Control of Air Pollution; Emission Standards for New Gasoline Spark- ignition and Diesel Compression-ignition Marine Engines; Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Federal RegisterNov 9, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: Today's notice proposes emission standards for new gasoline
spark-ignition and diesel compression-ignition marine engines. This
action is required by section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act as
amended. The proposed standards for gasoline spark-ignition marine
engines are expected to result in a 75 percent reduction in hydrocarbon
(HC) emissions from outboard and personal watercraft engines. EPA
proposes to phase-in HC emission standards for gasoline spark-ignition
outboard and personal watercraft engines over a period of 9 years. The
emission standards would be phased-in by equal yearly percentage
emission reductions from a baseline curve (g HC/kW-hr vs. engine power)
beginning with the 1998 model year through the 2006 model year. For
gasoline spark-ignition sterndrive/inboard engines the emission
standards would also become effective during the 1998 model year.
Emission standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and carbon
monoxide (CO) are also proposed for gasoline spark-ignition marine
engines. EPA proposes to include marine diesel compression-ignition
engines under the same regulatory framework as the land-based nonroad
compression-ignition engines at or above 37 kW, with comparable
NOX reductions per engine of about 37 percent. Emission standards
for HC, CO, NOX, particulate matter (PM), and smoke are also
proposed for compression-ignition marine engines.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 1995. A public
hearing will be held December 9, 1994, at 10 a.m.; requests to present
oral testimony must be received on or before November 29, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in
triplicate, if possible) for EPA consideration by addressing them as
follows: EPA Air Docket (LE-131), Attention: Docket Number A-92-28,
room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Materials
relevant to this rulemaking are contained in this docket and may be
reviewed at this location from 8:00 a.m. until noon and from 1:30 p.m.
until 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying. Unless otherwise
notified through a notice in the Federal Register, the public hearing
will be held in the conference room at the National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth L. Zerafa, Office of Mobile
Sources, Certification Division, (313) 668-4331.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Copies of the Regulatory Language
EPA has not included in this document the proposed regulatory
language. Electronic copies (on 3.5'' diskettes) of the proposed
regulatory language may be obtained free of charge by visiting,
writing, or calling the Environmental Protection Agency, Certification
Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 668-4288.
Refer to Docket A-92-28. A copy is also available for inspection in the
docket (see ADDRESSES).
The preamble, regulatory language and regulatory support document
are also available electronically on the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN), which is an electronic bulletin board system (BBS) operated by
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The service is free
of charge, except for the cost of the phone call. Users are able to
access and download TTN files on their first call using a personal
computer and modem per the following information.
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742 (1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit) Voice Helpline: 919-541-5384
Also accessible via Internet: TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov Off-line:
Mondays from 8:00 AM to 12:00 Noon ET
A user who has not called TTN previously will first be required to
answer some basic informational questions for registration purposes.
After completing the registration process, proceed through the
following menu choices from the Top Menu to access information on this
rulemaking.
GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards)
OMS--Mobile Sources Information
Rulemaking & Reporting
Non-Road
File area #1 . . . Non-Road Marine Engines
At this point, the system will list all available files in the
chosen category in chronological order with brief descriptions. To
download a file, select a transfer protocol that is supported by the
terminal software on your own computer, then set your own software to
receive the file using that same protocol.
If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e. ZIP'ed) files, go to
the TTN top menu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the
necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest
after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want
onto your computer, you can quit the TTN BBS with the oodbye
command.
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.
II. Table of Contents for Rest of Preamble
III. Statutory Authority and Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Background
IV. Requirements of the Proposed Rule
A. Overview
B. Definition of Marine Engine
C. General Enforcement Provisions
D. Program Description and Rationale
1. Applicability
2. Emission Standards for Gasoline spark-ignition Outboard and
Personal Watercraft Engines
3. Emission Standards for Gasoline spark-ignition Sterndrive
Inboard Engines
4. Emission Standards for Compression-ignition Marine Engines
5. Crankcase Emission Controls
6. Compliance with Gasoline spark-ignition Marine Engine
Emission Standards
7. Effective Dates for Certification
8. Model Year Designation
9. Engine Family Categorization
10. Certification Testing
11. Engine Family Certification
12. Durability Demonstration Requirements
13. Certification Test Procedure for HC, CO, NOX, and PM
14. Certification Test Procedure for Smoke from Marine
Compression-ignition Engines
15. Certification Test Fuel Requirements
16. Labeling Requirements
17. Manufacturer Self-Audit Program
18. Selective Enforcement Auditing Program
19. In-use Enforcement and Recall
20. Defect Reporting and Warranty Requirements
21. Tampering Enforcement
22. Importation of Nonconforming Marine Engines
V. Discussion of Issues
A. Choice of Exhaust Constituents to be Regulated
1. Gasoline spark-ignition Engines
2. Compression-ignition Engines
B. Water Quality Impacts/Scrubbing
C. Certification Durability Demonstration
1. Self Approval/In-use Testing Feedback Requirement Program
2. New Engine Standards/In-use Testing Requirement Program
3. Specified Service Accumulation Program
4. No Certification Durability Demonstration
D. Use of an HC Emission Standards Curve for Outboard and
Personal Watercraft Engines
E. Options for Averaging Sets and Effect on HC Standards for
Gasoline spark-ignition Marine Engines
F. Electric Outboard Motors
G. Level of HC Standard for Spark-ignition Outboards and
Personal Watercraft Engines
1. Marginal Cost-Effectiveness Curve
2. Elasticity Effects
3. Leadtime and Phase-In Considerations
4. Level of NOX Standard
5. Proposed Standards Fit Statutory Criteria
H. NOX Emission Standards for Gasoline spark-ignition
Engines and NOX/HC Tradeoff
I. Effect of Available Technologies on Emissions and Performance
from Gasoline spark-ignition Engines
1. Spark-ignition Outboard and Personal Watercraft Engines
2. Spark-ignition Sterndrive and Inboard Engines
J. Effect of Available Technologies on Emissions and Performance
from Compression-ignition Engines
1. Types of Compression-ignition Marine Engines
2. Leadtime and Cost
3. Test Procedure
K. Representativeness of the Test Procedures
1. ISO E4 Cycle for Gasoline spark-ignition Marine Engines
2. ISO E5 Cycle for Propulsion Compression-ignition Marine
Engines
3. ISO C1 Cycle for Marine Non-Propulsion Compression-ignition
Engines
L. Safety/Noise/Energy Issues
1. Noise
2. Energy
3. Safety
M. Banking of Emission Credits for Gasoline Spark-ignition
Marine Engines
1. Banking Unused Credits During the Phase-in Period for
Future Use
2. Early Banking (Banking Prior to Phase-in Period)
3. Credit Life
4. Determiniation of Amount of Credit: Year of Use v. Year of
Generation
5. Banking Restriction for Outboard/Personal Watercraft
NOX Emissions
N. Tracking Engine Sales to Point of First Retail Sale
O. Nonconformance Penalties for Marine Engines
P. New Vessels Must Incoporate New Engines
Q. Emerging Market Segments
VI. Cost Analysis
A. Gasoline Spark-ignition Engine Cost Analysis
1. Aggregate Annual Cost
2. Consumer Cost Summary
B. Compression-ignition Engine Cost Analysis
VII. Environmental Benefit Assessment
A. Gasoline Spark-ignition Engine HC Reduction
B. Diesel Compression-ignition Engine NOX Reduction
C. Health and Welfare Effects of Troposhperic Ozone
D. Roles of VOC and NOX in Ozone Formation
E. Smoke
VIII. Cost-Effectiveness
A. Gasoline Spark-ignition Engines
B. Diesel Compresion-ignition Engines
IX. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
B. Public Hearing
X. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12886
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
C. Impact on Small Entities
III. Statutory Authority and Background
A. Statutory Authority
Authority for the actions proposed in this notice is granted to EPA
by sections 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216, and
301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 7522, 7523, 7524,
7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)].
Section 213(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to: (1)
conduct a study of emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles; (2)
determine whether emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from nonroad engines
and vehicles are significant contributors to ozone or CO in more than
one area which has failed to attain the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for ozone or CO; and (3) if nonroad emissions are
determined to be significant, regulate those categories or classes of
new nonroad engines and vehicles that contribute to such air pollution.
Under CAA section 213(a)(4), EPA may also regulate emissions other than
CO, NOX, and VOCs from new nonroad engines or vehicles if EPA
determines that such other emissions contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
The Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study (hereafter, ``Nonroad
Study'') required by section 213(a)(1) was completed in November 1991.
The Nonroad Study is available in docket A-92-28. The determination of
the significance of emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles in more
than one NAAQS nonattainment area, required by section 213(a)(2), was
published on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31306). At the same time, the first
set of regulations for a class or category of new nonroad engines that
contribute to air pollution, required by section 213(a)(3), was
promulgated. That rule controlled emissions from new nonroad
compression-ignition engines (excluding marine engines) at or above 37
kilowatts (kW). EPA also has proposed emission standards for nonroad
gasoline engines less than 19 kW used in lawn and garden equipment and
in utility applications (May, 16, 1994, 59 FR 25399). Today's action
continues to implement section 213(1)(3) and (4), by proposing emission
standards for gasoline spark-ignition and diesel compression-ignition
marine engines.
B. Background
Based on the results of the 1991 Nonroad Study, EPA has determined
that emissions of VOCs, NOX, and CO from nonroad engines and
vehicles contribute significantly to ozone or CO levels in more than
one NAAQS nonattainment area (see 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994). As
presented in the Nonroad Study, nonroad engines and vehicles contribute
an average of 10 percent of summer VOCs in the 19 ozone nonattainment
areas included in the study. Gasoline spark-ignition marine engines
make up nearly 30 percent of these summertime nonroad VOC emissions and
three-quarters of these gasoline spark-ignition marine engine HC
emissions are from 2-stroke outboard engines. EPA therefore has
determined that it is required to regulate new gasoline spark-ignition
marine engines under Section 213(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA held a public workshop on July 29, 1992, to solicit information
on technical characteristics, emissions, and general regulatory issues
related to marine engines. Public notice of the meeting and comments
submitted by interested parties can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking (see ADDRESSES section at beginning of notice). Subsequent
to the public workshop, EPA met several times with the National Marine
Manufacturers Association (NMMA). NMMA has encouraged federal
regulation of marine engine emissions, stating that the U.S. government
should take the lead in developing emission standards and test
procedures that could be a model for other countries. One of the marine
industry's major concerns is that without such a U.S. federal effort, a
patchwork of different emission standards and test procedures would
proliferate throughout the world, subjecting the manufacturers to
excessive costs and administrative burdens resulting from the lack of
harmonized standards and procedures. The marine engine manufacturers
have been very helpful in providing EPA with information and data used
in the development of a number of emission control options presented in
this notice. Also, NMMA has presented to EPA their analysis of
potential emission reduction strategies for marine engines. The
documentation of NMMA's analysis can be found in the public docket.
The settlement of Sierra Club v. Browner, Civ. No. 93-0197 NHJ
(D.D.C. 1993), requires EPA to propose emission standards for marine
engines by September 30, 1994 (extended to October 30, 1994), and to
promulgate final regulations by November 22, 1995. The time schedule
resulting from this settlement has influenced a number of EPA decisions
regarding regulatory options and proposals which are discussed in more
detail in this notice.
In this notice, EPA is also proposing to set emission standards for
new diesel compression-ignition marine engines. EPA promulgated rules
for nonroad compression-ignition engines above 37 kW (59 FR 31306, June
17, 1994), but this rule did not include marine engines. During the
development of that rulemaking, EPA decided to exclude marine
propulsion engines and marine auxiliary engines because little
information was available at the time to determine whether the test
procedure was sufficiently representative of the operating cycle of
marine engines and also because of uncertainty of how such regulations
may impact, or conflict with, the U.S. Coast Guard safety requirements.
EPA now believes that marine compression-ignition engines should be
covered by the same regulation as other compression-ignition engines
over 37 kW, with appropriate amendments pertaining to testing
procedures.
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 89 to include all marine
compression-ignition engines below 560 kW manufactured after January 1,
1999 and all marine compression-ignition engines equal to or above 560
kW after January 1, 2000. Many of the marine engines used for auxiliary
power are very similar in design and operation to land-based nonroad
engines that are required to be certified under the existing nonroad
large compression-ignition engine regulations. However, marine
compression-ignition engines used for propulsion may be less similar in
operation and design than land-based compression-ignition nonroad
engines and require additional considerations for possible inclusion in
40 CFR part 89. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the
issues section of this notice.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a subgroup of the
United Nations is currently developing an agreement (in the form of the
addition of a new annex to the Marine Pollution Convention (MARPOL 73/
78)) to control emissions from ships on international voyages. Such an
agreement would provide important measures to control emissions from
ships that are outside U.S. territorial waters for which national
standards could not apply. Efforts are being made by the EPA and the
U.S. Coast Guard (who represents the U.S. at IMO) to ensure that test
procedures and certification procedures are harmonized between the IMO
regulations and national regulations. The IMO annex will cover new
diesel marine propulsion and auxiliary engines used on ships on
international voyages. The current proposal at IMO covers engines over
100 kW used on such ships. The current draft IMO annex is contained in
the docket.
IV. Requirements of the Proposed Rule
The general provisions of the regulation are briefly described in
the following section, and the rationale for key parts of the proposal
is discussed. A more thorough discussion of issues raised in the
rulemaking follows in Section V.
A. Overview
EPA proposes to regulate the emissions of exhaust pollutants for
both new gasoline spark-ignition marine engines and new diesel
compression-ignition marine engines. For gasoline spark-ignition marine
engines, the primary focus of the regulations is to significantly
reduce hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. For gasoline spark-ignition outboard
and personal watercraft engines, EPA proposes average HC emission
standards that are a function of the rated power of the engine and will
result in a 75 percent reduction in HC emissions from current
technology 2-stroke marine engines. A more complete explanation for
this form of emission standard is given in Section IV(D)(2) of this
preamble. For gasoline spark-ignition sterndrive and inboard engines,
EPA proposes an average HC emission standard of 8.0 g/kW-hr. EPA also
proposes average emission standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) of 6.0
g/kW-hr and 6.5 g/kW-hr for outboard/personal watercraft and
sterndrive/inboard engines respectively. These standards are discussed
in more detail in Section V. A carbon monoxide (CO) cap of 400 g/kW-hr
is also proposed, although CO is of secondary importance for gasoline
spark-ignition marine engines.
For new diesel compression-ignition marine engines, EPA proposes
appropriate amendments to the existing nonroad compression-ignition
engine regulations (40 CFR part 89) to include marine engines. This
approach would thus subject marine compression-ignition engines to the
same emission standard levels as required for other nonroad
compression-ignition engines. The proposed emission standards are 9.2
g/kW-hr for NOx, 1.3 g/kW-hr for HC, 11.4 g/kW-hr for CO, 0.54 g/kW-hr
for PM, and smoke standards of 20/50 maximum percentage opacity for
acceleration/peak operating modes. These standards would apply to all
new compression-ignition marine propulsion engines and auxiliary
engines, regardless of power rating.
Today's proposal includes a compliance program involving pre-sale
certification, assembly line testing, and in-use enforcement for both
gasoline spark-ignition and compression-ignition marine engines. The
proposed program would be similar to the existing compression-ignition
nonroad regulatory program and include:
designation of product line into groups of engines with
similar emission characteristics (such groups are called engine
families),
averaging and trading program elements modified to suit
the proposed emission standard levels and industry structure,
manufacturer emission testing of selected engines with the
specified test procedure to demonstrate compliance with emission
standards,
labeling of engines from each engine family,
submission of application for certification for each
engine family by model year,
issuance of an emission compliance certificate for each
engine family,
prohibition against U.S. sale of engines not certified by
EPA,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
EPA confirmatory certification testing,
banking of unused emission credits for use in future model
years,
manufacturer production line testing backed-up by EPA
Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA),
in-use testing and enforcement,
warranty and prohibition on tampering, and
importation provisions.
For new gasoline spark-ignition marine engines, EPA proposes that
the effective date of the emission control requirements of these
regulations begin in model year 1998. For gasoline spark-ignition
outboard and personal watercraft marine engines, the stringency of the
HC standards is proposed to be proportionately phased-in each year
through model year 2006. Engines on average, will be required to meet a
consistently lower standard for each year from model year 1998 to 2006.
For new diesel compression-ignition marine engines, the standards
would be effective for engines up to 560 kW on January 1, 1999; for
engines including and above 560 kW, the proposed effective date is
January 1, 2000.
B. Definition of Marine Engine
EPA proposes to define marine engines as any engine which is used
on a ``vessel'' as defined in 1 U.S.C.S. 3 (1992) for the purposes of
propulsion and/or auxiliary power. The word ``vessel'' includes every
description of watercraft or another artificial contrivance used, or
capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water. This
definition applies equally to gasoline spark-ignition and diesel
compression-engines unless specifically stated otherwise.
Pursuant to section 203(b)(1) of the CAA, the Agency proposes
categories of exemptions from new marine engine regulations similar to
the existing exemptions for new nonroad compression-ignition engines at
or above 37 kW (50 horsepower) (see 40 CFR, Part 89, Subpart I). These
include exemptions for purposes of research, investigations, studies,
demonstrations, training, or for reasons of national security.
Exemptions are obtained either categorically, that is without
application to the Administrator, or by submitting a written
application to the Administrator. Export exemptions and manufacturer-
owned engine exemptions are granted without application. Testing
exemptions, national security exemptions, and exemptions for engines
used solely for competition are obtained by application.
Exemptions are justified in these cases because the sources are
limited in number or scope so no environmental harm results; the
particular use of the source is determined to further air quality
research; and/or the exemption is vital to the security of the nation.
(See 39 FR 10601, March 21, 1974, for history of on-highway exemptions
policy.)
C. General Enforcement Provisions
Any manufacturer of a gasoline spark-ignition or diesel
compression-ignition marine engine would be responsible for obtaining
from the Administrator a certificate of conformity covering any engine
introduced into commerce in the United States before such an engine is
sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into
commerce, or imported into the United States. All such engines must
comply with the standards promulgated in EPA's final regulations.
Section 213(d) of the Clean Air Act states that the Agency shall
enforce new nonroad engine and vehicle standards in the same manner as
on-highway vehicle and engine standards are enforced.\1\ Therefore EPA
is authorized to submit nonroad engines to certification requirements,
assembly line testing, and in-use enforcement that apply to on-highway
engines, with modifications that EPA deems appropriate. Section 213(d)
also grants EPA the authority to revise or promulgate regulations as
may be necessary to determine compliance with, and to enforce the
nonroad standards. Further, EPA is authorized to prohibit certain acts,
such as tampering with a certified engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Section 213(d) of the Act provides that the standards under
213 ``be subject to sections [206, 207, 208, and 209], with such
modifications of the applicable regulations implementing such
sections as the Administrator deems appropriate, and shall be
enforced in the same manner as standards prescribed under section
[202]. The Administrator shall revise or promulgate regulations as
may be necessary to determine compliance with, and enforce,
standards in effect under this section.'' Section 206 specifies
requirements for motor vehicle and motor vehicle engine compliance
testing and certification; Section 207 requires manufacturers to
warrant compliance by motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in
actual use among other things; section 208 requires recordkeeping by
manufacturers of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines and
authorizes EPA to require testing, collect information and require
reports; and section 209 preempts states and political subdivisions
from adopting or enforcing standards relating to emission control,
certification, or inspection of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines, and from adopting or enforcing emission control
standards for certain new nonroad engines or new nonroad vehicles,
unless specifically authorized to do so by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to this authority, the Agency is proposing today to
require marine engine manufacturers to obtain certification and to
subject them to manufacturer assembly line testing backed-up by
selective enforcement auditing and in-use enforcement. The Agency is
also proposing regulations for marine vessels that are similar to those
for on-highway vehicles under sections 203, 204, 205, and 208 of the
Act.\2\ These general enforcement regulations include prohibitions
contained in section 203(a); prohibited acts, if committed, subject
persons to the assessment of civil penalties under section 205. As
applied to nonroad engines under section 213(d), such acts include, but
are not limited to, the introduction into commerce in the U.S. of
marine engines which are not covered by a certificate of conformity
issued by EPA, tampering with emission control devices or elements of
design installed on or in a certified marine engine, and failing to
provide information to the Agency if requested. The Agency is also
proposing regulations under the authority of section 205 of the Act
which sets forth the maximum statutory penalties for violating the
prohibitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Section 203 specifies prohibited acts and exempted motor
vehicles; section 204 provides for federal court injunctions of
violations of section 203(a); section 205 provides for the
assessment of civil penalties for violations of section 203; and
section 208 provides the Agency with information collection
authority. The general enforcement language of section 213(d)
provides the Agency's authority for applying sections 203, 204, 205,
and 208 of the Act to nonroad engines and vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is proposing general information collection provisions
similar to current on-highway provisions under section 208 of the Act
which include, but are not limited to, the manufacturer's
responsibility to provide information to the Agency, perform testing if
requested by the Agency, and maintain records. In addition, EPA is
proposing emission defect reporting regulations which require
manufacturers to report to EPA emission-related defects that affect a
given class or category of engines. The emission defect reporting
regulations also specify procedural and reporting requirements for
manufacturers that initiate voluntary emission-related recalls. The
general information collection provision will also provide authority
for EPA enforcement personnel to gain entry and access to various
facilities under section 208.
EPA is authorized under section 217 of the CAA to establish fees to
recover compliance program costs associated with sections 206 and 207.
EPA will propose to establish fees for today's marine engine emission
compliance program at some future time, after the program has been
promulgated and associated costs are determined.
D. Program Description and Rationale
This section describes several features of EPA's marine engine
emission compliance program and EPA's rationale for including these
features in the program. Specific issues related to the proposed
program which require in-depth discussion are presented in Section V
``Discussion of Issues.''
1. Applicability
i. Gasoline Spark-ignition Engines. Under the proposed regulations,
all gasoline spark-ignition marine engines for a given manufacturer are
included in determining compliance with the average standards for each
year. Compliance is determined taking into account any trading or
banking of emission credits.
ii. Diesel Compression-ignition Engines. Today's proposal covers
all compression-ignition marine engines regardless of rated power. EPA
proposes to require compression-ignition marine engines to meet the
standards that new nonroad large compression-ignition engines at or
above 37 kW are required to meet, with appropriate changes to test
procedures as discussed in Section V.
EPA has not proposed to set a lower power rating limit of 37 kW or
an upper power rating limit for marine engines. EPA solicits comments
regarding whether such limits should be set and, if so, the levels at
which they should be set and the reasons why they should be set at
those levels.
As described in the background section of this preamble, the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) is developing an agreement to
control emissions from ships on international voyages. The largest
diesel marine engines will most likely be covered by the IMO annex, as
these engines are typically used on ocean going vessels which traverse
international waters. However, some large engines and auxiliary power
engines may be used on U.S. flag vessels that remain in internal waters
(e.g., Great Lakes freighters). There is no clear engine cut-point in
terms of power (kW) above which the IMO annex will cover and below
which the national marine regulations will cover. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing an upper limit for the application of the national
regulations to control emissions from compression-ignition marine
engines. EPA requests comments on whether an upper limit should be
established and, if so, at what level and why.
iii. Alternative-fueled Marine Engines. EPA does not believe that
new emission standards for marine engines will require increased use of
alternative fuels. Test procedures and standards for alternative fuels
require significant effort, which could not be completed by the court
deadline for this rulemaking. Therefore, EPA proposes not to include
test procedures or emission standards for alternative-fueled marine
engines. EPA requests comment on the need for regulations and the
potential for increased market share for marine engines that operate on
alternative fuels such as electricity, natural gas, methanol, ethanol,
or other alternative fuels. Commenters encouraging EPA to adopt
alternative fuels standards and test procedures in this rule should
review the alternative fuels rules for on-highway engines for
information regarding how such rules would work.
2. Emission Standards for Gasoline Spark-ignition Outboard and Personal
Watercraft Engines
i. Hydrocarbon Standards. EPA is proposing that manufacturers
comply with corporate average emission standards requiring a 75 percent
reduction in HC emissions from 1990 outboard and personal watercraft
base levels when fully implemented. The standards would be phased-in
over 9 years. Each year a manufacturer's fleet would need to meet a
lower average emission standard. The standard would be a work specific
emission rate limit (g/kW-hr) which is a function (curve) that varies
with engine power. Compliance by a manufacturer's fleet as a whole is
determined by comparing each engine family against the curve and
summing the differences.
To derive the yearly compliance curves for the emission standards,
EPA first had to calculate a base HC emission standards curve from
which equally proportional reductions would be taken over the phase-in
period. EPA proposes the following equation as the base HC emission
standards curve:
HCbase=151+557/P0.9 or 300 g/kW-hr, whichever is lower
where:
HCbase=hydrocarbon base emission standard in g/kW-hr P=rated power
of the engine family in kilowatts.\3\
\3\Refer to issues section V.D. for a discussion of the HC
baseline emission function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This function best fits the data provided by manufacturers for
marine outboard and personal watercraft engines. With this functional
format, the HC base emission standard is a function of the power rating
of the engine family. However, EPA is also proposing that HCbase
is not to exceed 300 g/kW-hr. The HC baseline curve is shown in Figure
1; also shown are the standard curves for the phase-in years, which are
described in the following paragraphs.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
TP09NO94.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
The average HC standard curve for a given model year is determined
by the product of the HCbase curve function and the model year
factor as shown in Table 1. The model year factor reflects equal
percentage reductions per year from the baseline over the nine year
phase-in period, resulting in a 75 percent decrease when fully
implemented. For example, the average HC emission standard in 2004 is
the product of the 2004 HC model year factor, 0.417, and the
HCbase function. The resulting average emission standard function
for model year 2004 is as follows:
TP09NO94.002
Also, given the limitation on HCbase of 300 g/kW-hr maximum,
the 2004 emission standard may not be greater than 0.417 x 300=125.1 g/
kW-hr.
Table 1.--Gasoline Spark-Ignition Marine Engines Average Emission
Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC model
Model year year factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998....................................................... 0.917
1999....................................................... 0.833
2000....................................................... 0.750
2001....................................................... 0.667
2002....................................................... 0.583
2003....................................................... 0.500
2004....................................................... 0.417
2005....................................................... 0.333
2006 and after............................................. 0.250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Oxides of Nitrogen Standards. EPA is also proposing NOX
emission standards for gasoline spark-ignition outboard and personal
watercraft engines. EPA believes that the proposed corporate average
standard level of 6.0 g/kW-hr is at a level appropriate for the types
of technologies that will be used for meeting the stringent proposed HC
standards. EPA proposes full implementation of the NOX standard
beginning with the 1998 model year without phase-in. However, EPA
requests comment on whether or not a phase-in period would be
appropriate, and if so, what length and why. However, EPA requests
comment on whether or not a phase-in period would be appropriate, and
if so, what length and why. EPA proposes not to allow banking of
NOX credits for outboard/personal watercraft engines during the
phase-in years 1998 through 2005 (this is discussed in more detail in
the issues section, item M(5)).
iii. CO standards (cap). EPA is also proposing to cap CO emissions
at 400 g/kW-hr. This standard is the standard proposed for many utility
engines (see 59 FR 25399, May 16, 1994). While some marine engines
currently have CO emissions higher than this level, EPA expects that
the standard can be met with small adjustments. When engines are
controlled for HC, this CO standard will be easier to achieve.
Therefore, every engine must meet the CO emission standard. The CO
emission standard remains constant over the phase-in period and is set
only to eliminate very high CO levels, which generally are far above
the CO emission levels of most other engines sold. Most of the NAAQS
nonattainment episodes for CO occur in the winter, while most boating
activity in the U.S. occurs during the summer months, when CO air
quality standards are rarely in nonattainment. However, very high
levels of CO can have severe impacts on the health of users of such
engines and in these cases boat design must be taken into account.
Therefore, EPA requests comment on the need for CO control and on the
proposed cap standard level.
3. Emission Standards for Gasoline Spark-Ignition Sterndrive/Inboard
Engines
For gasoline spark-ignition sterndrive/inboard engines, the
proposed corporate average standards for HC and NOX are 8.0 g/kW-
hr and 6.5 g/kW-hr respectively. These proposed standards are discussed
in greater detail in Section V. As with outboard and personal
watercraft engines, and for similar reasons, EPA is proposing to cap CO
levels from such engines at 400 g/kW-hr.
4. Emission Standards for Diesel Compression-Ignition Marine Engines
EPA is proposing appropriate amendments to the existing nonroad
compression-ignition engine regulations (40 CFR Part 89) to include all
marine compression-ignition propulsion and auxiliary engines,
regardless of power rating. This approach would thus subject marine
compression-ignition engines to the same emission standard levels as
required for new nonroad compression-ignition engines at and above 37
kW. The proposed emission standards are 9.2 g/kW-hr for NOX, 1.3
g/kW-hr for HC, 11.4 g/kW-hr for CO, 0.54 g/kW-hr for PM, and smoke
standards of 20/50 maximum percentage opacity for acceleration/peak
operating modes.
5. Crankcase Emission Controls
In addition to the numerical exhaust emission standards, EPA
proposes to prohibit direct emissions of crankcase vapors into the
atmosphere for both gasoline spark-ignition and compression-ignition
marine engines. Motor vehicles have been subject to an analogous
requirement since the first steps of emission control regulation.
6. Compliance with Gasoline Spark-ignition Marine Engine Emission
Standards
Compliance with the HC and NOX emission standards is based on
an averaging, banking and trading (ABT) provisions determined by
calculating the lifetime engine emissions difference between the engine
family emission level and the standard (compliance curve). At the end
of each model year, each manufacturer must have as many or more
emissions below the standards than above the standards for the
manufacturer's product line (with allowances for trading and banking).
For a given engine family, the amount of emission credit or
shortfall will be based on the difference in emission rate (g/kW-hr)
between the family emission level (FEL) which is determined with the
deterioration factor applied and the emission standard level (STD). The
HC emission standard level for outboard and personal watercraft engines
is calculated using the model year specific emission standard function.
The function utilizes the rated power for the engine family to
determine the emission standard level, in conjunction with the HC model
year factor given in Table 1. The NOX emission standard level for
outboard and personal watercraft engines is proposed to be 6.0 g/kW-hr.
For sterndrive and inboard spark-ignition engines, the emission
standard levels (STD) are proposed to be 8.0 g/kW-hr for HC and 6.5 g/
kW-hr for NOX. The emission rate difference between the family
emission level (FEL) (with deterioration factor applied) and the
emission standard level (STD) is used to calculate the lifetime
emission credit. To calculate lifetime emission credits, the following
variables are necessary.
FEL: Engine family emission limit
STD: The model year specific emission standard level
power: Power rating of the engine family
load factor: Fraction of rated engine power utilized in-
use, assumed to be 0.207 for all gasoline spark-ignition engines
max useful life: Maximum useful life specific to the power
rating and the application
hours per year: Usage rate specific to the application
sales: Consumption of engines in the U.S. for the engine
family
0.03: Discount rate for all emissions
S(t): Cumulative fraction survived at time t
The following equation is used to calculate credit generation and
usage for a given engine family.
TP09NO94.003
Credits are generated when the FEL is lower than the emission standard
and are represented by positive numbers, while shortfalls (or credit
usage) occurs when the FEL is above the emission standard and are
represented by negative numbers.
EPA requests comment on the individual elements used in the
equation above, specifically the following: estimates of maximum useful
life according to power rating, survival probabilities, discount
rate,\4\ hours per year, and identification of U.S. sales. Refer to the
benefits chapter of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for further
information on useful life, survival probability, discount rate, and
hours per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Discount rate, as used here, refers to an appropriate rate
for calculating present value of the useful life stream of emission
credits generated. A discount rate of 3% is proposed because these
are consumption goods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers choose the FEL for each engine family based on
testing and their estimate of deterioration. Each engine family must
certify to the chosen FEL, and the FEL would be treated as the
enforceable emission limit for certification, manufacturer assembly
line testing, Selective Enforcement Auditing, and in-use testing.
Compliance with the emission standards will be determined by
summing the positive and negative emission credits for all the
manufacturer's engine families. For each model year, the manufacturer,
at the models year's end, must have as many or more positive credits as
negative for the manufacturer's product line. In other words, each
manufacturer must maintain a positive or zero balance in their emission
account with EPA.
Manufacturers would prepare an overall compliance strategy and
submit an initial credit generation or usage report along with the
application for certification for each engine family. To demonstrate
compliance with the standards, the manufacturer would have to submit an
end of the year report within 90 days of the end of the model year. The
manufacturer would be allowed an additional 180 days after the end of
the year reports are due to submit a final report for credit counting
and calculation revisions. The end of the year report will contain the
manufacturer's data on U.S. engine family sales to the point of first
retail sale. EPA would adjust the manufacturer account balances to
reflect the sales numbers contained in the final report. Certificates
awarded to a manufacturer for its engine families could be rendered
void ab initio if the manufacturer does not achieve an emission account
balance greater than or equal to zero at the end of this time period.
When credits are generated and traded in the same model year, EPA
proposes to make both buyers and sellers of credits potentially liable
for accurate credit estimation, except in cases of fraud. This policy
would provide additional incentives for buyers and sellers to take the
steps necessary to ensure the integrity of the transactions and to
place contractual liability on the appropriate party. EPA requests
comment as to whether it should allow trading of emission credits
during the model year in which they are generated. If credits are
traded only after the end of year reports are finalized, the risk that
the seller of credits would not have the full amount contracted in the
account would be virtually eliminated.
In order to maintain the integrity of the balance of emissions for
the new engine fleet, manufacturers must use accurate sales data when
calculating credits which represent United States consumption of
engines. Since engines sold to other countries, including Canada and
Mexico, are excluded from this program, manufacturers are required to
obtain data pertaining to engine sales to calculate accurate credit
generation and usage. However, to ease the burden on manufacturers of
tracking engines to the end user, manufacturers would only need to
track engines to the location where the completed vessel or outboard
engine is purchased, otherwise known as a point of first retail sale.
In cases where the end user purchases the completed vessel directly
from the manufacturer, the end user is the point of first retail sale.
Alternatively, a boat dealer may be the point of first retail sale.
Engine sales data pertaining to engines that have already been shipped
to a point of first retail sale is also known as ``first delivery''
information.
7. Effective Dates for Certification
For gasoline spark-ignition outboard and personal watercraft
engines, EPA proposes to phase-in average HC emission standards
beginning with model year 1998. The HC emission standards would be
phased-in through model year 2006, becoming more stringent each year.
The definition of model year is discussed in the following section. The
HC emission standards for gasoline spark-ignition sterndrive/inboard
engines, along with the NOX and CO emission standards for all
gasoline spark-ignition marine engines are proposed to be effective
with the 1998 model year, with no phase-in. However, EPA requests
comments on whether or not the emission standards for gasoline spark-
ignition sterndrive/inboard engines should include a phase-in period,
and if so, what length and why.
In the NPRM for the Federal Implementation Plan for California (59
FR 23264), EPA proposed to allow personal watercraft manufacturers one
additional year of leadtime. However, the standards proposed in today's
notice were developed by analyzing emissions from outboard and personal
watercraft as one category with a consistent phase-in period.
Therefore, EPA is not proposing an additional year of leadtime in
today's proposal for outboard/personal watercraft engines, but EPA is
requesting comment on the necessity of an additional year of leadtime
given the standards structure which contains provision for averaging
and trading of emission credits with outboard manufacturers.
EPA proposes that diesel compression-ignition engines less than 560
kW meet the emissions standards beginning January 1, 1999, and those
560 kW and above meet the standards beginning January 1, 2000.
8. Model Year Designation
Section 202(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act defines the term
``model year'' with reference to any specific calendar year as ``the
manufacturer's annual production period (as determined by the
Administrator) which includes January 1 of the calendar year. If the
manufacturer has no annual production period, the term `model year'
means the calendar year.''
In connection with the certification of on-highway engines and
vehicles, EPA interprets the Act to define a model year as a period
determined on an engine family by engine family basis including only
one January 1.\5\ EPA believes this meaning of model year is also
appropriate for marine engines, because it allows manufacturers to
retain the flexibility to introduce models at different times of the
year. EPA includes this more detailed model year definition in the
proposed regulations [Sec. 91.2] and requests comments on the
appropriateness of this definition for marine engines. EPA requests
comment on the relationship between the proposed model year definition
and inventory issues, particularly left over inventory of engines at
the end of the model year in the engine manufacturers possession. On-
highway guidance documents on related stockpiling issues are contained
in the docket for the readers reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Bertelsen, Bruce I. Memo to Eric O. Stork, March 3, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Engine Family Categorization
For the purpose of demonstrating emission compliance, manufacturers
of on-highway motor vehicles and/or large nonroad compression-ignition
engines currently divide their product line into groups of engines
called engine families. Engine families are composed of engines which
have similar emission characteristics over their useful lives. EPA is
proposing that gasoline spark-ignition marine and diesel compression-
ignition marine engine families be determined using the same criteria
(type of fuel, method of air aspiration, number of cylinders, and so
forth) currently used to define on-highway engine families. EPA
includes a more detailed description of engine family determinants in
the proposed regulations [Sec. 91.116-98], and requests comments on the
appropriateness of these determinants for marine engines.
For the same reasons, as explained in the nonroad large
compression-ignition engine rule (59 FR 31306), a compression-ignition
marine engine manufacturer could choose not to use the criteria to
separate engines by number of cylinders and cylinder arrangement unless
a manufacturer employs an aftertreatment device on its compression-
ignition marine engines (see 40 CFR 89.116-96). This is necessary
because the performance of an aftertreatment device can vary with the
space velocity through the device. The space velocity will vary as the
number of cylinders and cylinder arrangement vary. However,
manufacturers have indicated aftertreatment devices will not be needed
to meet the requirements in this proposal for compression-ignition
marine engines.
10. Certification Testing
To obtain a certificate of conformity, all of the configurations
within an engine family would be expected to meet each emission
standard or family emission limit. Since it would be unreasonable to
require that manufacturers emission test all engine configurations
within an engine family to demonstrate compliance with the standards,
EPA is proposing that one test engine from each engine family be
selected and tested by the manufacturer. Choice of that test engine is
discussed below.
i. Gasoline Spark-Ignition Engines. For gasoline spark-ignition
marine engines, the engine selected for testing should be from the
engine configuration the manufacturer expected to be the worst case
hydrocarbon emitter. Since it may be difficult to determine which
configuration is the worst case hydrocarbon emitter, EPA is proposing
to use the criteria of brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) to
determine which engine configuration within an engine family will be
selected as the certification test engine. EPA believes that an engine
configuration with high BSFC will generally emit higher levels of
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide than other configurations in the same
engine family which exhibit lower BSFC. EPA solicits comments on the
appropriateness of BSFC as the criterion to be used for selecting the
certification test engine for a given engine family.
Although not proposed in today's notice, EPA also considered
another alternative which would require the manufacturer to select and
test the engine configuration expected to exhibit the highest
hydrocarbon emission level using their own sound technical
justification. EPA could verify the test results by confirmatory
testing of this engine. EPA would also have the option to test or
require testing of any available test engine representing other
configurations in the engine family and review a manufacturer's
technical justification to verify worst case selection. EPA solicits
comment on the appropriateness of this approach for selecting the worst
case hydrocarbon emitter.
ii. Diesel Compression-Ignition Engines. For diesel compression-
ignition marine engines, EPA is proposing that the manufacturer must
select one engine from each engine family which, at maximum power, has
the greatest amount of fuel injected per injection stroke. This is the
same criteria currently used for test engine selection for nonroad
large compression-ignition engines used in land-based applications. EPA
solicits comment on the appropriateness of this method of test engine
selection for marine engines.
Before emission testing is carried out on marine compression-
ignition engines, the manufacturer would perform service accumulation
on each emission test engine over the dynamometer cycle of its choice
based on good engineering practice (for example, a cycle representative
of typical ``break-in'' operation of a new production engine in actual
use). For each engine family, the manufacturer would determine the
number of hours required to stabilize the emissions of the test engine.
However, the number of hours which the manufacturer chooses may not be
more than 125 hours. This limitation is necessary because on-highway
experience has demonstrated that NOX will decrease with hourly use
for some engine family designs. The manufacturer should maintain, and
provide in its application to the Administrator, a record of the
rationale used in making the dynamometer cycle selection and the
rationale used in making the service accumulation hours determination
for emission testing.
iii. Both Gasoline Spark-Ignition and Diesel Compression-Ignition
Engines. EPA proposes to allow manufacturers the flexibility to submit
emission test data used to certify engine families in previous years in
lieu of actual testing for current model year certification. This can
be done to certify engine families similar to the previously certified
engine family, provided these data show that the test engine would
comply with the applicable regulations. This allows manufacturers the
ability to ``carry across'' test data between similar engine families
or to ``carry over'' test data from the same engine family from one
year to another.
As in the case for on-highway vehicles and engines, the proposed
regulations make it illegal for any person to use a device on a nonroad
engine which senses operation outside normal emission test conditions
and reduces the ability of the emission control system to control the
engine's emissions. Such ``defeat'' devices would render the proposed
test procedures inadequate to predict in-use emissions. To guard
against use of these devices, EPA would reserve the right to audit test
a certification test engine, or require the manufacturer to perform
such testing over a modified test procedure if EPA suspects a defeat
device is being used by an engine manufacturer on a particular engine.
Engines equipped with adjustable operating parameters would have to
comply with all the regulations with the parameters adjusted to any
setting in the full range of adjustment. For example, a maximum fuel
system pressure screw that is readily adjustable with a screwdriver or
wrench could be adjusted by EPA to any setting within its adjustable
range for emission testing. This ensures that changes to the adjustable
operating parameters that can readily occur in-use will not cause the
engine to fail to comply with these regulations.
11. Engine Family Certification
Upon approval by the Administrator, an emission compliance
certificate would be issued by EPA for each engine family. The engine
manufacturer must submit an application to EPA requesting a certificate
of conformity for each engine family every model year, as required by
the CAA.\6\ Applications must be submitted every model year even when
the engine family does not change from the previous certificate,
although representative test data could be reused in the succeeding
year's application. However, EPA is proposing the option of a letter
notifying EPA of carryover and the next year's projected sales in lieu
of the full certification application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Section 206 of the Clean Air Act requires certification on a
yearly basis. This has been interpreted to mean certification for
each model year, as defined in section 202(b)(3)(A)(i) of the CAA
and in Sec. 91.1 of the proposed regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The application would give EPA sufficient information regarding
test results, deterioration factors, emission control system
description, and other information necessary for determining compliance
with the emission standards. The application would allow EPA to
determine compliance with the applicable emission standards in a timely
manner. It is important that the engine manufacturer succinctly, fully,
and accurately submit all pertinent information to EPA and maintain
internal records which can be easily accessed if such access is
determined necessary by EPA.
If changes to an engine family configuration occurred that caused
the changed version to be the engine family's worst case emitter, then
emission testing of the changed version would be required.
Manufacturers would be expected to conduct emission testing if proposed
changes could cause an increase in emissions. Additionally, the
Administrator could require a manufacturer to conduct testing to
demonstrate compliance.
12. Durability Demonstration Requirements
Marine engines for which a certificate of conformity has been
granted are expected to meet the emission standards not only when the
engines are new, but also throughout their useful lives. Therefore, as
described in the following, EPA is proposing emission control
durability requirements as part of the certification process.
i. Gasoline Spark-ignition Engines. For gasoline spark-ignition
engines used for on-highway applications, EPA's experience indicates
that emission control efficiency generally decreases with the
accumulated use of the engine. However, it is believed that much of
this deterioration results from deterioration of the catalysts that are
used on these vehicles. EPA does not have sufficient data for
determining if the types of marine emission control technologies
expected to be used to meet the requirements of this rule (such as,
direct injection) will be durable during the useful life of the
engines. Since EPA views this rulemaking as a long term strategy to
reduce emissions from gasoline spark-ignition marine engines, and new
technologies with unknown emission control durability will be used by
manufacturers to meet the standards, a demonstration of emission
control durability is necessary during the certification process.
For gasoline spark-ignition marine engines, EPA is proposing a
durability demonstration program similar to that used for gasoline
spark-ignition on-highway heavy-duty engines. This program includes a
requirement that for each engine family, the manufacturer shall
determine emission deterioration factors for each pollutant based on
testing of engines, subsystems, or components and/or sound technical
judgment. The deterioration factors would be submitted to EPA and
applied to the new engine emission results (as proposed in 91.105 of
the regulations) to determine compliance with the emission standards.
The deterioration factors would be required to simulate deterioration
for 350 hours of use for all gasoline spark-ignition marine engines.
These factors would also be expected to simulate deterioration over a
period of 10 years for all gasoline spark-ignition engines except
personal watercraft, which would be expected to simulate 5 years. As a
check of the adequacy of the methodologies used to determine the
deterioration factors, EPA will use data from the recall testing
program. See section 19 regarding in-use testing and recall for further
discussion of these program elements.
EPA has considered an additional feature, although not proposed in
today's notice, which would require the engine manufacturer to procure
and test a sample of in-use engines covered by a certificate and submit
the data to EPA as a condition of certification. The in-use data would
be used to assess the adequacy of the methodology used by the
manufacturers to determine deterioration factors.
Under this feature, a manufacturer's failure to fully execute the
in-use tests will be considered a failure to satisfy the conditions
under which the certificate is issued. An engine will be considered to
be covered by the certificate only if the manufacturer fulfills the
conditions upon which the certificate was issued. Thus, failure to
satisfy the conditions of the certificate for this reason may subject a
manufacturer to similar penalties as any other type of violation of the
certification conditions. Although not proposed in today's notice, EPA
requests comments on requiring an in-use testing program as a condition
of certification as well as the appropriateness of such a program for
the stated purposes.
ii. Diesel Compression-ignition Engines. EPA is proposing no
requirements for the submission of durability demonstration test data
or use of a deterioration factor when certifying engine families that
do not employ aftertreatment. For on-highway vehicle certification, EPA
has found that NOx emissions from compression-ignition engines
experience very little, if any, increase over time. Therefore, EPA
believes that requiring durability demonstration test data and
deterioration factor requirements during certification would impose an
unnecessary cost burden on manufacturers.
Should a manufacturer choose to use exhaust aftertreatment to meet
the emission standards for any engine family, deterioration factors
would have to be determined and applied in the same manner as is
currently done for on-highway compression-ignition engine durability
demonstration. However, no durability demonstration or deterioration
factors are required by this rule when an engine that was certified
without aftertreatment is later retrofitted with an aftertreatment
device or package. These retrofits are not designed to interfere with
the original design and, therefore, should not result in worse
emissions than the original design. Since the engine has already been
demonstrated to be in compliance without the aftertreatment device,
demonstration of the durability of a retrofitted aftertreatment device
is not necessary.
13. Certification Test Procedure for HC, NOX, CO, and PM
The proposed marine engine certification test procedure for
gasoline spark-ignition engines will be based on the steady state test
cycle developed by the International Council of Marine Industry
Associations (ICOMIA) as described in Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) Paper 901597. This cycle is named E4 by the International
Standards Organization (ISO) and is contained in test procedure ISO
8178-4. EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of the E4 cycle
for testing gasoline spark-ignition marine engines.
The proposed test cycle for diesel compression-ignition marine
propulsion engines is the ISO E5 steady state test procedure developed
from operational data supplied by Volvo and the Norwegian government.
However, as more fully described in Section V, EPA requests comments on
the appropriateness of the ISO E3 cycle for compression-ignition marine
engines. Although the E5 cycle is proposed in today's notice, EPA is
also seriously considering the E3 cycle, and the final rule may require
the E5 or the E3 depending on the analysis of comments received on this
issue in response to the proposed rule.
EPA is proposing the ISO C1 cycle for compression-ignition marine
auxiliary engines. EPA believes that this cycle is more representative
of the type of operation these engines experience in use than the E5 or
E3 cycles. However, as described in more detail in Section V, EPA
requests comment on the appropriateness of the ISO D2 cycle for both
compression-ignition marine auxiliary engines and compression-ignition
generator sets used for nonroad land-based applications.
EPA believes that most marine engine operation is well represented
by steady state test cycles. However, preliminary data shows that
certain emissions, such as hydrocarbons from inboard/sterndrive
(gasoline spark-ignition) marine engines, are highly sensitive to
transient operation. EPA has not yet gathered enough data to determine
whether a transient test procedure would be appropriate for marine
engines. For this reason, the marine steady state test cycles are being
proposed for this rulemaking. EPA requests comments on all the test
cycles proposed in today's notice as well as other test cycles that may
be appropriate with a discussion of why they may be more appropriate
than those proposed.
EPA is proposing to allow the use of either the raw gas (raw) or
constant volume sampling (CVS or dilute) method of emission sampling
for exhaust gas emission measurement from gasoline spark-ignition
marine engines.
EPA's past experience with automotive engines has been to perform
emission testing using the CVS method. For engine exhaust gas testing
in general, EPA believes the CVS method to be more accurate and
repeatable. EPA recognizes the difficulties of dilute sampling for
outboard marine engines and recognizes that all marine engine
manufacturers testing laboratories are currently using raw sampling to
measure emissions from outboards. These difficulties include possible
compromising of the exhaust tuning and the unknown effects on emission
results of the cooling water mixing with the exhaust. Therefore, this
proposal will allow raw sampling for these engines. Although, EPA is
unaware of any dilute testing having been performed on an outboard
marine engine, dilute testing of outboard exhaust is still being
considered as an option. One suggestion is that the power-head could be
removed from the gearbox for emission testing. If the appropriate
exhaust backpressure were known and applied to each test mode, then
dilute sampling would be feasible. EPA requests comments on the
appropriateness of power-head testing for outboard marine engines.
Testing at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
(NVFEL) has shown that inboard marine engines can be tested using
dilute sampling by blocking off (and re-routing) the cooling water in
the exhaust manifold and extracting the total exhaust. However, EPA
recognizes that all of the marine data used in generating the baseline
emissions inventory for sterndrive and inboard engines, as well as
outboard and personnel watercraft engines, is based on emission
measurements taken using the raw gas sampling method. EPA believes it
would be inappropriate to require marine engines to be sampled using
the CVS method at this time without additional data which indicates
marine engines can not be sampled accurately using the raw gas method.
EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of dilute or raw
sampling for emission testing of marine engines.
14. Certification Test Procedure for Smoke from Diesel Compression-
ignition Marine Engines
EPA is proposing that compression-ignition marine engines comply
with the proposed smoke standards by using a smoke test procedure
similar to the current on-highway heavy-duty engine smoke test
procedure described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart I. Though, specifically
designed for on-highway truck engines, at this time is the most
applicable test.
The subpart I smoke test procedure cycle consists of an idle mode
followed by an acceleration and deceleration, followed by another
acceleration and an engine loading mode down to peak torque. This
simulates a truck starting from rest, performing a gear shift, and then
pulling a heavy load up a reasonably steep grade. EPA does not consider
this ``lugging'' mode to be representative of in-use marine operation.
Therefore, the smoke test procedure will be modified so that the
lugging mode will not be applied to marine engines. In this aspect, the
smoke test procedures are modified in this regulatory proposal.
EPA believes that these modified subpart I procedures are
reasonable for compression-ignition marine engine smoke control within
the proposed timeline. While marine applications experience some
differences in operation compared to on-highway applications, EPA has
determined that the same technologies will be used to control smoke in
nonroad applications as are used in on-highway applications. EPA has
determined that the modified subpart I procedures will provide the
smoke reduction desired from certified marine engines. Therefore, the
differences in marine and on-highway operation with respect to smoke
generation are not large enough to hold up this proposal for the
significant time period required to make changes.
EPA proposes this procedure for marine engines because it brings
these engines under the same regulatory framework that currently
governs nonroad compression-ignition engines at or above 37 kW. EPA
requests comments on the appropriateness of applying this procedure to
marine engines. Particularly, EPA requests comment on the need for a
smoke test procedure for compression-ignition marine auxiliary engines.
EPA may consider excluding such engines from the smoke requirements
pending the response to today's proposal.
15. Certification Test Fuel Requirements
EPA is proposing test fuel properties that will ensure that fuel
used for emission testing is representative of commercially available
marine fuel. Because most of the fuel used in gasoline spark-ignition
marine engines is the same fuel sold for automotive applications, the
certification test fuel for gasoline spark-ignition marine engines will
be similar to the baseline gasoline fuel defined in section 211 of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. For two-stroke gasoline spark-ignition
engines, when required, two-stroke oil will be mixed into the
certification fuel according to the ratio recommended by the engine
manufacturer. The oil grade for testing two-stroke engines will be TCW3
provided that the manufacturer recommend this oil in the owner's
manual, otherwise, TCW2 oil shall be used. For compression-ignition
engines, the grade of diesel fuel commercially designated as ``Type 2-
D'' would be used, as is the regulatory requirement for other nonroad
compression-ignition engines.
The manufacturer would be required to ensure that the properties of
the test fuel used for all certification and compliance testing be
within the ranges specified in Sec. 91.308 of the proposed regulations.
A manufacturer could use any commercially available marine fuel that
stays within the proposed regulatory specifications for its
certification tests. However, the engine family would be required to be
able to comply with the proposed emission standards when any other
commercially available marine fuel within these specifications is used.
Therefore, EPA would reserve the right to choose any commercially
available marine fuel within the regulated specifications for
certification, manufacturer assembly line, SEA, or in-use compliance
testing.
16. Labeling Requirements
EPA is proposing that manufacturers label each engine and that the
label meet the same requirements with respect to durability,
visibility, and information as required in the current on-highway
heavy-duty engine and the nonroad large compression-ignition engine
certification label requirements.\7\ In addition, EPA is proposing that
each engine must have a unique engine identification number which may
be part of the engine label or engraved on the engine. Such
identification is necessary for tracking engines for the manufacturer
assembly line testing, the Selective Enforcement Auditing, import, and
recall programs. EPA requests comment on this proposal as well as on
current engine identification practices within the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See 34 FR 12633 (August 2, 1969) where labeling requirements
for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines were originally
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also proposing a voluntary labeling program for
manufacturers of gasoline spark-ignition engines who produce engines
that meet or exceed the final model year 2006 phase-in period HC
emission standards. A label such as this could assist states and local
areas in the development of programs to encourage the turn-over of
older, higher polluting engines, since this label would identify the
cleanest engines to replace older engines. This label would contain the
words ``Green Engine'' and would state that the engines emissions are
below the federal standard for HC planned for model year 2006. EPA
requests comment on how such a voluntary labeling program could be
implemented and on the content of the label.
17. Manufacturer Self-Audit Program
EPA is proposing that manufacturers of spark-ignition marine
engines and compression-ignition marine engines perform self-audits of
new marine engines. The self-audit program would be an emission
compliance program for new production marine engines in which
manufacturers would be required to test engines as they leave the
assembly line, without EPA oversight. The objective of the self-audit
program is that manufacturers and EPA could determine, with reasonable
statistical certainty, whether or not new engines are in compliance
with the regulations.
The manufacturer self-audit program would be the main assembly-line
emission test program for marine engines. The Selective Enforcement
Auditing (SEA)\8\ program will serve a spot-check function and enable
EPA to evaluate testing practices used by the manufacturer and follow-
up on concerns EPA may have with regard to a particular engine family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\SEA is a program in which EPA selects engines from one engine
family configuration, directly from the assembly line, for emissions
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that a post-production compliance program is necessary
to verify that production engines comply with applicable regulations. A
reliable new engine testing program is particularly vital in a
regulatory situation in which manufacturers participate in an
averaging, banking, and trading program and receive usable or salable
credits for declaring FELs below standard. A self-audit program would
reduce the need for an SEA program by providing a means to test a
portion of production engines from each manufacturer as they came off
the assembly line. All self-audit emission test results, statistical
calculations to determine compliance levels, and quarterly production
figures would be reported electronically to EPA. EPA would review self-
audit data and procedures used in acquiring the data to assess the
validity and representativeness of each manufacturer's self-audit
program.
One new engine testing scheme which would be acceptable to EPA for
any manufacturer is CARB's current Quality Audit Program for new
utility and lawn and garden engines. This program assures that engines
from each engine family will be tested periodically and their
compliance evaluated on a quarterly basis. This program also provides
for greatly reduced testing when sufficient engines are within
standards to pass a statistical evaluation or when the production
volume of an engine family is below a prescribed minimum level.
EPA recognizes the need to develop a testing scheme or several
schemes to provide assurance that new engines are meeting standards
while minimizing burden on the manufacturers. Marine engine
manufacturers have indicated that unique characteristics of the
industry may warrant testing schemes that reflect this diversity. EPA
intends to develop manufacturer self-auditing programs which take into
account the needs of this industry. This testing scheme or set of
schemes could replace CARB's Quality Audit Program which is outlined in
subpart F: ``Manufacturer Self-Auditing'' of the draft regulatory
language. EPA believes that alternative plans may be developed that
better account for the needs of this industry.
EPA would prefer to implement one or a few testing schemes which
accommodate production differences between manufacturers or across
engine families where the validity of the scheme(s) is established
prior to promulgation. This will provide greater assurance to the
public that this rule will result in new engines that meet standards
and provide more consistency and equity between similarly situated
manufacturers.
EPA recognizes that unique circumstances surrounding a low
production engine family or a very specialized engine family could
necessitate an individual plan. Consequently, we are providing an
option in this proposal for such a plan in special cases.
In any manufacturer self-audit program, if an engine family is
found to be in noncompliance or the engine manufacturer's submittal
revealed that the assembly-line self-audit tests were not performed in
accordance with the applicable testing scheme, the Administrator may
suspend or revoke the manufacturer's certificate of conformity in whole
or in part for that engine family. The manufacturer must then address
the engines produced prior to the suspension or revocation of the
certificate of conformity. EPA will notify manufacturers of the
suspension or revocation of the certificate of conformity within 10
days of the nonconformity determination. To have the certificate
reinstated subsequent to a suspension, or reissued subsequent to a
revocation, the manufacturer would be required to demonstrate through
its self-audit program, that improvements, modifications, or
replacement had brought the engine or family into compliance. The
proposed regulations include hearing provisions which allow the
manufacturer to challenge EPA's suspension or revocation decision based
on application of the statistical criteria or the manner in which tests
were conducted.
EPA does not intend to routinely test, under the SEA program, the
engines of a manufacturer that has a comprehensive and effective self-
audit program. The Agency requests comment on possible designs of
assembly-line testing programs that may reduce the testing burden on
manufacturers, be more effective and less costly.
18. Selective Enforcement Auditing Program
EPA is proposing to implement a Selective Enforcement Auditing
(SEA) program of spark-ignition and compression-ignition marine engines
as authorized by section 213 of the Clean Air Act. The marine engine
SEA program would be a secondary emission compliance program for new
production marine engines in which manufacturers would be required to
test engines as they leave the assembly line, with EPA oversight.
The SEA program would typically be employed when EPA determines
that the results of the manufacturer self-audit program reveal
noncompliance or when EPA determines that other evidence of suspected
noncompliance by the manufacturer exists. In addition, SEAs will be
utilized as a spot-check to enable EPA to evaluate testing practices
used by the manufacturer, follow-up on concerns reported to EPA, and
address any configurations not covered by manufacturers in their self-
audit testing program. The SEA program strives to encourage
manufacturers to perform proper self-auditing and promptly remedy an
emission noncompliance that it may discover.
Manufacturers would be notified of an SEA by means of a test order.
This test order would specify the engine family to be audited. EPA
might also specify one or more engine configurations from a family to
be audited. To minimize the burden on manufacturers, EPA would consider
requests by manufacturers to exclude particular engines or engine
configurations from a test sample. Justification for such requests
could be a manufacturer's desire to avoid a delay in shipment of urgent
customer-ordered engines or to minimize test cell set-up time by
selecting engines of similar physical configurations.
Test orders would include information relevant to the SEA. The test
order would indicate any specific procedures, such as the time to begin
selecting engines, to be followed during the course of the audit.
Additionally, the test order would authorize EPA enforcement officers,
upon presentation of enforcement credentials, to inspect engine
production, test facilities, storage facilities, and records necessary
to demonstrate compliance with marine regulations.
Engines for SEA would typically be selected from a point of final
engine assembly or from a storage or shipping facility. Most often,
this selection point would be at the end of the engine assembly line.
The location of these selections could be designated by the
manufacturer to minimize disruption and shipping costs.
EPA proposes to include ports of entry or storage locations in the
United States as locations for EPA selection of foreign-produced marine
engines for SEA emission testing at laboratories in the United States.
In this rule, EPA is proposing that SEAs will not likely be conducted
unless a manufacturer's self-audit program indicates non-conformity or
unless EPA has reason to believe that test procedures are not in
accordance with the applicable testing scheme. If EPA initiates an SEA
of a foreign manufacturer, these audits will be most easily and
expeditiously conducted in the U.S. EPA anticipates that engines would
be selected at a port of entry and the foreign manufacturer would then
conduct emission testing at its test facility in the U.S. or be
responsible for contracting for testing at a U.S. facility. EPA would
allow the manufacturer reasonable time to locate a contract testing
facility in the U.S. and to schedule such testing. EPA requests
comments on the port selection aspect of the SEA program.
Engines for SEA could not receive any additional inspections or
quality control other than that of normal production engines and pre-
test safety checks. Engines would be tested in the same order as they
were selected.
Prior to testing SEA engines, manufacturers could operate engines
to break-in engine components. This break-in or service accumulation of
an SEA engine family would follow the same procedures as certification
and could be up to the same number of break-in hours accumulated for
that family's emission data engine during certification.
Audit engines would be tested using the same test cycle as was used
in certification; however, deviations allowed in certification from the
full test procedures would not necessarily be permitted in SEAs.
EPA is proposing that marine engines will be selected for SEA tests
at a rate of at least four engines per day, unless production is less
than four engines per day. To minimize delays in shipment of engines to
customers, manufacturers could test the first engines selected for an
audit while additional engines were produced.
The total number of engines tested in an SEA would be dictated by
the number of engines required to reach the statistically acceptable
pass/fail decision within the sampling plan applied. EPA is proposing a
sequential sampling plan for marine engine SEAs. These sampling plans
have been designed to meet a 40 percent Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)
and to ensure low statistical risks of incorrect pass/fail
determinations. The maximum theoretical percentage of failing engines
for passing an SEA is 40 percent. EPA is proposing a 40 percent AQL for
the marine engine SEA program. EPA has used this AQL since the 1970s
for the on-highway program, and has also promulgated it in the large
compression-ignition nonroad engine rule. EPA currently has no reason
to propose a different AQL for this program. EPA is proposing that the
marine engine SEA program use the same sampling plans used for the on-
highway heavy-duty engine and nonroad large compression-ignition engine
SEA programs.
EPA proposes that engine manufacturers with projected United States
annual sales of 7,500 or greater must complete a minimum of two engine
tests per day during an SEA. Engine manufacturers with projected United
States annual sales of less than 7,500 would be required to complete a
minimum of one engine test per day during an SEA. A valid emission test
or a voided test would each count as one test toward meeting the
requirement. EPA requests comments on this aspect of the proposal.
A test engine's pass or fail determination would be made by
comparing final test results to the applicable federal emission
standard. Within five working days of the conclusion of an audit,
manufacturers would be required to submit a report to EPA summarizing
engine test results, test procedures, and audit events such as the
date, time, and location of each test, repairs to engines, and the
reason for the repair.
Failure of an SEA could result in suspension or revocation of the
certificate of conformity for that family. To have the certificate
reinstated subsequent to a suspension, or reissued subsequent to a
revocation, the manufacturer would be required to demonstrate, by
showing passing data through a re-audit, that improvements,
modifications, or replacement had brought the family into compliance.
The proposed regulations include hearing provisions which allow the
manufacturer to challenge EPA's suspension or revocation decision based
on application of the sampling plans or the manner in which tests were
conducted.
To maintain uniformity among all nonroad SEA regulations,
procedures for marine engine SEA will parallel those in the large
nonroad compression-ignition engine rule (59 FR June 17, 1994), with
appropriate modifications.
19. In-Use Enforcement and Recall
EPA believes that a critical element in the success of its marine
program is ensuring that manufacturers build engines that continue to
meet emission standards beyond certification and production stages.
Section 213(d) of the CAA specifically subjects nonroad engines to the
recall provision of section 207(c).\9\ EPA has authority to subject
manufacturers to in-use testing (conducted by the Agency or by the
manufacturer under section 208 of the Act) and recall for the full
useful life of an engine. EPA's authority to recall engines which do
not comply with emission standards in-use provides an important
incentive to manufacturers to design and build durable engines and
vehicles. The in-use enforcement and recall programs for spark-ignition
and compression-ignition marine engines are described in the remainder
of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Section 207(c) of the Act authorizes EPA to enforce
compliance by vehicles and engines to applicable standards in actual
use. Manufacturers are subject to recall ``[I]f the Administrator
determines that a substantial number of any class or category of
vehicles or engines, although properly maintained and used, do not
conform to the regulations * * * when in actual use.* * *.''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current in-use liability period for on-highway heavy-duty
engines holds an engine manufacturer subject to recall testing for
approximately 75 percent of an engine's full useful life.\10\ Spark-
ignition marine engines covered by this proposal have an average useful
life period of between 14 and 27 years depending on the engine power.
This period is substantially longer than other engines. EPA is
proposing an in-use testing and recall program for spark-ignition
marine engines under which a manufacturer would test marine engines for
the purpose of determining recall liability for a period of 10 years or
350 hours of operation (whichever occurs first), except personal
watercraft, which would be 5 years or 350 hours of operation (whichever
occurs first). While this period is somewhat longer than the in-use
testing period for on-highway heavy-duty engines and large compression-
ignition nonroad engines, EPA believes it is reasonable due to the long
useful lives and the difficulties involved in finding engines for
testing or repair beyond this period. For compression-ignition marine
engines, EPA proposes the same recall liability period as for land-
based large compression-ignition nonroad engines (see 59 FR 31306). EPA
requests comment on this recall testing liability proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\48 FR 52170, 52173, November 16, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer in-use testing
EPA is proposing pursuant to section 208 of the CAA an in-use
compliance (recall) program based primarily on testing conducted by the
manufacturers of spark-ignition and compression-ignition marine
engines. Although the program will have many similarities to EPA's
current motor vehicle program, it will contain elements designed to
minimize the burden on the industry while maintaining a strong
incentive to build engines that meet applicable standards when in
actual use.
In addition, EPA proposes that in-use compliance with emission
standards would be determined based on test results using the same
basic test procedure that is used for certification purposes with an
opportunity for alternative test schemes to be approved in advance by
the Administrator. Manufacturers of spark-ignition marine engines would
be subject to recall testing up to 10 years or 350 hours of operation
whichever occurs first, except in the case of personal watercraft,
which would be subject to testing for 5 years or 350 hours of
operation. Manufacturers of compression-ignition marine engines would
be subject to the same recall liability period as those in the current
nonroad compression-ignition engine rule (59 FR 31306). Actual repair,
however, would not be limited by actual years or hours. For example,
compliance testing of an engine family might be limited to 10 years, 5
years, or 350 hours of operation; however, any resulting recall repair
would be required to be applied to all engines of that family,
regardless of the years or hours on an individual engine. This is
consistent with EPA's recall repair policy for on-highway vehicles and
engines and on large compression-ignition nonroad engines.
Under this proposed testing scheme, EPA will specify the engine
families to be tested each year, with selection based on criteria such
as production quantity, past emission performance, and engine and
emission control technology. Manufacturers will perform testing on the
engine families selected by EPA up to a total of 25 percent of a model
year's engine families. EPA requests comment on the level of testing
burden which would be appropriate to assure in-use compliance giving
consideration to the industry's limited resources and the substantial
research and development effort it will require to comply with the
declining certification standards over the nine year phase-in period
(applicable to spark-ignition outboard and personal watercraft engines)
of this rule. Additionally EPA requests comment on whether it would be
appropriate to phase-in in-use liability through a graduated or tiered
level of testing plan for the period of the new standards phase-in.
An example of one proposed in-use engine testing scheme which would
be acceptable to EPA for any manufacturer is described in the following
paragraphs. This scheme provides that each engine family will be tested
periodically and provides for greatly reduced testing if the initial
engines tested are clean enough to indicate compliance. The Agency
acknowledges that this testing scheme may not be appropriate for all
marine manufacturers and requests comment on what segments of the
marine industry would find it inappropriate and why.
EPA's current motor vehicle program tests approximately ten
vehicles or engines of a specific engine family when determining in-use
compliance. To satisfy our goal of establishing a strong enforcement
program while minimizing the burden on manufacturers, EPA is proposing
a sampling process which is designed to provide adequate data on which
to make compliance decisions while allowing the testing of families
which are found to emit below the standard to be concluded as
expeditiously as possible.
EPA requests comment on alternatives to this testing scheme. NMMA
member manufacturers or other engine manufacturers may wish to provide
examples of the in-use testing programs they would recommend as
alternative testing schemes. EPA would like to have a more detailed
description of what NMMA has referred to as an in-use testing program
which would provide a ``reasonable degree of certainty'' as to whether
the engine family at issue complies with applicable regulations. The
Agency requests a description of what circumstances exist or are
anticipated which would create the need for individual test plans. It
would be helpful to learn whether a limited menu of plans would
possibly meet these needs.
NMMA has suggested that upon approval of a manufacturer's testing
plan by the Administrator a manufacturer be allowed to use fleets
instead of individually owned engines for in-use compliance testing.
The Agency is aware that manufacturers have access to fleets of marine
engines as a source for the procurement of in-use engines. These
engines will accumulate hours of use before most other engines because
they are used for significantly more hours per year than individually
owned engines. Thus, testing on these engines could highlight problems
long before they would become widespread in engines owned by individual
purchasers. Although these fleet engines may not have experienced
maintenance and usage patterns identical to private owners, the Agency
recognizes value in the accelerated usage patterns that these engines
experience. While the Agency is inclined to accept the use of fleets in
an in-use testing program conducted by engine manufacturers, EPA wishes
to evaluate the relationship between the emissions performance of such
fleets and the in-use performance of individually owned and maintained
engines. The Agency is interested in an engineering analysis and/or
data which indicates that a fleet engine family which indicated passing
emissions performance would be representative of an engine family in
non-fleet service. In addition, the Agency is interested in any
criteria, which if applied to fleets, would better assure that their
performance adequately reflected real world performance of marine
engines (such as, required storage periods).
In addition to recommending the use of fleets to EPA, NMMA has
suggested that manufacturers be permitted to develop, and submit for
approval, within 120 days of a request for in-use testing from EPA,
individual in-use testing programs for fleet marine engines tailored to
the specific circumstances of the particular manufacturer. NMMA's
proposal would be subject only to the requirements that the programs be
designed to demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty whether
or not the engines are in compliance. Under this proposal, EPA will
approve or disapprove the program within 60 days of submission. A
disapproved program must be revised and resubmitted to EPA within 60
days. An approved program must be implemented, and testing must be
completed, within eighteen months of approval of the program by EPA.
The proposal suggests that the Agency be willing to consider extensions
to the requirements when the manufacturer presents circumstances that
warrant such extensions. The manufacturer would be required to submit
to the Administrator within three months of completion of testing, all
emission testing results generated from the in-use testing program.
While the length of time a manufacturer is afforded by NMMA's
schedule to complete in-use compliance testing is in the range of
acceptability to EPA, the Agency is concerned that because there are 11
different gasoline marine engine manufacturers, NMMA's suggestion would
create at least 11 different plans for gasoline manufacturers and more
for diesel manufacturers. As with new engine testing, EPA would prefer
to implement one or a few testing schemes which accommodate production
differences between manufacturers or across engines families where the
validity of the scheme(s) is established prior to final promulgation.
This would provide greater assurance to the public that this rule will
result in new engines that meet standards and provide more consistency
and equity between manufacturers. EPA realizes that unique
circumstances surrounding a very low production engine or a very
specialized engine could necessitate an individual plan. Consequently,
if manufacturers comments warrant, it may be appropriate to consider an
additional regulatory provision which would accommodate special
circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Under section 207(c) of the CAA, the Administrator requires
manufacturers to submit a remedial plan to recall applicable engines if
a determination is made that a substantial number of properly
maintained and used engines do not conform with the requirements
prescribed under section 202 of the Act (an administratively ordered
situation). Other statutory requirements include submittal of the
manufacturer's remedial plan for EPA approval, procedures for
notification of engine owners, submittal of quarterly reports on the
progress of the recall campaign, and procedures to be followed in the
event that the manufacturer requests a public hearing to contest the
Administrator's finding of nonconformity.
Number and types of engines to be tested: Under EPA's currently
proposed testing program, a manufacturer would be required to test in-
use engines from an engine family specified by EPA when that family
reached an appropriate age (in calendar age and/or usage hours). If an
engine family did not change from one model year to the next, testing
requirements would be reduced. The number of marine engines of a
targeted family to be tested by a manufacturer would be determined by
the following method:
1. A minimum of four (4) engines per family per year for each
family that reaches the minimum age specified, provided that no engine
fails any standard. For each failing engine, two more engines would be
tested until the total number of engines equals 10.
2. For engine families of less than 500 engines per year or for
engine manufacturers of less than 2,000 engines per year, a minimum of
two (2) engines per targeted family per year, provided that no engine
fails any standard. For each failing engine, two more engines would be
tested until the total number of engines equals 10.
3. If an engine family has not changed from one year to the next
or, has been certified using carryover emission data or, has been
previously tested under options 1 or 2 and, EPA has not ordered or
informed the manufacturer of an emission concern with that family, then
only one engine per family per year must be tested. If that one engine
fails for any pollutant, testing must be conducted as outlined in 1 or
2, whichever is appropriate.
A manufacturer may test more engines than the minimums above or may
concede that the engine family fails to comply with applicable
standards before reaching engine number 10. EPA will consider failure
rates, average emission levels, and the existence of any defects, among
other things in determining whether to pursue remedial action. EPA may
order a recall before testing reaches the maximum number of engines.
As discussed above, EPA will consider requests for approval of
alternate proposals for assuring in-use engine family compliance.
Alternative proposals might be particularly appropriate in cases where
(1) annual production is very low; or (2) engines cannot be obtained
for testing because they are used substantially in craft which are not
conducive to engine removal, such as large vessels where the engine
cannot be removed without dismantling either the engine or the vessel;
or (3) other compelling circumstances associated with the structure of
the industry and uniqueness of marine engine applications.
Collection and testing of in-use engines: While certification
testing demonstrates the effectiveness of prototype designs and
manufacturer assembly-line testing and SEA demonstrate the performance
of newly assembled engines, only an in-use test program can determine
the effect that actual engine use has on emission performance. Under
the current proposal, an engine manufacturer would, therefore, be
required to procure a representative sample of in-use engines which
have been operated up to the recall liability period (in calendar time
or in hours of usage). EPA would likely target primarily one past model
year each year. An engine manufacturer could test more than one model
years' engines in a given year, provided the engines had been operated
for up to the recall liability period. Manufacturers would be
responsible for assuring that they met their testing responsibilities
for all families of all model years.
While EPA determines the schedule for testing engine families in
its on-highway program, the marine manufacturers will be afforded
maximum flexibility in determining the test schedules for their own in-
use testing programs so that these programs may be coordinated with
other manufacturer activities. However, the Agency will require that
the testing of a selected engine family begin within twelve months
after receiving testing notification from the Agency and that this
testing be completed within a twelve month period. Testing of an engine
family in the on-highway program is usually completed within a three
month period. The Agency is aware that marine engine manufacturers may
have difficulty procuring engines which could lengthen the time needed
to complete the testing of an engine family. The Agency believes that
providing manufacturers with twelve months to complete this testing
provides the manufacturers flexibility in conducting their test
programs and adequately addresses most difficulties which would arise.
Furthermore, the Agency is willing to consider extensions to this
requirement when the manufacturers represent circumstances which
warrant such extensions.
Typically a test engine would be procured from sources independent
from and unrelated to the engine manufacturer or equipment
manufacturer. With prior approval of the Administrator, an engine
manufacturer with annual sales of less than 50,000 engines might obtain
in-use engines associated with itself or its equipment manufacturer.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the Agency is inclined to accept the
use of fleets in an in-use testing program conducted by manufacturers.
A test engine would be required to have a maintenance and use
history representative of a properly maintained and used engine. To
comply with this requirement a manufacturer would question the end user
regarding the accumulated usage, maintenance, operating conditions, and
storage of the test engine.
The manufacturer would perform minimal set-to-spec maintenance on a
test engine. Such maintenance would include no more than what is listed
in the owner's instructions for engines with the amount of service and
age of the acquired test engine. One valid emission test conducted
under the Federal test procedure established for marine engines would
be required for each in-use engine.
EPA recognizes the need to develop a testing scheme or limited set
of schemes to provide assurance that in-use engines are meeting
standards while taking into account the diverse needs of marine engine
manufacturers. To this end, EPA requests comments and specific
proposals for in-use engine test schemes that will address the concerns
described above and on any possible alternative designs of in-use
testing programs (such as independent third party testing paid for by
manufacturers or their associations) or enforcement that may be more
effective. The Agency will work with manufacturers during the comment
period to create a limited menu of optional test plans which will meet
the needs of the entire industry. However, any alternatives must
produce a compliance scheme that provides EPA with an enforceable
program which provides substantial incentive to manufacturers to
produce clean, durable engines.
In-use test program reporting requirements: Under the current
proposal, the manufacturer would be required to submit to the
Administrator within three months of completion of testing, all
emission testing results generated from the in-use testing program. EPA
envisions that manufacturers will simply provide quarterly statements
of all emission results obtained during the previous quarter, including
a summary table of any engine family that has completed testing during
that quarter. At the Administrator's request, a manufacturer would be
required to provide documents used in the procurement process,
including criteria used in the procurement screening process and
information from the end user(s) related to use, maintenance, and
storage of the selected engines.
NMMA suggested that when a determination of nonconformity is made
(a class is ordered to be recalled) that a manufacturer have the option
of an alternative remedial action or a recall. According to NMMA, an
alternative remedial action might include re-certification of the
nonconforming engine at the higher emission level, and use of the
averaging, banking, and trading program elements to demonstrate
manufacturer compliance with the emission standards on a corporate
average basis. Alternatively, the manufacturer could implement a recall
and repair program. A recall program, or an alternate remedial action,
must achieve emission reductions sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with the national standard on a corporate average basis.
For the reasons described below NMMA's suggestions as we understand
them are either inconsistent with the Clean Air Act or with essential
tenets of both certification and ABT. The issue of whether the Agency
can allow some alternative to recall and repair after a determination
of nonconformity has been made was litigated in Center for Auto Safety
v. EPA, 747 F2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1984), where the court concluded that ``*
* *section 207(c) requires recall and repair as the only statutory
remedy for nonconformity.'' Therefore, after a determination of
nonconformity the Agency may not allow an alternative remedy such as
NMMA suggested.
NMMA has suggested that non-conformity determinations made in
assembly line or in-use testing not require action by a manufacturer if
the manufacturer had or could obtain credits from averaging, banking or
trading to cover the nonconformity and still maintain a corporate
average below standard.
As was stated in the assembly line testing discussion above, EPA
believes that such an option runs counter to essential tenets of both
certification and ABT. For an engine family involved in ABT, the FEL
takes the place of the standard for certification, assembly line and
in-use testing. For reasons stated earlier, the FELs must remain firm
for those engines already introduced into commerce, otherwise, a
manufacturer could certify to an overly optimistic FEL, knowing that if
the engines drifted over the FEL either in assembly line or in-use
testing, it need only cover a credit shortfall and not recall engines.
If a determination of nonconformity with the requirements of
section 213 of the Act is made (that is, if EPA orders a recall under
the provisions of section 207(c)), the manufacturer would not have the
option of an alternate remedial action and an actual recall would be
required.
Alternatives to Recall and Repair: EPA also requests comment
regarding the circumstances under which alternatives to conventional
recall would be considered as a voluntary action. These alternatives
would be required to have the same or greater environmental benefit as
conventional recall and provide equivalent incentives to manufacturers
to produce engines which durably and reliably control emissions. For
instance, a manufacturer might establish or increase the size of an in-
house engine fleet designed to quickly accumulate usage. This fleet
would be tested for emissions and any failures diagnosed would provide
the manufacturer with information on needed design or calibration
changes. EPA requests comment on how manufacturers who have repeated
nonconformities should be handled as compared to those who only
occasionally have problems. The Agency invites comment on this
alternative as well as others and on the factors the Agency should
consider in evaluating proposed alternatives.
EPA is aware that the program described above may not be
appropriate for all marine manufacturers or circumstances. More
information is needed to evaluate the appropriateness of today's
proposal for this industry. EPA believes that today's proposed in-use
testing and recall program is one appropriate way to enforce in-use
compliance. However, as this is EPA's first regulation of marine
engines, EPA requests comment on additional or alternative ways of
enforcing in-use compliance or remedying noncompliance. EPA also
requests comments on the legal authority for any suggested
alternatives.
20. Defect Reporting and Warranty Requirements
While the Agency is not wedded to the number 25, EPA is proposing
that manufacturers of marine spark-ignition and compression-ignition
engines file a defect information report whenever a manufacturer
identifies the existence of a specific emission-related defect in 25 or
more engines manufactured in the same model year. However, no report
would need to be filed if the defect was corrected prior to the sale of
the affected engines to the ultimate purchaser. These proposed
reporting requirements are similar to the requirements found in the on-
highway program and in the nonroad large compression-ignition engine
program. EPA is considering a revision of the on-highway reporting
program. Any new regulations may encompass both on-highway and the
nonroad sector. The Agency invites comment on the appropriate numerical
trigger and an estimation of how many reports a commenter would expect
to be generated by such a suggested trigger.
NMMA suggested that having 25 defects of a component of system
trigger a reporting requirement would be too onerous. NMMA would prefer
to have as a trigger the identification of a specific defect in one
percent or more engines of the same engine family manufactured in the
same model year, or 25 engine or more of the same engine family
manufactured in the same model year. Because the production volume of
heavy-duty manufacturers is similar to the marine industry, EPA has
examined the level of reporting which currently is shouldered by the
onroad heavy-duty manufacturers. As a result of that review, EPA
estimates that the marine industry, as a whole, will only be expected
to file 5-15 defect reports per year with EPA. A fuller analysis can be
found in the ICR supporting this regulation. In addition to currently
believing that 25 is not a burdensome trigger, EPA would be concerned
that limiting the counting of defects to an engine family or model year
could mask wider spread defects which occur in a part or component
which is installed in several model years or several engine families in
a given model year.
EPA is also proposing a warranty period under authority of section
207(a) of the CAA for spark-ignition marine engine emission-related
parts of 4 years. This is the average period that the first owner
possesses the engine as indicated by the engine manufacturers. EPA
requests comments on the appropriateness of the length of the warranty
period and also if the period should restrict the hours of use. EPA is
currently developing more detailed regulations that will further
clarify manufacturers' responsibilities under section 207(a) for both
on-highway and marine engines. EPA will rely on the existing 207(a)
practices until those regulations are finalized.
An advisory parts list issued by EPA on July 15, 1991, gives
manufacturers notice of EPA's current view concerning the emission-
related parts that must be covered by warranty under section 207(a). A
copy of this list is in the docket for this rulemaking. This list will
also cover marine engines.
21. Tampering Enforcement
As required under sections 213(d) and 203 of the CAA, it will be
illegal for any person to tamper with any engine emission-related
component or system installed on or in a marine engine in compliance
with this proposal. EPA is proposing that existing on-highway tampering
provisions apply to marine engines covered by this rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Office of Enforcement and General Counsel; Mobile Source
Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A, June 25, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is aware that original nonroad equipment manufacturers often
supply the engine accessories designed for their specific applications.
At the same time, it is required that the engine tested to certify an
engine family represent the worst-case configuration of that family.
EPA requests comment on how to establish specific criteria or
parameters under which a manufacturer would be allowed to continue to
modify an engine without (1) jeopardizing the integrity of this
proposed emission control program, and (2) causing the equipment
manufacturer to have to recertify or risk being in violation of the
tampering provisions of EPA's tampering guidance in Memorandum 1-A.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Importation of Nonconforming Marine Engines
EPA is proposing to prohibit the importation of nonconforming
marine engines originally manufactured after the effective date of this
rule, except as provided below. Such prohibition is based in part on
the existing regulations for the importation of nonconforming motor
vehicles and motor vehicle engines (on-road program) and nonroad large
compression-ignition engines.
For the on-road program, Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs)
are responsible for all aspects of compliance required of the original
manufacturers for their U.S. market production (for example,
certification, testing, labeling, warranty, recall, maintaining
records). While EPA provides for an ICI program for motor vehicles and
motor vehicle engines, EPA is not proposing to have an ICI program for
marine engines. EPA believes that an ICI program for marine engines
would not be cost-effective because of the expected low volume of
importations of nonconforming marine engines and the high costs
associated with an ICI program. Therefore, unless otherwise exempted or
excluded, nonconforming marine engines may not be imported into the
U.S. In such cases, a marine vessel containing a nonconforming marine
engine must have the marine engine replaced with an EPA certified
marine engine in order to be imported. EPA requests comment on the
absence of an ICI program for marine engines.
This proposal provides for certain exemptions to the prohibition
against importing nonconforming marine engines. These include temporary
importation exemptions for repairs and alterations, testing and
display, and permanent importation exemptions for national security and
certain marine engines proven to be identical, in all material
respects, to their corresponding EPA certified versions. In previous
rulemakings, EPA has provided for a permanent importation exemption for
vehicles or engines greater than 20 original production years old. EPA
is not proposing an exemption for marine engines greater than 20
original production years old. EPA requests comment on the absence of
such an exemption.
Importation regulations are joint regulations between EPA and the
United States Department of the Treasury (Customs Service). The
citation for United States Customs Service, Department of Treasury
regulations governing import requirements is reserved. The citation
will be inserted upon promulgation by the United States Customs Service
of the applicable regulations.
EPA is also providing for the exclusion of nonconforming engines
used solely in competition. EPA will exclude engines used in vessels
whose use, because of features that are not easily removed in anything
other than competition, would be unsafe, impractical or highly
unlikely. EPA will employ a capability test as it has done with motor
vehicles since the 1970s. Engines used in vessels that are incapable of
uses other than competition will be excluded from the marine engine
emission requirements.
V. Discussion of Issues
This section contains further discussion on a number of issues
raised during the development of this notice.
A. Choice of Exhaust Constituents to be Regulated
1. Gasoline Spark-ignition Engines
EPA is proposing to regulate total exhaust hydrocarbons (HC),
carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from gasoline
spark-ignition marine engines. Standards for particulate matter (PM),
carbon dioxide (CO2), and evaporative hydrocarbons are not being
proposed in this rulemaking for gasoline spark-ignition engines for the
reasons discussed below.
PM emissions from gasoline engines are small when compared to
emissions of HC, CO, and NOX. When compared to other sources,
marine gasoline spark-ignition engines contribute between 0.0 percent
and 0.3 percent of the PM inventory in cities studied by EPA.\13\ This
regulation will reduce HC emissions from these engines and as a result,
PM emissions should also decrease. The length of the test procedure
would need to be greatly increased in order to collect a large enough
sample on a particulate filter for an accurate measurement. At this
time, EPA does not consider the benefits of a PM standard for gasoline
engines to be sufficient to justify the increased costs of measuring PM
emissions from gasoline spark-ignition marine engines. Therefore, EPA
believes that separate emission standards for particulate emissions for
gasoline spark-ignition marine engines are not appropriate at this
time. EPA requests comments on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emissions Study, November 1991,
21A2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The focus of this rulemaking is to reduce ground level ozone.
Carbon dioxide is considered a ``greenhouse'' gas due to its role in
global climate change. However, the HC emission standards of this rule
are expected to result in significant improvements in fuel economy for
marine engines and, therefore, significant reductions in CO2
emissions. For these reasons, EPA is not proposing to regulate CO2
from marine sources at this time. EPA requests comment on this issue.
EPA requests comment on the possibility of adopting evaporative
emission standards for gasoline spark-ignition marine engines. All on-
highway vehicles sold in the U.S. have been designed to control
evaporative emissions for many years; however, the characteristics of
marine engine operation may prevent the same level of control for these
applications. Specifically, the carbon canister-based control systems
used in motor vehicles depend on relatively frequent engine operation
to restore vapor storage capacity. Marine engines are probably used too
infrequently for such a design to be effective.
Sealed fuel systems on the other hand would contain vapors
otherwise generated by fuel heating (either from engine operation or
from daily temperature swings). Coast Guard regulations discourage, but
do not prohibit, pressurized fuel systems (33 CFR 183.524(c)). EPA
therefore requests comment on the legality as well as the practicality
of designing sealed fuel tanks to control evaporative emissions. A
sealed tank would have to be designed with a valve to allow entry of
makeup air as fuel volume decreased. The portable nature of gas tanks/
cans for outboard engines would perhaps require a more complex
connection to the fuel line to allow for repeated opening and closing.
If fuel tanks cannot be sealed during engine operation, it may still be
possible to design the fuel system in a way that seals the fuel tank
during engine-off periods.
Fuel permeation is another issue related to evaporative emissions.
Gasoline is known to permeate through plastic and rubber components to
the atmosphere at surprisingly high rates. The technologies being
developed for on-highway vehicles, primarily coextrusion for fuel tanks
and fluorination for fuel lines and grommets, should also be feasible
and effective in the marine environment. EPA requests comment on
requirements to demonstrate reduced permeation losses from marine fuel
systems.
2. Compression-Ignition Engines
EPA proposes that all compression-ignition marine engines be
included in the current regulations for new nonroad compression-
ignition engines, regardless of power rating or usage (both propulsion
and non-propulsion). HC, CO, NOX, PM, and smoke are proposed to be
regulated as in the current regulations. EPA is requesting comment on
the appropriateness of removing the lugging mode from the smoke test
for marine propulsion engines.
EPA is proposing to regulate all compression-ignition marine
engines in this rule. Given the coverage of the large compression-
ignition engine rule, this choice raises two issues. (1) Why regulate
compression-ignition engines at this time and (2) why regulate even the
smallest engines? The questions will be answered sequentially.
EPA is proposing to regulate compression-ignition marine engines
today although they were not regulated in the original large
compression-ignition engine rule for several reasons. First, in
developing inventories for the California Federal Implementation Plans,
EPA found that these engines were a very significant source of
emissions (1.65 tones NOX per summer day in Ventura in 1990).
Second, the large compression-ignition nonroad engine rule had very
favorable cost effectiveness and there was no reason to believe that
benefit wouldn't carry over to marine engines. Third, the knowledge
gained from working with the Coast Guard on the gasoline spark-ignition
engines was appropriately carried over. Finally, the best reading of
the Sierra Club lawsuit settlement requires EPA to regulate all marine
engines.
EPA chose to propose regulations of even the smaller compression-
ignition marine engines because they too seemed to fit under the
settlement agreement. Further, these small diesels are generally used
in outboards. EPA believes that diesel outboards are substitutable for
some gasoline outboards. Thus the market for these engines could grow
substantially after regulation. Given the extremely high relative
NOX emission from these engines, EPA believed it was important to
control the emissions.
Smoke from marine engines is perceived as a significant local air
pollution concern in many areas. These areas have developed local
regulations to discourage smoking engines. However, the U.S. Coast
Guard has informed EPA that, often, properly maintained compression-
ignition marine engines will fail local regulations. The continued
smoking is not only unsightly, but it also created clean-up costs and
may lead to health problems.
The emissions of primary concern from diesel engines are NOX
and PM/smoke. Only NOX causes tropospheric ozone formation that is
significant from these engines. The standards therefore require a
reduction in NOX. The HC and CO standards are included here to be
consistent with the large compression-ignition nonroad engine rule. PM
and smoke emissions are regulated for the reasons described above.
B. Water Quality Impacts/Scrubbing
The primary focus of today's notice is on the effects of marine
exhaust emissions on ambient air quality. As a result, regulatory
efforts and testing programs focus on air effects. However, another
aspect of marine exhaust emissions is their impact on water quality.
While EPA acknowledges that marine engine emissions also have an impact
on water quality, EPA proposes to measure all emissions as if they go
into the air, and not to specifically address the impact these
emissions have on water quality for this rulemaking. EPA believes this
is appropriate for three reasons: (1) The efforts contained in this
rulemaking for reducing air quality effects will also act to reduce
adverse water quality effects; (2) it is difficult to determine how
much of the unburned fuel and oil present in marine environments comes
from marine engine sources; (3) prior research regarding the effects of
marine exhaust on water quality generally conclude that marine exhaust
may not be a significant problem. Each of these are discussed in
further detail below.
First, EPA believes that the cross-media effects on water are
alleviated by this rulemaking. In fact, controls on exhaust emissions
from marine engines designed primarily to reduce their effects on
ambient air quality will also benefit water quality. Many of the
pollutants associated with marine engine emissions are actually from
unburned oil and fuel: current technology 2-stroke engines, the most
popular kind for pleasure craft, discharge unburned oil and fuel into
the water and the atmosphere along with other exhaust compounds.
Today's proposal is expected to eliminate 85% or more of the sales of
this old, 2-stroke technology from the marketplace. This will be
replaced with technologies which do not emit significant amounts of
unburned fuel and oil into the water or the atmosphere. Therefore, the
overall emissions levels in both air and water will be significantly
reduced as a result of this rulemaking.
Second, many studies conclude that it is difficult, if not
impossible, to ascertain how much of the unburned fuel and oil present
in marine environments comes specifically from marine engine sources.
An undetermined portion of fuel and oil pollutants comes from sources
such as parking lots, especially around marinas, and storm water
runoff. Thus, while the regulations contemplated in this rulemaking
would significantly reduce discharges of unburned fuel and oil from
marine engines, the overall effects of these pollutants will not be
completely eliminated because of these additional sources.
Third, most research studies of the impact of marine exhaust
emissions on water quality indicate that these emissions have only
moderate to small impacts on water.\14\ According to these studies, as
much as 65 percent of the harmful pollutants released into the water
from marine engines evaporate into the air, and the remainder are not
present in large enough concentrations to be harmful to marine plants
and animals. These studies seem to indicate that the gaseous exhaust
emissions evaporated into the air are more voluminous than the
concentrations of emittants in water. Further study would need to be
done to definitively evaluate the contribution of exhaust emissions to
water quality problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See Memo to Docket which summarizes several studies on the
impact of marine emissions on water quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Certification Durability Demonstration
One of the main goals of this regulation is to ensure that marine
engines meet the emission standards throughout their useful lives while
operating in-use. The objective of the certification process is to
ensure that the designs of the emission control systems are capable of
meeting the emission standards not only when such engines are new, but
also during typical in-use operation through the engine's useful life.
Given the long useful lives of marine engines, an up front
determination of emission control durability is most important since
problems may not be detected in-use for long periods of time. EPA
considered a number of options regarding the demonstration of durable
emission control systems for certification. The following discusses
these options in more detail.
1. Self Approval/In-use Testing Feedback Requirement Program
EPA is proposing this option in today's notice. This option
consists of a self approval process with in-use testing feedback. Based
on good engineering practice, the manufacturer would determine the form
and the extent of engine and/or component selection and testing
methodologies. The manufacturer would establish deterioration factors
which would be applied to the new engine emission levels; the resulting
emission levels, taking into account the deterioration factors, would
be required to comply with the emission standards (or the family
emission limits). The manufacturer would also be required to perform
in-use testing for the recall program (see Section IV(D)(19) ``In-Use
Enforcement and Recall''). EPA would use this in-use data to confirm
the methodology for establishing deterioration factors. For example, if
in-use testing indicates that an engine family's emission control
system is deteriorating at a faster rate than predicted by the
manufacturer's deterioration factor (DF), EPA would challenge the use
of the manufacturer's methodology for determining DFs for that engine
family as well as for other engine families. The manufacturer would
have to revise its methodology for determining DFs or provide data and
information to support the use of the DF generation methodology for
other engine families. Failure of the manufacturer to correctly
estimate the deterioration factor in the case of data indicating a
faster rate of deterioration, would subject the manufacturer to the
recall program penalties.
EPA believes that this approach will best ensure that marine
emission control systems will be designed and built to be durable. This
program requires manufacturers to assess deterioration of emission
control systems before such engines enter into commerce. Therefore,
systems with inadequate durability can be identified and corrected
before they are used on the waterways. Also, this approach provides a
means of determining the adequacy of the deterioration factor
methodology through actual in-use data.
2. New Engine Standards/In-use Testing Requirement Program
This option would include emission standards for new engines and a
data collection program for establishing a certification durability
requirement at a future date. During certification, engine
manufacturers would need only to demonstrate that new engines (perhaps
after a break-in period) meet the new engine emission standards.
However, as a condition of certification, the manufacturers would be
required to agree to collect data on in-use engines. This data would be
used to establish certification durability requirements at a future
date when sufficient information exists on the durability of marine
emission control systems.
This program would significantly delay the establishment of a
certification durability program. The average useful lives of current
technology 2-stroke marine engines are estimated to be between 14 and
27 years. Therefore, a substantial amount of time would pass before
sufficient data were collected to establish a certification durability
demonstration program. Therefore, EPA is not proposing this option.
However, EPA requests comments on this type of program for
certification durability demonstration.
3. Specified Service Accumulation Program
Another option considered by EPA is a pre-production durability
demonstration program for marine engines similar to that used for on-
highway light-duty vehicles. Such a program consists of operating
engines to the end of their useful life over a specified accelerated
service accumulation cycle to generate deterioration factors. The
deterioration factors would then be applied to the new engine emission
levels and the resulting emission levels would be required to comply
with the emission standards (or the family emission limits). The
advantages of this type of program are that the service accumulation
and the deterioration factor generation methods would be consistent
among manufacturers. Also, EPA has many years of experience in
administering such a program.
However, the main disadvantages are related to establishing a
service accumulation cycle that is representative of actual in-use
operation. EPA currently has insufficient information to develop a
representative accelerated cycle for gasoline spark-ignition marine
engines. Also, experience with the on-highway certification durability
program has shown that such accelerated cycles alone do not do a good
job of simulating the in-use conditions and operation that can lead to
emission control deterioration. This option does not contain any in-use
testing feedback, therefore, any proposed service accumulation cycle
would go unchecked with respect to how well it represents conditions
that can result in emission control deterioration. Therefore, EPA is
not proposing this option in today's notice.
EPA requests comments on whether this type of program is desirable
for demonstrating the emission control system durability at the time of
certification. Specifically, EPA requests comments on appropriate
service accumulation cycles for this type of approach and on how this
type of program could meet the goals of ensuring that emission control
systems are designed and built to be durable while operating in-use.
4. No Certification Durability Demonstration
One option considered by EPA would be to have no requirements for
emission control durability demonstration for certification purposes.
This approach would require manufacturers to demonstrate that new
engines meet the emission standards but would not require further
demonstration during the certification process that the emission
control system designs are durable. Instead, this program would rely on
in-use enforcement (recall) programs to ensure that manufacturers build
durable systems.
The advantages of this option are that it is simple and low cost.
Also, it allows manufacturers to establish their own internal programs
to ensure that emission control systems are durable and balance the
associated risks of recall.
However, the primary disadvantages of this approach relate to the
long useful lives of the engines and the potential problems associated
with in-use testing of marine engines. The average useful lives of
current technology 2-stroke outboard marine engines are estimated to be
between 14 and 27 years. Therefore, a substantial amount of time would
pass before problems with emission control durability would surface as
a result of in-use enforcement testing. During this time, there would
be no assurance that emissions control systems were performing properly
in-use. Also, in-use engines may be very difficult to track for in-use
testing purposes, as previously discussed (see Section IV(D)(19) ``In-
use Enforcement and Recall''). Since this approach relies heavily on
in-use testing as the incentive for manufacturers to build durable
emission control systems, the potential problem of limited resources to
perform testing on a sufficient number of engine families could
undermine the objective of this approach.
Due to the disadvantages discussed here, EPA is not proposing this
approach in today's notice. However, EPA requests comment on the
general approach of no durability demonstration requirements during the
certification process. More specifically, EPA solicits comments on
whether such an approach could be as effective as other options and on
how the potential difficulties associated with this approach could be
overcome.
EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of the proposed option
as well as the other options discussed or other options for
certification durability demonstration.
D. Use of an HC Emission Standards Curve for Outboard and Personal
Watercraft Engines
EPA is proposing HC emission standards curves for spark-ignition
outboards and personal watercraft specific to the power output of an
engine as explained in Section IV(D)(2).
EPA believes that a standards curve is necessary because of the
wide range of engine sizes subject to this proposal. Current engine
size availability ranges from 1.5 kW to over 250 kW for outboard
engines. Historically, with this wide spread of engine sizes, EPA has
considered different standard levels for different size ranges of
engines. This has partly been due to separate regulatory efforts for
engines of different size and partly due to different uses for
different size engines. For example, gasoline on-highway engines are
classified as light-duty or heavy-duty with separate emission standards
for each. If EPA were to regulate outboard marine engines in this
historical manner, the result would be a set of step function emission
standards which would group engines by power rating and apply separate
standards to each group. EPA requests comments on this traditional
approach to emission regulation as it might apply to HC emissions from
gasoline spark-ignition engines. Commenters should include
recommendations for specific engine groupings, criteria for engine
classification and standards levels for each group.
As an alternative, EPA believes that the curve concept is much
better suited for this regulation for several reasons. The curve
eliminates the ``steps'' between emission standards and the associated
problems of determining appropriate engine ranges for each step.
Manufacturers could ``game'' step function standards by derating the
power of engines so that they are classified into a group with higher
emission standards. Another downside of step function standards is that
for smaller (lower power) engines in a given step you are limiting the
credit generation potential, while for larger (higher power) engines in
the same range you are increasing the credit generation potential,
compared to the inherent relationship between the work specific HC
emission rate (g/kw-hr) and power. For large engines, the emission rate
difference is marginal. But for the small engines, particularly below
100 kW, the slope of the curve changes at an increasing rate and
results in significant emission rate differences for small power
changes. The use of a curve allows the optimization of the work
specific emission rate-power relationship.
Alternatively, having one HC standard for the entire power range of
gasoline marine engines is not appropriate for the range of engine
sizes proposed to be regulated. HC emissions on a work specific basis
(g/kw-hr) inherently increase with smaller engines due to higher
surface to volume ratios. The proposed standards curve concept takes
into account these inherent differences in HC emissions for different
size engines and requires equal percentage reductions of HC emissions
from both large and small engines on a g/kw-hr basis. Therefore, the
goal of reducing the emission rates for all engines is not compromised
by the standards curve structure. In addition, this approach avoids
setting rather arbitrary cutpoints for step change standards, thus
eliminating the potential for mis-classifying engines by artificially
changing their power ratings so that less stringent standards apply.
EPA requests comments on the proposed standards curve for controlling
HC emissions for outboard and personal watercraft engines. EPA also
requests comments on other possible forms of the standards such as one
level for all such engines.
E. Options for Averaging Sets and Effect on HC Standards for Gasoline
Spark-ignition Marine Engines
Based on the estimated potential emission reductions that are
expected from feasible future technology, EPA is proposing to set
emissions standards that will achieve a 75 percent reduction in HC
emissions of 2-stroke outboard/personal watercraft engines. As
discussed in Section IV(D)(2), the specific standards for each outboard
and personal watercraft engine family are determined by the power
output of the engine and must be met on a corporate average basis. For
the purpose of determining compliance with the average HC standards,
EPA proposes to construct two separate averaging sets; Set 1: Including
outboard/personal watercraft engines and Set 2: including inboards/
sterndrive engines. EPA proposes to allow trading only within an
averaging set, with no trading permitted between averaging sets. By
constructing two averaging sets, EPA intends to generate two separate
standards curves based on the emissions of the engines within each set.
It is from these standards curves that emission credits and debits
would be calculated for each engine family and corporate average
compliance would be determined for each manufacturer. The mathematical
formula for calculating the standards curve for Set 1 is discussed in
section IV(D)(2) and reflects only the emissions of outboard/personal
watercraft engines and the reductions that can be achieved from those
engines through the application of expected feasible technology. Due to
the narrower range in power output in the engines included in Set 2 and
their more uniform emissions characteristics, the curve representing
their emissions standard is flat. Therefore, EPA believes that a
straight line standard is appropriate for determining compliance on
average for these engines. EPA requests comments on the appropriateness
of a straight line standard for Set 2.
EPA considered several options in constructing averaging sets and
standards curves, including combining all gasoline spark-ignition
engines into a single averaging set and generating one standards curve
based on the baseline emissions of all such engines. EPA decided
against proposing the single set option for the following reasons.
First, Section 213 of the Clean Air Act, directs EPA to set
emissions standards for new nonroad engines that will achieve the
greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Agency believes will be available,
taking several factors into account, including the cost of applying
available technology. The emissions levels in the compliance curve
generated in the single set option in the final year of phase-in are
approximately 10-15 percent below the levels in the final standards
curve describing the emissions of outboard/personal watercraft engines.
To comply with the emissions levels in the single standards curve,
outboard/personal watercraft engine manufacturers would have to achieve
approximately a 90 percent reduction from current levels or purchase
credits from other manufacturers of inboard/sterndrive engines. EPA
believes that feasible technologies for outboard/personal watercraft
engines will not achieve such levels without excessive NOX
increases. Further, EPA acknowledges that for some applications,
especially for engines between 10-50 kw, only outboard technology is
appropriate.
While the single set option results in a standards curve which is
more stringent on its face, EPA believes that the real emissions
reductions achieved will be the same under either the single set or two
set options. If the single curve is promulgated, the outboard/personal
watercraft engine manufacturers could most cost effectively achieve
about a 75 percent reduction through application of the feasible
technology and would be forced to buy credits to make up the
difference. This would have the effect of making trading mandatory for
some companies, creating the possibility for companies that generate
credits to exploit this need. EPA is very concerned that the marine
engine market is already oligopolistic and that the single curve option
carries significant risk of further limiting the competition in the
market.
The effects of the single curve option in forcing the purchase of
credits by manufacturers of outboard/personal watercraft engines are
especially pronounced in the first years of the program. Using the
single set option, the baseline standards curve in year one would be
approximately 50 percent below the baseline compliance curve for
outboards/personal watercraft under the two set option. Thus to comply
with the baseline curve, manufacturers of outboard/personal watercraft
would be forced to either (1) buy credits immediately , or (2) reduce
emissions by 50 percent in year one. EPA does not believe reducing
emissions by 50 percent in year one through application of new
technology is feasible. Nor is it appropriate to in effect require
outboard and personal watercraft manufacturers to purchase a large
number of credits from inboard/sterndrive manufacturers in year one.
The resulting market ramifications could be unacceptable.
Because of this problem, EPA did consider a third option of
maintaining separate averaging sets during the nine year phase-in and
then combining all engines into a single set in year ten. However,
analysis showed that after the proposed phase-in, outboard
manufacturers would not be able to comply with a final year standards
curve generated under the single set option through re-engineering of
their products alone, and would still be forced to purchase credits.
The concerns about competitiveness in the market remain under this
third option, although to a lesser degree. Additionally, EPA believes
that Sec. 213 requires the Agency to set standards that can be met
either through existing or foreseeable technology. Therefore, EPA
believes that two averaging sets with separate standards curves for
each set is the most appropriate option for regulating HC emissions
from gasoline spark-ignition marine engines.
However, the single set option does have several advantages. It
provides the greatest opportunity for trading and more accurately
assigns relative values to emissions from various technologies in the
market. This relative valuation maximizes the incentive to substitute
potentially cleaner inboard/sterndrives where substitution is
appropriate. Combining all gasoline spark-ignition marine engines into
one set simplifies compliance and enforcement and minimizes the chance
of confusion over engine classification as new engine types (i.e. ``jet
drive'' engines) emerge.
EPA is interested in encouraging the substitution of inboard/
sterndrive technology for outboard technology since the former is
expected to emit lower hydrocarbon emissions than future technology
outboards. If inboard/sterndrive engines are cleaner than future
technology outboards, EPA would like to encourage marine engine
manufacturers to sell inboard/sterndrive engines in place of outboard
engines where such substitution is possible. However, EPA recognizes
that such substitution may not be possible for some applications. EPA
believes that the proposed two set option will also encourage such
substitution, since outboard engines will reflect the cost of emission
control strategies. The price of inboard/sterndrive engines should
remain relatively constant in comparison, because these engines are
expected to meet the standard without additional controls or with minor
calibration adjustments. However, if a single set standards curve were
adopted, inboard/sterndrive engines would potentially generate larger
emission credits and become even less expensive relative to outboards,
thus encouraging substitution with inboard/sterndrive engines to a
greater degree than does the two set option.
EPA understands that the proposed two set option may limit the
emission trading pool, creating a smaller market than would occur with
a broader, single averaging set. Credits could cost more and be traded
less frequently than in a larger, more efficient market. In the long
run, emission reductions could potentially be more expensive under the
two set option than with the single averaging set. EPA understands that
this argument is largely theoretical and requests comment on how
markets would actually function under both averaging set options.
EPA believes that the potential advantages of a single averaging
set may not offset the problems inherent in requiring engines to meet a
standard that cannot be met through feasible future technology as
outlined in Section 213 of the Act. Further, EPA believes that
constructing two averaging sets meets the Agency's emission reduction
goals and still encourages substitution of the cleanest technologies.
For these reasons and others discussed at the beginning of this
section, EPA today proposes to construct two averaging sets with
separate HC compliance curves for each set. However, EPA requests
comment on the option of combining all gasoline spark-ignition marine
engines into a single averaging set with one standard curve.
Particularly, EPA is interested in comments regarding how the price to
the consumer differs between the proposed option and the single set
curve option. EPA also is interested in comments related to
implementation of such a single curve from the onset of the proposed
program as opposed to implementation of a single curve in the years
after phase-in is complete. To facilitate comments, section IV(D)(6)
contains a full discussion of how the proposed averaging sets and
standards curves would be implemented.
F. Electric Outboard Engines
EPA has not included electric motors in the baseline even though
they are clearly substitutable and have the potential for further
development as a marine power source. However, EPA lacks an appropriate
emission factor to assign them. An emission factor is needed before
including them in the baseline because electricity from a power plant
must be used to recharge the battery. The appropriate emission factor
is debatable. EPA requests comments on including electric motors in the
baseline and on an appropriate emission factor for electric motors.
G. Level of HC Standard for Spark-ignition Outboards and Personal
Watercraft Engines
EPA is proposing an HC average emission standard, which when
completely phased-in (model year 2006), will result in an overall 75
percent reduction in HC emissions from spark-ignition outboard and
personal watercraft engines from baseline levels. The HC emission
reduction will come from the use of cleaner technologies, such as 2-
stroke direct injection, 4-stroke, catalyst or other technologies, for
outboard and personal watercraft engines.
The following issues are related to the level of the HC standard:
1. The marginal cost-effectiveness of emission control
2. Consideration of price elasticity effects
3. Spreading capital control costs over time
4. The level of the NOX standard
5. Adherence to statutory criteria
EPA's proposal balances these concerns. Comments are requested on
the proposed regulatory package, including comments on any individual
element. If comments prompt EPA to change any individual element in the
Final Rulemaking, changes in other elements may be necessary as
outlined in the following sections.
1. Marginal Cost-Effectiveness Curve
EPA used the marginal cost-effectiveness curve in Figure 2 as an
analytical tool for choosing the target reduction from outboards and
personal watercraft. EPA is proposing a 75 percent reduction in HC
emissions from outboards and personal watercraft. EPA believes that the
marginal cost-effectiveness of emission control begins to decrease
dramatically after a 75-80 percent reduction. EPA believes that there
is a confidence range around the marginal cost-effectiveness curve,
because of the possibility that either the costs or the effectiveness
of various technologies in reducing emissions is over or
underestimated. If costs (and therefore engine prices) are higher than
predicted, there could be a negative impact on turnover to clean
engines. Consumers may choose to hold on to old higher emitting
engines, and therefore expected benefits would not be achieved. The
data on which the benefits have been estimated is new engine data. EPA
and the manufacturers have little data on in-use deterioration in these
engines and no data on in-use deterioration from engines equipped with
certain future technologies (such as direct injection). EPA proposes
that the emission levels required under the standards curve to be
maintained in-use. Although EPA does not have hard data for in-use
emissions for all technologies, EPA expects that some deterioration may
occur. Therefore, setting the standards curve at a 75 percent reduction
to account for in-use emissions seems reasonable. Requiring an 80
percent reduction carries the risk that engines could not comply in-
use. EPA requests in-use testing data on all emission reduction
technologies. EPA believes that an HC reduction level of 75 percent for
outboards and personal watercraft allows for these uncertainties in
predicted marginal costs and effectiveness.
BILLING 6560-50-P
TP09NO94.001
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
However, EPA believes that estimated benefits of control technology
could be understated by the manufacturers. EPA's analysis of emission
levels submitted by manufacturers found that for the different control
technologies, a range of emission results were reported. While it is
expected that costs should differ between manufacturer due to the
industry structure, one would expect less variation in the emission
results for the same control technology. There may be a learning curve
for manufacturers in the calibration of control technology which
explains the variation in controlled emission levels which EPA saw in
the manufacturers data. A reduction of this variation, however, is only
estimated to at best make 85 percent an appropriate HC reduction level
based on the marginal cost-effectiveness curve.
EPA is requesting comment on requiring a reduction of 80-85 percent
for outboards and personal watercraft. Looking simply at the curve as
shown in Figure 2, in EPA's judgement an 80 percent reduction reflects
the level at which additional reductions are shown to become relatively
expensive per unit of emission reduction achieved. Since the data was
supplied by engine manufacturers, who do not have an interest in
understating costs, EPA believes actual costs are close to these
levels, if not lower. This data shows that the cost of additional
control increases relatively quickly at the 80 percent point. However,
the expected cost of control at 80 percent reduction is relatively
moderate ($2,000/ton of HC reduced) compared to other programs EPA has
implemented for HC control.
Reductions beyond 80 percent from outboards/personal watercraft are
possible, as are reductions from sterndrive/inboard engines. These
reductions tend to be quite expensive as they involve engines which,
due to their size, sales, or use are expensive to control. EPA requests
comments on reductions at, and beyond the 75-80 percent level from
outboard/personal watercraft.
2. Elasticity Effects
Price elasticity is the economic term for the degree to which
changes in product prices influence sales. Based on the best
information available, EPA expects that a given percentage price
increase due to production cost increases will have at least as large a
corresponding percentage impact on sales. Such a response is customary
with discretionary products and most marine engines are discretionary
purchases.
Two effects of the price increase expected due to this regulation
should be recognized. First, as mentioned above, the price increase can
be expected to lead to a decline in sales of new engines. Second, the
decline in sales means either that people find new forms of recreation
or buy used marine engines. EPA is not in a position to determine the
extent to which people will substitute other forms of recreation, such
as sailing, or will buy a greater number of used marine engines.
Substitution of some forms of recreation, such as sailing, will likely
benefit the environment. However, if the increased price of new marine
engines results in increased demand for used marine engines, the
environment may be harmed in the short run because people will not be
buying the newer, cleaner engines to replace old engines. The useful
life of unregulated engines may be extended.
EPA is concerned about the effect of a price increase on new engine
sales. If people continue to boat, it would be better for the
environment if people buy and use new, clean, controlled engines rather
than old, dirty, uncontrolled engines. Therefore, when setting the HC
emission standard level, EPA has decided to err on the conservative
side of the confidence range about the marginal cost-effectiveness
curve and propose a level of 75 percent HC emission reduction for
outboard and personal watercraft engines. The price effect for
outboard/personal watercraft will be less than if EPA chose 80 percent
or 85 percent HC emission reduction, as discussed previously regarding
marginal cost-effectiveness.
EPA requests comment as to whether price elasticity concerns should
be used as a criterion for setting emission standards. Additionally,
comment is requested on what the appropriate HC emission reduction
target should be for outboards and personal watercraft if price
elasticity is not a concern.
Finally, EPA requests comments on programs which may be constructed
to encourage turnover of the in-use fleet of marine engines. EPA
believes that scrappage programs may be a way of influencing the
attrition of old marine engines and the demand for new marine engines.
It is conceivable that such a program could be constructed in
conjunction with a national standard if issues surrounding surplus and
quantification of emissions could be addressed. Interested readers
should see EPA's MERC guidance for more information on this topic (Feb
23, 1993; 58 FR 11134).
3. Leadtime and Phase-In Considerations
EPA is proposing a phase-in of the required emission reductions for
outboard and personal watercraft engines over a period of 9 model years
beginning with model year 1998. EPA recognizes that this is a long
phase-in period with a short leadtime period. However, it is justified
by the standards structure, the large reduction in HC proposed, the
expected costs of this to be imposed by regulation, and the related
revolutionary changes to engines and production lines.
The technologies needed to achieve the proposed HC emission
reductions are revolutionary technologies for this industry. Suf
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.