[[pp. 51147-51196]]

Related Material

Other Related Documents

[Federal Register: October 5, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 194)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51147-51196]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05oc01-54]

[[pp. 51147-51196]]
Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spark Ignition Engines
and Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-Based)

[[Continued from page 51146]]

[[Page 51147]]

pose a challenge, but one that is feasible taking into consideration
the availability and cost of technology, time, noise, energy, and
safety.

VI. Recreational Vehicles and Engines

A. Overview

This section applies to recreational vehicles. We are proposing to
set new emission standards for snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles,
and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). The engines used in these vehicles are
a subset of nonroad SI engines.\137\ In our program to set standards
for nonroad SI engines below 19 kW (Small SI), we excluded recreational
vehicles because they have different design characteristics and usage
patterns than certain other engines in the Small SI category. For
example, engines typically found in the Small SI category are used in
lawn mowers, chainsaws, trimmers, and other lawn and garden
applications. These engines tend to have low power outputs and operate
at constant loads and speeds, whereas recreational vehicles can have
high power outputs with highly variable engine loads and speeds. This
suggests that these engines should be tested differently than Small SI
engines. In the same way, we are proposing to treat snowmobiles, off-
highway motorcycles, and ATVs separately from our Large SI engine
program, which is described in Section IV. For recreational vehicles
that are not snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, or ATVs, we propose
to apply the standards otherwise applicable to nonroad SI engines (see
Section VI.B.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\137\ Almost all recreational vehicles are equipped with SI
engines. Any diesel engines used in these applications must meet our
emission standards for nonroad diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are proposing emission standards for hydrocarbons (HC), and
carbon monoxide (CO) from all recreational vehicles and NO_X
from off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. Many of these vehicles use two-
stroke engines which emit high levels of HC and CO. We believe that
vehicle and engine manufacturers will be able to use technology already
established for other types of engines, such as highway motorcycles,
small spark-ignition engines, and marine engines, to meet these near-
term standards. To encourage the introduction of low-emission
technology such as catalytic control and the conversion from two-stroke
to four-stroke engines, we are also proposing a Voluntary Low Emission
Standards program. We also recognize that there are many small
businesses that manufacture recreational vehicles; we are therefore
proposing several regulatory special compliance provisions to reduce
the burden of emission regulations on small businesses.
1. What Are Recreational Vehicles and Who Makes Them?
We are proposing to adopt new emission standards for off-highway
motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and snowmobiles. Eight
manufacturers dominate the sales of these recreational vehicles. Of
these eight manufacturers, seven of them manufacture a combination of
two or more of the three main types of recreational vehicles. For
example, there are four companies that manufacture both off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs. There are three companies that manufacture ATVs
and snowmobiles; one company manufactures all three. These eight
companies represent approximately 95 percent of all domestic sales of
recreational vehicles.
a. Off-highway motorcycles. Motorcycles come in a variety of
configurations and styles. For the most part, however, they are two-
wheeled, self-powered vehicles. Off-highway motorcycles are similar in
appearance to highway motorcycles, but there are several important
distinctions between the two types of machines. Off-highway motorcycles
are not street-legal and are primarily operated on public and private
lands over trails and open areas. Off-highway motorcycles tend to be
much smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than their larger highway
counterparts. They are equipped with relatively small-displacement
single-cylinder two-or four-stroke engines ranging from 48 to 650 cubic
centimeters (cc). The exhaust systems for off-highway motorcycles are
distinctively routed high on the frame to prevent damage from brush,
rocks, and water. Off-highway motorcycles are designed to be operated
over varying surfaces, such as dirt, sand, or mud, and are equipped
with knobby tires to give better traction in off-road conditions.
Unlike highway motorcycles, off-highway motorcycles have fenders
mounted far from the wheels and closer to the rider to keep dirt and
mud from spraying the rider and clogging between the fender and tire.
Off-highway motorcycles are also equipped with more advanced suspension
systems than those for highway motorcycles. This allows the operator to
ride over obstacles and make jumps safely.
Five companies dominate sales of off-highway motorcycles. They are
long-established, large corporations that manufacture several different
products including highway and off-highway motorcycles. These five
companies account for 90 to 95 percent of all domestic sales of off-
highway motorcycles. There are also several relatively small companies
that manufacture off-highway motorcycles, many of which specialize in
racing or competition machines.
b. All-terrain vehicles. ATVs have been in existence for a long
time, but have become increasingly popular over the last 25 years. Some
of the earliest and most popular ATVs were three-wheeled off-highway
models with large balloon tires. Due to safety concerns, the three-
wheeled ATVs were phased-out in the mid-1980s and replaced by the
current and more popular four-wheeled vehicle known as ``quad runners''
or simply ``quads.'' Quads resemble the earlier three-wheeled ATVs
except that the single front wheel was replaced with two wheels
controlled by a steering system. The ATV steering system uses
motorcycle handlebars, but otherwise looks and operates like an
automotive design. The operator sits on and rides the quad much like a
motorcycle. The engines used in quads tend to be very similar to those
used in off-highway motorcycles--relatively small, single-cylinder two-
or four-stroke engines. Quads are typically divided into utility and
sport models. The utility quads are designed for recreational use but
have the ability to perform many utility functions, such as plowing
snow, tilling gardens, and mowing lawns. They are typically heavier and
equipped with relatively large four-stroke engines and automatic
transmissions with a reverse gear. Sport quads are smaller and designed
primarily for recreational purposes. They are equipped with two-or
four-stroke engines and manual transmissions.
There are two other less common types of ATVs, both of which are
six-wheeled models. One looks similar to a large golf cart with a bed
for hauling cargo, much like a pick-up truck. These ATVs are typically
manufactured by the same companies that make quad runners and use
similar engines. The other can operate both in water and on land. These
amphibious ATVs typically have small gasoline-powered engines similar
to those found in lawn and garden tractors, rather than the motorcycle
engines used in quads, though some use automotive-based Large SI
engines.
Of all of the types of recreational vehicles, ATVs have the largest
number of major manufacturers. All but one of the companies noted above
for off-highway motorcycles and snowmobiles are significant ATV
producers. These seven companies represent over 95

[[Page 51148]]

percent of total domestic ATV sales. The remaining 5 percent of sales
come from importers, which tend to import less expensive, youth-
oriented ATVs.
c. Snowmobiles. Snowmobiles, also referred to as ``sleds,'' are
tracked vehicles designed to operate over snow. Snowmobiles have some
similarities to off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. A snowmobile rider
sits on and rides a snowmobile similar to an ATV. Snowmobiles use high-
powered two- and three-cylinder two-stroke engines that look similar to
off-highway motorcycle engines. Rather than wheels, snowmobiles are
propelled by a track system similar to what is used on a bulldozer. The
snowmobile is steered by two skis at the front of the sled. Snowmobiles
use handlebars similar to off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. The typical
snowmobile seats two riders comfortably. Over the years, snowmobile
performance has steadily increased to the point that many snowmobiles
currently have engines over 100 horsepower and are capable of exceeding
100 miles per hour. The proposed definition for snowmobiles includes a
limit of 1.5-meter width to differentiate conventional snowmobiles from
ice-grooming machines and snow coaches, which use very different
engines. We request comment on this definition and on any other
approaches to differentiate these products.
There are four major snowmobile manufacturers, accounting for more
than 99 percent of all domestic sales. The remaining sales come from
very small manufacturers who tend to specialize in expensive, high-
performance designs.
d. Other recreational vehicles. Currently, our Small SI nonroad
engine regulations cover all recreational engines that are under 19 kW
(25 hp) and have either an installed speed governor or a maximum engine
speed less than 5,000 rpm. Recreational vehicles currently covered by
the Small SI standards include go-carts, golf carts, and small mini-
bikes. Although some off-highway motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles have
engines with rated horsepower less than 19 kW, they all have maximum
engine speeds greater than 5,000 rpm. Thus they have not been included
in the Small SI regulations. The only other types of small recreational
engines not covered by the Small SI rule are those engines under 19 kW
that aren't governed and have maximum engine speed of at least 5,000
rpm. There are relatively few such vehicles with recreational engines
not covered by the Small SI regulations. The best example of vehicles
that fit in this category are scooters and skateboards that are powered
by very small gasoline spark-ignition engines. The engines used on
these vehicles are typically the same as those used in string trimmers
or other lawn and garden equipment, which are covered under the Small
SI regulations. Because these engines are generally already covered by
the Small SI regulations and are the same as, or very similar to,
engines as those used in lawn and garden applications, we are proposing
to revise the Small SI rules to cover these engines under the Small SI
regulations. To avoid any problems in transitioning to meet emission
standards, we propose to apply these standards in 2006. We request
comments on these issues.
2. What Is the Regulatory History for Recreational Vehicles?
California ARB established standards for off-highway motorcycles
and ATVs, which took effect in January 1997 (1999 for vehicles with
engines of 90 cc or less). California has not adopted standards for
snowmobiles. The standards, shown in Table VI.A-1, are based on the
highway motorcycle chassis test procedures. Manufacturers may certify
ATVs to optional standards, also shown in Table VI.A-1, which are based
on the utility engine test procedure.\138\ This is the test procedure
over which Small SI engines are tested. The stringency level of the
standards was based on the emission performance of 4-stroke engines and
advanced 2-stroke engines with a catalytic converter. California ARB
anticipated that the standards would be met initially through the use
of high performance 4-stroke engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\138\ Notice of Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle Manufacturers
and All Other Interested Parties Regarding Alternate Emission
Standards for All-Terrain Vehicles, Mail Out #95-16, April 28, 1995,
California ARB (Docket A-2000-01, document II-D-06).

Table VI.A-1.--California Off-highway Motorcycle and ATV Standards for
Model Year 1997 and later
[1999 and later for engines at or below 90 cc]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC NO_X CO PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-highway motorcycle and ATV standards (g/km)..... \a\ 1 ... 15 ..
.2

------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC +
NO_X CO PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optional standards for ATV engines below 225 cc (g/bhp- \a\12. 300 ..
hr).................................................. 0
Optional standards for ATV engines at or above 225 cc \a\10. 300 ..
(g/bhp-hr)........................................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Corporate-average standard.

California revisited the program because a lack of certified
product from manufacturers was reportedly creating economic hardship
for dealerships. The number of certified off-highway motorcycle models
was particularly inadequate.\139\ In 1998, California revised the
program, allowing the use of uncertified products in off-highway
vehicle recreation areas with regional/seasonal use restrictions.
Currently, noncomplying vehicles may be sold in California and used in
attainment areas year-round and in nonattainment areas during months
when exceedances of the state ozone standard are not expected. For
enforcement purposes, certified and uncertified products are identified
with green and red stickers, respectively. Only about one-third of off-
highway motorcycles selling in California are certified. All certified
products have 4-stroke engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider
Amendments to the California Regulations for New 1997 and Later Off-
highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines, California ARB, October
23, 1998 (Docket A-2000-01, document II-D-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Engines Covered by This Proposal

We are proposing new emission standards for all new off-highway
motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and snowmobiles. We are also
proposing to apply existing Small SI emission standards to other
recreational vehicles, as described above. The engines used in these
vehicles tend to be small, air-or liquid-cooled, reciprocating Otto-
cycle engines that operate on gasoline.\140\ With the exception of what
we define as ``other recreational vehicles,'' these engines are
designed to be used in vehicles, where engine performance is
characterized by highly transient operation, with a wide range of
engine speed and load capability. Maximum engine speed is typically
well above 5,000 rpm. Also, with the exception of snowmobiles, the
vehicles are typically equipped with transmissions rather than torque
converters to ensure performance under a variety of operating
conditions.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\140\ Otto cycle is another name for a spark-ignition engine
which utilizes a piston with homogeneous external or internal air
and fuel mixture formation and spark ignition.
\141\ Snowmobiles use continuously variable transmissions, which
tend to operate like torque converters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51149]]

1. Two-Stroke vs. Four-Stroke Engines
The engines used by recreational vehicles can be separated into two
distinct designs: two-stroke and four-stroke. The distinction between
two-stroke and four-stroke engines is important for emissions because
two-stroke engines tend to emit much greater amounts of unburned
hydrocarbons (HC) and particulate matter (PM) than four-stroke engines
of similar size and power. Two-stroke engines also have greater fuel
consumption than four-stroke engines, but they also tend to have higher
power output per-unit displacement, lighter weight, and better cold-
starting performance. These advantages, combined with a simple design
and lower manufacturing costs, tend to make two-stroke engines popular
as a power unit for recreational vehicles. With the exception of a few
youth models, almost all snowmobiles use two-stroke engines. Currently,
about 63 percent of all off-highway motorcycles (predominantly in high
performance, youth, and entry-level bikes) and 20 percent of all ATVs
sold in the United States use two-stroke engines.
The basis for the differences in engine performance and exhaust
emissions between two-stroke and four-stroke engines can be found in
the fundamental differences in how two-stroke and four-stroke engines
operate. Four-stroke operation takes place in four distinct steps:
intake, compression, power, and exhaust. Each step corresponds to one
up or down stroke of the piston or 180 deg. of crankshaft rotation. The
first step of the cycle is for an intake valve in the combustion
chamber to open during the intake stroke, allowing a mixture of air and
fuel to be drawn into the cylinder while the piston moves down the
cylinder. The intake valve then closes and the momentum of the
crankshaft causes the piston to move back up the cylinder, compressing
the air and fuel mixture. At the very end of the compression stroke,
the air and fuel mixture is ignited by a spark from a spark plug and
begins to burn. As the air and fuel mixture burns, increasing
temperature and pressure cause the piston to move back down the
cylinder. This is referred to as the ``power'' stroke. At the bottom of
the power stroke, an exhaust valve opens in the combustion chamber and
as the piston moves back up the cylinder, the burnt gases are pushed
out through the exhaust valve to the exhaust manifold, and the cycle is
complete.
In a four-stroke engine, combustion and the resulting power stroke
occur only once every two revolutions of the crankshaft. In a two-
stroke engine, combustion occurs every revolution of the crankshaft.
Two-stroke engines eliminate the intake and exhaust strokes, leaving
only compression and power strokes. This is due to the fact that two-
stroke engines do not use intake and exhaust valves. Instead, they have
intake and exhaust ports in the sides of the cylinder walls. With a
two-stroke engine, as the piston approaches the bottom of the power
stroke, it uncovers exhaust ports in the wall of the cylinder. The high
pressure combustion gases blow into the exhaust manifold. As the piston
gets closer to the bottom of the power stroke, the intake ports are
uncovered, and fresh mixture of air and fuel are forced into the
cylinder while the exhaust ports are still open. Exhaust gas is
``scavenged'' or forced into the exhaust by the pressure of the
incoming charge of fresh air and fuel. In the process, however, some
mixing between the exhaust gas and the fresh charge of air and fuel
takes place, so that some of the fresh charge is also emitted in the
exhaust. Losing part of the fuel out of the exhaust during scavenging
causes very high hydrocarbon emission characteristics of two-stroke
engines. The other major reason for high HC emissions from two-stroke
engines is their tendency to misfire under low-load conditions due to
greater combustion instability.
2. Applicability of Small SI Regulations
In our regulations for Small SI engines, we established criteria,
such as rated engine speed at or above 5,000 rpm and the use of a speed
governor, that excluded engines used in certain types of recreational
vehicles (see 40 CFR Sec. 90.1(b)(5)). Engines used in some other types
of recreational vehicles may be covered by the Small SI standards,
depending on the characteristics of the engines. For example,
lawnmower-type engines used in go carts would typically be covered by
the Small SI standards because they don't operate above 5000 rpm.
Similarly, engines used in golf carts are also included in the Small SI
program. As discussed above, we are proposing to revise the Small SI
regulations to include all recreational engines except those in off-
highway motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles, and hobby engines. We are
proposing to remove the 5,000 rpm and speed governor criteria from the
applicability provisions of the Small SI regulations.
There may, however, be instances where an ATV, off-road motorcycle,
or snowmobile manufacturer currently uses a certified small utility
engine in their vehicle, and could be required to recertify that engine
to the recreational vehicle standards in the future. Relatively slow-
moving amphibious ATVs would be one example where certified small
utility engines may be used. We request comment on whether or not we
should allow off-road motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles to be
certified to the Small SI standards in cases where a manufacturer has
chosen to use a certified small utility engine. We also request comment
on retaining the 5,000-rpm rated speed criteria for determining the
applicability of the Small SI standards for snowmobiles, ATVs, and off-
road motorcycles. Further, we request comment and information on any
vehicles that currently have an engine certified to Small SI standards
which would be required to certify to the recreational vehicle
standards due to this regulatory change.
3. Hobby Engines
The Small SI rule categorized SI engines used in model cars, boats,
and airplanes as recreational engines and exempted them from the Small
SI program.\142\ We continue to believe that it would be inappropriate
to include hobby engines in the Small SI program because of significant
engine design and use differences. At this time, we also believe that
hobby engines are substantially different than engines used in
recreational vehicles and, as discussed below, we are not proposing to
include SI hobby engines in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ 65 FR 24929, April 25, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are about 8,000 spark-ignition engines sold per year for use
in scale-model aircraft, cars, and boats.\143\ This is a very small
subsection of the overall model engine market, most of which are glow-
plug engines that run on a mix of castor oil, methyl alcohol, and nitro
methane.\144\ A typical SI hobby engine is approximately 25 cc with a
horsepower rating of about 1-3 hp, though larger engines are available.
These SI engines are specialty products sold in very low volumes,
usually not more than a few hundred units per engine line annually.
Many of the engines are used in model airplanes, but they are also used
in other types of models such as cars and boats. These engines,
especially the larger

[[Page 51150]]

displacement models, are frequently used in competitive events by more
experienced operators. The racing engines sometimes run on methanol
instead of gasoline. In addition, the engines are usually installed and
adjusted by the hobbyist who selects an engine that best fits the
particular model being constructed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\143\ Comments submitted by Hobbico on behalf of Great Plains
Model Distributors and Radio Control Hobby Trade Association,
February 5, 2001, Docket A-2000-01, document II-D-58.
\144\ Glow plug hobby engines are considered compression
ignition engines (diesel) because they lack a spark ignition system
and throttle (see definition of compression ignition, 40 CFR
Sec. 89.2). The nonroad diesel engine regulations (40 CFR Sec. 89.2)
do not apply to hobby engines and therefore these engines are
unregulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The average annual hours of operation has been estimated to be
about 12.2 hours per year.\145\ The usage rate is very low compared to
other recreational or utility engine applications due to the nature of
their use. Much of the hobby revolves around building the model and
preparing the model for operation. The engine and model must be
adjusted, maintained, and repaired between uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\145\ Comments submitted by Hobbico on behalf of Great Plains
Model Distributors and Radio Control Hobby Trade Association,
February 5, 2001, Docket A-2000-01, document II-D-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SI model engines are highly specialized and differ significantly in
design compared to engines used in other recreational or utility engine
applications. While some of the basic components such as pistons may be
the similar, the materials, airflow, cooling, and fuel delivery systems
are considerably different.\146\ \147\ Some SI model engines are scale
replicas of multi-cylinder aircraft or automobile engines and are
fundamentally different than SI engines used in other applications.
Model-engine manufacturers often select lighter-weight materials and
simplified designs to keep engine weight down, often at the expense of
engine longevity. Hobby engines use special ignition systems designed
specifically for the application to be lighter than those used in other
applications. To save weight, hobby engines typically lack pull
starters that are found on other engines. Hobby engines must be started
by spinning the propeller. In addition, the models themselves vary
significantly in their design, introducing packaging issues for engine
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ E-mail from Carl Maroney of the Academy of Model
Aeronautics to Christopher Lieske, of EPA, June 4, 2001, Docket A-
2000-01, document II-G-144.
\147\ Comments submitted by Hobbico on Behalf of Great Plains
Model Distributors and Radio Control Hobby Trade Association,
February 5, 2001, Docket A-2000-01, document II-D-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are not proposing to include SI hobby engines in the
recreational vehicles program at this time. The engines differ
significantly from the recreational engines included in the proposal in
their design and use, as noted above. Emission-control strategies
envisioned for other recreational vehicles may not be well suited for
hobby engines because of their design, weight constraints, and
packaging limitations. Approaches such as using a 4-stroke engine, a
catalyst, or fuel injection all would involve increases in weight,
which would be particularly problematic for model airplanes. The
feasibility of these approaches for these engines is questionable.
Reducing emissions, even if feasible, would likely involve fundamental
engine redesign and substantial R&D efforts. The costs of achieving
emission reductions are likely to be much higher per engine than for
other recreational applications because the R&D costs would be spread
over very low sales volumes. The cost of fundamentally redesigning the
engines could double the cost of some engines.
By contrast, because of their very low sales volumes, annual usage
rates, and relatively short engine life cycle, SI hobby engine emission
contributions are extremely small compared to recreational vehicles.
The emission reductions possible from regulating such engines would be
minuscule (we estimate that SI hobby engines as a whole account for
less than 30 tons of HC nationally per year, much less than 0.01% of
Mobile Source HC emissions).\148\ Thus, the cost per ton associated
with regulating such engines would be well above any regulations
previously adopted under the mobile source program (we estimate
potential cost per ton for HC to over $200,000 per ton compared to less
than $2,500 per ton for most other mobile source programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\148\ For further information on the feasibility, emission
inventories, and costs, see ``Analysis of Spark Ignition Hobby
Engines'', Memorandum from Chris Lieske to Docket A-2000-01,
document II-G-144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, hobby engines differ significantly in their in-use
operating characteristics compared to small utility engines and other
recreational vehicle engines. It is unclear if the test procedures
developed and used for other types of SI engine applications would be
sufficiently representative for hobby engines. We are not aware of any
efforts to develop an emission test cycle or conduct any emission
testing of these engines. In addition, because installing, optimizing,
maintaining, and repairing the engines are as much a part of the hobby
as operating the engine, emission standards could fundamentally alter
the hobby itself. Engines with emission-control systems would be more
complex and the operator would need to be careful not to make changes
that would cause the engine to exceed emission standards.
For all the above reasons, we do not have adequate information and
are not able to propose emission standards and test procedures for SI
hobby engines at this time. We request comment on the above points,
including feasibility, cost, and benefits associated with potential
control technologies for these engines. We also request comment on any
other information or unique characteristics of hobby engines that
should be taken into consideration.
4. Competition Off-Highway Motorcycles
Currently, a large portion of off-highway motorcycles are designed
as competition/racing motorcycles. These models often represent a
manufacturer's high-performance offerings in the off-highway market.
Most such motorcycles are of the motocross variety, although some high
performance enduro models are marketed for competition use.\149\ \150\
These high-performance motorcycles are largely powered by 2-stroke
engines, though some 4-stroke models have been introduced in recent
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\149\ A motocross bike is typically a high performance off-
highway motorcycle that is designed to be operated in motocross
competition. Motocross competition is defined as a circuit race
around an off-highway closed-course. The course contains numerous
jumps, hills, flat sections, and bermed or banked turns. The course
surface usually consists of dirt, gravel, sand, and mud. Motocross
bikes are designed to be very light for quick handling and easy
maneuverability. They also come with large knobby tires for
traction, high fenders to protect the rider from flying dirt and
rocks, aggressive suspension systems that allow the bike to absorb
large amounts of shock, and are powered by high performance engines.
They are not equipped with lights.
\150\ An enduro bike is very similar in design and appearance to
a motocross bike. The primary difference is that enduros are
equipped with lights and have slightly different engine performance
that is more geared towards a broader variety of operation than a
motocross bike. An enduro bike needs to be able to cruise at high
speeds as well as operate through tight woods or deep mud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Competition events for motocross motorcycles mostly involve closed-
course or track racing. Other types of off-highway motorcycles are
usually marketed for trail or open-area use. When used for competition,
these models are likely to be involved in point-to-point competition
events over trails or stretches of open land. There are also
specialized off-highway motorcycles that are designed for competitions
such as ice racing, drag racing, and observed trials competition. A few
races involve professional manufacturer-sponsored racing teams. Amateur
competition events for off-highway motorcycles are also held frequently
in many areas of the U.S.
Clean Air Act subsections 216 (10) and (11) exclude engines and
vehicles ``used solely for competition'' from nonroad engine and
nonroad vehicle regulations. In our previous nonroad

[[Page 51151]]

engine emission-control programs, we have generally defined the term as
follows:

Used solely for competition means exhibiting features that are
not easily removed and that would render its use other than in
competition unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely.

If retained for the recreational vehicles program, the above
definition may be useful for identifying certain models that are
clearly used only for competition. For example, there are motorcycles
identified as ``observed trials'' motorcycles which are designed
without a standard seat because the rider does not sit down during
competition. This feature would make recreational use unlikely:)
Most motorcycles marketed for competition do not appear to have
obvious physical characteristics that constrain their use to
competition. Upon closer inspection, however, there are several
features and characteristics for many competition motorcycles that
would make recreational use unlikely. For example, motocross bikes are
not equipped with lights or a spark arrester, which prohibits them from
legally operating on public lands (e.g., roads, parks, state land,
federal land, etc.).\151\ Vehicle performance of modern motocross bikes
are so advanced (e.g., extremely high power-to-weight ratios and
advanced suspension systems) that it is highly unlikely that these
machines would be used for recreational purposes. In addition,
motocross and other competition off-highway motorcycles typically do
not come with a warranty, which would further deter the purchase and
use of competition bikes for recreational operation.\152\ We believe
these features should be sufficient in distinguishing competition
motorcycles from recreational motorcycles. We are specifically
proposing the following features as indicative of motorcycles used
solely for competition: absence of a headlight or other lights; the
absence of a spark arrester; suspension travel greater than 10 inches;
and an engine displacement greater than 50 cc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\151\ A spark arrester is a device located in the end of the
tailpipe that catches carbon sparks coming from the engine before
they get out of the exhaust system. This is important when a bike is
used off-highway, where hot carbon sparks falling in grassy or
wooded areas could result in fires.
\152\ Most manufacturers of motocross racing motorcycles do not
offer a warranty. Some manufacturers do, however, offer very limited
(1 to 3 months) warranties under special conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vehicles not meeting the applicable criteria listed above would be
excluded only in cases where the manufacturer has clear and convincing
evidence that the vehicles for which the exemption is being sought will
be used solely for competition. Examples of this type of evidence could
be technical rationale explaining the differences between a competition
and non-competition motorcycle, marketing and/or sales information
indicating the intent of the motorcycle for competition purposes, or
survey data from users indicating the competitive nature of the
motorcycle.
Although there are several features that distinguish competition
motorcycles from recreational motorcycles, several parties have
commented that they believe motorcycles designed for competition use
may be used for recreational purposes, rather than solely for
competition. This is of particular concern because competition
motorcycles represent about 29 percent of total off-highway motorcycle
sales or approximately 43,000 units per year. However, a study on the
characterization of off-highway motorcycle usage found that there are
numerous--and increasingly popular--amateur off-highway motorcycle
competitions across the country, especially motocross.\153\ The
estimated number of off-highway motorcycle competitors is as high as
80,000. Since it is very common for competitive riders to replace their
machines every one to two years, the sale of 43,000 off-highway
competition motorcycles appears to be a reasonable number, considering
the number of competitive participants. We are therefore confident
that, although we are proposing to exclude a high percentage of off-
highway motorcycles as being competition machines, this definition is
appropriate because a high percentage of these motorcycles are in fact
used solely for competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\153\ Characterization of Off-Road Motorcycle, ICF Consulting,
September 2001, A-2000-1 document II-A-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are very interested in receiving input on the proposed
competition exclusion. We request comment on ways the program can be
established to exclude motorcycles used solely for competition,
consistent with the Act, without excluding vehicles that are also used
for other purposes. We specifically request comment on the identifying
characteristics of competition vehicles in Sec. 1051.620 of the
proposed regulations. Ideally, the program can be established in a way
that provides reasonable certainty at certification. However,
approaches could include reasonable measures at time of sale or in-use
that would ensure that the competition exclusion is applied
appropriately.

C . Proposed Standards

1. What Are the Proposed Standards and Compliance Dates?
a. Off-highway Motorcycles and ATVs. We are proposing HC plus
NO_X and CO standards for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs.
We expect the largest benefit to come from reducing HC emissions from
two-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines have very high HC emission
levels. Baseline NO_X levels are relatively low for engines
used in these applications and therefore NO_X standards serve
only to cap NO_X emissions for these engines. Comparable CO
reductions can be expected from both 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines, as
CO levels are similar for the two engine types. We are also proposing
averaging, banking and trading provisions for off-highway motorcycles
and ATVs, as discussed below.
2006 Standards. In the current off-highway motorcycle and ATV
market, consumers can choose between two-stroke and four-stroke models
in most sizes and categories. Each engine type offers unique
performance characteristics. Some manufacturers specialize in two-
stroke or four-stroke models, while others offer a mix of models. The
HC standard is likely to be a primary determining factor for what
technology manufacturers choose to employ to meet emission standards
overall. HC emissions can be reduced substantially by switching from
two-stroke to four-stroke engines. Four-stroke engines are very common
in off-highway motorcycle and ATV applications. Eighty percent of all
ATVs sold are four-stroke. In addition, approximately 55 percent of
non-competition off-highway motorcycles are four-stroke. Certification
results from California ARB's emission-control program for off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs, combined with our own baseline emission testing,
provides ample data on the emission-control capability of four-stroke
engines in off-highway motorcycles and ATV applications. Off-highway
motorcycles certified to California ARB standards for the 2000 model
year have HC certification levels ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 g/km. These
motorcycles have engines ranging in size from 48 to 650 cc; none of
these use catalysts.
In determining what standards to set for off-highway motorcycles
and ATVs, we considered several approaches. One approach was to
establish separate standards for two-stroke and four-stroke engines.
This would take into

[[Page 51152]]

consideration the fact that it could be expensive and difficult for
two-stroke engines to meet the same emission levels as four-stroke
engines. The problem with this approach is that two-stroke engines emit
up to 25 times more HC emissions than four-stroke engines. Four stroke
engines are currently being used on most, if not all, of the different
subclasses of ATVs and off-highway motorcycles that we would be
regulating, and we believe they can be used on all such subclasses. We
are concerned that setting lesser standards for two-stroke engines
could possibly result in the increase of two-stroke engine usage at the
expense of four-stroke engines, which would result in a greater level
of emissions and could miss the opportunity for a more appropriate and
cost-effective standard. As a result, we proposing an approach that
would require a single set of off-highway motorcycle and ATV standards
for all engine types, similar to California ARB. We believe that this
approach is consistent with our statutory requirement to propose
standards that achieve the greatest emission reduction achievable,
considering cost, noise, and safety factors.We ask for comment on this
proposed approach and the rationale underlying this approach.
In 1994, California ARB adopted emission standards for off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs. At the time, these standards were stringent
enough that manufacturers were unable to provide performance-oriented
off-highway motorcycles and ATVs that met the standards. As a result,
ARB allowed manufacturers to sell non-compliant off-highway motorcycles
and ATVs, resulting in approximately a third of the off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs sold being compliant with the standards. Four-
stroke engine technology has advanced considerably since the ARB
regulations went into effect. Manufacturers are now capable of offering
four-stroke engines that provide excellent performance. However, this
performance can be achieved only as long as manufacturers are allowed
to operate four-stroke engines with a slightly rich air and fuel
mixture, which can result in somewhat higher HC and CO emissions.
However, the HC emissions from four-stroke engines even when they
operate rich are significantly lower than those from two-stroke
engines. The market appears to be shifting to four-stroke technology.
As discussed above in Section # B.1.4, the CAA requires us to
exempt from emission standards off-highway motorcycles and ATVs used
for competition. We expect several competition off-highway motorcycle
models, most equipped with two-stroke engines, to continue to be
available. We are concerned that setting standards as stringent as
ARB's would result in a performance penalty for four-strokes which
could encourage consumers who want performance-oriented off-highway
motorcycles to purchase competition vehicles in lieu of purchasing
compliant machines that don't provide the desired performance. That is
why we are proposing emission standards that are slightly less
stringent than the California ARB. We believe that our proposed
emission standards would allow the continued advancement of four-stroke
technology and are a good compromise between available emission-control
technology, cost, and vehicle performance.
We are proposing exhaust emission standards for off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs to take effect in the 2006 model year. We would
allow a short phase-in of 50-percent implementation in the 2006 model
year with full implementation in 2007. These standards apply to testing
with the highway motorcycle Federal Test Procedure (FTP) test cycle.
For HC+NO_X emissions, the standard is 2.0 g/km (3.2 g/mi).
For CO emissions, the standard is 25.0 g/km (40.5 g/mi). These emission
standards would allow us to set near-term requirements to introduce the
low-emission technologies for substantial emission reductions with
minimal lead time. We expect manufacturers to meet these standards
using four-stroke engines with some low-level modifications to fuel-
system calibrations. These systems would be similar to those used for
many years in highway applications, but not necessarily with the same
degree of sophistication.
We considered proposing several alternative sets of standards. The
first alternative considered was to set the HC+NO_X standard
at a level higher than 2.0 g/km, since this standard could prove to be
difficult for a two-stroke engine to achieve. However, since two-stroke
engines emit so much higher levels of HC than four-stroke engines, and
HC emission-control technology for two-stroke engines is more expensive
and complicated, we would expect that such a standard would have to be
considerably higher than 2.0 g/km, perhaps in the range of 10 to12 g/
km. Even a standard this high would still likely require secondary air
injection and a catalytic converter for most two-stroke engines to
comply. We believe that the concerns over high catalyst temperatures
and potential negative impacts on engine performance would most likely
result in manufacturers choosing to convert two-stroke applications to
four-stroke, especially since four-stroke engines are already so
prevalent in off-highway motorcycle and ATV applications. In addition,
we believe that the cost differential between air injection and a
catalyst for a two-stroke engine and using a four-stroke engine would
be minimal. We request comment on such a standard, and on the costs and
emissions benefits associated with that approach. Commenters should
include a recommendation for the level of the standard.
We also considered setting the HC+NO_X standard at a
level lower than 2.0 g/km, since it is possible to use a catalyst on a
four-stroke engine and achieve lower emission levels. We decided that
for off-highway motorcycles, the technologies necessary to meet
emission standards lower than our proposed level of 2.0 g/km for
HC+NO_X could be prohibitive due to several factors such as
limited catalyst locations that are considered safe to the operator and
potential negative engine performance impacts (see our discussion on
proposed 2009 standards for more detail). These issues are not as
important for ATVs. However, it would be difficult to implement them by
the 2006 model year since 20 percent of the fleet is still two-stroke
and manufacturers would need time to convert their fleet to four-
stroke. Therefore, we are not proposing a HC+NO_X standard
lower than 2.0 g/km for off-highway motorcycles and are instead
proposing a second phase of standards for ATVs in the 2009 model year.
We are asking for comment on this aspect of the proposal, and on such a
standard.
Some youth-oriented off-highway motorcycles and ATVs with small
engine displacements have engine governors limiting vehicle speeds. In
the case of ATVs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) limit
youth ATVs with engine displacements between 50 and 100 cc to a top
speed of 35 mph. Similarly, ATVs with engine displacements of 50 cc and
less are limited to a top speed of 15 mph. Many small off-highway
motorcycles use the same governors. For vehicles with a displacement
greater than 50 cc, we believe the FTP is an appropriate test cycle
because of the transient capability of these vehicles. However, for the
vehicles with engine displacements of 50 cc and less, the governed top
speed of 15 mph restricts the operation of these vehicles to either
idle or the governed wide-open throttle setting, similar to a lawn
mowers. It may not make sense to require these small-displacement
vehicles to be tested over

[[Page 51153]]

the FTP. Therefore, we propose that off-highway motorcycles and ATVs
with an engine displacement of 50 cc or less have the option to certify
to the proposed off-highway motorcycle and ATV standards discussed
above or to meet the Phase 1 Small SI emission standards for non-
handheld Class I engines. We request comment on this option.
ATV manufacturers have requested that we allow them the option of
certifying ATVs to the same optional exhaust emission standards as
allowed by California ARB. California allows ATVs to be optionally
tested using the California ARB utility engine test cycle (SAE J1088)
and procedures. In California, manufacturers may use the J1088 engine
test cycle to meet the California Small Off-Road Engine emission
standards. Manufacturers were required to submit some emission data
from the various modes of the J1088 test cycles to show that emissions
from these modes were comparable to FTP emissions. California allowed
this option because the goal of their program was to encourage the use
of four-stroke engine technology in ATVs. The lawn and garden test
cycle and standards were considered stringent enough to encourage
manufacturers to switch from two-stroke engines to four-stroke engines.
We continue to be concerned that the J1088 test cycle doesn't represent
actual ATV operation, but for our Phase 1 standards, our goal is to
encourage manufacturers to switch from two-stroke to four-stroke engine
technology. Therefore, to facilitate this phase-in we are proposing
here that manufacturers may optionally certify ATVs using the
California utility cycle and standards as shown in Table VI.C-1 instead
of the FTP standards of 2.0 g/km HC+NO_X and 25 g/km CO
discussed above.

Table VI.C-1.--California Utility Engine Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine displacement HC+NO_X CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 225 cc............. 12.0 g/hp-hr... 300 g/hp-hr
(16.1 g/kW-hr). (400 g/kW-hr)
Greater than 225 cc.......... 10.0 g/hp-hr... 300 g/hp-hr
(13.4 g/kW-hr). (400 g/kW-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some manufacturers have expressed concern about the stringency of
the proposed standards for some small displacement (e.g., less than 80
cc) youth off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. They have also stated that
some of these small vehicles may have a difficult time operating over
the FTP cycle. Therefore, we request comment on the ability of small
displacement youth off-highway motorcycles and ATVs to operate over the
FTP test cycle and meet our proposed emission standards.
2009 Standards. As stated above, we expect manufacturers to meet
the proposed 2006 standards by using four-stroke engines with minor
modifications to fuel calibrations. Several technologies are available
to further reduce emissions from off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. The
most likely choices would be the use of electronic fuel injection,
secondary air injection into the exhaust system, and catalytic
converters. Although these technologies would be capable of further
emission reductions, there are potential concerns with applying each of
these technologies to off-highway motorcycles. The complexity and
increased cost of electronic fuel injection makes it problematic for
off-highway motorcycle applications. Off-highway motorcycle
manufacturers and enthusiasts have expressed concern over possible leg
burns resulting from catalysts since off-highway motorcycles have
exhaust systems that run higher up on the frame. They are concerned
that if a rider were to fall over with the motorcycle on top of them,
the hot catalyst could burn the rider. Catalysts and secondary air also
have the potential to adversely affect engine performance. Since
motorcycle performance is paramount for off-highway motorcycles, any
technologies that could impact performance or pose a perceived safety
threat could encourage consumers to purchase high-performance
competition motorcycles rather than recreational motorcycles. For ATVs,
however, the design of the vehicle is more receptive to placing a
catalyst on the exhaust. Since the engine is further inside the vehicle
with numerous plastic fairings around the engine, the operator's legs
are far away and shielded from the exhaust pipe. ATV engines also tend
to have lower power output than off-highway motorcycle engines, making
the use of secondary air or catalysts more tolerable.
Since ATV design and use are more conducive to these more advanced
emission-control technologies than off-highway motorcycles, we believe
it is appropriate to pursue more advanced emission-control technologies
for ATVs. We also note that the usage rate and population of ATVs is
growing substantially compared to off-highway motorcycles. We expect
that, with additional time to optimize designs to better control
emissions, manufacturers of ATVs should be able to meet more stringent
emission standards. Starting with the 2009 model year for ATVs only, we
propose to apply emission standards of 1.0 g/km (1.6 g/mi) for
HC+NO_X emissions and 25 g/km (40.5 g/mi) for CO emissions.
As with the Phase 1 standards, we are proposing a two-year phase-in,
with 50 percent of models complying in 2009 and all models complying in
2010.
We are proposing that ATVs would be required to meet a 1.0 g/km
HC+NO_X standard because we believe it can be met by using
four-stroke engines with secondary air injection. Secondary air
injection is a common HC emission-control technology used on highway
motorcycles. It's use is more transparent to the ATV operator than a
catalyst and is a relatively inexpensive means of achieving significant
emission reductions. Depending on several variables, some models may
have a more difficult time meeting the Phase 2 standards without the
use of a catalyst. Therefore, while we expect ATV manufacturers to meet
the Phase 2 standards for many of their models using four-stroke
engines with air injection, they may also choose to use a combination
of several possible emission-control technologies, including base-
engine modifications, improved fuel-system calibrations, electronic
fuel injection, and catalytic converters. Off-highway motorcycles would
continue to meet the 2006 standards described above.
Several ATV manufacturers have expressed concern over being able to
meet tighter HC+NO_X standards while still meeting the
proposed CO standards. They have asked us to increase or even eliminate
the CO standard for Phase 2. Therefore, we request comment on whether
the CO standard for Phase 2 should be increased from the proposed level
of 25 g/km.

[[Page 51154]]

We are proposing to discontinue the provision allowing
manufacturers of ATVs the option to certify to the California utility
engine test procedure and emission standards for Phase 2 ATVs. We
propose to require that manufacturers test all Phase 2 ATVs with the
highway motorcycle FTP test procedure. Manufacturers have expressed
concerns over the cost of building emission test cells equipped with
chassis dynamometers and the representativeness of the FTP relative to
in-use ATV operation. They argue that the FTP is no more representative
of ATV operation than the steady-state J1088 engine test cycle. While
it may be true that the chassis-based FTP test cycle is not fully
representative of in-use ATV operation, there is currently very limited
data addressing this. California is in the process of gathering in-use
operating data for ATVs. Preliminary examination of that data is too
inconclusive to determine whether the FTP is adequately representative
of in-use ATV operation. It does indicate that the five steady-state
modes captured in the J1088 cycle are not adequately representative of
ATV operation. It has long been known that ATVs experience considerable
transient operation, similar to automobiles and motorcycles. The
California data support this view. The chassis-based FTP used for
certification of motorcycles, while possibly not ideal for ATVs,
therefore appears to be more representative of ATV operation than the
J1088 test cycle. With this in mind, we request comment on the
possibility of developing an alternate test cycle and procedure for
ATVs that would be more representative of typical ATV operation. An
alternate test cycle could be chassis-based or engine-based, but would
need to incorporate transient operation. If an acceptable alternative
cycle is developed, we would reassess whether our proposed emission
test procedure for Phase 2 would still be appropriate.
As with the 2006 proposed emission standards, we request comment on
the ability of small-displacement ATVs to operate over the FTP test
cycle and meet our proposed emission standards.
We request comment on whether a Phase 2 standard for ATVs is
appropriate, and on the proposed level of the Phase 2 standard. We also
request comment on technology, cost, and safety issues associated with
a possible second phase of off-highway motorcycle emission standards.
b. Snowmobiles. We are proposing CO and HC standards for
snowmobiles. We are requesting comment on whether we should set
standards for PM and NO_X emissions from snowmobiles, and
what appropriate levels would be. As previously discussed, snowmobile
engines are almost exclusively two-stroke. As such, they emit high
levels of HC and PM. However, we are not proposing PM standards at this
time for snowmobiles, because limits on HC emissions will serve to
simultaneously limit PM. We considered adding a regulatory requirement
for manufacturers to measure and report PM emission rates along with
their other certification data, but we did not include such a
requirement in the proposed regulations. We are most concerned about
the cost to manufacturers if they were required to build PM measurement
capabilities into all of their test facilities. We request comment on
the need for PM emission data, and whether it is necessary to put a
requirement in the regulations.
We are not proposing NO_X standards for snowmobiles
because they are primarily operated during the winter months when ozone
is not a concern. However, we are proposing that manufacturers measure
NO_X emission rates and report them in their applications for
certification. We believe that this would provide necessary
information, but would not be a significant burden for manufacturers.
We request comment on this element of the proposal.
2006 Standards. We are proposing standards for snowmobiles to take
effect for all models starting in the 2006 model year: 275 g/kW-hr (205
g/hp-hr) for CO and 100 g/kW-hr (75 g/hp-hr) for HC. As discussed
below, we are proposing an emission-credit program with these
standards. Thus, we expect manufacturers to meet these proposed
standards using a variety of technologies and strategies across their
product lines. Snowmobiles pose some unique problems for implementing
emission-control technologies and strategies. Snowmobiles are very
sensitive to weight, power, and packaging constraints. Current
snowmobile designs have very high power-to-weight ratios, allowing for
excellent performance. Manufacturers have stated that if snowmobile
performance declines, customers will either stop purchasing
snowmobiles, or will replace original equipment (e.g., emission-control
technology) with uncertified aftermarket parts. The desire for low
weight is perceived as a safety issue, since operators may have to drag
their sleds out of deep snow. Styling, especially very low-profile
hoods, has also become paramount among snowmobile enthusiasts. All
these concerns mean that it may be initially more difficult for
manufacturers to develop a broad range of technologies capable of
significant emission reductions. Some manufacturers may aggressively
pursue clean carburetion and associated engine modifications and apply
those uniformly across their entire product line. Others may choose to
apply more advanced technologies such as direct or semi-direct
injection to some of their more expensive, high-performance sleds and
be less aggressive in pursuing emission reductions from their lower-
priced offerings in order to optimize the fit of different technologies
(and their associated costs) to the various product offerings. We also
expect some manufacturers to offer some models featuring four-stroke
engines.
We are proposing to require all snowmobiles to meet the proposed
first phase of emission standards beginning with the 2006 model year.
We request comment on options to ease the transition to the new
standards, as described in Section VI.C.2.b.
Due to the unique performance requirements for snowmobiles, we
believe our proposed 2006 standards would be challenging for
manufacturers and would result in cleaner snowmobiles. While some
advanced technologies such as two-stroke direct injection and four-
stroke engines, would be found in some models, many models would still
be equipped with two-stroke engines with relatively minor engine
modifications resulting in minimum emission reductions, while some
models may not even have any emission controls.
2010 Standards. We have had many discussions with manufacturers
about emission control technologies. We have also closely examined the
certification emission results of outboard boat engines and personal
watercraft (PWC) equipped with two-stroke direct injection and four-
stroke engines. It is our belief that with sufficient lead time,
manufacturers can successfully implement these technologies across a
much broader range of their snowmobile fleet. Manufacturers have
indicated to us that two-stroke engines equipped with direct fuel
injection systems could reduce HC emissions by 70 to 75 percent and
reduce CO emissions by 50 to 60 percent. Certification results for 1999
and 2000 model year outboard engines and PWC support the manufacturers
projections. In addition, two snowmobile manufacturers plan to sell a
four-stroke model next year. These manufacturers indicated that their
machines are capable of HC reductions in the 70 to 95 percent range,
with CO reductions of 60 to 80 percent. Therefore, we believe that with

[[Page 51155]]

sufficient time it is feasible for snowmobile manufacturers to achieve
a greater penetration of advanced emission control technologies
throughout their fleets and reduce emissions further.
We are, therefore, proposing a second phase of average standards to
take effect with the 2010 model year. The proposed 2010 average
standards are 200 g/kW-hr (149 g/hp-hr) for CO and 75 g/kW-hr (56 g/hp-
hr) for HC. These standards represent a 50% reduction in HC and CO
emissions from the current average baseline levels. We believe that
implementation in 2010 would provide sufficient time for advanced
technologies to be more broadly available. We also believe that
manufacturers will have had adequate time to make appropriate
modifications to snowmobile designs (e.g., styling and packaging
issues) so they can more broadly spread advanced emission-control
technologies across their product lines. We expect these standards
would be met through the application of direct injection two-stroke
technology and, to a much lesser extent, four-stroke technology, to
cover about half of overall production, with the remaining models
utilizing clean carburetion and electronic fuel injection, along with
the associated engine modifications. The actual mix of technologies
used would be the manufacturers choice, but the data mentioned above
gives us reason to believe that the basic technology exists to meet the
standard based on a 50-percent reduction. We believe that the lead time
provided to meet these standards is sufficient to overcome the
technical hurdles discussed below in Section VI.F.2.
We request comment on our second phase of snowmobile standards. In
particular, we are interested in comments on the level of the
standards, our technical assessment and potential fleet mix
projections, any safety, reliability, or performance considerations
associated with adoption of four-stroke technology. We also request
comment on the cost of adopting such standards and the effects on sales
and consumer satisfaction. We are also interested in further
information addressing the benefits associated with such a standard.
c. Noise Standards. The Noise Control Act (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.)
authorizes EPA to establish noise emission standards for motorized
equipment. Under this authority, we established noise emission
standards for motorcycles and three-wheeled ATVs in 40 CFR Part 205 (45
FR 86708, December 31, 1980). These regulations include voluntary ``Low
noise emission product standards'' for motorcycles Sec. CFR
205.152(c)).
Prior to proposal, we received public comments requesting that we
consider setting new noise standards for recreational vehicles. Noise
from these vehicles in public parks or other public lands can adversely
impact other activities. However, at this time we do not have funding
to pursue noise standards for nonroad equipment that does not have an
existing noise requirement.
2. Are There Opportunities for Averaging, Emission Credits, or Other
Flexibilities?
a. Averaging, Banking and Trading. Historically, voluntary
emission-credit programs have allowed a manufacturer to certify one or
more engine families at emission levels above the applicable emission
standards, provided that the increased emissions are offset by one or
more engine families certified below the applicable standards. With
averaging alone, the average of all emissions for a particular
manufacturer's production must be at or below that level of the
applicable emission standards. We are proposing separate emission-
credit programs for snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and ATVs. We
are proposing an emissions credit program for the optional Phase 1 ATV
engine-based standards as well as the chassis-based standards. We
request comment on whether or not averaging, banking, and trading adds
value to the engine-based option considering the level of the standards
being proposed.
In addition to the averaging program just described, the proposed
emission-credit program contains banking and trading provisions, which
allow manufacturers to generate emission credits and bank them for
future use in their own averaging program or sell them to another
entity. We are not proposing a credit life limit or credit discounting
for these credits. Unlimited credit life and no discounting increases
the incentive to introduce the clean technologies needed to gain
credits. In order to generate credits, the average emissions level must
be below the standard, so the credits would be the result of reductions
in excess of those required by the standards.
We are seeking comment on whether or not a credit life limit (e.g.,
three years) is needed to ensure that manufacturers do not have the
opportunity to, in effect, postpone the Phase 2 standards for several
years for one or more vehicle families. Unlimited credit life has the
potential to interfere with the timely and orderly phase-in of future
standards, especially if the manufacturer is able to bank large amounts
of credits during intervening years. This is a concern here because the
proposed level of the Phase 1 standards may provide considerable
opportunity for credit generation for manufacturers that can market a
significant number of relatively clean models early in the program. For
example, some 4-stroke ATV models are likely to have emissions levels
below the Phase 1 standards, allowing for considerable credit
generation.
We also request comment on how this issue may differ for credits
generated under Phase 2, where the affect on the next tier of standard
is not a complicating issue. We would have the opportunity to consider
and reassess such a provision if and when we were to propose a third
phase of standards. In addition, we request comments on an alternative
approach of not allowing credits generated in Phase 1 to be used in
Phase 2.
For off-highway motorcycles and ATVs, we are proposing to allow
averaging for the HC plus NO_X standard. Off-highway
motorcycle and ATVs would be averaged separately to avoid providing an
advantage in the market to companies that offer both types of products
over those that produce only one type. In addition, there are differing
degrees of stringency in the standards for ATVs and off-road
motorcycles long-term and we do not want off-road motorcycle credits to
dilute the effectiveness of the Phase 2 ATV standards. Also, ATVs
certified to the chassis-based standards and engine-based standards
would be considered separate averaging groups with no credit exchanges
between the two. We are not allowing credit exchanges between engine
and chassis-based testing because there is little, if any, correlation
between the two test cycles. Without a strong correlation, it is not
possible to establish an exchange rate between the two programs. We are
not proposing a CO averaging, banking, and trading program because the
level of the standard does not appear to add substantial technological
challenge to the program, especially for Phase 1. The usefulness of CO
averaging may not warrant the additional complexity of an averaging
program. We request comment on the need for a CO ABT program for Phase
2, and on the proposed approach for separate ABT programs.
For the Phase 2 ATV standards, we are proposing a maximum allowable
Family Emission Limit (FEL) of 2.0 g/km HC plus NO_X (the
Phase 1 standard). In several other ABT programs, we have

[[Page 51156]]

established a cap at the previous emission standard to ensure a minimum
level of control long term. We request comment on whether or not an FEL
limit is appropriate to ensure a minimum level of control for all
models. Please see the discussion on this issue in the recreational
marine diesel section of this document for more information. We request
comment specifically on how this approach could affect product
offerings and consumer choice. We also request comment on the level of
the emissions cap and alternative levels.
For snowmobiles, we are proposing an emission-credit program for
both CO and HC. We are proposing that maximum allowable Family Emission
Limits be set at the current average baseline emission levels of 400 g/
kW-hr (300 g/hp-hr) CO and 150 g/kW-hr (110 g/hp-hr) HC. This cap
ensure a minimum level of control for each snowmobile certified under
the program. We believe that this is appropriate due to the potential
for personal exposure to very high levels of emissions as well as the
potential for high levels of emissions in areas where several
snowmobiles are operated in a group. We request comment on the level of
the cap for Phase 1. We also request comment on whether it would be
appropriate to set more stringent maximum allowable Family Emission
Limits for 2010 and later model year snowmobiles, for example, at the
levels of the 2006 standards. We are interested in comment on any
potential impacts a more stringent cap may have on the variety of
products available to the consumer. We are proposing that manufacturers
may not both generate and use credits for the different pollutants
within a given engine family.
We request comment on all aspect of the proposed ABT program,
including on the administrative and liability provisions provided in
the proposed regulatory text.
b. Early Credits and Alternative Phase-in Schedule. We are
interested in but are not specifically proposing opportunities for
early credits, and other flexibilities, as discussed below. We are
proposing no phase-in schedule for snowmobiles and a two-year phase-in
schedule for off-road motorcycles and ATVs. While we believe adequate
lead-time is provided to meet the proposed standards, we recognize that
some flexibility in timing could help manufacturers transition their
full product line to new standards. We are requesting comment on three
specific approaches to providing additional flexibility to
manufacturers, described below. We are interested in how these
provisions could be established in a way that would be environmentally
neutral and yet also provide manufacturers with flexibility.
We are not proposing provisions for early generation of credits,
because we have not been able to resolve our concerns about substantial
windfall credits (credits generated relatively easily from baseline
engines). For example, there could be substantial credits available for
snowmobile manufacturers that have developed four-stroke snowmobile
models. Also, some baseline ATV and off-highway motorcycles could also
have relatively low emission levels. However, as discussed below, we
are seeking comment on approaches for early credits that could address
concerns regarding windfall credits.
Under an early emission-credit approach, manufacturers could earn
credits by reducing emissions earlier than required, then use those
credits after the program begins. Because there is a wide variation in
baseline emission levels, we would need to consider taking steps to
ensure that manufacturers do not generate windfall credits. One way to
address the concern for windfall credits would be to allow credits only
for emission reductions below the proposed standards and limit the life
of those credits to three years. We believe this approach may ensure
that manufacturers would generate credits only through the use of
cleaner technologies. It also ensures that the credits would not
adversely impact the long-term effectiveness of the program. This
approach would provide incentive for manufacturers to pull ahead
significantly cleaner technologies. We request comment on early credits
for CO and HC emissions for snowmobiles and HC+NO_X emissions
for off-road motorcycles and ATVs, and a requirement that the credit-
generating engines also meet the standards for the other regulated
pollutants.
Under the second approach, an alternative phase-in schedule,
manufacturers would be provided with a one-for-one credit in the phase-
in schedule for selling complying recreational vehicles prior to the
start of the program. Manufacturers who pull ahead a percentage of
their product line would get a phase-in credit to be used during the
initial years of the program (i.e., 2008 and earlier). For example, if
a snowmobile manufacturer phased in 10 percent of their product line
early in 2005, they could then phase-in 90 percent, rather than 100
percent, of their product line in 2006. We would expect this to be a
transitional provision limited to the first few years of the program
(all vehicles would need to be certified by 2008). We could implement
the program through a calculation based on the sum of the phase-in
percentages over a series of model years. For example, for snowmobiles,
the sum of the phase-in percentages over model years 2004-2008 could be
required to be equal to or greater than 300% (100% each for 2006, 2007,
and 2008). For off-road motorcycles and ATVs, the calculation would
take into account the 50/100 percent phase-in schedule for 2006/2007,
with a requirement that the sum of the phase-in be equal to or greater
than 250 percent. For example, an alternative phase-in schedule of 25/
50/75/100 percent in 2005 through 2008 would be acceptable. The
calculation of the percentage phase-in would be the same as that for
the standard program.
An alternative to early banking or a revised phase-in would be
``family-banking.'' Under the ``family-banking'' concept, we would
allow manufacturers to certify an engine family early. For each year of
certifying an engine family early, the manufacturer would be able to
delay certification of a smaller engine family by one year. This would
be based on the actual sales of the early family and the projected
sales volumes of the late family; this would require no calculation or
accounting of emission credits.
We request comment on the above approaches or any other approach
that would help manufacturers bring the product lines into compliance
to the proposed standards without compromising emissions reductions
(see Sec. 1048.145 of the proposed regulations). We request comment on
the merits of the various approaches noted above, and others commenter
may wish to suggest. We request that commenters provide detailed
comments on how the approaches should be set up, enhanced, or
constrained to ensure that they serve their purpose without diminishing
the overall effectiveness of the standards.
3. Is EPA Proposing Voluntary Low-Emission Standards for These Engines?
We are proposing a Voluntary Low-Emission Standards program for
recreational vehicles. The purpose of this program is two-fold; first,
to encourage new emission-control technology and second, to aid the
consumer in choosing clean technologies. At the point of purchase,
manufacturers could add a tag designating qualifying vehicles to inform
consumers which engines are certified by this program and listing the
certification levels of the vehicles. In addition, we are suggesting
that manufacturers provide information about the program in the vehicle

[[Page 51157]]

Owner's Manual. To qualify for this program, engines must meet the
voluntary standards described below. Manufacturers choosing to sell
engines with this designation may generate certification emission
credits from these technologies.
The general purpose of the Voluntary Low-Emission Standards program
is to provide incentives to manufacturers to produce clean products and
thus create market choices for consumers to purchase these
products.\154\ We believe that EPA designation of clean technologies
through this voluntary program can provide useful information to
consumers. We request comment on the merits and design of the program
and also on additional measures we can take to encourage this program
and prohibit misuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\154\ The snowmobile industry (see docket item II-G-221) and a
group of public health and environmental organizations (see docket
item II-G-139) have both expressed their general support for
labeling programs that can provide information on the environmental
performance of various products to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are proposing Voluntary Low-Emission Standards for off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs of 0.8 g/km (1.3 g/mi) HC+NO_X and 12 g/
km (24.3 g/mi) CO. These emission levels are consistent with the 2008
standards proposed by California ARB for highway motorcycles. We
believe that off-highway motorcycles and ATVs could meet these
voluntary standards by employing some of the same technologies
manufacturers will use to meet the 2008 California emission standards
for highway motorcycles. We request comment on the level of the
standards and the need for lower voluntary standards for Phase 2 of the
ATV program.
We are proposing Voluntary Low Emission Standards for snowmobiles
of 200 g/kW-hr (149 g/hp-hr) for CO and 75 g/kW-hr (56 g/hp-hr) for HC
through 2009 model year snowmobiles. These are the same levels as our
proposed phase 2 standards. For the 2010 model year and later, the
standards are 120 g/kW-hr (89 g/hp-hr) for CO and 45 g/kW-hr (34 g/hp-
hr) for HC for any snowmobiles. We believe these voluntary standards
could be met with either direct injection two-stroke, or four-stroke
technology. Snowmobiles included in this program may generate credits
for use in the proposed emission-credit program. We request comment on
the level of the voluntary standards being proposed and whether we
should consider more or less stringent voluntary standards for
snowmobiles.
4. What Durability Provisions Apply?
We are proposing several additional provisions to ensure that
emission controls would be effective throughout the life of the
vehicle. This section discusses these proposed provisions for
recreational vehicles. More general certification and compliance
provision, which would apply across the different vehicle categories in
this proposal, are discussed in Sections III and VII, respectively.
a. How long would my engine have to comply? We propose to require
manufacturers to produce off-highway motorcycle and ATV engines that
comply over their full useful life, where useful life is the period
that lasts either 5 years or until the vehicle accumulates 30,000
kilometers, whichever occurs first. We would consider this 30,000-
kilometer value to be a minimum kilometer value for useful life, and
would require manufacturers to comply for a longer period in those
cases where they design their vehicles to be operated longer than
30,000 kilometers.
For snowmobiles, we are proposing a minimum useful life of 5 years
or 300 hours of operation, whichever occurs first. We based these
values on discussions with manufacturers regarding typical snowmobile
life, and on emission-modeling data regarding typical snowmobile usage
rates.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\155\ EPA memorandum, ``Emission Modeling for Recreational
Vehicles,'' from Linc Wehrly to Docket A-98-01, November 13, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We request comment on the proposed useful life values. Any comments
in support of a different useful life should include documentation of
typical life and operation.
b. Would I have to warrant my engine's emission controls? We are
proposing a design/defect warranty period of 3 years, with an hours or
kilometers limit equal to half the useful life interval proposed above.
During this time manufacturers would repair or replace free of charge
emission-related components that fail. Because this warranty
requirement applies only for emission-related components, manufacturers
are not responsible for routine maintenance that is currently performed
for uncontrolled engines (e.g., changing oil filters or carburetors).
c. How would I demonstrate emission durability during
certification? For off-highway motorcycles and ATVs, we are proposing
the same durability demonstration requirements that apply to highway
motorcycles. This includes a requirement to run the engines long enough
to test for exhaust emissions at the end of the useful life. This
allows manufacturers to generate a deterioration factor that helps
ensure that the engines will continue to control emissions over a
lifetime of operation.
d. What maintenance would be allowed during service accumulation?
For vehicles certified to the proposed useful life, no emission-related
maintenance would be allowed during service accumulation. The only
maintenance that would be allowed is regularly scheduled maintenance
unrelated to emissions that is technologically necessary. This could
typically include changing engine oil, oil filter, fuel filter, and air
filter.
5. Do These Standards Apply to Alternative-Fueled Engines?
These proposed standards apply to all spark-ignited recreational
vehicles, without regard to the type of fuel used. However, because we
are not aware of any alternative-fueled recreational vehicles sold into
the U.S. market, we are not proposing extensive special provisions to
address them at this time.
6. Is EPA Controlling Crankcase Emissions?
We are proposing to require that new off-highway motorcycles and
ATVs be built to prevent crankcase emissions. This means that engines
would no longer emit crankcase vapors directly to the atmosphere. The
typical control strategy is to route the crankcase vapors back to the
engine intake. This proposal is consistent with our previous regulation
of crankcase emissions from such diverse sources as highway
motorcycles, outboard and personal watercraft marine engines,
locomotives, and passenger cars. We have data from California ARB
showing that a performance-based four-stroke off-highway motorcycle
experienced considerably higher tailpipe emission results when
crankcase emissions were routed back into the intake of the engine,
illustrating the potentially high levels of crankcase emissions that
exist.\156\ We are also proposing closed crankcases on new snowmobiles.
This requirement is only relevant for four-stroke snowmobiles, however,
since two-stroke engines, by virtue of their operation, have closed
crankcases. Information on the costs and benefits of this action can be
found in the Draft Regulatory Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\156\ Memo to Docket from Linc Wehrly, dated September 10, 2001.
(A-2000-1) document II-B-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Testing Requirements

1. What Duty Cycles Are Used To Measure Emissions?
Testing a vehicle or engine for emissions consists of exercising it
over

[[Page 51158]]

a prescribed duty cycle of speeds and loads, typically using a chassis
or engine dynamometer. The nature of the duty cycle used for
determining compliance with emission standards during the certification
process is critical in evaluating the likely emission performance of
engines designed to those standards. Duty cycles must be relatively
comparable to the way equipment is actually used because if they are
not, then compliance with emission standards would not assure that
emissions from the equipment are actually being reduced in use as
intended.
a. Off-highway Motorcycles and ATVs. For off-highway motorcycles
and ATVs, we propose that the current highway motorcycle test procedure
be used for measuring emissions. The highway motorcycle test procedure
is the same test procedure as used for light-duty vehicles (i.e.,
passenger cars and trucks) and is referred to as the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP). The FTP for a particular class of engine or equipment
is actually the aggregate of all of the emission tests that the engine
or equipment must meet to be certified. However, the term FTP has also
been used traditionally to refer to the exhaust emission test based on
the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), also referred to as the
LA4 (Los Angeles Driving Cycle #4). The UDDS is a chassis dynamometer
driving cycle that consists of numerous ``hills'' which represent a
driving event. Each hill includes accelerations, steady-state
operation, and decelerations. There is an idle between each hill. The
FTP consists of a cold start UDDS, a 10 minute soak, and a hot start.
The emissions from these three separate events are collected into three
unique bags. Each bag represents one of the events. Bag 1 represents
cold transient operation, bag 2 represents cold stabilized operation,
and bag 3 represents hot transient operation.
Highway motorcycles are divided into three classes based on engine
displacement, with Class I (50 to 169 cc) being the smallest and Class
III (280 cc and over) being the largest. The highway motorcycle
regulations allow Class I motorcycles to be tested on a less severe
UDDS cycle than the Class II and III motorcycles. This is accomplished
by reducing the acceleration and deceleration rates on some of the more
aggressive ``hills.'' We propose that this same class/cycle distinction
be allowed for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. In other words, off-
highway motorcycles and ATVs with an engine displacement between at or
below 169 cc would be tested over the FTP test cycle for Class I
highway motorcycles. Off-highway motorcycles and ATVs with engine
displacements greater than 169 cc would be tested over the FTP test
cycle for Class II and Class III highway motorcycles. Some
manufacturers have expressed concern over the ability of some small-
displacement (e.g., less than 80 cc) youth off-highway motorcycles and
ATVs to operate over the FTP. We request comment on the ability of
these small-displacement vehicles to operate over the FTP test cycle.
We also request comment on whether or not it would be appropriate to
allow all ATVs to be certified using the Class I cycle.
Some manufacturers have noted that they do not currently have
chassis-based test facilities capable of testing ATVs. Manufacturers
have noted that requiring chassis-based testing for ATVs would require
them to invest in additional testing facilities that can handle ATVs,
since ATVs do not fit on the same roller(s) as motorcycles used in
chassis testing. Some manufacturers also have stated that low-pressure
tires on ATVs would not stand up to the rigors of a chassis dynamometer
test. California provides manufacturers with the option of certifying
ATVs using the engine-based, utility engine test procedure (SAE J1088),
and most manufacturers use this option for certifying their ATVs.
Manufacturers have facilities to chassis-test motorcycles and therefore
California does not provide an engine-testing certification option for
motorcycles.
We have tested numerous ATVs over the FTP and have found that
several methods can be used to test ATVs on chassis dynamometers. The
most practical method for testing an ATV on a motorcycle dynamometer is
to disconnect one of the drive wheels and test with only one drive
wheel in contact with the dynamometer. For chassis dynamometers set up
to test light-duty vehicles, wheel spacers or a wide axle can be
utilized to make sure the drive wheels fit the width of the
dynamometer. We have found that the low-pressure tires have withstood
dynamometer testing without any problems.
We acknowledge that a chassis dynamometer could be very costly to
purchase and difficult to put in place in the short run, especially for
smaller manufacturers. Therefore, we are proposing that for the model
years 2006 through 2009, ATV manufacturers would be allowed the option
to certify using the J1088 engine test cycle per the California off-
highway motorcycle and ATV program. After 2009, this option would end
and the FTP would be the required test cycle. If an alternate transient
test cycle (engine or chassis) correlates with the FTP or better
represents in-use ATV operation, we would consider allowing
manufacturers to use the alternative test cycle in place of the FTP.
b. Snowmobiles. We are proposing to adopt the snowmobile duty cycle
developed by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in cooperation with
the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association (ISMA) for all
snowmobile emission testing.\157\ The test procedure consists of two
main parts; the duty cycle that the snowmobile engine would operate
over during testing and other testing protocols surrounding the
measurement of emissions (sampling and analytical equipment,
specification of test fuel, atmospheric conditions for testing, etc.).
While the duty cycle we are proposing was developed specifically to
reflect snowmobile operation, many of the testing protocols are well
established in other EPA emission-control programs and have been simply
adapted where appropriate for snowmobiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\157\ ``Development and Validation of a Snowmobile Engine
Emission Test Procedure,'' Jeff J. White, Southwest Research
Institute and Christopher W. Wright, Arctic Cat, Inc., Society of
Automotive Engineers paper 982017, September, 1998. (A-2000-1)
document II-D-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The snowmobile duty cycle was developed by instrumenting several
snowmobiles and operating them in the field in a variety of typical
riding styles, including aggressive (trail), moderate (trail), double
(trail with operator and one passenger), freestyle (off-trail), and
lake driving. A statistical analysis of the collected data produced the
five mode steady-state test cycle is shown in Table VI.D-1.

Table VI.D-1.--Proposed Snowmobile Engine Test Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mode 1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normalized Speed....................... 1 0.85 0.75 0.65 Idle
Normalized Torque...................... 1 0.51 0.33 0.19 0

[[Page 51159]]

Relative Weighting (%)................. 12 27 25 31 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe this duty cycle is representative of typical snowmobile
operation and is therefore appropriate for demonstrating compliance
with the proposed snowmobile emission standards. We request comment on
this proposed duty cycle, and on any alternatives that we should
consider.
The other proposed testing protocols are largely derived from our
regulations for marine outboard and personal watercraft engines, as
recommended in the SwRI/ISMA test cycle development work (61 FR 52088,
October 4, 1996). The testing equipment and procedures from that
regulation are generally appropriate for snowmobiles. Unlike
snowmobiles, however, the marine engines tend to operate in fairly warm
ambient temperatures. Thus, some provision needs to be made in the
snowmobile test procedure to account for the colder ambient
temperatures typical of snowmobile operation. Since snowmobile
carburetors are jetted for specific ambient temperatures and pressures,
we could take one of two general approaches. The first is to require
testing at ambient temperatures typical of snowmobile operation, with
appropriate jetting. A variation of this option is to simply require
that the engine inlet air temperature be representative of typical
snowmobile operation, without requiring that the entire test cell be at
that temperature. The second is to allow testing at higher temperatures
than typically experienced during snowmobile operation, with jetting
appropriate to the warmer ambient temperatures.
We are proposing that snowmobile engine inlet air temperature be
between -15 deg. C and -5 deg. C (5 deg. F and 23 deg. F), but that the
ambient temperature in the test cell not be required to be
refrigerated. We believe this approach strikes an appropriate balance
between the need to test at conditions that are representative of
actual use, and the fact that simply cooling the inlet air would be
significantly less costly than requiring a complete cold test cell.
We request comment on whether we should allow snowmobile engine
testing to be done according to the test procedures developed by
Southwest Research Institute. Under those procedures testing is done at
warmer ambient temperatures than typical of snowmobile operation.
Appropriate jetting under this approach is determined by extrapolating
from the manufacturer's jet chart (if necessary).
We invite comment on all aspects of the proposed test procedures.
2. What Fuels Will Be Used During Emission Testing?
We are proposing to use the same fuel specifications for all
recreational vehicles as we currently use for highway motorcycles and
light-duty vehicles, which is representative of a summertime blend. We
believe that off-highway motorcycles and ATVs use the same fuel as
highway motorcycles. While snowmobiles typically operate during
wintertime, we believe it is appropriate to use summertime gasoline for
testing, primarily because it is the fuel that was used for the
snowmobile emission testing that supported the development of our
baseline emission estimates. Also, the majority of snowmobile HC
emissions are a result of scavenging losses (unburned fuel from the
intake charge exiting the combustion chamber with the exhaust gases).
The primary difference between summertime and wintertime gasoline
blends is the volatility, which is not likely to have a significant
effect on scavenging losses. However, given that snowmobiles typically
operate during wintertime, we request comment on whether we should
consider a unique test fuel specifically for snowmobiles, and what
specifications might be appropriate for such a fuel. Also, if we were
to consider a unique snowmobile test fuel based on wintertime gasoline
properties, should the proposed standards be adjusted in any way to
account for the fact that the baseline emission estimates were
developed from test data utilizing summertime blends.
3. Are There Production-Line Testing Provisions for These Engines?
We are proposing that recreational vehicle or engine manufacturers
perform emission tests on a small percentage of their production as it
leaves the assembly line to ensure that production vehicles operate at
certified emission levels. The broad outline of this program is
discussed in Section III.C.4 above. We are proposing that production-
line testing be performed using the same test procedures as for
certification testing. We request comment on all aspects of the
proposed production-line testing requirements, including engine
sampling rates and options for using alternative testing methods.

E. Special Compliance Provisions

As described in Section XI.B, the report of the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel addresses the concerns of small-volume
manufacturers of recreational vehicles.

Off-Highway Motorcycles and ATVs

To identify representatives of small businesses for this process,
we used the definitions provided by the Small Business Administration
for motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles (fewer than 500 employees).
Eleven small businesses agreed to serve as small-entity
representatives. These companies represented a cross-section of off-
highway motorcycle, ATV, and snowmobile manufacturers, as well as
importers of off-highway motorcycles and ATVs.
As discussed above, our proposed emission standards for off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs will likely necessitate the use of 4-stroke
engines. Most small-volume off-highway motorcycle and ATV importers--
and to a lesser degree, small-volume manufacturers--currently use 2-
stroke engines. While 4-stroke engines are in widespread use in
motorcycles and ATVs in general, their adoption by any manufacturer is
still a significant business challenge. Small manufacturers of these
engines could face additional challenges in certifying engines to
emission standards, because the cost of certification would be spread
over the relatively few engines they produce. These higher per-unit
costs could place small manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage
without specific provisions to address this burden.
We are proposing to apply the flexibilities described below to
engines produced or imported by small entities with combined off-
highway motorcycle and ATV annual sales of fewer than 5,000 units. The
SBAR Panel recommended these provisions to address the potentially
significant adverse effects on small entities of an emission standard
that will likely result in the use of four-stroke engines. The 5,000-
unit threshold is intended to focus these flexibilities on those
segments of the market where the need

[[Page 51160]]

is likely to be greatest and to ensure that the flexibilities do not
result in significant adverse environmental effects during the period
of additional lead-time recommended below.\158\ We request comment on
the appropriateness of the 5,000-unit threshold. In addition, we
propose to limit use of some or all of these flexibilities to entities
that are in existence or have product sales at the time of proposal to
avoid creating arbitrary opportunities in the import sector, and to
guard against the possibility of corporate reorganization, entry into
the market, or other action for the sole purpose of circumventing
emission standards. We request comment on any such restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\158\ For example, importers may have access to large supplies
of vehicles from major overseas manufacturers and potentially could
substantially increase their market share by selling less expensive
noncomplying products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also request comment on allowing small entities with sales in
excess of 5,000 units to certify using the flexible approaches
described below for several engines equal to their 2000 or 2001 sales
level. This would assure that all small entities currently in the
market would be able to take advantage of these approaches. In
addition, we request comment on when small entities must notify EPA
that they intend to use the small-entity flexibilities.
During the Panel's outreach meeting with small entities on issues
related to recreational ATVs and off-road motorcycles, small entities
expressed particular concern that a federal emission standard requiring
manufacturers to switch to four-stroke engines might increase costs to
the point that many small importers and manufacturers could experience
significant adverse effects. As noted above, the Panel recommendations
are designed to reduce the burden on small entities without
compromising the environmental benefits of the program. However, it is
possible that even with the broad flexibility under consideration,
costs to small entities may still be too high. Also, they may not be
able to recover costs without losing much or all of their business. We
seek comment on the effect of the proposed standard on small entities,
including any data or related studies to estimate the extent to which
sales of their products are likely to be reduced as a result of changes
in product price resulting from the proposed standards, more
specifically from the conversion of two-stroke technology to four-
stroke technology. Additionally, we seek comment on any differences in
costs between small and large manufacturers. We plan to assess
information received in response to this request to inform the final
rule decision-making process on whether additional flexibility (beyond
that proposed below) is warranted.

Snowmobiles

There are only a few small snowmobile manufacturers and they sell
only a few hundred engines a year, which represents less than 0.5
percent of total annual production. Therefore, the per-unit cost of
regulation could be significantly higher for these small entities
because they produce very low volumes. Additionally, these companies do
not have the design and engineering resources to tackle compliance with
emission standard requirements at the same time as large manufacturers
and tend to have limited ability to invest the capital necessary to
conduct emission testing related to research, development, and
certification. Finally, the requirements of the snowmobile program may
be infeasible or highly impractical because some small-volume
manufacturers may have typically produced engines with unique designs
or calibrations to serve niche markets (such as mountain riding). Our
proposed snowmobile emission standards could impose significant
economic hardship on these few manufacturers whose market presence is
small. We therefore believe significant flexibility is necessary and
appropriate for this category of small entities, as described below.

Flexibilities

1. Additional Lead Time
We believe additional lead-time would be a way of reducing the
burden to meet the proposed standards. This would provide extra time
for technology to develop and, in the case of importers, extra time to
resolve supplier issues that may arise. We propose a delay of two years
beyond the date larger businesses would be required to comply. For ATVs
and snowmobiles, the two-year delay would also apply to the timing of
the proposed Phase 2 standards.
In addition, for small snowmobile manufacturers, we propose that
the emission standards be phased in over an additional two years at a
rate of 50 percent, then 100 percent. Phase 1 would be phased in at 50/
50/100 percent in 2008/2009/2010 and Phase 2 would be phased in 50/50/
100 percent in 2012/2013/2014. We seek comment on whether a longer time
period is appropriate given the costs of compliance for small
businesses and the relationship between importers and their suppliers.
2. Design-Based Certification
The process of certification is a business cost and lead time issue
that may place a disproportionate burden on small entities,
particularly importers. Certification is a fixed cost of doing
business, which is potentially more burdensome on a unit-cost basis for
small entities. It is potentially an even greater challenge, since some
small entities will either contract emission testing to other parties
or, in the case of importers, perhaps rely on off-shore manufacturers
to develop and certify imported engines.
We propose to permit small-volume manufacturers to use design-based
certification, which would allow us to issue a certificate to a small
business for the emission-performance standard based on a demonstration
that engines or vehicles meet design criteria rather than by emission
testing. The intent is to demonstrate that an engine using a design
similar to or superior than that being used by larger manufacturers to
meet the proposed emission standards would ensure compliance with the
proposed standards. The demonstration would be based in part on
emission test data from engines of a similar design. Under a design-
based certification program, a manufacturer would provide evidence in
the application for certification that an engine or vehicle would meet
the applicable standards for its useful life based on its design (e.g.,
the use a four-stroke engine, advanced fuel injection, or any other
particular technology or calibration). The design criteria could
include specifications for engine type, calibrations (spark timing,
air/fuel ratio, etc.), and other emission-critical features, including,
if appropriate, catalysts (size, efficiency, precious metal loading).
Manufacturers would submit adequate engineering and other information
about their individual designs showing that they meet emission
standards for the useful life. We request comment on how these
provisions should be implemented. We also seek comment on whether we
should allow large manufacturers to use similar provisions on a limited
basis.
3. Broaden Engine Families
We propose an approach that would allow for relaxed criteria for
what constitutes an engine or vehicle family. It would allow small
businesses to put all their models into one vehicle or engine family
(or more) for certification purposes if appropriate. Manufacturers
would then certify their engines using the ``worst-case'' configuration
within the family.

[[Page 51161]]

A small manufacturer might need to conduct certification emission
testing rather than pursuing design-based certification. Such a
manufacturer would likely find broadened engine families useful.
4. Production-Line Testing Waiver
As discussed above, we are proposing to require manufacturers to
test a small sampling of production engines to ensure that production
engines meet emission standards. We propose to waive production-line
testing for small entities and request comment on whether limits for
this waiver would be appropriate. This would eliminate or substantially
limit production-line testing requirements for small businesses. It
could be limited to engine/vehicle families under a given production
volume or could be applied broadly to small businesses. This is likely
to be important to small businesses, many of which do not have testing
facilities on-site and would rely on outside contractors for testing.
5. Use of Assigned Deterioration Factors for Certification
We propose to provide small entities with the option of using
assigned deterioration factors. Rather than performing a durability
demonstration for each family for certification, manufacturers would
elect to use deterioration factors determined by us to demonstrate
emission levels at the end of the useful life, thus reducing the
development and testing burden. This could be a very useful and cost-
beneficial option for a small manufacturer opting to perform
certification emission testing instead of design-based certification.
6. Using Emission Standards and Certification From Other EPA Programs
A wide array of engines that have been certified to other EPA
programs could be used in recreational vehicles. For example, there is
a large variety of engines certified to EPA lawn and garden standards
(Small SI). We propose to allow manufacturers of recreational vehicles
to use engines certified to any other EPA standards for five years.
Under this approach, engines certified to the Small SI standards could
be used in recreational vehicles, and such engines would be subject to
the Small SI standards and related provisions rather than the
Recreational Vehicle program. The small business using the engine would
not have to recertify the engine, provided the manufacturer does not
alter the engine in such a way as to cause it to exceed the emission
standards it was originally certified as meeting. Also, the
recreational vehicle application may not be the primary intended
application for the engine. We request comment on which of the already
established standards and programs would be a useful certification
option for small businesses.
Additionally, a certified snowmobile engine produced by a large
snowmobile manufacturer could be used by a small snowmobile
manufacturer, provided the small manufacturer did not alter the engine
in such a way as to cause it to exceed the snowmobile emission
standards. This would provide a reasonable degree of emission control
provided all other elements of the program were met. For example, if
the only change a manufacturer were to make to the certified engine was
to replace the stock Y-pipes and exhaust pipes with pipes of similar
configuration or the stock muffler and air intake box with a muffler
and air box of similar air flow, the engine could, subject to our
review, still be eligible for this flexibility option. The manufacturer
could also change the carburetor to have a leaner air/fuel ratio
without losing eligibility. We believe that the manufacturer in such
cases could establish a reasonable basis for knowing that emissions
performance is not negatively affected be the changes. However, if the
manufacturer were to change the bore or stroke of the engine, the
engine would no longer qualify, as emissions could increase. We propose
to allow the above approach for small snowmobile manufacturers.
7. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
For the overall program, we are proposing corporate-average
emission standards with opportunities for banking and trading of
emission credits. We would expect the averaging provisions to be most
helpful to manufacturers with broad product lines. Small manufacturers
and small importers with only a few models might not have as much
opportunity to take advantage of these flexibilities. However, we
received comment from one small manufacturer supporting these types of
provisions as a critical component of the program. We request comment
on how the provisions could be enhanced for small business to make them
more useful.
8. Hardship Provisions
We are proposing provisions to address hardship circumstances, as
described in Section VII.C.
9. Unique Snowmobile Engines
Even with the broad flexibilities described above, there may be a
situation where a small snowmobile manufacturer cannot comply.
Therefore, we propose an additional provision to allow a small
snowmobile manufacturer to petition us for relaxed standards for one or
more engine families. The manufacturer would have to justify that the
engine has unique design, calibration, or operating characteristics
that make it atypical and infeasible or highly impractical to meet the
emission-reduction requirements, considering technology, cost, and
other factors. At our discretion, we would then set an alternative
standard at a level between the prescribed standard and the baseline
level. Such a standard would be intended to apply until the engine
family is retired, or modified in such a way as to increase emissions.
These engines would be excluded from the averaging calculation. We seek
comment on allowing this provision for up to 300 engines per year per
manufacturer, which would ensure that it is sufficiently available for
those manufacturers needing it most.
We seek comment on initial and deadline dates for submitting these
petitions. While any relief would be enacted for the first year
standards apply, there may be value to getting feedback early. It would
seem reasonable that the first date for submittals would be during the
first year of requirements for large manufacturers. The deadline for
submittals might be at some time during the last year of the small-
business delay.

F. Technological Feasibility of the Standards

1. Off-Highway Motorcycles and ATVs
We believe the proposed standards are technologically feasible
given the availability of emission-control technologies in the context
of the proposed program, as described below.
a. What are the baseline technologies and emission levels? As
discussed earlier, off-highway motorcycles and ATVs are equipped with
relatively small (48 to 650 cc) high-performance two- or four-stroke
single cylinder engines that are either air- or liquid-cooled.\159\
Since these vehicles are unregulated outside of the state of
California, the main emphasis of engine design is on performance,
durability, and cost and thus they generally have no emission controls.
The fuel systems used on these engines are almost exclusively
carburetors. Two-stroke engines

[[Page 51162]]

lubricate the piston and crankshaft by mixing oil with the air and fuel
mixture. This is accomplished by most contemporary 2-stroke engines
with a pump that sends two-cycle oil from a separate oil reserve to the
carburetor where it is mixed with the air and fuel mixture. Some less
expensive two-stroke engines require that the oil be mixed with the
gasoline in the fuel tank. Four-stroke engines inject oil via a pump
throughout the engine as the means of lubrication. With the exception
of those vehicles certified in California, most of these engines are
unregulated and thus have no emission controls. For performance and
durability reasons, off-highway motorcycle and ATV engines all tend to
operate with a ``rich'' air and fuel mixture. That is, they operate
with excess fuel, which enhances performance and allows engine cooling
to promote longer engine life. However, rich operation results in high
levels of HC, CO, and PM emissions. Also, two-stroke engines tend to
have high scavenging losses, where up to a third of the unburned air
and fuel mixture goes out of the exhaust resulting in high levels of HC
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\159\ The engines are small relative to automotive engines. For
example, automotive engines typically range from one liter to well
over five liters in displacement, whereas off-highway motorcycles
would range from 0.05 liters to 0.65 liters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. What technology approaches are available to control emissions?
Several approaches are available to control emissions from off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs. The simplest approach would consist of
modifications to the base engine, fuel system, cooling system, and
recalibration of the air and fuel mixture. These could, for example,
consist of changes to valve timing for four-stroke engines, changing
from air- to liquid-cooling, and the use of advanced carburetion
techniques or electronic fuel injection in lieu of traditional
carburetion systems. Other approaches could include the use of
secondary air injected into the exhaust, an oxidation or three-way
catalyst, or a combination of secondary air and a catalyst. The engine
technology that may have the most potential for maximizing emission
reductions from two-stroke engines is the use of direct fuel injection.
Direct fuel injection is able to reduce or even eliminate scavenging
losses by pumping only air through the engine and then injecting fuel
into the combustion chamber after the intake and exhaust ports have
closed. The use of oxidation catalysts in conjunction with direct
injection could potentially reduce emissions even further. Finally,
conversion of two-stroke engine technology to four-stroke engine
technology would significantly reduce HC emissions.
None of these technologies should have any negative noise, safety,
or energy impacts. Fuel injection can improve the combustion process
which can result in lower engine noise. The vast majority of four-
stroke engines used in off-highway motorcycles and ATVs are
considerably quieter than their two-stroke counterparts. Fuel injection
has no impact on safety and four-stroke engines often have a more
``forgiving'' power band which means the typical operator may find the
performance of the machine to be more reasonable and safe. The use of
fuel injection, the enleanment of the air and fuel mixture and the use
of four-stroke technology all can result in significant reductions in
fuel consumption.
c. What technologies are most likely to be used to meet the
proposed standards? 2006 Standards. Four-Stroke Engines. We believe
off-highway motorcycles and ATVs utilizing four-stroke engines will
need only to make some minor calibration changes and improvements to
the carburetor to meet our proposed emission standards for the 2006
model year. The calibration changes will most likely consist of
reducing the amount of fuel in the air/fuel mixture. This is commonly
referred to as enleaning the air/fuel ratio. Although four-stroke
engines produce considerably lower levels of HC than two-stroke
engines, the four-stroke engines used in off-highway motorcycles and
ATVs all tend to be calibrated to operate with a rich air/fuel ratio
for performance and durability benefits. This rich operation results in
high levels of CO, since CO is formed in the engine when there is a
lack of oxygen to complete combustion. We believe that many of these
engines are calibrated to operate richer than needed, because they have
either never had to consider emissions when optimizing air/fuel ratio
or those that are certified to the California standards can operate
richer because the California ATV CO standards are fairly lenient.
Thus, we do not believe the standards will significantly reduce the
performance or durability of these engines. Carburetion improvements
could include increased carburetor tolerances, which would ensure more
precise flow of fuel and air resulting in better fuel atomization
(i.e., smaller fuel droplets), better combustion and less emissions.
Since our proposed emission standards are for HC+NO_X, as
well as for CO, manufacturers will have to use an emission-control
strategy or technology that doesn't cause NO_X emissions to
increase disproportionately. However, since all of these vehicles
operate with rich air/fuel ratios, as discussed above, NO_X
levels from these engines are generally low and strategies designed to
focus on HC reduction should allow manufacturers to meet our proposed
standards without significantly increasing NO_X levels.
Two-Stroke Engines. Off-highway motorcycles and ATVs using two-
stroke engines will present a greater challenge for compliance with the
proposed standards. We believe it is possible for a two-stroke engine
equipped with direct injection and an oxidation catalyst to meet our
proposed standards. However, there are several issues associated with
direct injection, such as system durability and the need for high
electrical system output, that need to be resolved before it can be
successfully integrated into off-highway motorcycle and ATV
applications by the 2006 model year. For example, there is concern over
how durable a direct injection system would be when exposed to harsh
environmental conditions such as water, mud, rocks and sand, to name a
few. The typical electrical system on a two-stroke off-highway
motorcycle and ATV uses a magneto system which produces between 250 and
300 watts of electrical power. A typical direct injection system needs
up to 1,000 watts of electrical power, meaning a traditional low-cost
magneto system would be insufficient and possibly have to be replaced
with an expensive and cumbersome alternator, similar to what is used on
automobiles. For these reasons, and because of the potential
complexities and cost of a direct injection system, we anticipate that
most manufacturers would chose to convert models using two-stroke
engines to four-stroke engines. Most manufacturers have experience with
four-stroke engine technology and currently have several models powered
by four-stroke engines. This is especially true in the ATV market where
four-stroke engines account for 80 percent of sales. Because four-
stroke engines have been so prevalent over the last 10 years in the
off-highway motorcycle and ATV industry, manufacturers have developed a
high level of confidence in four-stroke technology and its application.
In addition to converting to four-stroke technology, manufacturers will
also most likely have to make some minor calibration and carburetion
improvements to meet the proposed 2006 emission standards.
2009 Standards. As discussed above, the proposed 2009 standards are
proposed to apply only to ATVs. To meet these standards, we believe
manufacturers will need to use four-stroke engines with further
advancements in carburetor calibrations and improved tolerances or
possibly

[[Page 51163]]

even switch to electronic fuel injection for some models. There is
currently one manufacturer who uses electronic fuel injection in their
off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. The technologies most likely to be
used to meet these standards are secondary air and/or an oxidation
catalytic converter.
Secondary air has been used by passenger cars and highway
motorcycles for many years as a means to help control HC and CO. The
hot exhaust gases coming from the combustion chamber contain
significant levels of unburned HC and CO. If sufficient oxygen is
present, these gases will continue to react in the exhaust system,
reducing the amount of pollution emitted into the atmosphere. To assure
that sufficient oxygen is present in the exhaust, air is injected into
the exhaust system. For off-highway motorcycles and ATVs, the
additional air can be injected into the exhaust manifold using a series
of check valves which use the normal pressure pulsations in the exhaust
manifold to draw air from outside. We have tested several four-stroke
ATVs with secondary air injected into the exhaust manifold and found
that the HC and CO emission levels were at or below our proposed 2009
standards (further details of our secondary air testing are described
in the Draft Regulatory Support Document). Thus, we believe secondary
air injection alone could be a viable technology used by ATV
manufacturers to meet our proposed 2010 standards.
We also tested several ATVs with oxidation catalysts. We evaluated
several different catalyst configurations with varying size, loading,
cell density, and washcoat. We also examined different catalyst
locations in the exhaust system. We found that a relatively small
oxidation catalyst located in the exhaust system produced emission
levels below our proposed emission standards. Therefore, we also
believe that the use of an oxidation catalyst could be another viable
technology available to ATV manufacturers to meet our proposed 2009
emission standards.
2. Snowmobiles
a. What are the baseline technologies and emission levels? As
discussed earlier, snowmobiles are equipped with relatively small high-
performance two-stroke two and three cylinder engines that are either
air- or liquid-cooled. Since these vehicles are currently unregulated,
the main emphasis of engine design is on performance, durability, and
cost and thus they have no emission controls. The fuel system used on
these engines are almost exclusively carburetors, although some have
electronic fuel injection. Two-stroke engines lubricate the piston and
crankshaft by mixing oil with the air and fuel mixture. This is
accomplished by most contemporary 2-stroke engines with a pump that
sends two-cycle oil from a separate oil reserve to the carburetor where
it is mixed with the air and fuel mixture. Some less expensive two-
stroke engines require that the oil be mixed with the gasoline in the
fuel tank. Snowmobiles currently operate with a ``rich'' air and fuel
mixture. That is, they operate with excess fuel, which enhances
performance and allows engine cooling which promotes longer lasting
engine life. However, rich operation results in high levels of HC, CO,
and PM emissions. Also, two-stroke engines tend to have high scavenging
losses, where up to a third of the unburned air and fuel mixture goes
out of the exhaust resulting in high levels of raw HC. Current average
snowmobile emission rates are 397 g/kW-hr (296 g/hp-hr) CO and 150 g/
kW-hr (111 g/hp-hr) HC.
b. What technology approaches are available to control emissions?
We believe the proposed standards would be technologically feasible. A
variety of technologies are currently available or in stages of
development to be available for use on 2-stroke snowmobiles. These
include improvements to carburetion (improved fuel control and
atomization, as well as improved production tolerances), enleanment
strategies for both carbureted and fuel injected engines, and semi-
direct and direct fuel injection. In addition to these 2-stroke
technologies, converting to 4-stroke engines is feasible for some
snowmobile types. Each of these is discussed in the following
paragraphs.
There are several things that can be done to improve carburetion in
snowmobile engines. First, strategies to improve fuel atomization would
promote more complete combustion of the fuel/air mixture. Additionally,
production tolerances could be improved for more consistent fuel
metering. Both of these things would allow for more accurate control of
the air/fuel ratio. In conjunction with these improvements in
carburetion, the air/fuel ration could be leaned out some. Snowmobile
engines are currently calibrated with rich air/fuel ratios for
durability reasons. Leaner calibrations would serve to reduce CO and HC
emissions. Such calibration changes could reduce snowmobile engine
durability. However, there are many engine improvements that could be
made to regain lost durability that occurs with leaner calibration.
These include changes to the cylinder head, pistons, ports and pipes to
reduce knock. In addition critical engine components could be made more
robust to improve durability.
The same calibration changes to the air/fuel ratio just discussed
for carbureted engines could also be employed, possibly with more
accuracy, with the use of fuel injection. At least one major snowmobile
manufacturer currently employs electronic fuel injection on several of
its snowmobile models.
In addition to rich air/fuel ratios, one of the main reasons that
two-stroke engines have such high HC emission levels is that they
release a substantial amount of unburned fuel into the atmosphere as a
result from scavenging losses, as described above. One way to reduce or
eliminate such losses is to inject the fuel into the cylinder after the
exhaust port has closed. This can be done by injecting the fuel into
the cylinder through the transfer port (semi-direct injection) or
directly into the cylinder (direct injection). Both of these approaches
are currently being used successfully in two-stroke personal watercraft
engines. We believe these technologies hold promise for application to
snowmobiles. Manufacturers must address a variety of technical design
issues for adapting the technology to snowmobile operation, such as
operating in colder ambient temperatures and at variable altitude. The
several years of lead time give manufacturers time to incorporate these
development efforts into their overall research plan as they apply
these technologies to snowmobiles.
In addition to the two-stroke technologies just discussed, the use
of four-stroke engines in snowmobiles is another feasible approach to
reduce emissions. Since they do not scavenge the exhaust gases with the
incoming air/fuel mixture, four-stroke engines have inherently lower HC
emissions compared to two-strokes. Four-stroke engines have a lower
power to weight ratio than two-stroke engines and are heavier. Thus,
they are more appropriately used in snowmobile models where extreme
power and acceleration are not the primary selling points. Such models
include touring and sport trail sleds, as opposed to high performance
sleds such as those used for aggressive trail, cross country, mountain
and lake riding.
c. What technologies are most likely to be used to meet the
proposed standards. 2006 Standards. We expect that, in the context of
an emission-credit program, manufacturers might choose to take
different paths to meet the

[[Page 51164]]

proposed 2006 model year emission standards. We expect that many of the
reductions required will come from aggressive implementation of
improved carburetion and enleanment strategies. Manufacturers have
indicated to us that direct injection strategies can result in emission
reductions of 70 to 75 percent for HC and 60 to 65 percent for CO.
Certification results from 2000 model year outboard engines and PWC
support such reductions. At least one manufacturer has indicated that
direct injection technology will be available for snowmobiles on at
least some models well in advance of 2006. We believe that as
manufacturers learn to apply direct injection strategies they may
choose to implement those technologies on some of their more expensive
sleds and use less aggressive technologies, such as improved
carburetion and enleanment on their lower performance models. Finally,
there are at least two snowmobile manufacturers planning on offering
four-stroke models in the future, and we expect further interest in
four-strokes to develop for those snowmobile categories for which four-
strokes are a good fit.
2010 Standards. We expect that, in the context of an emission
credit program, manufacturers would choose to apply enleanment
strategies and the associated engine modification to roughly half of
their production. The rest of their production would encompass
primarily direct injection two stroke and to a much lesser extent, four
stroke technology.

VII. General Nonroad Compliance Provisions

This section describes a wide range of compliance provisions that
apply generally to all of the engines and vehicles that would be
subject to the proposed standards. Several of these provisions apply
not only to manufacturers, but also to equipment manufacturers
installing certified engines, remanufacturing facilities, operators,
and others.
The proposed regulatory text for the compliance requirements for
Large SI and recreational vehicles would be contained in a new Part
1068 of title 40, entitled ``General Compliance Programs for Nonroad
Engines.'' The compliance provisions for marine engines would be the
same as those in our existing programs for commercial diesel marine
engines (40 CFR part 94), which are similar to the provisions proposed
in 40 CFR part 1068.
The following discussion of the general nonroad provisions follows
the proposed regulatory text. For ease of reference, the subpart
designations are provided. We request comment on all these provisions.

A. Miscellaneous Provisions (Part 1068, Subpart A)

This regulation contains some general provisions, including general
applicability and the definitions that apply to Part 1068. Other
provisions concern good engineering judgment, how we would handle
confidential information; how the EPA Administrator delegates decision-
making authority; and when we may inspect a manufacturer's facilities,
engines, or records.
The process of testing engines and preparing an application for
certification requires the manufacturer to make a variety of judgments.
This includes, for example, selecting test engines, operating engines
between tests, and developing deterioration factors. Section 1068.5 of
the proposed regulations describes the methodology we propose to use to
evaluate concerns related to manufacturers' use of good engineering
judgment in cases where the manufacturer has such discretion. If we
find a problem in these areas, we would take into account the degree to
which any error in judgment was deliberate or in bad faith. This
subpart is consistent with provisions in the final rule for light-duty
highway vehicles and commercial marine diesel engines.

B. Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements (Part 1068, Subpart B)

The proposed provisions in this subpart lay out a set of
prohibitions for engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers,
operators, and engine rebuilders to ensure that engines comply with the
emission standards. These provisions are summarized below, but readers
are encouraged to review the proposed regulatory text. These provisions
are intended to help ensure that each new engine sold or otherwise
entered into commerce in the United States is certified to the relevant
standards, that it remains in its certified configuration throughout
its lifetime, and that only certified engines are used in the
appropriate nonroad equipment.
1. General Prohibitions (Sec. 1068.100)
This proposed regulation contains several prohibitions consistent
with the Clean Air Act. No one may sell an engine in the United States
without a valid certificate of conformity issued by EPA, deny us access
to relevant records, or keep us from entering a facility to test or
inspect engines. In addition, no one may remove or disable a device or
design element that may affect an engine's emission levels, or
manufacture any device that will make emission controls ineffective,
which we would consider tampering. We have generally applied the
existing policies developed for tampering with highway engines and
vehicles to nonroad engines.\160\ Other prohibitions reinforce
manufacturers' obligations to meet various certification requirements.
We also prohibit selling engine parts that prevent emission-control
systems from working properly. Finally, for engines that are excluded
for certain applications (i.e., stationary or solely for competition),
we generally prohibit using these engines in other applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\160\ ``Interim Tampering Enforcement Policy,'' EPA memorandum
from Norman D. Shulter, Office of General Counsel, June 25, 1974
(Docket A-2000-01; document II-B-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These proposed prohibitions are the same as those that apply to
other engines we have regulated in previous rulemakings. Each
prohibited act has a corresponding maximum penalty as specified in
Clean Air Act section 205. As provided for in the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 10-410, these
maximum penalties are in 1970 dollars and should be periodically
adjusted by regulation to account for inflation. The current penalty
amount for each violation is $27,500.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\161\ EPA acted to adjust the maximum penalty amount in 1996 (61
FR 69364, December 31, 1996). See also 40 CFR part 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Equipment Manufacturer Provisions (Sec. 1068.105)
According to this proposed regulation, equipment manufacturers may
not sell new equipment with uncertified engines once the emission
standards begin to apply. We would allow a grace period for equipment
manufacturers to use up their supply of uncertified engines, as long as
they follow their normal inventory practices for buying engines.
We propose to require equipment manufacturers to observe the engine
manufacturers emission-related installation specifications to ensure
that the engine remains consistent with the application for
certification. This may include such things as radiator specifications,
placement of catalytic converters, diagnostic signals and interfaces,
and steps to minimize evaporative emissions.
If equipment manufacturers install a certified engine in a way that
obscures the engine label, we propose to require them to add a
duplicate label on the equipment. Equipment manufacturers may make
these labels or get them from the engine manufacturer.

[[Page 51165]]

If equipment manufacturers don't fulfill the responsibilities we
describe in this section, we would consider them to be violating one or
more of the prohibited acts described above.
3. In-Service Engines (Sec. 1068.110)
The proposed regulations would prevent manufacturers from requiring
owners to use any certain brand of aftermarket parts and give the
manufacturer responsibility for engine servicing related to emissions
warranty, leaving the responsibility for all other maintenance with the
owner. This proposed regulation would also reserve our right to do
testing (or require testing) to investigate potential defeat devices,
as authorized by the Act.
4. Engine Rebuilding (Sec. 1068.120)
We are proposing to establish rebuild provisions for all the
nonroad engines subject to the proposed emission standards. This
approach is similar to what applies to heavy-duty highway engines,
nonroad diesel engines, and commercial marine diesel engines. This is
necessary to prevent an engine rebuilder from rebuilding engines in a
way that disables the engine's emission controls or compromises the
effectiveness of the emission-control system. For businesses involved
in commercial engine rebuilding, we are proposing minimal recordkeeping
requirements so rebuilders can show that they comply with regulations.
In general, we propose to require that anyone who rebuilds a
certified engine must restore it to its original (or a lower-emitting)
configuration. We are proposing to add unique requirements for
rebuilders to replace some critical emission-control components such as
fuel injectors and oxygen sensors in all rebuilds for engines that use
those technologies. We are also proposing that rebuilders replace an
existing catalyst if there is evidence that the catalyst is not
functional; for example, if a catalyst has lost its physical integrity
with loose pieces rattling inside, it would need to be replaced. See
Sec. 1068.65 for more detailed information.
The proposed rebuilding provisions define good rebuilding practices
to help rebuilders avoid violating the prohibition on ``removing or
disabling'' emission-control systems. We therefore propose to extend
these provisions to individuals who rebuild their own engines, but
without any recordkeeping requirements.
We request comment on applying these proposed requirements for
engine rebuilding and maintenance to the engines and vehicles subject
to this rulemaking. In addition, we request comment on the associated
recordkeeping requirements.

C. Exemptions (Part 1068, Subpart C)

We are proposing to include several exemptions for certain specific
situations. Most of these are consistent with previous rulemakings. We
highlight the new or different proposed provisions in the following
paragraphs. In general, exempted engines would need to comply with the
requirements only in the sections related to the exemption. Note that
additional restrictions could apply to importing exempted engines (see
Section VII.D). Also, we are also proposing that we may require
manufacturers (or importers) to add a permanent label describing that
the engine is exempt from emission standards for a specific purpose. In
addition to helping us enforce emission standards, this would help
ensure that imported engines clear Customs without difficulty.
1. Testing
Anyone would be allowed to request an exemption for engines used
only for research or other investigative purposes.
2. Manufacturer-Owned Engines
Engines that are used by engine manufacturers for development or
marketing purposes could be exempted from regulation if they are
maintained in the manufacturers' possession and are not used for any
revenue-generating service.
3. Display Engines
Engine manufacturers would get an exemption without request if the
engines are for display only.
4. National Security
Engine manufacturers could receive an exemption for engines they
can show are needed by an agency of the federal government responsible
for national defense. For cases where the engines will not be used on
combat applications, the manufacturer would have to request the
exemption with the endorsement of the procuring government agency.
5. Exported Engines
Engines that will be exported to countries that don't have the same
emission standards as those that apply in the United States would be
exempted without need for a request. This exemption would not be
available if the destination country has the same emission standards as
those in the United States.
6. Competition Engines
New engines that are used solely for competition are excluded from
regulations applicable to nonroad engines. For purposes of our
certification requirements, a manufacturer would receive an exemption
if it can show that it produces the engine specifically for use solely
in competition. In addition, engines that have been modified for use in
competition would be exempt from the prohibition against tampering
described above (without need for request). The literal meaning of the
term ``used solely for competition'' would apply for these
modifications. We would therefore not allow the engine to be used for
anything other than competition once it has been modified. This also
applies to someone who would later buy the engine, so we would require
the person modifying the engine to remove or deface the original engine
label and inform a subsequent buyer in writing of the conditions of the
exemption.
7. Replacement Engines
An exemption would be available to engine manufacturers without
request if that is the only way to replace an engine from the field
that was produced before the current emission standards took effect. If
less stringent standards applied to the old engine when it was new, the
replacement engine would also have to meet those standards.
8. Hardship Related to Economic Burden
There are two types of hardship provisions. The first type of
hardship program would allow small businesses to petition EPA for
additional lead time (e.g., up to 3 years) to comply with the
standards. A small manufacturer would have to make the case that it has
taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply
but the burden of compliance costs would have a significant impact on
the company's solvency. A manufacturer would be required to provide a
compliance plan detailing when and how it would achieve compliance with
the standards. Hardship relief could include requirements for interim
emission reductions and/or purchase and use of emission credits. The
length of the hardship relief decided during review of the hardship
application would be up to one year, with the potential to extend the
relief as needed. The second hardship program would allow companies to
apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause
the failure to comply (i.e., supply contract broken by parts supplier)
and if the failure to sell the subject engines would have a major
impact on the company's solvency. See the proposed

[[Page 51166]]

regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.240 and 1068.241 for additional details.
9. Hardship for Equipment Manufacturers
Equipment manufacturers in many cases depend on engine
manufacturers to supply certified engines in time to produce complying
equipment by the date emission standards begin to apply. This is
especially true for industrial and marine applications. In other
programs, we have heard of certified engines being available too late
for equipment manufacturers to adequately accommodate changing engine
size or performance characteristics. To address this concern, we are
proposing to allow equipment manufacturers to request up to one extra
year before using certified engines if they are not at fault and would
face serious economic hardship without an extension. See the proposed
regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.245 for additional information.

D. Imports (Part 1068, Subpart D)

In general, the same certification requirements would apply to
engines and equipment whether they are produced in the U.S. or are
imported. This proposed regulation also includes some additional
provisions that would apply if someone wants to import an exempted or
excluded engine. For example, the importer would need written approval
from us to import any exempted engine; this is true even if an
exemption for the same reason doesn't require approval for engines
produced in the U.S.
All the proposed exemptions described above for new engines would
also apply to importation, though some of these apply only on a
temporary basis. If we approve a temporary exemption, it would be
available only for a defined period and could require the importer to
post bond while the engine is in the U.S. There are several additional
proposed exemptions that would apply only to imported engines.

--Identical configuration: This would be a permanent exemption to allow
individuals to import engines that were designed and produced to meet
applicable emission standards. These engines may not have the emission
label only because they were not intended for sale in the United
States. This exemption would apply to all the nonroad engines covered
by this proposal. We did not finalize this exemption for commercial
marine diesel engines, since we expected no individuals to own or
import such an engine.
--Personal use: This would be a permanent exemption to allow
individuals to import engines for their personal use. To prevent abuse
of this exemption, we would require that importers own the exempted
engines and we would generally exempt only one of each type of engine
over an individual's lifetime.
--``Antique'' engines: We would generally treat used engines as new if
they are imported without a certificate of conformity. However, this
permanent exemption would allow for importation of uncertified engines
if they are more than 20 years old in their original configuration.
--Repairs or alterations: This would be a temporary exemption to allow
companies to repair or modify engines. This exemption would not allow
for operating the engine, except as needed to do the intended work.
--Diplomatic or military: This would be a temporary exemption to allow
diplomatic or military personnel to use uncertified engines during
their term of service in the U.S.

We request comment on all the proposed exemptions for domestically
produced and imported engines and vehicles.

E. Selective Enforcement Audit (Part 1068, Subpart E)

Clean Air Act section 206(b) gives us the discretion in any program
with vehicle or engine emission standards to do selective enforcement
auditing of production engines. In selective enforcement auditing, we
would choose an engine family and give the manufacturer a test order
detailing a testing program to show that production-line engines meet
emission standards. The proposed regulation text describes the audit
procedures in greater detail.
We intend generally to rely on manufacturers' testing of
production-line engines to show that they comply with emission
standards. However, we reserve our right to do selective enforcement
auditing if we have reason to question the emission testing conducted
and reported by the manufacturer.

F. Defect Reporting and Recall (Part 1068, Subpart F)

We are proposing provisions for defect reporting. Specifically, we
are proposing that manufacturers tell us when they learn of a defect
occurring 25 times or more for engine families with annual sales up to
10,000 units. This threshold of defects would increase proportionately
for larger families. For catalyst-related defects, we propose a
threshold of approximately half the frequency of noncatalyst problems
to trigger a defect report. While these thresholds would depend on
engine family sales, counting defects would not be limited to a single
engine family. For example, if a manufacturer learns that operators
reported 25 cases of a short-circuit in the electronic control unit
from three different low-volume engine models spread over five years,
that would trigger the need to file a defect report. This information
could come from warranty claims, customer complaints, product
performance surveys, or anywhere else. The proposed regulation language
in Sec. 1068.501 also provides information on the thresholds for
triggering a further investigation for where a defect report is more
likely to be necessary. We request comment on the proposed defect
reporting provisions.
Under Clean Air Act section 207, if we determine that a substantial
number of engines within an engine family, although properly used and
maintained, do not conform to the appropriate emission standards, the
manufacturer will be required to remedy the problem and conduct a
recall of the noncomplying engine family. However, we also recognize
the practical difficulty in implementing an effective recall program
for nonroad engines. It would likely be difficult to properly identify
all the affected owners absent a nationwide registration requirement
similar to that for cars and trucks. The response rate for affected
owners or operators to an emission-related recall notice is also a
critical issue to consider. We recognize that in some cases, recalling
noncomplying nonroad engines may not achieve sufficient environmental
protection, so our intent is to generally allow manufacturers to
nominate alternative remedial measures to address most potential
noncompliance situations. We expect that successful implementation of
appropriate alternative remediation would obviate the need for us to
make findings of substantial nonconformity under section 207 of the
Act. We would consider alternatives nominated by a manufacturer based
on the following criteria; the alternatives should--
(1) Represent a new initiative that the manufacturer was not
otherwise planning to perform at that time, with a clear connection to
the emission problem demonstrated by the engine family in question;
(2) Cost more than foregone compliance costs and consider the time
value of the foregone compliance costs and the foregone environmental
benefit of the engine family;
(3) Offset at least 100 percent of the emission exceedance relative
to that

[[Page 51167]]

required to meet emission standards (or Family Emission Limits); and
(4) Be possible to implement effectively and expeditiously and to
complete in a reasonable time.
These criteria would guide us in evaluating projects to determine
whether their nature and burden is appropriate to remedy the
environmental impact of the nonconformity. We request comment on this
approach to addressing the Clean Air Act provisions related to recall.
In addition, we request comment on the proposed requirement to keep
recall-related records until three years after a manufacturer completes
all responsibilities under a recall order.

G. Public Hearings (Part 1068, Subpart G)

According to this regulation, manufacturers would have the
opportunity to challenge our decision to suspend, revoke, or void an
engine family's certificate. This also applies to our decision to
reject the manufacturer's use of good engineering judgment (see
Sec. 1068.005). Part 1068, subpart G, describes the proposed procedures
for a public hearing to resolve such a dispute.

VIII. General Test Procedures

The regulatory text in part 1065 is written with the intent to
apply broadly to EPA engine programs. This proposal, however, applies
to anyone who tests engines to show that they meet the emission
standards for Large Industrial SI engines or for recreational vehicles.
This includes certification testing, as well as all production-line and
in-use testing. See the program descriptions above for testing
provisions that are unique to Large SI engines. We may later propose to
apply the same provisions to other engines, with any appropriate
additions and changes. Recreational marine diesel engines would use the
test procedures already adopted in 40 CFR part 94.

A. General Provisions

As we have done in previous programs, we are proposing specific
test procedures to define how measurements are to be made, but would
allow the use of alternate procedures if they are shown to be
equivalent to our specified procedures. The test procedures proposed in
part 1065 are derived from our test procedures in 40 CFR Part 86 for
highway heavy-duty gasoline engines and light-duty vehicles. The
procedures have been simplified (and to some extent generalized) to
better fit nonroad engines. We request comment on all aspects of these
proposed test procedures. We also request comment regarding whether any
additional parts of the test procedures contained in 40 CFR part 86
(for highway vehicles and engines), in other parts that apply to
nonroad engines, or in ISO 8178 should be incorporated into the final
test procedures.

B. Laboratory Testing Equipment

The proposed regulations do not specify the type of engine or
chassis dynamometer that must be used during testing. Rather, they
include performance criteria that must be met during each test. These
criteria are intended to ensure that deviations from the specified
speed and load duty cycle are small. Steady-state testing calls for a
minimal degree of sophistication in the dynamometer system.
Measuring emissions during transient operation calls for a greater
degree of sophistication than steady-state testing. For chassis testing
of recreational vehicles, we propose to use the specifications adopted
in 40 CFR part 86 for highway engines. For Large SI engines, we based
the dynamometer specifications around the capabilities of current
dynamometers with enhanced control capabilities. Furthermore, we would
require any EPA confirmatory testing to meet more stringent
specifications than manufacturers testing their own engines.
In addition, for transient testing with recreational vehicles and
any testing with Large SI engines, the proposed regulations specify
that emissions be measured using a full-dilution constant-volume
sampler (CVS) like those used to measure emissions from highway
engines. This means that during a test, an engine's exhaust would be
routed into a dilution tunnel where it would be mixed with air, and
then sampled using a bag sampler system. After the test, the
concentrations of HC, CO, and NO_X in the bag would be
measured using conventional laboratory analyzers.
For industrial spark-ignition engines and snowmobiles, the proposed
steady-state test procedures specify measuring emissions with dilute-
sampling equipment. Some manufacturers have expressed a preference to
continue with their established practice of using raw-sampling
equipment and procedures. While we believe dilute-sampling is most
appropriate for these engines, the proposed provisions for alternate
testing procedures may allow for raw-sampling measurements. As
specified in paragraph 1065.010(c)(3) of the proposed regulations, we
would allow manufacturers to use alternate procedures that are shown to
be equivalent to the proposed procedures. We request comment on this
approach to emission-measurement procedures. Specifically, we request
comment on the degree of equivalence that should be shown to gain
approval of alternate procedures. See the final rule for 2007 heavy-
duty highway engine emission standards for one approach of defining a
tolerance on equivalence for alternate procedures (66 FR 5002, January,
18, 2001).

C. Laboratory Testing Procedures

We are proposing specific procedures for running the test. These
procedures are outlined briefly here, with a more detailed description
of the most significant aspects. Before starting the test, it would be
necessary to operate the engine for some time to improve the stability
of the emissions, or to make the engine more representative of in-use
engines. This is called service accumulation, and may take one of two
forms. In the first method, a new engine is operated for about 50 hours
as a break-in period. This would be done for most or all emission-data
engines (for certification). The second method is much longer (up to
the full useful life), and is done to obtain deterioration factors.
Once an engine is ready for testing, it is connected to the
dynamometer with its exhaust flowing into the dilution tunnel. The
dynamometer is controlled to make the engine follow the specified duty
cycle. A continuous sample would be collected from the dilution tunnel
for each test segment or test mode using sample bags. These bags would
then be analyzed to determine the concentrations of HC, CO, and
NO_X.
1. Test Speeds
The definition of maximum test speed, where speed is the angular
velocity of an engine's crankshaft (usually expressed in revolutions
per minute, or rpm), is an important aspect of the duty cycles for
testing. Until recently, we relied on engine manufacturers to declare
reasonable rated speeds for their engines and then used the rated speed
as the maximum test speed. However, to have a more objective measure of
an engine's maximum test speed, we have established an objective
procedure for measuring this engine parameter.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\162\ See the final rule for commercial marine diesel engines
for a broader discussion of maximum test speed (64 FR 249, December
29, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We propose to define the maximum test speed for any engine to be
the single point on an engine's maximum-power versus speed curve that
lies farthest away from the zero-power, zero-speed point on a
normalized maximum-power

[[Page 51168]]

versus speed plot. In other words, consider straight lines drawn
between the origin (speed = 0, load = 0) and each point on an engine's
normalized maximum-power versus speed curve. Maximum test speed is
defined at that point where the length of this line reaches its maximum
value. For constant-speed engines, maximum test speed is the engine's
rated speed.
Intermediate speed for steady-state duty cycles is generally
defined as the speed at which the engine generates its maximum torque
value. However, in cases where the maximum torque occurs at a speed
that is less than 60 percent or greater than 75 percent of the rated
speed, the intermediate speed is often specified as either 60 or 75
percent of rated speed, whichever is closer to the speed of maximum
torque. We propose to use this approach, using the maximum test speed
described above to calculate these percentage values.
We request comment on applying this method of determining rated
speed to ATVs certified to engine-based emission standards,
recreational marine diesel engines, and Large SI engines.
2. Maintenance
As described in Section III.C.1, we are proposing limits on the
amount of scheduled maintenance manufacturers may prescribe for their
customers to ensure that engines continue to meet emission standards.
If manufacturers would specify unreasonably frequent maintenance, there
would be little assurance that in-use engines would continue to operate
at certified emission levels. We would also apply these minimum
maintenance intervals to engines the manufacturer operates for service
accumulation before testing for emissions. For example, manufacturers
could not install a new catalyst on a Large SI engine after 2,000 hours
of operation, then select that engine for the in-use testing program.
Similarly, manufacturers could not replace fuel-system components on a
recreational vehicle during the course of service accumulation for
establishing deterioration factors. We would not restrict scheduling of
routine maintenance item such as changing engine oil and replacing oil,
fuel, or air filters. We may also allow changing spark plugs, even
though we are aware that spark plugs can significantly affect
emissions.

IX. Projected Impacts

This section summarizes the projected impacts of the proposed
emission standards. The anticipated environmental benefits are compared
with the projected cost of the program for an assessment of the cost
per ton of reducing emissions for this proposal.

A. Environmental Impact

To estimate nonroad engine and vehicle emission contributions, we
used the latest version of our NONROAD emissions model. This model
computes emission levels for a wide variety of nonroad engines, and
uses information on emission rates, operating data, and population to
determine annual emission levels of various pollutants. A more detailed
description of the methodology used for projecting inventories and
projections for additional years can be found in the Chapter 6 of the
Draft Regulatory Support Document. We request comment on all aspects of
the emission inventory analysis, including the usage rates and other
inputs used in the analysis.
Tables IX.A-1 and IX.A-2 contain the projected emission inventories
for the years 2010 and 2020, respectively, from the engines and
vehicles subject to this proposal under the base case (i.e., without
the proposed standards taking effect) and assuming the proposed
standards take effect. The percent reductions based on a comparison of
estimated emission inventories with and without the proposed emission
standards are also presented.

Table IX.A-1.--2010 Projected Emissions Inventories
[Thousand short tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust CO Exhaust NO_X Exhaust HC**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category With With With
Base case proposed Percent Base case proposed Percent Base case proposed Percent
standards reduction standards reduction standards reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial SI >19kW.................................. 2,615 1,152 56 397 152 62 293 111 62
Snowmobiles.......................................... 567 415 27 1 1 0 213 155 27
ATVs................................................. 3,901 3,380 13 21 21 0 1,098 756 31
Off-highway motorcycles.............................. 194 172 11 1 1 0 143 112 22
Recreational Marine diesel*.......................... 5 5 0 31 29 7 0.9 1.0 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 7,282 5,124 30 451 204 55 1,748 1,135 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We also anticipate a 2 percent reduction in direct PM from a baseline of inventory of 1,184 tons in 2010 to a control inventory of 1,158 tons.
** The Industrial SI >19 kW estimate includes both exhaust and evaporative emissions.

Table IX.A-2.--2020 Projected Emissions Inventories
[Thousand short tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust CO Exhaust NO_X Exhaust HC**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category With With With
Base case proposed Percent Base case proposed Percent Base case proposed Percent
standards reduction standards reduction standards reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial SI >19kW.................................. 2,991 231 92 486 77 84 346 50 86
Snowmobiles.......................................... 609 227 63 2 2 0 229 85 63
ATVs................................................. 4,589 3,041 34 25 25 0 1,301 205 84
Off-highway motorcycles.............................. 208 154 26 1 1 0 154 77 50
Recreational Marine diesel*.......................... 6 6 0 39 32 17 1.3 1.0 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51169]]

Total.......................................... 8,404 3,658 56 552 137 75 2,032 418 79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We also anticipate a 6 percent reduction in direct PM from a baseline of inventory of 1,470 tons in 2020 to a control inventory of 1,390 tons.
** The Industrial SI >19 kW estimate includes both exhaust and evaporative emissions.

As described in Section II, we project there would also be
environmental benefits associated with reduced haze in many sensitive
areas.
Finally, anticipated reductions in hydrocarbon emissions correspond
with reduced emissions of the toxic air emissions referenced in Section
II.

B. Economic Impact

In assessing the economic impact of setting emission standards, we
have made a best estimate of the technologies and their associated
costs to meet the proposed standards. In making our estimates we have
relied on our own technology assessment, which includes information
supplied by individual manufacturers and our own in-house testing.
Estimated costs include variable costs (for hardware and assembly time)
and fixed costs (for research and development, retooling, and
certification). The analysis also considers total operating costs,
including maintenance and fuel consumption. Cost estimates based on the
projected technologies represent an expected change in the cost of
engines as they begin to comply with new emission standards. All costs
are presented in 2001 dollars. Full details of our cost analysis can be
found in Chapter 5 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. We request
comment on this cost information, and the issues discussed below.
Cost estimates based on the current projected costs for our
estimated technology packages represent an expected incremental cost of
vehicles in the near term. For the longer term, we have identified
factors that would cause cost impacts to decrease over time. First, we
project that manufacturers will generally recover their fixed costs
over a five-year period, so these costs disappear from the analysis
after the fifth year of production. Second, the analysis incorporates
the expectation that manufacturers and suppliers will apply ongoing
research and manufacturing innovation to making emission controls more
effective and less costly over time. Research in the costs of
manufacturing has consistently shown that as manufacturers gain
experience in production and use, they are able to apply innovations to
simplify machining and assembly operations, use lower cost materials,
and reduce the number or complexity of component parts.\163\ (see the
Draft Regulatory Support Document for additional information). The cost
analysis generally incorporates this learning effect by decreasing
estimated variable costs by 20 percent starting in the third year of
production and an additional 20 percent starting in the sixth year of
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\163\ For further information on learning curves, see Chapter 5
of the Economic Impact, from Regulatory Impact Analysis--Control if
Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements,
EPA420-R-99-023, December 1999. A copy of this document is included
in Air Docket A-2000-01, at Document No. II-A-83. The interested
reader should also refer to previous final rules for Tier 2 highway
vehicles (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), marine diesel engines (64
FR 73300, December 29, 1999), nonroad diesel engines (63 FR 56968,
October 23, 1998), and highway diesel engines (62 FR 54694, October
21, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IX.B-1 summarizes the projected costs to meet the new
emission limits (retail-price equivalent). Long-term impacts on engine
costs are expected to decrease as manufacturers fully amortize their
fixed costs and learn to optimize their designs and production
processes to meet the standards more efficiently. The tables also show
our projections of reduced operating costs for some engines (calculated
on a net present value basis), which generally results from substantial
reductions in fuel consumption.
We estimate that the anticipated increase in the cost of producing
new Large SI engines for the proposed 2004 standards is estimated to
range from $550 to $800, depending on fuel type, with a composite
estimated cost of $600. This cost is attributed to upgrading engines to
operate with closed-loop fuel systems and three-way catalysts. These
technologies also improve the overall performance of these engines,
including improvements to fuel economy that result in reduced operating
costs that fully offset the additional hardware cost. We further
estimate additional costs of $45 for the 2007 standards, which
primarily involves additional development time to optimize engines
using the same closed-loop systems with three-way catalysts. While
these costs are a small percentage of the cost of industrial equipment,
we are aware that this is no small change in this very competitive
market. Given the compelling advantages of improved performance and
reduced operating expenses, however, we believe manufacturers will
generally be able to recover their costs over time.\164\ We request
comment on whether these estimated costs associated with emission
controls would affect larger or smaller engines disproportionately to
the overall cost of producing the engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\164\ Chapter 5 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document
describes why we believe market forces haven't already led
manufacturers to add fuel-saving technologies to their products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Projected costs for ATVs and off-highway motorcycles average
between $50 and $150 per unit. Initial standards are based on the
emission-control capability of engines four-stroke engines. Those
models that convert from two-stroke to four-stroke technology will see
substantial fuel savings in addition to greatly reduced emissions. The
second phase of standards for ATVs is based on recalibrating four-
stroke engines for lower emissions and adding a two-way catalyst or
other device to further reduce emissions. With an averaging program
that allows manufacturers to apply varying degrees of technology to
different models, we believe they will be able to tailor emission
controls in a way that reflects the marketing constraints for their
products. Fuel savings and improved performance offsets the additional
cost of producing most of these vehicles.
We expect that the cost of the 2006 snowmobile standards will
average $55 per snowmobile. These costs are based on manufacturers
leaning out the air/fuel mixture, improving carburetors for better fuel
control and less production

[[Page 51170]]

variation, and modifying the engine to withstand higher temperatures
and potential misfire episodes attributed to enleanment. We expect that
the 2010 standards will be met through the application of direct
injection 2-stroke technology on a significant portion of the fleet, as
well as some conversion to 4-stroke engines. We project that the cost
of these controls would average $216 per snowmobile, although we
believe these costs would be offset by fuel savings and improved
performance.
Recreational marine diesel engines would be expected to see
increased costs averaging $443 per engine in the near term. We expect
manufacturers to meet the proposed standards by improving fuel
injection systems and making general design changes to the geometries,
configurations, and calibrations of their engines. These figures are
somewhat lower than we have projected for the comparable commercial
marine engines, since the recreational models generally already have
some of the emission-control technologies needed to meet the proposed
emission standards.

Table IX.B-1.--Estimated Average Cost Impacts of Proposed Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Lifetime
production operating
Engine type Standard cost per costs per
engine* engine (NPV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large SI........................................................ 2004 $600 -$3,985
Large SI........................................................ 2007 45 ..............
Snowmobiles..................................................... 2006 55 ..............
Snowmobiles..................................................... 2010 216 -509
ATVs............................................................ 2006 60 -102
ATVs............................................................ 2009 52 ..............
Off-highway motorcycles......................................... 2006 151 -98
Marine diesel................................................... 2006 443 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The estimated long-term costs decrease by about 35 percent. Costs presented for second-phase standards for
Large SI and ATVs are incremental to the first-phase standards.

The above analysis presents unit cost estimates for each engine
type. These costs represent the total set of costs the engine
manufacturers will bear to comply with emission standards. With current
and projected estimates of engine and equipment sales, we translate
these costs into projected direct costs to the nation for the new
emission standards in any year. A summary of the annualized costs to
manufacturers by equipment type is presented in Table IX.B-2. (The
annualized costs are determined over the first twenty-years that the
proposed standards would be effective.) The annual cost savings due to
reduced operating expenses, start slowly, then increase as greater
numbers of compliant engines enter the fleet. Table IX.B-2 presents a
summary of the annualized reduced operating costs as well. Overall, we
project, based on information currently available to us, that the
annualized net savings to the economy would be approximately $260
million per year.

Table IX.B-2.--Estimated Annual Cost to Manufacturers and Annual Savings
From Reduced Operating Costs of the Proposed Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Annualized savings from
cost to reduced
Engine type manufacturers operating
(millions/ costs
year) (millions/
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large SI................................ $85 $324
Snowmobiles............................. 24 28
ATVs.................................... 59 81
Off-highway motorcycles................. 13 10
Marine Diesel........................... 3 0
-------------------------------
Aggregate......................... 184 443
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced

We calculated the cost per ton of emission reductions for the
proposed standards. For snowmobiles, this calculation is on the basis
of CO emissions. For all other engines, we attributed the entire cost
of the proposed program to the control of ozone precursor emissions (HC
or NO_X or both). A separate calculation could apply to
reduced CO or PM emissions in some cases. Assigning the full compliance
costs to a narrow emissions basis leads to cost-per-ton values that
underestimate of the value of the proposed program.
Table IX.C-1 presents the near-term discounted cost-per-ton
estimates for the various engines covered by the proposal. (The
aggregate cost-per-ton estimates are over the first 20 years of the
proposed programs.) Reduced operating costs more than offset the
increased cost of producing the cleaner engines for Phase 1 Large SI,
Phase 1 ATV, and Phase 2 snowmobile engines. The cost to society and
the associated cost-per-ton figures for these engines, and the
aggregate values for all engines covered by this proposal, therefore
show a net savings resulting from the proposed emission standards. The
table presents these as $0 per ton, rather than calculating a negative
value that has no clear meaning.

[[Page 51171]]

Table IX.C-1.--Estimated Cost-per-Ton of the Proposed Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted cost per ton Discounted cost per ton
Discounted of HC+NO_X of CO
reductions ---------------------------------------------------
Engine type Standard per engine Without Without
(short fuel With fuel fuel With fuel
tons) * savings savings savings savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large SI (Composite of all fuels). 2004 3.14 $220 $0 ........... ...........
Large SI (Composite of all fuels). 2007 0.56 80 80 ........... ...........
Snowmobiles....................... 2006 1.18 ........... ........... $50 $50
Snowmobiles....................... 2010 0.32 ........... ........... 670 0
ATVs.............................. 2006 0.88 70 0 ........... ...........
ATVs.............................. 2009 0.09 550 550 ........... ...........
Off-highway motorcycles........... 2006 0.37 310 110 ........... ...........
Marine diesel..................... 2006 0.68 580 580 ........... ...........
Aggregate......................... ........... ........... 140 0 100 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* HC+NO_X reductions, except snowmobiles which are CO reductions.

D. Additional Benefits

For most of the engine categories contained in today's proposal, we
expect there will be a fuel savings as manufacturers redesign their
engines to comply with the proposed standards. For ATVs and off-highway
motorcycles, the fuel savings will be realized as manufacturers switch
from 2-stroke to 4-stroke technologies. For snowmobiles, the fuel
savings will be realized as manufacturers switch some of their engines
to more fuel efficient 2-stroke technologies and some of their engines
to 4-stroke technologies. For Large SI engines, the fuel savings will
be realized as manufacturers adopt more sophisticated and more
efficient fuel systems. This is true for all fuels. Overall, we project
the fuel savings associated with the anticipated changes in technology
would be about 730 million gallons per year once the program is fully
phased in. These savings are factored into the calculated costs and
costs per ton of reduced emissions, as described above.
The controls in this rule are a cost-effective means of obtaining
reductions in NO_X, NMHC and CO emissions. A related subject
concerns the value of the health and welfare benefits these reductions
might produce. While we have not conducted a formal benefit-cost
analysis for this rule, we believe the benefits of this rule clearly
will greatly outweigh any cost.
Ozone causes a range of health problems related to breathing,
including chest pain, coughing, and shortness of breath. Exposure to PM
(including secondary PM formed in the atmosphere from NO_X
and NMHC emissions) has been associated in epidemiological studies with
premature death, increased emergency room visits, and increased
respiratory symptoms, and exacerbation of existing cardio-pulmonary
disease. Children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing
respiratory conditions are most at risk regarding both ozone and PM. In
addition, ozone and PM adversely affect the environment in various
ways, including crop damage, acid rain, and visibility impairment. A
discussion of the health and welfare effects from ozone and PM can be
found in Section II of this preamble. Interested readers should also
refer to Chapter 1 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this
rule and Chapter 2 of EPA's ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements.''\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\165\ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,
document EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. Docket No. 1-2000-01,
Document No. II-A-13. This document is also available at http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In two recent mobile-source control rules, for light-duty vehicles
(the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur rule) and for highway heavy-duty engines
and diesel fuel, we conducted a full analysis of the expected benefits
once those rules are fully implemented. These rules, which primarily
reduced NO_X and NMHC emissions, were seen to yield health
and welfare benefits far exceeding the costs. EPA projected that
besides reducing premature mortality, these rules will reduce chronic
bronchitis cases, hospital admissions for respiratory and
cardiovascular causes, asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms,
emergency room visits for asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, work loss
days, minor restricted activity days, and decreased worker
productivity.
The majority of the benefits from those recent rules were due to
their NO_X and NMHC emission reductions. Given the
similarities in pollutants being controlled, we would expect this rule
to produce similar benefits per ton of emission reduction. Since the
cost per ton of emission reduction for this rule is substantially lower
than that for the two previous rules, we would expect an even more
favorable benefit-cost ratio. Thus, we believe that the value of the
health and welfare benefits of this rule would substantially outweigh
any cost.

X. Public Participation

We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section
describes how you can participate in this process.

A. How Do I Submit Comments?

We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document.
We will accept comments for the period indicated under DATES above. If
you have an interest in the program described in this document, we
encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking. We request
comment on various topics throughout this proposal.
We attempted to incorporate all the comments received in response
to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, though not all comments
are addressed directly in this document. Anyone who has submitted
comments on the Advance Notice, or any previous publications related to
this proposal, and feels that those comments have not been adequately
addressed is encouraged to resubmit comments as appropriate.
Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. If you disagree with
parts of the proposed program, we encourage you to suggest and analyze
alternate approaches to meeting the air quality goals described in this
proposal. You should send all comments, except those containing
proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see Addresses) before the
end of the comment period.
If you submit proprietary information for our consideration, you
should clearly separate it from other comments

[[Page 51172]]

by labeling it ``Confidential Business Information.'' You should also
send it directly to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT instead of the public docket. This will help ensure
that no one inadvertently places proprietary information in the docket.
If you want us to use your confidential information as part of the
basis for the final rule, you should send a nonconfidential version of
the document summarizing the key data or information. We will disclose
information covered by a claim of confidentiality only through the
application of procedures described in 40 CFR part 2. If you don't
identify information as confidential when we receive it, we may make it
available to the public without notifying you.

B. Will There Be a Public Hearing?

We will hold a public hearing in the Washington, DC area on October
24 and a second public hearing in Denver, CO on October 31. The
hearings will start at 9:30 am and continue until everyone has had a
chance to speak.
If you would like to present testimony at a public hearing, we ask
that you notify the contact person listed above at least ten days
before the hearing. You should estimate the time you will need for your
presentation and identify any needed audio/visual equipment. We suggest
that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA
panel and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy
of your statement or other materials before the hearing.
We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based
on the notifications we receive. This schedule will be available on the
morning of each hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time
for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.
We will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of
evidence won't apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the
hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to
allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make
arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court
reporter.

XI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis (Executive Order
12866)

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as any regulatory action
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
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;
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
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 Draft Regulatory Support Document has been prepared and is
available in the docket for this rulemaking and at the internet address
listed under ADDRESSES above. This action was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review under Executive Order 12866.
Estimated annual costs of this rulemaking, which proposes standards for
engines in four distinct categories, are estimated to be $184 million
per year, thus this proposed rule is considered economically
significant. Written comments from OMB and responses from EPA to OMB
comments are in the public docket for this rulemaking.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), As Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

1. Overview
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute 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 organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meet
the definition for business based on SBA size standards (see table
below); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. The following table provides an
overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially
affected by this regulation.

Primary SBA Small Business Categories Potentially Affected by This
Proposed Regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS a Defined by SBA as a small
Industry codes business if b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycles and motorcycle 336991 500 employees.
parts manufacturers.
Snowmobile and ATV 336999 500 employees.
manufacturers.
Independent Commercial 421110 100 employees.
Importers of Vehicles and
parts.
Nonroad SI engines............ 333618 1,000 employees.
Internal Combustion Engines... 333618 1,000 employees.
Boat Building and Repairing... 336612 500 employees.
Fuel Tank Manufacturers....... 336211 1,000 employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
a North American Industry Classification System
b According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR part 121), businesses with no
more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts
are considered ``small entities'' for purposes of a regulatory
flexibility analysis.

[[Page 51173]]

2. Background
In accordance with Section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the
docket and is summarized below.
The process of establishing standards for nonroad engines began in
1991 with a study to determine whether emissions of carbon monoxide
(CO), oxides of nitrogen ( NO_X), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from new and existing nonroad engines, equipment, and
vehicles are significant contributors to ozone and CO concentrations in
more than one area that has failed to attain the national ambient air
quality standards for ozone and CO.\166\ In 1994, EPA finalized its
finding that nonroad engines as a whole ``are significant contributors
to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations'' in more than one ozone or
carbon monoxide nonattainment area.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\166\ ``Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study--Report and
Appendices,'' EPA-21A-201, November 1991 (available in Air docket A-
91-24). It is also available through the National Technical
Information Service, referenced as document PB 92-126960.
\167\ 59 FR 31306 (July 17, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon this finding, the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) requires EPA
to establish standards for all classes or categories of new nonroad
engines that cause or contribute to air quality nonattainment in more
than one ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area. Since the
finding in 1994, EPA has been engaged in the process of establishing
programs to control emissions from nonroad engines used in many
different applications. Nonroad categories already regulated include:
Land-based compression ignition (CI) engines (e.g., farm
and construction equipment),
Small land-based spark-ignition (SI) engines (e.g., lawn
and garden equipment, string trimmers).
Marine engines (outboards, personal watercraft, CI
commercial, CI engines 37kW),
Locomotive engines.
On December 7, 2000, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM). As discussed in the ANPRM, the proposal under
development will be a continuation of the process of establishing
standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, as required by CAA section
213(a)(3). If, as expected, standards for these engines and vehicles
are established, essentially all new nonroad engines will be required
to meet emissions control requirements. The proposal being developed
covers compression-ignition recreational marine engines. It also covers
several nonroad spark ignition (SI) engine applications, as follows:
Land-based recreational engines (for example, engines used
in snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles
(ATVs)),
Marine sterndrive and inboard (SD/I) engines and boats
powered by SI marine engines,\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\168\ As a shorthand notation in this document, we are using
``recreational marine engines'' to mean recreational marine diesel
engines and all gasoline SD/I engines, even though some SD/I
applications could be commercial. We are similarly using
``recreational boats'' to mean boats powered by recreational marine
diesel engines as well as all boats powered by gasoline engines,
even though some gasoline engine-powered boats may be commercial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land-based engines rated over 19 kW (Large SI) (for
example, engines used in forklifts); this category includes auxiliary
marine engines, which are not used for propulsion.
EPA found that the nonroad engines described above cause or
contribute to air quality nonattainment in more than one ozone or
carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area.\169\ CAA section 213 (a)(3)
requires EPA to establish standards that achieve the greatest degree of
emissions reductions achievable taking cost and other factors into
account. EPA plans to propose emissions standards and related programs
consistent with the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\169\ See Final Finding, ``Control of Emissions from New Nonroad
Spark-Ignition Engines Rated above 19 Kilowatts and New Land-Based
Recreational Spark-Ignition Engines'' elsewhere in today's Federal
Register for EPA's finding for Large SI engines and recreational
vehicles. EPA's findings for marine engines are contained in 61 FR
52088 (October 4, 1996) for gasoline engines and 64 FR 73299
(December 29, 1999) for diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to proposing standards for the nonroad vehicles and
engines noted above, EPA also intends to review EPA requirements for
highway motorcycles. The emissions standards for highway motorcycles
were established twenty-three years ago. These standards allow
motorcycles to emit about 100 times as much per mile as new cars and
light trucks. California recently adopted new emissions standards for
highway motorcycles, and new standards and testing cycles are being
considered internationally. There may be opportunities to reduce
emissions in a cost-effective way.
The program under consideration will cover engines and vehicles
that vary in design and use, and many readers may only be interested in
one or two of the applications. There are various ways EPA could group
the engines and present information. For purposes of the proposed rule
EPA has chosen to group engines by common applications (e.g,
recreational land-based engines, marine engines, large spark ignition
engines used in commercial applications).
3. Summary of Regulated Small Entities
The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are the
following:
a. Recreational Vehicles (ATVs, snowmobiles, and off-highway
motorcycles). The ATV sector has the broadest assortment of
manufacturers. There are seven companies representing over 95 percent
of total domestic ATV sales. The remaining 5 percent come from
importers who tend to import inexpensive, youth-oriented ATVs from
China and other Asian nations. We have identified 21 small companies
that offer off-road motorcycles, ATVs, or both products. Annual unit
sales for these companies can range from a few hundred to several
thousand units per year.
Based on available industry information, four major manufacturers,
Arctic Cat, Bombardier (also known as Ski-Doo), Polaris, and Yamaha,
account for over 99 percent of all domestic snowmobile sales. The
remaining one percent comes from very small manufacturers who tend to
specialize in unique and high performance designs. We have identified
three small manufacturers of snowmobiles and one potential small
manufacturer who hopes to produce snowmobiles within the next year.
Two of these manufacturers (Crazy Mountain and Fast), plus the
potential newcomer (Redline) specialize in high performance versions of
standard recreational snowmobile types (i.e., travel and mountain
sleds). The other manufacturer (Fast Trax) produces a unique design,
which is a scooter-like snowmobile designed to be ridden standing up.
Most of these manufacturers build less than 50 units per year.
b. Highway Motorcycles. Of the numerous manufacturers supplying the
U.S. market for highway motorcycles, Honda, Harley Davidson, Yamaha,
Kawasaki, Suzuki, and BMW are the largest, accounting for 95 percent or
more of the total U.S. sales. All of these companies except Harley-
Davidson and BMW also manufacture off-road motorcycles and ATVs for the
U.S. market. Harley-Davidson is the only company manufacturing highway
motorcycles exclusively in the U.S. for the U.S. market.
Since highway motorcycles have had to meet emission standards for
the last

[[Page 51174]]

twenty years, EPA has good information on the number of companies that
manufacture or market highway motorcycles for the U.S. market in each
model year. In addition to the big six manufacturers noted above, EPA
finds as many as several dozen more companies that have operated in the
U.S. market in the last couple of model years. Most of these are U.S.
companies that are either manufacturing or importing motorcycles,
although a few are U.S. affiliates of larger companies in Europe or
Asia. Some of the U.S. manufacturers employ only a few people and
produce only a handful of custom motorcycles per year, while others may
employ several hundred and produce up to several thousand motorcycles
per year.
c. Marine Vessels. Marine vessels include the boat, engine, and
fuel system. The evaporative emission controls discussed above may
affect the boat builders and/or the fuel tank manufacturers. Exhaust
emission controls including NTE requirements, as addressed in the
August 29, 1999 SBAR Panel Report, would affect the engine
manufacturers and may affect boat builders.
EPA has less precise information about recreational boat builders
than is available about engine manufacturers. EPA has utilized several
sources, including trade associations and Internet sites when
identifying entities that build and/or sell recreational boats. EPA has
also worked with an independent contractor to assist in the
characterization of this segment of the industry. Finally, EPA has
obtained a list of nearly 1,700 boat builders known to the U.S. Coast
Guard to produce boats using engines for propulsion. At least 1,200 of
these companies install engines that use gasoline fueled engines and
would therefore be subject to the evaporative emission control program
discussed above. More than 90% of the companies identified so far would
be considered small businesses as defined by SBA. EPA continues to
develop a more complete picture of this segment of the industry and
will provide additional information as it becomes available.
Based on information supplied by a variety of recreational boat
builders, fuel tanks for boats using SI marine engines are usually
purchased from fuel tank manufacturers. However, some boat builders
construct their own fuel tanks. The boat builder provides the
specifications to the fuel tank manufacturer who helps match the fuel
tank for a particular application. It is the boat builder's
responsibility to install the fuel tank and connections into their
vessel design. For vessels designed to be used with small outboard
engines, the boat builder may not install a fuel tank; therefore, the
end user would use a portable fuel tank with a connection to the
engine.
EPA has determined that total sales of tanks for gasoline marine
applications is approximately 550,000 units per year. The market is
broken into manufacturers that produce plastic tanks and manufacturers
that produce aluminum tanks. EPA has determined that there are at least
seven companies that make plastic fuel tanks with total sales of
approximately 440,000 units per year. EPA has determined that there at
least four companies that make aluminum fuel tanks with total sales of
approximately 110,000 units per year. All but one of these plastic and
aluminum fuel tank manufacturers is a small business as defined under
SBA.
EPA has determined that there are at least 16 companies that
manufacture CI diesel engines for recreational vessels. Nearly 75
percent of diesel engines sales for recreational vessels in 2000 can be
attributed to three large companies. Six of the 16 identified companies
are considered small businesses as defined by SBA. Based on sales
estimates for 2000, these six companies represent approximately 4
percent of recreational marine diesel engine sales. The remaining
companies each comprise between two and seven percent of sales for
2000.
EPA has determined that there are at least 24 companies that
manufacture SD/I gasoline engines (including airboats and jet boats)
for recreational vessels. Seventeen of the identified companies are
considered small businesses as defined by SBA. These 17 companies
represent approximately 6 percent of recreational gasoline marine
engines sales for 2000. Approximately 70-80 percent of gasoline SD/I
engines manufactured in 2000 can be attributed to one company. The next
largest company is responsible for about 10-20 percent of 2000 sales.
d. Large Spark Ignition Engines. EPA is aware of one engine
manufacturer of Large SI engines that qualifies as a small business.
This company plans to produce engines that meet the standards adopted
by CARB in 2004, with the possible exception of one engine family. If
EPA adopts long-term standards, this would require manufacturers to do
additional calibration and testing work. If EPA adopts new test
procedures (including transient operation), there may also be a cost
associated with upgrading test facilities.
4. Potential Reporting, Record Keeping, and Compliance
For any emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the
regulated engines will meet the standards. Historically, EPA programs
have included provisions placing manufacturers responsible for
providing these assurances. The program that EPA is considering for
manufacturers subject to this proposal may include testing, reporting,
and record keeping requirements. Testing requirements for some
manufacturers may include certification (including deterioration
testing), and production line testing. Reporting requirements would
likely include test data and technical data on the engines including
defect reporting. Manufacturers would likely have to keep records of
this information.
5. Related Federal Rules
The Panel is aware of several other current Federal rules that
relate to the proposed rule under development. During the Panel's
outreach meeting, SERs specifically pointed to Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) regulations covering ATVs, and noted that they may be
relevant to crafting an appropriate definition for a competition
exclusion in this category. The Panel recommends that EPA continue to
consult with the CPSC in developing a proposed and final rule in order
to better understand the scope of the Commission's regulations as they
may relate to the competition exclusion.
Other SERs, representing manufacturers of marine engines, noted
that the U.S. Coast Guard regulates vessel tanks, most notably tank
pressure and anti-siphoning requirements for carburetted engines. Tank
manufacturers would have to take these requirements into account in
designing evaporative control systems. The Panel recommends that EPA
continue to work with the Coast Guard to evaluate the safety
implications of any proposed evaporative emissions standards and to
avoid interference with Coast Guard safety regulations.
The Panel is also aware of other Federal rules that relate to the
categories that EPA would address with the proposed rule, but are not
likely to affect policy considerations in the rule development process.
For example, there are now EPA noise standards covering off-road
motorcycles; however, EPA expects that most emission control devices
are likely to reduce, rather than increase, noise, and that therefore
the noise standards are not likely to be important in developing a
proposed rule.

[[Page 51175]]

OTAQ is currently developing a proposal that would revise the rule
assigning fees to be paid by parties required to certify engines in
return for continuing Government oversight and testing. Among other
options, EPA could propose to extend the fee structure to several
classes of non-road engines for which requirements are being
established for the first time under the Recreation Rule. The Panel
understands that EPA will carefully examine the potential impacts of
the Fees Rule on small businesses. The Panel also notes that EPA's
Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards (OAQPS) is preparing a
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard for Engine
Testing Facilities, which is a related matter.
6. Significant Panel Findings
The Panel considered a wide range of options and regulatory
alternatives for providing small businesses with flexibility in
complying with the proposed emissions standards and related
requirements. As part of the process, the Panel requested and received
comment on several ideas for flexibility that were suggested by SERs
and Panel members. The major options recommended by the Panel are
summarized below. The complete set of recommendations can be found in
Section 9 of the Panel's full Report.
Many of the flexible approaches recommended by the Panel can be
applied to several of the equipment categories that would potentially
be affected by the proposed rule EPA is developing. These approaches
are identified in Table 1. First Tier Flexibilities: Based on
consultations with SERs, the Panel believes that the first four
provisions in Table 1 are likely to provide the greatest flexibility
for many small entities. These provisions are likely to be most
valuable because they either provide more time for compliance (e.g.,
additional leadtime and hardship provisions) or allow for certification
of engines based on particular engine designs or certification to other
EPA programs. Second Tier Flexibilities: The remaining four approaches
have the potential to reduce near-term and even long-term costs once a
small entity has a product it is preparing to certify. These are
important in that the costs of testing multiple engine families,
testing a fraction of the production line, and/or developing
deterioration factors can be significant. Small businesses could also
meet an emission standard on average or generate credits for producing
engines which emit at levels below the standard; these credits could
then be sold to other manufacturers for compliance or banked for use in
future model years.
During the consultation process, it became evident that, in a few
situations, it could be helpful to small entities if unique provisions
were available. Five such provisions are described below.
a. Snowmobiles. The Panel recommends EPA seek comment on a
provision which would allow small snowmobile manufacturers to petition
EPA for a relaxed standard for one or more engine families, up to 300
engines per year, until the family is retired or modified, if such a
standard is justifiable based on the criteria described in the Panel
report.
b. ATVs and Off-road Motorcycles. The Panel recommends that the
hardship provision for ATVs and off-road motorcycles allow hardship
relief to be reviewed annually for a period that EPA anticipates will
likely be no more than two years in order for importers to obtain
complying products.
c. Large SI. The Panel recommends that small entities be granted
the flexibility initially to reclassify a small number of their small
displacement engines into EPA's small spark-ignition engine program (40
CFR 90). Small entities would be allowed to use those requirements in
lieu of the requirements EPA intends to propose for large entities.
d. Marine Vessel Tanks. Most of this sector involves small fuel
tank manufacturers and small boat builders. The Panel recommends that
the program be structured with longer lead times and an early credit
generation program to enable the fuel tank manufacturers to implement
controls on tanks on a schedule consistent with their normal turnover
of fuel tank molds.
e. Highway Motorcycles. The California Air Resources Board (CARB)
has found that California's Tier 2 standard is potentially infeasible
for small manufacturers. Therefore, the Panel recommends that EPA delay
making decisions on the applicability to small businesses of Tier 2 or
other such revisions to the federal regulations until California's 2006
review is complete.
7. Summary of SBREFA Process and Panel Outreach
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA
conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject
to the rule's requirements.
On May 3, 2001, EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened
this Panel under Section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA). In addition to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the
Director of the Assessment and Standards Division (ASD) within EPA's
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the Deputy
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and Budget. As part of the SBAR
process, the Panel met with small entity representatives (SERs) to
discuss the potential emission standards and, in addition to the oral
comments from SERs, the Panel solicited written input. In the months
preceding the Panel process, EPA conducted outreach with small entities
from each of the five sectors as described above. On May 18, 2001, the
Panel distributed an outreach package to the SERs. On May 30 and 31,
2001, the Panel met with SERs to hear their comments on preliminary
alternatives for regulatory flexibility and related information. The
Panel also received written comments from the SERs in response to the
discussions at this meeting and the outreach materials. The Panel asked
SERs to evaluate how they would be affected under a variety of
regulatory approaches, and to provide advice and recommendations
regarding early ideas for alternatives that would provide flexibility
to address their compliance burden.
SERs representing companies in each of the sectors addressed by the
Panel raised concerns about the potential costs of complying with the
rules under development. For the most part, their concerns were focused
on two issues: (1) The difficulty (and added cost) that they would face
in complying with certification requirements associated with the
standards EPA is developing, and (2) the cost of meeting the standards
themselves. SERs observed that these costs would include the
opportunity cost of deploying resources for research and development,
expenditures for tooling/retooling, and the added cost of new engine
designs or other parts that would need to be added to equipment in
order to meet EPA emission standards. In addition, in each category,
the SERs noted that small manufacturers (and in the case of one
category, small importers) have fewer resources and are therefore less
well equipped to undertake these new activities and expenditures.
Furthermore, because their product lines tend to be smaller,

[[Page 51176]]

any additional fixed costs must be recovered over a smaller number of
units. Thus, absent any provisions to address these issues, new
emission standards are likely to impose much more significant adverse
effects on small entities than on their larger competitors.
The Panel discussed each of the issues raised in the outreach
meetings and in written comments by the SERs. The Panel agreed that EPA
should consider the issues raised by the SERs and that it would be
appropriate for EPA to propose and/or request comment on various
alternative approaches to address these concerns. The Panel's key
discussions centered around the need for and most appropriate types of
regulatory compliance alternatives for small businesses. The Panel
considered a variety of provisions to reduce the burden of complying
with new emission standards and related requirements. Some of these
provisions would apply to all companies (e.g., averaging, banking, and
trading), while others would be targeted at the unique circumstances
faced by small businesses. A complete discussion of the regulatory
alternatives recommended by the Panel can be found in the Final Panel
Report. Copies of the Final Report can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking or at www.epa.gov/sbrefa. Summaries of the Panel's
recommended alternatives for each of the sectors subject to this action
can be found in the respective sections of the preamble.
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA
also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject
to the rule's requirements. EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson
convened this on May 3, 2001. In addition to the Chair, the Panel
consisted of the Director of the Assessment and Standards Division
(ASD) within EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the
Deputy Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget.
The proposal being developed covers diesel engines used in
recreational marine applications. It also covers several nonroad spark
ignition (SI) engine applications, as follows:
Land-based recreational engines (for example, engines used
in snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles
(ATVs)),
Marine sterndrive and inboard (SD/I) engines and boats
powered by SI marine engines,
Land-based engines rated over 19 kW (Large SI) (for
example, engines used in forklifts); this category includes auxiliary
marine engines, which are not used for propulsion.
In addition to the nonroad vehicles and engines noted above, EPA
also intends to update EPA requirements for highway motorcycles.
Finally, the proposal being developed included evaporative emission
control requirements for gasoline fuel tanks and systems used on marine
vessels.
The Panel met with Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to discuss
the potential emissions standards and, in addition to the oral comments
from SERs, the Panel solicited written input. In the months preceding
the Panel process, EPA conducted outreach with small entities from each
of the five sectors as described above. On May 18, 2001, the Panel
distributed an outreach package to the SERs. On May 30 and 31, 2001,
the Panel met with SERs to hear their comments on preliminary options
for regulatory flexibility and related information. The Panel also
received written comments from the SERs in response to the discussions
at this meeting and the outreach materials. The Panel asked SERs to
evaluate how they would be affected under a variety of regulatory
approaches, and to provide advice and recommendations regarding early
ideas to provide flexibility. See Section 8 of the Panel Report for a
complete discussion of SER comments, and Appendices A and B for
summaries of SER oral comments and SER written comments.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
the elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the
docket for this proposed rule. The following are Panel recommendations
adopted by the Agency. Please note all Panel recommendations were
adopted for this proposal.
a. Related Federal Rules. The Panel recommends that EPA continue to
consult with the CPSC in developing a proposed and final rule in order
to better understand the scope of the Commission's regulations as they
may relate to the competition exclusion. In addition, the Panel
recommends that EPA continue to work with the Coast Guard to evaluate
the safety implications of any proposed evaporative emissions standards
and to avoid interference with Coast Guard safety regulations.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives. The Panel recommends that
EPA consider and seek comments on a wide range of alternatives,
including the flexibility options described below.
c. Large SI Engines. The Panel recommends that EPA propose several
possible provisions to address concern that the new EPA standards could
potentially place small businesses at a competitive disadvantage to
larger entities in the industry. These provisions are described below.
Using Certification and Emissions Standards from Other EPA
Programs. The Panel made several recommendations for this provision.
First, the Panel recommends that EPA temporarily expand this
arrangement to allow small numbers of constant-speed engines up to 2.5
liters (up to 30 kW) to be certified to the Small SI standards. Second,
the Panel further recommends that EPA seek comment on the
appropriateness of limiting the sales level of 300. Third, the Panel
recommends that EPA request comment on the anticipated cap of 30 kW on
the special treatment provisions outlined above, or whether a higher
cap on power rating is appropriate. Finally, the Panel recommends that
EPA propose to allow small-volume manufacturers producing engines up to
30 kW to certify to the small SI standards during the first 3 model
years of the program. Thereafter, the standards and test procedures
which could apply to other companies at the start of the program would
apply to small businesses.
Delay of Proposed Standards. If EPA includes a second phase of
standards in its proposal, the Panel recommends that EPA propose to
delay the applicability of these standards to small-volume
manufacturers for three years beyond the date at which they would
generally apply to accommodate the possibility that small companies
need to undertake further design work to adequately optimize their
designs and to allow them to recover the costs associated with the
Phase 1 emission standards that EPA is contemplating.
Production Line Testing. The Panel made several recommendations for
this provision. First, the Panel recommends that EPA adopt provisions
that allow more flexibility than is available under the California
Large SI program or other EPA programs generally to address the concern
that production-line testing is another area where small-volume
manufacturers typically face a difficult testing burden. Second, the
Panel recommends that EPA allow small-volume manufacturers to have a
reduced testing rate if they have consistently good test results from

[[Page 51177]]

testing production-line engines. Finally, the Panel recommends that EPA
allow small-volume manufacturers to use alternative low-cost testing
options to show that production-line engines meet emission standards.
Deterioration Factors. The Panel recommends that EPA allow small-
volume manufacturers to develop a deterioration factor based on
available emissions measurements and good engineering judgement.
Hardship Provision. The Panel recommends that EPA propose two types
of hardship provisions for Large SI engines. First the Panel recommends
that EPA allow small businesses to petition EPA for additional lead
time (e.g., up to 3 years) to comply with the standards. Second, the
Panel recommends that EPA allow small businesses to apply for hardship
relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to
comply (i.e., supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if the
failure to sell the subject engines would have a major impact on the
company's solvency.
d. Off-Road Motorcycles and All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs). The Panel
made the following recommendations for this subcategory.
The Panel recommends that EPA propose to apply the flexibilities
described below to engines produced or imported by small entities with
combined off-road motorcycle and ATV annual sales of less than 5,000
units per model year.
The Panel recommends that EPA request comment on the
appropriateness of the 5,000 unit per model year threshold.
The Panel recommends that EPA request comment on allowing small
entities with sales in excess of 5,000 units to certify using the
flexible approaches described below for a number of engines equal to
their 2000 or 2001 sales level.
The Panel recommends that EPA describe and seek comment on the
effect of the proposed standard on these entities, including a request
for any data and/or related studies to estimate the extent to which
sales of their products are likely to be reduced as a result of changes
in product price that are attributable to the proposed standards.
The Panel recommends that, in the final rule, EPA assess any
information received in response to this request for purposes of
informing the final rule decision making process on whether additional
flexibility (beyond that considered in this report) is warranted.
Additional Lead-time to Meet the Proposed Standards. First, the
Panel recommends that EPA propose at least a two year delay, but seek
comment on whether a larger time period is appropriate given the costs
of compliance for small businesses and the relationship between
importers and their suppliers. Second, the Panel recommends that EPA
provide additional time for small volume manufacturers to revise their
manufacturing process, and would allow importers to change their supply
chain to acquire complying products. Third, the Panel recommends that
EPA request comment on the appropriate length for a delay (lead-time).
Design Certification. First, the Panel recommends that EPA propose
to permit small entities to use design certification. Second, the Panel
recommends that EPA work with the Small Entity Representatives and
other members of the industry to develop appropriate criteria for such
design based certification.
Broaden Engine Families. The Panel recommends that EPA request
comment on engine family flexibility and conducting design-based
certification emissions testing.
Production Line Testing Waiver. The Panel recommends that EPA
propose to provide small manufacturers and small importers a waiver
from manufacturer production line testing. The Panel also recommends
that EPA request comment on whether limits or the scope of this waiver
are appropriate.
Use of Assigned Deterioration Factors During Certification. The
Panel recommends that EPA propose to provide small business with the
option to use assigned deterioration factors.
Using Certification and Emissions Standards from Other EPA
Programs. The Panel recommends that EPA propose to provide small
business with this flexibility through the fifth year of the proposed
program and request comment on which of the already established
standards and programs are believed to be a useful certification option
for the small businesses.
Averaging, Banking, and Trading. The Panel recommends that EPA
propose to provide small business with the same averaging, banking, and
trading program flexibilities proposed for large manufacturers and
request comment on how the provisions could be enhanced for small
business to make them more useful.
Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommends that EPA propose two
types of hardship program for off-road motorcycles and ATVs: (1) EPA
should allow small manufacturers and small importers to petition EPA
for limited additional lead-time to comply with the standards; and (2)
allow small manufacturers and small importers to apply for hardship
relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to
comply (i.e. supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if failure
to sell the subject engines or vehicles would have a major impact on
the company's solvency.
The Panel also recommends that EPA propose both aspects of the
hardship provisions for small off-road motorcycle and ATV manufacturers
and importers and seek comment on the implementation provisions.
e. Marine Vessels. Burden Reduction Approaches Designed for Small
Boat Builders and Fuel Tank Manufacturers.
Smooth Transition to Proposed Standards. The Panel recommends that
EPA propose an approach that would implement any evaporative standards
five years after a regulation for marine engines takes effect. The
Panel also recommends that EPA seek comment on this five year period
and on whether there are small entities whose product line is dominated
by tanks that turn over at a time rate slower time than five years.
Design-Based Certification. The Panel recommends that EPA propose
to grant small businesses the option of certifying to the evaporative
emission performance requirements based on fuel tank design
characteristics that reduce emissions. The Panel also recommends that
EPA seek comment on and consider proposing an approach that would allow
manufacturers to use this averaging approach with designs other than
those listed in the final rule.
ABT of Emission Credits with Design-Based Certification. The Panel
recommends that EPA allow manufacturers using design-based
certification to generate credits. The Panel also recommends that EPA
provide adequately detailed design specifications and associated
emission levels for several technology options that could be used to
certify.
Broadly Defined Product Certification Families. The Panel
recommends that EPA take comment on the need for broadly defined
emission families and how these families should be defined.
Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommends that EPA propose two
types of hardship programs for marine engine manufacturers and fuel
tank manufacturers: (1) Allow small businesses to petition EPA for
additional lead time to comply with the standards; and (2) allow small
businesses to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their
control cause the failure to comply (i.e. supply contract broken by
parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject fuel tanks

[[Page 51178]]

or boats would have a major impact on the company's solvency. The Panel
also recommends that EPA work with small manufacturers to develop these
criteria and how they would be used.
Burden Reduction Approaches Designed for Small Marinizers of Marine
Engines with Respect to NTE Provisions. The Panel recommends that EPA
propose to specifically include NTE in this design-based approach, if
EPA proposes a standard that includes NTE for small marinizers.
f. Snowmobiles. Delay of Proposed Standards. The Panel recommends
that EPA propose to delay the standards for small snowmobile
manufacturers by two years from the date at which other manufacturers
would be required to comply. The Panel also recommends that EPA propose
that the emission standards for small snowmobile manufacturers be
phased in over an additional two year (four years to fully implement
the standard).
Design-Based Certification. The Panel recommends that EPA take
comment on how a design-based certification could be applied to small
snowmobile manufacturers and that EPA work with the small entities in
the design and implementation of this concept.
Broader Engine Families. The Panel recommends that EPA propose a
provision for small snowmobile manufactures that would use relaxed
criteria for what constitutes an engine or vehicle family.
Elimination of Production Line Testing Requirements. The Panel
recommends that EPA propose that small snowmobile manufacturers not be
subject to production line testing requirements.
Use of Assigned DF During Certification. The Panel recommends that
EPA propose to allow small snowmobile manufacturers to elect to use
deterioration factors determined by EPA to demonstrate end of useful
life emission levels, thus reducing development/testing burden rather
than performing a durability demonstration for each engine family as
part of the certification testing requirement.
Using Certification and Emission Standards from Other EPA Programs.
If the manufacturer were to change the bore or stroke of the engine, it
is likely that the engine would no longer qualify as emissions could
increase, allow this option for small snowmobile manufacturers.
Averaging, Banking and Trading. The Panel recommends that EPA
propose an averaging, banking and trading program for snowmobiles, and
seek comment on additional ABT flexibilities it should consider for
small snowmobile manufacturers.
Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommends that EPA propose two
types of hardship programs for small snowmobile manufacturers: (1)
Allow small snowmobile manufacturers to petition EPA for additional
lead time to comply with the standards; and (2) allow small snowmobile
manufacturers to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside
their control cause the failure to comply (i.e. supply contract broken
by parts supplier) and if failure to sell the subject engines or
vehicles would have a major impact on the company's solvency.
Unique Snowmobile Engines. The Panel recommends that EPA seek
comment on an additional provision, which would allow a small
snowmobile manufacturer to petition EPA for relaxed standards for one
or more engine families. The Panel also recommends that EPA allow a
provision for EPA to set an alternative standard at a level between the
prescribed standard and the baseline level until the engine family is
retired or modified in such a way as to increase emission and for the
provision to be extended for up to 300 engines per year per
manufacturer would assure it is sufficiently available for those
manufacturers for whom the need is greatest. Finally, the Panel
recommends that EPA seek comment on initial and deadline dates for the
submission of such petitions.
g. Highway Motorcycles. The Panel recommends that EPA include the
flexibilities described below for small entities with highway
motorcycle annual sales of less than 3,000 units per model year
(combined Class I, II, and III motorcycles) and fewer than 500
employees.
Delay of Proposed Standards. The Panel recommends that EPA propose
to delay compliance with the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/km
HC+NO_X until the 2008 model year for small volume
manufacturers. The Panel also recommends that EPA seek comment on
whether additional time is needed for small businesses to comply with
the Federal program. The Panel recommends that EPA participate with
CARB in the 2006 progress review as these provisions are revisited, and
delay making decisions on the applicability to small businesses of Tier
2 or other revisions to the federal regulations that are appropriate
following the review. The Panel also recommends that any potential Tier
2 requirements for small manufacturer motorcycles consider potential
test procedure changes arising from the ongoing World Motorcycle Test
Cycle work described in the Panel Report.
Broader Engine Families. The Panel recommends that EPA deep the
current existing regulations for small volume highway motorcycle
manufacturers.
Exemption from Production Line Testing. The Panel recommends that
EPA keep the current provisions for no mandatory production line
testing requirement for highway motorcycles and allow the EPA to
request production vehicles from any certifying manufacturer for
testing.
Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT). The Panel recommends that
EPA propose an ABT program for highway motorcycles.
Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommends that EPA propose two
types of hardship programs for highway motorcycles: (1) Allow small
businesses to petition EPA for additional lead time to comply with the
standards; and (2) allow small businesses to apply for hardship relief
if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply
(i.e. supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if failure to sell
the subject engines or vehicles would have a major impact on the
company's solvency. The Panel also recommends that EPA request comment
on the California requirements, which do not include hardship
provisions.
Reduced Certification Data Submittal and Testing Requirements. The
Panel recommends that EPA keep current EPA regulations allow
significant flexibility for certification by manufacturers who project
fewer than 10,000 unit sales of combined Class I, II, and III
motorcycles.
We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts
on small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements (ICR) in this proposed rule
will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We will
announce in a separate Federal Register Notice that the ICR has been
submitted to OMB and will take comments on the proposed ICR at that
time.
The Agency may not conduct or sponsor an information collection,
and a person is not required to respond to a request for information,
unless the information collection request displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

[[Page 51179]]

D. Intergovernmental Relations

1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental
entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
EPA has determined that this rule contains federal mandates that
may result in expenditures of more than $100 million to the private
sector in any single year. EPA believes that the proposal represents
the least costly, most cost-effective approach to achieve the air
quality goals of the rule. The costs and benefits associated with the
proposal are discussed in Section IX and in the Draft Regulatory
Support Document, as required by the UMRA.
2. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
(Executive Order 13084)
On January 1, 2001, Executive Order 13084 was superseded by
Executive Order 13175. However, the proposed rule was developed during
the period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. Development
of the final rule will address tribal considerations under Executive
Order 13175.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
This proposal does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments. The proposed emission
standards and other related requirements for private businesses in this
proposal would have national applicability, and thus would not uniquely
affect the communities of Indian Tribal Governments. Further, no
circumstances specific to such communities exist that would cause an
impact on these communities beyond those discussed in the other
sections of this proposal. Thus, EPA's conclusions regarding the
impacts from the implementation of this proposed rule discussed in the
other sections are equally applicable to the communities of Indian
Tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rule involves technical standards. The following
paragraphs describe how we specify testing procedures for engines
subject to this proposal.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has a
voluntary consensus standard that can be used to test Large SI engines.
However, the current version of that standard (ISO 8178) is applicable
only for steady-state testing, not for transient testing. As described
in the Draft Regulatory Support Document, transient testing is an
important part of the proposed emission-control program for these
engines. We are therefore not proposing to adopt the ISO procedures in
this rulemaking.
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has adopted voluntary consensus
standards for forklifts that are relevant to the proposed requirements
for Large SI engines. UL sets a maximum temperature specification for
gasoline and, for forklifts used in certain applications, defines
requirements to avoid venting from gasoline fuel tanks. We are
proposing a different temperature limit, because the maximum
temperature specified by UL does not prevent fuel boiling. We are
proposing separate measures to address venting of gasoline vapors,
because of UL's provisions to allow venting with an orifice up to 1.78
mm (0.070 inches). We believe forklifts with such a vent would have
unnecessarily high evaporative emissions. If the UL standard is revised
to address these technical concerns, the UL standards would appropriate
to reference in our regulations. An additional concern relates to the
fact that the UL requirements apply only to forklifts (and not all
forklifts in the case of the restriction on vapor venting). EPA

[[Page 51180]]

regulations would therefore need to, at a minimum, extend any published
UL standards to other engines and equipment to which the UL standards
would otherwise not apply.
We are proposing to test off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain
vehicles with the Federal Test Procedure, a chassis-based transient
test. There is no voluntary consensus standard that would adequately
address engine or vehicle operation for suitable emission measurement.
Furthermore, we are interested in pursuing an engine-based test
procedure for all-terrain vehicles. We would need to develop a new duty
cycle for this, because there is no acceptable engine duty cycle today
that would adequately represent the way these engines operate. For
snowmobiles, we are proposing test procedures based on work that has
been published, but not yet adopted as a voluntary consensus standard.
For recreational marine diesel engines, we are proposing the same
test procedures that we have adopted for commercial marine diesel
engines (with a new duty cycle appropriate for recreational
applications). We are again proposing these procedures in place of the
ISO 8178 standard that would apply to these engines. We believe that
ISO 8178 relies too heavily on reference testing conditions. Because
our test procedures need to represent in-use operation typical of
operation in the field, they must be based on a range of ambient
conditions. We determined that the ISO procedures are not broadly
usable in their current form, and therefore should not be adopted by
reference. We remain hopeful that future ISO test procedures will be
developed that are usable and accurate for the broad range of testing
needed, and that such procedures could then be adopted. We expect that
any such development of revised test procedures will be done in
accordance with ISO procedures and in a balanced and transparent manner
that includes the involvement of all interested parties, including
industry, U.S. EPA, foreign government organizations, state
governments, and environmental groups. In so doing, we believe that the
resulting procedures would be ``global'' test procedures that can
facilitate the free flow of international commerce for these products.

F. Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045)

Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, Section 5-501 of the Order directs the Agency to
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
The effects of ozone and PM on children's health were addressed in
detail in EPA's rulemaking to establish the NAAQS for these pollutants,
and EPA is not revisiting those issues here. EPA believes, however,
that the emission reductions from the strategies proposed in this
rulemaking will further reduce air toxics and the related adverse
impacts on children's health.

G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those
requirements include providing all affected State and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials
regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected
interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Although Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and local
governments in developing this rule. EPA has also consulted
representatives from STAPPA/ALAPCO, which represents state and local
air pollution officials.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

H. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211)

This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The proposed
standards have for their aim the reduction of emission from certain
nonroad engines, and have no effect on fuel formulation, distribution,
or use. Generally, the proposed program leads to reduced fuel usage due
to the improvements in engine control technologies.

I. Plain Language

This document follows the guidelines of the June 1, 1998 Executive
Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing. To read the text of

[[Page 51181]]

the regulations, it is also important to understand the organization of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR uses the following
organizational names and conventions.
Title 40--Protection of the Environment
Chapter I--Environmental Protection Agency
Subchapter C--Air Programs. This contains parts 50 to 99, where the
Office of Air and Radiation has usually placed emission standards for
motor vehicle and nonroad engines.
Subchapter U--Air Programs Supplement. This contains parts 1000 to
1299, where we intend to place regulations for air programs in future
rulemakings.
Part 1048--Control of Emissions from New, Large, Nonrecreational,
Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines. Most of the provisions in this part
apply only to engine manufacturers.
Part 1051--Control of Emissions from Recreational Engines and
Vehicles.
Part 1065--General Test Procedures for Engine Testing. Provisions
of this part apply to anyone who tests engines to show that they meet
emission standards.
Part 1068--General Compliance Provisions for Engine Programs.
Provisions of this part apply to everyone.
Each part in the CFR has several subparts, sections, and
paragraphs. The following illustration shows how these fit together.

Part 1048
Subpart A
Section 1048.001
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)

(i)
(ii)
(A)
(B)

A cross reference to Sec. 1048.001(b) in this illustration would
refer to the parent paragraph (b) and all its subordinate paragraphs. A
reference to ``Sec. 1048.001(b) introductory text'' would refer only to
the single, parent paragraph (b).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 89

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Vessels,
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 90

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Warranties.

40 CFR Parts 91 and 1051

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.

40 CFR Parts 94

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels,
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1048

40 CFR Part 1065

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.

40 CFR Part 1068

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

Dated: September 14, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
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 set forth
below.

PART 89--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES

1. The authority for part 89 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542,
7543, 7545, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a).

Subpart A--[Amended]

2. Section 89.2 is amended by adding definitions for ``Aircraft''
and ``Spark-ignition'' in alphabetic order and revising the definition
of ``Compression-ignition'' to read as follows:

Sec. 89.2 Definitions.

* * * * *
Aircraft means any vehicle capable of sustained air travel above
treetop heights.
* * * * *
Compression-ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating,
internal-combustion engine that is not a spark-ignition engine.
* * * * *
Spark-ignition means relating to a type of engine with a spark plug
(or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics
significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark-
ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate intake air flow to
control power during normal operation.
* * * * *

PART 90--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES
AT OR BELOW 19 KILOWATTS

3. The heading to part 90 is revised to read as set forth above.
4. The authority for part 90 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542,
7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a).

Subpart A--[Amended]

5. Section 90.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 90.1 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to new nonroad spark-ignition engines and
vehicles with gross power output at or below 19 kilowatts (kW) used for
any purpose, unless we exclude them under paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) This part also applies to engines with a gross power output
above 19 kW if the manufacturer uses the provisions of 40 CFR 1048.615
or 1048.145 to exempt them from the requirements of 40 CFR part 1048.
Compliance with the provisions of this part is a required condition of
that exemption.
(c) The following nonroad engines and vehicles are not subject to
the provisions of this part:
(1) Engines used in snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, or off-
highway motorcycles and regulated in 40 CFR part 1051. This part
nevertheless applies to engines used in all-terrain vehicles or off-
highway motorcycles if the manufacturer uses the provisions of 40 CFR
1051.615 to exempt them from the requirements of 40 CFR part 1051.
Compliance with the provisions of this part is a required condition of
that exemption.

[[Page 51182]]

(2) Engines used in highway motorcycles. See 40 CFR part 86,
subpart E.
(3) Propulsion marine engines. See 40 CFR parts 91 and 1045. This
part applies with respect to auxiliary marine engines.
(4) Engines used in aircraft. See 40 CFR part 87.
(5) Engines certified to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 1048.
(6) Hobby engines.
(7) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.
6. Section 90.2 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 90.2 Effective dates.

* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, engines
used in recreational vehicles with engine rated speed greater than or
equal to 5,000 rpm and with no installed speed governor are not subject
to the provisions of this part through the 2005 model year. Starting
with the 2006 model year, all the requirements of this part apply to
engines used in these vehicles if they are not included in the scope of
40 CFR part 1051.
7. Section 90.3 is amended by adding definitions for ``Aircraft'',
``Hobby engines'', ``Marine engine'', ``Marine vessel'',
``Recreational'', and ``United States'' in alphabetical order, to read
as follows:

Sec. 90.3 Definitions.

* * * * *
Aircraft means any vehicle capable of sustained air travel above
treetop heights.
* * * * *
Hobby engines means engines used in reduced-scale models of
vehicles that are not capable of transporting a person (for example,
model airplanes).
Marine engine means an engine that someone installs or intends to
install on a marine vessel.
Marine vessel means a vehicle that is capable of operation in water
but is not capable of operation out of water. Amphibious vehicles are
not marine vessels.
* * * * *
Recreational means, for purposes of this part, relating to a
vehicle intended by the vehicle manufacturer to be operated primarily
for pleasure. Note that snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, and off-
highway motorcycles are recreational vehicles that we regulate under 40
CFR part 1051.
* * * * *
United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.
* * * * *

Subpart B--[Amended]

8. Section 90.103 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(2)(v)
as paragraph (a)(2)(vi) and adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as
follows:

Sec. 90.103 Exhaust emission standards.

(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The engine must be used in a recreational application, with a
combined total vehicle dry weight under 20 kilograms;
* * * * *

PART 91--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MARINE SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES

9. The authority for part 91 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542,
7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a).

Subpart A--[Amended]

10. Section 91.3 is amended by adding the definition for United
States in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 91.3 Definitions.

* * * * *
United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.
* * * * *

Subpart E--[Amended]

11. Section 91.419 is amended in paragraph (b) by revising the
equations for M_HCexh and M_exh to read as follows:

Sec. 91.419 Raw emission sampling calculations.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
M_HCexh=12.01+1.008 x
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC01.001

[[Page 51183]]

* * * * *

Subpart G--[Amended]

12. Appendix A to Subpart G of part 91 is amended by revising Table
1 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 91--Sampling Plans for Selective
Enforcement Auditing of Marine Engines

Table 1.--Sampling Plan Code Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual engine family sales Code letter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-50........................................ AA1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-99........................................ A 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100-299...................................... B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
300-499...................................... C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 or greater............................... D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A manufacturer may optionally use either the sampling plan for code
letter ``AA'' or sampling plan for code letter ``A'' for Selective
Enforcement Audits of engine families with annual sales between 20 and
50 engines. Additional, the manufacturers may switch between these
plans during the audit.

* * * * *

Subpart I--[Amended]

13. Section 91.803 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 91.803 Manufacturer in-use testing program.

(a) EPA shall annually identify engine families and those
configurations within families which the manufacturers must then
subject to in-use testing. For each model year, EPA may identify the
following number of engine families for testing, based on the
manufacturer's total number of engine families to which this subpart is
applicable produced in that model year:
(1) For manufactures with three or fewer engine families, EPA may
identify a single engine family.
(2) For manufacturers with four or more engine families, EPA may
identify a number of engine families that is no greater than twenty-
five percent of the manufacturer's total number of engine families.
* * * * *

PART 94--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MARINE COMPRESSION-IGNITION
ENGINES

14. The heading to part 94 is revised to read as set forth above.
15. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543,
7545, 7547, 7549, 7550 and 7601(a).

Subpart A--[Amended]

16. Section 94.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 94.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the
provisions of this part apply to manufacturers (including post-
manufacture marinizers and dressers), rebuilders, owners and operators
of:
(1) Marine engines that are compression-ignition engines
manufactured (or that otherwise become new) on or after January 1,
2004;
(2) Marine vessels manufactured (or that otherwise become new) on
or after January 1, 2004 and which include a compression-ignition
marine engine.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph (c) of this section,
the requirements and prohibitions of this part do not apply to three
types of marine engines:
(1) Category 3 marine engines;
(2) Marine engines with rated power below 37 kW; or
(3) Marine engines on foreign vessels.
(c) The provisions of Subpart L of this part apply to everyone with
respect to the engines identified in paragraph (a) of this section.
17. Section 94.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text, removing the definition for ``Commercial marine engine'',
revising definitions for ``Compression-ignition'', ``Designated
officer'', ``Passenger'', ``Recreational marine engine'',
``Recreational vessel'', and ``United States'', and adding new
definitions for ``Commercial'', ``Small-volume boat builder'', ``Small-
volume manufacturer'', and ``Spark-ignition'' in alphabetical order to
read as follows:

Sec. 94.2 Definitions.

* * * * *
(b) As used in this part, all terms not defined in this section
shall have the meaning given them in the Act:
* * * * *
Commercial means relating to an engine or vessel that is not a
recreational marine engine or a recreational vessel.
* * * * *
Compression-ignition means relating to an engine that is not a
spark-ignition engine.
* * * * *
Designated Officer means the Manager, Engine Programs Group (6403-
J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
Washington, DC 20460.
* * * * *
Passenger has the meaning given by 46 U.S.C. 2101 (21) and (21a).
This generally means that a passenger is a person that pays to be on
the vessel.
* * * * *
Recreational marine engine means a Category 1 propulsion marine
engine that is intended by the manufacturer to be installed on a
recreational vessel, and which is permanently labeled as follows:
``THIS ENGINE IS CATEGORIZED AS A RECREATIONAL MARINE ENGINE UNDER 40
CFR PART 94. INSTALLATION OF THIS ENGINE IN ANY NONRECREATIONAL VESSEL
IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.''.
Recreational vessel has the meaning given in 46 U.S.C 2101 (25),
but excludes ``passenger vessels'' and ``small passenger vessels'' as
defined by 46 U.S.C. 2101 (22) and (35) and excludes vessels used
solely for competition. In general, for this part, ``recreational
vessel'' means a vessel that is intended by the vessel manufacturer to
be operated primarily for pleasure or leased, rented or chartered to
another for the latter's pleasure, excluding the following vessels:
(1) Vessels of less than 100 gross tons that carry more than 6
passengers (as defined in this section).
(2) Vessels of 100 gross tons or more that carry one or more
passengers (as defined in this section).
(3) Vessels used solely for competition.
* * * * *
Small-volume boat builder means a boat manufacturer with fewer than
500 employees and with annual U.S.-directed production of fewer than
100 boats. For manufacturers owned by a parent company, these limits
apply to the combined production and number of employees of the parent
company and all its subsidiaries.
Small-volume manufacturer means a manufacturer with annual U.S.-
directed production of fewer than 1,000 internal combustion engines
(marine and nonmarine). For manufacturers owned by a parent company,
the limit applies to the production of the parent company and all its
subsidiaries.
Spark-ignition means relating to a type of engine with a spark plug
(or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics
significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark-
ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate

[[Page 51184]]

intake air flow to control power during normal operation.
* * * * *
United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.
* * * * *
18. Section 94.7 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec. 94.7 General standards and requirements.

* * * * *
(e) Electronically controlled engines subject to the emission
standards of this part shall broadcast on engine's controller area
networks engine torque (as percent of maximum at that speed) and engine
speed.
19. Section 94.8 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (e), (f)
introductory text, and (f)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 94.8 Exhaust emission standards.

(a) Exhaust emissions from marine compression-ignition engines
shall not exceed the applicable exhaust emission standards contained in
Table A-1 as follows:

Table A-1.--Primary Tier 2 Exhaust Emission Standards (g/kW-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine size liters/cylinder, rated Model THC+ NO_X g/
power Category year\a\ kW-hr CO g/kW-hr PM g/kW-hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
disp. 0.9 and power ³ 37 Category 1 Commercial. 2005 7.5 5.0 0.40
kW.
Category Recreational 2007 7.5 5.0 0.40
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.9 £ disp. 1.2 all power Category 1 Commercial. 2004 7.2 5.0 0.30
levels.
Category 1 2006 7.2 5.0 0.30
Recreational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 £ disp. 2.5 all power Category 1 Commercial. 2004 7.2 5.0 0.20
levels.
Category 1 2006 7.2 5.0 0.20
Recreational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5 £ disp. 5.0 all power Category 1 Commercial. 2007 7.2 5.0 0.20
levels.
Category 1 2009 7.2 5.0 0.20
Recreational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.0 £ disp. 15.0 all Category 2............ 2007 7.8 5.0 0.27
power levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0 £ disp. 20.0 power Category 2............ 2007 8.7 5.0 0.50
3300 kW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0 £ disp. 20.0 power Category 2............ 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50
³ 3300 kW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.0 £ disp. 25.0 all Category 2............ 2009 9.8 5.0 0.50
power levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.0 £ disp. 30.0........ Category 2............ 2007 11.0 5.0 0.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The model years listed indicate the model years for which the specified standards start.

* * * * *
(e) Exhaust emissions from propulsion engines subject to the
standards (or FELs) in paragraph (a), (c), or (f) of this section shall
not exceed:
(1) Commercial marine engines. (i) 1.20 times the applicable
standards (or FELs) when tested in accordance with the supplemental
test procedures specified in Sec. 94.106 at loads greater than or equal
to 45 percent of the maximum power at rated speed or 1.50 times the
applicable standards (or FELs) at loads less than 45 percent of the
maximum power at rated speed.
(ii) As an option, the manufacturer may choose to comply with
limits of 1.25 times the applicable standards (or FELs) when tested
over the whole power range in accordance with the supplemental test
procedures specified in Sec. 94.106, instead of the limits in paragraph
(e)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Recreational marine engines. (i) 1.20 times the applicable
standards (or FELs) when tested in accordance with the supplemental
test procedures specified in Sec. 94.106 at loads greater than or equal
to 45 percent of the maximum power at rated speed and speeds less than
95 percent of maximum test speed, or 1.50 times the applicable
standards (or FELs) at loads less than 45 percent of the maximum power
at rated speed, or 1.50 times the applicable standards (or FELs) at any
loads for speeds greater than or equal to 95 percent of the maximum
test speed.
(ii) As an option, the manufacturer may choose to comply with
limits of 1.25 times the applicable standards (or FELs) when tested
over the whole power range in accordance with the supplemental test
procedures specified in Sec. 94.106, instead of the limits in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section.
(f) The following defines the requirements for low emitting Blue
Sky Series engines:
(1) Voluntary standards. Engines may be designated ``Blue Sky
Series'' engines through the 2010 model year by meeting the voluntary
standards listed in Table A-2, which apply to all certification and in
use testing, as follows:

Table A-2.--Voluntary Emission Standards (g/kW-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC+
Rated brake power (kW) NO_X PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power ³ 37 kW, and displ.0.9................ 4.0 0.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.9£displ.1.2............................... 4.0 0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2£displ.2.5............................... 4.0 0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5£displ.5................................. 5.0 0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5£displ.15.................................. 5.0 0.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 £ disp. 20, and power 3300 kW.......... 5.2 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 £ disp. 20, and power ³ 3300 5.9 0.30
kW...................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 £ disp. 25.............................. 5.9 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 £ disp. 30.............................. 6.6 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
20. Section 94.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:

[[Page 51185]]

Sec. 94.9 Compliance with emission standards.

(a) The general standards and requirements in Sec. 94.7 and the
emission standards in Sec. 94.8 apply to each new engine throughout its
useful life period. The useful life is specified both in years and in
hours of operation, and ends when either of the values (hours of
operation or years) is exceeded.
(1) The minimum useful life is:
(i) 10 years or 1,000 hours of operation for recreational Category
1 engines;
(ii) 10 years or 10,000 hours of operation for commercial Category
1 engines;
(iii) 10 years or 20,000 hours of operation for Category 2 engines.
* * * * *
21. Section 94.12 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) and adding a new paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec. 94.12 Interim provisions.

This section contains provisions that apply for a limited number of
calendar years or model years. These provisions apply instead of the
other provisions of this part.
(a) Compliance date of standards. Certain companies may delay
compliance with emission standards. Companies wishing to take advantage
of this provision must inform the Designated Officer of their intent to
do so in writing before the date that compliance with the standards
would otherwise be mandatory.
(1) Post-manufacture marinizers may elect to delay the model year
of the Tier 2 standards for commercial engines as specified in
Sec. 94.8 by one year for each engine family.
(2) Small-volume manufacturers may elect to delay the model year of
the Tier 2 standards for recreational engines as specified in Sec. 94.8
by five years for each engine family.
(b) Early banking of emission credits. (1) A manufacturer may
optionally certify engines manufactured before the date the Tier 2
standards take effect to earn emission credits under the averaging,
banking, and trading program. Such optionally certified engines are
subject to all provisions relating to mandatory certification and
enforcement described in this part. Manufacturers may begin earning
credits for recreational engines on [date 30 days after publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
(f) Flexibility for small-volume boat builders. Notwithstanding the
other provisions of this part, manufacturers may sell uncertifed
recreational engines to small-volume boat builders during the first
five years for which the emission standards in Sec. 94.8 apply, subject
to the following provisions:
(1) The U.S.-directed production volume of boats from any small-
volume boat builder using uncertified engines during the total five-
year period may not exceed 80 percent of the manufacturer's average
annual production for the three years prior to the general
applicability of the recreational engine standards in Sec. 94.8, except
as allowed in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(2) Small-volume boat builders may exceed the production limits in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, provided it does not exceed 20 boats
during the five-year period or 10 boats in any single calendar year.
This does not apply to boats powered by engines with displacement
greater than 2.5 liters per cylinder.
(3) Small-volume boat builders must keep records of all the boats
and engines produced under this paragraph (f), including boat and
engine model numbers, serial numbers, and dates of manufacture. Records
must also include information verifying compliance with the limits in
paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. Keep these records until at
least two full years after you no longer use the provisions in this
paragraph (f).

Subpart B--[Amended]

22. Section 94.104 is amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d) and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 94.104 Test procedures for Category 2 marine engines.

* * * * *
(c) Conduct testing at ambient temperatures from 13 deg. C to
30 deg. C.
23. Section 94.105 is amended by revising paragraph (b) text
preceding Table B-1, revising ``#'' to read ``'' in
footnotes 1 and 2 in the tables in paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (c)(2), and
(d)(1), and adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 94.105 Duty cycles.

* * * * *
(b) General cycle. Propulsion engines that are used with (or
intended to be used with) fixed-pitch propellers, and any other engines
for which the other duty cycles of this section do not apply, shall be
tested using the duty cycle described in the following Table B-1:
* * * * *
(e) Recreational. For the purpose of determining compliance with
the emission standards of Sec. 94.8, recreational engines shall be
tested using the duty cycle described in Table B-5, which follows:

Table B-5.--Recreational Marine Duty Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Minimum
Engine speed \1\ (percent of maximum time in Weighting
Mode No. maximum test speed) test power mode factors
\2\ (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 100.......................... 100 5.0 0.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2......................................... 91........................... 75 5.0 0.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3......................................... 80........................... 50 5.0 0.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4......................................... 63........................... 25 5.0 0.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5......................................... idle......................... 0 5.0 0.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Engine speed: ± 2 percent of point.
\2\ Power: ±2 percent of engine maximum value.

24. Section 94.106 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text, (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(2) introductory text,
and (b)(3) introductory text and adding a new paragraph (b)(5) to read
as follows:

[[Page 51186]]

Sec. 94.106 Supplemental test procedures.

* * * * *
(b) The specified Not to Exceed Zones for marine engines are
defined as follows. These Not to Exceed Zones apply, unless a modified
zone is established under paragraph (c) of this section.
(1) For commercial Category 1 engines certified using the duty
cycle specified in Sec. 94.105(b), the Not to Exceed zones are defined
as follows:
* * * * *
(2) For Category 2 engines certified using the duty cycle specified
in Sec. 94.105(b), the Not to Exceed zones are defined as follows:
* * * * *
(3) For engines certified using the duty cycle specified in
Sec. 94.105(c)(2), the Not to Exceed zones are defined as follows:
* * * * *
(5) For recreational marine engines certified using the duty cycle
specified in Sec. 94.105(e), the Not to Exceed zones are defined as
follows:
(i) The Not to Exceed zone is the region between the curves power =
1.15 x SPD\2\ and power = 0.85 x SPD\4\, excluding all operation
below 25% of maximum power at rated speed and excluding all operation
below 63% of maximum test speed.
(ii) This zone is divided into three subzones, one below 45% of
maximum power at maximum test speed; one above 95% of maximum test
speed; and a third area including all of the remaining area of the NTE
zone.
(iii) SPD in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section refers to percent
of maximum test speed.
(iv) See Figure B-4 for an illustration of this Not to Exceed zone
as follows:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 51187]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC01.002

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
25. Section 94.108 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by revising
footnote 1 in Table B-5 to read as follows:

Sec. 94.108 Test fuels.

(a) * * * (1) * * *

Table B-5.--Federal Test Fuel Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All ASTM procedures in this table have been incorporated by
reference. See Sec. 94.5.

* * * * *

Subpart C--[Amended]

26. Section 94.203 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(14) and
(d)(16) to read as follows:

Sec. 94.203 Application for certification.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(14) A statement that all the engines included in the engine family
comply with the Not To Exceed standards

[[Page 51188]]

specified in Sec. 94.8(e) when operated under all conditions which may
reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal operation and use;
the manufacturer also must provide a detailed description of all
testing, engineering analyses, and other information which provides the
basis for this statement.
* * * * *
(16) A statement indicating duty-cycle and application of the
engine (e.g., used to propel planing vessels, use to propel vessels
with variable-pitch propellers, constant-speed auxiliary, recreational,
etc.).
* * * * *
27. Section 94.204 is amended by removing ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (b)(9), adding ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(10),
adding a new paragraph (b)(11), and revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec. 94.204 Designation of engine families.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(11) Class (commercial or recreational).
* * * * *
(e) Upon request by the manufacturer, the Administrator may allow
engines that would be required to be grouped into separate engine
families based on the criteria in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section
to be grouped into a single engine family if the manufacturer
demonstrates that the engines will have similar emission
characteristics; however, recreational and commercial engines may not
be grouped in the same engine family. This request must be accompanied
by emission information supporting the appropriateness of such combined
engine families.
28. Section 94.209 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 94.209 Special provisions for post-manufacture marinizers and
small-volume manufacturers.

(a) Broader engine families. Instead of the requirements of
Sec. 94.204, an engine family may consist of any engines subject to the
same emission standards. This does not change any of the requirements
of this part for showing that an engine family meets emission
standards. To be eligible to use the provisions of this paragraph (a),
the manufacturer must demonstrate one of the following:
(1) It is a post-manufacture marinizer and that the base engines
used for modification have a valid certificate of conformity issued
under 40 CFR part 89 or 40 CFR part 92 or the heavy-duty engine
provisions of 40 CFR part 86.
(2) It is a small-volume manufacturer.
(b) Hardship relief. Post-manufacture marinizers, small-volume
manufacturers, and small-volume boat builders may take any of the
otherwise prohibited actions identified in Sec. 94.1103(a)(1) if
approved in advance by the Administrator, subject to the following
requirements:
(1) Application for relief must be submitted to the Designated
Officer in writing prior to the earliest date in which the applying
manufacturer would be in violation of Sec. 94.1103. The manufacturer
must submit evidence showing that the requirements for approval have
been met.
(2) The conditions causing the impending violation must not be
substantially the fault of the applying manufacturer.
(3) The conditions causing the impending violation must jeopardize
the solvency of the applying manufacturer if relief is not granted.
(4) The applying manufacturer must demonstrate that no other
allowances under this part will be available to avoid the impending
violation.
(5) Any relief may not exceed one year beyond the date relief is
granted.
(6) The Administrator may impose other conditions on the granting
of relief including provisions to recover the lost environmental
benefit.
(c) Extension of deadlines. Small-volume manufacturers may use the
provisions of 40 CFR 1068.241 to ask for an extension of a deadline to
meet emission standards. We may require that you use available base
engines that have been certified to emission standards for land-based
engines until you are able to produce engines certified to the
requirements of this part.
29. Section 94.212 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(10) to read
as follows:

Sec. 94.212 Labeling.

* * * * *
(b) Engine labels. * * *
(10) The application for which the engine family is certified. (For
example: constant-speed auxiliary, variable-speed propulsion engines
used with fixed-pitch propellers, recreational, etc.)
* * * * *
30. Section 94.218 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(2)(iv)
to read as follows:

Sec. 94.218 Deterioration factor determination.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Assigned deterioration factors. Small-volume manufacturers may
use deterioration factors established by EPA.

Subpart D--[Amended]

31. Section 94.304 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as
follows:

Sec. 94.304 Compliance requirements.

* * * * *
(k) The following provisions limit credit exchanges between
different types of engines:
(1) Credits generated by Category 1 engine families may be used for
compliance by Category 1 or Category 2 engine families. Credits
generated from Category 1 engine families for use by Category 2 engine
families must be discounted by 25 percent.
(2) Credits generated by Category 2 engine families may be used for
compliance only by Category 2 engine families.
(3) Credits may not be exchanged between recreational and
commercial engines.
* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

32. Section 94.501 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 94.501 Applicability.

(a) The requirements of this subpart are applicable to
manufacturers of engines subject to the provisions of Subpart A of this
part, excluding small-volume manufacturers.
* * * * *
33. Section 94.503 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read
as follows:

Sec. 94.503 General requirements.

* * * * *
(d) If you certify an engine family with carryover emission data,
as described in Sec. 94.206(c), and these equivalent engine families
consistently meet the emission standards with production-line testing
over the preceding two-year period, you may ask for a reduced testing
rate for further production-line testing for that family. The minimum
testing rate is one engine per engine family. If we reduce your testing
rate, we may limit our approval to a single model year.

Subpart J--[Amended]

34. Section 94.907 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (g) to
read as follows:

Sec. 94.907 Engine dressing exemption.

* * * * *
(d) New marine engines that meet all the following criteria are
exempt under this section:
(1) You must produce it by marinizing an engine covered by a valid
certificate

[[Page 51189]]

of conformity from one of the following programs:
(i) Heavy-duty highway engines (40 CFR part 86).
(ii) Land-based nonroad diesel engines (40 CFR part 89).
(iii) Locomotive engines (40 CFR part 92).
(2) The engine must have the label required under 40 CFR part 86,
89, or 92.
(3) You must not make any changes to the certified engine that
could reasonably be expected to increase its emissions. For example, if
you make any of the following changes to one of these engines, you do
not qualify for the engine dressing exemption:
(i) Changing any fuel system parameters from the certified
configuration.
(ii) Replacing an original turbocharger, except that small-volume
manufacturers of recreational engines may replace an original
turbocharger with one that matches the performance of the original
turbocharger.
(iii) Modify or design the marine engine cooling or aftercooling
system so that temperatures or heat rejection rates are outside the
original engine manufacturer's specified ranges.
(4) You must make sure that fewer than 50 percent of the engine
model's total sales, from all companies, are used in marine
applications.
* * * * *
(g) If your engines do not meet the criteria listed in paragraphs
(d)(2) through (d)(4) of this section, they will be subject to the
standards and prohibitions of this part. Marinization without a valid
exemption or certificate of conformity would be a violation of
Sec. 94.1103(a)(1) and/or the tampering prohibitions of the applicable
land-based regulations (40 CFR part 86, 89, or 92).
* * * * *

Subpart K--[Amended]

35. Section 94.1103 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(5) to read
as follows:

Sec. 94.1103 Prohibited acts.

(a) * * *
(5) For a manufacturer of marine vessels to distribute in commerce,
sell, offer for sale, or deliver for introduction into commerce a new
vessel containing an engine not covered by a certificate of conformity
applicable for an engine model year the same as or later than the
calendar year in which the manufacture of the new vessel is initiated.
(Note: For the purpose of this paragraph (a)(5), the manufacture of a
vessel is initiated when the keel is laid, or the vessel is at a
similar stage of construction.) In general, you may use up your normal
inventory of engines not certified to new emission standards if they
were built before the date of the new standards. However, we consider
stockpiling of these engines to be a violation of paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
37. A new subchapter U is added to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER U--AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS

PART 1048--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW, LARGE NONROAD SPARK-
IGNITION ENGINES

Subpart A--Determining How To Follow This Part
Sec.
1048.1 Does this part apply to me?
1048.5 May I exclude any engines from this part's requirements?
1048.10 What main steps must I take to comply with this part?
1048.15 Do any other regulation parts affect me?
1048.20 What requirements from this part apply to my excluded
engines?
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Related Requirements
1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my engines meet?
1048.105 What steps must I take to address evaporative emissions?
1048.110 How must my engines diagnose malfunctions?
1048.115 What other requirements must my engines meet?
1048.120 What warranty requirements apply to me?
1048.125 What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers?
1048.130 What installation instructions must I give to equipment
manufacturers?
1048.135 How must I label and identify the engines I produce?
1048.140 How do I certify my engines to more stringent, voluntary
standards?
1048.145 What provisions apply only for a limited time?
Subpart C--Certifying Engine Families
1048.201 What are the general requirements for submitting a
certification application?
1048.205 How must I prepare my application?
1048.210 May I get preliminary approval before I complete my
application?
1048.215 What happens after I complete my application?
1048.220 How do I amend the maintenance instructions in my
application?
1048.225 How do I amend my application to include new or modified
engines?
1048.230 How do I select engine families?
1048.235 How does testing fit with my application for a certificate
of conformity?
1048.240 How do I determine if my engine family complies with
emission standards?
1048.245 What records must I keep and make available to EPA?
1048.250 When may EPA deny, revoke, or void my certificate of
conformity?
Subpart D--Testing Production-line Engines
1048.301 When must I test my production-line engines?
1048.305 How must I prepare and test my production-line engines?
1048.310 How must I select engines for production-line testing?
1048.315 How do I know when my engine family does not comply?
1048.320 What happens if one of my production-line engines fails to
meet emission standards?
1048.325 What happens if an engine family does not comply?
1048.330 May I sell engines from an engine family with a suspended
certificate of conformity?
1048.335 How do I ask EPA to reinstate my suspended certificate?
1048.340 When may EPA revoke my certificate under this subpart and
how may I sell these engines again?
1048.345 What production-line testing records must I send to EPA?
1048.350 What records must I keep?
Subpart E--Testing In-Use Engines
1048.401 What testing requirements apply to my engines that have
gone into service?
1048.405 How does this program work?
1048.410 How must I select, prepare, and test my in-use engines?
1048.415 How can I use in-use emission credits?
1048.420 What happens if my in-use engines do not meet
requirements?
1048.425 What in-use testing information must I report to EPA?
1048.430 What records must I keep?
Subpart F--Test Procedures
1048.501 What procedures must I use to test my engines?
1048.505 What steady-state duty cycles apply for laboratory
testing?
1048.510 What transient duty cycles apply for laboratory testing?
1048.515 Field-testing procedures.
Subpart G--Compliance Provisions
1048.601 What compliance provisions apply to these engines?
1048.605 What are the provisions for exempting engines from the
requirements of this part if they are already certified under the
motor-vehicle program?
1048.610 What are the provisions for producing nonroad equipment
with engines already certified under the motor-vehicle program?
1048.615 What are the provisions for exempting engines designed for
lawn and garden applications?

[[Page 51190]]

Subpart H--Definitions and Other Reference Information
1048.701 What definitions apply to this part?
1048.705 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part
use?
1048.710 What materials does this part reference?
1048.715 How should I request EPA to keep my information
confidential?
1048.720 How do I request a public hearing?

Appendix I to Part 1048--Transient Duty Cycle for Constant-Speed
Engines

Appendix II to Part 1048--Transient Duty Cycle for Engines That Are Not
Constant-Speed Engines

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).

Subpart A--Determining How to Follow This Part

Sec. 1048.1 Does this part apply to me?

(a) This part applies to you if you manufacture or import new,
spark-ignition, nonroad engines (defined in Sec. 1048.701) with rated
power above 19 kW, unless we exclude them under Sec. 1048.5.
(b) If you manufacture or import engines with rated power at or
below 19 kW that would otherwise be covered by 40 CFR part 90, you may
choose to meet the requirements of this part instead. In this case, all
the provisions of this part apply for those engines.
(c) Note in subpart G of this part that 40 CFR part 1068 applies to
everyone, including anyone who manufactures, installs, owns, operates,
or rebuilds any of the engines this part covers or equipment containing
these engines.
(d) You need not follow this part for engines you produce before
the 2004 model year, unless you certify voluntarily. See Sec. 1048.100,
Sec. 1048.145, and the definition of model year in Sec. 1048.701 for
more information about the timing of new requirements.
(e) See Secs. 1048.701 and 1048.705 for definitions and acronyms
that apply to this part.

Sec. 1048.5 May I exclude any engines from this part's requirements?

(a) You may exclude the following nonroad engines:
(1) Engines used in snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, or off-
highway motorcycles and regulated in 40 CFR part 1051.
(2) Propulsion marine engines. See 40 CFR part 91. This part
applies with respect to auxiliary marine engines.
(b) You may exclude engines used in aircraft. See 40 CFR part 87.
(c) You may exclude stationary engines, except that you must meet
the requirements in Sec. 1048.20. In addition, the prohibitions in 40
CFR 1068.101 restrict the use of stationary engines for non-stationary
purposes.
(d) See subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, for
exemptions of specific engines.
(e) Send the Designated Officer a written request if you want us to
determine whether this part covers or excludes certain engines.
Excluding engines from this part's requirements does not affect other
requirements that may apply to them.

Sec. 1048.10 What main steps must I take to comply with this part?

(a) You must have a certificate of conformity from us for each
engine family before you do any of the following with a new engine
covered by this part: Sell, offer for sale, introduce into commerce,
distribute or deliver for introduction into commerce, or import it into
the United States. ``New'' engines may include some already placed in
service (see the definition of ``new nonroad engine'' and ``new nonroad
equipment'' in Sec. 1048.701). You must get a new certificate of
conformity for each new model year.
(b) To get a certificate of conformity and comply with its terms,
you must do five things:
(1) Meet the emission standards and other requirements in subpart B
of this part.
(2) Apply for certification (see subpart C of this part).
(3) Do routine emission testing on production engines (see subpart
D of this part).
(4) Do emission testing on in-use engines, as we direct (see
subpart E of this part).
(5) Follow our instructions throughout this part.
(c) Subpart F of this part and 40 CFR part 1065 describe the
procedures you must follow to test your engines.
(d) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068 describe
requirements and prohibitions that apply to engine manufacturers,
equipment manufacturers, owners, operators, rebuilders, and all others.

Sec. 1048.15 Do any other regulation parts affect me?

(a) Part 1065 of this chapter describes procedures and equipment
specifications for testing engines. Subpart F of this part describes
how to apply the provisions of part 1065 of this chapter to show you
meet the emission standards in this part.
(b) Part 1068 of this chapter describes general provisions,
including these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for engine manufacturers,
equipment manufacturers, and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes.
(3) Exemptions for certain engines.
(4) Importing engines.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of your production.
(6) Defect reporting and recall.
(7) Procedures for public hearings.
(c) Other parts of this chapter affect you if referenced in this
part.

Sec. 1048.20 What requirements from this part apply to my excluded
engines?

(a) Manufacturers of stationary engines that would otherwise need
to meet the requirements of this part must add a permanent label or tag
identifying each engine. This applies equally to importers. To meet
labeling requirements, you must do the following things:
(1) Attach the label or tag in one piece so no one can remove it
without destroying or defacing it.
(2) Make sure it is durable and readable for the engine's entire
life.
(3) Secure it to a part of the engine needed for normal operation
and not normally requiring replacement.
(4) Write it in block letters in English.
(5) Instruct equipment manufacturers that they must place a
duplicate label as described in Sec. 1068.105 of this chapter if they
obscure the engine's label.
(b) Engine labels or tags required under this section must have the
following information:
(1) Include the heading ``Emission Control Information.''
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark.
(3) State the engine displacement (in liters) and rated power.
(4) State: ``THIS ENGINE IS EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 40
CFR PART 1048 AS A ``STATIONARY ENGINE.'' INSTALLING OR USING THIS
ENGINE IN ANY OTHER APPLICATION MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW
SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.''.

Subpart B--Emission Standards and Related Requirements

Sec. 1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my engines meet?

(a) The exhaust emission standards in Table 1 of Sec. 1048.101
apply for steady-state measurement of emissions with the duty-cycle
test procedures in subpart F of this part:

[[Page 51191]]

Table 1 of Sec. 1048.101.--Steady-State Duty-Cycle Emission Standards
(g/kW-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standards Alternate emission
---------------------- standards
Model year ---------------------
HC+NO_X CO HC+NO_X CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2006................... 4.0 50.0 ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 and later.............. 3.4 3.4 1.3 27.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) The exhaust emission standards in Table 2 of Sec. 1048.101
apply for transient measurement of emissions with the duty-cycle test
procedures in subpart F of this part:

Table 2 of Sec. 1048.101.--Transient Duty-Cycle Emission Standards (g/
kW-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standards Alternate emission
---------------------- standards
Model year ---------------------
HC+NO_X CO HC+NO_X CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 and later.............. 3.4 3.4 1.3 27.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) The exhaust emission standards in Table 3 of Sec. 1048.101
apply for emission measurements with the field-test procedures in
subpart F of this part:

Table 3 of Sec. 1048.101.--Field-testing Emission Standards (g/kW-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standards Alternate emission
---------------------- standards
Model year ---------------------
HC+NO_X CO HC+NO_X CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 and later.............. 4.7 5.0 1.8 41.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) You may choose to meet the alternate emission standards instead
of the regular emission standards, as described in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section.
(e) The standards apply for the model years listed in the tables in
this section. You may choose to certify earlier model years.
(f) Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section for
engines using all fuels. You must meet the numerical emission standards
for hydrocarbons in this section based on the following types of
hydrocarbon emissions for engines powered by the following fuels:
(1) Gasoline- and LPG-fueled engines: THC emissions.
(2) Natural gas-fueled engines: NMHC emissions (for testing to show
that these engines meet the emission standards in paragraph (c) of this
section, disregard hydrocarbon emissions).
(3) Alcohol-fueled engines: THCE emissions.
(g) Certain engines with total displacement at or below 1000 cc may
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 90 instead of complying
with the emission standards in this section, as described in
Sec. 1048.615.
(h) You must show in your certification application that your
engines meet the exhaust emission standards in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section over their full useful life. The minimum useful
life is 5,000 hours of operation or seven years, whichever comes first.
Specify a longer useful life under either of two conditions:
(1) If you design, advertise, or market your engine to operate
longer than the minimum useful life (your recommended time until
rebuild may indicate a longer design life).
(2) If your basic mechanical warranty is longer than the minimum
useful life.
(i) Refer to Sec. 1048.240 to apply deterioration factors.
(j) Apply this subpart to all testing, including production-line
and in-use testing, as described in subparts D and E of this part.

Sec. 1048.105 What steps must I take to address evaporative emissions?

(a) Starting in the 2007 model year, if you produce an engine that
runs on a volatile liquid fuel (such as gasoline), you must take the
following steps to address evaporative emissions:
(1) Specify and incorporate design features to avoid venting fuel
vapors directly to the atmosphere. Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions
must be less than 0.2 grams per gallon of fuel tank capacity during a
nine-hour period of gradually increasing ambient temperatures from 22
to 36 deg. C with fuel meeting the specifications in 40 CFR 1065.210,
when measured from an engine with a complete fuel system using the
equipment and procedures specified in 40 CFR 86.107-96 and 86.133-96.
You may rely on any of the following designs instead of doing emission
tests to show that you meet this requirement:
(i) Use a tethered or self-closing gas cap on a fuel tank that
stays sealed up to a positive pressure of 24.5 kPa (3.5 psi) or a
vacuum pressure of 10.5 kPa (1.5 psi).
(ii) Use a tethered or self-closing gas cap on a fuel tank that
stays sealed up to a positive or vacuum pressure of 7 kPa (1 psi). Use
an inflatable, nonpermeable bag that occupies the vapor space inside
the fuel tank, exchanging air with the ambient as needed to prevent
pressure buildup in the tank. The volume of the inflatable bag must be
at least 30 percent of the total tank volume.
(iii) Use a tethered or self-closing gas cap on a fuel tank that
stays sealed except for venting to a charcoal canister. The engine must
be designed to draw hydrocarbons from the canister into the engine's
combustion chamber as needed to prevent evaporative emissions during
normal operation.
(iv) Use a tethered or self-closing gas cap on a collapsible
bladder tank. A collapsible bladder tank is one that

[[Page 51192]]

changes in volume as needed to accommodate the changing amount of
liquid fuel, thus eliminating the vapor space.
(2) For nonmetallic fuel lines, specify and use products that meet
the Category 1 specifications in SAE J2260 ``Nonmetallic Fuel System
Tubing with One or More Layers,'' November 1996 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 1048.710).
(3) Liquid fuel in the fuel tank may not reach boiling during
continuous engine operation in the final installation at an ambient
temperature of 30 deg. C. Gasoline with a volatility of 9 RVP begins to
boil at about 53 deg. C. You may satisfy this requirement by specifying
and incorporating design features to prevent fuel boiling under all
normal operation.
(b) If other companies install your engines in their equipment,
give them any appropriate instructions, as described in Sec. 1048.130.

Sec. 1048.110 How must my engines diagnose malfunctions?

(a) Equip your engines with a diagnostic system. Starting in the
2007 model year, make sure your system will detect significant
malfunctions in its emission-control system using one of the following
protocols:
(1) If your emission-control strategy depends on maintaining air-
fuel ratios at stoichiometry, an acceptable diagnostic design would
identify malfunction whenever the air-fuel ratio does not cross
stoichiometry for one minute. You may use other diagnostic strategies
if we approve them in advance.
(2) If the protocol described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
does not apply to your engine, you must use an alternative approach
that we approve in advance.
(b) Use a malfunction-indicator light (MIL). Make sure the MIL is
readily visible to the operator; it may be any color except red. When
the MIL goes on, it must display ``Check Engine,'' ``Service Engine
Soon,'' or a similar message that we approve. You may use sound in
addition to the light signal. The MIL must go on under each of these
circumstances:
(1) When a malfunction occurs, as described in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(2) When the diagnostic system cannot send signals to meet the
requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) When the engine's ignition is in the ``key-on'' position before
starting or cranking. The MIL should go out after engine starting if
the system detects no malfunction.
(c) Control when the MIL can go out. If the MIL goes on to show a
malfunction, it must remain on during all later engine operation until
servicing corrects the malfunction. If the engine is not serviced, but
the malfunction does not recur for three consecutive engine starts
during which the malfunctioning system is evaluated and found to be
working properly, the MIL may stay off during later engine operation.
(d) Store trouble codes in computer memory. Record and store in
computer memory any diagnostic trouble codes showing a malfunction that
should illuminate the MIL. The stored codes must identify the
malfunctioning system or component as uniquely as possible. Make these
codes available through the data link connector as described in
paragraph (g) of this section. You may store codes for conditions that
do not turn on the MIL. The system must store a separate code to show
when the diagnostic system is disabled (from malfunction or tampering).
(e) Make data, access codes, and devices accessible. Make all
required data accessible to us without any access codes or devices that
only you can supply. Ensure that anyone servicing your engine can read
and understand the diagnostic trouble codes stored in the onboard
computer with generic tools and information.
(f) Consider exceptions for certain conditions. Your diagnostic
systems may disregard trouble codes for the first three minutes after
engine starting. You may ask us to approve diagnostic-system designs
that disregard trouble codes under other conditions that would produce
an unreliable reading, damage systems or components, or cause other
safety risks. This might include operation at altitudes over 8,000
feet.
(g) Follow standard references for formats, codes, and connections.
Follow conventions defined in the following documents (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 1048.710), or ask us to approve using updated
versions of these documents:
(1) ISO 9141-2 February 1994, Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems
Part 2.
(2) ISO 14230-4 June 2000, Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--KWP
2000 requirements for emission-related systems.

Sec. 1048.115 What other requirements must my engines meet?

Your engines must meet the following requirements:
(a) Closed crankcase. Design and produce your engines so they
release no crankcase emissions into the atmosphere.
(b) Torque broadcasting. Electronically controlled engines must
broadcast their speed and output shaft torque (in newton-meters) on
their controller area networks. Engines may alternatively broadcast a
surrogate value for torque that can be read with a remote device. This
information is necessary for testing engines in the field (see
Sec. 1065.515 of this chapter). This requirement applies beginning in
the 2007 model year.
(c) EPA access to broadcast information. If we request it, you must
provide us any hardware or tools we would need to readily read,
interpret, and record all information broadcast by an engine's on-board
computers and electronic control modules. If you broadcast a surrogate
parameter for torque values, you must provide us what we need to
convert these into torque units. We will not ask for hardware or tools
if they are readily available commercially.
(d) Emission sampling capability. Produce all your engines to allow
sampling of exhaust emissions in the field. This sampling requires
either exhaust ports downstream of any aftertreatment devices or the
ability to extend the exhaust pipe by 20 cm. This is necessary to
minimize any diluting effect from ambient air at the end of the exhaust
pipe.
(e) Adjustable parameters. If your engines have adjustable
parameters, make sure they meet all the requirements of this part for
any adjustment in the physically available range.
(1) We do not consider an operating parameter adjustable if you
permanently seal it or if ordinary tools cannot readily access it.
(2) We may require that you set adjustable parameters to any
specification within the adjustable range during certification testing,
production-line testing, selective enforcement auditing, or any
required in-use testing.
(f) Prohibited controls. You may not design engines with an
emission-control system that emits any noxious or toxic substance that
the engine would not emit during operation in the absence of such a
system, except as specifically permitted by regulation.
(g) Defeat devices. You may not equip your engines with a defeat
device. A defeat device is an auxiliary emission-control device or
other control feature that reduces the effectiveness of emission
controls under conditions you may reasonably expect the engine to
encounter during normal operation and use. This does not apply to
auxiliary

[[Page 51193]]

emission-control devices you identify in your certification application
if any of the following is true:
(1) The conditions of concern were substantially included in your
prescribed duty cycles.
(2) You show your design is necessary to prevent catastrophic
engine (or equipment) damage or accidents.
(3) The reduced effectiveness applies only to starting the engine.

Sec. 1048.120 What warranty requirements apply to me?

(a) You must warrant to the ultimate buyer that the new engine
meets two conditions:
(1) You have designed, built, and equipped it to meet the
requirements of this part.
(2) It is free from defects in materials and workmanship that may
keep it from meeting these requirements.
(b) Your emission-related warranty must be valid for at least 50
percent of the engine's useful life in hours of operation or at least
three years, whichever comes first. In the case of a high-cost
warranted part, the warranty must be valid for at least 70 percent of
the engine's useful life in hours of operation or at least five years,
whichever comes first. You may offer a warranty more generous than we
require. This warranty may not be shorter than any published or
negotiated warranty you offer for the engine or any of its components.
If an engine has no tamper-proof hour meter, we base the warranty
periods in this paragraph only on the engine's age (in years).
(c) The emission-related warranty must cover components whose
failure would increase an engine's emissions, includeing electronic
controls, fuel injection (for liquid or gaseous fuels), exhaust-gas
recirculation, aftertreatment, or any other system you develop to
control emissions. In general, we consider replacing or repairing other
components to be the owner's responsibility.
(d) You may exclude from your warranty a component named in
paragraph (c) of this section, if it meets both of the following
conditions:
(1) It was in general use on similar engines before January 1,
2000.
(2) Its failure would clearly degrade the engine's performance
enough that the operator would need to repair or replace it.
(e) You may limit your emission-related warranty's validity to
properly maintained engines, as described in Sec. 1068.115 of this
chapter.
(f) If you make an aftermarket part, you may--but do not have to--
certify that using the part will still allow engines to meet emission
standards, as described in Sec. 85.2114 of this chapter.

Sec. 1048.125 What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers?

Give the ultimate buyer of each new engine written instructions for
properly maintaining and using the engine, including the emission-
control system. The maintenance instructions also apply to service
accumulation on your test engines, as described in 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart E.
(a) Critical emission-related maintenance. You may schedule
critical maintenance on particular devices if you meet the following
conditions:
(1) You may ask us to approve maintenance on air-injection, fuel-
system, or ignition components, aftertreatment devices, exhaust gas
recirculation systems, crankcase ventilation valves, or oxygen sensors
only if it meets two criteria:
(i) Operators are reasonably likely to do the maintenance you call
for.
(ii) Engines need the maintenance to meet emission standards.
(2) We will accept scheduled maintenance as reasonably likely to
occur in use if you satisfy any of four conditions:
(i) You present data showing that, if a lack of maintenance
increases emissions, it also unacceptably degrades the engine's
performance.
(ii) You present survey data showing that 80 percent of engines in
the field get the maintenance you specify at the recommended intervals.
(iii) You provide the maintenance free of charge and clearly say so
in maintenance instructions for the customer.
(iv) You otherwise show us that the maintenance is reasonably
likely to be done at the recommended intervals.
(b) Minimum maintenance intervals. You may not schedule emission-
related maintenance within the minimum useful life period for
aftertreatment devices, fuel injectors, sensors, electronic control
units, and turbochargers.
(c) Noncritical emission-related maintenance. For engine parts not
listed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you may recommend any
additional amount of inspection or maintenance. But you must state
clearly that these steps are not necessary to keep the emission-related
warranty valid. Also, do not take these inspection or maintenance steps
during service accumulation on your test engines.
(d) Source of parts and repairs. Print clearly on the first page of
your written maintenance instructions that any repair shop or person
may maintain, replace, or repair emission-control devices and systems.
Make sure your instructions require no component or service identified
by brand, trade, or corporate name. Also, do not directly or indirectly
distinguish between service by companies with which you have a
commercial relationship and service by independent repair shops or the
owner. You may disregard the requirements in this paragraph (d) if you
do one of two things:
(1) Provide a component or service without charge under the
purchase agreement.
(2) Get us to waive this prohibition in the public's interest by
convincing us the engine will work properly only with the identified
component or service.

Sec. 1048.130 What installation instructions must I give to equipment
manufacturers?

(a) If you sell an engine for someone else to install in a piece of
nonroad equipment, give the buyer of the engine written instructions
for installing it consistent with the requirements of this part. Make
sure these instructions have the following information:
(1) Include the heading: ``Emission-related installation
instructions.''
(2) State: ``Failing to follow these instructions when installing a
certified engine in a piece of nonroad equipment violates federal law
(40 CFR 1068.105(b)), subject to fines or other penalties as described
in the Clean Air Act.''.
(3) Describe any other instructions needed to install an exhaust
aftertreatment device consistent with your application for
certification.
(4) Describe the steps needed to control evaporative emissions, as
described in Sec. 1048.105.
(5) Describe any necessary steps for installing the diagnostic
system described in Sec. 1048.110.
(6) Describe any limits on the range of applications needed to
ensure that the engine operates consistently with your application for
certification. For example, if your engines are certified only for
constant-speed operation, tell equipment manufacturers not to install
the engines in variable-speed applications. Also, if you need to avoid
sustained high-load operation to meet the field-testing emission
standards we specify in Sec. 1048.101(c), describe how the equipment
manufacturer must properly size the engines for a given application.
(7) Describe any other instructions to make sure the installed
engine will operate according to design specifications in your
application for certification.

[[Page 51194]]

(8) State: ``If you obscure the engine's emission label, you must
place a duplicate label on your equipment, as described in 40 CFR
1068.105.''.
(b) You do not need installation instructions for engines you
install in your own equipment.

Sec. 1048.135 How must I label and identify the engines I produce?

(a) Assign each production engine a unique identification number
and permanently and legibly affix or engrave it on the engine.
(b) At the time of manufacture, add a permanent label identifying
each engine. To meet labeling requirements, do four things:
(1) Attach the label in one piece so it is not removable without
being destroyed or defaced.
(2) Design and produce it to be durable and readable for the
engine's entire life.
(3) Secure it to a part of the engine needed for normal operation
and not normally requiring replacement.
(4) Write it in block letters in English.
(c) On your engine label, do 13 things:
(1) Include the heading ``EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION.''
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark.
(3) State: ``THIS ENGINE IS CERTIFIED TO OPERATE ON [specify
operating fuel or fuels].''
(4) Identify the emission-control system; your identifiers must use
names and abbreviations consistent with SAE J1930, which we incorporate
by reference (see Sec. 1048.710).
(5) List all requirements for fuel and lubricants.
(6) State the date of manufacture [DAY (optional), MONTH, and
YEAR]; if you stamp this information on the engine and print it in the
owner's manual, you may omit it from the label.
(7) State: ``THIS ENGINE MEETS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGULATIONS FOR [MODEL YEAR]
LARGE NONROAD SI ENGINES.''
(8) Include EPA's standardized designation for the engine family.
(9) State the engine's displacement (in liters) and rated power.
(10) State the engine's useful life (see Sec. 1048.101(h)).
(11) List specifications and adjustments for engine tuneups; show
the proper position for the transmission during tuneup and state which
accessories should be operating.
(12) Describe other information on proper maintenance and use.
(13) Identify the emission standards to which you have certified
the engine.
(d) Some of your engines may need more information on the label.
(1) If you have an engine family that has been certified only for
constant-speed engines, add to the engine label ``CONSTANT-SPEED
ONLY.''
(2) If you certify an engine to the voluntary standards in
Sec. 1048.140, add to the engine label ``BLUE SKY SERIES.''
(3) If you produce an engine we exempt from the requirements of
this part, see 40 CFR part 1068, subparts C and D, for more label
information.
(e) Some engines may not have enough space for a label with all the
required information. In this case, you may omit the information
required in paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(12) of this
section if you print it in the owner's manual instead.
(f) If you are unable to meet these labeling requirements, you may
ask us to modify them consistent with the intent of this section.
(g) If you obscure the engine label while installing the engine in
the vehicle, you must place a duplicate label on the vehicle. If
someone else installs the engine in a vehicle, give them duplicate
labels if they ask for them (see 40 CFR 1068.105).

Sec. 1048.140 How do I certify my engines to more stringent, voluntary
standards?

This section defines voluntary standards that allow you to produce
engines with a recognized level of superior emission control. We refer
to these as ``Blue Sky Series'' engines. If you certify engines under
this section, they must meet one of the following standards:
(a) For the 2003 model year, an engine family may qualify for
designation as ``Blue Sky Series'' by meeting all the requirements in
this part that apply to 2004 model year engines. This includes all
testing and reporting requirements.
(b) For the 2003 through 2006 model years, an engine family may
qualify for designation as ``Blue Sky Series'' by meeting all the
requirements in this part that apply to 2007 model year engines. This
includes all testing and reporting requirements.
(c) Any engine family may qualify for designation as ``Blue Sky
Series'' by meeting all the requirements in this part, while certifying
to the following voluntary emission standards:
(1) 1.3 g/kW-hr HC+NO_X and 3.4
g/kW-hr CO using steady-state and transient test procedures, as
described in subpart F of this part.
(2) 1.8 g/kW-hr HC+NO_X and 4.7
g/kW-hr CO using field-testing procedures, as described in subpart F of
this part.

Sec. 1048.145 What provisions apply only for a limited time?

The provisions in this section apply instead of other provisions in
this part. This section describes when these interim provisions expire.
(a) Family banking. You may certify an engine family to comply with
all the 2007 model year requirements before 2007. For each year of
early compliance for an engine family, you may delay certification by
one year for a different engine family with smaller projected power-
weighted nationwide sales. For example, if you sell 1,000 engines with
an average power rating of 50 kW certified a year early, you may delay
certification for another engine family with an average power rating of
100 kW of up to 500 engines. You must notify us as soon as you are
aware of such a discrepancy between projected and actual sales.
(b) Hydrocarbon standards. For 2004 through 2006 model years,
manufacturers may use nonmethane hydrocarbon measurements to
demonstrate compliance with applicable emission standards.
(c) Transient emission testing. Engines rated over 560 kW are
exempt from the transient emission standards in Sec. 1048.101(b).
(d) In-use emission credits with steady-state testing. You may
generate credits for the in-use averaging program described in
Sec. 1048.415 using steady-state test procedures for 2004 through 2006
model years.
(e) Optional early field testing. For 2004 through 2006 model
years, manufacturers may optionally use the field-testing procedures in
subpart F of this part for any in-use testing required under subpart E
of this part. In this case, the same emission standards apply to both
steady-state testing and field testing.
(f) Small-volume provisions. Special provisions apply to you if you
manufacture fewer than 300 engines per year that are subject to the
standards of this part.
(1) For 2004 through 2006 model year engines, the lawn and garden
exemption described in Sec. 1048.615 applies to your engines with total
displacement up to 2500 cc with rated power at or below 30 kW. To
qualify for this exemption, you must meet a CO emission standard of 130
g/kW-hr using the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 90.
(2) For 2007 through 2009 model year engines, you may optionally
comply with the emission standards and other requirements that would
otherwise apply starting in 2004.
(3) If you qualify for the hardship provisions in Sec. 1068.241 of
this chapter,

[[Page 51195]]

we may approve extensions of up to three years total.

Subpart C--Certifying Engine Families

Sec. 1048.201 What are the general requirements for submitting a
certification application?

(a) Send us an application for a certificate of conformity for each
engine family. Each application is valid for only one model year.
(b) The application must not include false or incomplete statements
or information (see Sec. 1048.250). We may choose to ask you to send us
less information than we specify in this subpart, but this would not
change your recordkeeping requirements.
(c) Use good engineering judgment for all decisions related to your
application (see Sec. 1068.5 of this chapter).
(d) An authorized representative of your company must approve and
sign the application.

Sec. 1048.205 How must I prepare my application?

In your application, you must do all the following things:
(a) Describe the engine family's specifications and other basic
parameters of the engine's design. List the types of fuel you intend to
use to certify the engine family (for example, gasoline, liquefied
petroleum gas, methanol, or natural gas).
(b) Explain how the emission-control system operates. Describe in
detail all the system's components, auxiliary emission-control devices,
and all fuel-system components you will install on any production or
test engine. Explain why any auxiliary emission-control devices are not
defeat devices (see Sec. 1048.115(g)). Do not include detailed
calibrations for components unless we ask for them.
(c) Explain how the engine diagnostic system works, describing
especially the engine conditions (with the corresponding diagnostic
trouble codes) that cause the malfunction-indicator light to go on.
Propose what you consider to be extreme conditions under which the
diagnostic system should disregard trouble codes, as described in
Sec. 1048.110.
(d) Describe the engines you selected for testing and the reasons
for selecting them.
(e) Describe any special or alternate test procedures you used (see
Sec. 1048.501).
(f) Identify the duty cycle and the number of engine operating
hours used to stabilize emission levels. Describe any scheduled
maintenance you did.
(g) List the specifications of the test fuel to show that it falls
within the required ranges we specify in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C.
(h) Identify the engine family's useful life.
(i) Propose maintenance and use instructions for the ultimate buyer
of each new engine (see Sec. 1048.125).
(j) Propose emission-related installation instructions if you sell
engines for someone else to install in a piece of nonroad equipment
(see Sec. 1048.130).
(k) Identify each high-cost warranted part and show us how you
calculated its replacement cost, including the estimated retail cost of
the part, labor rates, and labor hours to diagnose and replace
defective parts.
(l) Propose an emission-control label.
(m) Present emission data for HC, NO_X, and CO on a test
engine to show your engines meet the duty-cycle emission standards we
specify in Sec. 1048.101(a) and (b). Show these figures before and
after applying deterioration factors for each engine. Include test data
for each type of fuel on which you intend for engines in the engine
family to operate (for example, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas,
methanol, or natural gas).
(n) Report all test results, including those from invalid tests or
from any nonstandard tests (such as measurements based on exhaust
concentrations in parts per million).
(o) Identify the engine family's deterioration factors and describe
how you developed them. Present any emission test data you used for
this.
(p) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see
Sec. 1048.115(d)), including the following:
(1) The nominal or recommended setting and the associated
production tolerances.
(2) The intended physically adjustable range.
(3) The limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges.
(4) Production tolerances of the limits or stops used to establish
each physically adjustable range.
(5) Information showing that someone cannot readily modify the
engines to operate outside the physically adjustable range.
(q) Describe everything we need to read and interpret all the
information broadcast by an engine's onboard computers and electronic
control modules and state that you will give us any hardware or tools
we would need to do this. You may reference any appropriate publicly
released standards that define conventions for these messages and
parameters. Format your information consistent with publicly released
standards.
(r) If your engine family includes a volatile liquid fuel, propose
a set of design parameters and instructions for installing the engine
to minimize evaporative emissions (see Sec. 1048.115(g)).
(s) State whether your engine will operate in variable-speed
applications, constant-speed applications, or both. If your
certification covers only constant-speed applications, describe how you
will prevent use of these engines in variable-speed applications.
(t) State that all the engines in the engine family comply with the
field-testing emission standards we specify in Sec. 1048.101(c) for all
normal operation and use (see Sec. 1048.515). Describe in detail any
testing, engineering analysis, or other information on which you base
this statement.
(u) State that you operated your test engines according to the
specified procedures and test parameters using the fuels described in
the application to show you meet the requirements of this part.
(v) State unconditionally that all the engines in the engine family
comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced parts, and
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
(w) Include estimates of engine production.
(x) Add other information to help us evaluate your application if
we ask for it.

Sec. 1048.210 May I get preliminary approval before I complete my
application?

If you send us information before you finish the application, we
will review it and make any appropriate determinations listed in
Sec. 1048.215(b) within 90 days of your request. If we need to ask you
for further information, we will extend the 90-day period by the number
of days we wait for your response.

Sec. 1048.215 What happens after I complete my application?

(a) If any of the information in your application changes after you
submit it, amend it as described in Sec. 1048.225.
(b) We may decide that we cannot approve your application unless
you revise it.
(1) If you inappropriately use the provisions of Sec. 1048.230(c)
or (d) to define a broader or narrower engine family, we will require
you to redefine your engine family.
(2) If we determine your selected useful life for the engine family
is too short, we will require you to lengthen it (see
Sec. 1048.101(h)).
(3) If we determine your deterioration factors are not appropriate,
we will

[[Page 51196]]

require you to revise them (see Sec. 1048.240(c)).
(4) If your diagnostic system is inadequate for detecting
significant malfunctions in emission-control systems, we will require
you to make the system more effective (see Sec. 1048.110(b)).
(5) If your diagnostic system inappropriately disregards trouble
codes under certain conditions, we will require you to change the
system to operate under broader conditions (see Sec. 1048.110(g)).
(6) If your proposed label is inconsistent with Sec. 1048.135, we
will require you to change it (and tell you how, if possible).
(7) If you require or recommend maintenance and use instructions
inconsistent with Sec. 1048.125, we will require you to change them.
(8) If we find any other problem with your application, we will
tell you how to correct it.
(c) If we determine your application is complete and shows you meet
all the requirements, we will issue a certificate of conformity for
your engine family for that model year. If we deny the application, we
will explain why in writing. You may then ask us to hold a hearing to
reconsider our decision (see Sec. 1048.720).

Sec. 1048.220 How do I amend the maintenance instructions in my
application?

Send the Designated Officer a request to amend your application for
certification for an engine family if you want to change the
maintenance instructions in a way that could affect emissions. In your
request, describe the proposed changes to the maintenance instructions.
Unless we disapprove it, you may distribute the new maintenance
instructions to your customers 30 days after we receive your request.
We may also approve a shorter time or waive this requirement.

Sec. 1048.225 How do I amend my application to include new or modified
engines?

(a) You must amend your application for certification before you
take either of the following actions:
(1) Add an engine to a certificate of conformity.
(2) Make a design change for a certified engine family that may
affect emissions or an emission-related part over the engine's
lifetime.
(b) Send the Designated Officer a request to amend the application
for certification for an engine family. In your request, do all of the
following:
(1) Describe the engine model or configuration you are adding or
changing.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or reasons why the original
test engine is or is not still appropriate.
(3) If the original test engine for the engine family is not
appropriate to show compliance for the new or modified engine, include
new test data showing that the new or modified engine meets the
requirements of this part.
(c) You may start producing the new or modified engine anytime
after you send us your request.
(d) You must give us test data within 30 days if we ask for more
testing, or stop producing the engine if you cannot do this.
(e) If we determine that the certificate of conformity would not
cover your new or modified engine, we will send you a written
explanation of our decision. In this case, you may no longer produce
these engines, though you may ask for a hearing for us to reconsider
our decision (see Sec. 1048.720).

Sec. 1048.230 How do I select engine families?

(a) Divide your product line into families of engines that you
expect to have similar emission characteristics. Your engine family is
limited to a single model year.
(b) Group engines in the same engine family if they are identical
in all of the following aspects:
(1) The combustion cycle.
(2) The cooling system (water-cooled vs. air-cooled).
(3) The number and arrangement of cylinders.
(4) The number, location, volume, and composition of catalytic
converters.
(5) Method of air aspiration.
(6) Bore and stroke.
(7) Configuration of the combustion chamber.
(8) Location of intake and exhaust valves or ports.
(c) In some cases you may subdivide a group of engines that is
identical under paragraph (b) of this section into different engine
families. To do so, you must show you expect emission characteristics
to be different during the useful life or that any of the following
engine characteristics are different:
(1) Method of actuating intake and exhaust timing (poppet valve,
reed valve, rotary valve, etc.).
(2) Sizes of intake and exhaust valves or ports.
(3) Type of fuel.
(4) Configuration of the fuel system.
(5) Exhaust system.
(d) If your engines are not identical with respect to the things
listed in paragraph (b) of this section, but you show that their
emission characteristics during the useful life will be similar, we may
approve grouping them in the same engine family.
(e) If you cannot define engine families by the method in this
section, we will define them based on features related to emission
characteristics.

Sec. 1048.235 How does testing fit with my application for a
certificate of conformity?

This section describes how to test engines in your effort to apply
for a certificate of conformity.
(a) Test your engines using the procedures and equipment specified
in subpart F of this part.
(b) Select from each engine family a test engine for each fuel type
with a configuration you believe is most likely to exceed the emission
standards. Using good engineering judgment, consider the emission
levels of all exhaust constituents over the full useful life of the
engine when operated in a piece of equipment.
(c) You may submit emission data for equivalent engine families
from previous years instead of doing new tests, but only if the data
shows that the test engine would meet all the requirements for the
latest engine models. We may require you to do new emission testing if
we believe the latest engine models could be substantially different
from the previously tested engine.
(d) We may choose to measure emissions from any of your test
engines.
(1) If we do this, you must provide the test engine at the location
we select. We may decide to do the testing at your plant or any other
facility. If we choose to do the testing at your plant, you must
schedule it as soon as possible and make available the instruments and
equipment we need.
(2) If we measure emissions on one of your test engines, the
results of that testing become the official data for the engine. Unless
we later invalidate this data, we may decide not to consider your data
in determining if your engine family meets the emission standards.
(3) Before we test one of your engines, we may set its adjustable
parameters to any point within the physically adjustable ranges (see
Sec. 1048.115(d)).
(4) Calibrate the test engine within the production tolerances
shown on the engine label for anything we do not consider an adjustable
parameter (see Sec. 1048.205(m)).

Sec. 1048.240 How do I determine if my engine family complies with
emission standards?

(a) Your engine family complies with the numerical emission
standards in Sec. 1048.101 if all emission-data engines representing
that family have test results

[[Continued on page 51197]]

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

[[pp. 51147-51196]]

Related Material

Local Navigation