[[pp. 28147-28196]]
[Federal Register: May 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 96)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28147-28196]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18my07-18]
[[pp. 28147-28196]]
Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition
Engines and Equipment
[[Continued from page 28146]]
[[Page 28147]]
operating hours (see Section V.C.2 for more information).
D. Testing Provisions
The test procedures provide an objective measurement for
establishing whether engines comply with emission standards. The
following sections describe a variety of proposed changes to the
current test procedures. Except as identified in the following
sections, we are proposing to preserve the testing-related regulatory
provisions that currently apply under 40 CFR part 90. Note that we will
approve any appropriate alternatives, deviations, or interpretations of
the new testing requirements on a case-by-case basis rather than
operating under any presumption that any such judgments made under the
Phase 1 or Phase 2 programs will continue to apply.
(1) Migrating Procedures to 40 CFR Part 1065
Manufacturers have been using the procedures in 40 CFR part 90 to
test their engines for certification of Phase 1 and Phase 2 engines. As
part of a much broader effort, we have adopted comprehensive testing
specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 that are intended to serve as the
basis for testing all types of engines. The procedures in part 1065
include updated information reflecting the current state of available
technology. We are proposing to apply the procedures in part 1065 to
nonhandheld engines starting with the applicability of the Phase 3
standards as specified in 40 CFR part 1054, subpart F. As described in
Section IX, the procedures in part 1065 identifies new types of
analyzers and updates a wide range of testing specifications, but
leaves intact the fundamental approach for measuring exhaust emissions.
There is no need to shift to the part 1065 procedures for nonhandheld
engines before the proposed Phase 3 standards apply. See Section IX for
additional information.
We are not proposing new exhaust emission standards for handheld
engines so there is no natural point in time for shifting to the part
1065 procedures. For the reasons described above and in Section IX, we
nevertheless believe handheld engines should also use the part 1065
procedures for measuring exhaust emissions. We propose to require
manufacturers to start using the part 1065 procedures in the 2012 model
year. Manufacturers would be allowed to continue certifying engines
using carryover data generated under the part 90 procedures, but any
new certification testing would be subject to the part 1065 procedures.
Engine manufacturers have raised one issue related to the specified
test procedures in part 1065. The calculations for determining mass
emissions depend on a simplifying assumption that combustion is at
stoichiometry or is in fuel-lean environment. This is not the case for
many Small SI engines. The equation with the simplifying assumption
does not take into account the equilibrium reaction between hydrogen
and water. As a result, engines with fuel-rich operation would have
detectable hydrogen concentrations in the exhaust, which would cause
the analyzers to have a reading for hydrocarbon emissions that is
somewhat higher than the actual value. To the extent there is a
concern, we believe it would always be appropriate to rely on the
reference equations without the simplifying assumptions made for the
equations published in part 1065. We request comment on this approach
to measurements from Small SI engines.
(2) Duty Cycle
The regulations under part 90 currently specify duty cycles for
testing engines for exhaust emissions. The current requirements specify
how to control speeds and loads and describe the situations in which
the installed engine governor controls engine speed. We are proposing
to extend these provisions to testing under the new standards with a
few adjustments described below. For engines equipped with an engine
speed governor, the current regulations at 40 CFR 90.409(a)(3) state:
For Phase 2 Class I, Phase 2 Class I-B, and Phase 2 Class II
engines equipped with an engine speed governor, the governor must be
used to control engine speed during all test cycle modes except for
Mode 1 or Mode 6, and no external throttle control may be used that
interferes with the function of the engine's governor; a controller
may be used to adjust the governor setting for the desired engine
speed in Modes 2-5 or Modes 7-10; and during Mode 1 or Mode 6 fixed
throttle operation may be used to determine the 100 percent torque value.
In addition the current regulations at 40 CFR 90.410(b) state:
For Phase 2 Class I, I-B, and II engines equipped with an engine
speed governor, during Mode 1 or Mode 6 hold both the specified
speed and load within ± five percent of point, during
Modes 2-3, or Modes 7-8 hold the specified load with ±
five percent of point, during Modes 4-5 or Modes 9-10, hold the
specified load within the larger range provided by ± 0.27
Nm (± 0.2 lb-ft), or ± ten (10) percent of
point, and during the idle mode hold the specified speed within
± ten percent of the manufacturer's specified idle engine
speed (see Table 1 in Appendix A of this subpart for a description
of test Modes).
Manufacturers have raised some questions about the interpretation
of these provisions. Our intent is that the current requirements
specify that testing be conducted as follows:
• Full-load testing (Mode 1) occurs at wide-open throttle to
maintain engines at rated speed, which is defined as the speed at which
the engine's maximum power occurs (as declared by the manufacturer).
• Idle testing (Mode 6) occurs at the manufacturer's
specified idle speed with a maximum load of five percent of maximum
torque. The regulation allows adjustment to control speeds that are
different than would be maintained by the installed governor.
• The installed governor must be used to control engine
speed for testing at all modes with torque values between idle and
full-load modes. The regulation allows adjustments for nominal speed
settings that are different than would be maintained by the installed
governor without modification.
We are proposing adjustments to the current regulatory requirements
in 40 CFR part 90 (see Sec. 1054.505). Since each of these proposed
adjustments may have some effect on measured emission levels, we
believe it is appropriate to implement these changes concurrent with
the Phase 3 standards. To the extent the proposed adjustments apply to
handheld engines, we believe it is appropriate to apply the changes for
new testing with 2012 and later model year engines for the reasons
described above for adopting the test procedures in part 1065.
First, we are proposing to require engine speed during the idle
mode to be controlled by the engine's installed speed governor. We
believe there is no testing limitation that would call for engine
operation at idle to depart from the engine's governed speed. Allowing
manufacturers to arbitrarily declare an idle speed only allows
manufacturers to select an idle speed that gives them an advantage in
achieving lower measured emission results, but not in a way that
corresponds to in-use emission control. We are also aware that some
production engines have a user-selectable control for selecting high-
speed or low-speed idle (commonly identified as ``rabbit/turtle''
settings). We believe this parameter adjustment may have a significant
effect on emissions that should be captured in the certification test
procedure. As a result, we are proposing a requirement that manufacturers
conduct testing with user-selectable controls set to keep the
[[Page 28148]]
engine operating at low-speed idle if any production engines in the
engine family have such an option.
Second, we are proposing an option in which manufacturers would
test their nonhandheld engines using a ramped-modal version of the
specified duty cycle, as described in Section IX. We expect this
testing to be equivalent to the modal testing described above but would
have advantages for streamlining test efforts by allowing for a single
result for the full cycle instead of relying on a calculation from
separate modal results. Under the proposal we would allow manufacturers
the option to select this type of testing. EPA's testing would
generally involve ramped-modal testing only if the engine manufacturer
selected this option for certification.
Third, the part 90 regulations currently specify two duty cycles
for nonhandheld engines: (1) Testing at rated speed; and (2) testing at
85 percent of rated speed. The regulations direct manufacturers simply
to select the most appropriate cycle and declare the rated speed for
their engines. We believe it is appropriate to make this more objective
by stating that rated speed is 3600 rpm and intermediate speed is 3060
rpm, unless the manufacturer demonstrates that a different speed better
represents the in-use operation for their engines. This is consistent with
the most common in-use settings and most manufacturers' current practice.
In addition, we are proposing regulatory provisions to clarify how
nonhandheld engines are operated to follow the prescribed duty cycle.
As described in part 90, we are proposing to require that the engines
operate ungoverned at wide-open throttle for the full-power mode. This
test mode is used to denormalize the rest of the duty cycle. Testing at
other modes occurs with the governor controlling engine speed. Before
each test mode, manufacturers may adjust the governor to target the
same nominal speed used for the full-power mode, with a tolerance
limiting the variation in engine speed at each mode. Alternatively,
testing may be done by letting the installed governor control engine
speed, in which case only the torque value would need to be controlled
within an established range.
A different duty cycle applies to handheld engines, which are
generally not equipped with governors to control engine speed. The
current regulations allow manufacturers to name their operating speed
for testing at each of the test modes. We are proposing to continue the
allowance for manufacturers to select an appropriate engine speed for
idle operation. However, we are concerned that this approach allows
manufacturers too much discretion for selecting a rated speed for high-
load testing. Manufacturers are encouraged to select a speed that best
represents in-use operation for the engine family, but there is no
requirement to prevent a manufacturer from selecting a rated speed that
results in lower emissions, independent of the speeds at which in-use
engines operate. We are proposing to specify that manufacturers select
a value for rated speed that matches the most common speed for full-
load operation within the engine family. Engine manufacturers generally
also make their own equipment, so this information should be readily
available. We would expect manufacturers to identify the range of
equipment models covered by a given engine family, identify the in-use
operating speeds for those models, and select the full-load speed
applicable for the greatest number of projected unit sales. We further
propose to require manufacturers to describe in their application for
certification how they selected the value for rated speed.
(3) Test Fuel
We are proposing to require Phase 3 testing with a standard test
fuel consistent with the requirements under 40 CFR part 90 (see 40 CFR
part 1065, subpart H). In particular, we do not believe it is
appropriate to create a flexibility to allow for testing using
oxygenated fuel since this could affect an engine's air-fuel ratio,
which in turn could affect the engine's combustion and emission
characteristics. However, we understand that engine manufacturers may
have emission data from some model years before the Phase 3 standards
take effect. We would allow for continued use of this pre-existing data
as long as it is appropriate to use carryover data for demonstrating
compliance with current standards.
Ethanol is commonly blended into in-use gasoline and is anticipated
to be more widely used in the future. However, we are not proposing a
test fuel containing ethanol for two reasons. First, the technical
feasibility of this rule is based on certification gasoline. If an
ethanol fuel blend were used as the certification fuel, the standards
would need to be adjusted to account for the effects of this fuel on
emissions. Second, manufacturers may not use ethanol blends to certify
Small SI engines in California. The use of an ethanol blend would
require manufacturers to test their engines separately for the
California and Federal testing.
The test fuel specifications apply to all testing. However, we may
be able to allow for testing with oxygenated fuel for production-line
testing if manufacturers first establish the appropriate correction to
account for the fuel's effect on emissions. We request comment on an
appropriate approach that would allow for production-line testing with
oxygenated fuel.
We are similarly proposing test fuel specifications for liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas. Since natural gas has a very high
methane content and methane is generally nonreactive in the atmosphere,
we are proposing to apply the same emission standards for natural gas
engines but not count methane emissions toward the total hydrocarbon
measurement.
E. Certification and Compliance Provisions for Small SI Engines and
Equipment
(1) Deterioration Factors
As part of the certification process, manufacturers generate
deterioration factors to demonstrate that their engines meet emission
standards over the full useful life. We are proposing some changes from
the procedures currently included in part 90 (see Sec. 1054.240 and
Sec. 1054.245). Much of the basis for these changes comes from the
experience gained in testing many different engines in preparation for
this proposal. First, we are proposing to discontinue bench aging of
emission components. Testing has shown that operating and testing the
complete engine is necessary to get accurate deterioration factors.
Second, we are proposing to allow for assigned deterioration factors
for a limited number of small-volume nonhandheld engine families.
Manufacturers could use assigned deterioration factors for multiple
small-volume nonhandheld engine families as long as the total
production for all of the nonhandheld engine families for which the
manufacturer is using assigned deterioration factors is estimated at
the time of certification to be no more than 10,000 units per year.
Third, we are proposing to allow for assigned deterioration factors for
all engines produced by small-volume nonhandheld engine manufacturers.
For the HC+NOX standard, we propose to specify that
manufacturers use a single deterioration factor for the sum of HC and
NOX emissions. However, if manufacturers get approval to
establish a deterioration factor on an engine that is tested with
service accumulation representing less than the full useful life for
any reason, we would require separate deterioration factors for
[[Page 28149]]
HC and NOX emissions. The advantage of a combined
deterioration factor is that it can account for an improvement in
emission levels with aging. However, for engines that have service
accumulation representing less than the full useful life, we believe it
is not appropriate to extrapolate measured values indicating that
emission levels for a particular pollutant will decrease. This is the
same approach we adopted for recreational vehicles.
EPA is not proposing the values for the assigned deterioration
factors for small-volume nonhandheld engine manufacturers in this
proposal. In an effort to develop deterioration factors that are
appropriate for Small SI engines, we plan to evaluate certification
data from Phase 3 engines certified early with EPA and from engines
certified under California ARB's Tier 3 standards (which begin in 2007
and 2008). Because we are not proposing new exhaust standards for
handheld engines, the assigned deterioration factor provisions adopted
for Phase 2 handheld engines are being retained.
Although we are not proposing new exhaust standards for handheld
engines, handheld engine manufacturers noted that California ARB has
approved certain durability cycles for accumulating hours on engines
for the purpose of demonstrating emissions durability. The durability
cycles approved by California ARB vary from a 30-second cycle for
chainsaws to a 20-minute cycle for blowers, with 85 percent of the time
operated at wide open throttle and 15 percent of the time operated at
idle. Engine manufacturers can run the durability cycles over and over
until they accumulate the hours of operation equivalent to the useful
life of the engine family. Our current regulations state that ``service
accumulation is to be performed in a manner using good judgment to
ensure that emissions are representative of production engines.'' While
we are not proposing to change the regulatory language regarding
service accumulation, we believe the California ARB-approved durability
cycles are appropriate and acceptable to EPA for accumulating hours on
handheld engines for demonstrating emissions durability.
Manufacturers have pointed out that they are developing a testing
protocol that would allow manufacturers to develop deterioration
factors for catalysts through a bench-aging procedure. A fundamental
factor in evaluating the appropriateness of any bench-aging procedure
is the extent to which it simulates representative exhaust gas
composition and other in-use operating parameters. We request comment
on any appropriate procedures, or limitations on the use of such
procedures, for certifying Small SI engines.
(2) Delegated Final Assembly
The current practice of attaching exhaust systems to engines
varies. Class I engines are typically designed and produced by the
engine manufacturer with complete emission control systems. Equipment
manufacturers generally buy these engines and install them in their
equipment, adjusting equipment designs if necessary to accommodate the
mufflers and the rest of the exhaust system from the engine manufacturer.
Engine manufacturers generally produce Class II engines without
exhaust systems, relying instead on installation instructions to ensure
that equipment manufacturers get mufflers that fall within a specified
range of backpressures that is appropriate for a given engine model.
Equipment manufacturers are free to work with muffler manufacturers to
design mufflers that fit into the space available for a given equipment
model, paying attention to the need to stay within the design
specifications from the engine manufacturers. A similar situation
applies for air filters, where equipment manufacturers in some cases
work with component manufacturers to use air filters that are tailored
to the individual equipment model while staying within the design
specifications defined by the engine manufacturer.
The existing regulations require that certified engines be in their
certified configuration when they are introduced into commerce. We
therefore need special provisions to address the possibility that
engines will need to be produced and shipped without exhaust systems or
air intake systems that are part of the certified configuration. We
have adopted such provisions for heavy-duty highway engines and for
other nonroad engines in 40 CFR 85.1713 and 40 CFR 1068.260,
respectively. These provisions generally require that engine
manufacturers establish a contractual arrangement with equipment
manufacturers and take additional steps to ensure that engines are in
their certified configuration before reaching the ultimate purchaser.
We are proposing to apply delegated-assembly provisions for
nonhandheld engines that are similar to those adopted for heavy-duty
highway engines, with a variety of adjustments to address the unique
situation for Small SI engines (see Sec. 1054.610). This would require
that engine manufacturers apply for certification in the normal way,
identifying all the engine parts that make up the engine configurations
covered by the certification. Equipment manufacturers would be able to
work with muffler manufacturers to get mufflers with installed
catalysts as specified in the engine manufacturer's application for
certification. If equipment manufacturers would need a muffler or
catalyst that is not covered by the engine manufacturer's
certification, the engine manufacturer would need to amend the
application for certification. This may require new testing if the data
from the original emission-data engine are not appropriate for showing
that the new configuration will meet emission standards, as described
in Sec. 1054.225. (Alternatively, the equipment manufacturer may take
on the responsibility for certifying the new configuration, as
described in Sec. 1054.612.) Engine manufacturers would also identify
in the application for certification their plans to sell engines
without emission-related components. We are proposing several
provisions to ensure that engines will eventually be in their certified
configuration. For example, engine manufacturers would establish
contracts with affected equipment manufacturers, include installation
instructions to make clear how engine assembly should be completed,
keep records of the number of engines produced under these provisions,
and obtain annual affidavits from affected equipment manufacturers to
confirm that they are installing the proper emission-related components
on the engines and that they have ordered a number of components that
corresponds to the number of engines involved.
While the delegated-assembly provisions are designed for direct
shipment of engines from engine manufacturers to equipment
manufacturers, we are aware that distributors play an important role in
providing engines to large numbers of equipment manufacturers. We are
proposing that these provisions apply to distributors in one of two
ways. First, engine manufacturers may have an especially close working
relationship with primary distributors. In such a case, the engine
manufacturer would be able to establish a contractual arrangement
allowing the distributor to act as the engine manufacturer's agent for
all matters related to compliance with the delegated-assembly
provisions. This would allow the distributor to make arrangements with
equipment manufacturers to address design needs
[[Page 28150]]
and perform oversight functions. We would hold the engine manufacturer
directly responsible if the distributor failed to meet the regulatory
obligations that would otherwise apply to the engine manufacturer.
Second, other distributors may receive shipment of engines without
exhaust systems, but they would need to add any aftertreatment
components before sending the engines on to equipment manufacturers.
Engine manufacturers would treat these distributors as equipment
manufacturers for the purposes of delegated assembly. Equipment
manufacturers buying engines from such a distributor would not have the
option of separately obtaining mufflers from muffler manufacturers. In
both of these scenarios, the engine manufacturer continues to be
responsible for the in-use compliance of all their engines.
Engine manufacturers would need to affix a label to the engine to
clarify that it needs certain emission-related components before it is
in its certified configuration. This labeling information is important
for alerting assembly personnel to select mufflers with installed
catalysts; the label would also give in-house inspectors or others with
responsibility for quality control a tool for confirming that all
engines have been properly assembled and installed. Given the large
numbers of engine and equipment models and the interchangeability of
mufflers with and without catalysts, we believe proper labeling will
reduce the possibility that engines will be misbuilt.
This labeling may be done with any of three approaches. First, a
temporary label may be applied such that it would not be removed
without a deliberate action on the part of the equipment manufacturer.
We believe it is not difficult to create a label that will stay on the
engine until it is deliberately removed. Second, manufacturers may add
the words ``delegated assembly'' to the engine's permanent emission
control information label. Third, manufacturers may create a unique
alphanumeric code to apply to the engine's permanent emission control
information label. This code would be identified in the application for
certification. Creating a unique code would not provide a clear enough
communication to equipment manufacturers that they are responsible for
bringing the engine into its certified configuration. Engine
manufacturers taking this approach would therefore need to add features
to the label to make this clear. For example, creating labels with a
different color or shading would make it easy to identify that an engine
needs to be properly assembled before it is in its certified configuration.
Any of these labeling approaches would properly identify the
engines as needing emission-related components from the equipment
manufacturer. We have a remaining concern that the approaches involving
permanent labels do not identify that an engine is not yet in its
certified configuration. Since there is no change in the label to show
the engine's status, we believe these approaches may not be as
effective as the temporary labels in preventing misbuilt engines. We
are also concerned that imported engines with manufacturer-specific
codes will lead to confusion with Customs inspectors. With no
standardized approach for identifying which engines do not need
catalysts, there is a significant risk that engines will be held up
while inspectors confirm their status. We request comment on the best
way of requiring labeling information for these engines. For example,
we request comment on adding a requirement for equipment manufacturers
to add some identifying mark to the permanent label to show that the
engine is in its certified configuration. We also request comment on
replacing the provision allowing for a manufacturer-specific code to
some standardized abbreviation for ``delegated assembly'' that would
allow for unambiguous identification of the engine's status with a
minimum burden in terms of requiring larger labels.
In addition, engine manufacturers would need to perform or arrange
for audits to verify that equipment manufacturers are properly
assembling engines. Engine manufacturers may rely on third-party agents
to perform auditing functions. Since the purpose of the audit is to
verify that equipment manufacturers are properly assembling products,
they may not perform audits on behalf of engine manufacturers. We are
proposing to require that audits must involve at a minimum reviewing
the equipment manufacturer's production records and procedures,
inspecting the equipment manufacturer's production operations, or
inspecting the final assembled products. Inspection of final assembled
products may occur at any point in the product distribution system. For
example, products may be inspected at the equipment manufacturer's
assembly or storage facilities, at regional distribution centers, or at
retail locations. The audit must also include confirmation that the
number of aftertreatment devices shipped was sufficient for the number
of engines involved. We would typically expect engine manufacturers to
perform more than the minimum auditing steps identified above. For
example, equipment manufacturers with low order volumes, an unclear
history of compliance, or other characteristics that would cause some
concern may prompt us to require a more extensive audit to ensure
effective oversight in confirming that engines are always built
properly. Moreover, in the early years of this program, engine
manufacturers should consider nearly all participating equipment
manufacturers to be unfamiliar with the regulatory requirements and the
mechanics of meeting their responsibilities and obligations as
contracted manufacturers of certified engines. Engine manufacturers
would describe in the application for certification their plan for
taking steps to ensure that all engines will be in their certified
configuration when installed by the equipment manufacturer. EPA
approval of a manufacturer's plan for delegated assembly would be
handled as part of the overall certification process. We request
comment on appropriate requirements related to specific auditing
procedures that would be appropriate to address these concerns and to
provide adequate assurance that engines are routinely assembled in
their certified configuration.
We are proposing that engine manufacturers annually audit twelve
equipment manufacturers, or fewer if they are able to audit all
participating equipment manufacturers on average once every four years.
These audits would be divided over different equipment manufacturers
based on the number of engines sold to each equipment manufacturer. We
further propose that these auditing rates may be reduced after the
first eight years, or after the engine manufacturer has audited all
affected equipment manufacturers. This reduced auditing rate would be
based on an expectation that all participating equipment manufacturers
would be audited on average once every ten years.
To facilitate auditing related to catalysts, we are proposing to
require engine manufacturers to establish an alphanumeric designation
to identify each unique catalyst design (including size, washcoat,
precious metal loading, supplier, and any other appropriate factors)
and instruct equipment manufacturers to use stamping or other means to
permanently display this designation on the external surface of the
exhaust system, making it readily visible as much as possible when the
equipment is fully assembled, consistent with the objective of
verifying the identity of the installed
[[Page 28151]]
catalyst. This designation could be the same as the code applied to the
emission control information label as described above.
We are proposing that all the same requirements apply for separate
shipment related to air filters if they are part of an engine's
certified configuration, except for the auditing. We would require
auditing related to air filters only if engine manufacturers are
already performing audits related to catalysts. We believe there is
much less incentive or potential for problems with equipment
manufacturers producing engines with noncompliant air filters so we believe
a separate auditing requirement for air filters would be unnecessary.
The draft regulation specifies that the exemption expires when the
equipment manufacturer takes possession of the engine and the engine
reaches the point of final equipment assembly. We would understand the
point of final equipment assembly for purposes of delegated assembly
for aftertreatment components to be the point at which the equipment
manufacturer attaches a muffler to the engine. Engines observed in
production or inventory assembled with improper mufflers would be
considered to have been built contrary to the engine manufacturer's
installation instructions. Catalysts are invariably designed as part of
the muffler, so we would understand that there would be no reason to
install a different muffler once a given muffler has been installed
using normal production procedures. If equipment manufacturers sell
equipment without following these instructions, they would be
considered in violation of the prohibited acts (i.e., selling
uncertified engines). If there is a problem with any given equipment
manufacturer, we would hold the engine manufacturer responsible for
those noncompliant engines and require the engine manufacturer to
discontinue the practice of delegated assembly for that equipment
manufacturer. We request comment on the need to more explicitly
identify the meaning of the point of final equipment assembly in the
regulations, as described above.
We are aware that the proposed approach of allowing equipment
manufacturers to make their own arrangements to order mufflers results
in a situation in which the equipment manufacturer must spend time and
money to fulfill their responsibilities under the regulations. This
introduces a financial incentive to install mufflers with inferior
catalysts, or to omit the catalyst altogether. To address this concern
for heavy-duty highway engines, we adopted a requirement for engine
manufacturers to confirm that a vehicle manufacturer has ordered the
appropriate aftertreatment devices before they ship an engine.
Equipment manufacturers' purchasing practices for Small SI engines,
especially considering the order volumes, makes this approach
impractical. We are instead proposing to require that engine
manufacturers get written confirmation from each equipment manufacturer
before an initial shipment of engines in a given model year for a given
engine model. This confirmation would document the equipment
manufacturer's understanding that they are using the appropriate
aftertreatment components. The written confirmation would be due within
30 days after shipping the engines and would be required before
shipping any additional engines from that engine family to that
equipment manufacturer.
The shipping confirmation included in the rule for heavy-duty
highway engines is a very substantial provision to address the fact
that vehicle manufacturers would gain a competitive advantage by
producing noncompliant products, and that engines in commerce would be
labeled as if they were fully compliant even though they are not yet in
their certified configuration. This is especially problematic when a
muffler with no catalyst can easily be installed and can perform
without indicating a problem. To address this concern for Small SI
engines, we are including a requirement that equipment manufacturers
include in their annual affidavits an accounting for the number of
aftertreatment components they have ordered relative to the number of
engines shipped without the catalysts that the mufflers would otherwise
require.
Production-line testing normally involves building production
engines using normal assembly procedures. For engines shipped without
catalysts under the delegated-assembly provisions, it is not normally
possible to do this at the engine manufacturer's facility, where such
testing would normally occur. To address this, we are proposing to
specify that engine manufacturers must arrange to get a randomly
selected catalyst that will be used with the engine. The catalyst may
come from any point in the normal distribution from the aftertreatment
component manufacturer to the equipment manufacturer. The catalyst may
not come from the engine manufacturer's own inventory. Engine manufacturers
would keep records to show how they randomly selected catalysts.
As described above, we believe this is a very significant
compliance issue since it allows manufacturers to introduce into
commerce engines that are labeled as meeting current emission standards
even though they are not in their certified configuration. This is
especially true for Small SI engines where many high-volume products
are handled by many different manufacturers such that the final
assembly requires equipment manufacturers to properly install otherwise
indistinguishable products to keep products in the certified
configuration. Also, an equipment manufacturer may install multiple
engine models in a single type of equipment, some of which may need
catalyzed mufflers while others would use a conventional muffler. The
appearance and function of such mufflers with and without catalysts
would be virtually indistinguishable, which increases the likelihood of
accidentally installing the wrong muffler.
The provisions described above are intended to minimize the risks
associated with this practice. However, this concern is heightened for
companies that would use the delegated-assembly provisions to import
noncompliant engines with the expectation that equipment manufacturers
in the United States would add catalyzed mufflers as specified in the
engine manufacturer's application for certification. This raises two
potential problems. First, this practice could create a loophole in
EPA's enforcement program that would allow for widespread importation
of noncompliant engines, with the financial incentive for equipment
manufacturers to complete assembly with noncompliant mufflers. Since
all engines have mufflers, and since proper catalyst installation
generally can be confirmed only with an emission test or a destructive
inspection, it would be very difficult to find and correct any problems
that might occur. Second, engine manufacturers outside the United
States may be willing to take risks with noncompliant products based on
their limited exposure to EPA enforcement. As described in Section VI.F
we are considering bonding requirements for imported engines to ensure
that we will be able to fully resolve compliance or enforcement issues
with companies that have little or no presence or selling history in
the United States. We would expect to specify an increased bond payment
for importation of engines using the delegated-assembly provisions.
Increasing the per-engine bond value by 20 percent corresponds roughly
with the
[[Page 28152]]
value of catalyzed mufflers that would be required. We believe this
would be an appropriate additional bond value to address the concerns
for noncompliance from imported engines.
While this section describes the compliance provisions we believe
are necessary for addressing the practice of delegating assembly of
emission-related components to equipment manufacturers, providing a
broader view of the context for delegated assembly is also appropriate
for understanding our concern regarding the duplicative aspects of
delegated assembly with other provisions in this rulemaking. Recent
evaluation of a wide range of equipment models powered by Small SI
engines has led to several important observations. Many equipment
models have mufflers installed away from all other components such that
they have no space or packaging constraints. Other equipment models
with mufflers that are installed inside a cage or compartment generally
include substantial space around the muffler, which is necessary to
isolate the muffler's high surface temperatures and radiant heat from
operators and any heat-sensitive components. Another important
observation was the striking uniformity of muffler geometries, even
where equipment manufacturers obtained mufflers directly from muffler
manufacturers. Most mufflers on Class II engines are cylindrical models
with the size varying to correspond with the size of the engines. Other
Class II engine models use a box-shaped muffler design, but these
mufflers also exhibited little variation across models. These
observations have fundamental implications for the regulatory
provisions we are proposing for ensuring a smooth transition to the
Phase 3 emission standards.
For example, in situations that limit equipment manufacturers to
standardized muffler configurations, they would at most need to make
modest changes to their equipment to accommodate somewhat different
muffler geometries. We have taken these equipment design changes into
account with the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers
described below. We are therefore concerned that the proposed
provisions for delegated assembly and the Transition Program for
Equipment Manufacturers may be duplicative in providing additional time
and/or flexibilities for equipment manufacturers to redesign their
equipment for accommodating engines that meet the Phase 3 standards. If
this is the case, the proposed provisions for delegated assembly merely
serve to preserve the current business arrangements for the different
types of manufacturers. We request comment on the need for these
delegated-assembly provisions in light of the Transition Program for
Equipment Manufacturers. We also request comment on the appropriateness
of adopting these delegated-assembly provisions for Class I engines
since these engine manufacturers already install complete exhaust
systems for the large majority of their engines. Finally, we request
comment on the need to allow for the use of the more restrictive
delegated-assembly provisions in Sec. 1068.260 in the event that we do
not finalize the delegated-assembly provisions described above.
(3) Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers
Given the level of the proposed Phase 3 exhaust emission standards
for Class II engines, we believe there may be situations where the use
of a catalyzed muffler could require equipment manufacturers to modify
their equipment. We are therefore proposing a set of provisions to
provide equipment manufacturers with reasonable lead time for
transition to the proposed standards. The proposed provisions are
similar to the program we adopted for nonroad diesel engines (69 FR
38958, June 29, 2004).
Equipment manufacturers would not be obligated to use any of these
provisions, but all equipment manufacturers that produce Class II
equipment would be eligible to do so. We are also proposing that all
entities under the control of a common entity would have to be
considered together for the purposes of applying these allowances.
Manufacturers would be eligible for the allowances described below only
if they have primary responsibility for designing and manufacturing
equipment, and if their manufacturing procedures include installing
engines in the equipment.
(a) General Provisions
Under the proposed approach, beginning in the 2011 model year and
lasting through the 2014 model year, each equipment manufacturer may
install Class II engines not certified to the proposed Phase 3 emission
standards in a limited number of equipment applications produced for
the U.S. market (see Sec. 1054.625). We refer to these here as ``flex
engines.'' These flex engines would need to meet the Phase 2 standards.
The maximum number of ``allowances'' each manufacturer could use would
be based on 30 percent of an average year's production of Class II
equipment. The number of ``allowances'' would be calculated by
determining the average annual U.S.-directed production of equipment
using Class II engines produced from January 1, 2007 through December
31, 2009. Thirty percent of this average annual production level would
be the total number of ``allowances'' under this transition program
over four years. Manufacturers could use these allowances for their
Class II equipment over four model years from 2011 through 2014, with
the usage spread over these model years as determined by the equipment
manufacturer. Equipment produced under these provisions could use
engines that meet the Phase 2 emission standards instead of the Phase 3
standards. If an equipment manufacturer newly enters the Class II
equipment market during 2007, 2008 or 2009, the manufacturer would
calculate its average annual production level based only on the years
during which it actually produced Class II equipment. Equipment
manufacturers newly entering the Class II equipment market after 2009
would not receive any allowances under the transition program and would
need to incorporate Phase 3 compliant engines into the Class II
equipment beginning in 2011.
Equipment using engines built before the effective date of the
proposed Phase 3 standards would not count toward an equipment
manufacturer's allowances. Equipment using engines that are exempted
from the Phase 3 standards for any reason would also not count toward
an equipment manufacturer's allowances. For example, we are proposing
that small-volume engine manufacturers may continue to produce Phase 2
engines for two model years after the Phase 3 standards apply. All
engines subject to the Phase 3 standards, including those engines that
are certified to FELs at higher levels than the standard, but for which
an engine manufacturer uses exhaust ABT credits to demonstrate
compliance, would count as Phase 3 complying engines and would not be
included in an equipment manufacturer's count of allowances.
The choice of the allowances based on 30 percent of one year's
production is based on our best estimate of the degree of reasonable
lead time needed by the largest equipment manufacturers to modify their
equipment designs as needed to accommodate engines and exhaust systems
that have changed as a result of more stringent emission standards. We
believe the proposed level of allowances responds to the need for lead
time to accommodate the workload related to redesigning
[[Page 28153]]
equipment models to incorporate catalyzed mufflers while ensuring a
significant level of emission reductions in the early years of the
proposed program.
Equipment manufacturers may face similar challenges in
transitioning to rotational-molded fuel tanks that meet the proposed
permeation standards. We are therefore proposing to allow equipment
manufacturers to use noncompliant rotational-molded fuel tanks with any
equipment that is counted under the allowances described in this
section which use engines meeting Phase 2 exhaust emission standards
(see Sec. 1054.627). As part of this expanded rotational-molded fuel
tank allowance, we are requiring that equipment manufacturers first use
up any available credits or allowances generated from early compliance
with the fuel tank permeation requirements (see Section VI.D.4).
A similar concern applies for controlling running losses. As
described in Section VI, technologies for controlling running losses
may involve a significant degree of integration between engine and
equipment designs. In particular, routing a vapor line from the fuel
tank to the engine's intake system depends on engine modifications that
would allow for this connection. As a result, we are proposing that any
equipment using flex engines would not need to meet running loss standards.
(b) Coordination Between Engine and Equipment Manufacturers
We are proposing two separate paths for complying with
administrative requirements related to the proposed transition program,
depending on how the engine manufacturer chooses to make flex engines
available under the transition program. Engine manufacturers choosing
to use the delegated-assembly provisions described above would be
enabling equipment manufacturers to make the decision whether to
complete the engine assembly in the Phase 3 configuration or to use a
noncatalyzed muffler such that the engine would meet Phase 2 standards
and would therefore need to be counted as a flex engine. If engine
manufacturers do not use the delegated-assembly provisions, equipment
manufacturers would need to depend on engine manufacturers to produce
and ship flex engines that are already in a configuration meeting Phase
2 standards and labeled accordingly. Each of these scenarios involves a
different set of compliance provisions, which we describe below.
(i) Compliance based on engine manufacturers. Engine manufacturers
will in many cases produce complete engines. This would be the case if
the engine does not require a catalyst or if the engine manufacturer
chooses to design their own exhaust systems and ship complete engine
assemblies to equipment manufacturers.
Under this scenario, we propose to require that equipment
manufacturers request a certain number of flex engines from the engine
manufacturer. The proposed regulatory provisions would specifically
allow engine manufacturers to continue to build and sell Phase 2
engines needed to meet the market demand created by the transition
program for equipment manufacturers provided they receive the written
assurance from the equipment manufacturer that such engines are being
procured for this purpose. We are proposing to require that engine
manufacturers keep copies of the written assurance from equipment
manufacturers for at least five years after the final year in which
allowances are available.
Engine manufacturers are currently required to label their
certified engines with a variety of information. We are proposing that
engine manufacturers producing complete flex engines under this program
identify on the engine label that they are flex engines. In addition,
equipment manufacturers would be required to apply an Equipment
Flexibility Label to the engine or piece of equipment that identifies
the equipment as using an engine produced under the Phase 3 transition
program for equipment manufacturers. These proposed labeling
requirements would allow EPA to easily identify flex engines and
equipment, verify which equipment manufacturers are using these flex
engines, and more easily monitor compliance with the transition
provisions. Labeling of the equipment could also help U.S. Customs to
quickly identify equipment being imported lawfully using the Transition
Program for Equipment Manufacturers.
While manufacturers would need to meet Phase 2 standards with their
flex engines, they would not need to certify them for the current model
year. We are proposing instead to apply the requirements in 40 CFR
1068.260, which requires that manufacturers keep records showing that
they meet emission standards without requiring submission of an
application for certification. We request comment on these requirements
and whether these engines should be certified annually along with the
Phase 3 engines.
(ii) Compliance based on equipment manufacturers. We are proposing
to set up a different set of compliance provisions for engine
manufacturers that ship the engine separately from the exhaust system.
Under this scenario, as discussed above, the engine manufacturers must
establish a relationship with the equipment manufacturers allowing the
equipment manufacturer to install catalysts to complete engine assembly
for compliance with Phase 3 standards.
In this case, engine manufacturers would design and produce their
Phase 3 engines and label them accordingly. The normal path for these
engines covered by the delegated-assembly provisions would involve
shipment of the engine without an exhaust system to the equipment
manufacturer, the equipment manufacturer would then follow the engine
manufacturer's instructions to add the exhaust system including the
catalyst to bring the engine into a certified Phase 3 configuration.
Under the proposed transition program, equipment manufacturers would
choose for each of these engines to either follow the engine
manufacturer's instructions to install a catalyst to make it compliant
with Phase 3 standards or follow a different set of instructions to
install a non-catalyzed muffler to make it compliant with Phase 2
standards. Any such engines downgraded to Phase 2 standards would count
toward the equipment manufacturer's total number of allowances under
the transition program.
To make this work, engine manufacturers would need to take certain
steps to ensure overall compliance. First, engine manufacturers would
need to include emission data in the application for certification
showing that the engine would meet Phase 2 standards without any
modification other than installing a non-catalyzed exhaust system. This
may include a specified range of backpressures that equipment
manufacturers would need to meet in procuring a non-catalyst muffler.
If the Phase 3 engine without a catalyst would otherwise still be
covered by the emission data from engines produced in earlier model
years under the Phase 2 standards, manufacturers could rely on
carryover emission data to make this showing. Second, the installation
instructions we specify under the delegated-assembly provisions would
need to describe the steps equipment manufacturers would need to take
to make either Phase 3 engines or Phase 2 flex engines. Third, for
engine families that generate positive emission credits under the
exhaust ABT
[[Page 28154]]
program, engine manufacturers must decrease the number of ABT credits
generated by the engine family by 10 percent. We believe the 10 percent
decrease should provide an emission adjustment commensurate with the
potential use of the equipment manufacturer flexibility provisions.
Equipment manufacturers using allowances under these provisions
would need to keep records that would allow EPA or engine manufacturers
to confirm that equipment manufacturers followed appropriate procedures
and produced an appropriate number of engines without catalysts. In
addition, we are proposing to require that equipment manufacturers
place a label on the engine as close as possible to the engine
manufacturer's emission control information label to identify it as a
flex engine. This could be the full label described above or it could
be a simplified label that has only the equipment manufacturer's name
and a simple statement that this is a flex engine. The location of this
label is important since it effectively serves as an extension of the
engine manufacturer's label, clarifying that the engine meets Phase 2
standards, not the Phase 3 standards referenced on the original label.
This avoids the problematic situation of changing or replacing labels,
or requiring engine manufacturers to send different labels. We request
comment on an approach in which we would require the full label for
equipment manufacturers to be placed on the engine adjacent to the
engine manufacturer's label to prevent confusion and the risks
associated with multiple labels.
Engine manufacturers might choose to produce Phase 3 engines before
the 2011 model year and set up arrangements for separate shipment of
catalyzed mufflers as described in Section V.E.2. We would expect any
engine manufacturers producing these early Phase 3 engines to continue
production of comparable engine models that meet Phase 2 standards
rather than forcing all equipment manufacturers to accommodate the new
engine design early. We believe it would not be appropriate for
equipment manufacturers to buy Phase 3 engines in 2010 or earlier model
years and downgrade them to meet Phase 2 emission standards as
described above. We are therefore proposing to allow the downgrading of
Phase 3 engines only for 2011 and later model years.
Because equipment manufacturers in many cases depend on engine
manufacturers to supply certified engines in time to produce complying
equipment, we are also proposing a hardship provision for all equipment
manufacturers (see Sec. 1068.255). An equipment manufacturer would be
required to use all of its allowances under the transition program
described above before being eligible to use this hardship. See Section
VIII.C.9 for further discussion of this proposed hardship provision for
equipment manufacturers.
As described in Section V.E.2, we are concerned that the Transition
Program for Equipment Manufacturers and the provisions related to
delegated assembly may be redundant approaches to address the need to
design equipment models to accommodate upgraded engines. The transition
program is intended to give equipment manufacturers four years to make
the design changes needed to reach a point of being able to accommodate
low-emission Phase 3 engines, even for the most challenging equipment
models. If equipment manufacturers are able to continue to
independently source their exhaust systems based on the catalyst
specifications determined by the engine manufacturer, it is not clear
that allowances for additional lead time would be needed. We request
comment on the relative advantages of these two approaches and, more
specifically, which approach we should adopt in the final rule to
address equipment manufacturers' needs for designing and producing
equipment with Phase 3 engines. We request comment on an alternative
approach of relying on the delegated-assembly provisions in Sec.
10654.610 and the equipment-manufacturer hardship provisions in Sec.
1068.255. This combination of tools would still allow for substantial
flexibility in helping equipment manufacturers transition to Phase 3
engines. The hardship provisions of Sec. 1068.255 were an important
element of the successful transition to new emission standards for
Large SI engines.
(iii) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Equipment
manufacturers choosing to participate in the transition program would
be required to keep records of the U.S-directed production volumes of
Class II equipment in 2007 through 2009 broken down by equipment model
and calendar year. Equipment manufacturers would also need to keep
records of the number of flex engines they use under this program.
We are also proposing some notification requirements for equipment
manufacturers. Under this proposal, equipment manufacturers wishing to
participate in the transition provisions would need to notify EPA by
June 30, 2010 that they plan to participate. They must submit
information on production of Class II equipment over the three-year
period from 2007 through 2009, calculate the number of allowances
available, and provide basic business information about the company.
For example, we would want to know the names of related companies
operating under the same parent company that would be required to count
engines together under this program. This early notification will not
be a significant burden to the equipment manufacturer and will greatly
enhance our ability to ensure compliance. Indeed, equipment
manufacturers would need to have the information required in the
notification to know how to use the allowances.
We are proposing an ongoing reporting requirement for equipment
manufacturers participating in the Phase 3 transition program. Under
this proposal, participating equipment manufacturers would be required
to submit an annual report to EPA that shows its annual number of
equipment produced with flex engines under the transition provisions in
the previous year. Each report would include a cumulative count of the
number of equipment produced with flex engines for all years. To ease
the reporting burden on equipment manufacturers, EPA intends to work
with the manufacturers to develop an electronic means for submitting
information to EPA.
(c) Additional Allowances for Small- and Medium-Sized Companies
We believe small-volume equipment manufacturers would need a
greater degree of lead time than manufacturers that sell large volumes
of equipment. The small companies are less likely to have access to
prototype engines from engine manufacturers and generally have smaller
engineering departments for making the necessary design changes.
Allowances representing thirty percent of annual U.S.-directed
production provide larger companies with substantial lead time to plan
their product development for compliance but smaller companies may have
a product mix that requires extensive work to redesign products in a
short amount of time. We are therefore proposing to specify that small-
volume equipment manufacturers may use this same transition program
with allowances totaling 200 percent of the average annual U.S.-
directed production of equipment using Class II engines from 2007
through 2009. For purposes of this program, a small-volume equipment
manufacturer would be a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000
pieces of nonhandheld equipment
[[Page 28155]]
per year subject to EPA regulations in each of the three years from
2007 through 2009 or meets the SBA definition of small business
equipment manufacturer (i.e., generally fewer than 500 employees for
manufacturers of most types of equipment). These allowances would be
spread over the same four-year period between 2011 and 2014. For
example, a small-volume equipment manufacturer could potentially use
Phase 2 engines on all their Class II equipment for two years or they
might sell half their Class II equipment with Phase 2 engines for four
years assuming production stayed constant over the four years.
Medium-sized equipment manufacturers, i.e., companies that produce
too much equipment to be considered a small-volume equipment
manufacturer but produce fewer than 50,000 pieces of Class II
equipment, may also face difficulties similar to that of small-volume
equipment manufacturers. These companies may be like small-volume
manufacturers if they have numerous product lines with varied
approaches to installing engines and mufflers. Other companies may be
more like bigger companies if they produce most of their equipment in a
small number of high-volume models or have consistent designs related
to engine and muffler installations. We are therefore proposing to
create special provisions that would enable us to increase the number
of transition allowances that are available to these medium-sized
companies that have annual U.S.-directed production of Class II
equipment of between 5,000 and 50,000 in each of the three years from
2007 through 2009. To obtain allowances greater than 30 percent of
average annual production, a medium-sized manufacturer would need to
notify us by January 31, 2010 if they believe the standard allowances
based on 30 percent of average annual production of Class II equipment
would not provide adequate lead time starting in the 2011 model year.
Additional allowances could be requested only if the equipment
manufacturer can show they are on track to produce a number of
equipment models representing at least half of their total U.S.-
directed production volume of Class II equipment in the 2011 model year
compliant with all exhaust and evaporative emission standards. As part
of their request, the equipment manufacturer would need to describe why
more allowances are needed to accommodate anticipated changes in engine
designs resulting from engine manufacturers' compliance with changing
exhaust emission standards. The equipment manufacturer would also
request a specific number of additional allowances needed with
supporting information to show why that many allowances are needed. We
may approve additional allowances up to 70 percent of the average
annual U.S.-directed production of Class II equipment from 2007 through
2009. If a medium-sized company were granted the full amount of
additional allowances, they would have allowances equivalent to 100
percent of the average annual production volume of Class II equipment.
As noted above, the determination of whether a company is a small-
or medium-sized manufacturer will be based primarily on production data
over the 2007 through 2009 period submitted to EPA during 2010. After a
company's status as a small- or medium-sized company has been
established based on that data, EPA is proposing that manufactures
would keep that status even if a company's production volume grows
during the next few years, such that the company would no longer
qualify as a small- or medium-sized company. EPA believes that
equipment manufacturers need to know at the beginning of the transition
program (i.e., 2011) how many allowances they will receive under the
program. Changing a company's size determination during the program,
which could affect the number of allowances available, would make it
difficult for companies to plan and could lead to situations where a
company is in violation of the provisions based on the use of
allowances that were previously allowed. Likewise, if a company is
purchased by another company or merges with another company after the
determination of small- or medium-size status is established in 2010,
EPA is proposing that the combined company could, at its option, keep
the status for the individual portions of the combined company. If the
combined company chooses to keep the individual designations, the
combined company would submit the annual reports on the use of
allowances broken down for each of the previously separate companies.
(i) Requirements for foreign equipment manufacturers and importers.
Under this proposal, only companies that manufacture equipment would
qualify for the relief provided under the Phase 3 transition
provisions. Foreign equipment manufacturers who comply with the
compliance related provisions discussed below would enjoy the same
transition provisions as domestic manufacturers. Foreign equipment
manufacturers that do not comply with the compliance-related provisions
discussed below would not receive allowances. Importers that do not
manufacture equipment would not receive any transition relief directly,
but could import equipment with a flex engine if it is covered by an
allowance or transition provision associated with a foreign equipment
manufacturer. This would allow transition provisions to be used by
foreign equipment manufacturers in the same way as domestic equipment
manufacturers, at the option of the foreign manufacturer, while
avoiding the potential for importers to inappropriately use allowances.
For the purposes of this proposal, a foreign equipment manufacturer
would include any equipment manufacturer that produces equipment
outside of the United States that is eventually sold in the United States.
All foreign equipment manufacturers wishing to use the transition
provisions would have to comply with all requirements discussed above.
Along with the equipment manufacturer's notification described earlier,
a foreign equipment manufacturer would have to comply with various
compliance related provisions similar to those adopted for nonroad
diesel engines (see Sec. 1054.626).\81\ As part of the notification,
the foreign equipment manufacturer would have to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See, for example, 40 CFR 80.410 concerning provisions for
foreign refiners with individual gasoline sulfur baselines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Agree to provide EPA with full, complete and immediate
access to conduct inspections and audits;
• Name an agent in the District of Columbia for service;
• Agree that any enforcement action related to these
provisions would be governed by the Clean Air Act;
• Submit to the substantive and procedural laws of the United States;
• Agree to additional jurisdictional provisions;
• Agree that the foreign equipment manufacturer will not
seek to detain or to impose civil or criminal remedies against EPA
inspectors or auditors for actions performed within the scope of EPA
employment related to the provisions of this program;
• Agree that the foreign equipment manufacturer becomes
subject to the full operation of the administrative and judicial
enforcement powers and provisions of the United States without
limitation based on sovereign immunity; and
• Submit all reports or other documents in the English
language, or include an English language translation.
[[Page 28156]]
In addition to these proposed requirements, we are proposing to
require foreign equipment manufacturers that participate in the
transition program to comply with a bond requirement for equipment
imported into the United States. We describe a bond program below that
we believe could be an important tool for ensuring that foreign
equipment manufacturers are subject to the same level of enforcement as
domestic equipment manufacturers. Specifically, we believe a bonding
requirement for the foreign equipment manufacturer is an important
enforcement tool for ensuring that EPA has the ability to collect any
judgments assessed against a foreign equipment manufacturer for
violations of these transition provisions. We request comments on all
aspects of the specific program we describe here, but also on
alternative measures that would achieve the same goal.
Under a bond program, the participating foreign equipment
manufacturer would have to maintain a bond in the proper amount that is
payable to satisfy judgments that result from U.S. administrative or
judicial enforcement actions for conduct in violation of the Clean Air
Act. The foreign equipment manufacturer would generally obtain a bond
in the proper amount from a third party surety agent that has been
listed with the Department of the Treasury. As discussed in Sections
V.E.6.c and V.E.6.d, EPA is proposing other bond requirements as well.
An equipment manufacturer required to post a bond under any of these
provisions would be required to obtain only one bond of the amount
specified for those sections.
In addition to the foreign equipment manufacturer requirements
discussed above, EPA also proposes to require importers of equipment
with flex engines from a complying foreign equipment manufacturer to
comply with certain provisions. EPA believes these importer provisions
are essential to EPA's ability to monitor compliance with the
transition provisions. EPA proposes that the regulations would require
each importer to notify EPA prior to their initial importation of
equipment with flex engines. Importers would be required to submit
their notification prior to the first calendar year in which they
intend to import equipment with flex engines from a complying foreign
equipment manufacturer. The importer's notification would need to
include the following information:
• The name and address of importer (and any parent company);
• The name and address of the manufacturers of the equipment
and engines the importer expects to import; and
• Number of units of equipment with flex engines the importer expects
to import for each year broken down by equipment manufacturer.
In addition, EPA is proposing that any importer electing to import
to the United States equipment with flex engines from a complying
foreign equipment manufacturer would have to submit annual reports to
EPA. The annual report would include the number of units of equipment
with flex engines the importer actually imported to the United States
in the previous calendar year; and identify the equipment manufacturers
and engine manufacturers whose equipment and engines were imported.
(4) Equipment Manufacturer Recertification
Generally, it has been engine manufacturers who certify with EPA
for exhaust emissions because the standards are engine-based. However,
because the Phase 3 nonhandheld standards under consideration are
expected to result in the use of catalysts, a number of equipment
manufacturers, especially those that make low-volume models, believe it
may be necessary to produce their own unique engine/muffler designs,
but using the same catalyst substrate already used in a muffler
certified by the engine manufacturer. In this situation, the engine
would not be covered by the engine manufacturer's certificate, as the
engine/muffler design is not within the specifications for the
certified engine. The equipment manufacturer is therefore producing a
new distinct engine which is not certified and needs to be certified
with EPA. In order to allow the possibility of an equipment
manufacturer certifying an engine/muffler design with EPA, we are
proposing a simplified engine certification process for nonhandheld
equipment manufacturers (see Sec. 1054.612). Under this simplified
certification process, the nonhandheld equipment manufacturer would
need to demonstrate that it is using the same catalyst substrate as the
approved engine manufacturer's engine family, provide information on
the differences between their engine/exhaust system and the engine/
exhaust system certified by the engine manufacturer, and explain why
the emissions deterioration data generated by the engine manufacturer
would be representative for the equipment manufacturer's configuration.
The equipment manufacturer would need to perform low-hour emission
testing on an engine equipped with their modified exhaust system and
demonstrate that it meets the emission standards after applying the
engine manufacturer's deterioration factors for the certified engine
family. We would not require production-line testing for these engines.
The equipment manufacturer would be responsible to meet all of the
other requirements of an engine manufacturer under the regulations,
including labeling, warranty, defect reporting, payment of
certification fees, and other things. EPA requests comments on the
usefulness of such a provision. EPA also requests comments on whether
such a simplified certification provision should expire after a period
of time, for example, after five years. If the provision were to
expire, an equipment manufacturer could continue to certify, but they
would have to follow the general certification regulations at that point.
(5) Special Provisions Related to Altitude
As described in Section V.C.1, we allow manufacturers of handheld
and nonhandheld engines to comply with emission standards at high
altitudes using an altitude kit. We are proposing to keep the
provisions that already apply in part 90 related to descriptions of
these altitude kits in the application for certification. This would
include a description of how engines comply with emission standards at
varying atmospheric pressures, a description of the altitude kits, and
the associated part numbers. The manufacturer would also identify the
altitude range for which it expects proper engine performance and
emission control with and without the altitude kit, state that engines
will comply with applicable emission standards throughout the useful
life with the altitude kit installed according to instructions, and
include any supporting information. Finally, manufacturers would need
to describe a plan for making information and parts available such that
altitude kits would reasonably be expected to be widely used in high-
altitude areas. For nonhandheld engines, this would involve all
counties with elevations substantially above 4,000 feet (see Appendix
III to part 1054). This includes all U.S. counties where 75 percent of
the land mass and 75 percent of the population are above 4,000 feet
(see 45 FR 5988, January 24, 1980 and 45 FR 14079, March 4, 1980). For
handheld engines, this would involve all areas at an elevation at or
above that which they identify in their application
[[Page 28157]]
for certification for needing an altitude kit to meet emission standards.
We are also proposing to require information related to altitude
kits to be on the emission control information label, unless space
limitations prevent it. We believe it is important for operators to know
that engines may need to be modified to run properly at high elevations.
We request comment on all aspects of this approach for compliance
at high-altitude conditions. (See Sec. Sec. 1054.115, 1054.135,
1054.205, and 1054.655.)
(6) Special Provisions for Compliance Assurance
EPA's experiences in recent years have highlighted the need for
more effective tools for preventing the introduction into commerce of
noncompliant engines. These include noncompliant engines sold without
engine labels or with counterfeit engine labels. We are proposing the
special provisions in the following sections to help us address these
problems.
(a) Importation Form
Importation of engines is regulated both by EPA and U.S. Customs.
The current regulations for U.S. Customs specify that anyone importing
a nonroad engine (or equipment containing a nonroad engine) must
complete a declaration form before importation. EPA has created
Declaration Form 3520-21 for this purpose. Customs requires this in
many cases, but there are times when they allow engines to be imported
without the proper form. It would be an important advantage for EPA's
own compliance efforts to be able to enforce this requirement. We are
therefore proposing to modify part 90 to mirror the existing Customs
requirement (and the EPA requirement in Sec. 1068.301) for importers
to complete and retain the declaration form before importing engines
(see Sec. 90.601). This would facilitate a more straightforward
processing of cases in which noncompliant products are brought to a
U.S. port for importation because currently no requirement exists for
measuring emissions or otherwise proving that engines are noncompliant
at the port facility. Since this is already a federal requirement, we
are proposing to make this effective immediately with the final rule.
(b) Assurance of Warranty Coverage
Manufacturers of Small SI engines subject to the standards are
required to provide an emission-related warranty so owners are able to
have repairs done at no expense for emission-related defects during an
initial warranty period. Established companies are able to do this with
a network of authorized repair facilities that can access replacement
parts and properly correct any defects. In contrast, we are aware that
some manufacturers are selling certified engines in the United States
without any such network for processing warranty claims. As such,
owners who find that their engines have an emission-related defect are
unable to properly file a warranty claim or get repairs that should be
covered by the warranty. In effect, this allows companies to certify
their engines and agree to provide warranty coverage without ever
paying for legitimate repairs that should be covered by the warranty.
We are therefore proposing to require that manufacturers demonstrate
several things before we will approve certification for their engines
(see Sec. 90.1103 and Sec. 1054.120). The following provisions would
apply to manufacturers who certify engines, and would include importers
who certify engines. First, we are proposing to require manufacturers
to provide and monitor a toll-free telephone number and an e-mail
address for owners to receive information about how to make a warranty
claim and how to make arrangements for authorized repairs. Second, we
are proposing to require manufacturers to provide a source of
replacement parts within the United States. For imported parts, this
would require at least one distributor within the United States.
Finally, we are proposing to require manufacturers to have a
network of authorized repair facilities or to take one of several
alternate approaches to ensure that owners will be able to get free
repair work done under warranty. If warranty-related repairs are
limited to authorized repair facilities, we are proposing to require
that manufacturers have enough such facilities that owners do not have
to go more than 100 miles for repairs. An exception would be made for
remote areas where we would allow for approval of greater travel
distances for getting repairs as long as the longer travel distance
applies to no more than 10 percent of affected owners. For small
businesses, start-up companies, or importers, it may not be realistic
to maintain a national repair network. We are proposing a variety of
alternative methods for such companies to meet their warranty
obligations. Manufacturers would be able to meet warranty obligations
by informing owners that free shipping to and from an authorized
service center is available, a service technician will be provided to
come to the owner to make the warranty repair, or repair costs at a
local nonauthorized service center will be reimbursed.
We believe these proposed requirements are both necessary and
effective for ensuring proper warranty coverage for all owners. At the
same time, we are proposing a flexible approach that allows companies
to choose from widely varying alternatives to provide warranty service.
We therefore believe these proposed requirements are readily achievable
for any company. We are therefore proposing to implement these
requirements starting with the 2009 model year. This should allow time
for the administrative steps necessary to arrange for any of the
allowable compliance options described above. We request comment on
these provisions to ensure proper warranty coverage. We also request
comment on alternative means of demonstrating effective warranty
coverage comparable to that described above.
(c) Bond Requirements Related to Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Certification initially involves a variety of requirements to
demonstrate that engines and equipment are designed to meet applicable
emission standards. After certification is complete, however, several
important obligations apply to the certifying manufacturer or importer.
For example, we require ongoing testing of production engines, warranty
coverage for emission-related defects, reporting of recurring defects,
and payment of penalties if there is a violation. For companies
operating within the United States, we are generally able to take steps
to communicate clearly and insist on compliance with applicable
regulations. For companies without staff or assets in the United
States, this is not the case. Accordingly, we have limited ability to
enforce these requirements or recover any appropriate penalties, which
increases the risk of environmental problems as well as problems for
owners. This creates the potential for a company to gain a competitive
advantage if they do not operate in the United States by avoiding some
of the costs of complying with EPA regulations.
We request comment on a requirement for importers of certified
engines and equipment to post a bond to cover any potential compliance
or enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act. Importers would be
exempt from the bond requirement if they were able to sufficiently
demonstrate an assurance that they would meet any compliance-or
enforcement-related obligations. We
[[Page 28158]]
would consider adopting provisions to waive the bonding requirement
based on a variety of specific criteria. For example, importers might
show that they have physical assets in the United States with a value
equal to the retail value of the engines that they will import during
the model year (or equipment that they will import during the model
year if they import equipment). Also, we may be able to establish an
objective measure for a company to demonstrate long-term compliance
with applicable regulations. Another alternative might involve a
showing that an importer has been certified under certain industry
standards for production quality and regulatory compliance. Finally, we
may be able to rely on a company's commitment to periodically perform
voluntary in-use testing in the United States to show that engines
comply with emission standards. In addition to these specific criteria,
we would consider adopting a provision that allows an individual
importer to request a waiver from bonding requirements based on that
importer's particular circumstances. If we adopt a bonding requirement,
we would expect to apply that starting with the 2009 model year.
We would expect the per-engine bond amount to be $25 for handheld
engines and Class I engines. Class II engines cover a much wider range
of applications, so we further differentiate the bond for those
engines. The proposed per-engine bond amounts for Class II engines
would be $50 for engines between 225 and 740 cc, $100 for engines
between 740 and 1,000 cc, and $200 for engines above 1,000 cc. These
values are generally scaled to be approximately 10 to 15 percent of the
retail value. In the case of handheld engines, this is based on the
retail value of equipment with installed engines, since these products
are generally traded that way. Class II engines are very often sold as
loose engines to equipment manufacturers, so the corresponding per-
engine bond values are based on the retail value of the engine alone.
This approach is similar to the bond requirements that apply for
nonroad diesel engines (see Sec. 1039.626).
The total bond amount would be based on the value of imported
products over a one-year period. If an importer's bond would be used to
satisfy a judgment, the importer would then be required to increase the
amount of the bond within 90 days of the date the bond is used to cover
the amount that was used. Also, we would require the bond to remain in
place for five years after the importer no longer imports Small SI engines.
(d) Bond Requirements Related to Recall
Recall is another potential compliance obligation. The Clean Air
Act specifies that EPA must require the manufacturer to conduct a
recall if EPA determines that a substantial number of engines do not
conform to the regulations. We have experience with companies that have
faced compliance-related problems where it was clear that they did not
have the resources to conduct a recall if that were necessary. Such
companies benefit from certification without bearing the full range of
associated obligations. We believe it is appropriate again to add a
requirement to post a bond to ensure that a company can meet their
recall obligations. The concern for being able to meet these
obligations applies similarly to domestic and foreign manufacturers.
The biggest indicator of a manufacturer's ability to make recall
repairs relates to the presence of repair facilities in the United
States. We are therefore proposing a bond requirement starting with the
2009 model year for all manufacturers (including importers) that do not
have assembly facilities in the United States that are available for
processing recall repairs or a repair network in the United States
capable of processing recall repairs (see Sec. 90.1007 and Sec.
1054.685). Note that a single bond payment would be required for
companies that must post bond for compliance-related obligations, as
described above, in addition to the recall-related obligations. Such a
repair network would need to involve at least 100 authorized repair
facilities in the United States or at least one such facility for each
5,000 engines sold in the United States, whichever is less. Companies
not meeting these criteria would need to post a bond as described above
for compliance assurance. We would allow these companies to arrange for
any applicable recall repairs to be done at independent facilities.
(e) Restrictions Related to Naming Model Years
New exhaust emission standards apply based on the date of engine
assembly. We similarly require that equipment manufacturers use engines
meeting emission standards in the same model year as equipment based on
the equipment assembly date. For example, a manufacturer of a 2007
model year piece of equipment must generally use a 2007 model year
engine. However, we allow equipment manufacturers to deplete their
normal inventories of engines from the previous model year as long as
there is no stockpiling of those earlier engines. We also note that
this restriction does not apply if emission standards are unchanged for
the current model year. We have found many instances where companies
will import new engines usually installed in equipment and claim that
the engine was built before emission standards took effect, even if the
start date for emission standards was several years earlier. We believe
many of these engines were in fact built later than the named model
year, but it is difficult to prove the date of manufacture, which then
makes it difficult to properly enforce these requirements. Now that
emission standards have been in place for Small SI engines for almost
ten years, we believe it is appropriate to implement a provision that
prevents new engines manufactured several years previously to be
imported when more recent emission standards have been adopted. This
would prevent companies from importing noncompliant products by
inappropriately declaring a manufacture date that precedes the point at
which the current standards started to apply. It would also put a time
limit on our existing provisions that allow for normal inventory
management to use the supply of engines from previous model years when
there has been a change in standards.
Starting January 1, 2009, we are proposing to specify that engines
and equipment will be treated as having a model year at most one year
earlier than the calendar year in which the importation occurs when
there is a change in emission standards (see Sec. 90.616 and Sec.
1054.695). For example, for new standards starting in the 2011 model
year, beginning January 1, 2012, all imported new products would be
considered 2011 or later model year engines and would need to comply
with new 2011 standards, regardless of the actual build date of the
engines or equipment. (Engines or equipment would be considered new
unless the importer demonstrates that the engine or equipment had
already been placed into service, as described below.) This would allow
a minimum of twelve months for manufactured engines to be shipped to
equipment manufacturers, installed in equipment and imported into the
United States. This time interval would be substantially longer for
most engines because the engine manufacturer's model year typically
ends well before the end of the calendar year. Also, engines produced
earlier in the model year would have that much more time to be shipped,
installed, and imported.
Manufacturers have expressed concern that the one-year limitation
on imported products may be too short
[[Page 28159]]
since there are often delays related to shipping, inventory, and
perhaps most significantly, unpredictable fluctuations in actual sales
volumes. We do not believe it is appropriate to maintain long-term
inventories of these products outside the United States for eventual
importation when it is clear several years ahead that the new standards
are scheduled to take effect. Companies may be able to import these
products shortly after manufacturing and keep their inventories in a
U.S. distribution network to avoid the situation of being unable to
sell these products. We request comment on the need to extend the one-
year limit to account for the business dynamics. We also request
comment on any narrower provisions that would allow for exceptions in
certain circumstances. For example, should we consider allowing an
additional year for products if manufacturers let us know ahead of time
that they have certain numbers of engines or equipment that will not be
imported in time, and they can demonstrate that they are not
stockpiling or circumventing regulatory requirements?
In years where the standards do not change, this proposed provision
would have no practical effect because, for example, a 2004 model year
engine meets the 2006 model year standards. We would treat such an
engine as compliant based on its 2004 emission label, any emission
credit calculations for the 2004 model year, and so on. These engines
could therefore be imported anytime until the end of the calendar year
in which new standards take effect. Also, because the changes do not
affect importation until there is a change in the standards, we are
proposing to implement these provisions starting with the Phase 3 standards.
We do not intend for these proposed provisions to delay the
introduction of emission standards by one year. It is still a violation
to produce an engine in the 2011 calendar year and call it a 2010 model
year engine to avoid being subject to 2011 standards.
Importation of equipment that is not new is handled differently.
These products would not be required to be upgraded to meet new
emission standards that started to apply after the engine and equipment
were manufactured. However, to avoid the situation where companies
simply declare that they are importing used equipment to avoid new
standards, we are proposing to require that they provide clear and
convincing evidence that such engines have been placed into service
prior to importation. Such evidence would generally include documentary
evidence of purchase and maintenance history and visible wear that is
consistent with the reported manufacture date. Importing products for
resale or importing more than one engine or piece of equipment at a
time would generally call for closer evaluation to determine that this
degree of evidence has been met.
(f) Import-Specific Information at Certification
We are proposing to require additional information to improve our
ability to oversee compliance related to imported engines (see Sec.
90.107 and Sec. 1054.205). In the application for certification, we
are proposing to require the following additional information: (1) The
port or ports at which the manufacturer intends to import the engines,
(2) the names and addresses of the agents the manufacturer has
authorized to import the engines, and (3) the location of the test
facilities in the United States where the manufacturer would test the
engines if we select them for testing under a selective enforcement
audit. This information should be readily available so we propose to
require it for the 2009 model year. The current regulations in part 90
do not include these specific requirements; however, we do specify
already that we may select imported engines at a port of entry. In such
a case, we would generally direct the manufacturer to do testing at a
facility in the United States. The proposed provision allows the
manufacturers to make these arrangements ahead of time rather than
relying on EPA's selection of a test lab. The current regulations also
state clearly in Sec. 90.119 that EPA may conduct testing at any
facility to determine whether engines meet emission standards.
(g) Counterfeit Emission Labels
We have observed that some importers attempt to import noncompliant
products by creating an emission control information label that is an
imitation of a valid label from another company. We are not proposing
to require that certifying manufacturers take steps to prevent this,
but we are proposing to include a provision that specifically allows
manufacturers to add appropriate features to prevent counterfeit
labels. This may include the engine's serial number, a hologram, or
some other unique identifying feature. We propose to apply this
provision immediately upon completion of the final rule since it is an
allowance and not a requirement (see Sec. 1054.135).
(h) Partially Complete Engines
As described in Section XI, we are proposing to clarify engine
manufacturers' responsibilities for certification with respect to
partially complete engines. While this is intended to establish a path
for secondary engine manufacturers to get their engines from the
original engine manufacturer, we are aware that this will also prevent
manufacturers from selling partially complete engines as a strategy to
circumvent certification requirements. If long blocks or engines
without fuel systems are introduced into U.S. commerce, either the
original manufacturer or the company completing engine assembly would
need to hold a certificate for that engine.
(7) Using Certified Small SI Engines in Marine Applications
Manufacturers have described situations in which Small SI engines
are used in marine applications. As described in Section III.E.5, we
are proposing to allow certified Small SI engines to be used in
outboard or personal watercraft applications without certifying to the
Marine SI emission standards in part 1045. We request comment on the
appropriateness of this provision. In particular, we request comment on
the extent to which the proposed provisions will address the unique
situations that apply for swamp boats and other unusual configurations.
(8) Other Provisions
We are also proposing a variety of changes in the provisions that
make up the certification and compliance program. Most of these changes
serve primarily to align with the regulations we have started to apply
to other types of engines.
The proposed warranty provisions are based on the requirements that
already apply under 40 CFR part 90. We are proposing to add an
administrative requirement to describe the provisions of the emission-
related warranty in the owners manual. We expect that many
manufacturers already do this but believe it is appropriate to require
this as a routine practice. (See Sec. 1054.120.) Testing new engines
requires a period of engine operation to stabilize emission levels. The
regulations specify two separate figures for break-in periods for
purposes of certification testing. First, engines are generally
operated long enough to stabilize emission levels. Second, we establish
a limit on how much an engine may operate and still be considered a
``low-hour'' engine. The results of testing with the low-hour engine
are compared with a deteriorated
[[Page 28160]]
value after some degree of service accumulation to establish a
deterioration factor. For Marine SI engines, we are proposing that the
engine can be presumed to have stabilized emission levels after 12
hours of engine operation, with a provision allowing approval for more
time if needed, and we generally require that low-hour test engines
have no more than 30 hours of engine operation. However, given the
shorter useful life for many Small SI engines, this would not make for
a meaningful process for establishing deterioration factors. For
example, emission levels in Small SI engines may not stabilize before
deterioration begins to affect emission levels, which would prevent the
engine from ever truly having stabilized emission levels. Also, the
low-hour emission test should occur early enough to adequately
represent the deterioration over the engine's lifetime.
We are proposing that Small SI engines with a useful life above 300
hours can be presumed stable after 12 hours with low-hour testing
generally occurring after no more than 24 hours of engine operation.
For Small SI engines with useful life below 300 hours, we are proposing
a combination of provisions to address this concern. First, we are
proposing to allow manufacturers to establish a stabilization period
that is less than 12 hours without showing that emission levels have
fully stabilized (see Sec. 1054.501). Second, we propose to specify
that low-hour testing must generally occur after no more than 15 hours
of engine operation (see Sec. 1054.801). This allows some substantial
time for break-in, stabilization, and running multiple tests, without
approaching a significant fraction of the useful life. Third, we are
proposing that manufacturers consistently test low-hour production-line
engines (and emission-data engines in the case of carryover
deterioration factors for certification) using the same degree of
service accumulation to avoid inaccurate application of deterioration
factors (see Sec. 1054.301).
As described in Section VII.C, we are proposing to clarify the
maintenance that manufacturers may perform during service accumulation
as part of the certification process. The general approach is to allow
any amount of maintenance that is not emission-related, but to allow
emission-related maintenance only if it is a routine practice with in-
use engines. In most of our emission control programs we specify that
80 percent of in-use engines should undergo a particular maintenance
step before manufacturers can do that maintenance during service
accumulation for certification testing. We are aware that Small SI
engines are predominantly operated by homeowners with widely varying
practices in servicing their lawn and garden equipment. As such,
achieving a rate of 80 percent may be possible only for the most
obvious maintenance steps. We are therefore proposing a more
accommodating approach for Small SI engines. In particular, we are
proposing to allow manufacturers to perform a maintenance step during
certification based on information showing that 60 to 80 percent of in-
use engines get the specified maintenance at the recommended interval.
We would approve the use of such maintenance based on the relative
effect on performance and emissions. For example, we may allow
scheduled fuel-injector replacement if survey data show this is done at
the recommended interval for 65 percent of engines and performance
degradation is shown to be roughly proportional to the degradation in
emission control for engines that do not have their fuel injectors
replaced.
One maintenance step of particular interest will be replacement of
air filters. In larger spark-ignition engines, we don't treat
replacement of air filters as critical emission-related maintenance,
largely because those engines have feedback controls to compensate for
changes in varying pressure drop across the air filter. However, for
Small SI engines varying air flow through the air filter has a direct
effect on the engine's air-fuel ratio, which in turn directly affects
the engine's emission rates for each of the regulated pollutants.
Service accumulation generally takes place in laboratory conditions
with far less debris, dust, or other ambient particles that would cause
filter loading, so filter changes should be unnecessary to address this
conventional concern. We are concerned that the greater affect is from
fuel and oil that may deposit on the back side of the filter,
especially from crankcase ventilation into the intake. If filters are
changed before an emission test, this effect will go undetected. If
filter changes are disallowed before emission testing, manufacturers
would need to design their intake systems to prevent internal filter
contamination. We request comment on the need for replacing air
filters, the effect on emission levels, and on the extent of change
that would be needed to prevent filter contamination from recirculating
crankcase gases. We also request comment on the extent to which air
filters are changed with in-use engines. While this is clearly done
with many engines, it is not clear that the experience is common enough
that we would consider it to be routine, and therefore appropriate for
certification engines. Since the cost of equipment, the types of jobs
performed, and the operating lifetime varies dramatically for Class I
and Class II engines, commenters should distinguish between in-use
maintenance that is done by engine class as much as possible. We may,
for example, conclude that owners of riding mowers and other Class II
equipment routinely replace air filters to keep their equipment
operating properly, while owners of walk-behind mowers and other Class
I equipment are more likely to treat their equipment as a disposable
product and therefore not replace the air filter.
We are proposing to define criteria for establishing engine
families that are very similar to what is currently specified in 40 CFR
part 90. We are proposing to require that engines with turbochargers be
in a different family than naturally aspirated engines since that would
be likely to substantially change the engine's emission
characteristics. Very few if any Small SI engines are turbocharged
today so this change will not be disruptive. We are also specifying
that engines must have the same number, arrangement, and approximate
bore diameter of cylinders. This will help us avoid the situation where
manufacturers argue that engines with substantially different engine
blocks should be in the same engine family. We would expect to
implement this provision consistent with the approach adopted by
California ARB in which they limit engine families to include no more
than 15 percent variation in total engine displacement. Similarly, the
current regulations in part 90 do not provide a clear way of
distinguishing engine families by cylinder dimensions (bore and stroke)
so we are also proposing to change part 90 to limit the variation in
displacement within an engine family to 15 percent. (See Sec. 1054.230
and Sec. 90.116.)
The test procedures for Small SI engines are designed for engines
operating in constant-speed applications. This covers the large
majority of affected equipment; however, we are aware that engines
installed in some types of equipment, such as small utility vehicles or
go carts, are not governed to operate only at a single rated speed.
These engines would be certified based on their emission control over
the constant-speed duty cycle even though they do not experience
constant-speed operation in use. We are not prepared to propose a
[[Page 28161]]
new duty cycle for these engines but we are proposing to require engine
manufacturers to explain how their emission control strategy is not a
defeat device in the application for certification. For example, if
engines will routinely experience in-use operation that differs from
the specified duty cycle for certification, the manufacturer should
describe how the fuel-metering system responds to varying speeds and
loads not represented by the duty cycle. We are also proposing to
require that engine distributors and equipment manufacturers that
replace installed governors must have a reasonable technical basis for
believing that the effectiveness of the modified engine's emission
controls over the expected range of in-use operation will be similar to
that measured over the specified duty cycle (see Sec. 1054.650). This
may require test data. While this does not require a new certificate of
conformity, it may require testing to confirm that the engine
modification should not be considered tampering. In addition, we would
require that engine distributors and equipment manufacturers notify the
engine manufacturer before modifying the engine, follow any
instructions from the engine manufacturer related to the emission
control system, and avoid making any other changes to the engine that
would remove it from its certified configuration. We request comment on
these provisions.
F. Small Business Provisions
(1) Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
On August 17, 2006, we convened a Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel (SBAR Panel or the Panel) under section 609(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The purpose of the Panel was
to collect the advice and recommendations of representatives of small
entities that could be affected by this proposed rule and to prepare a
report containing the Panel's recommendations for small entity
flexibilities based on those comments, as well as on the Panel's
findings and recommendations regarding the elements of the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under section 603 of the RFA.
Those elements of an IRFA are:
• A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
• A description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
• An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule; and
• A description of any significant alternative to the
proposed rule that accomplishes the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and that minimizes any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
The report of the Panel has been placed in the rulemaking record
for this proposal.
In addition to EPA's Director of the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information who acted as chairperson, the Panel
consisted of the Director of the EPA's Assessment and Standards
Division of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the
Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration.
Using definitions provided by the Small Business Administration
(SBA), companies that manufacture internal-combustion engines and that
employ fewer than 1,000 people are considered small businesses for the
SBAR Panel. Companies that manufacture equipment and that employ fewer
than 500 people, or fewer than 750 people for manufacturers of
construction equipment, or fewer than 1,000 people for manufacturers of
generators, are considered small businesses for the SBAR Panel. Based
on this information, we asked 25 companies that met the SBA small
business thresholds to serve as small entity representatives for the
duration of the Panel process. Of these 25 companies, 14 of them
represented a cross-section of Small SI engine manufacturers, equipment
manufacturers, and fuel system component manufacturers. (The rest of
the companies were involved in the Marine SI market.)
With input from small entity representatives, the Panel drafted a
report providing findings and recommendations to us on how to reduce
the potential burden on small businesses that may occur as a result of
this proposed rule. The Panel report is included in the rulemaking
record for this proposal. In light of the Panel report, and where
appropriate, we have identified provisions anticipated for the proposed
rule. The proposed flexibility options, based on the recommendations of
the Panel, are described below.
(2) Proposed Burden Reduction Approaches for Small-Volume Nonhandheld
Engine Manufacturers
We are proposing several provisions for small business nonhandheld
engine manufacturers. The purpose of these provisions is to reduce the
burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a
large number of engines. We request comment on the appropriateness of
these provisions which are described in detail below.
Under EPA's current Phase 2 regulations, EPA provided a number of
provisions for small-volume engine manufacturers. For the Phase 2
regulations, the criteria for determining if a company was a ``small-
volume engine manufacturer'' was based on whether the company projected
at time of certification to have production of no more than 10,000
nonhandheld engines per year (excluding engines sold in California that
are subject to the California ARB standards). Based on past experience,
EPA believes that determining the applicability of the provisions based
on number of employees, as compared to volume of products, can be more
problematic given the nature of the workforce in terms of full-time,
part-time, contract, overseas versus domestic, and parent companies.
EPA believes it can avoid these potential complications and still
provide relief to nearly all small businesses by continuing to use the
annual sales criteria for determining which entities qualify as a small
volume engine manufacturer under the Phase 3 program. For these
reasons, EPA is proposing to retain the current production-based
criteria for determining who is a small-volume engine manufacturer and,
as a result, eligible for the Phase 3 flexibilities described below
(see Sec. 1054.801).
Based on confidential sales data provided to EPA by engine
manufacturers, the 10,000 unit cut-off for engine manufacturers would
include all of the small business engine manufacturers currently
identified using SBA's employee-based definition. To ensure all small
businesses have access to the flexibilities described below, EPA is
also proposing to allow engine manufacturers which exceed the
production cut-off level noted above but have fewer than 1,000
employees to request treatment as a small-volume engine manufacturer
(see Sec. 1054.635). In such a case, the manufacturer would need to
provide information to EPA demonstrating that the manufacturer has
[[Page 28162]]
fewer employees than the 1,000 cut-off level.
If a small-volume engine manufacturer grows over time and exceeds
the production volume limit of 10,000 nonhandheld engines per year, the
engine manufacturer would no longer be eligible for the small volume
flexibilities. However, because some of the flexibilities described
below provide manufacturers with the ability to avoid certain testing
such as durability testing or production line testing, it may be
difficult for a manufacturer to fully comply with all of the testing
requirements immediately upon losing its small-volume status. In such
cases, EPA is proposing that the engine manufacturer would be able to
contact EPA and request additional time, subject to EPA approval, to
meet the testing requirements that generally apply to engine manufacturers.
(a) Assigned Deterioration Factors
We are proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers may rely on
an assigned deterioration factor to demonstrate compliance with the
standards for the purposes of certification rather than doing service
accumulation and additional testing to measure deteriorated emission
levels at the end of the regulatory useful life (see Sec. 1054.240).
EPA is not proposing actual levels for the assigned deterioration
factors with this proposal. EPA intends to analyze emissions
deterioration information that becomes available over the next few
years to determine what deterioration factors would be appropriate for
nonhandheld engines. This is likely to include deterioration data for
engines certified to comply with California ARB's Tier 3 standards and
engines certified early to EPA's Phase 3 standards. Prior to the
implementation date for the Phase 3 standards, EPA will provide
guidance to engine manufacturers specifying the levels of the assigned
deterioration factors for small-volume engine manufacturers.
(b) Exemption From Production-Line Testing
We are proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers would be
exempt from the production-line testing requirements (see Sec.
1054.301). While we are proposing to exempt small-volume engine
manufacturers from production line testing, we believe requiring
limited production-line testing could be beneficial to implement the
ongoing obligation to ensure that production engines are complying with
the standards. Therefore, we request comment on the alternative of
applying limited production-line testing to small-volume engine
manufacturers with a requirement to test one production engine per year.
(c) Additional Lead Time
We are proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers could delay
implementation of the Phase 3 exhaust emission standards for two years
(see Sec. 1054.145). Small-volume engine manufacturers would be
required to comply with the Phase 3 exhaust emission standards
beginning in model year 2014 for Class I engines and model year 2013
for Class II engines. Under this approach, manufacturers would be able
to apply this delay to all of their nonhandheld engines or to just a
portion of their production. For those engine families that are
certified to meet the Phase 3 standards prior to these delayed dates by
selecting an FEL at or below the Phase 3 standards, small volume engine
manufacturers could generate early Phase 3 credits (as discussed in
Section V.C.3) through the 2013 model year for Class I engines and
through the 2012 model years for Class II engines. This option provides
more lead time for small-volume engine manufacturers to redesign their
products. They would also be able to learn from some of the hurdles
overcome by larger manufacturers.
(d) Broad Engine Families
We are also proposing that small-volume engine manufacturers may
use a broader definition of engine family for certification purposes.
Under the existing engine family criteria specified in the regulations,
manufacturers group their various engine lines into engine families
that have similar design characteristics including the combustion
cycle, cooling system, cylinder configuration, number of cylinders,
engine class, valve location, fuel type, aftertreatment design, and
useful life category. We are proposing to allow small-volume engine
manufacturers to group all of their Small SI engines into a single
engine family for certification by engine class and useful life
category, subject to good engineering judgment (see Sec. 1054.230).
(e) Hardship Provisions
We are also proposing two types of hardship provisions for
nonhandheld engine manufacturers consistent with the Panel
recommendations. The first type of hardship is an unusual circumstances
hardship which would be available to all businesses, regardless of
size. The second type of hardship is an economic hardship provision
which would be available to small businesses only. Sections VIII.C.8
and VIII.C.9 provide a description of the proposed hardship provisions
that would apply to nonhandheld engine manufacturers.
(3) Proposed Burden Reduction Approaches for Small-Volume Nonhandheld
Equipment Manufacturers
We are proposing three provisions for small-volume nonhandheld
equipment manufacturers. The purpose of these provisions is to reduce
the burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed
over large sales volumes. We are offering these provisions because
equipment manufacturers may need more lead time to redesign their
equipment to accommodate the new Phase 3 engine designs. We request
comment on the appropriateness of the flexibilities described below.
Under EPA's current Phase 2 regulations, EPA provided a number of
lead time provisions for small-volume equipment manufacturers. For the
Phase 2 regulations, the criteria for determining if a company was a
``small-volume equipment manufacturer'' was based on whether the
company produced fewer than 5,000 nonhandheld pieces of equipment per
year (excluding equipment sold in California that are subject to the
California ARB standards). For the same reasons noted above for engine
manufacturers, EPA is proposing to retain the current production-based
criteria for determining who is a small-volume equipment manufacturer
and, as a result, eligible for the Phase 3 flexibilities described
below (see Sec. 1054.801). The determination of which companies
qualify as small-volume equipment manufacturers for the purposes of the
flexibilities described below would be based on the annual U.S.-
directed production of nonhandheld equipment in each of the three years
from 2007 through 2009.
Based on estimated sales data for equipment manufacturers, EPA
believes the 5,000 unit cut-off for equipment manufacturers would
include almost all of the small business equipment manufacturers using
SBA's employee-based definition. However to ensure all small businesses
have access to the flexibilities described below, EPA is also proposing
to allow equipment manufacturers which exceed the production cut-off
level noted above but have fewer than 500 employees for equipment
manufacturers, or 750 employees for construction equipment
manufacturers, or 1,000 employees for generator manufacturers, to
request treatment as a small-volume equipment manufacturer (see Sec.
1054.635). In such a case, the manufacturer would need to provide
information to EPA
[[Page 28163]]
demonstrating that the manufacturer has fewer employees than the
applicable employee cut-off level.
(a) Additional Lead Time
As described in Section V.E.3., EPA is proposing a transition
program for all equipment manufacturers that produce Class II
equipment. Under that program, equipment manufacturers can install
Phase 2 engines in limited numbers of Class II equipment over the first
four years the Phase 3 standards apply (i.e., 2011 through 2014). The
number of equipment that can use Phase 2 engines is based on 30 percent
of an average annual production level of Class II equipment. To
implement this two-year extension for small-volume equipment
manufacturers within the context of the transition program for
equipment manufacturers, EPA is proposing that small-volume
manufacturers may use Phase 2 engines at a level of 200 percent of an
average annual production level of Class II equipment. Small-volume
equipment manufacturers could use these allowances over the four year
period of the transition program (see Sec. 1054.625). Therefore, a
small-volume equipment manufacturer could potentially use Phase 2
engines on all their Class II equipment for two years, consistent with
the SBAR Panel's recommendation, or they might, for example, sell half
their Class II equipment with Phase 2 engines for four years assuming
sales stay constant over time.
(b) Simplified Certification Procedure
We are proposing a simplified engine certification procedure for
all equipment manufacturers, including small-volume equipment
manufacturers. See Section V.E.4 for further discussion of this provision.
(c) Hardship Provisions
Because nonhandheld equipment manufacturers in many cases depend on
engine manufacturers to supply certified engines in time to produce
complying equipment, we are also proposing a hardship provision for all
nonhandheld equipment manufacturers, regardless of size. The proposed
hardship would allow the manufacturer to request more time if they are
unable to obtain a certified engine and they are not at fault and would
face serious economic hardship without an extension (see Sec.
1068.255). Section VIII.C.10 provides a description of the proposed
hardship provision that would apply to nonhandheld equipment manufacturers.
G. Technological Feasibility
(1) Level of Standards
We are proposing new, more stringent exhaust HC+NOX
standards for Class I and II Small SI engines. We are also proposing a
new CO standard for Small SI engines used in marine generator applications.
In the 2005 model year manufacturers certified over 500 Class I and
II engine families to the Phase 2 standards using a variety of engine
designs and emission control technology. All Class I engines were
produced using carbureted air-fuel induction systems. A small number of
engines used catalyst-based emission control technology. Similarly,
Class II engines were predominately carbureted. A limited number of
these engines used catalyst technology, electronic engine controls and
fuel injection, or were water cooled. In both classes, several engine
families were certified at levels that would comply with the proposed
Phase 3 standards. Also, a number of families were very close to the
proposed emission standards. This suggests that, even accounting for
the relative increase in stringency associated with our proposed Phase
3 requirements, a number of families either will not need to do
anything or will require only modest reductions in their emission
performance to meet the proposed standards. However, many engine families
clearly will have to do more to improve their emissions performance.
Based on our own testing of advanced technology for these engines,
our engineering assessments, and statements from the affected industry,
we believe the proposed requirements will require many engine
manufacturers to adopt exhaust aftertreatment technology using
catalyst-based systems. Other likely changes include improved engine
designs and fuel delivery systems. Finally, adding electronic controls
or fuel injection systems may obviate the need for catalytic
aftertreatment for some engine families, with the most likely
candidates being multi-cylinder engine designs.
(2) Implementation Dates
We are proposing HC+NOX exhaust emission standards of
10.0 g/kW-hr for Class I engines starting in the 2012 model year and
8.0 g/kW-hr for Class II engines starting in the 2011 model year. For
both classes of nonhandheld engines, we are proposing to maintain the
existing CO standard of 610 g/kW-hr. We expect manufacturers to meet
these standards by improving engine combustion and adding catalysts.
For spark-ignition engines used in marine generators, we are
proposing a more stringent Phase 3 CO emission standard of 5.0 g/kW-hr.
This would apply equally to all sizes of engines subject to the Class I
and II Small SI standards, with implementation dates as described above
relative to Class I and Class II engines.
(3) Technological Approaches
Our feasibility assessment began by evaluating the emissions
performance of current technology for Small SI engines and equipment.
These initial efforts focused on developing a baseline for emissions
and general engine performance so that we could assess the potential
for new emission standards for engines and equipment in this category.
This process involved laboratory and field evaluations of the current
engines and equipment. We reviewed engineering information and data on
existing engine designs and their emissions performance. Patents of
existing catalyst/muffler designs for Class I engines were also
reviewed. We engaged engine manufacturers and suppliers of emission
control-related engine components in discussions regarding recent and
expected advances in emissions performance beyond that required to
comply with the current Phase 2 standards. Finally, we purchased
catalyst/muffler units that were already in mass production by an
original equipment manufacturer for use on European walk-behind lawn
mowers and conducted engineering and chemical analyses on the design
and materials of those units.
We used the information and experience gathered in the above effort
along with the previous catalyst design experience of our engineering
staff, to design and build prototype catalyst-based emission control
systems that were capable of effectively and safely achieving the
proposed Phase 3 requirement based on dynamometer and field testing. We
also used the information and the results of our engine testing to
assess the potential need for improvements to engine and fuel system
designs, and the selective use of electronic engine controls and fuel
injection on some engine types. A great deal of this effort was
conducted in association with our more exhaustive study regarding the
efficacy and safety of implementing advanced exhaust emission controls
on Small SI engines, as well as new evaporative requirements for these
engines. In other testing, we evaluated advanced emission controls on a
multi-cylinder Class II engine with electronic fuel injection. The
results of that study are also discussed in Section XII.
[[Page 28164]]
In our test program to assess the feasibility of achieving the
proposed Phase 3 HC+NOX standard, we evaluated 15 Class I
engines of varying displacements and valve-train designs. Each of these
engines was equipped with a catalyst-based control system and all
achieved the applicable standard at the end of their regulatory useful
lives. Our work also suggests that manufacturers of Class I engines may
also need to improve the durability of their basic engine designs,
ignition systems, or fuel metering systems for some engines in order to
comply with the emission regulations.
We tested five single-cylinder, overhead-valve Class II engines
with prototype catalyst/muffler control systems. Three of the engines
were carbureted and two were equipped with electronic engine and fuel
controls. This latter technology improves the management of air-fuel
mixtures and ignition spark timing. This itself can reduce engine-out
emissions relative to a carbureted system and also allows the use of
larger catalyst volumes and higher precious metal loading. Each of the
engines achieved the requisite emission limit for HC+NOX
(e.g., 8.0 g/kW-hr). Based on this work and information from one
manufacturer of emission controls, we believe that either a catalyst-
based system or electronic engine controls appear sufficient to meet
the standard. Nonetheless, some applications may require the use of
both technologies. Finally, similarly to Class I engines, we found that
manufacturers of Class II engines may also need to improve the
durability of their ignition systems or fuel metering systems for some
engines in order to comply with the emission regulations.
Multi-cylinder Class II engines are very similar to their single-
cylinder counterparts regarding engine design and combustion
characteristics. There are no multi-cylinder Class I engines. Base on
these attributes and our testing of two twin-cylinder engines, we
conclude that the proposed Phase 3 HC+NOX standard is
technically feasible.
Nonetheless, we also found that multi-cylinder engines may present
unique concern with the application of catalytic control technology
under atypical operation conditions. More specifically, the concern
relates to the potential consequences of combustion misfire or a
complete lack of combustion in one of the two or more cylinders when a
single catalyst/muffler design is used. A single muffler is typically
used in Class II applications. In a single-catalyst system, the
unburned fuel and air mixture from the malfunctioning cylinder would
combine with hot exhaust gases from the other, properly operating
cylinder. This condition would create high temperatures within the
muffler system as the unburned fuel and air charge from the misfiring
cylinder combusts within the exhaust system. This could potentially
destroy the catalyst.
One solution is simply to have a separate catalyst/muffler for each
cylinder. Another solution is to employ electronic engine controls to
monitor ignition and put the engine into ``limp-mode'' until necessary
repairs are made. For engines using carburetors, this would effectively
require the addition of electronic controls. For engines employing
electronic fuel injection that may need to add a small catalyst, it
would require that the electronic controls incorporate ignition misfire
detection if they do not already utilize the inherent capabilities
within the engine management system.
As described earlier, we also expect some engine families may use
electronic fuel injection to meet the proposed Phase 3 standard without
employing catalytic aftertreatment. Engine families that already use
these fuel metering systems and are reasonably close to complying with
the proposed requirement are likely to need only additional calibration
changes to the engine management system for compliance. In addition, we
expect that some engine families which currently use carbureted fuel
systems will convert directly to electronic fuel injection.
Manufacturers may adopt this strategy to couple achieving the standard
without a catalyst and realizing other advantages of using fuel
injection such as easier starting, more stable and reliable engine
operation, and reduced fuel consumption.
Our evaluation of electronic fuel injection systems that could be
used to attain the proposed standard found that a rather simple, low-
cost system should be sufficient. We demonstrated this proof of concept
as part of the engine test program we conducted for our safety study.
In that program, we fitted two single-cylinder Class II engines with an
electronic control unit and fuel system components developed for Asian
motor-scooters and small-displacement motorcycles. The sensors for the
system were minimized to include a throttle position sensor, air charge
temperature sensor, oil temperature sensor, manifold absolute pressure
sensor, and a crankshaft position sensor. This is in contrast to the
original equipment manufacturer fuel injection systems currently used
in some equipment with two-cylinder Class II engine applications that
employ more sophisticated and expensive automotive-based components.
Finally, there are a number of Class II engines that use gaseous
fuels (i.e., liquid propane gas or compressed natural gas). Based on
our engineering evaluation of current and likely emission control
technology for these engines, we conclude that there are no special
concerns relative to achieving the proposed Phase 3 HC+NOX
standard.
Turning to the proposed Phase 3 CO standard for Class I and II
Small SI engines used in marine generator applications, these engines
have several rather unique design considerations that are relevant to
achieving the proposed CO standard. Marine generator engines are
designed to operate for very long periods. Manufacturers generally
design the engines to operate at lower loads to accommodate continuous
operation. Manufacturers also design them to take advantage of the
cooling available from the water in the lake or river where the boat is
operating (seawater). By routing seawater through the engine block, or
using a heat exchanger that transfers heat from the engine coolant to
the seawater, manufacturers are able to maintain engine temperatures as
well or better than automotive engines. Stable temperatures in the
engine block make a very significant difference in engine operation,
enabling much less distortion of the cylinders and a much more
consistent combustion event. These operating characteristics make it
possible to introduce advanced technology for controlling emissions.
Manufacturers also use this cooling water in a jacketing system around
the exhaust in order to minimize surface temperatures and reduce the
risk of fires on boats.
The vast majority of gasoline marine generators are produced by two
engine manufacturers. Recently, these two manufacturers have announced
that they are converting their marine generator product lines to new
designs which can achieve more than a 99 percent reduction in CO
emissions. These manufacturers stated that this action is to reduce the
risk of CO poisoning and is a result of boat builder demand. These low
CO emission designs used closed-loop electronic fuel injection and
catalytic control. Both of these manufacturers have certified some low
CO engines and have expressed their intent to convert their full
product lines in the near future. These manufacturers also make use of
electronic controls to monitor catalyst function.
[[Page 28165]]
(4) Consideration of Regulatory Alternatives
In developing the proposed emission standards, we considered what
was achievable with catalyst technology. Our technology assessment work
indicated that the proposed emission standards are feasible in the
context of provisions for establishing emission standards prescribed in
section 213 of the Clean Air Act. We also considered what could be
achieved with larger, more efficient catalysts and improved fuel
induction systems. In particular, Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA presents
data on Class I engines with more active catalysts and on Class II
engines with closed-loop control fuel injection systems in addition to
a catalyst. In both cases larger emission reductions were achieved.
Based on this work we considered HC+NOX standards which
would have involved a 50 percent reduction for Class I engines and a
65-70 percent reduction for Class II engines. Chapter 11 of the Draft
RIA evaluates these alternatives, including an assessment of the
overall technology and costs of meeting more stringent standards. For
Class I engines a 50 percent reduction standard would require base
engine changes not necessarily involved with the standards we are
proposing and the use of a more active catalyst. For Class II engines
this would require the widespread use of closed loop control fuel
injection systems rather than carburetors, some additional engine
upgrades, and the use three-way catalysts. We believe it is not
appropriate at this time to propose more stringent exhaust emission
standards for Small SI engines. Our key concern is lead time. More
stringent standards would require three to five years of lead time
beyond the 2011 model year start date we are proposing for the program.
We believe it would be more effective to implement the proposed Phase 3
standards to achieve near-term emission reductions needed to reduce
ozone precursor emissions and to minimize growth in the Small SI
exhaust emissions inventory in the post 2010 time frame. More efficient
catalysts, engine improvements, and closed loop electronic fuel
injection could be the basis for more stringent Phase 4 emission
standards at some point in the future.
(5) Our Conclusions
We believe the proposed Phase 3 exhaust emission standards for
nonhandheld Small SI engines will achieve significant emission
reductions. Manufacturers will likely meet the proposed standards with
a mix of three-way catalysts packaged in the mufflers and fuel-
injection systems. Test data using readily available technologies have
demonstrated the feasibility of achieving the proposed emission levels.
As discussed in Section X, we do not believe the proposed standards
would have negative effects on energy, noise, or safety and may lead to
some positive effects.
VI. Evaporative Emissions
A. Overview
Evaporative emissions refer to hydrocarbons released into the
atmosphere when gasoline or other volatile fuels escape from a fuel
system. The primary source of evaporative emissions from nonroad
gasoline engines and equipment is known as permeation, which occurs
when fuel penetrates the material used in the fuel system and reaches
the ambient air. This is especially common through rubber and plastic
fuel-system components such as fuel lines and fuel tanks. Diurnal
emissions are another important source of evaporative emissions.
Diurnal emissions occur as the fuel heats up due to increases in
ambient temperature. As the fuel heats, liquid fuel evaporates into the
vapor space inside the tank. In a sealed tank, these vapors would
increase the pressure inside the tank; however, most tanks are vented
to prevent this pressure buildup. The evaporating fuel therefore drives
vapors out of the tank into the atmosphere. Diffusion emissions occur
when vapor escapes the fuel tank through an opening as a result of
random molecular motion, independent of changing temperature. Running
loss emissions are similar to diurnal emissions except that vapors
escape the fuel tank as a result of heating from the engine or some
other source of heat during operation rather than from normal daily
temperature changes. Refueling losses are vapors that are displaced
from the fuel tank to the atmosphere when someone fills a fuel tank.
Refueling spitback is the spattering of liquid fuel droplets coming out
of the filler neck during a refueling event. Spillage is fuel that is
spilled while refueling. Regulatory provisions to set standards for
several of these types of evaporative emissions effectively define the
terms for establishing the specific test procedures for measuring
emissions. See the proposed regulatory text for more information.
This proposal is part of a larger effort to control evaporative
emissions from all mobile sources. Motor vehicles have stringent
evaporative emission controls based on SHED testing of complete
vehicles.\82\ As a result, motor vehicle manufacturers must control
diurnal emissions, permeation through all fuel-system components,
running loss emissions, refueling vapor displacement, refueling
spitback, and to some extent, spillage. We recently established
evaporative emission standards for recreational vehicles and Large SI
engines (67 FR 68242, November 8, 2002). These standards include
permeation requirements for fuel tanks and fuel lines. In addition,
equipment using Large SI engines must control diurnal emissions and
running losses. Fuel systems used with Small SI engines and Marine SI
engines are not yet subject to evaporative emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ An entire vehicle is placed in a SHED (Sealed Housing for
Evaporative Determination) and total evaporative emissions are
measured over prescribed test cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2002, we proposed permeation and diurnal emission
standards for fuel systems related to Marine SI engines (67 FR 53050,
August 14, 2002). We finalized other portions of that proposal but
chose to delay promulgation of Marine SI evaporative standards. At the
time of the earlier proposal there were still open issues regarding
emission control technologies for rotational-molded fuel tanks and for
pressurizing fuel tanks as a diurnal emission control strategy. Since
then, EPA has continued gathering information and performing tests on
new technologies that could be used to address these issues. In this
notice we are updating the proposed evaporative emission standards for
Marine SI fuel systems. The standards in this proposal incorporate this
new information.
We are also proposing standards for controlling evaporative
emissions from fuel systems used with Small SI engines. These proposed
standards include requirements for controlling permeation, diffusion,
and running loss emissions.
B. Fuel Systems Covered by This Rule
The proposed evaporative emission standards would apply to fuel
systems for both Small SI engines and Marine SI engines. The marine
standards apply to fuel systems related to both propulsion and
auxiliary engines. In some cases, specific standards are proposed only
for certain types of equipment, as described below. These standards
would apply only to new products, as described in Section VII.A.
We are proposing to write the regulations related to evaporative
emission standards in 40 CFR part 1060,
[[Page 28166]]
which is devoted to evaporative emission controls from nonroad engines
and equipment. The exhaust standard-setting part (part 1045 for Marine
SI and part 1054 for Small SI) defines the emission standards, but
references part 1060 for certification and testing procedures, in
addition to definitions, compliance-related issues, and other special
provisions. Section VII describes further how the different parts work
together in the certification process. Also, as described in Section
XI, we are proposing to allow component manufacturers and some
equipment manufacturers to certify products under the provisions of
part 1060 with respect to recreational vehicles. We also plan to
clarify in a separate action that marine and land-based compression-
ignition engines that operate on volatile liquid fuels (such as
methanol or ethanol) are subject to evaporative requirements related to
part 1060. The draft regulations in part 1060 describe how those
provisions would apply for compression-ignition engines, but these
regulations impose no obligations until we adopt those as requirements
in a separate rulemaking.
The following definitions are important in establishing which
components would be covered by the proposed standards: ``evaporative,''
``fuel system,'' ``fuel line,'' ``portable nonroad fuel tank,'' and
``installed marine fuel tank.'' See the full text of these definitions
in the proposed regulations at Sec. 1060.801.
Note in particular that the proposed standards would apply to fuel
lines, including hose or tubing that contains liquid fuel. This would
include fuel supply lines but not vapor lines or vent lines not
normally exposed to liquid fuel. We consider fuel return lines for
handheld engines to be vapor lines, not fuel lines. Data in Chapter 5
of the Draft RIA suggest that permeation rates through vapor lines and
vent lines are already lower than the proposed standard; this is due to
the low vapor concentration in the vapor line. In contrast, permeation
rates for materials that are consistently exposed to saturated fuel
vapor are generally considered to be about the same as that for liquid
fuel. The standards also do not apply to primer bulbs exposed to liquid
fuel only for priming. This standard would apply to marine filler necks
that are filled or partially filled with liquid fuel after a refueling
event where the operator fills the tank as full as possible. In the
case where the fuel system is designed to prevent liquid fuel from
standing in the fill neck, the fill neck would be considered a vapor
line and not subject to the proposed fuel line permeation standard. We
request comment on the appropriateness of applying permeation standards
to filler necks, vapor lines and vent lines for Small SI engines and
Marine SI engines.
One special note applies to fuel systems for auxiliary marine
engines. These engines must meet exhaust emission standards that apply
to land-based engines. This is appropriate because these engines,
typically used to power generators, operate more like land-based
engines than like marine propulsion engines. For evaporative emissions,
however, it is important that the fuel systems for propulsion and
auxiliary engines be subject to the same standards because these
engines typically draw fuel from a common fuel tank and share other
fuel-system components. We are therefore proposing to apply the Marine
SI evaporative emission standards and certification requirements to the
fuel systems for both auxiliary and propulsion marine engines on marine
vessels.
Our evaporative emission standards for automotive applications are
based on a comprehensive measurement from the whole vehicle. However,
the evaporative standards in this proposal are generally based on
individual fuel-system components. For instance, we are proposing
permeation standards for fuel lines and fuel tanks rather than for the
equipment as a whole.\83\ We are taking this approach for several
reasons. First, most production of Small SI equipment and Marine SI
vessels is not vertically integrated. In other words, the fuel line
manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the fuel tank manufacturer, and
the equipment manufacturer are often separate companies. In addition,
there are several hundred equipment manufacturers and boat builders,
many of which are small businesses. Testing the systems as a whole
would place the entire certification burden on the equipment
manufacturers and boat builders. Specifying emission standards and
testing for individual components allows for measurements that are
narrowly focused on the source of emissions and on the technology
changes for controlling emissions. This correspondingly allows for
component manufacturers to certify that their products meet applicable
standards. We believe it would be most appropriate for component
manufacturers to certify their products since they are best positioned
to apply emission control technologies and demonstrate compliance.
Equipment manufacturers and boat builders would then be able to
purchase certified fuel-system components rather than doing all their
own testing on individual components or whole systems to demonstrate
compliance with every requirement. In contrast, controlling running
loss emissions cannot be done on a component basis so we are proposing
to require engine or equipment manufacturers to certify that they meet
the running loss standard. We would otherwise expect most equipment
manufacturers to simply identify a range of certified components and
install the components as directed by the component manufacturer to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ An exception to component certification is the design
standard for contolling running loss emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, a great deal of diversity exists in fuel-system designs
(hose lengths, tank sizes/shapes, number of connections, etc.). In most
cases, the specific equipment types are low-volume production runs so
sales would not be large enough to cover the expense of SHED-type
testing. Third, there are similarities in fuel lines and tanks that
allow for component data to be used broadly across products in spite of
extensive variety in the geometry and design of fuel systems. Fourth,
many equipment types, primarily boats, would not fit in standard-size
SHEDs and would require the development of very large, very expensive
test facilities if the entire vessel were tested.
Finally, by proposing separate standards for fuel line permeation,
fuel tank permeation, diurnal emissions, and diffusion emissions, we
are able to include simplified certification requirements without
affecting the level of the standards. Specifying a comprehensive test
with a single standard for all types of evaporative emissions would
make it difficult or impossible to rely on design-based certification.
Requiring emission tests to cover the wide range of equipment models
would greatly increase the cost of compliance with little or no
increase in the effectiveness of the certification program. We believe
the proposed approach allows substantial opportunity for market forces
to appropriately divide compliance responsibilities among affected
manufacturers and accordingly results in an effective compliance
program at the lowest possible cost to society.
The proposed emission standards generally apply to the particular
engines and their associated fuel systems. However, for ease of
reference, we may refer to evaporative standards as being related to
Small SI equipment or Marine SI vessels, meaning the relevant
[[Page 28167]]
evaporative standards for engines and fuel systems used in such
equipment or vessels.\84\ See Section VI.F for a more detailed
description of certification responsibilities for all the proposed
evaporative standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ ``Small SI equipment'' includes all nonroad equipment
powered by Small SI engines. ``Marine SI vessels'' includes all
vessels powered by engines that run on volatile liquid fuels. In
almost all cases these engines are powered by gasoline. Note also
that volatile liquid fuels include methanol or ethanol, which could
be used in a compression-ignition engine. While we are aware of no
such equipment or vessels today, they would be covered by the
proposed regulations. In this preamble, we nevertheless refer to all
the vessels that fall within the scope of the proposed regulations
as marine SI vessels. Throughout this section, we generally refer to
Small SI equipment and Marine SI vessels as ``equipment,''
consistent with the proposed regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
We are proposing permeation standards for Small SI equipment and
Marine SI vessels, covering permeation from fuel tanks and fuel lines.
We are also proposing diurnal emission standards for Marine SI vessels.
We are proposing diffusion emission standards but not diurnal emission
standards for nonhandheld Small SI equipment. In addition, we are
proposing a running loss standard for nonhandheld Small SI equipment
(except wintertime engines), with a variety of specified options for
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance. Based on the current state of
technology, we believe the proposed standards are a logical extension
of the standards proposed for marine vessels in August 2002 and the
standards finalized for recreational vehicles in November 2002.
All the proposed evaporative emission standards would apply to new
equipment for a useful life period in years that matches the useful
life of the corresponding engine. We propose to specify a five-year
useful life for evaporative requirements for Small SI equipment (we are
not proposing a year-based useful life requirement related to exhaust
emissions for Small SI engines). Manufacturers have expressed concern
that they will not have time to gain five years of in-use experience on
low-permeation fuel tanks by the proposed dates of the tank permeation
standards. Unlike barrier fuel line, which is well established
technology, some fuel tanks may use barrier technologies that have not
been used extensively in other applications. An example of this
technology would be barrier surface treatments that must be properly
matched to the fuel tank material. Therefore, we are proposing a
shorter useful life of two years for Marine SI and Small SI fuel tanks
through the 2013 model year to allow manufacturers to gain experience
in use (see Sec. Sec. 1045.145 and 1054.145). We do not expect this
interim provision to affect manufacturer designs or in-use compliance
efforts. We do not believe this interim provision to specify a shorter
useful life period is necessary for other fuel-system components,
either because there is adequate durability experience in other sectors
or because the control inherently does not involve a concern over in-
use deterioration.
The rest of this section summarizes the proposed standards,
additional requirements, and implementation dates. Unless otherwise
stated, implementation dates specified below refer to the model year.
Section VI.D describes how manufacturers may use emission credits to
meet fuel tank permeation standards. Section VI.E describes the test
procedures corresponding to each standard. Section VI.F describes how
component and equipment manufacturers certify their products and how
their responsibilities overlap in some cases. Section VI.F also
describes the simplified process of design-based certification for
meeting many of the proposed standards.
(1) Fuel Line Permeation Standards and Dates
The proposed fuel line permeation standard applies to fuel lines
intended for use in new Small SI equipment and Marine SI vessels is 15
g/m\2\/day at 23 [deg]C on a test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol
(see Sec. 1060.102 and Sec. 1060.515). The form of the standard
refers to grams of permeation over a 24-hour period divided by the
inside surface area of the fuel line. This proposed standard is
consistent with that adopted for fuel lines in recreational vehicles.
The move toward low-permeation fuel lines in recreational vehicles--and
further development work in this area since the first proposed rule for
marine evaporative emissions--demonstrates that low-permeation fuel
lines are available on the market today for Small SI equipment and
Marine SI vessels. In addition, many manufacturers are already using
low-permeation technologies in response to permeation standards in
California. We are therefore proposing that this standard apply
beginning with 2008 for nonhandheld Small SI equipment and 2009 for
Marine SI vessels. For handheld equipment, we are proposing a fuel line
permeation implementation date of 2012, except that small-volume
families as defined in Sec. 1054.801 would have until 2013. Although
low-permeation fuel line technology is available, handheld equipment is
not currently subject to fuel line permeation requirements in
California and does not typically use low-permeation fuel lines today.
In addition, much of the fuel line used on handheld equipment is not
straight-run fuel line for which low-permeation replacements are
readily available; thus, more lead time is required. We request comment
on the proposed standard and implementation dates.
Component manufacturers would be required to certify to the
proposed emission standard for fuel lines (this may involve
certification to a family emission limit above the emission standard
for handheld engines, as described in Section VI.D), except in certain
circumstances. Equipment manufacturers may need to certify that their
fuel lines meet the proposed emission standards if they use any
sections or pieces of fuel line that are not already certified by the
fuel line manufacturer, or if they comply using emission credits, as
described in Section VI.F.
To address the short lead time associated with the 2008
requirements for Small SI equipment, we are proposing an interim
arrangement in which engine manufacturers would include compliant fuel
lines under their existing certification (see Sec. 90.127). This would
prevent the need for other companies to submit new applications for
certification that would need to be processed immediately. This
arrangement would allow for engine manufacturers to start complying
well ahead of the time that the fuel line standards become mandatory.
The certification requirements described above for component
manufacturers would start once Small SI engines and equipment would be
subject to Phase 3 standards.
By specifying standards for fuel-system components rather than the
entire fuel system, we must separately address appropriate requirements
for connecting pieces, such as valves, O-rings, seals, plugs, and
grommets that are exposed to liquid fuel but are not part of the fuel
line. We are proposing to require that these ancillary pieces meet the
broad specifications described in Sec. 1060.101(f), which generally
requires that fittings and connections be designed to prevent leaks. As
described in Section VI.E.1, we are also proposing to allow testing of
fuel line assemblies that include connecting pieces, primer bulbs, and
other fuel line components as a single item (see Sec. 1060.102). For
example, manufacturers may certify fuel lines for portable marine fuel
tanks as
[[Page 28168]]
assemblies of fuel line, primer bulbs, and self-sealing end
connections. Finally, we are proposing to require that detachable fuel
lines be self-sealing when they are removed from the fuel tank or the
engine because this would otherwise result in high evaporative
emissions (see Sec. 1060.101). To the extent that equipment
manufacturers and boat builders certify their products, they would need
to describe how they meet the equipment-based requirements proposed in
Sec. 1060.101(e) and (f) in their application for certification. If
boat builders rely on certified components instead of certifying, they
would need to keep records describing how they meet the equipment-based
requirements proposed in Sec. 1060.101(e) and (f).
Handheld equipment manufacturers have raised concerns that fuel
lines constructed of available low-permeation materials may not perform
well in some handheld applications under extreme cold weather
conditions such as below -30 [deg]C. These products often use injected
molded fuel lines with complex shapes and designs needed to address the
unique equipment packaging issues and the high vibration and random
movement of the fuel lines within the overall equipment when in use.
Industry has expressed concern and the data in Chapter 5 of the Draft
RIA suggest that durability issues may occur from using certain low-
permeation materials in these applications when the weather is
extremely cold and that these could lead to unexpected fuel line leaks.
Handheld equipment types that could be considered as cold-weather
products include cut-off saws, clearing saws, brush cutters over 40cc,
commercial earth and wood drills, ice augers, and chainsaws.
The extreme cold temperatures needed to induce the potential fuel
line failures are very rare but do occur each year in Alaska and the
continental United States. EPA considered a number of different options
aimed at developing special provisions for equipment most likely to be
used in these extreme cold weather situations without providing relief
to all of the equipment sold in the broad categories identified by
industry as cold weather products. These included focusing the
provisions on products used by professionals (longer useful life
equipment or Class V equipment only), geographic-based retrofit kits,
product segregation, and special labeling. While each of the options
has some merit, none could provide the full assurance that handheld
equipment using low-permeation fuel lines not compatible with extreme
cold weather would not be used in such weather conditions. While very
low temperature materials are available that can achieve the fuel line
permeation standards discussed above, these materials come at a
substantially higher cost than that for fuel lines used in non cold
weather products and none have been evaluated in fuel lines on the
handheld equipment at issue.
If we consider a less stringent standard, we believe there are
lower cost materials available that could be used to achieve permeation
reductions in equipment designed for cold weather applications without
creating potential safety concerns related to fuel leaks. As discussed
in the Draft RIA, rubbers with high acrylonitrile (ACN) content are
used in some handheld applications. These materials have about half the
permeation of lower ACN-content rubbers also used in handheld
applications. To capture the capability of these materials to reduce
permeation emissions without creating other issues for cold weather
products, we are proposing a fuel line permeation standard of 175 g/
m\2\/day in 2013 for cold-weather products. We request comment on
appropriateness of this standard and whether there are materials that
could be used to achieve larger fuel line permeation reductions from
cold-weather products.
We request comment on what products should be considered to be
cold-weather products and if it would be possible to distinguish
between products used in warm versus cold climates. We also request
comment regarding whether the proposed ABT program discussed below for
handheld equipment would provide enough flexibility to manufacturers to
address cold weather issues through credit trading rather than through
a differentiated standard.
Outboard engine manufacturers have expressed concern that it would
be difficult for them to meet proposed 2009 date for the sections of
fuel lines that are mounted on their engines under the engine cowl.
While some sections of straight-run fuel line are used on the
outboards, many of the smaller sections between engine mounted fuel-
system components and connectors are preformed or even injection-molded
parts. Outboard engine manufacturers stated that they would need
additional time to redesign and perform testing on low-permeation fuel
lines under the cowl. PWC and SD/I manufacturers have indicated that
this is not an issue on their engines because they are dominantly
straight-run pieces. Outboard engine manufacturers have also stated
that, in contrast to under cowl fuel line, they would be able to
facilitate the introduction of low-permeation fuel line, from the fuel
tank to the engine, in 2008.
We request comment on implementing an optional program where the
implementation dates for fuel line under the cowl can be delayed beyond
2009, provided low-permeation fuel line from the fuel tank to the
engine is used beginning on January 1, 2008. Under this approach,
permeation standards for primer bulbs on fuel lines from the tank to
the engine would still begin in 2009. One specific approach would be to
phase in the use of low-permeation fuel lines on outboards based on the
total inside surface area of the under cowl fuel lines. For instance
the following phase-in could be implemented: 30 percent in 2010, 60
percent in 2011, and 90 percent in 2012. This would allow manufacturers
to transition to the use of low-permeation fuel lines in an orderly
fashion. Also, it would give them some flexibility to continue to use
short sections of uncontrolled fuel lines, in the longer term, that are
more difficult or costly to replace with low-permeation fuel lines. At
some point in the future, such as 2015, we could require the use of 100
percent low-permeation fuel lines. Manufacturers would be expected to
target 100 percent use of low-permeation fuel lines in new engine
designs. If the surface area percentages were weighted across a
manufacturers entire product line of outboard engines (rather than on a
per-engine basis), it would allow manufacturers to use 100 percent low-
permeation fuel lines on new engine designs, while making less changes
to engines that are planned to be phased out of production.
We also request comment on how the above program could be
implemented given that the fuel line from the tank to the engine is
typically installed by the boat builder while the under-cowl fuel line
is installed by the engine manufacturer. One approach that has been
considered is requiring the engine manufacturer to specify low-
permeation fuel line in its installation instructions beginning in
2008. The engines would not be made available to boat builders who do
not begin using low-permeation fuel lines in 2008.
(2) Fuel Tank Permeation Standards and Dates
Except as noted below, we are proposing a fuel tank permeation
standard of 1.5 g/m\2\/day for tanks intended for use in new Small SI
equipment and Marine SI vessels based on the permeation rate of
gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol at a test temperature of 28
[deg]C (see Sec. 1060.103 and Sec. 1060.520). The emission standard is
[[Page 28169]]
based on the inside surface area of the fuel tank rather than the
volumetric capacity because permeation is a function of surface area
exposed to fuel. This proposed standard is consistent with that adopted
for fuel tanks in recreational vehicles.
We are proposing a fuel tank permeation standard of 2.5 g/m\2\/day
for handheld equipment with structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks
(see Sec. 1060.801 for the proposed definition of structurally
integrated nylon fuel tanks). These fuel tanks are molded as part of
the general structure of the equipment. In most cases, these fuel tanks
are made of glass-reinforced nylon for strength and temperature
resistance. These nylon constructions typically have significantly
lower permeation rates than other plastics used for fuel tanks, such as
high-density polyethylene; however, based on data in Chapter 5 of the
Draft RIA the nylon constructions may not be able meet a standard of
1.5 g/m\2\/day. Therefore, we believe a higher standard is necessary
for these fuel tank constructions. We request comment on this separate
permeation standards for structurally integrated fuel tanks.
Many Small SI equipment manufacturers are currently using low-
permeation fuel tanks for products certified in California. The
California tank permeation test procedures use a nominal test
temperature of 40 [deg]C with California certification gasoline while
we are proposing to require testing at 28 [deg]C with gasoline
containing 10 percent ethanol. We are proposing to allow manufacturers
the alternative of testing their fuel tanks at 40 [deg]C with our test
fuel. Because permeation increases as a function of temperature, we are
proposing an alternative standard of 2.5 g/m2/day for fuel tanks tested
at 40 [deg]C. For structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks, the
alternative standard at 40 [deg]C would be 4.0 g/m\2\/day.
We consider three distinct classes of marine fuel tanks: (1)
Portable marine fuel tanks (generally used with small outboards); (2)
personal watercraft (PWC) fuel tanks; and (3) other installed marine
fuel tanks (generally used with SD/I and larger outboards). The fuel
tank permeation standards are proposed to start in 2011 for all Small
SI equipment using Class II engines and for personal watercraft and
portable marine fuel tanks. For Small SI equipment using Class I
engines and for other installed marine fuel tanks, we propose to apply
the same standard starting in 2012. Most of the marine fuel tanks with
the later standards are produced in low volumes using rotational-molded
cross-link polyethylene or fiberglass construction, both of which
generally present a greater design challenge. We believe the additional
lead time will be necessary for these fuel tanks to allow for a smooth
transition to low-permeation designs. For Small SI equipment, these
dates also align with the schedule for introducing the proposed Phase 3
exhaust emission standards.
Component manufacturers would be required to certify to the
proposed permeation emission standard for fuel tanks (this may involve
certification to a family emission limit above the emission standard,
as described in Section VI.D), except in certain circumstances.
Equipment manufacturers would need to certify that their fuel tanks
meet the proposed emission standards if they are not already certified
by the fuel tank manufacturer, or if they comply using emission
credits, as described in Section VI.F. However, we are proposing that
manufacturers of portable marine fuel tanks be required to certify that
their products meet the new permeation standard. This is necessary
because portable fuel tanks are not sold to boat builders for
installation in a vessel. There is therefore no other manufacturer who
could be treated as the manufacturer and responsible for meeting
emission standards that apply to portable marine fuel tanks.
For handheld equipment, we are proposing a phased-in implementation
of the fuel tank permeation standards. Manufacturers would be required
to meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standards in 2009 for
products that they already certify in California (see Sec. 90.129).
The remaining equipment, except for structurally integrated nylon fuel
tanks and small-volume families, would be subject to the proposed tank
permeation standards in 2010 (see Sec. 1054.110). Structurally
integrated nylon fuel tanks would be subject to the proposed standards
in 2011 and small-volume families would have to meet the proposed tank
permeation standards beginning in 2013. Manufacturers would need to
start using EPA-specified procedures starting in 2010, except that
equipment certified using carryover data would be allowed to use data
collected using procedures specified for compliance in California for
model years 2010 and 2011 (see Sec. 1054.145).
For the purpose of the proposed fuel tank permeation standards, a
fuel cap mounted on the fuel tank is considered to be part of the fuel
tank. We consider a fuel cap to be mounted on the fuel tank unless the
fuel tank is designed to have a filler neck at least 12 inches long
with the opening at least six inches above the top of the fuel tank.
The fuel cap would therefore be included in the tank permeation
standard and test. The cap may optionally be tested separately from the
tank and the results combined to determine the total tank permeation
rate (see Sec. 1060.521). Cap manufacturers could also test their caps
and certify them separately to a separate 1.5 g/m\2\/day cap permeation
standard. The permeation requirements apply independently of the
diffusion standards described below, which address venting of fuel
vapors. We are concerned that allowing certification of fuel caps could
add complexity to the certification process. It would also add a
measure of uncertainty in our efforts to ensure compliance with
emission standards--for fuel tanks certified to permeation standards
alone, it would be hard ensure that the fuel tanks in the final
installation would be in a certified configuration with respect to
diffusion emissions. We therefore request comment on the value to
manufacturers of allowing fuel caps to be certified independently from
the fuel tank. Note that a single certification fee would apply to fuel
tanks that are certified to permeation and diffusion emission
standards, but only if there is no optional fuel cap certification.
With the option of fuel cap certification, a separate certification fee
would apply to diffusion and permeation families, even if a single fuel
tank manufacturer certifies to both standards.
(3) Diurnal Emission Standards and Dates
We are proposing diurnal emission standards for fuel tanks intended
for use in new Marine SI vessels (see Sec. 1045.107). We consider
three distinct classes of marine fuel tanks: (1) Portable marine fuel
tanks (used with small outboards); (2) personal watercraft (PWC) fuel
tanks; and (3) other installed fuel tanks (used with SD/I and larger
outboards). For diurnal emissions from portable fuel tanks, we are
proposing a design requirement that the tank remain sealed up to a
pressure of 5.0 psi, starting in the 2009 model year (see Sec.
1060.105). We are also proposing that portable fuel tanks must continue
to be self-sealing when disconnected from an engine.
We are proposing a general emission standard of 0.40 g/gal/day
based on a 25.6-32.2 [deg]C temperature profile for installed tanks.
The applicable test procedures are described in Section VI.E.3.
Manufacturers have expressed concerns that some very large boats stay
in the water throughout the boating season and therefore will see a
much smaller daily swing in fuel
[[Page 28170]]
temperatures, which corresponds with a smaller degree of diurnal
emissions. We are proposing to address this concern with an alternative
standard and test procedure that would apply only for nontrailerable
boats. Using available measurements related to fuel temperatures and
emission models to relate temperatures to projected diurnal emission
levels, we are proposing an alternative standard of 0.16 g/gal/day
based on a 27.6-30.2 [deg]C temperature cycle for fuel tanks installed
in nontrailerable boats. For the purposes of this rule, we are
proposing to define a nontrailerable boat as 26 feet or more in length,
which is consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition
for ``nontrailerable recreational vessels'' in 50 CFR 86.12. The
diurnal emission standards would apply starting in 2009 for PWC fuel
tanks and in 2010 for other installed fuel tanks.
Component manufacturers would be required to certify to the
proposed diurnal emission standard for fuel tanks, except in certain
circumstances. Equipment manufacturers would need to certify that their
fuel tanks meet the proposed emission standards if they are not already
certified by the fuel tank manufacturer, as described in Section VI.F.
As described above for permeation standards, we are proposing to
require manufacturers of portable marine fuel tanks to certify that
they meet the proposed diurnal emission standards since there is no
``equipment manufacturer'' to assume certification responsibility for
those tanks.
We believe the proposed requirements would achieve at least a 50
percent reduction in diurnal emissions from PWC and other installed
marine fuel tanks and nearly a 100 percent reduction from portable
marine tanks. We request comment on the proposed diurnal emission
standards for Marine SI vessels.
It is common today for portable marine fuel tanks to maintain an
airtight seal when the engine is not operating. These tanks typically
have caps that are fitted with a valve that can be manually opened
during engine operation and closed when the fuel tank is stored.
Although this technology could be used to control diurnal emissions
effectively, it depends on user intervention. We are proposing that
portable fuel tanks be required to be fitted with a self-sealing vent
rather than a manually-controlled vent. For instance, a one-way
diaphragm valve could be used to allow air in when fuel is drawn from
the tank (to prevent vacuum conditions), but otherwise seal the fuel
tank. Current portable marine fuel tanks are small and designed to hold
pressure when the manual valve is closed. We are proposing to require
that portable marine fuel tanks be designed to maintain a seal to allow
for pressure buildup resulting from normal temperature swings. These
tanks should include valves that prevent a vacuum in the tank during
engine operation which could restrict fuel flow to the engine and
potentially stall the engine. We believe portable marine fuel tanks
with valves that seal automatically will control diurnal emissions
without relying on user operation. We are proposing to implement this
design standard beginning with the 2009 model year. We request comment
on this approach.
Manufacturers will likely control emissions from installed marine
fuel tanks either by sealing the fuel system up to 1.0 psi or by using
a carbon canister in the vent line. As discussed below, we believe PWC
manufacturers will likely seal the fuel tank with a pressure-relief
valve while manufacturers of other boats with installed fuel tanks are
more likely to use carbon canisters. However, either technology would
be acceptable for either kind of installed marine fuel tank as long as
every system meets the numerical standard applicable to the specific tank.
Personal watercraft currently use sealed fuel systems for
preventing fuel from exiting, or water from entering, the fuel tank
during typical operation. These vessels use pressure-relief valves for
preventing excessive positive pressure in the fuel system; the pressure
to trigger the valve may range from 0.5 to 4.0 psi. Such fuel systems
would also need a low-pressure vacuum relief valve to allow the engine
to draw fuel from the tank during operation. In the 2002 proposal, we
discussed a diurnal emission standard largely based on the use of a
sealed system with a 1.0 psi pressure-relief valve. The Personal
Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) expressed support in their
comments for this proposal. We estimate that diurnal emissions from a
sealed system with a 1.0 psi pressure-relief valve would be about half
that of the same system on a PWC with an open vent. For personal
watercraft, we are proposing an implementation date of 2009 because the
anticipated technology is widely used today.
The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) expressed
concern in their comments on the 2002 proposal that pressurized fuel
tanks could lead to safety issues for larger installed fuel tanks. NMMA
commented that these tanks would deform under pressure and that
pressure could lead to fuel leaks. Manufacturers also commented that
bladder fuel systems, which would not be pressurized, would be too
expensive. At the time of the 2002 proposal, we considered the use of
carbon canisters to control diurnal emissions, but were concerned that
active purging would occur infrequently due to the low hours of
operation per year seen by many boats. However, we have since collected
data on carbon canisters showing that canisters can reduce emissions by
more than 50 percent with passive purge that occurs during the normal
breathing process without creating any significant pressure in the fuel
tank. For installed marine fuel tanks, other than PWC, we are therefore
proposing an implementation date of 2010 to allow additional lead time
for designing and producing canisters for marine vessels.
During the SBREFA process described in Section VI.I, NMMA expressed
general support of the feasibility of using carbon canisters on boats.
However, they commented that there are many small boat builders that
may need additional time to become familiar with and install carbon
canisters in their boats. We request comment on either a three-year
phase-in (say 33/66/100 percent over the 2010 through 2012 model years)
or an extra year of lead time for small businesses to comply with the
proposed diurnal emission standards. We also request comment on which
small business companies would be eligible for this flexibility. One
option would be to use the SBA definition of a small boat builder which
is based on having fewer than 500 employees. Another option would be to
base the flexibility on the annual boat sales of the company. One issue
with the latter approach would be the wide range of boat sizes and
sales prices in the marine industry. With a given number of employees,
many more small than large boats can be manufactured in a year.
If a manufacturer uses a canister-based system to comply with the
standard applicable to the specific tank, we are also proposing to
require that manufacturers design their systems not to allow liquid
gasoline to reach the canister during refueling or from fuel sloshing
(see Sec. 1060.105). Liquid gasoline would significantly degrade the
carbon's ability to capture hydrocarbon vapors. One example of an
approach to protect the canister from exposure to liquid gasoline is a
design in which the canister is mounted higher than the fuel level and
a small orifice or a float valve is installed in the vent line to stop
the flow of liquid gasoline to the canister.
Several manufacturers have stated that it is common for users to
fill their fuel tank until they see fuel coming out
[[Page 28171]]
of the vent line. In addition to being a source of hydrocarbon
emissions, if liquid fuel were to reach a carbon canister, it would
significantly reduce the effectiveness of the canister. Solutions for
this problem are relatively straightforward and have been used in
automotive applications for many years. We are therefore proposing to
require that boat builders use good engineering judgment in designing
fuel systems that address diurnal emission control in a way that does
not increase the occurrence of fuel spitback or spillage during
refueling beginning in the years specified in Table VI-1. While this
provision is not detailed or prescriptive, it communicates a
requirement that manufacturers appropriately take refueling design into
account, and it allows EPA to make enforcement decisions as the
industry establishes sound practices in this area. In addition, we are
proposing that manufacturers would have to meet certain specifications
with their fuel tank caps, including requirements to tether the cap to
the equipment and designing the cap to provide physical or audible
feedback when the vapor seal is established. Also, adding vents to a
fuel tank would generally not be allowed. To the extent that boat
builders certify their vessels to meet emission standards, they would
need to describe how they meet these refueling-related requirements in
their application for certification. If boat builders rely on certified
components instead of applying for certification, they would need to
keep records describing how they meet these refueling-related
requirements; Section VI.F describes how such companies can meet
certification requirements without applying for a certificate.
Any increase in fuel temperature resulting from engine operation
would cause a potential for emissions that is very similar to diurnal
emissions. We are therefore proposing to disallow manufacturers from
disabling their approaches for controlling diurnal emissions during
engine operation (see Sec. 1060.105). This would ensure that any
running loss emissions that would otherwise occur will be controlled to
a comparable degree as diurnal emissions.
We are not proposing diurnal emission standards for Small SI
equipment. However, we request comment on such a requirement. We
believe passively purging carbon canisters could reduce diurnal
emissions by 50 to 60 percent from Small SI equipment. Active purging
would result in even greater reductions. However, we believe some
important issues would need to be resolved, such as cost, packaging,
and vibration. The cost sensitivity is especially noteworthy given the
relatively low emissions levels (on a per-equipment basis) from such
small fuel tanks. We request comment on the appropriate level of such a
standard and when it could be implemented.
There are some small outboard marine engines that have fuel tanks
directly mounted on the engine. In these cases, the fuel tank could be
considered to be more similar to those on Small SI equipment than other
marine fuel tanks. Typically, these outboard engines have fuel tanks on
the order of 1-2 liters in size. Manufacturers have expressed concern
about the practicality of using carbon canisters for these applications
due to space constraints and durability impacts of engine handling. We
request comment on excluding fuel tanks less than 2 liters in size that
are mounted on outboard engines from the proposed diurnal emission
requirements. Since it may be a viable alternative, comments should
address the feasibility of using sealed fuel tanks with pressure relief
in these applications. Similar to Small SI equipment, marine fuel tanks
mounted on the engine are directly exposed to heat from the engine
during operation. In the case where diurnal standards were not applied
to these fuel tanks, we request comment on applying the proposed
diffusion and running loss standards, described below, to these fuel tanks.
(4) Diffusion Standards and Dates
As described above, diffusion emissions occur when vapor escapes
the fuel tank through an opening as a result of random molecular
motion, independent of changing temperature. Diffusion emissions can be
easily controlled by venting fuel tanks in a way that forces fuel
vapors to go through a long, narrow path to escape. We are proposing
that manufacturers may choose between certifying to a performance
standard or a design standard. Under a performance standard, we specify
a test procedure and a maximum emission rate. Under a design standard,
we specify certain designs that a manufacturer may use to comply with
the standard. This standard would take effect at the same time as the
exhaust emission standards--2011 for Class II engines and 2012 for
Class I engines.
We are proposing a performance standard of 0.80 g/day for diffusion
emissions for fuel tanks intended for use in new nonhandheld Small SI
equipment (Sec. 1060.105). This standard would not apply to a
manufacturer who certifies using one of the four alternative design
standards described below.
1. We are proposing a design standard for diffusion in which the
tank must be sealed except for a single vent line. This vent line would
need to be at least 180 mm long and have a ratio of length to the
square of the diameter of at least 5.0 mm-1 (127
inches-1). For example, a vent line with 6 mm inside diameter
would have to be at least 180 mm long to meet this design standard.
2. We are proposing a second alternative design standard for
diffusion in which vapors from a fuel tank are vented solely through a
tortuous path through the fuel cap. Many fuel cap manufacturers use
this cap design today to prevent fuel from splashing out through the
vent during operation. As described in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA, we
tested three low-diffusion fuel caps used on Class I equipment with
high annual sales. Based on these designs, we proposing to define a
tortuous path fuel cap as one that is vented through a small path in
the gasket and then around the threads where the cap screws onto the
fuel tank. Specifically, we are proposing an average path length to
total cross sectional area in the gasket pathways of greater than 1
mm-1 and a vent path through at least 360[deg]
of the threads.
3. We are proposing a third alternative design standard for
diffusion in which the fuel tank is sealed except for a vent through a
carbon canister. Carbon canisters are one technology that manufacturers
may use to meet diurnal emission standards in California.
4. We are proposing a fourth alternative design standard for
diffusion in which a fuel tank is sealed so that vapors may not exit
the fuel tank. Under this design standard, it would be acceptable to
have a pressure relief valve with an opening pressure of at least 0.5 psi.
We request comment on the appropriateness of setting a design
standard for diffusion and on the designs described above. We also
request comment on any additional diffusion data from fuel caps that
are capable of meeting the proposed performance-based diffusion
standard and on the design of these fuel caps. Even without the
alternative of a design standard, we anticipate that fuel cap
manufacturers, with a small number of designs covering a large number
of equipment models, would be able to perform the necessary testing for
a performance-standard without being unreasonably burdened.
Fuel tank manufacturers would be required to certify that their
products limit venting sufficiently to meet the proposed diffusion
emission standard, except in certain circumstances. Fuel
[[Page 28172]]
cap manufacturers may optionally certify their fuel caps to the
diffusion emission standard, in which case they would become subject to
all the compliance requirements related to the standards, including
certification. Equipment manufacturers would need to certify that their
fuel tanks meet the proposed emission standards if they are not already
certified by the fuel tank manufacturer, as described in Section VI.F.
We are also proposing that equipment manufacturers subject to
diffusion emission standards must ensure that the fuel cap is tethered
to the fuel tank or the equipment to prevent it from being accidentally
misplaced (see Sec. 1060.101). A missing fuel tank cap would bypass
any design intended to control these losses and could lead to very high
emission rates. Fuel cap or fuel tank manufacturers could address this
as part of their component certification. If this is not part of the
component certification, an equipment manufacturer would need to
describe how it meets the tethering requirement in its application for
certification.
We are not proposing diffusion standards for handheld equipment.
Handheld equipment use fuel caps that are either sealed or have
tortuous venting pathways to prevent fuel from spilling during
operation. We believe these fuel cap designs limit diffusion emissions
sufficiently that handheld equipment already meet the proposed
standard. In addition, we are not proposing diffusion standards for
Marine SI vessels. The diurnal emission standard for Marine SI vessels
will lead manufacturers to adopt technologies that automatically limit
diffusion losses, so there is no need to propose a separate diffusion
standard for those systems. Similarly, we would not finalize the
proposed diffusion standard if we adopt a diurnal emission standard for
Small SI equipment. We request comment on the proposed diffusion
standard for nonhandheld equipment and whether it should apply to
handheld equipment and marine vessels as well.
(5) Running Loss Emission Standards and Dates
We are proposing standards to control running loss emissions from
nonhandheld Small SI equipment beginning in the same year as the
proposed Phase 3 exhaust emission standards--2012 for Class I engines
and 2011 for Class II engines (see Sec. 1060.104). Equipment
manufacturers would need to certify that their equipment models meet
the proposed running loss requirements since component certification is
not practical.
We have measured fuel temperatures and found that some types of
equipment experience significant fuel heating during engine operation.
This was especially true for fuel tanks mounted on or near the engine.
This occurs in many types of Small SI equipment.
It would be very difficult to define a measurement procedure to
consistently and accurately quantify running losses. Also, a
performance standard with such a procedure would introduce a
challenging testing requirement for hundreds of small-volume equipment
manufacturers. Moreover, we believe there are several different design
approaches that will reliably and effectively control running losses.
We are therefore not proposing to control running losses using the
conventional approach of establishing a procedure to measure running
losses and adopting a corresponding emission standard. Manufacturers
could choose from one of the following approaches to meet this requirement:
• Vent running loss fuel vapors from the fuel tank to the
engine's intake manifold in a way that burns the fuel vapors in the
engine instead of venting them to the atmosphere. The use of an
actively purged carbon canister would qualify under this approach.
• Use a bladder to minimize fuel vapor volume in a sealed fuel tank.
• Design the equipment so that fuel temperature does not
rise more than 8 [deg]C during normal operation. Such a design may use
insulation or forced cooling to minimize temperature increases. This
would require measuring fuel temperatures to show that each covered
equipment configuration does not exceed the temperature threshold (see
Sec. 1060.535).
• Show that the equipment qualifies as wintertime equipment.
We believe any of these approaches will ensure that manufacturers
will be substantially controlling running losses, either by preventing
or managing running loss vapors. While none of these approaches are
expected to require extensive design changes or lead time, any
manufacturer choosing the option to vent running loss fuel vapors into
the engine's intake manifold would need to make this change in
coordination with the engine design. As a result, we believe it is
appropriate to align the timing of the running loss standards with the
introduction of the proposed Phase 3 standards.
We request comment on the proposed running loss requirement for
nonhandheld Small SI equipment. We also request comment on any other
design approaches that will reliably and effectively control running
losses. Examples of other approaches may be to seal the fuel tank for
pressures up to 3.5 psi or, for equipment that does not include fuel
recirculation, locate the fuel tank at least 12 inches away from the engine
and other heat sources (such as exhaust pipes, hydraulic lines, etc.).
We are not proposing to apply the running loss requirements to
handheld Small SI engines. We believe running loss emission standards
should not apply to handheld engines at this time because the likely
approach to controlling running losses could require that manufacturers
revisit their design for controlling exhaust emissions. As described
above, we are not proposing to change the exhaust emission standards
for handheld engines in this rulemaking. In addition, there are some
technical challenges that would require further investigation. For
example, the compact nature of the equipment makes it harder to isolate
the fuel tank from the engine and the multi-positional nature of the
operation may prevent a reliable means of venting fuel vapors into the
intake manifold while the engine is running. We request comment on the
appropriateness of requiring manufacturers to address running loss
emissions from handheld engines.
Furthermore, we are not proposing to apply running loss
requirements to Marine SI engines. Installed marine fuel tanks are
generally not mounted near the engine or other heat sources so running
losses should be very low. A possible exception to this is personal
watercraft since they are designed with the fuel tank closer to the
engine. However, under the proposed standard for controlling diurnal
emissions, we expect that manufacturers will design their fuel tanks to
stay pressurized up to 1 psi. This would also help control running loss
emissions. We request comment on applying running loss controls to
Marine SI engines. In particular, we request comment on the possibility
that other design configurations would have higher running loss
emissions. One example may be outboard applications in which a fuel
tank is mounted directly on the engine.
(6) Requirements Related to Refueling
Refueling spitback and spillage emissions represent a substantial
additional amount of fuel evaporation that contributes to overall
emissions from equipment with gasoline-fueled engines. We are not
proposing measurement procedures with corresponding emission standards
to address these emission sources. However, we believe equipment
manufacturers can take significant steps
[[Page 28173]]
to address these refueling issues by incorporating sound practices into
their equipment designs. For example, designing a marine filler neck
with a horizontal segment near the fuel inlet will almost inevitably
lead to high levels of spillage since fuel flow will invariably reach
the nozzle, leading to substantial fuel flow out of the fuel system. In
contrast, designing for automatic shutoff would prevent this. Also,
maintaining a vertical orientation of the filler neck would allow the
fuel to flow back into the filler neck and into the tank after the
nozzle shuts off.
For Small SI equipment, designing fuel inlets that are readily
accessible and large enough to see the rising fuel level (either
through the tank wall or the fuel inlet) will substantially reduce
accidental spillage during refueling. We are therefore proposing to
require that equipment manufacturers design and build their equipment
such that operators could reasonably be expected to fill the fuel tank
without spitback or spillage during the refueling event (see Sec.
1060.101). This proposed requirement mirrors the following requirement
recently adopted with respect to portable fuel containers (72 FR 8428,
February 26, 2007):
You are required to design your portable fuel containers to
minimize spillage during refueling to the extent practical. This
requires that you use good engineering judgment to avoid designs
that will make it difficult to refuel typical vehicle and equipment
designs without spillage. (40 CFR 59.611(c)(3))
While the proposed requirement is not as objective and quantifiable
as the other standards and requirements we are proposing, we believe
this is important, both to set a requirement for manufacturers in
designing their products and to give EPA the ability to require
manufacturers to select designs that are consistent with good
engineering practice regarding effective refueling strategies. To the
extent that equipment manufacturers and boat builders certify their
products to emission standards, they would need to describe how they
meet this refueling-related requirement in their application for
certification. If boat builders rely on certified components instead of
applying for certification, they would need to keep records describing
how they meet this refueling-related requirement; Section VI.F
describes how such companies can meet certification requirements
without applying for a certificate. We request comment on this approach
to addressing refueling emissions from nonroad spark-ignition engines.
We also request comment on the possibility of relying on current or
future published industry standards to establish designs for equipment
and fueling containers that minimize refueling emissions under normal
in-use conditions.
Spitback and spillage are a particular concern for gasoline-fueled
boats. Marine operators have reported that relatively large quantities
of gasoline are released into the marina environment during refueling
events. The American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) has a procedure in
place to define a standard practice to address refueling. However, this
procedure calls for testing by refueling up to a 75 percent fill level
at a nominal flow rate of 5 gallons per minute. This procedure is
clearly not consistent with prevailing practices and is not effective
in preventing spills. We believe the most effective means of addressing
this problem is for ABYC to revise their test procedure to reflect
current practices. Specifically, we would recommend a procedure in
which the marine fuel tank is filled at flow rates between 5 and 20
gallons per minute until automatic shutoff occurs.
A variety of technological solutions are available to address
spitback and spillage from marine vessels. The simplest would be a
system much like is used on cars. A small-diameter tube could run along
the filler neck from the top of the tank to a point near the top of the
filler neck. Once liquid fuel would reach the opening of the filler
neck and the extra tube, the fuel would go faster up the small-diameter
tube and trigger automatic shutoff before the fuel climbs up the filler
neck. This design would depend on the user to use the equipment
properly and may not be fully effective, for example, with long filler
necks and low refueling rates. An alternative design would involve a
snug fit between the nozzle's spout and the filler neck, which would
allow for a tube to run from a point inside the tank (at any
predetermined level) directly to the shutoff venturi on the spout. The
pressure change from the liquid fuel in the tank reaching the tube's
opening would trigger automatic shutoff of the nozzle. This system
would prevent overflowing fuel without depending on the user. These are
just two of several possible configurations that would address fuel
spillage from marine vessels.
We request comment on the degree of fuel spillage with current
technologies and practices with marine vessels. We request comment on
the potential for ABYC standards to address fuel spillage or on the
need for EPA to adopt such procedures and standards. We request comment
on the specific procedures that would be appropriate for measuring
spitback and spillage. Finally, we request comment on adopting
provisions such as those in 40 CFR 80.22 to regulate the dimensions of
refueling nozzles for marine applications, including a specification of
a nominal nozzle diameter of 1.187±0.010 inches and nominal
venturi placement \5/8\ inch from the terminal end of the nozzle.
(7) Summary Table of Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
Table VI-1 summarizes the proposed standards and implementation
dates discussed above for evaporative emissions from Small SI equipment
and Marine SI vessels. Where a standard does not apply to a given class
of equipment, ``NA'' is used in the table to indicate ``not applicable.''
Table VI.-1.--Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards and Model Year Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard/ category Hose permeation Tank permeation Diurnal Diffusion Running loss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard level..................... 15 g/m2 /day.......... 1.5 g/m2 /day......... 0.40 g/gal/day....... 0.80 g/day........... Design standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation Dates: Small SI Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handheld........................... 2012 a b.............. 2009-2013 c d......... NA................... NA................... NA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I............................ 2008.................. 2012.................. NA................... 2012 g............... 2012.
Class II........................... 2008.................. 2011.................. NA................... 2011 g............... 2011.
[[Page 28174]]
Implementation Dates: Marine Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable tanks..................... 2009.................. 2011.................. 2009 e............... NA................... NA.
PWC................................ 2009.................. 2011.................. 2009................. NA................... NA.
Other installed tanks.............. 2009.................. 2012.................. 2010 f............... NA................... NA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2013 for small-volume families and cold weather equipment.
\b\ Fuel line permeation standard of 175 g/m2 /day for cold-weather equipment.
\c\ 2.5 g/m2 /day for structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks.
\d\ 2009 for families certified in California, 2013 for small-volume families, 2011 for structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks, and 2010 for remaining
families.
\e\ Design standard.
\f\ Fuel tanks installed in nontrailerable boats (>=26 ft. in length) may meet a standard of 0.16 g/gal/day over an alternative test cycle.
\g\ Alternatively, may meet a design standard.
D. Emission Credit Programs
A common feature of mobile source emission requirements is an
emission credit program that allows manufacturers to generate emission
credits based on certified emission levels for engine families that are
more stringent than the standard. See Section VII for background
information and general provisions related to emission credit programs.
We believe it is appropriate to consider compliance based on
emission credits relative to permeation standards for fuel lines used
with handheld engines and for fuel tanks used in all applications. As
described above, the emission standards apply to the fuel tanks and
fuel lines directly, such that we would generally expect component
manufacturers to certify their products. However, we believe it is best
to avoid placing the responsibility for demonstrating a proper emission
credit balance on component manufacturers for three main reasons.
First, it is in many cases not clear whether these components will be
produced for one type of application or another. Component
manufacturers might therefore be selling similar products into
different applications that are subject to different standards--or no
standards at all. Component manufacturers may or may not know in which
application their products will be used. Second, there will be
situations in which equipment manufacturers and boat builders take on
the responsibility for certifying components. This may be the result of
an arrangement with the component manufacturer, or equipment
manufacturers and boat builders might build their own fuel tanks. We
believe it would be much more difficult to manage an emission credit
program in which manufacturers at different places in the manufacturing
chain would be keeping credit balances. There would also be a
significant risk of double-counting of emission credits. Third, most
component manufacturers would be in a position to use credits or
generate credits, but not both. Equipment manufacturers and boat
builders are more likely to be in a position where they would keep an
internal balance of generating and using credits to meet applicable
requirements. Our experience with other programs leads us to believe
that an emission credit program that depends on trading is not likely
to be successful.
We are therefore proposing emission credit provisions in which
equipment manufacturers and boat builders keep a balance of credits for
their product line. Equipment manufacturers and boat builders choosing
to comply based on emission credits would need to certify all their
products that either generate or use emission credits. Component
manufacturers would be able to produce their products with emission
levels above or below applicable emission standards but would not be
able to generate emission credits and would not need to maintain an
accounting to demonstrate a balance of emission credits.
We are aware that some component manufacturers would be making
products that generate emission credits that would belong to equipment
manufacturers or boat builders. Equipment manufacturers or boat
builders could in turn use those emission credits to enable them to buy
components from different competing component manufacturers. This would
potentially put fuel tank manufacturers producing low-FEL products at a
competitive disadvantage with other manufacturers producing high-FEL
fuel tanks. We request comment on the best approach to setting up an
ABT program. We specifically request comment on special provisions that
may be appropriate to address these competitiveness issues for
component manufacturers.
(1) Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Nonhandheld Equipment and
Marine Vessels
We are proposing averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions
for fuel tank permeation from nonhandheld Small SI equipment and Marine
SI vessels (see subpart H in parts 1045 and 1054). See the following
section for similar provisions for handheld Small SI equipment.
We are aware of certain control technologies that would allow
manufacturers to produce fuel tanks that reduce emissions more
effectively than we would require. These technologies may not be
feasible or practical in all applications, but we are proposing to
allow equipment manufacturers using such low-emission technologies to
generate emission credits. In other cases, an equipment manufacturer
may want to or need to use emission credits that would allow for fuel
tanks with permeation rates above the applicable standards. Equipment
manufacturers would quantify positive or negative emission credits by
establishing a Family Emission Limit (FEL) to define the applicable
emission level, then factoring in sales volumes and useful life to
calculate a credit total. This FEL could be based on testing done
either by the component manufacturer or the equipment manufacturer.
Through averaging, these emission credits could be used by the same
equipment manufacturer to offset other fuel tanks in the same model
year that do not have control technologies that control emissions to
the level of the standard. Through banking, such an equipment
manufacturer could use the emission credits in later model years to
offset high-emitting fuel tanks. The emission credits could also be
traded to another equipment manufacturer to offset that company's high-
emitting fuel tanks.
[[Page 28175]]
We believe an ABT program is potentially very advantageous for fuel
tanks because of the wide variety of tank designs. The geometry,
materials, production volumes, and market dynamics for some fuel tanks
are well suited to applying emission controls but other fuel tanks pose
a bigger challenge. The proposed emission credit program allows us to
set a single standard that applies broadly without dictating that all
fuel tanks be converted to use low-permeation technology at the same time.
We are requesting comment on one particular issue. We are not
proposing to limit the life of evaporative emission credits under the
proposed banking program. However, we are concerned that this could
result in a situation where credits generated by a fuel tank sold in a
model year are not used until many years later when the fuel tanks
generating the credits have been scrapped and are no longer part of the
fleet. EPA believes there may be value to limiting the use of credits
to the period that the credit-generating fuel tanks exist in the fleet.
For this reason, EPA requests comment on limiting the lifetime of the
credits generated under the proposed evaporative emission ABT program
to five years. The five-year period is consistent with the proposed
useful life for fuel tank evaporative emissions.
We are proposing not to allow manufacturers to generate emission
credits by using metal fuel tanks. These tanks would have permeation
rates well below the standard, but there is extensive use of metal
tanks today, so it would be difficult to allow these emission credits
without undercutting the stringency of the standard and the expected
emission reductions from the standard.
Emission control technologies and marketing related to portable
marine fuel tanks are quite different than for installed tanks. Since
these fuel tanks are not installed in vessels that are subject to
emission standards, the fuel tank manufacturer would need to take on
the responsibility for certification. As a result, we would treat these
companies as both component manufacturer and equipment manufacturer
with respect to their portable fuel tanks. As described above, we are
proposing that component manufacturers not be responsible for
compliance as part of an emission credit program. We would expect all
portable fuel tank manufacturers to also make nonportable fuel tanks,
which would again lead to a confusing combination of manufacturers
maintaining credit balances to demonstrate compliance. In addition,
most if not all portable fuel tanks are made using high-density
polyethylene in a blow-molding process. The control technologies for
these tanks are relatively straightforward and readily available so we
do not anticipate that these companies will need emission credits to
meet the proposed standards. We are therefore proposing to require
portable marine fuel tanks to meet emission standards without an
emission credit program.
We are proposing not to allow cross-trading of emission credits
between Small SI equipment and Marine SI vessels. The proposed
standards are intended to be technology-forcing for each equipment
category. We are concerned that cross-trading may allow marginal
credits in one area to hamper technological advances in another area.
We are also proposing not to allow credit exchanges with Small SI
equipment certified in California because California has its own
emission standards for these products. Similarly, if California ARB
adopts different evaporative requirements or separate ABT provisions
for Marine SI vessels, we would not allow credit exchanges with marine
vessels certified in California. These restrictions are consistent with
our existing ABT programs. We also would not allow credit exchanges
between handheld and nonhandheld equipment or between Class I and Class
II equipment. We are concerned that cross trading between these
equipment types could give an unfair competitive advantage to equipment
manufacturers with broader product lines. We request comment regarding
whether the competitive nature of the market warrants such a
restriction in cross-trading between Class I and Class II equipment.
In the early years of the ABT program we are proposing not to have
an FEL cap. This would give manufacturers additional time to use
uncontrolled fuel tanks, primarily in small-volume applications, until
they could convert their full product lines to having fuel tanks with
permeation control. After an initial period of three years after the
implementation date of the fuel tank standards, we are proposing an FEL
cap of 5.0 g/m2 /day (8.3 g/m2 /day if tested at
40 [deg]C). For Class II equipment, portable marine fuel tanks, and
personal watercraft, the FEL cap would begin in 2014. For Class I
equipment, handheld equipment, and other installed marine fuel tanks,
the FEL cap would begin in 2015. See Sec. 1045.107 and Sec. 1054.110.
For small volume, Small SI equipment families, we are proposing an FEL
cap of 8.0 g/m2 /day (13.3 g/m2 /day if tested at
40 [deg]C). The purpose of the FEL cap would be to prevent the long-
term production of fuel tanks without permeation control, while still
providing regulatory flexibility. We request comment on the level of
the FEL that would be necessary to achieve this goal.
While the FEL cap is intended to require manufacturers to move
toward widespread use of emission control technologies, we are aware of
technologies that have measured emission levels between the proposed
standard and the proposed FEL cap. As a result, the effect of an FEL
cap may be that there will be little or no use of emission credits as a
compliance strategy once the FEL cap applies. We request comment on the
usefulness of maintaining an ABT program after we implement an FEL cap.
We are proposing that emission credits under the tank permeation
standards would be calculated using the following equation: Credits
[grams]
= (Standard - FEL) x useful life [years] x 365 days/year x
inside surface area [m2]. Both the standard and the FEL are
in units of g/m2 /day based on testing at 28 [deg]C.
As discussed earlier, we are proposing an alternative standard for
tank permeation testing performed at 40 [deg]C. Because permeation is
higher at this temperature than the primary test temperature, emissions
credits and debits calculated at this test temperature would be
expected to be higher as well. An FEL 10 percent below the standard
would generate 0.15 grams of credit for the primary standard and 0.25
grams of credit for the alternative standard. Therefore, we are
proposing that credits and debits that are calculated based on the
alternative standard be adjusted using a multiplicative factor of 0.6
(1.5/2.5 = 0.6).
We request comment on the need for averaging, banking and trading
for fuel tanks and on the specific provisions proposed above.
(2) Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program for Handheld Equipment
We are proposing an ABT program for handheld equipment that would
include fuel tanks and fuel lines. Under this program, a manufacturer
would be able to use credits from fuel tanks to offset debits from fuel
lines, or vice versa. This category of equipment generally involves
very short sections of fuel lines, which are often made using complex,
injection-molded designs. We believe an ABT program would help handheld
equipment manufacturers meet fuel line permeation standards sooner than
would otherwise be possible.
[[Page 28176]]
As discussed earlier, we are proposing a higher standard level of
2.5 g/m2 /day for structurally integrated handheld fuel
tanks. This standard is intended to reflect the measured permeation
rates and characteristics of materials used in these fuel tanks and
manufacturer concerns regarding uncertainty about the permeation rates
from tanks used in the wider range of products and the lack of
definitive control strategies to reduce emissions while meeting other
product requirements. A similar issue exists for cold-weather fuel
lines, for which we are proposing a less stringent permeation standard
of 175 g/m2 /day to address uncertainty associated with the
availability of appropriate low-permeation cold-weather materials in
the time frame of the new standards. We are concerned that windfall
credits that may be generated for these applications if products are
produced that are below the adjusted standards, but do not meet the
primary standards for fuel tanks and fuel lines. To address this issue,
we are proposing that credits would only be earned below 1.5 g/
m2 /day for fuel tanks and below 15 g/m2 /day for
fuel lines on handheld equipment. To promote early introduction of low-
permeation products, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to be able
to earn credits on this basis even before the permeation standards go
into effect. Credit use would be calculated based on the applicable
standards. Emission credits would otherwise be calculated using the
same equation described in Section VI.D.1 above.
Both the fuel line and fuel tank standards are in units of g/
m2 /day. However, fuel line testing is performed at 23
[deg]C while tank testing is performed at 28 [deg]C. Because permeation
tends to increase with increases in temperature, we request comment
regarding whether the credits should be adjusted to account for
temperature. This adjustment would be smaller than the adjustment
described above for a 28 [deg]C versus 40 [deg]C test.
For non-structurally integrated fuel tanks, we are proposing to
apply an FEL cap of 5.0 g/m2 /day (8.3 g/m2 /day
if tested at 40[deg]C) beginning in 2015. For structurally integrated
fuel tanks we are proposing an FEL cap of 3.0 g/m2 /day (5.0
g/m2 /day if tested at 40 [deg]C) in 2015. We believe this
cap gives adequate flexibility for manufacturers to address variability
in the permeation rates of these fuel tanks. For small volume, Small SI
equipment families (including handheld and nonhandheld equipment), we
are proposing a long term FEL cap of 8.0 g/m2 /day (13.3 g/
m2 /day if tested at 40[deg]C) to provide additional
regulatory flexibility where costs cannot be spread over high
production volumes. We request comment on the need for continuing an
ABT program once there is an FEL cap, as described for nonhandheld
equipment above.
(3) Other Evaporative Sources
We are not proposing an emission credit program for other
evaporative sources. We believe technologies are readily available to
meet the applicable standards for fuel line permeation, diurnal
emissions and diffusion emissions (see Section VI.H.). The exception to
this is for fuel lines on handheld equipment as discussed above. In
addition, the diurnal emission standards for portable marine fuel tanks
and PWC fuel tanks are largely based on existing technology so any
meaningful emission credit program with the proposed standards would
result in windfall credits. The running loss standard is not based on
emission measurements and refueling-related requirements are based on
design specifications only, so it is not appropriate or even possible
to calculate emission credits.
(4) Early-Allowance Programs
Manufacturers may in some cases be able to meet the proposed
emission standards earlier than we would require. We are proposing
provisions for equipment manufacturers using low-emission evaporative
systems early to generate allowances before the standards apply. These
early allowances could be used, for a limited time, after the
implementation date of the standards to sell equipment or fuel tanks
that have emissions above the standards. We are proposing two types of
allowances. The first is for Small SI equipment as a whole where for
every year that a piece of equipment is certified early, another piece
of equipment could delay complying with the proposed standards by an
equal time period beyond the proposed implementation date. The second
is similar but would be just for the fuel tank rather than the whole
equipment (Small SI or Marine SI). Equipment or fuel tanks certified
for the purposes of generating early allowances would be subject to all
applicable requirements. These allowances are similar to the emission
credit program elements described above but they are based on counting
compliant products rather than calculating emission credits.
Establishing appropriate credit calculations would be difficult because
the early compliance is in some cases based on products meeting
different standards using different procedures.
(a) Nonhandheld Small SI Equipment
Many Small SI equipment manufacturers are currently certifying
products to evaporative emission standards in California. The purpose
of the proposed early-allowance program is to provide an incentive for
manufacturers to begin selling low-emission products nationwide. We are
proposing to give allowances to manufacturers for equipment meeting the
California evaporative emission standards that are sold in the United
States outside of California and are therefore not subject to
California's emission standards. Manufacturers would need to have
California certificates for these equipment types. See Sec. 1054.145.
Allowances could be earned in any year before 2012 for Class I
equipment and before 2011 for Class II equipment. We are proposing that
the allowances may be used through the 2014 model year for Class I and
through the 2013 model year for Class II equipment. We are proposing
not to allow trading of allowances between Class I and Class II. To
keep this program simpler, we are not proposing to adjust the
allowances based on the anticipated emission rates from the equipment.
Therefore, we believe it is necessary to at least distinguish between
Class I and Class II equipment. We request comment on the early
allowance program described above for nonhandheld Small SI equipment.
(b) Fuel Tanks
We are also proposing an early-allowance program for nonhandheld
Small SI equipment for fuel tanks (see Sec. 1054.145). This program
would be similar to the program described above for equipment
allowances, except that it would be for fuel tanks only. We would
accept California-certified configurations. Allowances could be earned
prior to 2011 for Class II equipment and prior to 2012 for Class II
equipment; allowances could be used through 2013 for Class II equipment
and through 2014 for Class II equipment. Allowances would not be
exchangeable between Class I and Class II equipment. See Section V.E.3
for a description of how this provision would interact with the
proposed transition program for equipment manufacturers.
The proposed early-allowance program for marine fuel tanks would be
similar except that there are no California standards for these tanks
(see Sec. 1045.145). Manufacturers certifying early to the proposed
fuel tank permeation standards would be able to earn allowances that
they could use to
[[Page 28177]]
offset high-emitting fuel tanks after the proposed standards go into
place. We are proposing not to allow cross-trading of allowances
between portable fuel tanks, personal watercraft, and other installed
fuel tanks. Each of these categories includes significantly different
tank sizes and installed tanks have different implementation dates and
are expected to use different permeation control technology. For
portable fuel tanks and personal watercraft, allowances could be earned
prior to 2011 and used through the 2013 model year. For other installed
tanks, allowances could be earned prior to 2012 and used through the
2014 model year.
E. Testing Requirements
Compliance with the emission standards is determined by following
specific testing procedures. This section describes the proposed test
procedures for measuring fuel line permeation, fuel tank permeation,
diurnal emissions, and diffusion emissions. We also describe
measurement procedures related to running loss emissions. As discussed
in Section VI.H, we are proposing design-based certification as an
alternative to testing for certain standards.
(1) Fuel Line Permeation Testing Procedures
We are proposing that fuel line permeation be measured at a
temperature of 23 ± 2 [deg]C using a weight-loss method
similar to that specified in SAE J30 \85\ and J1527 \86\ recommended
practices (see Sec. 1060.515). We are proposing two modifications to
the SAE recommended practice. The first modification is for the test
fuel to contain ethanol; the second modification is to require
preconditioning of the fuel line through a fuel soak. These
modifications are described below and are consistent with our current
requirements for recreational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Society of Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard,
``Fuel and Oil Hoses,'' SAE J30, June 1998 (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0008-0176).
\86\ SAE Recommended Practice J1527, ``Marine Fuel Hoses,''
1993, (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0195-0177).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Test Fuel
The recommended practice in SAE J30 and J1527 is to use ASTM Fuel C
(defined in ASTM D471-98) as a test fuel. We are proposing to use a
test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol. We believe the test fuel must
contain ethanol because it is commonly blended into in-use gasoline and
because ethanol substantially increases the permeation rates for many
materials.
Specifically, we are proposing to use a test fuel of ASTM Fuel C
blended with 10 percent ethanol by volume (CE10).\87\ Manufacturers
have expressed support of this test fuel because it is a consistent
test fluid compared to gasoline and because it is widely used today by
industry for permeation testing. In addition, most of the data used to
develop the proposed fuel line permeation standards were collected on
this test fuel. This fuel is allowed today as one of two test fuels for
measuring permeation from fuel lines under the recreational vehicle
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ ASTM Fuel C is a mix of equal parts toluene and isooctane.
We refer to gasoline blended with ethanol as E10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on allowing permeation testing using EPA
certification gasoline (known as indolene and specified in 40 CFR
1065.710) blended with 10 percent ethanol as the test fuel (IE10). This
test fuel is also specified in the recreational vehicle standards and
has the advantage of being more similar to in-use fuel than CE10. Based
on data contained in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA, most materials used in
fuel line constructions have lower permeation rates on IE10 than CE10.
Because the proposed standards are based primarily on data collected
using CE10 as a test fuel, we also request comment on how the level of
the standard would need to be adjusted for testing performed on IE10.
(b) Preconditioning Soak
The second difference from weight-loss procedures in SAE practices
is in fuel line preconditioning. We believe the fuel line should be
preconditioned with an initial fuel fill followed by a long enough soak
to ensure that the permeation rate has stabilized. We are proposing a
soak period of four to eight weeks at 23 ± 5 [deg]C.
Manufacturers should use the longer soak period as necessary to achieve
a stabilized permeation rate for a given fuel line design, consistent
with good engineering judgment. For instance, thick-walled marine fuel
line may take longer to reach a stable permeation rate than the fuel
line used in Small SI equipment. After this fuel soak, the fuel
reservoir and fuel line would be drained and immediately refilled with
fresh test fuel prior to the weight-loss test. We request comment on
the need to require a longer fuel soak, especially for marine lines.
(c) Alternative Approaches
We also propose to allow permeation measurements using alternative
equipment and procedures that provide equivalent results (see Sec.
1060.505). To use these alternative methods, manufacturers would first
need to get our approval. Examples of alternative approaches that we
anticipate manufacturers may use are the recirculation technique
described in SAE J1737 or enclosure-type testing such as in 40 CFR part
86.\88\ Note that the proposed test fuel, test temperatures, and
preconditioning soak described above would still apply. Because
permeation increases with temperature we would accept data collected at
higher temperatures (greater than 23 [deg]C) for a demonstration of
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ SAE Recommended Practice J1737, ``Test Procedure to
Determine the Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hoses, Fittings,
and Fuel Line Assemblies by Recirculation,'' 1997, (Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0008-0178).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For portable marine fuel tanks, the fuel line assembly from the
engine to the fuel tank typically includes two sections of fuel line
with a primer bulb in-between and quick-connect assemblies on either
end. We are proposing a provision to allow manufacturers to test the
full assembly as a single fuel line to simplify testing for these fuel
line assemblies (see Sec. 1060.102). This gives the manufacturer the
flexibility to use a variety of materials as needed for performance
reasons while meeting the fuel line permeation standard for the fully
assembled product. Measured values would be based on the total measured
permeation divided by the total internal surface area of the fuel line
assembly. However, where it is impractical to calculate the internal
surface area of individual parts of the assembly, such as a primer
bulb, we would allow a simplified calculation that treats the full
assembly as a straight fuel line. This small inaccuracy would cause
reported emission levels (in g/m\2\/day) to be slightly higher so it
would not jeopardize a manufacturer's effort to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable standard.
We request comment on the above approaches for fuel line permeation
testing and on the proposed test fuel.
(2) Fuel Tank Permeation Testing Procedures
The proposed test procedure for fuel tank permeation includes
preconditioning, durability simulation, and a weight-loss permeation
test (see Sec. 1060.520). The preconditioning and the durability
testing may be conducted
[[Page 28178]]
simultaneously; manufacturers would put the tank through durability
testing while the tank is undergoing its preconditioning fuel soak to
reach a stabilized permeation level. We request comment on the proposed
tank permeation test procedures and options.
(a) Test Fuel
Similar to the proposed fuel line testing procedures, we are
proposing to use a test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol to help
ensure in-use emission reductions with the full range of in-use fuels.
We are proposing to specify IE10 as the test fuel; this is made up of
90 percent certification gasoline and 10 percent ethanol (see 40 CFR
1065.710). This is the same test fuel specified for testing fuel tanks
for recreational vehicles. In addition, IE10 is representative of in-
use test fuels. We are proposing that Fuel CE10 may be used as an
alternative test fuel. Data in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA suggest that
permeation tends to be somewhat higher on CE10 than IE10, so testing on
CE10 should be an acceptable demonstration of compliance. We request
comment on the proposed test fuels.
We included a provision allowing recreational vehicle manufacturers
to perform emission measurements after preconditioning using IE10. This
allowance has created substantial confusion and necessitated including
additional provisions to prevent manufacturers from exercising the test
option in a way that undermines the objective of maintaining a
procedure that accounts for the effect of ethanol. As a result, we
believe it is appropriate to propose a test procedure for Small SI
equipment and Marine SI vessels that maintains a consistent approach by
including ethanol in the test fuel for both preconditioning and
emission measurements. We request comment on this approach.
(b) Preconditioning Fuel Soak
Before testing fuel tanks for permeation, the fuel tank must be
preconditioned by allowing it to sit with fuel inside until the
hydrocarbon permeation rate has stabilized. Under this step, we are
proposing that the fuel tank be filled with test fuel and soaked--
either for 20 weeks at 28 ± 5 [deg]C or for 10 weeks at 43
± 5 [deg]C. The manufacturer may need to use a longer soak
period if necessary to achieve a stabilized permeation rate for a given
fuel tank, consistent with good engineering judgment.
The tank would have to be sealed during this fuel soak and we are
proposing that any components that are directly mounted to the fuel
tank, such as a fuel cap, must be attached. Other openings, such as
fittings for fuel lines or petcocks, would be sealed with impermeable
plugs. In addition, if there is a vent path through the fuel cap, that
vent path may be sealed. Alternatively, we are proposing that the
opening could be sealed for testing and the fuel cap tested separately
for permeation (discussed below). If the fuel tank is designed to have
a separate fill neck between the fuel cap and the tank that is at least
12 inches long and at least 6 inches above the top of the fuel tank,
the tank may be sealed with something other than a production fuel cap.
Manufacturers may do the durability testing described below during
the time period specified for preconditioning. The time spent in
durability testing may count as preconditioning time as long as the
fuel tank has fuel inside the entire time. During the slosh testing, a
fuel fill level of 40 percent would be considered acceptable for the
fuel soak. Otherwise, we are proposing to require that the fuel tank be
filled to nominal capacity during the fuel soak.
(c) Durability Tests
We are proposing three tests to evaluate the durability of fuel
tank permeation controls: (1) Fuel sloshing; (2) pressure-vacuum
cycling; and (3) ultraviolet exposure. The purpose of these
deterioration tests would be to help ensure that the technology is
durable under the wide range of in-use operating conditions. For
sloshing, the fuel tank would be filled to 40 percent capacity with E10
fuel and rocked for one million cycles. The pressure-vacuum testing
would consist of 10,000 cycles from -0.5 to 2.0 psi. These two proposed
durability tests are based on draft recommended SAE practice.\89\ The
third durability test would be intended to assess potential impacts of
ultraviolet sunlight (i.e., light with wavelength ranging from 300 to
400 nanometers) on the durability of surface treatment. In this test,
the tank would be exposed to ultraviolet light with an intensity of at
least 0.40 W-hr/m2/min on the tank surface for 450 hours.
Alternatively, we are proposing the tank could be exposed to direct
natural sunlight for an equivalent period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Draft SAE Information Report J1769, ``Test Protocol for
Evaluation of Long Term Permeation Barrier Durability on Non-
Metallic Fuel Tanks,'' (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0195).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to include a provision that would allow
manufacturers to omit one or more of the durability tests if it is not
appropriate for a certain tank design. For example, coextruded plastic
tanks rely on a thin layer of material within the wall of the tank.
This material is never exposed to sunlight or liquid fuel so the
sloshing, pressure, and ultraviolet-exposure tests would not be
necessary. At the same time, we request comment on whether other
durability tests would be necessary to ensure that the fuel tank would
not be compromised for safety due to changes to address permeation.
Examples may be temperature cycling or impact testing.
(d) Weight-Loss Test
Following the fuel soak, we are proposing that the fuel tank must
be drained and refilled with fresh fuel immediately after to prevent
the fuel tank from drying out. The tank would have to be sealed within
eight hours after refreshing the fuel at the end of the soak period.
The permeation rate from fuel tanks would be measured by comparing mass
measurements of the tank before and after a soaking period of at least
two weeks at a temperature of 28 ± 2 [deg]C. In the case of
fuel tanks with very low permeation, the weight loss of the fuel tank
over two week period could be too small to obtain an accurate
measurement. We are proposing that manufacturers may extend the test
period by two weeks to obtain an accurate measurement for fuel tanks
with low permeation rates, consistent with good engineering judgment.
A change in atmospheric pressure over the weeks of testing can
affect the accuracy of measured weights for testing due to the buoyancy
of the fuel tank. The buoyancy effect on emission measurements is
proportional to the volume of the fuel tank, so this procedure is
appropriate even for testing very small fuel tanks. To address this we
are proposing a procedure in which a reference fuel tank filled with
sand or some other inert material to the approximate total weight of
the test tank be used to zero the scale used for measuring the test
tank. This would result in measured and reported values representing
the change in mass from permeation losses rather than a comparison of
absolute masses. This is similar to an approach in which weighing would
determine absolute masses with a mathematical correction to account for
the effects of buoyancy. We believe the proposed approach is better
because it minimizes the possibility of introducing or propagating error.
We propose to allow permeation measurements for certification using
alternative equipment and procedures that provide equivalent results.
To use these alternative methods, manufacturers would first need to get
[[Page 28179]]
our approval. An example of an alternative weight-loss measurement
procedure would be to test the fuel tank in a SHED and determine the
permeation by measuring the concentration of hydrocarbons in the enclosure.
(e) Fuel Cap Permeation Testing
As discussed above, we are proposing that manufacturers would have
the option to test the fuel cap separately from the tank and combine
the results to determine the total tank permeation rate. In this case,
the permeation test would be performed as described above except that
the fuel cap would be mounted on an impermeable reservoir such as a
metal or glass tank. The volume of the test reservoir would have to be
at least one liter to ensure sufficient fuel vapor exposure. We are
proposing that the ``tank'' surface area for calculating the results
would be the smallest inside cross sectional area of the opening on
which the cap is mounted. The fuel cap would need to be tested in
conjunction with a representative gasket. In the case where the vent
path is through grooves in the gasket, another gasket of the same
material and dimensions, without the vent grooves, may be used. In the case
where the vent is through the cap, that vent would be sealed for testing.
(3) Diurnal Emission Testing Procedures
The proposed test procedure for diurnal emissions from installed
marine fuel tanks involves placing the fuel tank in a SHED, varying the
temperature over a prescribed profile, and measuring the hydrocarbons
escaping from the fuel tank (see Sec. 1060.525). The final result
would be reported in grams per gallon where the grams are the mass of
hydrocarbons escaping from the fuel tank over 24 hours and the gallons
are the nominal fuel tank capacity. The proposed test procedure is
derived from the automotive evaporative emission test with
modifications specific to marine applications.\90\ We request comment
on the proposed diurnal test procedures described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, for the automotive
evaporative emission test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Temperature Profile
We believe it is appropriate to base diurnal measurements on a
summer day with ambient temperatures ranging from 72 to 96 [deg]F (22.2
to 35.6 [deg]C). This temperature profile, which is also used for
automotive testing, represents a hot summer day when ground-level ozone
formation is most likely. Due to the thermal mass of the fuel and, in
some cases, the inherent insulation provided by the boat hull, the fuel
temperatures would cover a narrower range. Data presented in Chapter 5
of the Draft RIA suggest that the fuel temperature in an installed
marine fuel tank would see a total change of about half the ambient
temperature swing. We are therefore proposing a test temperature range
of 78 to 90 [deg]F (25.6 to 32.2 [deg]C) for installed marine fuel
tanks. This testing would be based on fuel temperature instead of
ambient temperature.
We are proposing an alternative, narrower temperature range for
fuel tanks installed in nontrailerable boats (>=26 ft.). Data presented
in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA suggest that the fuel temperature swing
in a boat stored in the water would be about 20 percent of the ambient
temperature swing. Based on this relationship, we are proposing an
alternative temperature cycle for tanks installed in nontrailerable
boats of 81.6 to 86.4 [deg]F (27.6 to 30.2 [deg]C). This alternative
temperature cycle would be associated with an alternative standard as
discussed earlier. See the proposed regulations at Sec. 1060.525 for
further detail. We request comment on the proposed test temperatures,
especially on the appropriateness of the alternative test procedure and
standard for tanks installed in nontrailerable boats.
The automotive diurnal test procedure includes a three-day
temperature cycle to ensure that the carbon canister can hold at least
three days of diurnal emissions without vapors breaking through to the
atmosphere. For marine vessels using carbon canisters as a strategy for
controlling evaporative emissions, we are proposing a three-day cycle
here for the same reason. In the automotive test, the canister is
loaded and then purged by the engine during a warm-up drive before the
first day of testing. Here, we are proposing a different approach
because we anticipate that canisters on marine applications will be
passively purged. Before the first day of testing, the canister would
be loaded to full working capacity and then run over the diurnal test
temperature cycle, starting and ending at the lowest temperature, to
allow one day of passive purging. The test result would then be based
on the highest recorded value during the following three days.
For fuel systems using a sealed system (including those that rely
on pressure-relief valves with no canister), we believe a three-day
test would not be necessary. Before the first day of testing, the fuel
would be stabilized at the initial test temperature. Following this
stabilization, the SHED would be purged, followed by a single run
through the diurnal temperature cycle. Because this technology does not
depend on purging or storage capacity of a canister, multiple days of
testing should not be necessary. We are therefore proposing a one-day
test for the following technologies: Sealed systems, sealed systems
with a pressure-relief valve, bladder fuel tanks, and sealed fuel tanks
with a volume-compensating air bag. We request comment on this
simplified approach.
(b) Test Fuel
Consistent with the automotive test procedures, we are proposing to
specify a gasoline test fuel with a volatility of 9 psi.\91\ We are not
proposing that the fuel used in diurnal emission testing include
ethanol for two reasons. First, we do not believe that ethanol in the
fuel affects the diurnal emissions or control effectiveness other than
the effect that ethanol in the fuel may have on fuel volatility.
Second, in-use fuels containing ethanol are generally blended in such a
way as to control for ethanol effects in order to meet fuel volatility
requirements. We request comment on the proposed test fuel and whether
it would be appropriate to specify a test fuel blended with ethanol
either as the primary test fuel or as an optional test fuel. If so, we
request comment regarding whether the volatility of the test fuel
should be controlled to 9 psi or if ethanol should be blended into
certification gasoline. We also request comment on the effect of
ethanol in the fuel on controlled diurnal emissions and if the standard
would need to be adjusted to account for ethanol in the test fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Volatility is specified based on a procedure known as Reid
Vapor Pressure (see ASTM D 323-99a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diurnal emissions are not only a function of temperature and fuel
volatility, but of the size of the vapor space in the fuel tank.
Consistent with the automotive procedures, we are proposing that the
fill level at the start of the test be 40 percent of the nominal
capacity of the fuel tank. Nominal capacity of the fuel tank would be
defined as the a fuel tank's volume as specified by the fuel tank
manufacturer, using at least two significant figures, based on the
maximum volume of fuel the tank can hold with standard refueling
techniques. The ``permanent'' vapor space above a fuel tank that has
been filled to capacity would not be considered in the nominal capacity
of the fuel tank.
[[Page 28180]]
(c) Fuel Tank Configuration
The majority of marine fuel tanks are made of plastic. Even plastic
fuel tanks designed to meet our proposed standards would be expected to
have some amount of permeation. However, over the length of the diurnal
test, if it were performed on a new tank that had not been previously
exposed to fuel, the effect of permeation on the test results should be
insignificant. For fuel tanks that have reached their stabilized
permeation rate (such as testing on in-use tanks), we believe it would
be appropriate to correct for permeation. In such a case, we propose
that the permeation rate be measured from the fuel tank and subtracted
from the final diurnal test result. The fuel tank permeation rate would
be measured with the established procedure for measuring permeation
emissions, except that the test fuel would be the same as that used for
diurnal emission testing. This test measurement would have to be made
just before the diurnal emission test to ensure that the permeation
rate does not change when measuring diurnal emissions. In no case would
we allow a permeation correction higher than that corresponding to the
applicable permeation standard for a tank with a given inside surface
area. Because not correcting for permeation represents the worst-case
test result, we would accept data from manufacturers in which no
permeation correction was applied. We request comment on this approach.
(4) Diffusion Testing Procedures
The proposed procedure for measuring diffusion emissions is very
similar to that for diurnal emissions, with three primary differences
(see Sec. 1060.530). First, the fuel tank should be filled to 90
percent of its nominal capacity. Second, the fuel tank is held in a
controlled environment to stabilize at test temperatures. Third, the
test run is proposed to be six hours in length. Testing has shown that
diffusion occurs at a steady rate, so we would want manufacturers to be
able to run a full test in a single day's shift rather than running a
test for a full 24 hours. Measured emissions are then adjusted
mathematically for comparison to the gram-per-day standard.
There is some concern that fluctuating temperatures during this
test could cause small diurnal effects that would result in higher
measured emissions. Filling the fuel tank to 90 percent would help
minimize the potential for diurnal effects by increasing the thermal
mass of the fuel and by reducing the volume of the vapor space. In
addition, the proposed diffusion standard is based on data collected
from testing in this manner.
As described above, we are proposing to allow fuel cap
manufacturers to voluntarily certify their fuel caps to diffusion
standard. This would require a separate test with a fuel cap mounted on
a test tank with a representative sealing configuration of production tanks.
As described for diurnal measurements, we are proposing that
manufacturers would be able to separately quantify permeation emissions
occurring during the diffusion test and subtract the permeation
contribution so the reported result isolates the test to quantifying
diffusion emissions.
(5) Measurement Procedures Related to Running Loss Emissions
We do not specify a procedure for measuring running loss emissions,
but we are proposing to allow manufacturers to demonstrate control of
running losses by showing that fuel temperatures will not increase by
more than 8 [deg]C during normal operation (see Sec. 1060.104 and
Sec. 1060.535). This requires testing to measure fuel temperatures on
each equipment configuration. We are proposing a fuel temperature test
that includes filling the fuel tank with commercially available
gasoline and operating the equipment for one hour over a normal in-use
duty cycle with a load factor approximately the same as the specified
test cycle. If the equipment consumes 80 percent of the fuel capacity
in one hour of operation, a shorter period may be used based on time
until the fuel tank is drained to 20 percent capacity. We are proposing
that manufacturers would be required to document a description of the
operation and include grass height or equivalent variables affecting load.
We are proposing that the testing must occur outdoors with a
beginning ambient temperature ranging from 20 to 30 [deg]C with no
precipitation and with average wind speeds below fifteen miles per
hour. The ambient temperature would have to be steady or increasing
during the test and it must be during a mostly sunny time period with a
maximum cloud cover of 25 percent as reported by the nearest local
airport making hourly meteorological observations.
We are proposing that the temperature of the fuel in the tank must
be within 2 [deg]C of (but not exceeding) the ambient temperature at
the beginning of the test. Fuel temperature would be measured with a
thermocouple positioned in the fuel but not touching the inside walls
or bottom of the tank. Ambient temperature would be measured on-site in
the shade. The equipment configuration meets the requirement to control
running losses if measured minimum and maximum fuel temperatures
throughout the period of operation do not differ by more than 8 [deg]C.
In the case were the equipment has multiple fuel tanks, the temperature
would have to be measured on each fuel tank. We request comment on this
procedure for measuring fuel temperatures.
We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to use an alternative
procedure in a laboratory with prior EPA approval. The alternative test
procedure would need to simulate outdoor conditions and consider engine
operation, solar load, temperature, and wind speed. The manufacturer
would be required to make a demonstration of equivalency.
F. Certification and Compliance Provisions
Sections VII and VIII describe several general provisions related
to certifying emission families and meeting other regulatory
requirements. This section notes several particulars related to
applying these general provisions to evaporative emissions.
Marine vessels do not always include installed fuel systems.
Manufacturers of vessels without installed fuel systems do not have the
ability to control engine or fuel system design parameters. We are
therefore proposing that vessels without an installed fuel system would
not be subject to the proposed standards (see Sec. 1045.5). As a
result, it is necessary for us to treat manufacturers of uninstalled
fuel-system components as the equipment manufacturer with respect to
evaporative emission standards. This includes manufacturers of outboard
engines (including any fuel lines or fuel tanks produced with the
engine), portable fuel tanks, and the fuel line system (including fuel
line, primer bulb, and connectors).
For ease of reference, Small SI equipment manufacturers, Marine SI
boat builders, and manufacturers of portable marine fuel tanks (and
associated fuel-system components) are all referred to as equipment
manufacturers in this section.
(1) Liability for Certification and Compliance
The proposed standards for fuel lines and fuel tanks apply to any
such components that are used with or intended to be used with Small SI
engines or Marine SI engines (see Sec. 1060.1 and Sec. 1060.601).
Section VI.C
[[Page 28181]]
describes for each standard which manufacturer is expected to certify.
Engine manufacturers would describe these fuel-system components in the
same certification application in which they document their compliance
with exhaust emission standards (see Sec. 1045.201 and Sec. 1054.201).
In most cases, nonroad standards apply to the manufacturer of the
engine or the manufacturer of the nonroad equipment. Here, the products
subject to the standards (fuel lines and fuel tanks) are typically
manufactured by a different manufacturer. In most cases the engine
manufacturers do not produce complete fuel systems and would therefore
not be in a position to do all the testing and certification work
necessary to cover the whole range of products that will be used. We
are therefore proposing an arrangement in which manufacturers of fuel-
system components are in most cases subject to the standards and are
subject to certification and other compliance requirements associated
with the applicable standards. We are proposing to prohibit the
introduction into commerce of noncompliant fuel-system components that
are intended for installation in Small SI equipment or Marine SI
vessels unless the component manufacturer either certifies the
component or has a contractual arrangement for each equipment
manufacturers using their products to certify those components. As a
matter of good practice, any components not intended for installation
in Small SI equipment or Marine SI vessels should be labeled
accordingly to prevent the possibility of improper installation to
prevent confusion in this regard.
As described in Section VI.D, component manufacturers may certify
with measured emission levels showing that the components meet the
emission standard, or they may certify to an FEL above or below the
standard. If any component manufacturer certifies using an FEL, the FEL
becomes the emission standard for that emission family for all
practical purposes. The component manufacturer however would not be
required to meet any overall average for their products, but would have
the option to certify to an FEL above or below the standard. This is to
facilitate the use of ABT by equipment manufacturers, as discussed below.
Equipment manufacturers would be subject to all the proposed
evaporative standards. This applies for the general standards described
above with respect to fuel caps, miscellaneous fuel-system components,
and refueling. These standards generally depend on design
specifications rather than emission measurements, so we believe it is
appropriate to simply deem these products to be certified if they are
designed and produced to meet the standards we specify. The vessel
manufacturer would also need to keep records of the components used
(see Sec. 1060.210). This would allow us, by operation of the
regulation, to have certified products without requiring the paperwork
burden associated with demonstrating compliance with these relatively
straightforward specifications. Manufacturers could optionally apply
for and receive a certificate of conformity with respect to these
general standards, but this would not be necessary and we would expect
this to be a rare occurrence.
Equipment manufacturers would also be subject to all the proposed
emission standards. Equipment manufacturers may comply with
requirements related to evaporative emission standards in three
different situations. First, equipment manufacturers might install only
components certified by the component manufacturer, without using
emission credits. In this case all the components must meet the
proposed emission standard or have an FEL below the standard. Such an
equipment manufacturer would be subject to the fuel line and fuel tank
standards, but would be able to satisfy their requirements by using
certified components. They would need to apply for certification only
with respect to the remaining emission standards they are subject to,
such as running loss emissions (if applicable). Equipment manufacturers
must also design and produce their equipment to meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 1060.101(f), though this would not necessarily
involve an application for certification. Such an equipment
manufacturer would generally need only to use certified components, add
an emission label, and follow any applicable emission-related
installation instructions to ensure that certified components are
properly installed. This is similar to an equipment manufacturer that
is required to properly install certified engines in its equipment,
except that the equipment manufacturer must meet general design
standards and shares the liability for meeting emission standards.
Second, equipment manufacturers may be required to certify certain
components based on contractual arrangements with the manufacturer of
those components. In this case, the equipment manufacturer's
certification causes the component manufacturer to no longer be subject
to the standard. This approach might involve the equipment manufacturer
relying on test data from the component manufacturer. The equipment
manufacturer might also be producing its own fuel tanks for
installation in its equipment, in which case it would be subject to the
standards and all requirements related to certification and compliance.
In either case, the equipment manufacturer would take on all the
responsibilities associated with certification and compliance with
respect to those components.
Third, equipment manufacturers may comply with evaporative emission
requirements by using certified components, some of which are certified
to an FEL above the standard. The equipment manufacturer would then
comply based on emission credits. In this case, the equipment
manufacturer would take on all the certification and compliance
responsibilities with respect to any components that are part of the
equipment manufacturer's emission credit calculations. Equipment
manufacturers would generally use only certified components for meeting
evaporative emission requirements, but they might also hold the
certificate for such components. For purposes of certification,
equipment manufacturers would not need to submit new test data if they
use certified components. Equipment manufacturers would make an annual
accounting to demonstrate a net balance of credits for the model year.
Under this approach, the component manufacturer would continue to be
subject to the standards for its products and be required to meet the
certification and compliance responsibilities related to the standard.
However, as in the first option, the component manufacturer would not
be required to meet any averaging requirements or be required to use
emissions credits. Where equipment manufacturers use ABT with
components that have already been certified by the component
manufacturer, there will be overlapping certifications between the two
parties. We propose to address this by specifying that all parties are
responsible for meeting applicable requirements associated with the
standards to which they have certified, but if any specific requirement
is met by one company, we will consider the requirement to be met for
all companies (see Sec. 1060.5). For example, either the component
manufacturer or the equipment manufacturer could honor warranty claims,
but we may hold both companies responsible for the violation if there
is a failure to meet warranty obligations.
Similarly, if we find that new equipment is sold without a valid
[[Page 28182]]
certificate of conformity for the fuel lines or fuel tanks, then the
equipment manufacturer and all the affected fuel-system manufacturers
subject to the standards would be liable for the noncompliance (see
Sec. 1060.601).
Liability for recall of noncompliant products would similarly fall
to any manufacturer whose product is subject to the standard, as
described above. If more than one manufacturer is subject to the
standards for a noncompliant product, we would have the discretion to
assign recall liability to any one of those manufacturers. In assigning
this liability, we would generally consider factors such as which
manufacturer has substantial manufacturing responsibility and which
manufacturer holds the certificate (see Sec. 1060.5). However, we may
hold equipment manufacturers liable for recall even if they don't
manufacture or certify the defective product. This would generally be
limited to cases where the component manufacturer is unavailable to
execute any remedial action. For example, if a foreign component
manufacturer discontinues their participation in the U.S. market or a
component manufacturer goes out of business, we would turn to the
equipment manufacturer.
The proposed running loss standards for nonhandheld Small SI
engines are not geared toward component certification, which
necessitates some special provisions. If engine manufacturers sell
their engines with a complete fuel system, which is typical for Class I
engines, they would also be subject to and need to comply with running
loss standards as part of their overall certification. Of the available
alternatives for demonstrating compliance with the running loss
standard, we would expect the only practical approach for these
companies would be to route vapors from the fuel tank into the engine's
air intake system for combustion. Any engine manufacturer certifying
its engines this way would need to test for exhaust emissions with an
installed running loss vent (see Sec. 1054.501). If equipment
manufacturers use only fuel-system components that have been certified
by component manufacturers (without using emission credits) and engines
that are certified by the engine manufacturer to meet both exhaust and
running loss standards, they would have no responsibility to certify.
However, if the engine manufacturer does not sell its engine with a
complete fuel system that has been certified for running loss control,
the equipment manufacturer would need to certify with respect to the
running loss standard.
The running loss standard is not a typical standard based on
emission measurements using established procedures. Some of the
available compliance demonstrations involve straightforward design
specifications that involve no measurement at all. The approach of
keeping fuel temperatures from increasing above a specified threshold
involves a test procedure with a performance standard, but does not
involve emission measurements. As described above, it may be possible
to identify design specifications that would replace the need for the
proposed temperature measurements. In this case running loss control
would be a straightforward design standard that we could treat like the
general standards above, in which equipment manufacturers are deemed to
be certified by operation of the regulations, rather than submitting an
application for certification. The regulations would prohibit the sale
of equipment without the specified running loss controls.
(2) Regulatory Requirements Related to Certification
The established provisions for implementing exhaust emission
standards apply similarly for evaporative emission standards; however,
because the control technologies are very different, these requirements
require further clarification. For example, scheduled maintenance is an
important part of certifying engines to exhaust emission standards.
There is little or no maintenance involved for the expected
technologies for controlling evaporative emissions. The regulations
still require manufacturers to identify specified maintenance
procedures, if there are any, but there are no specific limitations on
the maintenance intervals and no distinction for emission-related
maintenance. Manufacturers may not do any maintenance during testing
for certification. (See Sec. 1060.125 and Sec. 1060.235.) We also do
not expect that emission-related warranty claims would be common, but
we are proposing a two-year period for emission-related warranties with
respect to evaporative emission controls.
Similarly, we do not expect manufacturers to use evaporative
emission control technologies that involve adjustable parameters or
auxiliary emission control devices. Technologies that control
evaporative emissions are generally passive designs that prevent vapors
from escaping, in contrast to the active systems engines use to control
exhaust emissions. The regulations state the basic expectation that
systems must comply with standards throughout any adjustable range
without auxiliary emission control devices, but it is clear that these
provisions will not apply to most evaporative systems. We also do not
allow emission control strategies that cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health or welfare or that involve defeat
devices. While these are additional statutory provisions that are
meaningful primarily in the context of controlling exhaust emissions,
we are proposing to include them for addressing evaporative emissions
(see Sec. 1045.101). This also addresses the possibility that future
technologies may be different in a way that makes these provisions more
meaningful. We request comment on this approach. In particular we
request comment on best way of adapting these provisions to evaporative
emission controls.
The testing specified for certifying fuel systems to the
evaporative emission standards includes measurements for evaluating the
durability of emission control technologies where appropriate. While we
adopted evaporative requirements for recreational vehicles relying on a
testing approach that used deterioration factors, we believe it is more
appropriate to incorporate the durability testing for each family
directly. Therefore, no requirement exists for generating deterioration
factors for any evaporative emission standard. We request comment on
the best approach to incorporate durability testing for evaporative
emission standards
We are proposing to require that Small SI engine or equipment
manufacturers add an emission control information label if they certify
with respect to running losses or if they certify based on the use of
emission credits. We are proposing to require that Marine SI engine or
vessel manufacturers add an emission control information label for
evaporative emission only if they certify based on the use of emission
credits. (See Sec. 1060.135.) If engine, equipment, or vessel
manufacturers also certify fuel-system components separately, they may
include that additional information in a combined label. If the
equipment is produced by the same company that certifies the engine for
exhaust standards, the emission control information label for the
engine may include all the appropriate information related to
evaporative emissions.
In addition, we are proposing a simplified labeling requirement for
fuel lines (see Sec. 1060.136). This would involve only the fuel line
manufacturer's name, EPA's standardized designation for an
[[Page 28183]]
emission family, and the family emission limit (FEL), if applicable.
This labeling information would need to be repeated continuously, with
not more than 12 inches before repeating. There is some concern that if
short sections of fuel lines are used, that sections of the fuel line
may be found on equipment without sufficient markings on them. We
request comment regarding whether the length of the repeated labeling
information should be shorter than 12 inches. We are proposing
simplified labeling requirements for fuel filters, primer bulbs, or
short preformed fuel lines (less than 12 inches long) (see Sec. 1060.138).
Fuel tanks that are certified separately would need to include an
emission control information label (see Sec. 1060.137). This would
involve fuel tank manufacturer's name, EPA's standardized designation
for an emission family, the FEL (if applicable), a simple compliance
statement, and a description of the method of controlling emissions.
For example, a label on a certified marine fuel tank would need to
describe how it meets permeation emission standards and identify the
part numbers of any associated components for meeting diurnal emission
standards.
Including the fuel tank's family emission limit is important, not
only for EPA oversight, but also to communicate this information to
equipment manufacturers and end users. Unlike the situation for exhaust
emissions, the certifying manufacturer establishes the FEL, but does
not maintain a balance of emission credits. Equipment manufacturers may
buy fuel tanks and fuel lines that have an FEL, which would be the
basis for calculating emission credits for the equipment manufacturer.
Any other approach would require equipment manufacturers to be vigilant
about verifying FEL values with EPA or the component manufacturer, or
both. Also, as described in Section VI.F.6, we are proposing to require
that owners find replacement fuel tanks and fuel lines with FELs that
match or exceed the emission control performance represented by the
original parts. This is an unrealistic expectation unless the FEL is
readily available on the original equipment.
Other fuel-system components would need to be labeled with the
manufacturer's name and part number, if space allows, and EPA's
standardized designation for an emission family (see Sec. 1060.138).
This would apply for carbon canisters, fuel tanks that are not
certified separately, and any other fuel-system components (such as
fuel caps) that are certified separately. Equipment manufacturers could
meet the requirement to label fuel tanks by placing the overall
equipment label on the fuel tank, as long as the fuel tank and label
are positioned such that the label can be read easily.
Manufacturers have expressed concern that it would be very
difficult to properly label very small fuel tanks and fuel lines. To
the extent that engine manufacturers are certifying their products with
respect to evaporative emissions, this problem can be addressed in part
by putting the information related to evaporative emissions on the
engine label already required for exhaust emissions. This is most
likely to be the case for the smallest products. We request comment on
any additional provisions we would need to specify to address space
limitations on very small fuel-system components.
While we are proposing no requirement for manufacturers to test
production-line or in-use products, we may pursue testing of certified
products to evaluate compliance with evaporative emission standards
(see Sec. 1060.301).
(3) Emission Families
To certify equipment or components, manufacturers would first
define their emission families. This is generally based on selecting
groups of products that have similar emission characteristics
throughout the useful life (see Sec. 1060.230). For example, fuel
tanks could be grouped together if they were made of the same material
(including consideration of additives such as pigments, plasticizers,
and UV inhibitors that may affect emissions) and the same control
technology. For running loss control for nonhandheld Small SI engines
and equipment, emission families are based on the selected compliance
demonstration. For example, certifying manufacturers would have one
emission family for all their products that vent fuel vapors to the
engine's air intake system, and another emission family for all their
products that comply based on keeping fuel temperatures below the
specified threshold.
The manufacturer would then select a single product from the
emission family for certification testing. This product would be the
one that is most likely to exceed the applicable emission standard. For
instance, the ``worst-case'' fuel tank in a family of monolayer tanks
would likely be the tank with the thinnest average wall thickness. For
fuel lines or co-extruded fuel tanks with a permeation barrier layer,
the worst-case configuration may be the thinnest barrier thickness.
Testing with those products, as specified above, would need to show
compliance with emission standards. The manufacturers would then send
us an application for certification. After reviewing the information in
the application, we would issue a certificate of conformity allowing
equipment manufacturers to introduce into commerce certified equipment
from the covered emission family, or alternatively, equipment with the
components from certified emission families.
(4) Compliance Provisions From 40 CFR Part 1068
As described in Section VIII, we are proposing to apply the
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 to Small SI and Marine SI engines,
equipment, and vessels. This section describes how some of the provisions
of part 1068 apply specifically with respect to evaporative emissions.
The provisions of Sec. 1068.101 prohibit introducing into commerce
new nonroad engines and equipment unless they are covered by a
certificate of conformity and labeled appropriately. Section VI.F.1
describes the responsibilities for engine manufacturers, equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers of fuel-system components with respect
to the prohibition against introducing uncertified products into
commerce. In the case of portable marine fuel tanks and outboard
engines, there is no equipment manufacturer so we are proposing to
treat manufacturers of these items as equipment manufacturers relative
to this prohibition.
While engine rebuilding or extensive engine maintenance is
commonplace in the context of exhaust emission controls, there is very
little analogous servicing related to evaporative emission controls.
Nevertheless, it can be expected that individual components, such as
fuel lines, fuel tanks, or other fuel-system components, may be
replaced periodically. While the detailed rebuilding provisions of
Sec. 1068.120 have no meaning for evaporative emission controls, the
underlying requirement applies generally. Specifically, if someone is
servicing a certified system, there must be a reasonable basis to
believe that the modified emission control system will perform at least
as well as the original system. We are not proposing any recordkeeping
requirements related to maintenance of evaporative emission control systems.
There are many instances where we specify in 40 CFR part 1068,
subparts C and D, that engines (and the associated
[[Page 28184]]
equipment) are exempt from emission standards under certain
circumstances, such as for testing, national security, or export. Our
principle objective in applying these provisions to evaporative
emission standards is to avoid confusion. We are therefore proposing
that an exemption from exhaust emission standards, automatically
triggers a corresponding exemption from evaporative emission standards
for the same products. We believe it is unlikely that an equipment
manufacturer will need a separate exemption from evaporative emission
standards, but the exemptions related to national security, testing,
and economic hardship would apply if such a situation were to occur. We
believe these are the only three reasons that would ever call for
evaporative systems to be exempt when the engines have not already been
exempted for some reason. We request comment on this approach to addressing
exemptions and importation provisions for evaporative requirements.
Given the extended times required to precondition fuel-system
components, we have no plans to require evaporative testing of units
from the production line. This means that evaporative measurements are
not part of the production-line testing program or selective
enforcement audits. On the other hand, we may require certifying
manufacturers to supply us with production equipment or components as
needed for our own testing or we may find our own source of products
for testing.
The defect-reporting requirements of Sec. 1068.501 apply to
certified evaporative systems. This requires the certifying
manufacturer to maintain information, such as warranty claims, that may
indicate an emission-related defect. The regulations describe when
manufacturers must pursue an investigation of apparent defects and when
to report defects to EPA. These provisions apply to every certifying
manufacturer and their certified products, including component
manufacturers.
(5) Interim Compliance Flexibility for Small SI Equipment
Most Small SI equipment manufacturers are currently certifying
products to evaporative emission requirements in California. However,
these standards and their associated test procedures differ somewhat
from those proposed in this document. Although the standards are
different, we believe evaporative emission control technologies are
available to meet the California ARB's standards and our proposed
emission standards. To help manufacturers transition to selling low-
emission equipment nationwide, we are proposing to accept California
ARB certification of equipment and components in the early years of the
proposed federal program.
As discussed above, we are proposing to accept California ARB
certification for nonhandheld equipment and fuel tanks for the purposes
of the proposed early-allowance program (see Sec. Sec. 1045.145 and
1054.145). We are also proposing to accept California ARB certification
of handheld fuel tanks through the 2011 model year (see Sec. 90.129).
We are proposing to accept Class I/Class II fuel lines meeting
California ARB certification or certain SAE specifications through the
2011/2010 model years (see Sec. 90.127). These SAE specifications
include SAE J30 R11A, SAE J30 R12, and SAE J2260 Category 1. Such fuel
lines would need to be labeled accordingly. As described in Section
VI.C.1, we are proposing to require that engine manufacturers certify
fuel lines used with their engines until the proposed Phase 3 standards
are in place. The purpose of this provision is to give Small SI
equipment manufacturers additional lead time before they have to
certify to the proposed standards. For any fuel lines installed on the
equipment, but not supplied with the engine, we are proposing that the
engine manufacturer would be required to supply low-permeation fuel
line specifications in its installation instructions (see Sec.
90.128). Equipment manufacturers would be required, under the
prohibited acts specified in the regulations, to use the fuel line
specified by the engine manufacturer.
We are proposing to allow certification of walk-behind mowers under
Sec. 90.127 as an alternative to the proposed fuel line permeation
standards if manufacturers rely on SHED-based certification to meet the
California standards that apply to the overall equipment (diurnal, tank
permeation, and fuel line permeation). While this might allow for use
of fuel lines that exceed the proposed standards, we believe the
overall emission control will be at least as great from systems that
have been tested and certified using SHED-based procedures. The Phase 3
standards described above do not rely on diurnal emission control, so
we do not intend to continue the provision for SHED-based testing and
certification. However, we request comment on the possible
administrative advantages or emission control advantages of continuing
this alternative approach in the Phase 3 time frame.
(6) Replacement Parts
We are proposing to apply the tampering prohibition in Sec.
1068.101(b)(1) for evaporative systems. This means that it would be a
violation to replace compliant fuel tanks or fuel lines with
noncompliant products. This would effectively disable the applicable
emission controls. To address the concern that low-cost replacement
products will be easy to make available and difficult to prevent, we
are proposing several new noncompliance-related provisions. In Sec.
1060.610 we clarify the meaning of tampering for evaporative systems
and propose two requirements. First, for the period from January 1,
2012 to December 31, 2019, we propose to require that manufacturers,
distributors, retailers, and importers of these replacement parts
clearly label their products with respect to the applicable
requirements. For example, a package might be labeled as compliant with
the requirements in 40 CFR part 1060 or it might be labeled as
noncompliant and appropriate only for use in applications not covered
by EPA standards. Unless the packaging clearly states otherwise, the
product is presumed to be intended for applications that are subject to
EPA standards. Second, starting in 2020 we are proposing a provision
stating that it is presumed that all replacement parts intended for
applications covered by EPA standards will be installed in such
equipment. This presumption significantly enhances our ability to
enforce the tampering prohibition because the replacement part is then
noncompliant before it is installed in a vessel or a piece of
equipment. We believe shifting to a blanket presumption in 2020 is
appropriate since in-use vessels and equipment will be almost
universally subject to EPA's evaporative emission standards by that time.
We are aware that producing low-permeation fuel tanks in very low
production volumes can be costly. In particular, some equipment owners
may need to replace a fuel tank that has been certified to a Family
Emission Limit (FEL) that is lower than the emission standard. The
owner would need to find and install a replacement fuel tank that is
certified with an FEL that is the same as or lower than that of the
replaced fuel tank. However, we are concerned that such replacement
fuel tanks may in some cases not be available. We are proposing to
allow equipment owners to ask for an exemption from the tampering
prohibition if there is no low-FEL tank available. The replacement tank
would still need to meet applicable
[[Page 28185]]
standards, but would not need to meet the more stringent emission
levels reflected by the old tank's FEL. We request comment on the need
for this provision. In particular, we request comment on the likelihood
that owners would be unable to find replacement tanks that match the
emission level of the fuel tanks being replaced.
(7) Certification Fees
Under our current certification program, manufacturers pay a fee to
cover the costs associated with various certification and other
compliance activities associated with an EPA issued certificate of
conformity. These fees are based on the projected costs to EPA per
emission family. For the fees rule published May 11, 2004, we conducted
a cost study to assess EPA's costs associated with conducting programs
for the industries that we certify (69 FR 26222). A copy of the cost
study worksheets that were used to assess the fees per category may be
found on EPA's fees Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/proprule.htm.
We are proposing to establish a new fees category for certification
related to the proposed evaporative emission standards. The costs for
this category will be determined using the same method used in
conducting the previous cost study.
As under the current program, this depends on an assessment of the
anticipated number of emission families and the corresponding EPA
staffing necessary to perform this work. At this time, EPA plans to
perform a basic level of certification review of information and data
submitted to issue certificates of conformity for the evaporative
emission standards, as well as conducting some testing to measure
evaporative emissions. This is especially the case for equipment
manufacturers that use only certified components for meeting applicable
emission standards. We are proposing a fee of $241 based on Agency
costs for half of a federal employee's time and three employees hired
through the National Senior Citizens Education and Research Center
dedicated to the administration of the evaporative certification
program, including the administrative, testing, and overhead costs
associated with these people. The total cost to administer the program
is estimated to be $362,225. We divided this cost by the estimated
number of certificates, 1503, to calculate the proposed fee.
We will update the fees related to evaporative emission
certificates each year when we update the fees for all categories. The
actual fee in 2015 and later model years will depend on these annual
calculations. The fees update will be based upon EPA's costs of
implementing the evaporative category multiplied by the consumer price
index (CPI), then divided by the average of the number of certificates
received in the two years prior to the update. The CPI will be applied
to all of EPA's costs except overhead. This is a departure from EPA's
current fees program wherein the CPI is applied only to EPA's labor
costs. In the most recent fees rulemaking, commenters objected to
applying the CPI to EPA's fixed costs. In the proposed fee program for
the evaporative category, however, there are no fixed costs. EPA
expects all its costs to increase with inflation and we therefore think
it is appropriate to apply the inflation adjustment to all of the
program costs.
Where a manufacturer holds the certificates for compliance with
exhaust emission standards and includes certification for evaporative
emissions in that same certificate, we would assess an additional
charge related to compliance with evaporative emission standards to
that for the exhaust emission certification.
EPA believes it appropriate to charge less for a certificate
related to evaporative emissions relative to the existing charge for
certificates of conformity for exhaust emissions from the engines in
these same vessels and equipment. The amount of time and level of
effort associated with reviewing the latter certificates is higher than
that projected for the certificates for evaporative emissions.
(8) Engineering Design-Based Certification
Certification of equipment or components that are subject to
performance-based emission standards depends on test data showing that
products meet the applicable standards. We are proposing a variety of
approaches that reduce the level of testing needed to show compliance.
As described above, we allow manufacturers to group their products into
emission families so that a test on a single worst-case configuration
can be used to show that all products in the emission family are
compliant. Also, test data from a given year could be ``carried over''
for later years for a given emission control design (see Sec.
1060.235). These steps help reduce the overall cost of testing.
Design-based certification is an additional step that may be
available to reduce testing requirements (see Sec. 1060.240). To
certify their products using design-based certification, certifying
manufacturers would describe, from an engineering perspective, how
their fuel systems meet the applicable design specifications. These
manufacturers could then forego the testing described in Section VI.E.
We believe there are several emission control designs that use
established technologies that are well understood to have certain
emission characteristics. At the same time, while engineering design-
based certification is a useful tool for reducing the test burden
associated with certification, this does not remove a manufacturer's
liability for meeting the emission standard throughout the useful life.
The following sections describe how we propose to implement
engineering design-based certification for each of the different
performance standards. We are proposing that we may establish
additional engineering design-based certification options where we find
that new test data demonstrate that the use of other technology designs
will ensure compliance with the applicable emission standards. These
designs would need to produce emission levels comfortably below the
proposed emission standards when variability in the emission control
performance is considered.
(a) Fuel Line Permeation
In our program for recreational vehicles, we specified that fuel
lines meeting certain SAE specifications could be certified by design.
However, we are not proposing to allow this for Small SI equipment or
marine vessels. That decision was appropriate for recreational
vehicles, because that program did not include provisions for component
certification. Fuel line manufacturers will need to conduct testing
anyway to qualify their fuel lines as meeting the various industry
ratings so any testing burden to demonstrate compliance with EPA
standards should be minimal. We would allow test data used to meet
industry standards to be used to certify to the proposed standards
provided that the data were collected in a manner consistent with this
proposal and that the data were made available to EPA if required.
(b) Fuel Tank Permeation
We are proposing to consider that a metal fuel tank meets the
design criteria for a design-based certification as a low-permeation
fuel tank. There is also a body of existing test data showing that co-
extruded fuel tanks from automotive applications have permeation rates
that are well below the proposed standard. We are proposing to allow
design-based certification for co-extruded high-
[[Page 28186]]
density polyethylene fuel tanks with a continuous ethylene vinyl
alcohol barrier layer. The EVOH barrier layer would be required to be
at least 2 percent of the wall thickness of the fuel tank.
To address the permeability of the fuel cap, seals, and gaskets
used on metal and co-extruded tanks, we are proposing that the design
criteria include a specification that seals and gaskets that are not
made of low-permeation materials must have a total exposed surface area
smaller than 1000 mm\2\. A metal or co-extruded fuel tank with seals
that meet this design criterion would reliably pass the standard.
However, we believe it is not appropriate to assign an emission level
to fuel tanks using a design-based certification option that would
allow them to generate emission credits. Given the uncertainty of
emission rates from the seals and gaskets, we would not consider these
tanks to be any more effective than other fuel tanks meeting emission
standards.
(c) Diurnal Emissions
For portable marine fuel tanks, we are proposing a design standard
based on automatically sealing the tank to prevent fuel venting while
fuel temperatures are rising. The options described below for design-
based certification therefore deal only with installed marine fuel
tanks (including personal watercraft).
We are proposing that fuel systems sealed to 1.0 psi would meet the
criteria for engineering design-based certification to the proposed
diurnal emission standards. Systems that remain sealed up to positive
pressures of 1.0 psi have a predictable relationship to changing fuel
temperatures that ensure that total diurnal emissions over the
specified test procedure will be below the proposed standard. This type
of system would allow venting of fuel vapors only when pressures exceed
1.0 psi or when the fuel cap is removed for refueling. Note that
systems with anti-siphon valves would have to be designed to prevent
fuel releases when the system is under pressure to meet Coast Guard
requirements.
Bladder fuel tanks and tanks with a volume-compensating air bag are
specialized versions of tanks that may meet the specifications for
systems that remain sealed up to positive pressures of 1.0 psi. In each
of these designs, volume changes within a sealed system prevent
pressure buildup. As long as these designs meet basic specifications
for system integrity they would also qualify for design-based certification.
We are proposing that fuel tanks equipped with a passively purged
carbon canister to control diurnal emissions may be certified by
design, subject to several technical specifications. To ensure that
there is enough carbon to collect a sufficient mass of hydrocarbon
vapors, we propose to specify a minimum butane working capacity of 9 g/
dL based on the test procedures specified in ASTM D5228-92. The carbon
canister would need a minimum carbon volume of 0.040 liters per gallon
of fuel tank capacity. For fuel tanks certified to the optional
standards for tanks in nontrailerable boats ( 26 ft. in length), we are
proposing a minimum carbon volume of 0.016 liters per gallon of fuel
tank capacity.
We are proposing two additional specifications for the quality of
the carbon. We believe these specifications are necessary to ensure
that the canister will continue to function effectively over the full
useful life of a marine vessel. First, the carbon would need to meet a
moisture adsorption capacity maximum of 0.5 grams of water per gram of
carbon at 90 percent relative humidity and a temperature of 25 < plus-
minus> 5 [deg]C. Second, the carbon would need to pass a dust attrition
test similar to that in ASTM D3802-79. The moisture adsorption and dust
attrition tests are described in more detail in Chapter 5 of the Draft
RIA. We are also proposing that the carbon canister must be properly
designed to ensure the in-use effectiveness of the carbon.
The canisters would need to be designed using good engineering
judgment to ensure structural integrity. They must include a volume
compensator or other device to hold the carbon pellets in place under
vibration and changing temperatures and the vapor flow would need to be
directed so that it reaches the whole carbon bed rather than just
passing through part of the carbon. We are proposing that the geometry of
the carbon canister must have a length to diameter ratio of at least 3.5.
The emission data we used to develop these proposed engineering
design-based certification options are presented in Chapter 5 of the
Draft RIA. Manufacturers wanting to use designs other than those we
discuss here would have to perform the applicable testing. However,
once an additional technology is proven, we may consider adding it to
the list as one that qualifies for engineering design-based
certification. For example, if several manufacturers were to pool
resources to test a diurnal emission control strategy and submit this
data to EPA, we could consider this particular technology, with any
appropriate design specifications, as one that qualifies to be
considered compliant under engineering design-based certification. We
would intend to revise the regulations to include any additional
technologies we decide are suitable for design-based certification, but
we would be able to approve the use of additional engineering design-
based certification with these technologies before changing the
regulations. We request comment on this approach to design-based
certification for diurnal emission control technologies and on the
specific technologies discussed above. Section IV.H presents a more
detailed description of these technologies and how they can be used to
reduce evaporative emissions.
G. Small-Business Provisions
(1) Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
On May 3, 2001, we convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The
purpose of the Panel was to collect the advice and recommendations of
representatives of small entities that could be affected by this
proposed rule and to report on those comments and the Panel's findings
and recommendations as to issues related to the key elements of the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. We convened a Panel again on August 17,
2006 to update our findings for this new proposal. The Panel reports
have been placed in the rulemaking record for this proposal. Section
609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act directs the review Panel to
report on the comments of small entity representatives and make
findings as to issues related to identified elements of an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) under RFA section 603. Those
elements of an IRFA are:
• A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
• A description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
• An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules
[[Page 28187]]
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and
• A description of any significant alternative to the
proposed rule that accomplishes the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and that minimizes any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
In addition to the EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, the
Panel consisted of the Director of the Assessment and Standards
Division of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Using definitions provided by the Small Business Administration
(SBA), companies that manufacture internal-combustion engines and that
employ fewer than 1000 people are considered small businesses for a
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel. Equipment manufacturers,
boat builders, and fuel-system component manufacturers that employ
fewer than 500 people are considered small businesses for the SBAR
Panel. Based on this information, we asked 25 companies that met the
SBA small business thresholds to serve as small entity representatives
for the duration of the Panel process. These companies represented a
cross-section of engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and
fuel-system component manufacturers.
With input from small-entity representatives, the Panel drafted a
report providing findings and recommendations to us on how to reduce
potential burden on small businesses that may occur as a result of this
proposed rule. The Panel Report is included in the rulemaking record
for this proposal. We are proposing all of the recommendations as
presented in the Panel Report. The proposed flexibility options
recommended to us by the Panel, and any updated assessments, are
described below.
(2) Proposed Burden Reduction Approaches for Small Businesses Subject
to the Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
The SBAR Panel Report includes six general recommendations for
regulatory flexibility for small businesses affected by the proposed
evaporative emission standards. This section discusses the provisions
being proposed based on each of these recommendations. In this industry
sector, we believe the burden reduction approaches presented in the
Panel Report should be applied to all businesses with the exception of
one general economic hardship provision described below which is
designed specifically for small businesses. The majority of fuel tanks
produced for the Small SI equipment and Marine SI vessel market are
made by small businesses or by companies producing small volumes of
these products. The purpose of these options is to reduce the potential
burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a
large product line. For this reason, we often also consider the
production volume when making decisions regarding burden reduction options.
(a) Consideration of Appropriate Lead Time
Small businesses commented that they would need to make significant
changes to their plastic fuel tank designs and molding practices to
meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standards. For blow-molded tank
designs with a molded-in permeation barrier, new blow-molding machines
would be needed that could produce multi-layer fuel tanks. One small
business commented that, due to the lead time needed to install a new
machine and to perform quality checks on the tanks, they would not be
ready to sell multi-layer blow-molded fuel tanks until 2011 for the
Small SI and Marine SI markets.
Small businesses that rotational-mold fuel tanks were divided in
their opinion of when they would be ready to produce low-permeation
fuel tanks. One manufacturer stated that it is already producing fuel
tanks with a low-permeation inner layer that are used in Small SI
applications. This company also sells marine fuel tanks, but not with
the low-permeation characteristics. However, they have performed Coast
Guard durability testing on a prototype 40 gallon marine tank using
their technology which passed the tests. Two other small businesses,
that rotationally mold fuel tanks, stated that they have not been able
to identify and demonstrate a low-permeation technology that would meet
their cost and performance needs. They commented that developing and
demonstrating low-permeation technology is especially an issue for the
marine industry because of the many different tank designs and Coast
Guard durability requirements.
Consistent with the Panel recommendations in response to the above
comments, we are proposing to provide sufficient lead time for blow-
molded and marine rotational molded fuel tanks. We are proposing tank
permeation implementation dates of 2011 for Class II equipment and 2012
for Class I equipment. For marine fuel tanks, we are proposing to
implement the tank permeation standards in 2011 with an additional year
(2012) for installed fuel tanks which are typically rotational-molded
marine fuel tanks (see Sec. 1054.110 and Sec. 1045.107).
There was no disagreement on the technological feasibility of the
Marine SI diurnal emission standard EPA is considering. Small
businesses commented that they would like additional time to install
carbon canisters in their vessels. They stated that some boat designs
would require deck and hull changes to assist in packaging the
canisters and they would like to make these changes in the normal
turnover cycle of their boat molds. Small businesses commented that
they would consider asking EPA to allow the use of low-permeation fuel
line prior to 2009 as a method of creating an emission neutral option
for providing extra time for canisters. We are requesting comment on
phase-in schemes or other burden reduction approaches which would
provide small businesses additional lead time to meet these
requirements without losing overall emission reductions.
The majority of large equipment manufacturers have indicated that
they will be using low-permeation fuel lines in the near term as part
of their current product plans. As a result, we are proposing an
implementation date of 2008 for Small SI fuel line permeation standards
for nonhandheld equipment (see Sec. 90.127). The Panel expressed
concern that small equipment manufacturers who do not sell products in
California may not necessarily be planning on using low-permeation fuel
line in 2008. Therefore, we are proposing a 2009 implementation date
for low-permeation fuel line for small businesses producing Small SI
nonhandheld equipment.
(b) Fuel Tank ABT and Early-Incentive Program
The Panel recommended that we propose an ABT program for fuel tank
permeation and an early-allowance program for fuel tank permeation. Our
proposed ABT and early-allowance programs are described above. We are
requesting comment on including service tanks in the ABT program. These
are tanks that are sold as replacement parts for in-use equipment.
(c) Broad Definition of Emission Family
The Panel recommended that we propose broad emission families for
fuel tank emission families similar to the
[[Page 28188]]
existing provisions for recreational vehicles. As described above, we
are proposing permeation emission families be based on type of material
(including additives such as pigments, plasticizers, and UV
inhibitors), emission control strategy, and production methods. Fuel
tanks of different sizes, shapes, and wall thicknesses would be grouped
into the same emission family (see Sec. 1045.230 and Sec. 1054.230).
Manufacturers therefore would be able to broadly group similar fuel
tanks into the same emission family and then only test the
configuration most likely to exceed the emission standard. Although
Small SI and Marine SI fuel tanks would not be allowed in the same
emission family, it could be possible to carry-across certification
test data from one category to another.
(d) Compliance Progress Review for Marine Fuel Tanks
One manufacturer of rotational-molded fuel tanks has stated that
they are already selling low-permeation tanks into the Small SI market
and they have plans to sell them into marine applications. However,
other manufacturers of rotational-molded marine fuel tanks have
expressed concern that they do not have significant in-use experience
to demonstrate the durability of low-permeation rotational-molded fuel
tanks in boats. To address this uncertainty, EPA intends to continue to
engage on a technical level with rotational-molded marine fuel tank
manufacturers and material suppliers to assess the progress of low-
permeation fuel tank development and compliance. If systematic problems
are identified across the industry, this would give EPA the opportunity
to address the problem. If problems were identified only for individual
businesses, this would give EPA early notice of the issues that may
need to be addressed through the proposed hardship relief provisions.
(e) Engineering Design-Based Certification
In the existing evaporative emission program for recreational
vehicles, manufacturers using metal fuel tanks may certify by design to
the tank permeation standards. Tanks using design-based certification
provisions are not included in the ABT program because they are
assigned a certification emission level equal to the standard. The
Panel recommended that we propose to allow design-based certification
for metal tanks and plastic fuel tanks with a continuous EVOH barrier.
The Panel also recommended that we propose design-based certification
for carbon canisters. A detailed description of the proposed design-
based certification options that are consistent with the Panel
recommendations is presented earlier in this document.
The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) the American
Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) and the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) have industry recommended practices for boat designs that must be
met as a condition of NMMA membership. NMMA stated that they are
working to update these recommended practices to include carbon
canister installation instructions and low-permeation fuel line design.
The Panel recommended that EPA accept data used for meeting the
voluntary requirements as part of the EPA certification. We are
proposing that this data could be used as part of EPA certification as
long as it is collected consistent with the test procedures and other
requirements described in this proposal.
(f) Hardship Provisions
We are proposing two types of hardship provisions consistent with
the Panel recommendations. The first type of hardship is an unusual
circumstances hardship which would be available to all businesses,
regardless of size. The second type of hardship is an economic hardship
provision which would be available to small businesses only. Sections
VIII.C.8 and VIII.C.9 provide a description of the proposed hardship
provisions that would apply to the range of manufacturers subject to
the proposed Marine SI and Small SI evaporative emission requirements.
This would include Marine SI engine manufacturers, nonhandheld engine
manufacturers, nonhandheld equipment manufacturers, handheld equipment
manufacturers, boat builders, and fuel-system component manufacturers.
The proposed criteria for small businesses are presented earlier in
Sections III.F.2 and IV.G for Marine SI engine manufacturers, Section
V.F.2 for nonhandheld engine manufacturers, and Section V.F.3 for
nonhandheld equipment manufacturers. For handheld equipment
manufacturers, EPA is proposing to use the existing small-volume
manufacturer criteria which relies on a production cut-off of 25,000
pieces of handheld equipment per year. For boat builders and fuel-
system component manufacturers, EPA is proposing to base the
determination of whether a company is a small business based on the SBA
definition. The SBA small business definition for companies
manufacturing boats subject to the proposed standards is fewer than 500
employees. Likewise, the SBA small business definition for companies
manufacturing fuel-system components such as fuel tanks and fuel lines
is fewer than 500 employees.
Because many boat builders, nonhandheld equipment manufacturers,
and handheld equipment manufacturers will depend on fuel tank
manufacturers and fuel line manufacturers to supply certified products
in time to produce complying vessels and equipment, we are also
proposing a hardship provision for all boat builders and Small SI
equipment manufacturers, regardless of size. The proposed hardship
would allow the boat builder or equipment manufacturer to request more
time if they are unable to obtain a certified fuel system component and
they are not at fault and would face serious economic hardship without
an extension (see Sec. 1068.255). Section VIII.C.10 provides a
description of the proposed hardship provisions that would apply to
boat builders and Small SI equipment manufacturers.
H. Technological Feasibility
We believe there are several strategies that manufacturers can use
to meet the proposed evaporative emission standards. We have collected
and will continue to collect emission test data on a wide range of
technologies for controlling evaporative emissions. The design-based
certification levels discussed above are based on this test data and we
may amend the list of approved designs and emission levels as more data
become available.
In the following sections we briefly describe how we decided to
propose specific emission standards and implementation dates, followed
by a more extensive discussion of the expected emission control
technologies. A more detailed discussion of the feasibility of the
proposed evaporative requirements, including all the underlying test
data, is included in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA. See Table VI-1 for a
summary of the proposed evaporative emission standards.
(1) Level of Standards
The proposed fuel line and fuel tank permeation standards for Small
SI equipment and Marine SI vessels are based on the standards already
adopted for recreational vehicles. These applications use similar
technology in their fuel systems. In cases where the fuel systems
differ we have identified technological approaches that could be used
to meet these same emission levels. The control strategies are
discussed below. For structurally integrated nylon fuel tanks and for fuel
[[Page 28189]]
lines used with cold-weather equipment, we are proposing slightly
relaxed standards based on available permeation data. In addition, we
have proposed higher numerical standards for fuel tank permeation for
tests performed at higher temperature (40 [deg]C vs. 28 [deg]C). These
higher numerical standards are based on data described in Chapter 5 of
the Draft RIA.
For fuel tanks installed in personal watercraft and for portable
marine fuel tanks, we are proposing diurnal emission standards based on
the current capabilities of these systems. We are basing the proposed
standard for other installed marine fuel tanks on the capabilities of
passive systems that store emitted vapors in a carbon canister. The
Draft RIA describes the test results on passively purged canisters, and
other technologies, that led us to the proposed level of the diurnal
emission standard.
Control of diffusion emissions from Small SI equipment requires
application of a simple technological approach that is widely used
today. The Draft RIA describes the testing we conducted on fuel caps
with tortuous vent paths and short vent lines on which we based the
diffusion emission standard.
We have measured running loss emissions and found that some Small
SI products have very high emission levels. The large variety of
manufacturers and equipment types makes it impractical to design a
measurement procedure, which means that we are unable to specify a
performance standard. We are proposing a design standard for running
losses from Small SI equipment by specifying that manufacturers may use
any of a variety of specified design solutions, as described in Section
VI.C.6. Several of these design options are already in common use today.
We are proposing to require that equipment and vessel manufacturers
use good engineering judgment in their designs to minimize refueling
spitback and spillage. In general, it would simply require
manufacturers to use system designs that are commonly used today.
Several refueling spitback and spillage control strategies are
discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA.
(2) Implementation Dates
Low-permeation fuel line is available today. Many Small SI
equipment manufacturers certifying to permeation standards in
California are selling products with low-permeation fuel line
nationwide. In addition, many boat builders have begun using low-
permeation marine fuel lines to feed fuel from the fuel tank to the
engine. For this reason, we are proposing to implement the fuel line
permeation standards in 2008 for nonhandheld Small SI equipment and in
2009 for Marine SI vessels. This date is the same as for recreational
vehicles and is two years later than the California requirements for
Small SI equipment. For handheld equipment, there are no fuel line
permeation requirements in California. In addition, injection molded
fuel lines are common in many applications rather than straight-run
extruded fuel line. For this reason we are proposing to delay
implementation of fuel line permeation standards for handheld equipment
until 2012 (or 2013 for small volume emission families). We request
comment on the proposed implementation dates for fuel line permeation
standards.
Similar to fuel line technology, low-permeation fuel tank
constructions are used today in automotive and portable fuel tank
applications. This technology is also being developed for use in
recreational vehicles and for Small SI equipment sold in California.
The available technology options include surface treatment and multi-
layer constructions, though rotational molding presents some unique
design challenges. Based on discussions with fuel tank manufacturers,
and on our own assessment of the lead time necessary to change current
industry practices, we believe low-permeation fuel tank technology can
be applied in the 2011-2012 model years for Small SI and Marine SI fuel
tanks. We are proposing to implement the fuel tank permeation standards
in 2011 for Class II equipment and portable and PWC marine fuel tanks.
For Class I equipment and installed marine fuel tanks, we are proposing
an implementation date of 2012. We are proposing to phase-in the
handheld fuel tank standards on the following schedule: 2009 for
equipment models certifying in California, 2013 for small-volume
families, and 2010 for the remaining fuel tanks on handheld equipment.
We believe this will facilitate an orderly transition from current fuel
tank designs to low-permeation fuel tanks.
We are proposing the additional year of lead time for the large
fuel tanks installed in marine vessels largely due to concerns raised
over the application of low-permeation rotational-molded fuel tank
technology to marine applications. The majority of these fuel tanks are
typically rotational-molded by small businesses. Although low-
permeation technology has emerged for these applications, we believe
additional lead time will be necessary for all manufacturers to be
ready to implement this technology. This will give these manufacturers
additional time to make changes to their production processes to comply
with the standards and to make any tooling changes that may be
necessary. We are similarly proposing the implementation of fuel tank
permeation standards for Class I fuel tanks installed in Small SI
equipment in 2012, mostly to align with the implementation date for the
Phase 3 exhaust emission standards. This is especially important for
Class I engines where most of the engine manufacturers will also be
responsible for meeting all evaporative emission standards. We request
comment on the proposed implementation dates for the proposed fuel tank
permeation standards.
We are proposing to implement the running loss standards for
nonhandheld Small SI equipment in the same year as the exhaust emission
standards. We believe this is appropriate because the running loss
vapor will in some cases be routed to the intake manifold for
combustion in the engine. Manufacturers would need to account for the
effect of the additional running loss vapor in their engine
calibrations. We request comment on this approach.
We are proposing to implement the proposed diurnal standards for
portable marine fuel tanks and personal watercraft in 2009. We believe
these requirements will not result in a significant change from current
practice so this date will provide sufficient lead time for
manufacturers to comply with standards. For other installed fuel tanks,
however, we are proposing a later implementation date of 2010. The
development of canisters as an approach to control diurnal emissions
without pressurizing the tanks has substantially reduced the expected
level of effort to redesign and retool for making fuel tanks. However,
canister technology has not yet been applied commercially to marine
applications and additional lead time may be necessary to work out
various technical parameters, such as design standards and installation
procedures to ensure component durability and system integrity. We
request comment on the proposed diurnal implementation dates.
(3) Technological Approaches
We believe several emission control technologies can be used to
reduce evaporative emissions from Small SI equipment and Marine SI
vessels. These emission control strategies are discussed below. Chapter
5 of the Draft RIA presents more detail on these technologies and
Chapter 6 provides information on the estimated costs. We request
comment on these or other technological approaches for reducing
[[Page 28190]]
evaporative emissions from these engines and equipment.
(a) Fuel Line Permeation
Fuel lines produced for use in Small SI equipment and Marine SI
applications are generally extruded nitrile rubber with a cover for
abrasion resistance. Fuel lines used in Small SI applications often
meet SAE J30 R7 recommendations, including a permeation limit of 550 g/
m2/day at 23 [deg]C on ASTM Fuel C. Fuel lines for personal
watercraft are typically designed to meet SAE J2046, which includes a
permeation limit of 300 g/m2/day at 23 [deg]C on ASTM Fuel
C.\92\ Marine fuel lines subject to Coast Guard requirements under 33
CFR part 183 are designated as either Type A or Type B and either Class
1 or Class 2. SAE J1527 provides detail on these fuel line designs.
Type A fuel lines pass the U.S. Coast Guard fire test while Type B
designates fuel lines that have not passed this test. Class 1 fuel
lines are intended for fuel-feed lines where the fuel line is normally
in contact with liquid fuel and has a permeation limit of 100 g/
m2/day at 23 [deg]C. Class 2 fuel lines are intended for
vent lines and fuel fill necks where liquid fuel is not continuously in
contact with the fuel line; it has a permeation limit of 300 g/
m2/day at 23 [deg]C. In general practice, most boat builders
use Class 1 fuel lines for both vent lines and fuel-feed lines to avoid
carrying two types of fuel lines. Most fuel fill necks, which have a
much larger diameter and are constructed differently, use materials
meeting specifications for Class 2 fuel lines. The marine industry is
currently in the process of revising SAE J1527 to include a permeation
rating of 15 g/m2/day at 23 [deg]C on fuel CE10 for marine
fuel lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Society of Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard,
``Personal Watercraft Fuel Systems,'' SAE J2046, Issues 1993-01-19
(Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0179).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-permeability fuel lines are in production today. One fuel line
design, already used in some marine applications, uses a thermoplastic
layer between two rubber layers to control permeation. This
thermoplastic barrier may either be nylon or ethyl vinyl acetate.
Barrier approaches in automotive applications include fuel lines with
fluoroelastomers such as FKM and fluoroplastics such as Teflon and THV.
In addition to presenting data on low-permeation fuel lines, Chapter 5
of the Draft RIA lists several fuel-system materials and their
permeation rates. Molded rubber fuel line components, such as primer
bulbs and some handheld fuel lines, could meet the standard by using a
fluoroelastomer such as FKM. The Draft RIA also discusses low-
permeation materials that retain their flexibility at very low
temperatures.
Automotive fuel lines made of low-permeation plastic tubing are
generally made from fluoroplastics. An added benefit of these low-
permeability fuel lines is that some fluoropolymers can be made to
conduct electricity and therefore prevent the buildup of static
charges. This type of fuel line can reduce permeation by more than an
order of magnitude below the level associated with barrier-type fuel
lines, but it is relatively inflexible and would need to be molded in
specific shapes for each equipment or vessel design. Manufacturers have
commented that they need flexible fuel lines to fit their many designs,
resist vibration, prevent kinking, and simplify connections and
fittings. An alternative to custom molding is to manufacture fuel lines
with a corrugated profile (like a vacuum hose). Producing flexible
fluoropolymer fuel lines is somewhat more expensive but the result is a
product that meets emission standards without compromising in-use
performance or ease of installation.
(b) Fuel Tank Permeation
Blow-molding is widely used for the manufacture of Small SI,
portable marine, and PWC fuel tanks. Typically, blow-molding is
performed by creating a hollow tube, known as a parison, by pushing
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) through an extruder with a screw. The
parison is then pinched in a mold and inflated with an inert gas. In
highway applications, nonpermeable plastic fuel tanks are produced by
blow molding a layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) or nylon between
two layers of polyethylene. This process is called coextrusion and
requires at least five layers: the barrier layer, adhesive layers on
either side of the barrier layer, and two outside layers of HDPE that
make up most of the thickness of the fuel tank walls. However, multi-
layer construction requires additional extruder screws, which
significantly increases the cost of the blow-molding process. One
manufacturer has developed a two-layer barrier approach using a
polyarylamide inner liner. This technology is not in production yet but
appears to be capable of permeation levels similar to the traditional
EVOH barrier designs. This approach would enable blow-molding of low-
permeation fuel tanks with only one additional extruder screw.
Multi-layer fuel tanks can also be formed using injection molding.
In this method a low-viscosity polymer is forced into a thin mold to
create the two sides of the fuel tank (e.g., top and bottom), which are
then fused together. To add a barrier layer, a thin sheet of the
barrier material is placed inside the mold before injecting the
poleythylene. The polyethylene, which generally has a much lower
melting point than the barrier material, bonds with the barrier
material to create a shell with an inner liner.
A less expensive alternative to coextrusion is to blend a low-
permeable resin with the HDPE and extrude it with a single screw to
create barrier platelets. The trade name typically used for this
permeation control strategy is Selar. The low-permeability resin,
typically EVOH or nylon, creates noncontinuous platelets in the HDPE
fuel tank to reduce permeation by creating long, tortuous pathways that
the hydrocarbon molecules must navigate to escape through the fuel tank
walls. Although the barrier is not continuous, this strategy can still
achieve greater than a 90 percent reduction in permeation of gasoline.
EVOH has much higher permeation resistance to alcohol than nylon so it
would likely be the preferred material for meeting the proposed
standard based on testing with a 10 percent ethanol fuel.
Many fuel tanks for Small SI equipment are injection-molded out of
either HDPE or nylon. Injection-molding can be used with lower
production volumes than blow-molding due to lower tooling costs. In
this method, a low-viscosity polymer is forced into a thin mold to
create the two sides of the fuel tank; these are then fused together
using vibration, hot plate or sonic welding. A strategy such as Selar
has not been demonstrated to work with injection-molding due to high
shear forces.
An alternative to injection-molding is thermoforming which is also
cost-effective for lower production volumes. In this process, sheet
material is heated and then drawn into two vacuum dies. The two halves
are then fused while the plastic is still molten to form the fuel tank.
Low-permeation fuel tanks can be constructed using this process by
using multi-layer sheet material. This multi-layer sheet material can
be extruded using similar materials to multi-layer blow-molded fuel
tank designs. A typical barrier construction would include a thin EVOH
barrier, adhesion layers on both sides, a layer of HDPE regrind, and
outside layers of pure virgin HDPE.
Regardless of the molding process, another type of low-permeation
technology for HDPE fuel tanks would
[[Page 28191]]
be to treat the surfaces with a barrier layer. Two ways of achieving
this are known as fluorination and sulfonation. The fluorination
process causes a chemical reaction where exposed hydrogen atoms are
replaced by larger fluorine atoms, which creates a barrier on the
surface of the fuel tank. In this process, batches of fuel tanks are
generally processed post-production by stacking them in a steel
container. The container is then voided of air and flooded with
fluorine gas. By pulling a vacuum in the container, the fluorine gas is
forced into every crevice in the fuel tanks. Fluorinating with this
process would treat both the inside and outside surfaces of the fuel
tank, thereby improving the reliability and durability of the
permeation-resistance. As an alternative, fuel tanks can be fluorinated
during production by exposing the inside surface of the fuel tank to
fluorine during the blow-molding process. However, this method may not
prove as effective as post-production fluorination.
Sulfonation is another surface treatment technology where sulfur
trioxide is used to create the barrier by reacting with the exposed
polyethylene to form sulfonic acid groups on the surface. Current
practices for sulfonation are to place fuel tanks on a small assembly
line and expose the inner surfaces to sulfur trioxide, then rinse with
a neutralizing agent. However, sulfonation can also be performed using
a batch method. Either of these sulfonation processes can be used to
reduce gasoline permeation by more than 95 percent.
Over the first month or so of use, polyethylene fuel tanks can
experience a material expansion of as much as three percent due to
saturation of the plastic with fuel. Manufacturers have raised the
concern that this hydrocarbon expansion could degrade the effectiveness
of surface treatments like fluorination or sulfonation. However, we
believe this will not significantly affect these surface treatments.
California ARB has performed extensive permeation testing on portable
fuel containers with and without these surface treatments. Prior to the
permeation testing, the tanks were prepared by performing a durability
procedure where the fuel container cycled a minimum of 1,000 times
between--1 psi and 5 psi. In addition, the fuel containers were soaked
with fuel for a minimum of four weeks before testing. Their test data,
presented in Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA, show that fluorination and
sulfonation are still effective after this durability testing. We have
conducted our own permeation testing on fluorinated fuel tanks that
have been exposed to fuel for more than a year with excellent results.
These results are presented in the Draft RIA.
Manufacturers have also commented that fuel sloshing in the tank
under normal in-use operation could wear off the surface treatments.
However, we believe this is unlikely to occur. These surface treatments
actually result in an atomic change in the structure of the surface of
the fuel tank. To wear off the treatment, the plastic itself would need
to be worn away. In addition, testing by California ARB shows that the
fuel tank permeation standard can be met by fuel tanks that have
undergone 1.2 million slosh cycles. Test data on a sulfonated
automotive HDPE fuel tank after five years of use showed no
deterioration in the permeation barrier. These data are presented in
Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA.
A fourth method for molding plastic fuel tanks is called
rotational-molding. Rotational-molding is a lower-cost alternative for
smaller production volumes. In this method, a mold is filled with a
powder form of polyethylene with a catalyst material. While the mold is
rotated in an oven, the heat melts the plastic. When cross-link
polyethylene (XLPE) is used, this heat activates a catalyst in the
plastic, which causes a strong cross-link material structure to form.
This method is often used for relatively large fuel tanks in Small SI
equipment and for installed marine fuel tanks. The advantages of this
method are low tooling costs, which allow for smaller production
volumes, and increased strength and flame resistance. Flame resistance
is especially important for installed marine fuel tanks subject to 33
CFR part 183. At this time, the barrier treatment approaches discussed
above for HDPE have not been demonstrated to be effective for XLPE.
We have evaluated two permeation control approaches for rotational-
molded fuel tanks. The first is to form an inner layer during the
molding process. Historically, the primary approach for this is to use
a drop-box that opens after the XLPE tank begins to form. However,
processes have been developed that eliminate the need for a drop box.
With this construction a low-permeation inner liner can be molded into
the fuel tank. Manufacturers are currently developing acetyl copolymer,
nylon, and polybutylene terephthalate inner liners for this
application. In fact, one fuel tank manufacturer is already selling
tanks with a nylon inner liner into Class II Small SI equipment
applications. Initial testing suggests that these barrier layers could
be used to achieve the proposed standards.
The second approach to creating a barrier layer on XLPE rotational-
molded fuel tanks is to use an epoxy barrier coating. One manufacturer
has demonstrated that a low-permeation barrier coating can be adhered
to an XLPE fuel tank that results in a permeation rate below the
proposed standard. In this case, the manufacturer used a low level of
fluorination to increase the surface energy of the XLPE so the epoxy
would adhere properly.
Marine fuel tanks are also fabricated out of either metal or
fiberglass. Metal does not permeate so tanks that are constructed and
installed properly to prevent corrosion should meet the proposed
standards throughout their full service life. For fiberglass fuel
tanks, one manufacturer has developed a composite that has been
demonstrated to meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standard.
Permeation control is achieved by incorporating fillers into a resin
system and coating the assembled tank interior and exterior. This
filler is made up of nanocomposites (very small particles of treated
volcanic ash) which are dispersed into a carrier matrix. These
particles act like the barrier platelets discussed above by creating a
tortuous pathway for hydrocarbon migration through the walls of the
fuel tank.
(c) Diurnal
Portable marine fuel tanks are currently equipped with a valve that
can be closed by the user when the tank is stored to hold vapor in the
fuel tank. These fuel tanks are designed to hold the pressure that
builds up when a sealed fuel tank undergoes normal daily warming. This
valve must be opened when the engine is operating to prevent a vacuum
from forming in the fuel tank as the fuel level in the tank decreases.
A vacuum in the fuel tank could prevent fuel from being drawn into the
engine. Because the valve is user-controlled, any emission control is
dependent on user behavior. This can be corrected by replacing the
user-controlled valve with a simple one-way valve in the fuel cap. For
instance, a diaphragm valve that is common in many automotive
applications seals when under pressure but opens at low-vacuum
conditions.
Personal watercraft currently use sealed systems with pressure-
relief valves that start venting vapors when pressures reach a
threshold that ranges from 0.5 to 4.0 psi. We believe the proposed
standard can be met through the use of a sealed fuel system with a 1.0
psi pressure-relief valve. Personal watercraft should therefore be able
to meet the proposed standard with little or no change to current designs.
[[Page 28192]]
For other vessels with installed fuel tanks, manufacturers have
commented that even 1.0 psi of pressure would be too high for their
applications. They expressed concern that their fuel tanks had large,
flat surfaces that would deform or leak at pressures of 0.5 psi or
higher. This concern led us to consider several technologies for
controlling diurnal emissions without pressurizing the tank, including
carbon canisters, volume-compensating air bags, and bladder fuel tanks.
The primary evaporative emission control device used in automotive
applications is a carbon canister. With this technology, vapor
generated in the tank is vented to a canister containing activated
carbon. The fuel tank must be sealed such that the only venting that
occurs is through the carbon canister. This prevents more than a
minimal amount of positive or negative pressure in the tank. The
activated carbon collects and stores the hydrocarbons. The activated
carbon bed in the canister is refreshed by purging.
In a marine application, an engine purge is not practical;
therefore, canisters were not originally considered to be a practical
technology for controlling diurnal vapor from boats. Since that time,
however, we have collected information showing that the canister is
purged sufficiently during cooling periods to reduce diurnal emissions
effectively. When the fuel in the tank cools, fresh air is drawn back
through the canister into the fuel tank. This fresh air partially
purges the canister and returns hydrocarbons to the fuel tank. This
creates open sites in the carbon so the canister can again collect
vapor during the next heating event. Test data presented in Chapter 5
of the Draft RIA show that a canister starting from empty is more than
90 percent effective until it reaches the point of saturation. Once it
reaches saturation, a canister is still capable of reducing diurnal
emissions by more than 60 percent due to the normal airflow across the
canister bed during cooling periods. Adding active purging during
engine operation would improve the level of control somewhat depending
on how often the engine is operated.
Manufacturers have raised the concern that it is common for fuel to
pass out the vent line during refueling. If there were a canister in
the vent line it would become saturated with fuel. While this would not
likely cause permanent damage to the canister, we believe marine fuel
systems should prevent liquid fuel from exiting the vent line for both
environmental and safety reasons. A float valve or small orifice in the
entrance to the vent line from the fuel tank would prevent liquid fuel
from reaching the canister or escaping from the tank. Any pressure
build-up from such a valve would cause fuel to back up the fill neck
and shut off the fuel dispensing nozzle. Manufacturers have also
expressed concerns for canister durability in marine applications due
to vibration, shock, and humidity. However, there are now marine grades
of activated carbon that are harder and more moisture-resistant than
typical automotive carbon. Industry installed canisters equipped with
the marine grade carbon on 14 boats in a pilot program and no problems
were encountered. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of the
Draft RIA.
Another concept for minimizing pressure in a sealed fuel tank is
through the use of a volume-compensating air bag. The purpose of the
bag is to fill up the vapor space above the liquid fuel. By minimizing
the vapor space, the equilibrium concentration of fuel vapors occupies
a smaller volume, resulting in a smaller mass of vapors. As the
equilibrium vapor concentration increases with increasing temperature,
the vapor space expands, which forces air out of the bag through the
vent to atmosphere. Because the bag volume decreases to compensate for
the expanding vapor space, total pressure inside the fuel tank stays
very close to atmospheric pressure. Once the fuel tank cools in
response to cooling ambient temperatures the resulting vacuum in the
fuel tank will make the bag expand again by drawing air from the
surrounding environment. Our test results show that pressure could be
kept below 0.8 psi using a bag with a capacity equal to 25 percent of
the fuel tank capacity. The use of a volume-compensating air bag, in
conjunction with a pressure-relief valve, would be very effective in
controlling diurnal emissions.
Probably the most effective technology for reducing diurnal
emissions from marine fuel tanks is through the use of a collapsible
fuel bladder. In this concept, a low-permeation bladder is installed in
the fuel tank to hold the fuel. As fuel is drawn from the bladder the
vacuum created collapses the bladder. There is, therefore, no vapor
space and no pressure build-up from fuel heating. No vapors would be
vented to the atmosphere since the bladder is sealed. This option could
also significantly reduce emissions during refueling that would
normally result from dispensed fuel displacing vapor in the fuel tank.
We have received comments that this would be cost-prohibitive because
it could increase costs from 30 to 100 percent, depending on tank size.
However, bladder fuel tanks have safety advantages and they are already
sold by at least one manufacturer to meet market demand in niche
applications.
(d) Running Loss
Running loss emissions can be controlled by sealing the fuel cap
and routing vapors from the fuel tank to the engine intake. In doing
so, vapors generated by heat from the engine will be burned in the
engine's combustion chamber. It may be necessary to use a valve or
limited-flow orifice in the purge line to prevent too much fuel vapor
from reaching the engine and to prevent liquid fuel from entering the
line if the equipment flips over. Depending on the configuration of the
fuel system and purge line, a one-way valve in the fuel cap may be
desired to prevent a vacuum in the fuel tank during engine operation.
We anticipate that a system like this would eliminate running loss
emissions. However, higher temperatures during operation and the
additional length of vapor line would slightly increase permeation.
Considering these effects, we still believe that the system described
here would reduce running losses from Small SI equipment by more than
90 percent. Other approaches would be to move the fuel tank away from
heat sources or to use heat protection such as a shield or directed air
flow.
We are not considering running loss controls for marine vessels.
For portable fuel tanks and installed fuel tanks on larger vessels we
would expect the significant distance from the engine and the cooling
effect of operating the vessel in water to prevent significant heating
of the fuel tanks during engine operation. For personal watercraft,
fuel tanks have a sealed system with pressure relief that should help
contain running loss emissions. For other installed fuel tanks, we
would expect the system for controlling diurnal emissions would capture
about half of any running losses that would occur.
(e) Diffusion
Many manufacturers today use fuel caps that effectively limit the
diffusion of gasoline from fuel tanks. In fact, the proposed diffusion
emission standard for Small SI equipment is based to a large degree on
the diffusion control capabilities of these fuel caps. As discussed in
Chapter 5 of the Draft RIA, venting a fuel tank through a tube (rather
than through an open orifice) also greatly reduces diffusion. We have
conducted additional testing with short, narrow-diameter vent lines
that provide
[[Page 28193]]
enough resistance to diffusion to meet the proposed emission standards.
A secondary benefit of the running loss control described above for
Small SI equipment relates to diffusion emissions. In a system that
vents running loss vapors to the engine, venting losses would occur
through the vapor line to the engine intake, rather than through open
vents in the fuel cap. This approach should therefore eliminate
diffusion emissions.
(4) Regulatory Alternatives
We considered both less and more stringent evaporative emission
control alternatives for fuel systems used in Small SI equipment and
Marine SI vessels. Chapter 11 of the Draft RIA presents details on this
analysis of regulatory alternatives. The results of this analysis are
summarized below. We believe the proposed permeation standards are
reflective of available technology and represent a step change in
emissions performance. Therefore, we consider the same permeation
control scenario in the less stringent and more stringent regulatory
alternatives.
For Small SI equipment, we considered a less stringent alternative
without running loss emission standards Small SI engines. However, we
believe controlling running loss and diffusion emissions from
nonhandheld equipment is feasible at a relatively low cost. Running
loss emissions can be controlled by sealing the fuel cap and routing
vapors from the fuel tank to the engine intake. Other approaches would
be to move the fuel tank away from heat sources or to use heat
protection such as a shield or directed air flow. Diffusion can be
controlled by simply using a tortuous tank vent path, which is commonly
used today on Small SI equipment to prevent fuel splashing or spilling.
These emission control technologies are relatively straight-forward,
inexpensive, and achievable in the near term. Not requiring these
controls would be inconsistent with section 213 of the Clean Air Act.
For a more stringent alternative, we considered applying a diurnal
emission standard for all Small SI equipment. We believe passively
purging carbon canisters could reduce diurnal emissions by 50 to 60
percent from Small SI equipment. However, we believe some important
issues would need to be resolved for diurnal emission control, such as
cost, packaging, and vibration. The cost sensitivity is especially
noteworthy given the relatively low emissions levels (on a per-
equipment basis) from such small fuel tanks.
For marine vessels, we considered a less stringent alternative,
where there would be no diurnal emission standard for vessels with
installed fuel tanks. However, installed fuel tanks on marine vessels
are much larger in capacity than those used in Small SI applications.
Our analysis indicates that traditional carbon canisters are feasible
for boats at relatively low cost. While packaging and vibration are
also issues with marine applications, we believe these issues have been
addressed. Carbon canisters were installed on fourteen boats by
industry in a pilot program. The results demonstrated the feasibility
of this technology. The proposed standards would be achievable through
engineering design-based certification with canisters that are very
much smaller than the fuel tanks. In addition, sealed systems, with
pressure control strategies would be accepted under the proposed
engineering design-based certification. For a more stringent scenario,
we consider a standard that would require boat builders to use an
actively purged carbon canister. This means that, when the engine is
operating, it would draw air through the canister to purge the canister
of stored hydrocarbons. However, we rejected this option because active
purge occurs infrequently due to the low hours of operation per year
seen by many boats. The gain in overall efficiency would be quite small
relative to the complexity active purge adds into the system in that
the engine must be integrated into a vessel-based control strategy. The
additional benefit of an actively purged diurnal control system is
small in comparison to the cost and complexity of such a system.
(5) Our Conclusions
We believe the proposed evaporative emission standards reflect what
manufacturers can achieve through the application of available
technology. We believe the proposed lead time is necessary and adequate
for fuel tank manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and boat builders
to select, design, and produce evaporative emission control strategies
that will work best for their product lines. We expect that meeting
these requirements will pose a challenge, but one that is feasible when
taking into consideration the availability and cost of technology, lead
time, noise, energy, and safety. The role of these factors is presented
in detail in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Draft RIA. As discussed in Section
X, we do not believe the proposed standards would have negative effects
on energy, noise, or safety and may lead to some positive effects.
VII. General Concepts Related to Certification and Other Requirements
This section describes general concepts concerning the proposed
emission standards and various requirements related to these standards.
There is a variety of proposed requirements that serve to ensure
effective implementation of the emission standards, such as applying
for certification, labeling engines, and meeting warranty requirements.
The following discussion reviews these requirements for Small SI
engines and outboard and personal-watercraft engines that have already
been subject to exhaust emission standards, explains a variety of
changes, and describes how these provisions apply to evaporative
emissions. Sterndrive and inboard marine engines will be subject to
emission standards for the first time so all these requirements are new
for those engines.
Rather than making changes to existing regulations, we have drafted
new regulatory text describing the new emission standards and related
requirements and included that text in this proposal. The proposed
regulations are written in plain-language format. In addition to the
improved clarity of the regulatory text, this allows us to harmonize
the regulations with our other programs requiring control of engine
emissions.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ For additional background related to plans for migrating
regulations, see ``Plain Language Format of Emission Regulations for
Nonroad Engines,'' EPA420-F-02-046, September 2002
(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/f02046.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulatory text migrates the existing requirements for
Small SI engines, including all the emission standards and other
requirements related to getting and keeping a valid certificate of
conformity, from 40 CFR part 90 to 40 CFR part 1054. For nonhandheld
engines, manufacturers must comply with all the provisions in part 1054
once the Phase 3 standards begin to apply in 2011 or 2012. For handheld
engines, manufacturers must comply with the provisions in part 1054
starting in 2010. Similarly, we are proposing to migrate the existing
requirements for Marine SI engines from 40 CFR part 91 to 40 CFR part
1045. Manufacturers must comply with the provisions in part 1045 for an
engine once the proposed exhaust emission standards begin to apply in 2009.
The proposed requirements for evaporative emissions are described
in 40 CFR part 1060, with some category-specific provisions in 40 CFR
parts 1045 and 1054, which are referred to as the exhaust standard-
setting parts for each
[[Page 28194]]
type of engine. Adopting the provisions related to evaporative
emissions in a broadly applicable part has two main advantages. First,
we anticipate that in many cases boat builders, equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers of fuel-system components will need to
certify their products only to the standards for evaporative emissions,
with no corresponding responsibility for exhaust emissions. These
companies will not need to focus on the exhaust standard-setting part
except to read the short section defining the evaporative emission
standards and requirements. Second, manufacturers of fuel-system
components make products that are not necessarily unique to a specific
category of engines. The regulations in 40 CFR parts 1045 and 1054 will
highlight the standards that apply and provide any specific directions
in applying the general provisions in part 1060. The standards, test
procedures, and certification provisions are almost completely uniform
across our programs so this combined set of evaporative-related
provisions will make it much easier for companies to certify their
products if they are not subject to the exhaust emission standards. In
Section XI we describe how we might apply the provisions of part 1060
to recreational vehicles regulated under 40 CFR part 1051.
Other provisions describing general testing procedures, including
detailed laboratory and equipment specifications and procedures for
equipment calibration and emission measurements, are written in 40 CFR
part 1065. The exhaust standard-setting parts also include testing
specifications that are specific to each type of engine, including duty
cycles, test-fuel specifications, and procedures to establish
deterioration factors. See Section IX for further discussion of these
test procedures. Engines, equipment, and vessels subject to the new
standard-setting parts (parts 1045, 1054, and 1060) will also be
subject to the general compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068. These
include prohibited acts and penalties, exemptions and importation
provisions, selective enforcement audits, defect reporting and recall,
and hearing procedures. See Section VIII for further discussion of
these general compliance provisions. Both part 1065 and part 1068
already apply to various other engine categories. We are therefore
publishing in this proposal only the changes needed to apply the
existing regulations to the engines, equipment, and vessels covered by
this rulemaking.
A. Scope of Application
This proposal covers spark-ignition propulsion marine engines and
vessels powered by those engines introduced into commerce in the United
States. The proposal also covers other nonroad spark-ignition engines
rated at or below 19 kW and the corresponding equipment. The following
sections describe generally when emission standards apply to these
products. Refer to the specific program discussion in Sections III
through VI for more information about the scope of application and
timing of the proposed standards.
(1) Do the standards apply to all engines, equipment, and vessels or
only to new products?
The scope of this proposal is broadly set by Clean Air Act section
213(a)(3), which instructs us to set emission standards for new nonroad
engines and new nonroad vehicles. Generally speaking, the proposed rule
is intended to cover all new engines and vehicles in the identified
categories (including any associated vehicles, vessels, or other
equipment). Once the emission standards apply to an engine, piece of
equipment, or fuel-system component manufacturers must get a
certificate of conformity from us before selling them or otherwise
introducing them into commerce in the United States. Note that the term
``manufacturer'' includes any individual or company introducing into
commerce in the United States engines, equipment, vessels, or
components that are subject to emission standards. These Clean Air Act
requirements relate to importation and any other means of introducing
covered products into commerce. In addition to any applicable
evaporative requirements, we also require equipment manufacturers that
install engines from other companies to install only certified engines
once emission standards apply. The certificate of conformity (and
corresponding emission control information label) provides assurance
that manufacturers have met their obligation to make engines,
equipment, and vessels that meet emission standards over the useful
life we specify in the regulations.
(2) How do I know if my engine or equipment is new?
We are proposing to define ``new'' consistent with previous
rulemakings. Under the proposed definition, a nonroad engine (or
nonroad equipment) is considered new until its title has been
transferred to the ultimate purchaser or the engine has been placed
into service. This proposed definition would apply to engines,
equipment, and vessels so the nonroad equipment using these engines
would be considered new until their title has been transferred to an
ultimate buyer. In Section VII.B.1 we describe how to determine the
model year of individual engines, equipment, and vessels.
To further clarify the proposed definition of new nonroad engine,
we are proposing to specify that a nonroad engine, equipment, or vessel
is placed into service when it is used for its intended purpose. We are
therefore proposing that an engine subject to the proposed standards is
used for its intended purpose when it is installed in a vessel or other
piece of nonroad equipment. We need to make this clarification because
some engines are made by modifying a highway or land-based nonroad
engine that has already been installed on a vessel or other piece of
equipment, so without this clarification, these engines may escape
regulation. For example, an engine installed in a marine vessel after
it has been used for its intended purpose as a land-based highway or
nonroad engine is considered ``new'' under this definition. We believe
this is a reasonable approach because the practice of adapting used
highway or land-based nonroad engines may become more common if these
engines are not subject to the standards in this proposal.
In summary, an engine would be subject to the proposed standards if
it is:
• Freshly manufactured, whether domestic or imported; this
may include engines produced from engine block cores;
• Installed for the first time in nonroad equipment after
having powered a car, a truck, or a category of nonroad equipment
subject to different emission standards;
• Installed in new nonroad equipment, regardless of the age
of the engine; or
• Imported--whether new or used, as long as the engine was
not built before the initial emission standards started to apply.
(3) When do imported engines, equipment, and vessels need to meet
emission standards?
The proposed emission standards would apply to all new engines,
equipment, and vessels that are used in the United States. According to
Clean Air Act section 216 ``new'' includes engines or equipment that
are imported by any person, whether freshly manufactured or used. Thus,
the proposed program would include
[[Page 28195]]
engines that are imported for use in the United States whether they are
imported as loose engines or are already installed on a vessel or other
piece of nonroad equipment built elsewhere. All imported engines would
need an EPA-issued certificate of conformity to clear customs, with
limited exemptions (as described in Section VIII).
If an engine or piece of nonroad equipment that was built after
emission standards take effect is imported without a currently valid
certificate of conformity, we would still consider it to be a new
engine, equipment, or vessel. This means it would need to comply with
the emission standards that apply based on its model year. Thus, for
example, a marine vessel manufactured in a foreign country in 2009,
then imported into the United States in 2010, would be considered
``new.'' The engines on that piece of equipment would have to comply
with the requirements for the 2009 model year, assuming that the engine
has not been modified and no other exemptions apply. This provision is
important to prevent manufacturers from avoiding emission standards by
building products abroad, transferring their title, and then importing
them as used products. Note that if an imported engine has been
modified it must meet emission standards based on the year of
modification rather than the year of manufacture. See Section V.E.6 and
Section XI.C for proposed and contemplated restrictions related model
years for importation of new engines and equipment.
(4) Do the standards apply to exported engines, equipment, or vessels?
Engines, equipment, or vessels intended for export would generally
not be subject to the requirements of the proposed emission control
program, except that we would not exempt engines exported to countries
having standards identical to the United States. However, engines,
equipment, or vessels that are exported and subsequently re-imported
into the United States must be certified. For example, this would be
the case when a foreign company purchases engines manufactured in the
United States for installation in nonroad equipment for export back to
the United States. Those engines would be subject to the emission
standards that apply on the date the engine was originally
manufactured. If the engine is later modified and certified (or
recertified), the engine is subject to emission standards that apply on
the date of the modification. So, for example, foreign equipment
manufacturers buying U.S.-made engines without recertifying the engines
will need to make sure they purchase complying engines for the products
they sell in the United States.
(5) Are there any new products that would be exempt from the emission
standards?
We are proposing to extend our basic nonroad exemptions to the
engines, equipment, and vessels covered by this proposal. These include
the testing exemption, the manufacturer-owned exemption, the display
exemption, and the national security exemption. These exemptions are
described in more detail in Section VIII.C.
In addition, the Clean Air Act does not consider engines used
solely for competition to be nonroad engines so the proposed emission
standards do not apply to them. The Clean Air Act similarly does not
consider engines used in stationary applications to be nonroad engines;
however, EPA has proposed to apply emission standards for stationary
spark-ignition engines that are comparable to the standards that apply
to nonroad engines (71 FR 33804, June 12, 2006). As described in
Section V, we are proposing in this notice to apply the Phase 3
standards for Small SI engines equally to stationary spark-ignition
engines at or below 19 kW. Refer to the program discussions in Sections
III through VI for a discussion of how the various exclusions apply for
different categories of engines.
B. Emission Standards and Testing
(1) How is the model year determined?
The proposed emission standards are effective on a model-year
basis. We are proposing to define model year much like we do for
passenger cars. It would generally mean either the calendar year or
some other annual production period based on the manufacturer's
production practices. For example, manufacturers could start selling
2006 model year engines as early as January 2, 2005 as long as the
production period extends until at least January 1, 2006. All of a
manufacturer's engines from a given model year would have to meet
emission standards for that model year. For example, manufacturers
producing new engines in the 2006 model year would need to comply with
the 2006 standards.
(2) How do adjustable engine parameters affect emission testing?
Many engines are designed with components that can be adjusted for
optimum performance under changing conditions, such as varying fuel
quality, high altitude, or engine wear. Examples of adjustable
parameters include spark timing, idle speed setting, and fuel injection
timing. While we recognize the need for this practice, we are also
concerned that engines maintain a consistent level of emission control
for the whole range of adjustability. We are therefore proposing to
require that engines meet emission standards over the full adjustment range.
Manufacturers would have to provide a physical stop to prevent
adjustment outside the established range. Operators would then be
prohibited from adjusting engines outside this range. Refer to the
proposed regulatory text for more information about adjustable engine
parameters. See especially the proposed sections 40 CFR 1045.115 for
Marine SI engines and 40 CFR 1054.115 for Small SI engines.
(3) Alternate Fuels
The emission standards apply to all spark-ignition engines
regardless of the fuel they use. Almost all Marine SI engines and Small
SI engines operate on gasoline, but these engines may also operate on
other fuels, such as natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, ethanol, or
methanol. The test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 describe adjustments
needed for operating test engines with oxygenated fuels.
In some special cases, a single engine is designed to alternately
run on different fuels. For example, some engines can switch back and
forth between natural gas and LPG. We request comment on the best way
of certifying such engines so they can be in a single engine family,
even though we would normally require engines operating on different
fuels to be in separate engine families. We could require such
manufacturers to conduct emission testing with emission-data engines
operating on both fuels to establish the worst-case configuration. In
particular, we request comment on the appropriate data for
demonstrating compliance at the end of the service-accumulation period
for durability testing.
Once an engine is placed into service, someone might want to
convert it to operate on a different fuel. This would take the engine
out of its certified configuration, so we are proposing to require that
someone performing such a fuel conversion go through a certification
process. We would expect to allow certification of the complete engine
using normal certification procedures, or the aftermarket conversion
kit could be certified using the provisions of 40 CFR part 85, subpart
V. This contrasts with the existing provisions that allow for fuel
conversions that can be demonstrated
[[Page 28196]]
not to increase emission levels above the applicable standard. We
propose to apply this requirement starting January 1, 2010. (See Sec.
90.1003 and Sec. 1054.635.)
C. Demonstrating Compliance
We are proposing a compliance program to accompany emission
standards. This consists first of a process for certifying engine
models and fuel systems (either as a part of or independently from the
vessel or equipment). In addition to certification, we are proposing
several provisions to ensure that emission control systems continue to
function over long-term operation in the field. Most of these
certification and durability provisions are consistent with previous
rulemakings for these and other nonroad engines, equipment, and
vessels. Refer to the discussion of the specific programs in Sections
III through VI for additional information about these requirements for
each engine category.
(1) How would I certify my engines, equipment, or vessels?
Sections III through VI describe the proposed emission standards
for new engines, equipment, and vessels. Section VI in particular
describes which companies are responsible for certifying to the new
standards. This section describes the general certification process.
We are proposing a certification process similar to that already
adopted for these and other engines and equipment. Certifying
manufacturers generally test representative prototype engines or fuel
system components and submit the emission data along with other
information to EPA in an application for a Certificate of Conformity.
If we approve the application, then the manufacturer's Certificate of
Conformity allows the manufacturer to sell the engines, equipment, or
vessels described in the application in the United States. We are
proposing to include clarifying language to specify that the
certificate is valid starting with the indicated effective date, but
that it is not valid for any production after December 31 of the model
year for which it is issued. We are also proposing a provision to
preclude issuance of certificates after December 31 of a given model
year. This would avoid a situation in which a manufacturer receives
certification after it is no longer valid for further production.
We are proposing that manufacturers certify their engine models by
grouping them into emission families. Under this approach, engines
expected to have similar emission characteristics would be classified
in the same emission family. The emission family definition is
fundamental to the certification process and to a large degree
determines the amount of testing required for certification. The
proposed regulations include specific engine characteristics for
grouping emission families for each category of products. To address a
manufacturer's unique product mix, we may approve using broader or
narrower emission families as long as the manufacturer can show that
all the engines in an engine family will have similar emission control
characteristics over the engines' useful life.
The useful life period specified in the regulations defines the
period over which manufacturers are responsible for meeting emission
standards. The useful life values included in our regulations are
intended to reflect the period during which engines are designed to
properly function without being remanufactured. Useful life values are
unique for each category of engines. As proposed, for purposes of
certification, manufacturers would be required to use test data to
estimate the rate of deterioration for each emission family over its
useful life. Manufacturers would show that each emission family meets
the emission standards after incorporating the estimated deterioration
in emission control.
The emission-data engine is the engine from an emission family that
will be used for certification testing. To ensure that all engines in
the family meet the standards, we are proposing that manufacturers
select for certification testing the engine from the family that is
most likely to exceed emission standards. In selecting this ``worst-
case'' engine, the manufacturer uses good engineering judgment.
Manufacturers would consider, for example, all engine configurations
and power ratings within the emission family and the range of allowed
options. Requiring the worst-case engine to be tested ensures that all
engines within the emission family are complying with emission
standards. A similar approach would be used for evaporative emission
control systems in emission families.
We are proposing to require manufacturers to include in their
application for certification the results of all emission tests from
their emission-data units (engines, fuel tanks, etc.), including any
diagnostic-type measurements (such as ppm testing) and invalidated
tests. This complete set of test data ensures that the valid tests
forming the basis of the manufacturer's application are a robust
indicator of emission control performance rather than a spurious or
incidental test result.
Clean Air Act section 206(h) specifies that test procedures for
certification (including the test fuel) should adequately represent in-
use operation. We are proposing test fuel specifications intended to
represent in-use fuels. Engines would have to meet the standards on
fuels with properties anywhere in the range of proposed test fuel
specifications. The test fuel is generally to be used for all testing
associated with the regulations proposed in this document, including
certification, production-line testing, and in-use testing.
We are proposing to require that engine manufacturers give engine
operators instructions for properly maintaining their engines. We are
including limitations on the frequency of scheduled maintenance that a
manufacturer may specify for emission-related components to help ensure
that emission control systems do not depend on an unreasonable
expectation of maintenance in the field. These maintenance limits would
also apply during any service accumulation that a manufacturer may do
to establish deterioration factors. This approach is common to all our
engine programs. We are proposing new regulatory language to clarify
that engine manufacturers may perform emission-related maintenance
during service accumulation only to the extent that they can
demonstrate that such maintenance will be done with in-use engines. It
is important to note, however, that these provisions would not limit
the maintenance an operator could perform. It would merely limit the
maintenance that operators would be expected to perform on a regularly
scheduled basis. Some of these requirements are new for engines that
are already subject to standards. We believe it is important to define
limits to these maintenance parameters, especially with the expectation
that engines will begin to incorporate aftertreatment technologies. See
Sec. 1045.125 and Sec. 1054.125 of the proposed regulations for more
information.
(2) What emission labels are required?
Once an emission family is certified every product a manufacturer
produces from that emission family would need an emission label with
basic identifying information. We request comment on the proposed
requirements for the design and content of engine labels, which are
detailed in Sec. 1045.135 and Sec. 1054.135 of the proposed
regulation text.
The current regulations require equipment manufacturers to put a
duplicate label on the equipment if the
[[Continued on page 28197]]
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081019103842im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}