# Control of Emissions From Spark-Ignition Marine Vessels and Highway Motorcycles > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-19437 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** August 14, 2002 - **Citation:** 67 FR 53050 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 86, 90, 1045, 1051, and 1068 [AMS-FRL-7253-8] RIN 2060-AJ90 Control of Emissions From Spark-Ignition Marine Vessels and Highway Motorcycles AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this action, we are proposing evaporative emissions standards for marine vessels that use spark-ignition engines (including sterndrive, inboard, and outboard engines and personal watercraft) and we discuss our plans to propose standards in the future regulating exhaust emissions from spark-ignition marine engines. This action also proposes new emission standards for highway motorcycles, including motorcycles of less than 50 cubic centimeters in displacement. This action is related to our proposal for emission standards for several sources that cause or contribute to air pollution. On October 5, 2001 we published proposed standards for large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational vehicles using spark-ignition engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. Nationwide, marine evaporative hydrocarbon (HC) emissions contribute to ozone, and motorcycles contribute to ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) nonattainment. These pollutants cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. The proposed standards would help states achieve and maintain air quality standards. In addition, the proposed evaporative emission standards would help reduce acute exposure air toxics and the proposed motorcycle exhaust standards would help reduce exposure to CO, air toxics, and PM for operators and other people close to emission sources. They would also help address other environmental problems, such as visibility impairment in our national parks. We believe that manufacturers would be able to maintain or even improve the performance of their products in certain respects when producing engines and vessels meeting the proposed standards. In fact, we estimate that the evaporative emission standards would reduce fuel consumption by enough to offset any costs associated with the evaporative emission control technology. Overall, the gasoline fuel savings associated with the anticipated changes in technology resulting from the rule proposed in this notice are estimated to be about 31 million gallons per year once the program is fully phased in (2030). The proposal also has several provisions to address the unique limitations of small-volume manufacturers. DATES: Comments: Send written comments on this proposal by November 8, 2002. See Section VII for more information about written comments. Hearings: We will hold a public hearing on September 17, 2002 starting at 9:30 a.m. EDT. This hearing will focus on issues related to highway motorcycles. In addition, we will hold a public hearing on September 23, 2002 starting at 9:30 a.m. EDT. This hearing will focus on issues related to marine vessels. If you want to testify at a hearing, notify the contact person listed below at least ten days before the hearing. See Section VII for more information about public hearings. ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form or by e-mail. We must receive them by November 8, 2002. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if possible) to the contact person listed below. You may also submit comments via e-mail to “MCNPRM@epa.gov.” In your correspondence, refer to Docket A-2000-02. Hearings: We will hold a public hearing for issues related to highway motorcycles on September 17 at the Ypsilanti Marriott at Eagle Crest, Ypsilanti, Michigan (734-487-2000). We will host a public hearing for issues related to marine vessels on September 23 at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, Michigan (734-214-4334). See Section VII, “Public Participation” below for more information on the comment procedure and public hearings. Docket: EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking available for review in Public Docket Nos. A-2000-01 and A-2000-02 at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M-1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by telephone at (202) 260-7548, and by facsimile (202) 260-4400. We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone (734) 214-4334; FAX: (734) 214-4816; E-mail: borushko.margaret@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities This proposed action would affect companies that manufacture or introduce into commerce any of the engines or vehicles that would be subject to the proposed standards. These include: Marine vessels with spark-ignition engines and highway motorcycles. This proposed action would also affect companies buying engines for installation in vessels and motorcycles. There are also proposed requirements that apply to those who rebuild any of the affected engines. Regulated categories and entities include: Category NAICS codes a SIC codes b Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry 3732 Manufacturers of marine vessels. Industry 811310 7699 Engine repair and maintenance. Industry 336991 Motorcycles and motorcycle parts manufacturers. Industry 421110 Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Parts. a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the proposed regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Regulatory Documents The preamble, regulatory language, Draft Regulatory Support Document, and other rule documents are also available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version of this proposed rule is made available on the day of publication on the primary Web site listed below. The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality also publishes official Federal Register notices and related documents on the secondary Web site listed below. 1. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/ (either select desired date or use Search feature) 2. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ (look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic) Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the document may be downloaded, format changes may occur. Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Overview B. How Is this Document Organized? C. What Categories of Vessels and Vehicles are Covered in This Proposal? D. What Requirements Are We Proposing? E. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? F. Putting This Proposal into Perspective II. Public Health and Welfare Effects of Emissions from Covered Engines A. Background B. What Are the Public Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Emissions From Nonroad Engines and Motorcycles Subject to the Proposed Standards? C. What Is the Inventory Contribution of These Sources? III. Evaporative Emission Control from Boats A. Overview B. Boats/Fuel Systems Covered By This Proposal C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Requirements D. Demonstrating Compliance E. General Compliance Provisions F. Proposed Testing Requirements G. Special Compliance Provisions H. Technological Feasibility IV. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines V. Highway Motorcycles A. Overview B. Motorcycles Covered by This Proposal C. Proposed Standards D. Special Compliance Provisions E. Technological Feasibility of the Standards VI. Projected Impacts A. Environmental Impact B. Economic Impact C. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced D. Additional Benefits VII. Public Participation A. How Do I Submit Comments? B. Will There Be a Public Hearing? VII. Administrative Requirements A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis (Executive Order 12866) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Intergovernmental Relations E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act F. Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045) G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) H. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211) I. Plain Language I. Introduction A. Overview Air pollution is a serious threat to the health and well-being of millions of Americans and imposes a large burden on the U.S. economy. Ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter are linked to potentially serious respiratory health problems, especially respiratory effects and environmental degradation, including visibility impairment in our precious national parks. Over the past quarter century, state and federal representatives have established emission-control programs that significantly reduce emissions from individual sources. Many of these sources now pollute at only a small fraction of their pre-control rates. This proposal is part of a new effort that further addresses these air-pollution concerns by proposing national standards regulating emissions from several types of nonroad engines and vehicles that are currently unregulated by establishing standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, as required by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(3). The first part of this effort was a proposal published on October 5, 2001 which included industrial spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational vehicles such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. 1 1 See 66 FR 51098. This action, the second part, includes evaporative emission standards for marine vessels with spark-ignition engines and their fuel systems. 2 In addition, we are proposing new emission standards for highway motorcycles. The proposed standards for motorcycles reflect the development of emission-control technology that has occurred since we last set standards for these engines in 1978. Including highway motorcycles in this proposal is also appropriate as we consider new emission standards for the counterpart off-highway motorcycle models. 2 Diesel-cycle engines, referred to simply as “diesel engines” in this document, may also be referred to as compression-ignition (or CI) engines. These engines typically operate on diesel fuel, but other fuels may also be used. Otto-cycle engines (referred to here as spark-ignition or SI engines) typically operate on gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, or natural gas. Nationwide, the sources covered by this proposal are significant contributors to mobile-source air pollution. Marine evaporative emissions currently account for 1.3 percent of mobile-source hydrocarbon (HC) emissions, and highway motorcycles currently account for about 1.1 percent of mobile-source HC emissions, 0.4 percent of mobile-source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, 0.1 percent of mobile-source oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) emissions, and 0.1 percent of mobile-source particulate matter (PM) emissions. 3 The proposed standards would reduce exposure to these emissions and help avoid a range of adverse health effects associated with ambient ozone and PM levels, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. In addition, the proposed standards would help reduce acute exposure air toxics and PM for persons who operate or who work with or are otherwise active in close proximity to these sources. They would also help address other environmental problems associated with these sources, such as visibility impairment in our national parks and other wilderness areas where recreational vehicles and marine vessels are often used. 3 While we characterize emissions of hydrocarbons, this can be used as a surrogate for volatile organic compounds (VOC), which is broader group of compounds. This proposal follows EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulmaking (ANRPM) published on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76797). In that Advance Notice, we provided an initial overview of possible regulatory strategies for nonroad vehicles and engines and invited early input to the process of developing standards. We received comments on the Advance Notice from a wide variety of stakeholders, including the engine industry, the equipment industry, various governmental bodies, environmental groups, and the general public. These comments are available for public viewing in Docket A-2000-01. The Advance Notice, the related comments, and other new information provide the framework for this proposal. B. How Is This Document Organized? This proposal covers both marine vessels and highway motorcycles and many readers may only be interested in one or the other of theses applications. We have attempted to organize the document in a way that allows each reader to focus on the application of particular interest. The Air Quality discussion in Section II is general in nature, however, and applies to the proposal as a whole. The next three sections contain our proposal for the marine vessels and highway motorcycles that are the subject of this action. Section III presents the proposed evaporative emission program for marine vessels using spark-ignition engines. Section IV discusses our intentions for controlling exhaust emissions from spark-ignition marine engines in the future. Section V contains our proposed highway motorcycle standards. Section VI summarizes the projected impacts and a discussion of the benefits of this proposal. Finally, Sections VII and VIII contain information about public participation, how we satisfied our administrative requirements, and the statutory provisions and legal authority for this proposal. The remainder of this Section I summarizes important background information about this proposal, including the engines covered, the proposed standards, and why we are proposing them. C. What Categories of Vessels and Vehicles Are Covered in This Proposal? 1. Which Marine Vessels Are Covered in This Proposal? We are proposing evaporative emission requirements for marine vessels that use any kind of spark ignition (SI) engine, including boats using sterndrive, inboard, and outboard engines and personal watercraft. These vessels are currently unregulated for evaporative emissions. Although we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for SI marine, we discuss our intent for a future emission control program. This proposal covers new vessels that are used in the United States, whether they are made domestically or imported. 4 A more detailed discussion of the meaning of the terms “new,” “imported,” as well as other terms that help define the scope of application of this proposal, is contained in Section III.B of this preamble. 4 For this proposal, we consider the United States to include the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 2. Which Highway Vehicles Are Covered in This Proposal? We are proposing standards for new highway motorcycles, including those with engines with displacements of less than 50 cubic centimeters (cc). The federal emission standards for highway motorcycles were established over twenty years ago. Technology has advanced significantly over the last two decades, and many advancements are currently being used on highway motorcycles in California and elsewhere in the world. Despite these advancements, highway motorcycles currently produce more harmful emissions per mile than driving a car, or even a large SUV. (This discrepancy will become even larger when the Tier 2 emissions standards for passenger cars and SUVs take effect starting in 2004, when SUVs will have to meet the same set of standards as passenger cars.) Present technology already in use on highway motorcycles can be applied easily and cost-effectively to achieve additional improvements in emissions. California, which has separately regulated motorcycles, recently adopted more advanced emissions standards in several stages. New emission standards and test procedures have also been proposed or finalized internationally. Proposing more stringent standards nationwide will reduce emissions from these engines, which operate predominantly in warmer weather when ozone formation is a greater concern. In addition, we believe it is important to consider the emissions standards for highway motorcycles in the context of setting standards for off-highway motorcycles. Some degree of consistency between the standards for these related products may allow manufacturers to transfer technologies across product lines. (At the same time, we recognize that there are other factors which may argue for treating these categories differently.) D. What Requirements Are We Proposing? Clean Air Act section 213 directs EPA to establish standards which achieve the greatest degree of emission reductions from nonroad engines and vehicles achievable through the application of technology that will be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost, noise, energy, and safety factors. Other requirements such as certification procedures, engine and vehicle labeling, and warranty requirements are necessary for implementing the proposed program in an effective way. For vessels that use spark-ignition marine engines, we are proposing emission standards, beginning in 2008, that would reduce evaporative hydrocarbon emissions by more than 80 percent. To meet these standards, manufacturers would need to design and produce fuel systems that prevent gasoline vapors from escaping. While we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for spark-ignition marine engines at this time, we are participating with California and industry representatives in a technology development program that is evaluating the feasibility of using catalyst controls on these engines. We considered setting emission standards for sterndrive and inboard marine engines in this rulemaking, but have decided not to pursue these standards at this time. We instead intend to propose exhaust emission standards for these engines after the results of this development program are available. We also intend at that time to review, and if appropriate, propose to update emission standards for outboard and personal watercraft engines based on the results of the ongoing catalyst test program. With respect to highway motorcycles, section 202(a)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act states, in part: “In any case in which such standards are promulgated for such emissions from motorcycles as a separate class or category, the Administrator, in promulgating such standards, shall consider the need to achieve equivalency of emission reductions between motorcycles and other motor vehicles to the maximum extent practicable.” Given that it has been more than twenty years since the first (and only) federal emission regulations for motorcycles were implemented, we believe it is consistent with the Act to set new standards for highway motorcycles. Thus, for highway motorcycles we are proposing to harmonize with the California program, but with some additional flexibilities. This is a two-phase program that would result in reductions of HC+NO X of about 50 percent when fully phased in. E. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? There are important public health and welfare reasons supporting the standards proposed in this document. As described in Section II, these sources contribute to air pollution which causes public health and welfare problems. Emissions from these engines contribute to ground level ozone and ambient CO and PM levels. Exposure to ground level ozone, CO, and PM can cause serious respiratory problems. These emissions also contribute to other serious environmental problems, including visibility impairment. F. Putting This Proposal Into Perspective This proposal should be considered in the broader context of EPA's nonroad and highway vehicle emission-control programs; state-level programs, particularly in California; and international efforts. Each of these are described in more detail below. 1. EPA's Emission-Control Programs a. EPA's nonroad process. Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1) directs us to study emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles to determine, among other things, whether these emissions “cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Section 213(a)(2) further required us to determine whether emissions of CO, VOC, and NO X from all nonroad engines significantly contribute to ozone or CO emissions in more than one nonattainment area. If we determine that emissions from all nonroad engines were significant contributors, section 213(a)(3) then requires us to establish emission standards for classes or categories of new nonroad engines and vehicles that in our judgment cause or contribute to such pollution. We may also set emission standards under section 213(a)(4) regulating any other emissions from nonroad engines that we find contribute significantly to air pollution. We completed the Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study, required by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1), in November 1991. 5 On June 17, 1994, we made an affirmative determination under section 213(a)(2) that nonroad emissions are significant contributors to ozone or CO in more than one nonattainment area. We also determined that these engines make a significant contribution to PM and smoke emissions that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In the same document, we set a first phase of emission standards (now referred to as Tier 1 standards) for land-based nonroad diesel engines rated at or above 37 kW. We recently added a more stringent set of Tier 2 and Tier 3 emission levels for new land-based nonroad diesel engines at or above 37 kW and adopted Tier 1 standards for land-based nonroad diesel engines less than 37 kW. Our other emission-control programs for nonroad engines are listed in Table I.F-1. This proposal takes another step toward the comprehensive nonroad engine emission-control strategy envisioned in the Act by proposing an emission-control program for the remaining unregulated nonroad engines. 5 This study is avaialble in docket A-92-28. Table I.F-1.—EPA's Nonroad Emission-Control Programs Engine category Final rule Date Land-based diesel engines ≥ 37 kW—Tier 1 56 FR 31306 June 17, 1994. Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW—Phase 1 60 FR 34581 July 3, 1995. Spark-ignition marine 61 FR 52088 October 4, 1996. Locomotives 63 FR 18978 April 16, 1998. Land-based diesel engines—Tier 1 and Tier 2 for engines < 37 kW—Tier 2 and Tier 3 for engines ≥ 37 kW 63 FR 56968 October 23, 1998. Commercial marine diesel 64 FR 73300 December 29, 1999. Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW (Non-handheld)—Phase 2 64 FR 15208 March 30, 1999. Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW (Handheld)—Phase 2 65 FR 24268 April 25, 2000. b. National standards for marine engines. In the October 1996 final rule for spark-ignition marine engines, we set standards only for outboard and personal watercraft engines. We decided not to finalize emission standards for sterndrive or inboard marine engines at that time. Uncontrolled emission levels from sterndrive and inboard marine engines were already significantly lower than the outboard and personal watercraft engines. We did, however, leave open the possibility of revisiting the need for emission standards for sterndrive and inboard engines in the future. c. National standards for highway motorcycles. National standards for highway motorcycles were first established in the 1978 model year. Interim standards were effective for the 1978 and 1979 model years, and final standards took effect with the 1980 model year. These standards remain in effect today, unchanged from more than two decades ago. These standards, which have resulted in the phase-out of two-stroke engines for highway motorcycles above 50cc displacement, achieved significant reductions in emissions. The level of technology required to meet these standards is widely considered to be comparable to the pre-catalyst technology in the automobile. However, for the past two decades, other agencies in Europe, Asia, and California have caused motorcycle emission controls to keep some pace with the available technology. It is clear that the impact of the current federal standards on technology was fully realized by the mid-1980's, and that the international and other efforts have been the recent driving factor in technology development for motorcycle emissions control. 2. State Initiatives Under Clean Air Act section 209, California has the authority to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. California may also regulate emissions from nonroad engines, with the exception of new engines used in locomotives and new engines used in farm and construction equipment rated under 130 kW. 6 So far, the California Air Resources Board (California ARB) has adopted requirements for four groups of nonroad engines: (1) Diesel- and Otto-cycle small off-road engines rated under 19 kW; (2) new land-based nonroad diesel engines rated over 130 kW; (3) land-based nonroad recreational engines, including all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, go-carts, and other similar vehicles; and (4) new nonroad SI engines rated over 19 kW. They have approved a voluntary registration and control program for existing portable equipment. 6 The Clean Air Act limits the role states may play in regulating emissions from new motor vehicles and nonroad engines. California is permitted to establish emission standards for new motor vehicles and most nonroad engines; other states may adopt California's programs (sections 209 and 177 of the Act). The Act specifies the power rating minimum in terms of horsepower for farm and construction equipment (175 hp = 130 kW). Other states may adopt emission standards set by California ARB, but are otherwise preempted from setting emission standards for new engines or vehicles. In contrast, there is generally no federal preemption of state initiatives related to the way individuals use individual engines or vehicles. a. SI Marine engines. California ARB developed exhaust emission standards for SI marine engines through two rulemakings. In 1998, they adopted standards for outboards and personal watercraft that have three stages. Beginning with the 2001 model year, manufacturers must meet the 2006 EPA national averaging standard for engines sold in California. In addition, they require two more phases in 2004 and 2008 which reduce the standards an additional 20 and 60 percent, respectively, beyond the EPA standards. Last year, California ARB also adopted exhaust emission standards for sterndrive and inboard marine engines. These standards cap HC+NO X emissions at 15 g/kW-hr beginning in 2003. In 2007, 45 percent of each manufacturer's product line must meet 5 g/kW-hr HC+NO X . This production fraction becomes 75 percent in 2008 and 100 percent in 2009. Manufacturers will likely need to use catalytic converters to meet this standard. As part of the emission-control program for sterndrive and inboard marine engines, California ARB has committed to performing a review of emission-control technology in conjunction with the industry, U.S. Coast Guard, and EPA. They intend to hold a technology review in 2003, and if necessary, hold another technology review in 2005. The technology review will focus on applying catalytic control to marine engines operating in boats on the water. EPA is working with these groups to continue to assess technical concerns related to introducing catalysts on these marine engines. b. Highway motorcycles. Motorcycle emission standards in California were originally identical to the federal standards. However, California ARB has revised their standards several times to bring them to their current levels. In the 1982 model year the standards were modified to tighten the HC standard from 5.0 g/km to 1.0 or 1.4 g/km, depending upon engine displacement. California adopted an evaporative emission standard of 2.0 g/test for 1983 and later model year motorcycles, and later amended the regulations for 1988 and later model year motorcycles, resulting in standards of 1.0 g/km HC for engines under 700cc and 1.4 g/km HC for 700cc and larger engines. In 1999 California ARB finalized new standards for Class III highway motorcycles that will take effect in two phases—“Tier 1” standards starting with the 2004 model year, followed by “Tier 2”standards starting with the 2008 model year. The Tier 1 standard is 1.4 g/km HC+NO X , and the Tier 2 standard is 0.8 g/km HC+NO X . The CO standard remains at 12.0 g/km. 3. Actions in Other Countries a. European action—Recreational Marine Engines. The European Commission has proposed emission standards for recreational marine engines, including both diesel and gasoline engines. These requirements would apply to all new engines sold in member countries. The numerical emission standards for SD/I marine engines, are shown in Table I.F-2. Table I.F-2 also presents average baseline emissions based on data that we have collected. These data are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. We have received comment that we should apply these standards in the U.S., but the proposed European emission standards for SD/I marine engines may not result in a decrease in emissions, and based on emissions information we now have, would in some cases allow an increase in emissions from current designs of engines operated in the U.S. Table I.F-2.—Proposed European Emission Standards for Four-Stroke Spark-Ignition Marine Engines Pollutant Emission standard (g/kW-hr) Baseline emissions (g/kW-hr) NO X 15.0 9.7 HC a 7.2 5.8 CO a 154 141 a For a 150 kW engine; decreases slightly with increasing engine power rating. b. Highway motorcycles. Under the auspices of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) there is an ongoing effort to develop a global harmonized world motorcycle test cycle (WMTC). The objective of this work is to develop a scientifically supported test cycle that accurately represents the in-use driving characteristics of motorcycles. The United States is also a participating member of UN/ECE. This is an ongoing process that EPA is actively participating in, but that will not likely result in an action until sometime in 2003 or 2004. If an international test procedure is agreed upon by the participating nations, we plan to initiate a rulemaking process to propose adopting the global test cycle as part of the U.S. regulations. The European Union (EU) recently finalized a new phase of motorcycle standards, which will start in 2003, and are considering a second phase to start in 2006. The 2003 European standards are more stringent than the existing Federal standards, being somewhat comparable to the California Tier 1 standards taking effect in 2004. The standards being considered for 2006, along with a revised test cycle (as an interim cycle to bridge between the current EU cycle and a possible WMTC cycle in the future) are likely to be proposed soon by the EU. As of April 2002 the 2006 European standards and test cycle are being considered and debated by the European Parliament and the European Commission. Many other nations, particularly in southeast Asia where low-displacement two-stroke motorcycles are ubiquitous, have established standards that could be considered quite stringent. Taiwan, in particular, is often noted for having some of the most stringent standards in the world, but India, China, Japan, and Thailand, are moving quickly towards controlling what is, in those nations, a significant contributor to air pollution problems. 4. Recently Proposed EPA Standards for Nonroad Engines This proposal is the second part of an effort to control emissions from nonroad engines that are currently unregulated and for updating Federal emissions standards for highway motorcycles. The first part of this effort was a proposal published on October 5, 2001 for emission control from large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational vehicles using spark-ignition engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. The October 5, 2001 proposal includes general provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 1068 that address the applicability of nonroad engine standards, which could be relevant to commenters. With regard to Large SI engines, we proposed a two-phase program. The first phase of the standards, to go into effect in 2004, are the same as those recently adopted by the California Air Resources Board. In 2007, we propose to supplement these standards by setting limits that would require optimizing the same technologies but would be based on a transient test cycle. New requirements for evaporative emissions and engine diagnostics would also start in 2007. For recreational vehicles, we proposed emission standards for snowmobiles separately from off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. For snowmobiles, we proposed a first phase of standards for HC and CO emissions based on the use of clean carburetion or 2-stroke electronic fuel injection (EFI) technology, and a second phase of emission standards for snowmobiles that would involve use of direct fuel injection 2-stroke and some 4-stroke technology. For off highway motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles, we proposed standards based mainly on moving these engines from 2-stroke to 4-stroke technology. In addition, we proposed a second phase of standards for all-terrain vehicles that could require some catalyst use. For marine diesel engines, we proposed to extend our commercial marine diesel engine standards to diesel engines used on recreational vessels. These standards would phase in beginning in 2006. II. Public Health and Welfare Effects of Emissions From Covered Engines A. Background This proposal contains regulatory strategies to control evaporative emissions from marine vessels that use spark ignition engines. Spark-ignition marine vessels include vessels that use sterndrive and inboard engines as well as outboards and personal watercraft. Most of these vessels are recreational, but there are some commercial vessels that use spark-ignition engines as well. The standards we are proposing in this document for marine vessels may require changes to the fuel system or fuel tank. We are also proposing revised standards for highway motorcycles. The current HC and CO emission standards for highway motorcycles were set in 1978 and are based on 1970s technology. The proposed standards are harmonized to California's emission limits, but also include new requirements for under 50 cc motorcycles. Nationwide, marine vessels and on-highway motorcycles are an important source of mobile-source air pollution (see section II-C). We determined that marine vessels that use spark-ignition engines cause or contribute to ozone and carbon monoxide pollution in more than on nonattainment area in an action dated February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4600). These engines continue to contribute to these problems because they are primarily used in warm weather and therefore their HC, NO X , CO, and PM emissions contribute to ozone formation and ambient PM and CO levels, and because they are primarily used in marinas and commercial ports that are frequently located in nonattainment areas such as Chicago and New York. Evaporative emissions from marine vessels are also significant for similar reasons and because the emissions occur all the time rather than just when the engine is running. Similarly, on-highway motorcycles are typically used in warm, dry weather when their HC and NO X emissions are most likely to form ozone, thus adding to ground-level ozone levels and contributing to ozone nonattainment. We expect that implementation of the proposed standards would result in about a 50 percent reduction in HC emissions and NO X emissions from highway motorcycles in 2020. We expect that the proposed standards would result in about a 56 percent reduction in evaporative HC emissions from marine vessels using spark-ignition engines in 2020 (see Section VI below for more details). These emission reductions would reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, and fine particles, which is a health concern and contributes to visibility impairment. The standards would also reduce personal exposure for people who operate or who work with or are otherwise in close proximity to these engines and vehicles. As summarized below and described more fully in the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal, many types of hydrocarbons are air toxics. By reducing these emissions, the proposed standards would provide assistance to states facing ozone air quality problems, which can cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. States are required to develop plans to address visibility impairment in national parks, and the reductions proposed in this rule would assist states in those efforts. B. What Are the Public Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Emissions From Nonroad Engines and Motorcycles Subject to the Proposed Standards? Marine vessels that use spark-ignition engines and highway motorcycles generate emissions that contribute to ozone formation and ambient levels of PM, and air toxics. This section summarizes the general health effects of these pollutants. National inventory estimates are set out in Section II.C, and estimates of the expected impact of the proposed control programs are described in Section VI. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal for more in-depth discussions. 1. Health and Welfare Effects Associated with Ground Level Ozone and its Precursors Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NO X are precursors in the photochemical reaction which forms tropospheric ozone. Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by complex chemical reactions of VOCs and NO X in the presence of heat and sunlight. Hydrocarbons (HC) are a large subset of VOC, and to reduce mobile-source VOC levels we set maximum emissions limits for hydrocarbon and particulate matter emissions. A large body of evidence shows that ozone can cause harmful respiratory effects including chest pain, coughing, and shortness of breath, which affect people with compromised respiratory systems most severely. When inhaled, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate asthma; cause significant temporary decreases in lung function of 15 to over 20 percent in some healthy adults; cause inflammation of lung tissue; produce changes in lung tissue and structure; may increase hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and impair the body's immune system defenses, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses. Children and outdoor workers are likely to be exposed to elevated ambient levels of ozone during exercise and, therefore, are at a greater risk of experiencing adverse health effects. Beyond its human health effects, ozone has been shown to injure plants, which has the effect of reducing crop yields and reducing productivity in forest ecosystems. There is strong and convincing evidence that exposure to ozone is associated with exacerbation of asthma-related symptoms. Increases in ozone concentrations in the air have been associated with increases in hospitalization for respiratory causes for individuals with asthma, worsening of symptoms, decrements in lung function, and increased medication use, and chronic exposure may cause permanent lung damage. The risk of suffering these effects is particularly high for children and for people with compromised respiratory systems. Ground level ozone today remains a pervasive pollution problem in the United States. In 1999, 90.8 million people (1990 census) lived in 31 areas designated nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 7 This sharp decline from the 101 nonattainment areas originally identified under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 demonstrates the effectiveness of the last decade's worth of emission-control programs. However, elevated ozone concentrations remain a serious public health concern throughout the nation. 7 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA, 2001, at Table A-19. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd99/. The data from the Trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. II-A-64. Over the last decade, declines in ozone levels were found mostly in urban areas, where emissions are heavily influenced by controls on mobile sources and their fuels. Twenty-three metropolitan areas have realized a decline in ozone levels since 1989, but at the same time ozone levels in 11 metropolitan areas with 7 million people have increased. 8 Regionally, California and the Northeast have recorded significant reductions in peak ozone levels, while four other regions (the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the Central and Pacific Northwest) have seen ozone levels increase. 8 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, March, 2000, at 28. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/. The data from the Trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. II-A.-63. The highest ambient concentrations are currently found in suburban areas, consistent with downwind transport of emissions from urban centers. Concentrations in rural areas have risen to the levels previously found only in cities. Particularly relevant to this proposal, ozone levels at 17 of our National Parks have increased, and in 1998, ozone levels in two parks, Shenandoah National Park and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, were 30 to 40 percent higher than the ozone NAAQS over part of the last decade. 9 9 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, March, 2000, at 32. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/ . The data from the trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. II-A-63. To estimate future ozone levels, we refer to the modeling performed in conjunction with the final rule for our most recent heavy-duty highway engine and fuel standards. 10 We performed ozone air quality modeling for the entire Eastern U.S. covering metropolitan areas from Texas to the Northeast. 11 This ozone air quality model was based upon the same modeling system as was used in the Tier 2 air quality analysis, with the addition of updated inventory estimates for 2007 and 2030. The results of this modeling were examined for those 37 areas in the East for which EPA's modeling predicted exceedances in 2007, 2020, and/or 2030 and the current 1-hour design values are above the standard or within 10 percent of the standard. This photochemical ozone modeling for 2020 predicts exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard in 32 areas with a total of 89 million people (1999 census) after accounting for light- and heavy-duty on-highway control programs. 12 We expect the NO X and HC control strategies contained in this proposal for marine vessels that use spark-ignition engines and highway motorcycles will further assist state efforts already underway to attain and maintain the 1-hour ozone standard. 10 Additional information about this modeling can be found in our Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Contro Requirements, document EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents and in Docket No. 1-2000-01, Document No. II-A-13. 11 We also performed ozone air quality modeling for the western United States but, as described further in the air quality technical support document, model predictions were well below corresponding ambient concentrations for out heavy-duty engine standards and fuel sulfur control rulemaking. Because of poor model performance for this region of the country, the results of the Western ozone modeling were not relied on for that rule. 12 Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, US EPA, EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000, at II-14, Table II.A-2. Docket No. A-2000-01, Document Number II-A-13. This document is also available at http://www.epa.gpa.gov/otaq/diesel/htm#documents. In addition to the health effects described above, there exists a large body of scientific literature that shows that harmful effects can occur from sustained levels of ozone exposure much lower than 0.125 ppm. 13 Studies of prolonged exposures, those lasting about 7 hours, show health effects from prolonged and repeated exposures at moderate levels of exertion to ozone concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm. The health effects at these levels of exposure include transient pulmonary function responses, transient respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital and emergency room visits, and transient pulmonary respiratory inflammation. 13 Additional information about theses studies can be found in Chapter 2 of “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,” December 2000, EPA420-R-00-026. Docket No. A-2000-01, Document Number II-A-13. This document is also available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents. Prolonged and repeated ozone concentrations at these levels are common in areas throughout the country, and are found both in areas that are exceeding, and areas that are not exceeding, the 1-hour ozone standard. Areas with these high concentrations are more widespread than those in nonattainment for that 1-hour ozone standard. Monitoring data indicates that 334 counties in 33 states exceeded these levels in 1997-99. 14 The Agency's most recent photochemical ozone modeling forecast that 111 million people are predicted to live in areas that are at risk of exceeding these moderate ozone levels for prolonged periods of time in 2020 after accounting for expected inventory reductions due to controls on light- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles. 15 14 A copy of this data can be found in Air Docket A-2000-01, Document No. II-A-80. 15 Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric Ginsburg, EPA, “Summary of Model-Adjusted Ambient Concentrations for Certain Levels of Ground-Level Ozone over Prolonger Periods,” November 22, 2000, at Table C, Control Scenario—2020 Populations In Eastern Metropolitan Counties with Predicted Daily 8-Hour Ozone greater than or equal to 0.080 ppm. Docket A-2000-01, Document Number II-B-13. 2. Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Particulate Matter Highway motorcycles contribute to ambient particulate matter through direct emissions of particulate matter in the exhaust. Both marine vessels and highway motorcycles contribute to indirect formation of PM through their emissions of organic carbon, especially HC. Organic carbon accounts for between 27 and 36 percent of fine particle mass depending on the area of the country. Particulate matter represents a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase spanning several orders of magnitude in size. All particles equal to and less than 10 microns are called PM 10 . Fine particles can be generally defined as those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (also known as PM 2.5 ), and coarse fraction particles are those particles with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 microns, but equal to or less than a nominal 10 microns. Particulate matter, like ozone, has been linked to a range of serious respiratory health problems. Scientific studies suggest a likely causal role of ambient particulate matter (which is attributable to several of sources including mobile sources) in contributing to a series of health effects. The key health effects categories associated with ambient particulate matter include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), aggravated asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath. Observable human noncancer health effects associated with exposure to diesel PM include some of the same health effects reported for ambient PM such as respiratory symptoms (cough, labored breathing, chest tightness, wheezing), and chronic respiratory disease (cough, phlegm, chronic bronchitis and suggestive evidence for decreases in pulmonary function). Symptoms of immunological effects such as wheezing and increased allergenicity are also seen. Epidemiology studies have found an association between exposure to fine particles and such health effects as premature mortality or hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary disease. PM also causes adverse impacts to the environment. Fine PM is the major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States, including many of our national parks. Other environmental impacts occur when particles deposit onto soils, plants, water or materials. For example, particles containing nitrogen and sulphur that deposit on to land or water bodies may change the nutrient balance and acidity of those environments. Finally, PM causes soiling and erosion damage to materials, including culturally important objects such as carved monuments and statues. It promotes and accelerates the corrosion of metals, degrades paints, and deteriorates building materials such as concrete and limestone. The NAAQS for PM 10 were established in 1987. The most recent PM 10 monitoring data indicate that 14 designated PM 10 nonattainment areas with a projected population of 23 million violated the PM 10 NAAQS in the period 1997-99. In addition, there are 25 unclassifiable areas that have recently recorded ambient concentrations of PM 10 above the PM 10 NAAQS. 16 16 EPA adopted a policy in 1996 that allows areas with PM 10 exceedances that are attributable to natural events to retain their designation as unclassifiable if the State is taking all reasonable measures to safeguard public health regardless of the sources of PM 10 emissions. Current 1999 PM 2.5 monitored values, which cover about a third of the nation's counties, indicate that at least 40 million people live in areas where long-term ambient fine particulate matter levels are at or above 16 μg/m 3 (37 percent of the population in the areas with monitors). 17 According to our national modeled predictions, there were a total of 76 million people (1996 population) living in areas with modeled annual average PM 2.5 concentrations at or above 16 μg/m 3 (29 percent of the population). 18 This 16 μg/m 3 threshold is the low end of the range of long term average PM 2.5 concentrations in cities where statistically significant associations were found with serious health effects, including premature mortality. 19 17 Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, “Summary of 1999 Ambient Concentrations of Fine Particulate Matter,” November 15, 2000. Air Docket A-2000-01, Docket No. II-B-12. For information regarding estimates for future PM 2.5 levels, See information about the Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) and our modeling protocols, which can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Controls Requirements, document EPA 420-R-00-026, December 2000. Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. A-II-13. This document is also available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents. Also see Technical Memorandum, EPA Air Docket A-99-06, Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, OAQPs, Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model-Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years, December 6, 2000, Table P-2. Docket Number 2000-01, Document Number II-B-14. 18 Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, “Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model-Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years,” December 6, 2000. Air Docket A-2000-01, Docket No. II-B-14. 19 EPA (1996) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-96-013. Docket Number A-99-06, Documents Nos. II-A-18, 19, 20, and 23. The particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/partmatt.htm. We expect the PM reductions that result from control strategies contained in this proposal will further assist state efforts already underway to attain and maintain the PM NAAQS. 3. Health Effects Associated with Air Toxics In addition to the human health and welfare impacts described above, emissions from the engines covered by this proposal also contain several Mobile Source Air Toxics, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. 20 The health effects of these air toxics are described in more detail in Chapter 1 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this rule. Additional information can also be found in the Technical Support Document for our final Mobile Source Air Toxics rule. 21 The hydrocarbon controls contained in this proposal are expected to reduce exposure to air toxics and therefore may help reduce the impact of these engines on cancer and noncancer health effects. 20 EPA recently finalized a list of 21 Mobile Source Air Toxics, including VOCS, metals, and diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases (collectively DPM+DEOG). 66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001. 21 See our Mobile Source Air Toxics final rulemaking, 66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001, and the Technical Support Document for that rulemaking. Docket No. A-2000-01, Documents Nos. II-A-42 and II-A-30. C. What Is the Inventory Contribution of These Sources? The spark-ignition marine vessels and highway motorcycles that would be subject to the proposed standards contribute to the national inventories of pollutants that are associated with the health and public welfare effects described in Section II.B. To estimate nonroad engine and vehicle emission contributions, we used the latest version of our NONROAD emissions model. This model computes nationwide, state, and county emission levels for a wide variety of nonroad engines, and uses information on emission rates, operating data, and population to determine annual emission levels of various pollutants. Emission estimates for highway motorcycles were developed using information on the certification levels of current motorcycles and updated information on motorcycle use provided by the motorcycle industry. A more detailed description of the modeling and our estimation methodology can be found in the Chapter 6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. Baseline emission inventory estimates for the year 2000 for the marine vessels and highway motorcycles covered by this proposal are summarized in Table II.C-1. This table shows the relative contributions of the different mobile-source categories to the overall national mobile-source inventory. Of the total emissions from mobile sources, evaporative emissions from spark-ignition marine vessels contribute about 1.3 percent of HC. Highway motorcycles contribute about 1.1 percent, 0.1 percent, 0.4 percent, and 0.1 percent of HC, NO X , CO, and PM emissions, respectively, in the year 2000. Our draft emission projections for 2020 for the spark-ignition marine vessels and highway motorcycles that would be subject to the proposed standards show that emissions from these categories are expected to increase over time if left uncontrolled. The projections for 2020 are summarized in Table II.C-2 and indicate that the evaporative emissions from marine vessel are expected to contribute 1.8 percent of mobile source HC, and motorcycles are expected to contribute 2.3 percent, 0.2 percent, 0.6 percent, and 0.1 percent of mobile source HC, NO X , CO, and PM emissions in the year 2020. Population growth and the effects of other regulatory control programs are factored into these projections. Table II.C-1.—Modeled Annual Emission Levels for Mobile-Source Categories in 2000 [Thousand short tons] Category NO X Tons Percent of mobile source HC Tons Percent of mobile source CO Tons Percent of mobile source PM Tons Percent of mobile source Highway Motorcycles 8 0.1 35 0.5 331 0.4 0.4 0.1 Marine SI Evaporative 0 0.0 108 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marine SI Exhaust 32 0.2 708 9.6 2,144 2.8 38 5.4 Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW 306 2.3 247 3.2 2,294 3.0 1.6 0.2 Recreational SI 13 0.1 737 9.6 2,572 3.3 5.7 0.8 Recreation Marine CI 24 0.2 1 0.0 4 0.0 1 0.1 Nonroad SI < 19 kW 106 0.8 1,460 19.1 18,359 23.6 50 7.2 Nonroad CI 2,625 19.5 316 4.1 1,217 1.6 253 36.2 Commercial Marine CI 977 7.3 30 0.4 129 0.2 41 5.9 Locomotive 1,192 8.9 47 0.6 119 0.2 30 4.3 Total Nonroad 5,275 39 3,646 48 26,838 35 420 60 Total Highway 7,981 59 3,811 50 49,813 64 240 34 Aircraft 178 1 183 2 1,017 1 39 6 Total Mobile Sources 13,434 100 7,640 100 77,668 100 699 100 Total Man-Made Sources 24,538 18,586 99,747 3,095 Mobile Source percent of Total Man-Made Sources 55% 41% 78% 23% Table II.C-2.—Modeled Annual Emission Levels for Mobile-Source Categories in 2020 [Thousand short tons] Category NO X Tons Percent of mobile source HC Tons Percent of mobile source CO Tons Percent of mobile source PM Tons Percent of mobile source Highway Motorcycles 14 0.2 58 0.9 572 0.6 0.8 0.1 Marine SI Evaporative 0 0.0 114 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marine SI Exhaust 58 0.9 284 4.6 1,985 2.2 28 4.4 Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW 486 7.8 348 5.6 2,991 3.3 2.4 0.4 Recreational SI 27 0.4 1,706 27.7 5,407 3.3 7.5 1.2 Recreation Marine CI 39 0.6 1 0.0 6 0.0 1.5 0.2 Nonroad SI < 19 kW 106 1.7 986 16.0 27,352 30.5 77 12.2 Nonroad CI 1,791 28.8 142 2.3 1,462 1.6 261 41.3 Commercial Marine CI 819 13.2 35 0.6 160 0.2 46 7.3 Locomotive 611 9.8 35 0.6 119 0.1 21 3.3 Total Nonroad 3,937 63 3,651 59 39,482 44 444 70 Total Highway 2,050 33 2,276 37 48,906 54 145 23 Aircraft 232 4 238 4 1,387 2 43 7 Total Mobile Sources 6,219 100 6,165 100 89,775 100 632 100 Total Man-Made Sources 16,195 16,234 113,443 3,016 Mobile Source percent of Total Man-Made Sources 38% 38% 79% 21% III. Evaporative Emission Control From Boats A. Overview Evaporative emissions refer to hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere when gasoline, or other volatile fuels, evaporate from a fuel system. These emissions come from four primary mechanisms: hot soak, diurnal heating, vapor displacement during refueling, and permeation from tanks and hoses. Hot soak emissions occur when fuel evaporates from hot engine surfaces such as parts of the carburetor as a result of engine operation. These are minimal on fuel-injected engines. Control of hot soak emissions involves the engine manufacturer rather than the tank manufacturer. Currently, most fuel tanks in boats are vented to atmosphere through vent hoses. Diurnal emissions, which represent about 20 percent of the evaporative emissions from boats, occur as the fuel in the tank and fuel lines heats up due to increases in ambient temperature. As the fuel heats, it forms hydrocarbon vapor which is vented to the atmosphere. Refueling emissions are vapors that are displaced from the fuel tank to the atmosphere when fuel is dispensed into the tank and only represent a small portion of the total evaporative emissions. Permeation refers to when fuel penetrates the material used in the fuel system and is most common through plastic fuel tanks and rubber hoses. This permeation makes up the majority of the evaporative emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. Table III.A-1 presents our national estimates of the evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from boats using spark-ignition engines for 2000. Table III.A-1.—Estimated Evaporative Emissions From Tanks/Hoses in 2000 Evaporative emission component HC [tons] Diurnal breathing losses 22,700 Permeation through the fuel tank 26,600 Permeation through hoses 43,200 Refueling vapor displacement 6,700 Hot Soak 260 Total evaporative emissions 100,000 This section describes the new provisions proposed for 40 CFR part 1045, which would apply only to boat manufacturers and fuel system component manufacturers. This section also discusses proposed test equipment and procedures (for anyone who tests fuel tanks and hoses to show they meet emission standards) and proposed general compliance provisions (for boat manufacturers, fuel system component manufacturers, operators, repairers, and others). We are proposing performance standards intended to reduce permeation and diurnal evaporative emissions from boats using spark-ignition engines. The proposed standards, which would apply to new boats starting in 2008, are nominally based on manufacturers reducing these sources of evaporative emissions by about 80 percent overall. Because of the many small businesses that manufacture boats and fuel tanks, we are proposing a flexible compliance program that is intended to help minimize the burden of meeting the proposed requirements. Based on a database maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard, we estimate that there are nearly 1,700 boat builders producing boats that use engines for propulsion. At least 1,200 of these boat builders install gasoline-fueled engines and would therefore be subject to the evaporative emission-control program discussed below. Our understanding is that more than 90 percent of the boat builders identified so far would be considered small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration for SIC code 3732. Some of these boat builders construct their own fuel tanks either out of aluminum or fiberglass reinforced plastic. However, the majority of fuel tanks used by boat builders are purchased from fuel tank manufacturers. We have determined that fuel tank manufacturers sell approximately 550,000 fuel tanks per year for gasoline storage on boats. The market is divided into manufacturers that produce plastic tanks and manufacturers that produce aluminum tanks. We have identified nine companies that make plastic marine fuel tanks with total sales of approximately 440,000 units per year. Of these plastic tanks, about 20 percent are portable while the rest are installed. We have determined that there are at least five companies that make aluminum marine fuel tanks with total sales of approximately 110,000 units per year. All but one of the fuel tank manufacturers that we have identified are small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration for SIC Code 3713. Our understanding is that there are four primary manufacturers of marine hose used in fuel supply lines and venting. At least two of these four manufacturers produce hoses for other transportation sources as well and already supply low permeation hoses that would meet our proposed standards. Only one U.S. manufacturer of fill neck hose has been identified. The rest is shipped from overseas. B. Boats/Fuel Systems Covered by This Proposal Generally speaking, this proposed rule would cover the fuel systems of all new marine vessels with spark-ignition (SI) engines. We include boats and fuel systems that are used in the United States, whether they are made domestically or imported. In the ANPRM, we discussed exhaust and evaporative emissions from boats using only sterndrive or inboard engines. As discussed later in Section IV, we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for these engines at this time. We are, however, proposing to expand the scope of the evaporative emission standards discussed in the ANPRM, because we see no significant technological differences between fuel tanks and hoses used for sterndrive or inboard engines and those used for other SI marine engines. In fact, fuel tank and hose manufacturers often sell their products without knowing what type of marine engine will be used with it. 1. Why Does This Apply Only to Marine Vessels Using Spark-Ignition Engines? Spark-ignition marine engines generally use gasoline fuel while compression-ignition marine engines generally use diesel fuel. We are proposing evaporative emission standards only for boats using spark-ignition engines because diesel fuel has low volatility and, therefore, does not evaporate readily. In fact, the evaporative emissions from boats using diesel fuel are already significantly lower than standards we are proposing for boats using spark-ignition marine engines. 2. Would the Proposed Standards Apply to All Vessels Using SI Engines or Only to New Vessels? 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 vessels. Once the emission standards apply to these vessels, individuals or companies must get a certificate of conformity from us before selling them in the United States. This includes importation and any other means of introducing engines and vehicles into commerce. The certificate of conformity (and corresponding label) provide assurance that manufacturers have met their obligation to make engines that meet emission standards over the useful life we specify in the regulations. 3. How Do I Know if My Vessel Is New? We are proposing to define “new” consistent with previous rules. Under the proposed definition, a vessel is considered new until its title has been transferred to the ultimate purchaser or the vessel has been placed into service. Imported vessels would also be considered to be new. 4. When Would Imported Vessels Need to Meet the Proposed Emission Standards? The proposed emissions standards would apply to all new vessels in the United States. According to Clean Air Act section 216, “new” includes vessels that are imported by any person, whether freshly manufactured or used. All vessels imported for introduction into commerce would need an EPA-issued certificate of conformity to clear customs, with limited exemptions (as described below). Any marine vessel built after these emission standards take effect and subsequently imported into the U.S. would be a new vessel for the purpose of the regulations proposed in this document. This means it would need to comply with the applicable emission standards. For example, a marine vessel manufactured in a foreign country in 2004, then imported into the United States in 2008, would be considered “new.” This provision is important to prevent manufacturers from avoiding emission standards by building vessels abroad, transferring their title, and then importing them as used vessels. 5. Would the Proposed Standards Apply to Exported Vessels? Vessels intended for export would generally not be subject to the requirements of the proposed emission-control program. However, vessels that are exported and subsequently re-imported into the United States would need to be certified. 6. Are There Any New Vessels That Would Not Be Covered? We are proposing to extend our basic nonroad exemptions to the engines and vehicles 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 under Section III.E.3. In addition, the Clean Air Act does not consider vessels used solely for competition to be nonroad vehicles, so they are exempt from meeting the proposed emission standards. C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Requirements Our general goal in designing the proposed standards is to develop a program that will achieve significant emission reductions. The standards are designed to “achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology the Administrator determines will be available for the engines or vehicles to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of applying such technology within the period of time available to manufacturers and to noise, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such technology.” Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act also instructs us to first consider standards equivalent in stringency to standards for comparable motor vehicles or engines (if any) regulated under section 202, taking into consideration technological feasibility, costs, and other factors. 1. What are the Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards? We are proposing to require reductions in diurnal emissions, fuel tank permeation, and fuel system hose permeation from new vessels beginning in 2008. The proposed standards are presented in Table III.C-1 and represent more than a 25 percent reduction in diurnal emissions and a 95 percent reduction in permeation from both plastic fuel tanks and from hoses. Section III.F.1 presents the test procedures associated with these proposed standards. Test temperatures are presented in Table III.C-1 because they represent an important parameter in defining the emission levels. The proposed fuel tank venting and permeation standards are based on the total capacity of the fuel tank as described below. The proposed hose permeation standards are based on the inside surface area of the hose. We are not proposing standards for hot soak and refueling emissions, as described above, at this time. Table III. C-1.—Proposed Evaporative Standards Evaporative emission component Proposed emission standard Test temperature Diurnal Venting 1.1 g/gallon/day 22.2-35.6°C (72-96°F) Fuel tank permeation 0.08 g/gallon/day 40°C (104°F) Hose permeation 5 g/m 2 /day (15 g/m 2 /day with 15% methanol blend) 23°C (73°F) The proposed emission standards are based on our evaluation of several fuel system technologies (described in Section III.H) which vary in cost and in efficiency. The proposed implementation date gives manufacturers about five years to comply after we expect to issue final standards . As discussed in more detail in Section III.H.1, this would help minimize costs by allowing fuel tank manufacturers time to implement controls in their tanks as designs normally turnover as opposed to forcing turnover premature to normal business practice. There are a multiplicity of tank sizes and shapes produced every year and the cost and efficiency of the available emission-control technologies will vary with these different configurations. In determining the proposed standards, we considered costs and focused on straightforward approaches that could potentially be used by all businesses. As discussed in Section H.3, we believe that the approaches in this proposal would comply with U.S. Coast Guard safety requirements for fuel systems. Given all this, in the 2008 time frame, we believe an average reduction of at least 80 percent in total evaporative emissions from new boats can be achieved, considering the availability and cost of technology, lead time, noise, energy and safety. We request comment on the proposed standards and implementation dates, on the units used for the fuel tank permeation standards ( i.e. g/gallon/day versus g/m 2 /day), and on the certification provisions discussed below. We are also interested in comments regarding the cost of implementing the proposed standards. Commenters are encouraged to provide specific data when possible. 2. Will Averaging, Banking and Trading Be Allowed Across a Manufacturer's Product Line? An emission-credit program is an important factor we take into consideration in setting emission standards that are appropriate under Clean Air Act section 213. An emission-credit program can reduce the cost and improve the technological feasibility of achieving standards, helping to ensure the attainment of the standards earlier than would otherwise be possible. Manufacturers gain flexibility in product planning and the opportunity for a more cost-effective introduction of product lines meeting a new standard. Emission-credit programs also create an incentive for the early introduction of new technology, which would allow certain vessels to be used to evaluate new technology. This can provide valuable information to manufacturers on the technology before they apply it throughout their product line. This early introduction of lower-emitting technology improves the feasibility of achieving the standards and can provide valuable information for use in other regulatory programs that may benefit from similar technologies. Emission-credit programs may involve averaging, banking, and trading (ABT). Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one or more products at an emission level less stringent than the applicable emission standard, as long as the increased emissions are offset by products certified to a level more stringent than the applicable standard. The over-complying products generate credits that can be used by the under-complying products. Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions basis to account for differences in production volume and tank sizes among emission families. The average of all emissions for a particular manufacturer's production must be at or below that level of the applicable emission standard. Early banking allows a manufacturer to certify early and generate credits for modifying their fuel system to the 2008 compliance strategy. In 2008 and later, the banking program would allow a manufacturer to generate credits and retain them for future use. Trading involves the sale of banked credits from one company to another. We believe there is a variety of technology options that could be used to meet the proposed standards for diurnal emissions. By using different combinations of these technologies, manufacturers will be able to produce products that achieve a range of emission reductions. However, certain technologies may be more appropriate for different applications. In some cases, manufacturers may need flexibility in applying the emission-control technology to their products. For this reason, we are proposing that the 1.1 g/gallon/day diurnal emission standard be based a corporate average of a manufacturer's total production. To meet this average level, manufacturers would be able to divide their fuel tanks into different emission families and certify each of their emission families to a different Family Emissions Level (FEL). The FELs would then be weighted by sales volume and fuel tank capacity to determine the average level across a manufacturer's total production. An additional benefit of a corporate average approach is that it provides an incentive for developing new technology that can be used to achieve even larger emission reductions. Participation in the ABT program would be voluntary. Any manufacturer could choose to certify each of its evaporative emission control families at levels which would meet the 1.1 g/gallon/day proposed standard and would then comply with the average by default. Some manufacturers may choose this approach as the could see it as less complicated to implement. The following is an example of how the proposed averaging program for diurnal emissions could give a boat manufacturer flexibility in its production. Suppose a boat builder was selling 10 boats, three with 100-gallon fuel tanks and seven with 50-gallon fuel tanks. In this case, the boat builder constructs its own fuel tanks believes that an open-vent configuration without any emission control is necessary for the vessel application using the 100 gallon tanks. However, the manufacturer is able to use closed-vent fuel tanks with a 2.0 psi pressure relief valve in the smaller fuel tanks. Using the design certification levels described in Section III..F.3, the 100 gallon fuel tanks would have an FEL of 1.5 g/gallon/day and the 50 gallon fuel tanks would have an FEL of 0.7 g/gallon/day. The manufacturer would generate debits for the three boats with 100 gallon fuel tanks using the following equation: Debits = (1.5 g/gallon−1.1 g/gallon) × 3 tanks × 100 gallon/tank = 120 g The manufacturer would need to use credits to cover these debits. The boats certified using a closed vent with a 2.0 psi pressure relief valve in this example would generate the following credits: Credits = (1.1 g/gallon−0.7 g/gallon) × 7 tanks × 50 gallon/tank = 140 g Because the credits are larger than the debits in this example, the boat builder would meet the proposed corporate average standard by certifying these ten boats. We also propose to allow manufacturers to bank and trade emission credits. We are proposing that emission credits generated under this program have no expiration, with no discounting applied. The credits would belong to the entity that certifies the fuel tank. In the above example, the manufacturer would have 20 grams of credits (140 g−120 g = 20 g) that it could bank, either for trading or for later model year averaging. Beginning in 2004, we propose to allow early banking for diurnal evaporative emissions. Under this program, manufacturers generate early credits in 2004 through 2007 for adding new evaporative emission control technology which would reduce diurnal emissions. These credits could be banked and then used in 2008 and later. As a precaution against creating an opportunity for windfall credits to be generated from fuel systems already below the average baseline level we would only allow credits to be generated below the proposed standard. The following is an example of how early emission credits could be generated. In this example, a boat builder sells 20 boats in the 2004 to 2007 time period, each with a 50 gallon fuel tank. If this boat builder decided to sell one boat per year with a sealed tank and a 1.5 psi pressure relief valve (0.9 g/gallon/test), the boat builder would be able to generate emission credits using the following equation: Credits = (1.1 g/gallon−0.9 g/gallon/test) × 4 tanks × 50 gallon/tank = 40 g Over this time period, the boat builder would not generate any emission debits. Therefore, the boat builder would have 40 grams of credits that it could use in 2008 and later. We request comment on the proposed ABT program for diurnal emissions. We are supportive of the concept of ABT in general. An ABT program can reduce cost and improve technological feasibility, and provide manufacturers with additional product planning flexibility. This allows EPA to consider emissions standards with the most appropriate level of stringency and lead time, as well as providing an incentive for the early introduction of new technology. However, while we are open to the idea of including the program in the rule, we are not at this time proposing to allow ABT for meeting the proposed fuel tank and hose permeation standards. In preliminary discussions, manufacturers indicated a desire to meet requirements directly rather than using an ABT concept. From EPA's perspective including an ABT program in the rule creates a long-term administrative burden that is not worth taking on if the industry does not intend to take advantage of the flexibility. While we believe that all fuel tanks and fuel hoses can meet the proposed permeation standards using straight forward technology as discussed in Section III.H, industry may find value in an early banking program, especially for fuel tanks. Under this concept, industry could certify some tanks early in exchange for time to delay some tanks. This could potentially be done on a one-on-one basis, or perhaps on a volumetric exchange basis. In addition, we do not preclude the value of an averaging and trading program as a compliance flexibility to meet the proposed permeation standards which represent a 95 percent reduction in permeation. We request comment on whether we should adopt an ABT program for hose and fuel tank permeation emissions. 3. Would These Standards Apply to Portable Fuel Tanks as Well? For personal watercraft and most boats using SD/I or large outboard engines, the fuel tanks are permanently mounted in the vessel. However, small boats using outboard engines may have portable fuel tanks that can be removed from the boat and stored elsewhere. Because these fuel tanks are not sold as part of a boat, we would not require boat builders that use only portable fuel tanks to certify to the proposed evaporative emission standards described above for fuel tanks. The fuel tank manufacturer would have to certify to the fuel tank diurnal and permeation standards. For this purpose, we would consider a portable fuel tank to be one that is not permanently mounted on the boat, has a handle, and has no more than 12 gallons of fuel capacity. Portable fuel tanks generally have a quick-connect that is used to detach the fuel line between the engine and tank. Once the fuel line is detached, this quick-connect will close. In addition, these tanks generally have a valve that either closes automatically when the tank is disconnected from the engine or a valve that can be closed by the user which will prevent vapors from escaping from the tank when it is stored. We propose to allow design-based certification of portable fuel tanks to the diurnal emission standard based on the criteria that they seal automatically when the tank is disconnected from the engine and that they meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standard. We believe that the diurnal emissions from a typical portable fuel tank would be well below the proposed standard provided that it is sealed when not in use. Because the emission control depends on user practices, (such as disconnecting the tank after use) we propose not allowing any credits to be generated for diurnal emissions. We request comment on allowing design-based certification of portable fuel tanks that have valves that must be closed by the user. 4. Is EPA Proposing Voluntary “Blue Sky” Emissions Standards? Several state and environmental groups and manufacturers of emissions controls have supported our efforts to develop incentive programs to encourage the use of emission control technologies that go beyond federal emission standards. In the final rule for land-based nonroad diesel engines, we included a program of voluntary standards for low-emitting engines, referring to these as “Blue Sky Series” engines (63 FR 56967, October 23, 1998). Since then, we have included similar programs in several of our other nonroad rules. The general purposes of such programs are to provide incentives to manufacturers to produce clean products as well as create market choices and opportunities for environmental information for consumers regarding such products. The voluntary aspects of these programs, which in part provides an incentive for manufacturers willing to certify their products to more stringent standards than necessary, is an important part of the overall application of “Blue Sky Series” programs. We are proposing a voluntary Blue Sky Series standard for diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. Under this proposal we are targeting close to a 95-percent reduction in diurnal evaporative emissions beyond the proposed mandatory diurnal emission standards as a qualifying level for Blue Sky fuel tanks. The proposed Blue Sky standard is 0.1 g/gallon/day, which, as discussed in Section III.F.3, could be met through the use of technologies such as a low permeation bladder fuel tank. Creating a voluntary standard for low diurnal emissions will be an important step in advancing emission control technology. While these are voluntary standards, they become binding on tanks produced under that certificate once a manufacturer chooses to participate. EPA certification will therefore provide protection against false claims of environmentally beneficial products. A manufacturer choosing to certify a fuel tank under this approach must comply with all the proposed certification requirements including useful life, warranty, and other general compliance provisions. This program would become effective when we finalize this rule. For the program to be most effective, however, incentives should also be in place to motivate the production and sale of lower emitting fuel tanks. We solicit ideas that could encourage the creation and use of these incentive programs by users and state and local governments. We believe it is important that such incentive programs lead to a net benefit to the environment; therefore, we are proposing that fuel tanks with the Blue Sky designation not generate extra ABT credits for demonstrating compliance with this proposed standard. We also request comment on additional measures we could take to encourage development and introduction of low emission control technology. Finally, we request comment on the Blue Sky approach in general as it would apply to marine fuel tanks. 5. What Is Consumer-Choice Labeling? California ARB has recently proposed consumer/environmental label requirements for outboard and personal watercraft engines. Under this approach, manufacturers would label their engines or vehicles based on their certified emission level. California has proposed three different labels to differentiate varying degrees of emission control—one for meeting the EPA 2006 standard, one for being 20 percent lower, and one for being 65 percent below. More detail on this concept is provided in the docket. 22 22 “Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Spark-Ignition Marine Engine Regulations,” Mail Out #MSC 99-15, June 22, 1999 (Docket A-2000-01, Document II-A-27). We are considering a similar approach to labeling the vessels subject to this proposal. This would apply especially to consumer products. Consumer-choice labeling would give people the opportunity to consider varying emission levels as a factor in choosing specific models. This may also give the manufacturer an incentive to produce more of their cleaner models. A difficulty in designing a labeling program is in creating a scheme that communicates information clearly and simply to consumers. Also, some are concerned that other organizations could use the labeling provisions to mandate certain levels of emission control, rather than relying on consumer choice as a market-based incentive. We request comment on this approach for marine vessels. D. Demonstrating Compliance 1. How Would I Certify My Products? We are proposing to apply our emission standards to vessels, but allow certification of fuel tanks and hoses separately. For both cases, we are proposing a certification process similar to our existing program for other mobile sources. In the existing program, manufacturers test representative prototype designs and submit the emission data along with other information to EPA in an application for a Certificate of Conformity. As discussed in Section III.F.3, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to certify based on either design (for which there is data) or emissions testing. If we approve the application, then the manufacturer's Certificate of Conformity allows the manufacturer to produce and sell the vessels or fuel systems described in the application in the U.S. We are proposing that manufacturers certify their vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses by grouping them into emission families. Under this approach, vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses systems 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. To address a manufacturer's unique product mix, we may approve using broader or narrower emission families. Once an emission family is certified, we would require every vessel, fuel tank, or hose a manufacturer produces from the emission family to have a label with basic identifying information. The proposed regulation text details the proposed requirements for design and content of the labels. We request comment on this approach. 2. Who Will be Responsible for Certifying the Vessel or Fuel System? Every boat powered by a spark-ignition marine engine and every portable fuel tank would have to be covered by an emissions certificate (or separate certificates for fuel tanks and hoses). The proposed regulations require that compliance to the emission standards must be demonstrated before the sale of the boat (or tank, in the case of portable fuel tanks). However, to allow additional flexibility in complying with standards, we propose to allow tank and hose manufacturers to certify their product lines separately. Therefore, if a boat builder were to use certified fuel tanks and hoses, the boat builder could rely on the tank and hose manufacturers' certificates. The boat builder would only need to state that they are using components that, combined, will meet the proposed standard and properly install the fuel system. We request comment on this approach. 3. How Long Would My Vessel or Fuel System Have To Comply? Manufacturers would be required to build vessels that meet the emission standards over each vessel's useful life. The useful life we adopt by regulation is intended to reflect the period during which vessels are designed to properly function without being remanufactured. We propose a regulatory useful life of ten years for marine evaporative emission control. This is consistent with the regulatory useful life for outboard marine engines. We use the same useful life based on the belief that engines and boats are intended to have the same design life. We request comment on the proposed useful life requirement. 4. What Warranty Requirements Apply to Certified Vessels and Fuel Systems? Consistent with our current emission-control programs, we are proposing that manufacturers provide a design and defect warranty covering emission-related components. For marine vessels, we propose that the fuel systems be warranted for five years for the emission related components. The proposed regulations would require that the warranty period must be longer than this minimum period we specify if the manufacturer offers a longer warranty for the fuel system or any of its components; this includes extended warranties on the fuel system or any of its components that are available for an extra price. See the proposed regulation language for a description of which components are emission-related. We request comment on whether the warranty provisions should apply only to the certificate holder or to all manufacturers of the fuel system components used by the certificate holder. If an operator makes a valid warranty claim for an emission-related component during the warranty period, the manufacturer is generally obligated to replace the component at no charge to the operator. The manufacturer may deny warranty claims if the operator failed to do prescribed maintenance that contributed to the warranty claim. We are also proposing a defect reporting requirement that applies separate from the emission-related warranty (see Section III.E.6). In general, defect reporting applies when a manufacturer discovers a pattern of component failures, whether that information comes from warranty claims, voluntary investigation of product quality, or other sources. We request comment on the proposed warranty and defect reporting requirements. E. General Compliance Provisions This section describes a wide range of compliance provisions that would apply to marine vessels (or fuel tanks or hoses as appropriate) and are the same as those recently proposed for the nonroad engines September 2001 ( see 66 FR 51098). Several of these provisions apply not only to manufacturers, but also to operators, and others. The following discussion of the general compliance provisions reflects the organization of the proposed regulatory text. For ease of reference, the subpart designations are provided. We request comment on all these provisions. 1. Miscellaneous Provisions (Part 1068, Subpart A) This proposed regulation contains some general provisions, including general applicability and the definitions that apply to 40 CFR part 1068. Other provisions concern good engineering judgment, how we would handle confidential information; how the EPA Administrator delegates decision-making authority; and when we may inspect a manufacturer's facilities, vessels, or records. The process of testing for evaporative emissions (or certifying based on design) and preparing an application for certification requires the manufacturer to make a variety of judgments. Section 1068.5 of the proposed regulations describes the methodology we propose to use to evaluate concerns related to manufacturers' use of good engineering judgment in cases where the manufacturer has such discretion. If we find a problem in these areas, we would take into account the degree to which any error in judgment was deliberate or in bad faith. This subpart is consistent with provisions in the final rule for light-duty highway vehicles and commercial marine diesel engines. 2. Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements (Part 1068, Subpart B) The proposed provisions in this subpart lay out a set of prohibitions for manufacturers and operators to ensure that vessels comply with the emission standards. These provisions are summarized below, but readers are encouraged to review the proposed regulatory text. These provisions are intended to help ensure that each new vessel or portable tank sold or otherwise entered into commerce in the United States is certified to the relevant standards. a. General prohibitions (§ 1068.100). This proposed regulation contains several prohibitions consistent with the Clean Air Act. Under this proposal, no one may sell a vessel or portable fuel tank in the United States without a valid certificate of conformity issued by EPA, deny us access to relevant records, or keep us from entering a facility to test or inspect vessels or fuel system components. In addition, no one may remove or disable a device or design element that may affect an vessel's emission levels, or manufacture any device that will make emission controls ineffective, which we would consider tampering. We have generally applied the existing policies developed for tampering with highway engines and vehicles to nonroad engines. 23 Other proposed prohibitions reinforce manufacturers' obligations to meet various certification requirements. We would also prohibit selling parts that prevent emission-control systems from working properly. Finally, for vessels that are excluded for certain applications (i.e. solely for competition), we would generally prohibit using these vessels in other applications. 23 “Interim Tampering Enforcement Policy,” EPA memorandum from Norman D. Shulter, Office of General Counsel, June 25, 1974 (Docket A-2000-01; document II-B20). These proposed prohibitions are the same as those that apply to other applications we have regulated in previous rules. Each prohibited act has a corresponding maximum penalty as specified in Clean Air Act section 205. As provided for in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 10-410, these maximum penalties are in 1970 dollars and should be periodically adjusted by regulation to account for inflation. The current penalty amount for each violation is $27,500. 24 24 EPA acted to adjust the maximum penalty amount in 1996 (61 FR 69364, December 31, 1996). See also 40 CFR part 19. b. In-service systems (§ 1068.110). The proposed regulations would prevent manufacturers from requiring owners to use any certain brand of aftermarket parts and give the manufacturer responsibility for servicing related to emissions warranty, leaving the responsibility for all other maintenance with the owner. This proposed regulation would also reserve our right to do testing (or require testing) to investigate potential defeat devices, as authorized by the Act. 3. Exemptions (Part 1068, Subpart C) We are proposing to include several exemptions for certain specific situations. Most of these are consistent with previous rules. We highlight the new or different proposed provisions in the following paragraphs. In general, exempted vessels would need to comply with the requirements only in the sections related to the exemption. Note that additional restrictions could apply to importing exempted vessels ( see Section III.E.4). Also, we are also proposing that we may require manufacturers (or importers) to add a permanent label describing that the vessel or fuel system component is exempt from emission standards for a specific purpose. In addition to helping us enforce emission standards, this would help ensure that imported vessels clear U.S. Customs without difficulty. a. Testing. Anyone would be allowed to request an exemption for vessels or fuel system components used only for research or other investigative purposes. b. Manufacturer-owned vessels and fuel systems. Vessels and fuel system components that are used by manufacturers for development or marketing purposes could be exempted from regulation if they are maintained in the manufacturers' possession and are not used for any revenue-generating service. They would no longer be exempt if they were later offered for sale. c. Display vessels or fuel systems. Boat builders and fuel system component manufacturers would get an exemption if the vessels or fuel systems are for display only. They would no longer be exempt if they were later offered for sale. d. National security. Manufacturers could receive an exemption for vessels or portable fuel tanks they can show are needed by an agency of the federal government responsible for national defense. For cases where the vessels will not be used on combat applications, the manufacturer would have to request the exemption with the endorsement of the procuring government agency. e. Exported vessels. Vessels and portable fuel tanks that will be exported to countries that don't have the same emission standards as those that apply in the United States would be exempted without need for a request. This exemption would not be available if the destination country has the same emission standards as those in the United States. f. Competition vessels. New vessels that are used solely for competition are excluded from regulations applicable to nonroad equipment. For purposes of our certification requirements, a manufacturer would receive an exemption if it can show that it produces the vessel specifically for use solely in competition. In addition, vessels that have been modified for use in competition would be exempt from the prohibition against tampering described above (without need for request). The literal meaning of the term “used solely for competition” would apply for these modifications. We would therefore not allow the vessel to be used for anything other than competition once it has been modified. This also applies to someone who would later buy the vessel, so we would require the person modifying the vessel to remove or deface the original label and inform a subsequent buyer in writing of the conditions of the exemption. The exemption would no longer apply. 4. Imports (Part 1068, Subpart D) In general, the same certification requirements would apply to vessels whether they are produced in the U.S. or are imported. This proposed regulation also includes some additional provisions that would apply if someone wants to import an exempted or excluded vessel. For example, the importer would need written approval from us to import any exempted vessel; this is true even if an exemption for the same reason doesn't require approval for vessels produced in the U.S. All the proposed exemptions described above for new vessels would also apply to importation, though some of these apply only on a temporary basis. If we approve a temporary exemption, it would be available only for a defined period and could require the importer to post bond while the vessel is in the U.S. There are several additional proposed exemptions that would apply only to imported vessels. — Identical configuration: This would be a permanent exemption to allow individuals to import vessels that were designed and produced to meet applicable emission standards. These vessels may not have the emission label only because they were not intended for sale in the United States. — Repairs or alterations: This would be a temporary exemption to allow companies to repair or modify vessels. — Diplomatic or military: This would be a temporary exemption to allow diplomatic or military personnel to use uncertified vessels during their term of service in the U.S. We request comment on all the proposed exemptions for domestically produced and imported vessels. 5. Selective Enforcement Audit (Part 1068, Subpart E) Clean Air Act section 206(b) gives us the authority and discretion in any program with vehicle or engine emission standards to do selective enforcement auditing of production vessels and fuel systems. The proposed regulation text describes the audit procedures in greater detail. We intend generally to rely on inspecting manufacturers' designs to ensure they comply with emission standards. However, we would reserve our right to do selective enforcement auditing if we have reason to question the emission testing conducted or data reported by the manufacturer. 6. Defect Reporting and Recall (Part 1068, Subpart F) We are proposing provisions for defect reporting. Specifically, we are proposing that manufacturers tell us when they learn of a defect occurring 25 times or more for emission families with annual sales up to 10,000 units. This threshold of defects would increase proportionately for larger families. While these thresholds would depend on sales, counting defects would not be limited to a single emission family. For example, if a manufacturer learns that operators reported 25 cases of problems with a limiting orifice from three different low-volume models spread over five years, that would trigger the need to file a defect report. This information could come from warranty claims, customer complaints, product performance surveys, or anywhere else. The proposed regulation language in § 1068.501 also provides information on the thresholds for triggering a further investigation for where a defect report is more likely to be necessary. We request comment on the proposed defect reporting provisions. Under Clean Air Act section 207, if we determine that a substantial number of vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses within an emission family, although properly used and maintained, do not conform to the appropriate emission standards, the manufacturer will be required to remedy the problem and conduct a recall of the noncomplying emission family. However, we also recognize the practical difficulty in implementing an effective recall program for marine vessels. It would likely be difficult to properly identify all the affected owners. The response rate for affected owners or operators to an emission-related recall notice is also a critical issue to consider. We recognize that in some cases, recalling noncomplying marine vessels may not achieve sufficient environmental protection, so our intent is to generally allow manufacturers to nominate alternative remedial measures to address most potential noncompliance situations. We expect that successful implementation of appropriate alternative remediation would obviate the need for us to make findings of substantial nonconformity under section 207 of the Act. We would consider alternatives nominated by a manufacturer based on the following criteria; the alternatives should— (1) Represent a new initiative that the manufacturer was not otherwise planning to perform at that time, with a clear connection to the emission problem demonstrated by the emission family in question; (2) Cost more than foregone compliance costs and consider the time value of the foregone compliance costs and the foregone environmental benefit of the emission family; (3) Offset at least 100 percent of the emission exceedance relative to that required to meet emission standards; and (4) Be possible to implement effectively and expeditiously and to complete in a reasonable time. These criteria would guide us in evaluating projects to determine whether their nature and burden is appropriate to remedy the environmental impact of the nonconformity. However, in no way would the consideration of such a provision diminish our statutory authority to direct a recall if that is deemed the best course of action. We request comment on this approach to addressing the Clean Air Act provisions related to recall. In addition, we request comment on the proposed requirement to keep recall-related records until three years after a manufacturer completes all responsibilities under a recall order. 7. Public Hearings (Part 1068, Subpart G) According to this regulation, manufacturers would have the opportunity to challenge our decision to suspend, revoke, or void an emission family's certificate. This also applies to our decision to reject the manufacturer's use of good engineering judgment (see § 1068.5). Part 1068, subpart G describes the proposed procedures for a public hearing to resolve such a dispute. F. Proposed Testing Requirements In order to obtain a certificate allowing sale of products meeting EPA emission standards, manufacturers generally must show compliance with such standards through emission testing. 40 CFR part 86 details specifications for test equipment and procedures that apply to highway vehicle evaporative emission testing. We propose to base the SI marine evaporative emission test procedures on this part. However, we propose to modify this test procedure somewhat to more accurately reflect the anticipated technology for meeting the evaporative emission standards proposed in this rule. We are also proposing design-based certification as an alternative to performing specific testing. 1. What Are the Proposed Test Procedures for Measuring Diurnal Emissions? We propose that the evaporative emission test will be representative of ambient temperatures ranging from 22° C to 36° C (72° F to 96° F). Emissions would be measured in a Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination (SHED) over a 72-hour period. The fuel tank would be set up in the SHED and sealed except for the vent(s). The fuel tank would be set up in the SHED with all hoses, seals, and other components attached. The fuel tank would be filled completely and drained to 40-percent capacity with 9 RVP test fuel and soaked with an open vent until the fuel reached 22° C. 25 Immediately after the fuel reaches this temperature, the SHED would be purged, and the diurnal temperature cycling would begin. The temperature cycle is actually three repeats of a 24-hour diurnal trace and is described in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. During the test a minimum of 5 mph wind speed would be simulated using a fan. The final g/gallon/day result is based on the highest mass emission rate from these three 24-hour cycles, divided by the fuel tank capacity. Fuel tank capacity refers the maximum amount of fuel in the tank under in-use conditions. 25 Reid Vapor Pressure (psi). This is a measure of the volatility of the fuel. 9 RVP represents a typical summertime fuel in northern states. These proposed test procedures are designed to simulate near worst case conditions for a typical boat. We believe that typical in-use fuel tanks will rarely be exposed to a temperature cycle larger than 24°F in a single day. However, in special applications where the fuel tank is exposed to direct sunlight, the tank temperature can change much more than 24°F over the course of a single day. Therefore, we are proposing that special test procedures that simulate the radiant effect of sunlight be used to test fuel tanks that will be exposed to direct sunlight. We would not require this for exposed fuel tanks that are shielded from the sun. This diurnal cycle is consistent with the test requirements in 40 CFR part 86 for highway vehicles. However, the test procedure for highway vehicles includes engine operation and hot soaks. 26 One purpose of the engine operation is to purge the charcoal canister that collects evaporative emissions in highway applications. However, we are excluding engine operation from the evaporative test procedures for boats using SI marine engines because we do not anticipate the use of charcoal canisters in these applications. Another purpose of running the engine and the purpose of the hot soaks is to measure evaporative emissions due to the heating of the engine and exhaust system. However, this would significantly increase the difficulty of the SHED testing due to the large size of most boats. Because most boats are operated only 50 hours per year, these running loss and hot soak emissions are considerably smaller than diurnal and permeation emissions. In addition, most of the emission-control strategies that could be used to meet the proposed standards would also reduce running loss and hot soak emissions. We request comment on the proposed test procedures for determining evaporative emissions from boats using SI marine engines. 26 Hot soak emissions are those caused by residual heat in the engine and exhaust system immediately after the engine is shut down. Running loss emissions are those caused by engine and exhaust heat while the engine is operating. 2. What Are the Proposed Test Procedures for Measuring Permeation Emissions? a. Fuel tanks. We propose that tank permeation be based on a test procedure consistent with the Coast Guard requirements in 33 CFR 183.620. Specifically, the rate of permeation from the tank will be measured at 40°C using the same test fuel as for the diurnal testing. We request comment on using 40°C as the test temperature or if 23°C should be used to be consistent with the hose testing. Our understanding is that 40°C represents higher temperatures that may be seen in an engine compartment during operation while 23°C represents typical ambient conditions. If a lower test temperature were used, the standards would need to be adjusted appropriately. Based on data presented in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, the standards would have to be reduced on the order of 50 percent for every 10°C reduction in test temperature. We also request comment on using ASTM Fuel “C” and a 15% methanol blend to be consistent with the hose permeation test procedures or on using 10% ethanol consistent with on-highway evaporative emission testing. The tank would have to be filled and soaked for a minimum of 60 days to ensure that permeation emissions are accurately reflected in the test procedure. The tank would be sealed during testing, and care would have to be made that the environment in which the tank was tested was continuously purged of vapor to prevent the saturation of vapor with hydrocarbons around the outside of the tank. Permeation would be measured through weight loss in the tank or using equivalent procedures. We also request comment on whether we should require specific durability test procedures for fuel tanks. Such durability tests could include pressure vacuum cycle testing, slosh testing, and temperature cycling. Information on these tests is included in the docket. 27 27 Draft SAE Information Report J1769, “Test Protocol for Evalution of Long Term Permeation Barrier Durability on Non-Metallic Fuel Tanks,” (Docket A-2000-01, document IV-A-24). b. Hoses. We propose to use the current practices for measuring permeation from marine hoses that are specified in SAE J 1527. Under this procedure, the hose is tested at 23°C with both ASTM Fuel “C” (50% toluene, 50% isooctane) and with a blend on fuel “C” with 15% methanol. SAE J 1527 sets permeation limits for hose of 100 g/m 2 /day for fuel C and 300 g/m 2 /day for the 15% methanol blend. Consistent with this relationship, we propose to allow the permeation rate to be three times higher than the proposed standard for fuel C when the hose is tested on the 15% methanol blend. Because permeation rates double, roughly, with every 10°C increase in temperature, the test procedure has a large effect on emissions measured for a given hose material. In addition, the temperature effects may be greater for some materials than for others. For low permeation non-metal fuel lines used in automotive applications, the current practices are specified in SAE J 2260 and SAE J 1737. Under these test procedures, the hose permeation is measured at 60°C with an 85%-15% blend of fuel “C” and methanol. We request comment on using the higher test temperature in the automotive test procedure. We also request comment on requiring testing using a 10% ethanol blend consistent with on-highway evaporative emission testing. 3. Could I Certify Based on Engineering Design Rather Than Through Testing? We recognize that performing SHED testing could be cost-prohibitive for many fuel tank manufacturers or boat builders. In addition, many of the technologies that can be used to reduce evaporative emissions are straightforward design strategies. For these reasons, we propose that manufacturers have the option of certifying to the diurnal evaporative emission requirements based on fuel system designs, as described in the proposed regulations. Test data would be required to certify fuel tanks and hoses to the proposed permeation standards. However, we would allow carryover of test data from year to year for a given emission control design. We believe the cost of testing tanks and hose designs for permeation would be considerably lower than running variable temperature diurnal testing. In addition, the data could be carried over from year to year, and there is a good possibility that the broad emission family concepts under consideration could lead to minimum testing. For instance, a hose manufacturer could test its hose design once, and all the boat builders who use this hose could incorporate this data in their certification applications. We are proposing design based certification to the tank permeation standard for one case. We would consider an aluminum fuel tank to meet the design criteria for a low permeation fuel tank. However, we would not consider this design to be any more effective than a low permeation fuel tank for the purposes of any sort of credit program. Although aluminum is impermeable, seals and gaskets used on the fuel tank may not be. The design criteria for the seals and gaskets would be that either they would not have a total exposed surface area exceeding 1000 mm 2 , or the seals and gaskets would have to be made of a material with a permeation rate of 10 g/m 2 /day or less at 23°C. The rest of this section discusses designs that we propose to be acceptable for design-based certification to the proposed diurnal emission standard. The emission data we used to develop these proposed design options are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. Additional testing may help us more precisely set the appropriate emission levels associated with each design. Manufacturers wanting to use designs other than those we discuss here would have to perform the above test procedures for their design. However, once a new design is proven, we could add this new design to the list of designs for this certification flexibility and assign it to the appropriate averaging bin. For example, if several manufacturers were to pool their resources to test a diurnal emission control strategy and submit this data to EPA, we would consider this particular strategy and emission level as a new design level for design based certification. We request comment on the concept of design-based certification and on the technologies and associated emission levels discussed below. Section III.H.3 presents a more detailed description of what each of these technologies are and how they can be used to reduce evaporative emissions. We have identified several technologies for reducing diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. The design levels proposed below represent our understanding of the effectiveness of various emission control technologies over the proposed test procedure. Table III.F.1 summarizes design-based emission levels associated with several emission control strategies. These control strategies are discussed in more detail after the table. Manufacturers would be required to submit information demonstrating that the components they use would be durable over the useful life of the vessel. For tanks that allow pressure build-up, a low-pressure vacuum-relief valve would also be necessary for the engine to be able to draw fuel during operation. Also, in the cases where anti-siphon valves are used with these designs, the anti-siphon system would have to be designed such that fuel could not spill out through this valve when the system is under pressure. Table III.F-1.—Emission Levels for Design Based Certification to the Proposed Diurnal Emission Standard Emission level [g/gallon/day] Technology 1.5 Baseline (open vent with a normal length vent hose). 1.3 Near zero pressure limited flow orifice and insulation (R-value ≥15), or closed vent, 0.5 psi relief valve. 1.1* Closed vent, 1.0 psi relief valve. 0.9 Closed vent, 1.5 psi relief valve. 0.7 Closed vent, 2.0 psi relief valve. 0.5 Closed vent, 0.5 psi relief valve with a volume compensating air bag. 0.1 Bladder fuel tank. * Proposed average standard for diurnal emissions. 1.5 g/gal/test: Typical fuel tanks used in boats currently have an open vent to the atmosphere through a vent hose. This vent is intended to prevent pressure from building up in the fuel tank. This uncontrolled fuel tank configuration would be considered to be at this level based on the data presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft RSD. 1.3 g/gal/test: The design criteria for this level would be a fuel tank with a near zero pressure limited flow orifice and insulation. The limited flow orifice would be defined as having a maximum cross-sectional area defined by the following equation: Area [mm 2 ] = 0.04 x fuel t [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-19437. Public record. Not legal advice.