.81
12.............................................................. 1.80
13.............................................................. 1.78
14.............................................................. 1.77
15.............................................................. 1.76
16.............................................................. 1.75
17.............................................................. 1.75
18.............................................................. 1.74
19.............................................................. 1.73
20.............................................................. 1.73
21.............................................................. 1.72
22.............................................................. 1.72
23.............................................................. 1.72
24.............................................................. 1.71
25.............................................................. 1.71
26.............................................................. 1.71
27.............................................................. 1.71
28.............................................................. 1.70
29.............................................................. 1.70
30.............................................................. 1.70
................................................................ 1.645
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) A manufacturer must distribute the testing of the remaining
number of engines needed to meet the required sample size N, evenly
throughout the remainder of the model year.
(4) After each new test, the required sample size, N, is
recalculated using updated sample means, sample standard deviations and
the appropriate 95% confidence coefficient.
(5) A manufacturer must continue testing and updating each engine
family's sample size calculations according to paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(4) of this section until a decision is made to stop testing
as described in paragraph (b)(6) of this section or a noncompliance
decision is made pursuant to Sec. 90.710(b).
(6) If, at any time throughout the model year, the calculated
required sample size, N, for an engine family is less than or equal to
the actual sample size, n, and the sample mean, x, for HC +
NOX (NMHC+NOX) and CO is less than or equal to
the FEL or standard if no FEL, the manufacturer may stop testing that
engine family.
(7) If, at any time throughout the model year, the sample mean, x,
for HC + NOX (NMHC+NOX) or CO is greater than the
FEL or standard if no FEL, the manufacturer must continue testing that
engine family at the appropriate maximum sampling rate.
(8) The maximum required sample size for an engine family
(regardless of the required sample size, N, as calculated in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section) is the lesser of thirty tests per model year or
one percent of projected annual production for that engine family for
that model year.
(9) Manufacturers may elect to test additional engines. Additional
engines, whether tested in accordance with the testing procedures
specified in Sec. 90.707 or not, may not be included in the Sample Size
and Cumulative Sum equation calculations as defined in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section and Sec. 90.708(a), respectively. However, such
additional test results may be used as appropriate to ``bracket'' or
define the boundaries of the production duration of any emission
nonconformity determined under this subpart. Such additional test data
must be identified and provided to EPA with the submittal of the
official CumSum results.
(c) The manufacturer must produce and assemble the test engines
using its normal production and assembly process for engines to be
distributed into commerce.
(d) No quality control, testing, or assembly procedures shall be
used on any test engine or any portion thereof, including parts and
subassemblies, that have not been or will not be used during the
production and assembly of all other engines of that family, unless the
Administrator approves the modification in production or assembly
procedures in advance.
Sec. 90.707 Test procedures.
(a)(1) For small SI engines subject to the provisions of this
subpart, the prescribed test procedures are specified in subpart E of
this part.
(2) The Administrator may, on the basis of a written application by
a manufacturer, prescribe test procedures other than those specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section for any small SI engine the
Administrator determines is not susceptible to satisfactory testing
using procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b)(1) The manufacturer may not adjust, repair, prepare, or modify
any test engine and may not perform any emission test on any test
engine unless this adjustment, repair, preparation, modification and/or
test is documented in the manufacturer's engine assembly and inspection
procedures and is actually performed by the manufacturer on every
production line engine or unless this adjustment, repair, preparation,
modification and/or test is required or permitted under this subpart or
is approved in advance by the Administrator.
(2) The Administrator may adjust or cause to be adjusted any engine
parameter which the Administrator has
[[Page 4023]]
determined to be subject to adjustment for certification, Production
Line Testing and Selective Enforcement Audit testing, to any setting
within the physically adjustable range of that parameter, as determined
by the Administrator, prior to the performance of any test. However, if
the idle speed parameter is one which the Administrator has determined
to be subject to adjustment, the Administrator may not adjust it or
require that it be adjusted to any setting which causes a lower engine
idle speed than would have been possible within the physically
adjustable range of the idle speed parameter if the manufacturer had
accumulated 12 hours of service on the engine under paragraph (c) of
this section, all other parameters being identically adjusted for the
purpose of the comparison. The manufacturer may be requested to supply
information necessary to establish an alternate minimum idle speed. The
Administrator, in making or specifying these adjustments, may consider
the effect of the deviation from the manufacturer's recommended setting
on emission performance characteristics as well as the likelihood that
similar settings will occur on in-use engines. In determining
likelihood, the Administrator may consider factors such as, but not
limited to, the effect of the adjustment on engine performance
characteristics and information from similar in-use engines.
(c) Service Accumulation. (1) Unless otherwise approved by the
Administrator, prior to performing exhaust emission production line
testing, the manufacturer may accumulate on each test engine a number
of hours of service equal to the greater of 12 hours or the number of
hours the manufacturer accumulated during stabilization in the
certification process for each engine family. For catalyst-equipped
engines, the manufacturer must accumulate a number of hours equal to
the number of hours accumulated to represent stabilized emissions on
the engine used to obtain certification.
(2) Service accumulation must be performed in a manner using good
engineering judgment to obtain emission results representative of
production line engines.
(d) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the
manufacturer may not perform any maintenance on test engines after
selection for testing.
(e) If an engine is shipped to a remote facility for production
line testing, and an adjustment or repair is necessary because of
shipment, the engine manufacturer must perform the necessary adjustment
or repair only after the initial test of the engine, except in cases
where the Administrator has determined that the test would be
impossible or unsafe to perform or would permanently damage the engine.
Engine manufacturers must report to the Administrator, in the quarterly
report required by Sec. 90.709(e), all adjustments or repairs performed
on test engines prior to each test.
(f) If an engine cannot complete the service accumulation or an
emission test because of a malfunction, the manufacturer may request
that the Administrator authorize either the repair of that engine or
its deletion from the test sequence.
(g) Testing. A manufacturer must test engines with the test
procedure specified in subpart E of this part to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable FEL (or standard where there is no FEL). If
alternate or special test procedures pursuant to regulations at
Sec. 90.120 are used in certification, then those alternate procedures
must be used in production line testing.
(h) Retesting. (1) If an engine manufacturer reasonably determines
that an emission test of an engine is invalid because of a procedural
error, test equipment problem, or engine performance problem that
causes the engine to be unable to safely perform a valid test, the
engine may be retested. A test is not invalid simply because the
emission results are high relative to other engines of the family.
Emission results from all tests must be reported to EPA. The engine
manufacturer must also include a detailed explanation of the reasons
for invalidating any test in the quarterly report required in
Sec. 90.709(e). If a test is invalidated because of an engine
performance problem, the manufacturer must document in detail the
nature of the problem and the repairs performed in order to use the
after-repair test results for the original test results.
(2) Routine retests may be conducted if the manufacturer conducts
the same number of tests on all engines in the family. The results of
these tests must be averaged according to procedures of Sec. 90.709.
Sec. 90.708 Cumulative Sum (CumSum) Procedure.
(a) (1) Manufacturers must construct separate CumSum Equations for
each regulated pollutant (HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) and
CO) for each engine family. Test results used to calculate the
variables in the CumSum Equations must be final deteriorated test
results as defined in Sec. 90.709(c). The CumSum Equation follows:
Ci=max [0 or (Ci-1+Xi-(FEL+F))]
Where:
Ci=The current CumSum statistic.
Ci-1=The previous CumSum statistic. Prior to any testing,
the CumSum statistic=0 (i.e. C0=0).
Xi=The current emission test result for an individual
engine.
FEL=Family Emission Limit (the standard if no FEL).
F=0.25 x .
(2) After each test pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
Ci is compared to the action limit, H, the quantity which
the CumSum statistic must exceed, in two consecutive tests, before the
engine family may be determined to be in noncompliance for a regulated
pollutant for purposes of Sec. 90.710.
Where:
H=The Action Limit. It is 5.0 x , and is a function of the
standard deviation, .
=is the sample standard deviation and is recalculated after
each test.
(b) After each engine is tested, the CumSum statistic shall be
promptly updated according to the CumSum Equation in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c)(1) If, at any time during the model year, a manufacturer amends
the application for certification for an engine family as specified in
Sec. 90.122(a) by performing an engine family modification (i.e., a
change such as a running change involving a physical modification to an
engine, a change in specification or setting, the addition of a new
configuration, or the use of a different deterioration factor) with no
changes to the FEL (where applicable), all previous sample size and
CumSum statistic calculations for the model year will remain unchanged.
(2) If, at any time during the model year, a manufacturer amends
the application for certification for an engine family as specified in
Sec. 90.122(a) by modifying its FEL (where applicable) for future
production, as a result of an engine family modification, the
manufacturer must continue its calculations by inserting the new FEL
into the sample size equation as specified in Sec. 90.706(b)(1) and
into the CumSum equation in paragraph (a) of this section. All previous
calculations remain unchanged. If the sample size calculation indicates
that additional tests are required, then those tests must be performed.
CumSum statistic calculations must not indicate that the family has
exceeded the action limit for two consecutive tests. Where applicable,
the manufacturer's final credit report as required by Sec. 90.210 must
break out the
[[Page 4024]]
credits that result from each FEL and corresponding CumSum analysis for
the set of engines built to each FEL.
(3) If, at any time during the model year, a manufacturer amends
the application for certification for an engine family as specified in
Sec. 90.122(a) (or for an affected part of the year's production in
cases where there were one or more mid-year engine family
modifications), by modifying its FEL (where applicable) for past and/or
future production, without performing an engine modification, all
previous sample size and CumSum statistic calculations for the model
year must be recalculated using the new FEL. If the sample size
calculation indicates that additional tests are required, then those
tests must be performed. The CumSum statistic recalculation must not
indicate that the family has exceeded the action limit for two
consecutive tests. Where applicable, the manufacturer's final credit
report as required by Sec. 90.210 must break out the credits that
result from each FEL and corresponding CumSum analysis for the set of
engines built to each FEL.
Sec. 90.709 Calculation and reporting of test results.
(a) Initial test results are calculated following the applicable
test procedure specified in Sec. 90.707(a). The manufacturer rounds
these results to the number of decimal places contained in the
applicable emission standard expressed to one additional significant
figure.
(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
to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable
standard expressed to one additional significant figure.
(c) The final deteriorated test results for each test engine are
calculated by applying the appropriate deterioration factors, derived
in the certification process for the engine to the final test results,
and rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in the
applicable standard.
(d) If, at any time during the model year, the CumSum statistic
exceeds the applicable action limit, H, in two consecutive tests for
any regulated pollutant, (HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) or
CO) the engine family may be determined to be in noncompliance and the
manufacturer must notify EPA within two working days of such exceedance
by the Cum Sum statistic.
(e) Within 30 calendar days of the end of each quarter, each engine
manufacturer must submit to the Administrator a report which includes
the following information:
(1) The location and description of the manufacturer's or other's
exhaust emission test facilities which were utilized to conduct testing
reported pursuant to this section;
(2) Total production and sample sizes, N and n, for each engine
family;
(3) The FEL (standard, if no FEL) against which each engine family
was tested;
(4) A description of the process to obtain engines on a random
basis;
(5) A description of the test engines;
(6) For each test conducted:
(i) A description of the test engine, including:
(A) Configuration and engine family identification;
(B) Year, make, and build date;
(C) Engine identification number; and
(D) Number of hours of service accumulated on engine prior to
testing;
(ii) Location where service accumulation was conducted and
description of accumulation procedure and schedule;
(iii) Test number, date, test procedure used, initial test results
before and after rounding, final test results before and after rounding
and final deteriorated test results for all exhaust emission tests,
whether valid or invalid, and the reason for invalidation, if
applicable;
(iv) A complete description of any adjustment, modification,
repair, preparation, maintenance, and/or testing which was performed on
the test engine, was not reported pursuant to any other paragraph of
this subpart, and will not be performed on all other production
engines;
(v) A CumSum analysis, as required in Sec. 90.708, of the
production line test results for each engine family; and
(vi) Any other information the Administrator may request relevant
to the determination whether the new engines being manufactured by the
manufacturer do in fact conform with the regulations with respect to
which the certificate of conformity was issued;
(7) For each failed engine as defined in Sec. 90.710(a), a
description of the remedy and test results for all retests as required
by Sec. 90.711(g);
(8) The date of the end of the engine manufacturer's model year
production for each engine family; and
(9) The following signed statement and endorsement by an authorized
representative of the manufacturer:
This report is submitted pursuant to Sections 213 and 208 of the
Clean Air Act. This production line testing program was conducted in
complete conformance with all applicable regulations under 40 CFR Part
90. No emission-related changes to production processes or quality
control procedures for the engine family tested have been made during
this production line testing program that affect engines from the
production line. All data and information reported herein is, to the
best of (Company Name) knowledge, true and accurate. I am aware of the
penalties associated with violations of the Clean Air Act and the
regulations thereunder. (Authorized Company Representative.)
Sec. 90.710 Compliance with criteria for production line testing.
(a) A failed engine is one whose final deteriorated test results
pursuant to Sec. 90.709(c), for HC + NOX
(NMHC+NOX) or CO exceeds the applicable Family Emission
Limit (FEL)or standard if no FEL.
(b) An engine family shall be determined to be in noncompliance, if
at any time throughout the model year, the CumSum statistic,
Ci, for HC + NOX (NMHC+NOX) or CO, is
greater than the action limit, H, for that pollutant, for two
consecutive tests.
Sec. 90.711 Suspension and revocation of certificates of conformity.
(a) The certificate of conformity is suspended with respect to any
engine failing pursuant to Sec. 90.710 (a) effective from the time that
testing of that engine is completed.
(b) The Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity for
an engine family which is determined to be in noncompliance pursuant to
Sec. 90.710(b). This suspension will not occur before thirty days after
the engine family is determined to be in noncompliance and the
Administrator has notified the manufacturer of its intent to suspend.
During this thirty day period the Administrator will work with the
manufacturer to achieve appropriate production line changes to avoid
the need to halt engine production, if possible. The Administrator will
approve or disapprove any such production line changes proposed to
address a family that has been determined to be in noncompliance under
this subpart within 15 days of receipt. If the Administrator does not
approve or disapprove such a proposed change within such time period,
the proposed change shall be considered approved.
(c) If the results of testing pursuant to these regulations
indicate that engines of a particular family produced at one plant of a
manufacturer do not conform to the regulations with respect to which
the certificate of conformity was issued,
[[Page 4025]]
the Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity with
respect to that family for engines manufactured by the manufacturer at
all other plants.
(d) Notwithstanding the fact that engines described in the
application for certification may be covered by a certificate of
conformity, the Administrator may suspend such certificate immediately
in whole or in part if the Administrator finds any one of the following
infractions to be substantial:
(1) The manufacturer refuses to comply with any of the requirements
of this subpart.
(2) The manufacturer submits false or incomplete information in any
report or information provided to the Administrator under this subpart.
(3) The manufacturer renders inaccurate any test data submitted
under this subpart.
(4) An EPA enforcement officer is denied the opportunity to conduct
activities authorized in this subpart and a warrant or court order is
presented to the manufacturer or the party in charge of the facility in
question.
(5) An EPA enforcement officer is unable to conduct activities
authorized in Sec. 90.705 because a manufacturer has located its
facility in a foreign jurisdiction where local law prohibits those
activities.
(e) The Administrator shall notify the manufacturer in writing of
any suspension or revocation of a certificate of conformity in whole or
in part, except that the certificate is immediately suspended with
respect to any failed engines as provided for in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(f) The Administrator may revoke a certificate of conformity for an
engine family after the certificate has been suspended pursuant to
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the proposed remedy for the
nonconformity, as reported by the manufacturer to the Administrator, is
one requiring a design change or changes to the engine and/or emission
control system as described in the application for certification of the
affected engine family.
(g) Once a certificate has been suspended for a failed engine, as
provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer must
take the following actions before the certificate is reinstated for
that failed engine:
(1) Remedy the nonconformity;
(2) Demonstrate that the engine conforms to the applicable
standards (FELs, where applicable) by retesting the engine in
accordance with these regulations; and
(3) Submit a written report to the Administrator, after successful
completion of testing on the failed engine, which contains a
description of the remedy and test results for each engine in addition
to other information that may be required by this part.
(h) Once a certificate for a failed engine family has been
suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, the
manufacturer must take the following actions before the Administrator
will consider reinstating the certificate:
(1) Submit a written report to the Administrator which identifies
the reason for the noncompliance of the engines, describes the proposed
remedy, including a description of any proposed quality control and/or
quality assurance measures to be taken by the manufacturer to prevent
future occurrences of the problem, and states the date on which the
remedies will be implemented; and
(2) Demonstrate that the engine family for which the certificate of
conformity has been suspended does in fact comply with the regulations
of this part by testing as many engines as needed so that the CumSum
statistic, as calculated in Sec. 90.708(a), falls below the action
limit. Such testing must comply with the provisions of this part. If
the manufacturer elects to continue testing individual engines after
suspension of a certificate, the certificate is reinstated for any
engine actually determined to be in conformance with the Family
Emission Limits (or standards if no FEL) through testing in accordance
with the applicable test procedures, provided that the Administrator
has not revoked the certificate pursuant to paragraph (f) of this
section.
(i) Once the certificate has been revoked for an engine family, if
the manufacturer desires to continue introduction into commerce of a
modified version of that family, the following actions must be taken
before the Administrator may issue a certificate for that modified
family:
(1) If the Administrator determines that the proposed change(s) in
engine design may have an effect on emission performance deterioration,
the Administrator shall notify the manufacturer within five working
days after receipt of the report in paragraph (h)(1) of this section
whether subsequent testing under this subpart will be sufficient to
evaluate the proposed change or changes or whether additional testing
will be required;
(2) After implementing the change or changes intended to remedy the
nonconformity, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the modified
engine family does in fact conform with the regulations of this part by
testing as many engines as needed from the modified engine family so
that the CumSum statistic, as calculated in Sec. 90.708(a) using the
newly assigned FEL if applicable, falls below the action limit; and
(3) When the requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this
section are met, the Administrator shall reissue the certificate or
issue a new certificate, as the case may be, to include that family. As
long as the CumSum statistic remains above the action limit, the
revocation remains in effect.
(j) At any time subsequent to a suspension of a certificate of
conformity for a test engine pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section,
but not later than 15 days (or such other period as may be allowed by
the Administrator) after notification of the Administrator's decision
to suspend or revoke a certificate of conformity in whole or in part
pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (f) of this section, a manufacturer
may request a hearing as to whether the tests have been properly
conducted or any sampling methods have been properly applied.
(k) Any suspension of a certificate of conformity under paragraph
(d) of this section shall:
(1) Be made only after the manufacturer concerned has been offered
an opportunity for a hearing conducted in accordance with Secs. 90.712
and 90.713; and
(2) Not apply to engines no longer in the possession of the
manufacturer.
(l) After the Administrator suspends or revokes a certificate of
conformity pursuant to this section and prior to the commencement of a
hearing under Sec. 90.712, if the manufacturer demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the decision to suspend or revoke the
certificate was based on erroneous information, the Administrator shall
reinstate the certificate.
(m) To permit a manufacturer to avoid storing non-test engines
while conducting subsequent testing of the noncomplying family, a
manufacturer may request that the Administrator conditionally reinstate
the certificate for that family. The Administrator may reinstate the
certificate subject to the following condition: the manufacturer must
commit to performing offsetting measures that remedy the nonconformity
at no expense to the owners, and which are approved in advance by the
Administrator for all engines of that family produced from the time the
certificate is conditionally reinstated if the CumSum statistic does
not fall below the action limit.
[[Page 4026]]
Sec. 90.712 Request for public hearing.
(a) If the manufacturer disagrees with the Administrator's decision
to suspend or revoke a certificate or disputes the basis for an
automatic suspension pursuant to Sec. 90.711(a), the manufacturer may
request a public hearing.
(b) The manufacturer's request shall be filed with the
Administrator not later than 15 days after the Administrator's
notification of his or her decision to suspend or revoke, unless
otherwise specified by the Administrator. The manufacturer shall
simultaneously serve two copies of this request upon the Manager of the
Engine Compliance Programs Group and file two copies with the Hearing
Clerk for 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, in his or her discretion
and for good cause shown, grant the manufacturer a hearing to contest
the suspension or revocation.
(c) A manufacturer shall include in the request for a public
hearing:
(1) A statement as to which engine configuration(s) within a family
is to be the subject of the hearing; and
(2) A concise statement of the issues to be raised by the
manufacturer at the hearing, except that in the case of the hearing
requested under Sec. 90.711(j), the hearing is restricted to the
following issues:
(i) Whether tests have been properly conducted (specifically,
whether the tests were conducted in accordance with applicable
regulations under this part and whether test equipment was properly
calibrated and functioning);
(ii) Whether sampling plans and statistical analyses have been
properly applied (specifically, whether sampling procedures and
statistical analyses specified in this subpart were followed and
whether there exists a basis for distinguishing engines produced at
plants other than the one from which engines were selected for testing
which would invalidate the Administrator's decision under
Sec. 90.711(c));
(3) A statement specifying reasons why the manufacturer believes it
will prevail on the merits of each of the issues raised; and
(4) A summary of the evidence which supports the manufacturer's
position on each of the issues raised.
(d) A copy of all requests for public hearings will be kept on file
in the Office of the Hearing Clerk and will be made available to the
public during Agency business hours.
Sec. 90.713 Administrative procedures for public hearing.
The administrative procedures for a public hearing requested under
this subpart shall be those procedures set forth in the regulations
found at Secs. 90.513 through 90.516. References in Sec. 90.513 to
Sec. 90.511(j), Sec. 90.512(c)(2), Sec. 90.511(e), Sec. 90.512,
Sec. 90.511(d), Sec. 90.503, Sec. 90.512(c) and Sec. 90.512(b) shall be
deemed to refer to Sec. 90.711(j), Sec. 90.712(c)(2), Sec. 90.711(e),
Sec. 90.712, Sec. 90.711(d), Sec. 90.703, and Sec. 90.712(c) and
Sec. 90.712(b), respectively. References to ``test orders'' in
Sec. 90.513 can be ignored.
31. Subpart I is amended by revising the subpart heading to read as
follows:
Subpart I--Emission-related Defect Reporting Requirements,
Voluntary Emission Recall Program, Ordered Recalls
32. Section 90.801 is amended by designating the existing text as
paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 90.801 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Phase 2 engines subject to provisions of subpart B of this part
are subject to recall regulations specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart
S, except as otherwise provided in this section.
(c) Reference to section 214 of the Clean Air Act in 40 CFR 85.1801
(a) is deemed to be a reference to section 216 of the Clean Air Act.
(d) Reference to section 202 of the Act in 40 CFR 85.1802(a) is
deemed to be a reference to section 213 of the Act.
(e) Reference to ``family particulate emission limits as defined in
part 86 promulgated under section 202 of the Act'' in 40 CFR 85.1803(a)
and 85.1805(a)(1) is deemed to be a reference to ``family emission
limits as defined in subpart C of this part 90 promulgated under
section 213 of the Act''.
(f) Reference to ``vehicles or engines'' throughout 40 CFR part 85,
subpart S, is deemed to be a reference to ``Phase 2 nonroad small SI
engines at or below 19 kw.''
(g) In addition to the requirements in 40 CFR 85.1805(a)(9) for
Phase 2 engines include a telephone number which may be used to report
difficulty in obtaining recall repairs.
33. Section 90.802 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of
the introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 90.802 Definitions.
* * * The definitions of 40 CFR 85.1801 also apply to this part.
* * * * *
34. Section 90.803 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.803 Emission defect information report.
* * * * *
(c) The manufacturer must submit defect information reports to
EPA's Engine Compliance Programs Group not more than 15 working days
after an emission-related defect is found to affect 25 or more engines
manufactured in the same certificate or model year. Information
required by paragraph (d) of this section that is either not available
within 15 working days or is significantly revised must be submitted to
EPA's Engine Compliance Programs Group as it becomes available.
* * * * *
35. Section 90.805 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.805 Reports, voluntary recall plan filing, record retention.
(a) Send the defect report, voluntary recall plan, and the
voluntary recall progress report to: Group Manager, Engine Compliance
Programs Group, (6403-J), Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
* * * * *
36. A new Sec. 90.808 is added to subpart I to read as follows
Sec. 90.808 Ordered recall provisions.
(a) Effective with respect to Phase 2 small SI engines:
(1) If the Administrator determines that a substantial number of
any class or category of engines, although properly maintained and
used, do not conform to the regulations prescribed under section 213 of
the Act when in actual use throughout their useful life (as defined
under Sec. 90.105), the Administrator shall immediately notify the
manufacturer of such nonconformity and require the manufacturer to
submit a plan for remedying the nonconformity of the engines with
respect to which such notification is given.
(i) The manufacturer's plan shall provide that the nonconformity of
any such engines which are properly used and maintained will be
remedied at the expense of the manufacturer.
(ii) If the manufacturer disagrees with such determination of
nonconformity and so advises the Administrator, the Administrator shall
afford the manufacturer and other interested persons an opportunity to
present their views and evidence in support thereof at a public
hearing. Unless, as a result of such hearing, the Administrator
withdraws such determination of nonconformity, the Administrator shall,
within 60 days after the completion of
[[Page 4027]]
such hearing, order the manufacturer to provide prompt notification of
such nonconformity in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
The manufacturer shall comply in all respects with the requirements of
this subpart.
(2) Any notification required to be given by the manufacturer under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section with respect to any class or category
of engines shall be given to dealers, ultimate purchasers, and
subsequent purchasers (if known) in such manner and containing such
information as required in subparts I and M of this part.
(3)(i) Prior to an EPA ordered recall, the manufacturer may perform
a voluntary emissions recall pursuant to regulations at Sec. 90.804.
Such manufacturer is subject to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 90.805.
(ii) Once EPA determines that a substantial number of engines fail
to conform with the requirements of section 213 of the Act or this
part, the manufacturer will not have the option of a voluntary recall.
(b) The manufacturer bears all cost obligation a dealer incurs as a
result of a requirement imposed by paragraph (a) of this section. The
transfer of any such cost obligation from a manufacturer to a dealer
through franchise or other agreement is prohibited.
(c) Any inspection of an engine for purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, after its sale to the ultimate purchaser, is to be made
only if the owner of such vehicle or engine voluntarily permits such
inspection to be made, except as may be provided by any state or local
inspection program.
Subpart J--Exclusion and Exemption of Nonroad Engines From
Regulations
37. Section 90.905 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.905 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 recordkeeping and
control procedures that will be employed to assure that the engines are
used for purposes consistent with Sec. 90.1004(b).
38. Section 90.906 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (a)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 90.906 Manufacturer-owned exemption and precertification
exemption.
(a) Any manufacturer owned nonroad engine, as defined by
Sec. 90.902, is exempt from Sec. 90.1003, without application, if the
manufacturer complies with the following terms and conditions:
* * * * *
(3) Unless the requirement is waived or an alternative 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:
* * * * *
39. Section 90.909 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.909 Export exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) EPA will maintain a list of foreign countries that have in
force nonroad emission standards identical to U.S. EPA standards and
have so notified EPA. This list may be obtained by writing to the
following address: Group Manager, Engine Compliance Programs Group,
Engine Programs and Compliance Division (6403-J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. New nonroad engines exported
to such countries must comply with U.S. EPA certification regulations.
* * * * *
40. Section 90.911 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 90.911 Submission of exemption requests.
Requests for exemption or further information concerning exemptions
and/or the exemption request review procedure should be addressed to:
Group Manager, Engine Compliance Programs Group, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6403J), Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Subpart K--Prohibited Acts and General Enforcement Provisions
41. Section 90.1003 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2),
(a)(4)(i), (b)(4), and (b)(5) and by redesignating paragraphs
(a)(4)(iii) and (a)(4)(iv) as paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) and (a)(4)(v)
respectively, and by adding new paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) and (b)(6) to
read as follows:
Sec. 90.1003 Prohibited acts.
(a) * * *
(2) (i) For a person to fail or refuse to permit access to or
copying of records or to fail to make reports or provide information
required under Sec. 90.1004.
(ii) For a person to fail or refuse to permit entry, testing or
inspection authorized under Secs. 90.126, 90.506, 90.705, 90.1004, or
90.1209.
(iii) For a person to fail or refuse to perform tests or to have
tests performed as required under Secs. 90.119, 90.504, 90.703,
90.1004, 90.1203, or 90.1250.
(iv) For a person to fail to establish or maintain records as
required under Secs. 90.209, 90.704, 90.805, 90.1004, or 90.1308.
(v) For a person to fail to submit a remedial plan as required
under Sec. 90.808.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) To sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into commerce,
a nonroad engine unless the manufacturer has complied with the
requirements of Sec. 90.1103.
* * * * *
(iii) To fail or refuse to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 90.808.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Certified nonroad engines shall be used in all equipment or
vehicles that are self-propelled, portable, transportable, or are
intended to be propelled while performing their function, unless the
manufacturer of the equipment or vehicle 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. 90.3. Nonroad vehicle and
equipment manufacturers may continue to use noncertified nonroad
engines built prior to the applicable implementation date of the Phase
1 regulations in this part until noncertified engine inventories are
depleted; further after the applicable implementation date of the Phase
2 regulations in this part, nonroad vehicle and equipment manufacturers
may continue to use Phase 1 engines until Phase 1 engine inventories
are depleted. Stockpiling (i.e., build up of an inventory of
uncertified engines or Phase 1 engines beyond normal business practices
to avoid or delay compliance with the Phase 1 or Phase 2 regulations in
this part, respectively) will be considered a violation of this
section.
(5) A new nonroad engine, intended solely to replace an engine in a
piece of nonroad equipment that was originally produced with an engine
manufactured prior to the applicable implementation
[[Page 4028]]
date as described in Secs. 90.2, 90.103 and 90.106, or with an engine
that was originally produced in a model year in which less stringent
standards under this part were in effect, shall not be subject to the
requirements of Sec. 90.106 or prohibitions and provisions of
paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(4) of this section provided that:
(i) The engine manufacturer has ascertained that no engine produced
by itself or the manufacturer of the engine that is being replaced, if
different, and certified to the requirements of this subpart, is
available with the appropriate physical or performance characteristics
to repower the equipment. Certified engines may be ascertained to lack
appropriate physical characteristics where the engine is too large for
the engine compartment or can not be connected to existing manifolds,
air supplies, water supplies, fuel supplies or controls without
modifications that add substantial cost or result in reliability or
safety concerns. Certified engines may be ascertained to lack
appropriate performance characteristics if the horsepower or rated
speed of the engine are significantly different from the original
engine to reduce the ability of the equipment to perform its function
safely and efficiently; and
(ii) The engine manufacturer or its agent:
(A) Accepts the old engine in exchange for the new engine and
destroys the old engine; or
(B) Obtains documentation from the purchaser sufficient to identify
the old engine and prove that the purchaser has had the old engine
destroyed by a separate party; and
(iii) The engine manufacturer retains records of the engine
purchasers and the makes and models of equipment for which the engines
are sold. Such records shall be made available to the Administrator
upon request and shall be sufficient to enable the Administrator to
determine the quantities of engines being applied to different makes
and models of equipment; and
(iv) The engine manufacturer submits a written report to EPA,
within 90 days of the end of each model year in which any uncertified
replacement engines, or engines certified to an earlier model year's
standards, were sold describing the numbers of such engines sold during
the model year; and
(v) The engine manufacturer has determined and documented that the
engine being replaced was no older than ten (10) years old or ten (10)
model years old; and
(vi) The replacement engine is clearly labeled with the following
language, or similar alternate language approved in advance by the
Administrator: ``THIS engine does not comply with Federal nonroad or
on-highway emission requirements. Sale or installation of this engine
for any purpose other than as a replacement engine in a nonroad vehicle
or piece of nonroad equipment whose original engine was not certified,
or was certified to less stringent emission standards than those that
apply to the year of manufacture of this engine, is a violation of
Federal law subject to civil penalty''; and
(vii) Where the replacement engine is intended to replace an engine
built after the applicable implementation date of regulations under
this part, but built to less stringent emission standards than are
currently applicable, the replacement engine shall be identical in all
material respects to a certified configuration of the same or later
model year as the engine being replaced.
(6)(i) Regulations elsewhere in this part notwithstanding, for
three model years after the phase-in of each set of Phase 2 standards;
i.e. through the 2004 model year for Class I nonhandheld engines and
through model year 2008 for handheld engines and Class II nonhandheld
engines, small volume equipment manufacturers as defined in this part
may continue to use, and engine manufacturers may continue to supply,
engines certified to Phase 1 standards (or identified and labeled by
their manufacturer to be identical to engines previously certified
under Phase 1 standards), provided the equipment manufacturer has
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Administrator that no certified
Phase 2 engine is available with suitable physical or performance
characteristics to power a piece of nonhandheld equipment in production
prior to the 2001 model year, or handheld equipment in production prior
to the 2002 model year. The equipment manufacturer must also certify to
the Administrator that the equipment model has not undergone any
redesign which could have facilitated conversion of the equipment to
accommodate a Phase 2 engine.
(ii) Regulations elsewhere in this part notwithstanding, for the
duration of the Phase 2 regulations in this part, equipment
manufacturers who certify to the Administrator that annual eligible
sales of a particular model of equipment will not exceed 500 for a
nonhandheld model in production prior to the 2001 model year, or 2500
for a handheld model in production prior to the 2002 model year, may
continue to use in that model, and engine manufacturers may continue to
supply, engines certified to Phase 1 requirements, (or identified and
labeled by their manufacturer to be identical to engines previously
certified under Phase 1 standards). To be eligible for this provision,
the equipment manufacturer must have demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the Administrator that no certified Phase 2 engine is available with
suitable physical or performance characteristics to power the
equipment. The equipment manufacturer must also certify to the
Administrator that the equipment model has not undergone any redesign
which could have facilitated conversion of the equipment to accommodate
a Phase 2 engine.
(iii) An equipment manufacturer which is unable to obtain suitable
Phase 2 engines and which can not obtain relief under any other
provision of this part, may, prior to the date on which the
manufacturer would become in noncompliance with the requirement to use
Phase 2 engines, apply to the Administrator to be allowed to continue
using Phase 1 engines, through the 2002 model year for Class I engines
and through the 2006 model year for Class II, III, IV and V engines,
subject to the following criteria:
(A) The inability to obtain Phase 2 engines is despite the
manufacturer's best efforts and is the result of an extraordinary
action on the part of the engine manufacturer that was outside the
control of and could not be reasonably foreseen by the equipment
manufacturer; such as canceled production or shipment, last minute
certification failure, unforeseen engine cancellation, plant closing,
work stoppage or other such circumstance; and
(B) The inability to market the particular equipment will bring
substantial economic hardship to the equipment manufacturer resulting
in a major impact on the equipment manufacturer's solvency.
(iv) The written permission from the Administrator to the equipment
manufacturer shall serve as permission for the engine manufacturer to
provide such Phase 1 engines required by the equipment manufacturers
under this paragraph (b)(6). Such engines will not count against an
engine manufacturer's final (100%) handheld phase-in percentage
requirements, and are excluded from the nonhandheld certification,
averaging, banking and trading program. As Phase 1 engines, these
engines are exempt from Production Line Testing requirements under
subpart H of this part and in-use testing requirements under subpart M
of this part.
[[Page 4029]]
Subpart L--Emission Warranty and Maintenance Instructions
42. Section 90.1103 is amended by the revising paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 90.1103 Emission warranty, warranty period.
* * * * *
(b)(1) The manufacturer of each new Phase 1 small SI engine must
warrant to the ultimate purchaser and each subsequent purchaser that
the engine is designed, built and equipped so as to conform at the time
of sale with applicable regulations under section 213 of the Act, and
the engine is free from defects in materials and workmanship which
cause such engine to fail to conform with applicable regulations for
its warranty period.
(2) The manufacturer of each new Phase 2 small SI engine must
warrant to the ultimate purchaser and each subsequent purchaser that
the engine is designed, built, and equipped so as to conform for its
designated useful life with applicable regulations under section 213 of
the Act, and is free from defects in materials and workmanship which
cause such engine to fail to conform with applicable regulations for
its warranty period.
* * * * *
43. Section 90.1104 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.1104 Furnishing of maintenance instructions to ultimate
purchaser.
* * * * *
(e) If a manufacturer includes in an advertisement a statement
respecting the cost or value of emission control devices or systems,
the manufacturer shall set forth in the statement the cost or value
attributed to these devices or systems by the Secretary of Labor
(through the Bureau of Labor Statistics). The Secretary of Labor, and
his or her representatives, has the same access for this purpose to the
books, documents, papers, and records of a manufacturer as the
Comptroller General has to those of a recipient of assistance for
purposes of section 311 of the Act.
44. A new subpart, Subpart M is added to part 90 to read:
Subpart M--In-Use Compliance Testing for Handheld Engines; Bench Aging
Adjustment; In-Use Durability Demonstration Testing for Nonhandheld
Engines
Sec.
90.1201 Applicability.
90.1202 Definitions.
90.1203 Manufacturer in-use testing program.
90.1204 Maintenance, procurement, aging and testing of engines.
90.1205 In-use test program reporting requirements.
90.1206 [Reserved]
90.1207 Bench aging adjustment factor testing.
90.1208 Bench aging adjustment; criterion for usage, calculation of
adjustment factor, reporting requirements.
90.1209 Entry and access.
90.1210--90.1249 [Reserved]
90.1250 Field durability and in-use emission performance
demonstration program for nonhandheld engines using overhead valve
technology.
Subpart M--In-Use Compliance Testing for Handheld Engines; Bench
Aging Adjustment; In-Use Durability Demonstration Testing for
Nonhandheld Engines
Sec. 90.1201 Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart from Sec. 90.1201 through
Sec. 90.1249 are applicable to all handheld Phase 2 engines subject to
the provisions of subpart A of this part. The requirements of this
subpart, except for those involving in-use credits, in Secs. 90.1201,
90.1202, 90.1207, 90.1208, 90.1209 and those from Sec. 90.1250 through
Sec. 90.1299 are applicable to nonhandheld Phase 2 engines subject to
the provisions of subpart A of this part.
Sec. 90.1202 Definitions.
For the purposes of this subpart, except as otherwise provided, the
definitions in subparts A and C of this part apply to this subpart.
Sec. 90.1203 Manufacturer in-use testing program.
(a) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, at the time of
the first certification for each model year beginning with the 2002
model year, each manufacturer shall submit a schedule to the
Administrator of the Phase 2 engine families, their useful lives, their
design characteristics (two or four stroke; catalyst or noncatalyst,
etc.), and their anticipated eligible sales, it intends to produce, by
model year, over the subsequent four year period (the model year now
being certified plus the next three model years).
(b) At the time the manufacturer submits the schedule required
under paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer may include a
proposed plan for the Administrator's review and approval for the in-
use testing of the current model year and such future model years as it
chooses to include. In such plans, the manufacturer shall propose the
in-use testing of individual engine families and engine configurations
subject to the requirements of this subpart. Such plans shall include a
discussion of the rationale behind the choice of each family and
configuration that the Administrator shall use to determine whether the
manufacturer's plan meets the objective of generating in-use data on
substantially all of a manufacturer's engines within a reasonable time
period, and periodically updating that data.
(c) Based upon the schedule required in paragraph (a) of this
section, any plan submitted under paragraph (b) of this section, and/or
such other information as it has available, the Administrator may
annually identify handheld engine families and at the Administrator's
option, configurations within families which the manufacturer must then
subject to in-use testing as described in this section and in
Sec. 90.1204. For each model year, the Administrator may identify a
number of engine families that is no greater than the number of
handheld engine families produced in that model year divided by four
and rounded to the nearest whole number. If this calculation produces a
value of zero, then the Administrator may identify no more than one
engine family for in-use testing for that manufacturer. The
Administrator may identify families and configurations under this
paragraph by approving the manufacturer's plan described in paragraph
(b) of this section, or by providing a written directive to the
manufacturer.
(d) For each engine family identified by the Administrator under
paragraph (c) of this section, engine manufacturers shall perform
emission testing of an appropriate sample of in-use engines from each
engine family. Manufacturers shall submit data from this in-use testing
to the Administrator.
(e) Number of engines to be tested. An engine manufacturer shall
test bench aged or field aged in-use engines from each engine family or
family and configuration identified by the Administrator. Engines to be
tested shall have accumulated a number of hours pursuant to paragraph
(g) of this section. The number of engines to be tested by a
manufacturer shall be determined by the following method:
(1) A minimum of four (4) engines per family provided that no
engine fails any standard. For each failing engine, two more engines
shall be tested until the total number of engines equals ten (10).
(2) For small volume engine families for the identified model year
or for small volume engine manufacturers, a minimum of two (2) engines
per family provided that no engine fails any standard. For each failing
engine, two more engines shall be tested until the total number of
engines equals ten (10).
(3) If an engine family was certified using carry over emission
data and has
[[Page 4030]]
been previously tested under paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this
section (and mean results did not exceed any applicable emission
standard), then only one engine for that family must be tested. If that
one engine fails any pollutant, testing must be conducted as outlined
at paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section, whichever is
appropriate.
(f) At the discretion of the Administrator, an engine manufacturer
may test more engines than the minima described in paragraph (e) of
this section or may concede failure before testing a total of ten (10)
engines.
(g) The Administrator may approve alternatives to manufacturer in-
use testing as described in this subpart, that are designed to
determine whether an engine family is in compliance with applicable
standards in use, where:
(1) Engines, in their production form, or when removed from the
piece of equipment in which they were installed, cannot safely or
practically be operated and tested pursuant to subparts D and E of this
part; or
(2) The Administrator finds that unique or extraordinary
circumstances exist that support the need for alternative methods.
(h) Collection of in-use engines. The engine manufacturer shall
bench age engines to their full certified useful life as described in
subpart B of this part using a bench aging procedure approved by the
Administrator under this subpart, or the engine manufacturer shall
procure field aged engines which have been operated for at least the
engine's useful life. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator,
the manufacturer shall complete emission testing of bench aged engines
within 12 calendar months and complete emission testing of field aged
engines within 24 calendar months after receiving notice that the
Administrator has identified a particular engine family for testing.
Field aged engines may be procured from sources associated with the
engine manufacturer (i.e., manufacturer established fleet engines,
etc.) or from sources not associated with the manufacturer (i.e.,
consumer-owned engines, independently-owned fleet engines, etc.).
Sec. 90.1204 Maintenance, procurement, aging and testing of engines.
This section is applicable to handheld engines used for in-use
testing pursuant to Sec. 90.1203.
(a) An in-use field aged engine must have a maintenance and use
history representative of actual in-use conditions.
(1) To comply with this requirement, a manufacturer must obtain
information from the end users regarding the accumulated usage,
maintenance, operating conditions, and storage of the test engines.
(2) Documents used in the procurement process must be maintained as
required in Sec. 90.121.
(3) Each engine of a sample to be field aged shall be assigned a
random number. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the
engine with the lowest number shall be tested first, followed by the
next higher number until testing is completed.
(b)(1) For an engine family which is to be emission tested
following bench aging, test engines shall be randomly chosen from
normal engine production or storage; or randomly chosen from normal
handheld equipment production or storage.
(2) Each engine of a sample to be bench aged shall be assigned a
random number. In emission testing of the bench aged engines, the
engine with the lowest number shall be tested first, followed by the
next higher number until testing is completed.
(c)(1) Bench aged engines must be aged on a dynamometer using a
bench aging cycle that has been shown to be capable of representing
field aging for the appropriate technology subgroup pursuant to the
regulations at Secs. 90.1207 and 90.1208.
(2) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, once an engine
has begun the bench aging process, it can be terminated and deleted
only for catastrophic failure or safety concerns requiring major engine
repair, or because testing of the engine family has been completed
based upon lower numbered engines.
(d) The manufacturer may perform minimal set-to-spec maintenance on
components of a test engine that are not subject to parameter
adjustment. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, maintenance
to any test engine may include only that which is listed in the owner's
instructions for engines with the amount of service and age of the test
engine. Documentation of all maintenance and adjustments shall be
maintained and retained as required by Sec. 90.121.
(e) At least one valid emission test, according to the test
procedure outlined in subpart E of this part, is required for each test
engine. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, no other
emission testing or performance testing may be performed on a test
engine prior to the testing at the end of hour accumulation using the
test procedure outlined in subpart E of this part.
(f) The Administrator may waive portions or requirements of the
test procedure, if any, that are not necessary to determine in-use
compliance with applicable emission standards.
(g) If a selected test engine fails to comply with any applicable
emission standard, the manufacturer shall make a reasonable effort,
including troubleshooting, repairing and retesting, to determine the
cause of noncompliance. The manufacturer must report all such reasons
of noncompliance with the in-use test report required pursuant to
Sec. 90.1205.
Sec. 90.1205 In-use test program reporting requirements.
(a) The manufacturer shall submit to the Administrator within
ninety (90) days of completion of testing for a given model year's
engines, all emission testing results generated from the in-use testing
program. The following information must be reported for each test
engine:
(1) Engine family;
(2) Model;
(3) Engine serial number;
(4) Date of manufacture;
(5) Hours of use;
(6) Date and time of each test attempt;
(7) Results (if any) of each test attempt;
(8) Schedules, descriptions and justifications of all maintenance
and/or adjustments performed;
(9) Schedules, descriptions and justifications of all modifications
and/or repairs; and
(10) Determinations of noncompliance.
(b) The manufacturer must electronically submit the information
required in this section using EPA's electronic information format. The
Administrator may exempt manufacturers from this requirement upon
written request with supporting justification as to the manufacturer's
lack of adequate information processing technology.
(c) The report required in paragraph (a) of this section must
include a listing of any test engines that were deleted from the aging
process or testing process and provide a technical justification to
support the deletion.
(d) All testing reports and requests for approvals made under this
subpart shall be addressed to: Manager, Engine Compliance Programs
Group (6403-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460.
(e) The Administrator may approve and/or require modifications to a
manufacturer's in-use testing programs.
[[Page 4031]]
Sec. 90.1206 [Reserved]
Sec. 90.1207 Bench aging adjustment factor testing.
(a) This section is applicable to the bench aging procedures for
handheld engines for in-use emission testing and to the bench aging
procedures for the full useful life certification testing of
nonhandheld sidevalve engines and nonhandheld engines with
aftertreatment.
(b) The bench aging adjustment procedure described in Sec. 90.1208
shall be used to determine whether a given bench aging cycle, approved
for adjustment factor testing by the Administrator, can be used to
represent field aged engines for handheld in-use testing under this
subpart or for certification of nonhandheld sidevalve engines or
nonhandheld engines with aftertreatment; and, if so, what the
appropriate adjustment factor should be. If both the IWB and
IWF as defined in Sec. 90.1208 are less than or equal to 20%
of the appropriate HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) standard,
then the subject bench aging cycle can be used to generate emissions
data for adjustment to represent field aged emissions.
(c) (1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit
different manufacturers from jointly demonstrating that a particular
bench aging cycle, approved by the Administrator for adjustment factor
testing, may be used to represent the field aged emissions of engines
of a particular technology subgroup when they each agree to use the
same bench aging cycle, when they each contribute field and bench aged
test engines for testing of that technology subgroup under
Sec. 90.1208, and when they each provide justification satisfactory to
the Administrator that the engines can be expected to have similar
emission deterioration characteristics and that a reasonable basis
exists for such joint testing.
(2) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, a manufacturer
participating or desiring to participate in a joint adjustment factor
testing program may not enter or drop out of the joint program for that
technology subgroup after the adjustment factor derived from the
program has been used one or more times for certification of
nonhandheld engines or in-use testing of handheld engines. When a
manufacturer does drop out, the adjustment factor must be recalculated
without that manufacturer's data. When an additional manufacturer is
allowed to join, the adjustment factor must be recalculated to reflect
the data generated by the new manufacturer's engines.
(d) Field aging of engines shall be performed in representative
equipment in the hands of residential customers, or professional users
or in manufacturers' fleets, except that a minimum of one third of the
field aged engines but not less than one engine for a given engine
family or technology subgroup, shall be aged in individual customer
usage or in fleets where the engine manufacturer does not carry out or
exercise control over the engines' maintenance or limit their usage
such that the engines are not used in a way that is representative of
typical in-use engines.
(e) For each engine family or technology subgroup for which a
manufacturer desires to use bench aging, the manufacturer or group of
manufacturers, as applicable, shall propose to the Administrator the
bench aging cycle and an engine aging plan it intends or they intend to
use to demonstrate the appropriateness of such cycle to represent field
aged engines. Such proposals may be made up to 48 months prior to the
start of a given model year. EPA shall reject such proposed aging
cycles and/or engine aging plans in writing, within 90 days of receipt,
or they shall be considered approved for adjustment factor testing
pursuant to this section and Sec. 90.1208. Such proposals shall
include:
(1) A detailed description of the engine families a cycle is
intended to cover, a justification satisfactory to the Administrator
that the engines can be expected to have similar emission deterioration
characteristics, a justification of the appropriateness of the subject
cycle to represent field aging of the engines the cycle is intended to
cover and data sufficient for the Administrator to ascertain whether
the bench aging cycle has been previously determined to represent field
aging for any other engine family under the provisions of this section
and Sec. 90.1208;
(2) A detailed description of the proposed bench aging cycle
including, but not limited to, such parameters as duration at each
throttle setting, sequencing of throttle changes, loading and load
changes, hot starts and cold starts, idles, acceleration times,
presence of accessory loads, periods of shutdown and other factors as
the Administrator may require;
(3) A description of each engine to be aged in the field and on the
bench, including make, model, engine family, displacement, power
rating, rated speed and other such information as the Administrator may
require to enable the Administrator to determine whether such engines
are appropriate for evaluating the bench aging cycle for the engine
families or technology subgroup described in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section;
(4) A description of the way in which individual engines will be
selected, uniquely identified and tracked for both bench and field
aging and for subsequent emission testing;
(5) A description of the method by which each engine selected for
field aging will be aged, the procedures for determining and carrying
out appropriate engine maintenance during field aging and bench aging,
a description and rationale for any maintenance the manufacturer
proposes to perform additional to routine maintenance described in the
maintenance schedule provided to the purchaser, and a description of
records that will be kept of both bench and field engine operation and
maintenance; and
(6) The location(s) of the facilities or sites at which each bench
and field aged engine will be aged and tested.
(f) Upon approval by the Administrator of the bench aging cycle for
evaluation testing and the engine aging plan, the manufacturer shall
conduct hour accumulation to the full regulatory useful life of the
engines according to the approved engine aging plan using the approved
bench aging cycle. Such aging shall be followed by emission testing
pursuant to the requirements of subpart E of this part. At its option,
the manufacturer may age handheld commercial engines to 75% of their
regulatory useful life for bench aging adjustment testing.
(g) Handheld engines aged for adjustment factor testing pursuant to
the requirements of this section may not be used in the Manufacturer
In-use Test Program required under Sec. 90.1203.
(h) The Administrator may require that testing under this section
and the evaluation of the appropriateness of a bench aging cycle to
represent field aging under Sec. 90.1208, be repeated for a particular
engine family or technology subgroup as often as every five years;
except that the Administrator may require that such testing be repeated
more frequently in model years prior to the 2006 model year.
(1) The Administrator shall notify a manufacturer or group of
manufacturers of the requirement to conduct a bench aging adjustment
factor program for a particular engine family or technology subgroup
and the period for completion of the program. The time period for
completion shall be no less than one year for engines having 500 or
1000 hour useful lives.
(2) Within sixty days of the date of the Administrator's notice,
the manufacturer or group of manufacturers shall provide a plan for the
[[Page 4032]]
Administrator's review and approval meeting the requirements of
paragraph (e) of this section including a proposed bench aging cycle
and an engine aging plan.
(i) Upon completion of engine aging and testing pursuant to the
requirements of this section, engine manufacturers wishing to use bench
aging and the adjustment factors calculated pursuant to Sec. 90.1208
for in-use emission testing of handheld engines or for certification of
nonhandheld sidevalve engines or nonhandheld engines with
aftertreatment, as applicable, shall provide a report to the
Administrator describing the aging and testing conducted under this
section and Sec. 90.1208. Such report shall be submitted no less than
90 days before the initiation of any such bench aging for in-use or
certification testing on the engines and engine families covered by the
plan approved under this section. The Administrator shall disapprove
the report within 30 days of the date of receipt, or the report shall
be automatically approved and the manufacturer may use the bench aging
cycle and adjustment factors described in the report for its bench
aging activities of the subject families. Such report shall contain the
following information about the field/bench adjustment program
conducted under this section and Sec. 90.1208:
(1) An identifying description of the bench aging cycle sufficient
for the Administrator to ascertain which cycle proposed pursuant to
this section has been evaluated;
(2) A description of all engines selected for bench aging and field
aging for this engine family or technology subgroup, as applicable.
Such description shall include the make, model, engine family,
displacement, power rating, rated speed, unique identifying
description, and other such information as the Administrator may
require;
(3) A description of all maintenance performed on each engine
during hour accumulation, including a detailed explanation of the need
for any maintenance not contained in the maintenance schedule for that
model engine provided to engine owners;
(4) A description of how each engine was aged (e.g., bench cycle,
field aged-manufacturer fleet, or field aged-individual customer);
(5) A description of any engine selected for aging pursuant to
paragraph (i)(2) of this section that was deleted from aging or
testing. Include a full explanation of the rationale for deletion;
(6) Tabulations of all emission test results and all inputs and
outcomes of the equations found in Sec. 90.1208; and
(7) A statement signed by an appropriate official of the
manufacturer responsible for compliance of engines with Federal
emission requirements that clearly states that all engine selection,
aging, maintenance, testing, results calculation, and data evaluation
was performed in full accordance with the requirements under this part.
Sec. 90.1208 Bench aging adjustment; criterion for usage, calculation
of adjustment factor, reporting requirements.
(a) Manufacturers desiring to use bench aging prior to performing
in-use emission tests on handheld engines or prior to performing
certification testing on nonhandheld sidevalve engines or nonhandheld
engines with aftertreatment, must first demonstrate that the chosen
bench aging cycle appropriately represents field aging as determined
under this section and Sec. 90.1207. Where a bench aging cycle is shown
to appropriately represent field aging under this section and
Sec. 90.1207, manufacturers shall calculate separate multiplicative
bench aging adjustment factors as described in this section to adjust
the HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) and CO emissions of bench
aged engines.
(b) A minimum of six engines from each technology subgroup shall be
aged and tested. Three of these engines must be aged on the bench and
three must be aged in the field.
(c) Separate 90% confidence intervals shall be calculated around
the HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) mean of the bench aged
engines and the HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) mean of the
field aged engines. The confidence intervals are independent of each
other and are calculated according to the following equations:
(1)(i) For the 90% confidence interval about the mean of the group
of bench aged engines, B90:
B90=x.8bIWb
Where:
B90=The 90% confidence interval about the mean of the group
of bench aged engines.
xb=The HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) sample mean
of the group of bench aged engines.
IWb=The confidence interval width for the group of bench
aged engines as defined by the equation in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(ii) IWb is defined by the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JA98.004
Where:
t90=The appropriate 90% critical point from Student's t
table for 90% confidence and nb-1 observations; this value
will decrease as nb increases.
Sb=The HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) sample
standard deviation of the group of bench aged engines, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JA98.005
nb=The number of bench aged engines tested.
(2)(i) For the 90% confidence interval about the mean of the group
of field aged engines, F90:
F90=xfIWf
Where:
F90=The 90% confidence interval about the mean of the group
of field aged engines.
xf=The HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) sample mean
of the group of field aged engines.
IWf=The confidence interval width for the group of field
aged engines as defined by the equation in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(ii) IWf is defined by the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JA98.006
Where:
t90=The appropriate 90% critical point from Student's t
table for 90% confidence and nb-1 observations; this value
will decrease as nb increases.
Sf=The HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) sample
standard deviation of the group of field aged engines, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JA98.007
nf=The number of field aged engines tested.
(d) Both IWb and IWf must be rounded to the
same number of significant digits as contained in the appropriate
standard.
(e) If both IWb and IWf are less than or
equal to 20% of the appropriate HC +NOX (NMHC+NOX) standard
as defined by Sec. 90.103, then separate Bench Aging Adjustment
factors, AFs, can be calculated for HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) and CO
as follows:
AF=the maximum of [(xf / xb) or 1.0]
(f) If either or both confidence interval widths IWb or
IWf is/are greater than 20% of the appropriate standard as
defined by Sec. 90.103, then the manufacturer may elect to test
additional engines included and described in the plan approved under
Sec. 90.1207 and recalculate the relevant
[[Page 4033]]
statistics. Additional testing need only be done for the group that
exceeds 20% of the appropriate standard. After each additional test,
B90, F90, IWb and IWf shall
be recalculated according to paragraph (c) of this section. Additional
engines may be added until such time as the newly calculated confidence
interval width (IWb or IWf, or both) are less
than or equal to 20% of the appropriate HC+NOX
(NMHC+NOX) standard as defined by Sec. 90.103. When both
IWb or IWf are less than or equal to 20% of the
appropriate standard as defined by Sec. 90.103, then separate Bench
Aging Adjustment Factors, AFs, may be calculated for each regulated
pollutant according to paragraph (e) of this section.
(g) The adjustment factors calculated under paragraph (e) of this
section shall be multiplicatively applied to the appropriate full
useful life bench-aged handheld in-use test results or to the
appropriate full useful life certification test results of nonhandheld
sidevalve engines or nonhandheld engines with aftertreatment for that
engine family or technology subgroup for all manufacturers whose
engines were tested in the test program for that technology subgroup,
until another bench aging adjustment program is conducted for that
family or technology subgroup.
Sec. 90.1209 Entry and access.
(a) To allow the Administrator to determine whether a manufacturer
is complying with the provisions under this subpart, EPA enforcement
officers or their authorized representatives, upon presentation of
credentials, shall be permitted entry, during operating hours, into any
of the following places:
(1) Any facility where engines undergo or are undergoing bench
aging, field aging, maintenance, repair, preparation for aging,
selection for aging or emission testing.
(2) Any facility where records or documents related to any of
activities described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are kept.
(3) Any facility where any engine that is being tested or aged, was
tested or aged or will be tested or aged is present.
(b) Upon admission to any facility referred to in paragraph (a) of
this section, EPA enforcement officers or EPA authorized
representatives are authorized to perform those activities set forth in
Sec. 90.705 (b) and also to inspect and make copies of records related
to engine aging (service accumulation) and maintenance.
(c) The provisions of Sec. 90.705(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) also
apply to entry and access under this subpart.
Secs. 90.1210--90.1249 [Reserved.]
Sec. 90.1250 Field durability and in-use emission performance
demonstration program for nonhandheld engines using overhead valve
technology.
The testing required pursuant to this section shall be for the
purpose of validating the appropriateness of assigned deterioration
factors (dfs) or manufacturer determined dfs used pursuant to
Sec. 90.104 to represent the field aged deterioration of overhead valve
technology engine families. For brevity, such testing is referred to as
df validation testing.
(a) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, at the time of
the first certification for each model year of Phase 2 engines, each
manufacturer shall submit a schedule to the Administrator of the
overhead valve technology engine families it intends to produce over
the subsequent four year period (the model year now being certified
plus the next three model years) including their useful lives, their
design characteristics (i.e.; catalyst or noncatalyst, carbureted or
fuel injected, etc.), and their anticipated eligible sales.
(b) In the schedule submitted under paragraph (a) of this section,
and for the same time period, the manufacturer shall specify the engine
families for which it intends to conduct field/bench adjustment testing
under Secs. 90.1207 and 90.1208 and shall also specify the engine
families for which it intends to compute its own dfs pursuant to
Sec. 90.104(h)(2). Such schedule shall include an estimate of the
number of field aged engines that will be emission tested each calendar
year for the programs referenced in this paragraph.
(c) At the time the manufacturer submits the schedule required
under paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer may include a
proposed plan for the Administrator's review and approval of the
overhead valve engine families, configurations and associated
quantities of engines it plans to field age to full useful life and in-
use test during those four years to determine the field aged dfs for
engine families for which assigned dfs were used in certification. In
such plans, the manufacturer:
(1) May consider the number of field aged engines it plans to test
in each calendar year from paragraph (b) of this section and the limit
on additional testing of field aged engines that can be assigned by EPA
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Shall include a discussion of the rationale for the choice of
each family and configuration sufficient to enable the Administrator to
determine whether the manufacturer's plan meets the objective of
generating in-use data sufficient to validate the appropriateness of
the assigned dfs on a substantial portion of a manufacturer's engines
within a reasonable time period, and providing for periodic
revalidation of the assigned dfs.
(d) If no plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section
is approved by the Administrator, then, based upon the schedule
submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section and other available
information, and considering the field aging requirements of
Secs. 90.1207, 90.1208 and 90.104(h)(2), and any requests from
manufacturers to work jointly, the Administrator may provide a schedule
of the overhead valve engine families and associated quantities of
engines that must be field aged to full useful life and in-use tested
during those four years to validate dfs.
(e) EPA shall not require any nonhandheld engine manufacturer to
conduct df validation emission testing such that df validation emission
testing when added to that testing of field aged engines proposed by
the manufacturer under paragraph (b) of this section would require the
manufacturer to emission test more than 24 total field aged engines in
one calendar year for bench aged field adjustment testing pursuant to
Secs. 90.1207 and 90.1208, df generation testing pursuant to
Sec. 90.104(h)(2), and df validation testing pursuant to this section.
(f) The Administrator may provide a schedule for engine testing to
validate dfs pursuant to this section by approving the plan submitted
by the manufacturer under paragraph (c) of this section, or by a
written directive to the manufacturer under paragraph (d) of this
section. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, for each test
engine tested to fulfill the testing schedule provided by the
Administrator under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, the
manufacturer shall conduct a baseline emission test at a number of
hours equal to that on the corresponding certification engine followed
by field aging to the certified useful life. Each engine shall then be
emission tested using the applicable test procedures described in this
part measuring all regulated pollutants. Field aging shall be performed
in representative equipment in the hands of residential customers, or
professional users or in manufacturers' fleets, under usage and
conditions representative of typical use.
(1) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, equipment shall
be considered to be representative if it is of the type (e.g., walk
behind lawnmowers or concrete saws) of equipment into which at least
one third of the engines
[[Page 4034]]
are installed. If no one application of the engine constitutes one
third of sales, then equipment shall be representative if it is taken
from either or both of the two types of applications having the largest
U.S. sales volumes.
(2) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, test engines
that receive maintenance additional to that recommended to the
purchaser in the owner's manual shall not be considered representative
of typical use.
(g) No later than 90 days following the end of each model year,
each manufacturer subject to this section shall provide a tabulation,
by engine family, of all engines undergoing hour accumulation under
this regulation, the number of hours accumulated on each engine, the
equipment application for each engine and the basis for that choice of
equipment. Such tabulation shall include the engine family, the engine
identification number assigned for tracking purposes, the type of
application, the projected test date and the geographic location (city
and state) where hour accumulation is occurring. Such tabulation, or a
separate tabulation submitted at the same time, shall contain all in-
use test results that have been generated during the preceding model
year. Such tabulation shall include the engine family, the engine
identification number assigned for tracking purposes, the type of
application, the applicable certification deterioration factor and the
calculated HC+NOX deterioration factor determined from the
testing required in this subpart.
45. Subpart N is added to part 90 to read as follows:
Subpart N--In-Use Credit Program for New Handheld Engines
Sec.
90.1301 Applicability.
90.1302 Definitions.
90.1303 General provisions.
90.1304 Averaging.
90.1305 Banking.
90.1306 Trading.
90.1307 Credit calculation.
90.1308 Maintenance of records.
90.1309 Reporting requirements.
90.1310 Request for hearing.
Subpart N--In-Use Credit Program for New Handheld Engines
Sec. 90.1301 Applicability.
Phase 2 handheld engines subject to the provisions of subpart A of
this part are eligible to participate in the in-use credit program
described in this subpart for HC +NOX (NMHC+NOX)
and CO emissions.
Sec. 90.1302 Definitions.
The definitions in subpart A of this part and the definition of
``point of first retail sale'' from subpart C of this part apply to
this subpart. The following definitions shall also apply to this
subpart:
Averaging means the exchange of handheld engine in-use emission
credits between engine families within a given manufacturer's product
line.
Banked credits refer to positive emission credits based on actual
applicable production/sales volume as contained in the end of model
year in-use testing reports submitted to EPA. Some or all of these
banked credits may be revoked if EPA review of the end of model year
in-use testing reports or any subsequent audit action(s) uncovers
problems or errors.
Banking means the retention of handheld engine in-use emission
credits by the manufacturer generating the emission credits or
obtaining such credits through trading, for use in future model year
averaging or trading as permitted by these regulations.
Carry-over engine family means an engine family which undergoes
certification using carryover test data from previous model years.
Compliance level for an engine family is determined by averaging
the in-use test results from each test engine of the family. The
compliance level for an individual configuration may be determined in
cases where the Administrator directs the testing of an individual
configuration.
Emission credits or in-use credits represent the amount of emission
reduction or exceedance, for each regulated pollutant, by a handheld
engine family below or above, respectively, the applicable
certification standard to which the engine family is certified.
Emission reductions below the standard are considered ``positive
credits,'' while emission exceedences above the standard are considered
``negative or required credits.''
Trading means the exchange of handheld engine in-use emission
credits between manufacturers and/or brokers.
Sec. 90.1303 General provisions.
(a) The in-use credit program for eligible Phase 2 handheld engines
is described in this subpart. Participation in this program is
voluntary.
(b) Any handheld Phase 2 engine family subject to the provisions of
subpart A of this part is eligible to participate in the in-use credit
program described in this subpart.
(c) Credits generated and used in the nonhandheld engine
certification averaging, banking, and trading program pursuant to the
provisions of subpart C of this part are not interchangeable with
credits generated and used in the handheld engine in-use credit
program. In-use credits under this subpart may not be used to address
the emissions of any nonhandheld engine. Nor may nonhandheld
certification credits be used to address any in-use credit need
determined under this subpart.
(d) An engine family with a compliance level, as determined by in-
use testing pursuant to subpart M of this part and paragraph (h) of
this section, below the applicable standard to which the engine family
is certified may generate emission credits for averaging, banking, or
trading in the in-use credit program.
(e) Positive credits generated in a given model year may be used in
that model year and/or in any subsequent model year during the Phase 2
program.
(f) A manufacturer of an engine family with a compliance level
exceeding the applicable standard to which the engine family is
certified, may, prior to the date of the report required under
paragraph (i) of this section, use previously banked credits, purchase
credits from another manufacturer, or perform additional testing
pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section to address (as calculated
elsewhere in this subpart) the associated credit deficit (negative
credits or a need for credits).
(g) In the case of in-use testing of engine families that were
certified using carry-over data, and in the absence of other applicable
test data acceptable to the Administrator, the test results from one
model year's testing shall apply to up to four years of production of
that family: the model year tested, the next model year (if carried
over to that year), and one or two previous model years (if carried
over from the previous year or the two previous years, respectively).
In-use credits shall be generated or used, as appropriate.
(h) A manufacturer must notify EPA of plans to test additional
engine families beyond those identified by EPA pursuant to regulations
in subpart M of this part for the in-use testing program. Such notice
must be submitted 30 days prior to initiation of service accumulation.
If the additional testing discovers an engine family to be in
noncompliance with the applicable standard, the testing must be treated
as if it were a failure of the normal in-use testing requirement of an
engine family. If the additional testing shows the engine family to be
in compliance with the applicable standard, in-use credits may be
generated subject to the provisions of this subpart.
[[Page 4035]]
(i) Manufacturers must demonstrate a zero or positive credit
balance under the in-use credit program for all regulated pollutants
for a particular model year within 90 days of the end of the in-use
testing of that model year's engine families. At that time
manufacturers must file a report with EPA pursuant to Sec. 90.1309.
(j) Manufacturers shall maintain separate balances for
HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) and CO credits.
HC+NOX and NMHC+NOX credits are interchangeable
with each other but not with CO credits.
Sec. 90.1304 Averaging.
(a) A manufacturer may use averaging across engine families to
demonstrate a zero or positive credit balance for a model year.
Positive credits to be used in averaging may be obtained from credits
generated by another engine family of the same model year, credits
banked in previous model years, or credits obtained through trading.
(b) Credits used to demonstrate a zero or positive credit balance
must be used at a rate of 1.1 to 1.
Sec. 90.1305 Banking.
(a) A manufacturer of a handheld engine family with an in-use
compliance level below the standard to which the engine family is
certified for a given model year may bank positive in-use credits for
that model year for use in in-use averaging and trading.
(b) A manufacturer may consider credits to be banked, for use in
future averaging or trading, 30 days after the submission of the report
required by Sec. 90.1309(a). During the 30 day period EPA will work
with the manufacturer to correct any error in calculating banked
credits, if necessary.
Sec. 90.1306 Trading.
(a) A handheld engine manufacturer may exchange positive in-use
emission credits with other handheld engine manufacturers through
trading.
(b) In-use credits for trading can be obtained from credits banked
for model years prior to the model year of the engine family requiring
in-use credits.
(c) Traded in-use credits can be used for averaging, banking, or
further trading transactions.
(d) Unless otherwise approved by EPA, a manufacturer that generates
positive in-use credits must wait 30 days after it has both completed
in-use testing for the model year for which the credits were generated
and submitted the report required by Sec. 90.1309(a) before it may
transfer credits to another manufacturer or broker.
(e) 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. Engine families participating in a trade that leads to
a negative credit balance may be subject to recall under subparts I and
M of this part if the engine manufacturer having the negative credit
balance is unable or unwilling to obtain sufficient credits in the time
allowed under Sec. 90.1303(i).
Sec. 90.1307 Credit calculation.
For each participating engine family, and for each regulated
pollutant (HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) and CO) emission
credits (positive or negative) are to be calculated according to the
following equation and rounded to the nearest gram. Consistent units
are to be used throughout the equation:
Credits = Sales x (Standard--CL) x Power x Useful life x AF x
LF
Where:
Useful Life = the useful life in hours corresponding to the useful life
category for which the engine family was certified.
Power = the sales weighted maximum modal power, in kilowatts, as
calculated from the applicable federal test procedure as described in
this part. This is determined by multiplying the maximum modal power of
each configuration within the family by its eligible sales, summing
across all configurations and dividing by the eligible sales of the
entire family. Where testing is limited to certain configurations
designated by the Administrator, the maximum modal power for the
individual configuration(s) shall be used.
Sales = the number of eligible U.S. sales, as defined in subpart A of
this part, for the engine family or configuration as applicable.
Standard = The applicable emission standard to which the engine family
was certified under subpart B of this part.
CL = compliance level of the in-use testing for the subject pollutant
in g/kW-hr.
AF = adjustment factor for the number of tests conducted as determined
from the following table, except that when a manufacturer concedes
failure before completion of testing as permitted under
Sec. 90.1203(f), the adjustment factor shall be 1.0:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Engines tested............. 1-5 6-7 8-9 10 or more.
Adjustment factor.............. 0.5 0.75 0.9 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF = Load Factor of 0.85 for test cycle C. For manufacturers using
alternative or special test cycles approved by the Administrator, the
Load Factor is calculated using the Load Factor formula for nonhandheld
engines found in Sec. 90.207.
Sec. 90.1308 Maintenance of records.
(a) Any manufacturer that is participating in the in-use credit
program set forth in this subpart shall establish, maintain, and retain
the records required by Sec. 90.209 with respect to its participation
in the in-use credit program.
(b) EPA may void ab initio a certificate of conformity for an
engine family for which the manufacturer fails to retain the records
required under this section or to provide such information to the
Administrator upon request.
Sec. 90.1309 Reporting requirements.
(a) Any manufacturer who participates in the in-use credit program
is required to submit an in-use credit report with the end of the model
year in-use testing report required under Sec. 90.1205 within 90 days
of the end of the in-use testing of a given model year's engine
families. This report must show the calculation of credits from all the
in-use testing conducted by the manufacturer for a given model year's
engines. Such report shall show the applications of credits, the
trading of credits, the discounting of credits that are used and the
final credit balance. Such report shall calculate credit generation or
usage for past model years and estimate credit generation or usage for
the next model year when carry over families are tested pursuant to
Sec. 90.1303(g). The manufacturer may submit corrections to such end of
model year reports in a final report for a period of up to 270 days
after the end of the in-use testing of a given model year's engine
families.
(b) The calculation of eligible sales for end-of-year and final
reports must be based on the location of the point of first retail sale
(for example, retail customer or dealer) also called the final product
purchase location. Upon advance
[[Page 4036]]
written request, the Administrator will consider other methods to track
engines for credit calculation purposes that provide high levels of
confidence that eligible sales are accurately counted.
(c) Reports shall be submitted to: Manager, Engine Compliance
Programs Group (6403-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
(d) A manufacturer that fails to submit a timely end of year report
as required in paragraph (a) of this section will be considered
ineligible to have participated in the in-use credit program.
(e) If EPA or the manufacturer determines that a reporting error
occurred on an end of model year report previously submitted to EPA
under this subpart, or an engine family in-use testing report submitted
to EPA under subpart I of this part, the manufacturer's credits and
credit calculations will be recalculated. Erroneous positive credits
will be void. Erroneous negative credits may be adjusted by EPA. An
update of previously submitted ``point of first retail sale''
information is not considered an error and no increase in the number of
credits will be allowed unless an actual error occurred in the
calculation of credits due to an error in the ``point of first retail
sale'' information from the time of the original end of model year
report.
Sec. 90.1310 Request for hearing.
An engine manufacturer may request a hearing on the Administrator's
voiding of an engine family's certificate of conformity under
Sec. 90.1308(b). The administrative procedures for a public hearing
requested under this subpart shall be those procedures set forth in
Secs. 90.512, 90.513, 90.514 and 90.515.
[FR Doc. 98-941 Filed 1-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
