[Federal Register: December 7, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 236)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76797-76829]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07de00-20]

[[Page 76797]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86, 94, 1048 and 1051

[FRL-6907-6]


Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spark Ignition Engines,
Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-Based), and Highway Motorcycles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: With this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), we
are continuing with our process of establishing standards for nonroad
engines and vehicles that cause or contribute to air pollution. The
ANPRM addresses nonroad engines and vehicles that have yet to be
regulated by EPA, including: Large spark ignition (SI) engines such as
those used in forklifts and airport tugs; Recreational vehicles using
spark ignition engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles, and snowmobiles; and Recreational marine diesel engines and
marine spark ignition sterndrive and inboard engines.
    These engines and vehicles contribute to ozone, carbon monoxide
(CO), and particulate matter (PM) nonattainment. We are also concerned
in some cases about personal exposure to high levels on CO, air toxics,
and PM to persons operating or close to this equipment. With this
ANPRM, we invite early input to the process to establishing standards
and programs for these nonroad sources.
    We are also seeking comment on whether EPA should pursue rulemaking
to establish more stringent emissions standards for highway
motorcycles. While standards are in place for highway motorcycles, the
current standards were established more than twenty years ago. Since
off-highway motorcycles are included this ANPRM as part of nonroad
recreational vehicles, we believe it may be appropriate to consider
standards for both types of motorcycles together.

DATES: We request comment on this Advance Notice by February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may send written comments in paper form and/or by e-
mail. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if possible)
to the contact person listed below. You may also submit comments via e-
mail to ``nranprm@epa.gov''. In your correspondence, refer to Docket A-
2000-01.
    EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking
available for review in Dockets A-2000-01 and A-98-01. These materials
are located at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket
(6102), Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 (on the
ground floor in Waterside Mall) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air
Docket by telephone at (202) 260-7548 and by facsimile at (202) 260-
4400. We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as
provided in 40 CFR part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone: (734) 214-4334, Fax: (734) 214-4050, e-mail:
borushko.margaret@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Copies of Documents
    This document is also available electronically from the EPA
Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost
already incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version of
this document is made available on the day of publication on the
primary web site listed below. We also publish Federal Register
documents and related documents on the secondary web site listed below.
    1. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/ (either select desired
date or use search feature)
    2. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ (look in What's New or under the
specific rulemaking topic)
    Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.

Table of Contents

I. Overview
II. Air Quality
III. Recreational Vehicles
IV. Highway Motorcycles
V. Recreational Marine Engines
VI. Large Spark Ignition Engines
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility
IX. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Overview

A. History of Nonroad Engine Regulations

    The process of establishing standards for nonroad engines began in
1991 with a study to determine whether emissions of carbon mononxide
(CO), oxides of nitrogen ( NOX), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from new and existing nonroad engines, equipment, and
vehicles are significant contributors to ozone and CO concentrations in
more than one area that has failed to attain the national ambient air
quality standards for ozone and CO.\1\ In 1994, EPA finalized its
finding that nonroad engines as a whole ``are significant contributors
to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations'' in more than one ozone or
carbon monoxide nonattainment area.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study--Report and
Appendices,'' EPA-21A-201, November 1991 (available in Air docket A-
91-24). It is also available through the National Technical
Information Service, referenced as document PB 92-126960.
    \2\ 59 FR 31306 (July 17, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon this finding, EPA was tasked by the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act) to establish standards for all classes or categories of new
nonroad engines that cause or contribute to air quality nonattainment
in more than one ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area.
Since the finding in 1994, EPA has been engaged in the process of
establishing programs to control emissions from nonroad engines used in
many different applications. Nonroad categories already regulated
include:
     Land-based compression ignition (CI) engines (e.g., farm
and construction equipment),
     Small land-based spark-ignition (SI) engines (e.g., lawn
and garden equipment, string trimmers),
     Marine engines (outboards, personal watercraft, CI
commercial)
     Locomotive engines

B. Today's ANPRM

    Today's ANPRM provides an initial overview of possible regulatory
strategies for nonroad vehicles and engines that have yet to be
regulated under EPA's nonroad engine programs. It is a continuation of
the process of establishing standards for nonroad engines and vehicles,
as required by CAA section 213(a)(3). If, as expected, standards for
these engines and vehicles are established, essentially all new nonroad
engines will be required to meet emissions control requirements. The
rulemaking that begins with this ANPRM therefore is the final round of
initial regulations for nonroad engines. The ANPRM covers diesel
engines used in recreational marine applications. The ANPRM also covers
several nonroad spark ignition (SI) engine applications, as follows:
     Land-based recreational engines (for example, engines used
in snowmobiles,

[[Page 76798]]

off-highway motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs))
     Marine sterndrive and inboard (SD/I) engines \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As a shorthand notation in this document, we are using
``recreational marine engines'' to mean recreational marine diesel
engines and all gasoline SD/I engines, even though some SD/I
applications could be commercial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Land-based engines rated over 19 kw (Large SI) (for
example, engines used in forklifts); this category includes auxiliary
marine engines, which are not used for propulsion.
    We have found that the nonroad engines included in this ANPRM cause
or contribute to air quality nonattainment in more than one ozone or
carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area.\4\ CAA section 213(a)(3)
requires EPA to establish standards that achieve the greatest degree of
emissions reductions achievable taking cost and other factors into
account. We plan to propose emissions standards and related programs
consistent with the requirements of the Act and, with this ANPRM, are
seeking early input from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition to the nonroad vehicles and engines noted above,
today's ANPRM also reviews EPA requirements for highway motorcycles.
The emissions standards for highway motorcycles were established
twenty-three years ago. California recently adopted new emissions
standards for highway motorcycles and new standards have also been
proposed internationally. There may be opportunities to reduce
emissions in a way that also allows manufacturers to benefit from
harmonized requirements, which may reduce product lines and production
costs. In addition, we believe it is important to consider the
emissions standards for highway motorcycles in the context of setting
standards for off-highway motorcycles. We are interested in providing
regulatory programs for off-highway and highway motorcycles that are
consistent, and which may also allow for the transfer of technology
across product lines for manufacturers.
    This ANPRM covers engines and vehicles that vary in design and use,
and many readers may only be interested in one or two of the
applications. There are various ways we could group the engines and
present information. For purposes of this ANPRM, we have chosen to
group engines by common applications (e.g, recreational land-based
engines, marine engines, large spark ignition engines used in
commercial applications). We have attempted to organize the document in
a way that allows each reader to focus on the applications of
particular interest. The Air Quality discussion which follows in
section II is general in nature and applies to all the categories
covered by the ANPRM. Sections III through VI of the ANPRM present
self-contained discussions of standards and programs for each of the
vehicle and engine categories. While some of the information may be
repetitive among the discussions, we hope that this structure helps the
reader focus on the categories and information of interest. The
remaining sections VII through X are generally applicable to all of the
engines and vehicles.

II. Air Quality

A. Overview

    As directed by the Act, EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for, among other pollutants, ground-level carbon monoxide,
ozone, NO2, and particulate matter.\5\ States are divided
into discrete areas for air quality planning purposes. Currently, 17
areas around the U.S. are classified as CO nonattainment areas.
Additionally, 31 areas are not in attainment with ozone air quality
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 42 U.S.C. 7409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State and local governmental organizations charged with designing
and implementing emission control programs to bring specific areas into
attainment with these air quality standards have mounted significant
efforts in recent years to reduce CO and ozone concentrations. Their
state implementation plans, combined with federal stationary and mobile
source emission control programs, have yielded encouraging signs of
success. Emissions of the targeted pollutants have been significantly
reduced in many areas. Average carbon monoxide and ozone levels, as
well as the number of nonattainment areas, are beginning to decrease.
We project, however, that emission increases accompanying general
growth and economic expansion will eventually outpace per-source
emission rate reductions. Increases in the number of sources, as well
as increased use of existing sources, mean that even full
implementation of current emission control programs may fall short of
that needed to achieve long term attainment and maintenance of the air
quality standards.
    In addition to nonattainment concerns, we are also concerned about
hazardous air pollutants (air toxics). In August 2000, we proposed a
list of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) of concern, including those
emitted from nonroad engines.\6\ These pollutants are known or
suspected to have serious health impacts. The engines and vehicles
included in this ANPRM are sources of MSATs which are included on the
proposed list, including diesel exhaust and several components of VOC
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 65 FR 48058, August 4, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Public Health and Welfare Concerns

    The nonroad engines included in this ANPRM and highway motorcycles
all contribute to air pollution with a wide range of adverse health and
welfare impacts. The following sections contain a brief description of
some of the health effects associated with ozone, PM, air toxics and CO
and the importance of continuing to reduce the associated emissions.
This section also contains a brief description of issues that are
unique to the engines and vehicles being considered in this document.
The NPRM will contain a more detailed discussion of the health and
welfare benefits which can be expected from a program regulating these
engines.
1. Ozone and its Precursors
    Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by
complex chemical reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides ( NOX) in the presence of heat and sunlight.
Ozone forms readily in the lower atmosphere, usually during hot, summer
weather. VOCs are a broad group of compounds composed mainly of
hydrocarbons (HC). Aldehydes, alcohols, and ethers are also present,
but in small amounts. VOCs are emitted from a variety of sources,
including motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories,
consumer and commercial products, and other industrial sources.
NOX is emitted largely from motor vehicles, nonroad
equipment, power plants, and other sources of combustion.
    Ozone is a highly reactive chemical compound which can damage both
biological tissues and man-made materials. When inhaled, ozone can
cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate asthma; cause significant
temporary decreases in lung function of 15 to over 20 percent in some
healthy adults; cause inflammation of lung tissue; may increase
hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and impair the body's
immune system defenses,

[[Page 76799]]

making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses. In addition to
human health effects, ozone adversely affects crop yield, vegetation
and forest growth, and the durability of materials. Because ground-
level ozone interferes with the ability of a plant to produce and store
food, plants become more susceptible to disease, insect attack, harsh
weather and other environmental stresses. Ozone causes noticeable
foliar damage in many crops, trees, and ornamental plants (i.e., grass,
flowers, shrubs, and trees) and causes reduced growth in plants.
Studies indicate that current ambient levels of ozone are responsible
for damage to forests and ecosystems (including habitat for native
animal species).
    Besides their role as an ozone precursor, NOX emissions
produce a wide variety of health and welfare effects.7,8
Nitrogen dioxide can irritate the lungs and lower resistance to
respiratory infection (such as influenza). NOX emissions are
an important precursor to acid rain and may affect both land and water
ecosystems. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen leads to excess nutrient
enrichment problems (``eutrophication'') in the Chesapeake Bay and
several nationally important estuaries along the East and Gulf Coasts.
Eutrophication can produce multiple adverse effects on water quality
and the aquatic environment, including increased algal blooms,
excessive phytoplankton growth, and low or no dissolved oxygen in
bottom waters. Eutrophication also reduces sunlight, causing losses in
submerged aquatic vegetation critical for healthy estuarine ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``U.S. EPA (1995), Review of National Ambient Air Quality
standards for Nitrogen Dioxide, Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information,'' OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-95-005.
    \8\ ``U.S. EPA (1993), Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of
Nitrogen,'' EPA/600/8-91/049aF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Need for NOX and VOC Control. Photochemical modeling
highlights the fact that ozone pollution is a regional problem, not
simply a local or state problem. Ozone and its precursors are
transported long distances by winds and other meteorological events.
Thus, achieving ozone attainment for an area, and thereby protecting
its citizens from ozone-related health effects, often depends on the
ozone and precursor emission levels of upwind areas. For many areas
with persistent ozone problems, attainment of the ozone NAAQS will
require control strategies for both NOX and VOC that extend
beyond the areas' boundaries.
    We expect that reducing NOX and HC emissions from
engines that would be regulated under this potential program would help
reduce the health and welfare effects of ozone.\9\ Manufacturers and
users of snowmobiles provided comments during the ``finding''
rulemaking indicating that snowmobiles should not be regulated for
ozone precursors because snowmobiles are used during cold weather, when
ozone is less of a health concern.\10\ However, ozone precursors are
also responsible for other pollution problems including air toxics,
discussed below, and indirect PM. We are examining the need to reduce
precursors of ozone in the context of this rulemaking and request
comment. In particular, we request comment on whether EPA should
distinguish snowmobiles from other recreational vehicles in regulating
ozone precursors and whether emissions of ozone precursors such as
NOX and VOC should in any case be regulated due to other
pollution problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The emissions inventory contributions for these sources are
provided in the Final Finding document referenced in footnote 4.
    \10\ International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, Docket
A-98-01, document IV-D-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Particulate Matter
    Particulate matter (PM) is the general term used for a mixture of
solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. These particles,
which come in a wide range of sizes, originate from many different
stationary and mobile sources as well as from natural sources. They may
be emitted directly by a source (direct emissions) or formed in the
atmosphere by the transformation of gaseous precursor emissions such as
sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), or
organic compounds (secondary particles). Their chemical and physical
compositions vary depending on source location, time of year and
meteorology.
    Scientific studies show a link between inhalable PM (alone, or
combined with other pollutants in the air) and a series of significant
health effects. Inhalable PM includes both fine and coarse particles.
Fine particles can be generally defined as those particles with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (also known as
PM2.5), and coarse particles are those with an aerodynamic
diameter between 2.5 and 10 microns. All particles 10 microns or
smaller are called PM10. The health and environmental
effects of PM are strongly related to the size of the particles.
    Diesel particles are a component of both coarse and fine PM, but
fall mostly in the fine range. Both coarse and fine particles can
accumulate in the respiratory system and are associated with numerous
health effects. Exposure to coarse fraction particles is primarily
associated with the aggravation of respiratory conditions such as
asthma. Fine particles are more deeply inhaled into the lungs than
course particles. They are most closely associated with such health
effects as decreased lung function, increased hospital admissions and
emergency room visits, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, and
premature death. Sensitive groups that appear to be at greatest risk to
such effects include the elderly, individuals with cardiopulmonary
disease such as asthma, and children.
    In addition, PM causes adverse impacts to the environment. Fine PM
is the major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States,
including many of our National Parks. Other environmental impacts occur
when particles deposit onto soils, plants, water or materials. For
example, particles containing nitrogen and sulphur that deposit on to
land or water bodies may change the nutrient balance and acidity of
those environments. An ecosystem condition known as ``nitrogen
saturation,'' where addition of nitrogen to soil over time exceeds the
capacity of the plants and microorganisms to utilize and retain the
nitrogen, has already occurred in some areas of the United States. When
deposited in sufficient quantities such as near unpaved roads, tilled
fields, or quarries, particles block sunlight from reaching the leaves,
stressing or killing plants. Finally, PM causes soiling and erosion
damage to materials, including culturally important objects such as
carved monuments and statues.
    Recreational marine diesel engines tend to be concentrated in
specific areas of the country (ports, coastal areas, lakes and rivers),
so the emissions contribution of these engines in local areas can be
more important. Consequently addressing PM and other emissions from
recreational marine diesel engines can be an important tool toward the
goal of reducing health and environmental hazards.
    Considerations For PM From Recreational Two-Stroke Gasoline
Engines. Two-stroke engines used in land-based recreational vehicles
generally use a fuel and oil mixture to both produce power while
lubricating the engine. As much as 30 percent of the intake charge
passes through the engine unburned and exhausts to the atmosphere. As a
consequence, PM emissions from these engines can be very high. Two
stroke gasoline engines are commonly used in off-highway motorcycles
and snowmobiles.
    Snowmobile engine emissions are of particular concern in
environmentally

[[Page 76800]]

sensitive areas, such as Yellowstone National Park. Snowmobiles are
typically powered by 2-stroke engines that have high emissions of
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and PM compared to 4-stroke
engines. Recent studies have concluded that particulate emission rates
from a snowmobile engine are more comparable to those of older, pre-
control diesel engines.11,12 Particle diameters were found
to be typically less than 0.1 microns, which is of respirable size and
able to be delivered into the deepest and most sensitive areas of the
human lung. While formation rates of secondary PM may be lower in the
winter months, PM concentrations can be elevated under some
meteorological conditions (e.g., low mixing heights). We request
comment on the health benefits of reducing PM emissions from
recreational vehicle 2-stroke gasoline engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Characterization of Snowmobile Particulate Emissions
conducted for Yellow Stone Park Foundation Inc.,'' James N. Carroll
and Jeff J. White, Southwest Research Institute, June 1999.
    \12\ ``Emissions from Snowmobile Engines using bio-based fuels
and lubricants conducted for the Montana department of Environmental
Quality,'' Jeff J. White and James N. Carroll, Southwest Research
Institute, October 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Air Toxics
    These engines are also sources of a number of chemical species
which we have proposed to list as mobile source air toxics (MSATs),
that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or have
serious noncancer health effects.\13\ They include pollutants such as
diesel exhaust, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
acrolein, described in more detail below. While the harmful effects of
air toxics are of particular concern in areas closest to where they are
emitted, they can also be transported and affect other geographic
areas. Some can persist for considerable time in the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 65 FR 48058, August 4, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the air toxics discussed below are components of VOC and we
expect that the HC standards discussed in this document would reduce
exposure to air toxics and therefore reduce the incidence of cancer and
noncancer health effects related to emissions from these engines. We
request comment on the need to control air toxics emissions from the
engines and vehicles included in this document.
    Considerations for Diesel Exhaust. Diesel exhaust emissions are a
by-product of incomplete combustion and include gaseous and particulate
components. Gaseous components of diesel exhaust include organic
compounds, sulfur compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water
vapor, and excess air (nitrogen and oxygen). Particulate components
include many organic compounds that are mutagenic as well as several
trace metals (including chromium, manganese, mercury and nickel) that
may have general toxicological significance (depending on the specific
chemical species). In addition, small amounts of dioxins have been
measured in diesel exhaust, some of which may partition to the particle
phase.
    Because the chemical composition of diesel exhaust includes
hazardous air pollutants, or air toxics, diesel exhaust emissions are
of concern to the agency. There have been health studies specific to
diesel exhaust emissions which indicate potential hazards to human
health that appear to be specific to this emissions source. For chronic
exposure, these hazards include respiratory system toxicity and
carcinogenicity. Acute exposure also causes transient effects (a wide
range of physiological symptoms stemming from irritation and
inflammation mostly in the respiratory system) in humans though they
are highly variable depending on individual human susceptibility.
    The EPA draft Health Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust was
reviewed in a public session by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board on October 12-13,
2000.\14\ The CASAC, in public session, found that the Agency's
conclusion that diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans
by inhalation, was scientifically sound. The comments provided by CASAC
on the draft Assessment are being incorporated into the final
Assessment to be released in late 2000 or early 2001. California EPA
has identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant.\15\ Several other
agencies and governing bodies have also designated diesel exhaust or
diesel PM as a ``potential'' or ``probable'' human
carcinogen.16,17,18 The International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) considers diesel exhaust a ``probable'' human carcinogen
and the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health have
classified diesel exhaust a ``potential occupational carcinogen''.
Thus, the concern for the health hazard resulting from diesel exhaust
exposures is widespread. We request comment on the health benefits of
reducing PM emissions from marine diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.S. EPA(2000) Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Exhaust: SAB Review Draft EPA/600/8-90/057 Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. The document is available
electronically at www.epa.gov/ncea/dieslexh.htm.
    \15\ ``Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust at a Toxic Air
Contaminant, Health risk assessment for diesel exhaust,'' California
Environmental Protection Agency, April 1998.
    \16\ ``Carcinogenic effects of exposure to diesel exhaust,''
NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin 50. DHHS, Publication No. 88-
116, 1988.
    \17\ ``Diesel and gasoline engine exhausts and some
nitroarenes,'' Vol. 46, Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic
risks to humans, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World
Health Organization, 1989.
    \18\ ``Diesel fuel and exhaust emissions: International program
on chemical safety,'' World Health Organization, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benzene. Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon which is present as a
gas in both exhaust and evaporative emissions from motor vehicles.
Benzene in the exhaust expressed as a percentage of total organic gases
(TOG), varies depending on control technology (e.g., type of catalyst)
and the levels of benzene and aromatics in the fuel, but is generally
about four percent from gasoline engines. The benzene fraction of
gasoline evaporative emissions also depends on control technology
(i.e., fuel injector or carburetor) and fuel composition (e.g. benzene
level and Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) and is generally about one
percent.
    The EPA has recently reconfirmed that benzene is a known human
carcinogen by all routes of exposure (including leukemia at high,
prolonged air exposures), and is associated with additional health
effects including genetic changes in humans and animals and increased
proliferation of bone marrow cells in mice.\19\ Respiration is the
major source of human exposure. Long-term exposure to high levels of
benzene in the air has been shown to cause cancer of the tissues that
form white blood cells. Among these are acute nonlymphocytic leukemia,
chronic lymphocytic leukemia and possibly multiple myeloma (primary
malignant tumors in the bone marrow). A number of adverse noncancer
health effects, blood disorders such as preleukemia and aplastic
anemia, have also been associated with low-dose, long-term exposure to
benzene. People with long-term exposure to benzene may experience
harmful effects on the blood-forming tissues, especially the bone
marrow. Many blood disorders associated with benzene exposure may occur
without symptoms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``U.S. EPA, Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An Update,''
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA recently conducted an industrial hygiene survey to examine
park employee exposures during winter

[[Page 76801]]

at Yellowstone National Park.\20\ They reported exposure to benzene
above the NIOSH recommended exposure levels (REL) of 0.10 ppm. Since
exhaust emission benzene levels generally decrease as HC emissions
decrease, we expect new emission control technology to substantially
reduce ambient benzene levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``U.S. Department of Labor, Industrial Hygiene Survey of
Park Employee Exposures During Winter Use at Yellowstone National
Park,'' February, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1,3-Butadiene. 1,3-butadiene is formed in engine exhaust by
incomplete combustion of fuel. It is not present in evaporative and
refueling emissions, because it is not present in any appreciable
amount in gasoline fuel. 1,3-butadiene accounts for 0.4 to 1.0 percent
of total exhaust TOG, depending on control technology and fuel
consumption. Nonroad mobile sources contribute 15.2 percent to the 1,3-
butadiene inventory (baseline NTI).
    The Environmental Health Committee of EPA's Scientific Advisory
Board (SAB), in reviewing the draft document, issued a majority opinion
that 1,3-butadiene should be classified as a probable human
carcinogen.21,22 The Agency has revised the draft Health
Risk Assessment of 1,3-butadiene based on the SAB and public comments.
The draft Health Risk Assessment of 1,3-butadiene will undergo the
Agency consensus review, during which time additional changes may be
made prior to its public release and placement on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``U.S. EPA Health Risk Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene,'' EPA/
600/P-98/001A, February 1998.
    \22\ ``An SAB Report: Review of the Health Risk Assessment of
1,3-Butadiene,'' EPA-SAB-EHC-98, August 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Formaldehyde. Nonroad mobile sources contribute 23 percent to the
formaldehyde inventory (baseline NTI). EPA has classified formaldehyde
as a probable human carcinogen based on evidence in humans and in rats,
mice, hamsters, and monkeys.\23\ Epidemiological studies in
occupationally exposed workers suggest that long-term inhalation of
formaldehyde may be associated with tumors of the nasopharyngeal
cavity, nasal cavity and sinus. Formaldehyde exposure also causes a
range of noncancer health effects, including irritation of the eyes
(tearing of the eyes and increased blinking) and mucous membranes.
Sensitive individuals may experience these adverse effects at lower
concentrations than the general population. In persons with bronchial
asthma, the upper respiratory irritation caused by formaldehyde can
precipitate an acute asthmatic attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``U.S. EPA Assessment of health risks to garment workers
and certain home residents from exposure to formaldehyde,'' Office
of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSHA industrial hygiene survey at Yellowstone, described above,
reported exposure to formaldehyde at 0.033 ppm, which is above the
NIOSH recommended exposure level of 0.016 ppm.
    Acetaldehyde. Nonroad mobile source emissions are responsible for
27 percent of the total acetaldehyde inventory (Baseline NTI).
Acetaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen and humans
are exposed by inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes. The primary
acute effect of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors is irritation of the
eyes, skin and respiratory tract. At high concentrations, irritation
and pulmonary effects can occur, which could facilitate the uptake of
other contaminants.
    Acrolein. Nonroad mobile source emissions are responsible for 11
percent of the total acrolein invenory (Baseline NTI). Acrolein is
extremely toxic to humans when inhaled, with acute exposure resulting
in upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion. The Agency has
developed a reference concentration for inhalation (RfC) of acrolein of
0.02 micrograms/m\3\. Although no information is available on its
carcinogenic effects in humans, EPA considers acrolein a possible human
carcinogen based on laboratory animal data.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Assessment System (IRIS),''
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Carbon Monoxide (CO)
    Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced through
the incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels. Carbon monoxide enters
the bloodstream through the lungs and reduces the delivery of oxygen to
the body's organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most
serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly
those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. Healthy individuals
also are affected, but only at higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated
CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception, work
capacity, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex
tasks.
    Several recent epidemiological studies have shown a link between CO
and premature morbidity (including angina, congestive heart failure,
and other cardiovascular diseases). Several studies in the United
States and Canada have also reported an association of ambient CO
exposures with frequency of cardiovascular hospital admissions,
especially for congestive heart failure (CHF). An association of
ambient CO exposure with mortality has also been reported in
epidemiological studies, though not as consistently or specifically as
with CHF admissions. EPA is reviewing these studies as part of the CO
Criteria Document process.
    The toxicity of CO effects on blood, tissues and organs have also
been topics of substantial research efforts. Such studies provided
information for establishing the NAAQS for CO. The current primary
NAAQS for CO are 35 parts per million for the one-hour average and 9
parts per million for the eight-hour average. There are currently 17
designated CO nonattainment areas, with a combined population of 31
million. EPA estimated that emissions from nonroad gasoline engines and
vehicles have increased by 24 percent from 1980 to 1998.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. EPA (March 2000). ``National Air Pollutant Emission
Trends, 1900-1998,'' Office of Air Quality and Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to concerns related to air quality standards for broad
areas, exhaust emissions from indoor applications can cause CO
poisoning from individual human exposure. These engines (for example,
engines used in forklifts) routinely operate in warehouses and
production facilities. Unregulated industrial SI engines frequently
have exhaust CO concentrations over 30,000 ppm (3 percent). The maximum
allowable time-weighted average 8-hour workplace exposure set by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration is 50 ppm. Manufacturers
in some cases may adjust engine calibration for somewhat lower CO
emission levels. Also, engines used indoors are often fueled with LPG,
which typically has lower CO exhaust concentrations than gasoline-
fueled engines. However, improper maintenance or poor calibrations can
lead to even higher levels than the 30,000 ppm level noted above from
any industrial SI engine.
    The typical snowmobile, which utilizes a two-stroke engine,
produces significantly more CO than a modern automobile on a unit of
work basis. There has been an increasing concern that snowmobile
emissions in and around some national parks are reaching significant
levels. During the winters of 1994-95 and 1995-96, studies were
conducted at Yellowstone, Flagg Ranch, and Grand Teton National Park
which indicated that snowmobile tourists are potentially exposed to
significant CO

[[Page 76802]]

levels.\26\ While the studies did not record official exceedances of
the CO NAAQs, levels near and in some cases above the 35 ppm NAAQS
standard were observed. These measurements were not considered NAAQS
exceedances because sampling methods and measurement locations did not
meet the criteria for NAAQS measurements. However, the measurements
were reported to be scientifically valid and an indication of
potentially significant exposure to CO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Exposure to Snowmobile Riders to Carbon Monoxide, Park
Science Volume 17--No. 1, National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A study of snowmobile rider exposure conducted at Grand Teton
National Park showed that CO levels when trailing a single snowmobile
at distances of 25-125 feet at speeds of 10-40 mph ranged from 0.5-23
ppm, with a maximum level of 45 ppm (as compared to the current NAAQS
for CO of 35 ppm).\27\ Since snowmobile riders typically travel in
large groups, the riders towards the back of the group are likely to
experience significantly higher exposures to CO. An additional
consideration is that the risk to health from CO exposure increases
with altitude, especially for un-acclimated individuals. Therefore, a
park visitor who lives at sea level and then rides his or her
snowmobile on trails at high-altitude is more susceptible to the
effects of CO than local residents. In addition, the OSHA industrial
hygiene survey mentioned earlier reported a peak CO exposure of 268 ppm
for a Yellowstone employee, in exceedance of the NIOSH peak recommended
exposure limit of 200 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Snook and Davis, 1997, ``An Investigation of Driver
Exposure to Carbon Monoxide While Traveling Behind Another
Snowmobile.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Coast Guard reported cases of CO poisoning caused by
recreational boat usage.\28\ These Coast Guard investigations into
recreational boating accident reports between 1989 to1998, show that 57
accidents were reported, totaling 87 injuries and 32 fatalities, that
involved CO poisoning. We believe that controlling CO emissions from
marine engines could provide some benefits to boaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Summarized in an e-mail Phil Cappel of the U.S. Coast Guard
to Mike Samulski of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 19, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. National Emissions Inventory

    We have estimated the contribution of the sources included in this
ANPRM to the nationwide emissions inventories for the 2000 and 2007
calendar years, as shown in Table II-1.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Inventory data is further provided in Tables 1 and 2 of the
Final Finding (see footnote 4).

                                                Table II-1.--Estimated Nationwide Annual Emission Levels
                                              [in thousand short tons (percent of mobile source inventory)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NOX                       HC                        CO                        PM
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Tons       Percent        Tons       Percent        Tons       Percent        Tons       Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2000:
    Nonroad Sources in ANPRM....................          371          2.8          822         11.0         7,15          9.0          8.4          1.2
                                                                                                                7
    Highway Motorcycles.........................           22          0.2           21          0.3          147          0.2          0.4          0.1
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Year 2000 Total.........................          393          3.0          843         11.3         7,30          9.2          8.8          1.3
                                                                                                                4
Year 2007:
    Nonroad Sources in ANPRM....................          444          4.3          870         16.6         7,53          9.7          9.2          1.5
                                                                                                                6
    Highway Motorcycles.........................           25          0.2           26          0.5          171          0.2          0.5          0.1
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Year 2007 Total.........................          469          4.5          896         17.1         7,70          9.9          9.7          1.6
                                                                                                                7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Recreational Vehicles

A. Background

1. What Recreational Vehicles Would be Included in This Rulemaking?
    The vast majority of vehicles that fall into the land-based
recreational vehicles category are snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles
(e.g., dirt bikes), and all terrain vehicles (ATVs).\30\ The engines
used in these vehicles are a subset of nonroad SI engines.\31\ Engines
used in recreational vehicles include both Small SI (at or below 19 kW)
and Large SI engines (above 19 kW). These engines, however, were
excluded from our Small SI program (for lawn mowers, chain saws, etc.)
because they have different design characteristics and usage patterns
than other engines in the Small SI category. This suggests that the
recreational engines covered by this ANPRM should be tested differently
than Small SI engines. We would similarly expect to treat them
separately from our Large SI engine program (discussed later in this
ANPRM). We therefore request comment on whether engines used in
recreational vehicles should be tested and regulated differently from
other small and Large SI engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ATVs are typically four-wheeled vehicles that are straddled
by the operator.
    \31\ Almost all recreational vehicles are equipped with SI
engines. Any diesels used in these applications must meet our
nonroad diesel engine standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our rulemaking regulating Small SI engines (defined as nonroad
SI engines below 19 kW), we established criteria that effectively
excluded the types of engines used in the recreational vehicles listed
above.\32\ These criteria, such as normal range of operating engine
rpm, can greatly affect the basic engine design and the opportunities
for emissions control. Engines used in some other types of recreational
vehicles may be covered by the Small SI standards, depending on the
characteristics of the engines. For example, lawnmower-type engines
used in go carts would typically be covered by the Small SI standards.
Engines used in golf carts are also typically included in the Small SI
program due to their design and

[[Page 76803]]

operating characteristics being similar to lawnmower-type applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 40 CFR 90.1(b)(5) for the list of criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There may be other types of recreational vehicles that should be
included in the recreational vehicles program in addition to
snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and ATVs. For example, some small
mopeds or motor scooters could be included in the program depending on
their characteristics.\33\ We are interested in information and request
comment about other types of vehicles that may exist so that we may
consider them in developing our proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The definition of motor vehicle excludes ``any vehicle that
cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour over level, paved
surfaces'' (see 40 CFR 85.1703(a)(1)). Such vehicles are therefore
considered nonroad vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There may be some uncertainty surrounding the use of
``recreational'' in distinguishing between vehicle types and in
determining which set of standards a vehicle or engine must meet. ATVs,
for example, may have some utility aspects to their use. We request
comment how to best differentiate among engines types. We could
establish a definition for ``recreational'', for example, based on the
primary intended use of the vehicle model. Under such an approach,
vehicles primarily intended for utility or work use by the manufacturer
would be part of either the Small or Large SI programs, as applicable.
We could also differentiate engines based solely upon engine design and
operating characteristics without regard to usage; this option might
eliminate potential confusion over whether a particular engine should
be appropriately certified as a ``recreational'' or ``utility'' engine.
    Hobby engines. The Small SI rule categorized engines used in model
cars, boats, and airplanes as recreational engines and exempted them
from the Small SI program.\34\ Historically, we have exempted hobby
engines from our regulations. The nonroad diesel engine final rule
exempted hobby engines due to feasibility, testing, and compliance
concerns related to regulating such small engines. Also noted in the
nonroad diesel engine rule, because hobby engines are very small with
very low power output relative to other nonroad engines and have low
annual usage rates, they contribute very little to emissions
inventories.\35\ We request comment on how to proceed for SI hobby
engines, including data and information that would allow us to further
consider the potential for establishing standards for them or for
exempting them from this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 80 FR 24292, April 25, 2000.
    \35\ 63 FR 56971, October 23, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Who Makes Recreational Vehicles?
    Based on industry information available to us, the recreational
vehicle industry appears to be dominated by eight manufacturers. Of
these eight manufacturers, seven of them manufacture a combination of
two or more of the three recreational vehicle sub-categories: off-
highway motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles. For example, there are four
major companies that manufacture both off-highway motorcycles and ATVs.
There are three major companies that manufacture ATVs and snowmobiles
and one major company that manufactures all three. These eight
companies represent approximately 95 percent of all domestic sales of
recreational vehicles.
    We are aware of five major companies that dominate sales of off-
highway motorcycles. Four of these companies, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki,
and Yamaha, are long established, major corporations that manufacture a
number of products including highway and off-highway motorcycles. They
have dominated the off-highway motorcycle market for over thirty years.
The fifth major company, KTM, is also long established but has had a
major impact in domestic sales over the last 10 to 15 years. These five
companies account for approximately 90 to 95 percent of all domestic
sales for off-highway motorcycles. There are also several relatively
small companies that manufacture off-highway motorcycles, many of which
specialize in racing or competition machines.
    Based on available industry information, four major manufacturers,
Arctic Cat, Bombardier (also known as Ski-Doo), Polaris, and Yamaha,
account for approximately 99 percent of all domestic snowmobile sales.
The remaining percent comes from very small manufacturers who tend to
specialize in unique designs or racing machines. The ATV sector has the
broadest assortment of major manufacturers. With the exception of KTM,
all of the companies noted above for off-highway motorcycles and
snowmobiles are significant ATV producers. These seven companies
represent over 95 percent of total domestic ATV sales. The remaining 5
percent come from importers who tend to import inexpensive, youth-
oriented ATVs from China and other Asian nations.
3. What Types of Engines Are Used in the Vehicles?
    The engines used in recreational vehicles tend to be small, air- or
liquid-cooled, reciprocating Otto-cycle engines that operate on
gasoline.\36\ They are designed to be used in vehicles, where engine
performance is characterized by highly transient operation, with a wide
range of engine speed and load capability. Maximum engine speed is
typically well above 5,000 rpm. Also, the vehicles are equipped with
transmissions to ensure performance under a variety of operating
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Otto cycle is another name for a spark-ignition engine
which utilizes a piston with homogenous external or internal air and
fuel mixture formation and spark ignition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These engines can be separated into two-stroke and four-stroke
designs. The distinction between two-stroke and four-stoke engines is
important for emissions because two-stroke engines tend to emit much
greater amounts of unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and particulate matter
(PM) than four-stroke engines of similar size and power. Two-stroke
engines also have greater fuel consumption resulting in poorer fuel
economy than four-stroke engines, but they also tend to have higher
power output per unit displacement, lighter weight, and better cold
starting performance. These advantages combined with a simple design
and lower manufacturing costs tend to make two-stroke engines a popular
choice as the power unit for recreational vehicles. Currently,
snowmobiles use two-stroke engines almost exclusively, whereas about 63
percent of all off-highway motorcycles (predominantly in high
performance, youth, and entry-level bikes) and 12 percent of all ATVs
sold in the United States use two-stroke engines. Engine displacement
for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs typically range from 50 cubic
centimeters (cc) to 500 cc for two-stroke engines, and 50 cc to 650 cc
for four-stroke engines. Snowmobile engines range from 100 cc to over
1,000 cc.
    The basis for the differences in engine and exhaust emissions
performance between two-stroke and four-stroke engines can be found in
the fundamental differences in how two-stroke and four-stroke engines
operate. Four-stroke operation takes place in four distinct steps:
intake, compression, power, and exhaust. Each step corresponds to one
up or down ``stroke'' of the piston or 180 deg. of crankshaft rotation.
The first step of the cycle is for an ``intake'' valve in the
combustion chamber to open during the intake stroke allowing a mixture
of air and fuel to be drawn into the cylinder while the piston moves
down the cylinder. The intake valve then closes and the momentum of the
crankshaft causes the

[[Page 76804]]

piston to move back up the cylinder compressing the air and fuel
mixture. At the very end of the compression stroke, the air and fuel
mixture is ignited by a spark from a spark plug, and begins to burn. As
the air and fuel mixture burns, increasing temperature and pressure
cause the piston to move back down the cylinder. This is referred to as
the ``power'' stroke. At the bottom of the power stroke, an exhaust
valve opens in the combustion chamber and as the piston moves back up
the cylinder, the burnt gases are pushed out through the exhaust valve
to the exhaust manifold, and the cycle is complete.
    In a four-stroke engine, combustion and the resulting power stroke
only occur once every two revolutions of the crankshaft. In a two-
stroke engine, on the other hand, combustion occurs in every revolution
of the crankshaft. Two-stroke engines eliminate the intake and exhaust
strokes, leaving only compression and power strokes. This is due to the
fact that two-stroke engines do not use intake and exhaust valves.
Instead, they have intake and exhaust ``ports'' in the sides of the
cylinder walls. With a two-stroke engine, as the piston approaches the
bottom of the power stroke, it uncovers exhaust ports in the wall of
the cylinder. The high pressure combustion gases blow into the exhaust
manifold. As the piston gets closer to the bottom of the power stroke,
the intake ports are uncovered, and fresh mixture of air and fuel are
forced into the cylinder while the exhaust ports are still open.
Exhaust gas is ``scavenged'' or forced into the exhaust by the pressure
of the incoming charge of fresh air and fuel. In the process, however,
some mixing between the exhaust gas and the fresh charge of air and
fuel takes place, so that some of the fresh charge is also emitted in
the exhaust. The loss of part of the fuel out of the exhaust during
scavenging is one of the major reasons for the very high hydrocarbon
emission characteristics of two-stroke engines. The other major reason
for high HC emissions from two-stroke engines is their tendency to
misfire under low load conditions due to greater combustion
instability.
4. What Are the Pollutants of Interest for Each Type of Vehicle?
    Recreational vehicles utilizing two-stroke engines, such as
snowmobiles and some models of off-highway motorcycles and ATVs, emit
significant quantities of fine particulate matter (PM), unburned
hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO). Recreational vehicles
utilizing four-stroke engines, such as some models of off-highway
motorcycles and most ATVs, also emit significant quantities of CO,
however, they tend to emit considerably lower levels of HC and PM than
their two-stroke counterparts. Both engine types emit oxides of
nitrogen ( NOX). Two-stroke engines tend to emit very low
levels of NOX whereas four-stroke engines emit greater
quantities, similar to four-stroke HC emission levels. Exhaust
hydrocarbon emissions also include significant quantities of toxic air
contaminants including benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3
butadiene. The most important source of recreational vehicle emissions
is the engine exhaust, but HC emissions are also produced from the
crankcase in four-stroke engines, by evaporation from the fuel system,
and by vapor displacement during refueling.
5. What Programs Are in Place in California and Elsewhere To Control
Emissions from Recreational Vehicles?
    California established standards for off-highway motorcycles and
ATVs which took effect in January 1997 (1999 for vehicles with engines
of 90 cc or less). The standards, shown in Table III-1, are based on
the highway motorcycle chassis test procedures. Manufacturers may
certify ATVs to optional standards, also shown in Table III-1, which
are based on the utility engine test procedure.\37\ This is the test
procedure over which Small SI engines are tested. The stringency level
of the standards was based on the emissions performance of 4-stroke
engines and advanced 2-stroke engines equipped with a catalytic
converter. California anticipated that the standards would be met
initially through the use of high performance 4-stroke engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Notice to Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle Manufacturers
and All Other Interested Parties Regarding Alternate Emission
Standards for All-Terrain Vehicles, Mail Out #95-16, April 28, 1995,
California Air Resources Board (Docket A-2000-01, document II-D-06).

         Table III-1.--California Off-Highway Motorcycle and ATV Standards for Model Year 1997 and Later
                                 [1999 and later for engines at or below 90 cc]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   HC          NOX           CO           PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-highway motorcycle and ATV standards (g/km).............        a 1.2  ...........           15  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      HC + NOX                   CO           PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optional standards for ATV engines below 225 cc (g/bhp-hr)..           a 10.0                   300  ...........
Optional standards for ATV engines below 225 cc (g/bhp-hr)..           a 12.0                   300  ...........
Optional standards for ATV engines at or above 225 cc (g/bhp-                                   300  ...........
 hr)........................................................           a 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Corporate-average standard.

    California revisited the program in the 1997 time frame because a
lack of certified product from manufacturers was reportedly creating
economic hardship for dealerships. The number of certified off-highway
motorcycle models was particularly inadequate.\38\ In 1998, California
revised the program, allowing the use of uncertified products in off-
highway vehicle recreation areas with regional/seasonal use
restrictions. Currently, noncomplying vehicles can be legally sold in
California and used in attainment areas year-round and in nonattainment
areas during months when exceedances of the state ozone standard are
not expected. For enforcement purposes, certified and uncertified
products are identified respectively with green and red stickers. Only
about one-third of off-highway motorcycles sold in California are
certified. All certified products are powered by 4-stroke engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider
Amendments to the California Regulations for New 1997 and Later Off-
highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines, State of California Air
Resources Board, October 23, 1998 (Docket A-2000-01, II-D-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California has not adopted standards for snowmobiles. In addition,
EPA is not aware of emission control programs for nonroad recreational
vehicles that have been adopted in other countries.

[[Page 76805]]

B. Technology

1. What Are the Baseline Technologies and Emissions Levels?
    As discussed earlier, recreational vehicles are equipped with
relatively small high performance two- or four-stroke engines that are
either air- or liquid-cooled.\39\ The fuel system used on these engines
are almost exclusively carburetors. Two-stroke engines lubricate the
piston and crankshaft by mixing oil with the air and fuel mixture. This
is accomplished by most contemporary 2-stroke engines with a pump that
sends two-cycle oil from a separate oil reserve to the carburetor where
it is mixed with the air and fuel mixture. Some less expensive two-
stroke engines require that the oil be mixed with the gasoline in the
fuel tank. Four-stroke engines inject oil via a pump throughout the
engine as the means of lubrication. With the exception of those
vehicles certified in California, most of these engines are unregulated
and thus have no emission controls. In fact, because performance and
durability are such important qualities for recreational vehicle
engines, they all operate with a ``rich'' air and fuel mixture. That
is, they operate with excess fuel, which enhances performance and
allows engine cooling which promotes longer lasting engine life.
However, rich operation results in high levels of HC, CO, and PM
emissions. Also, two-stroke engines tend to have high scavenging
losses, where up to a third of the unburned air and fuel mixture goes
out of the exhaust resulting in high levels of raw HC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The engines are small relative to automotive engines. For
example, automotive engines typically range from one liter to well
over five liters in displacement, whereas off-highway motorcycles
would range from 0.05 liters to 0.65 liters.

                   Table III-2.--Typical Range of Exhaust Emissions for Recreational Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Recreational vehicle type      Engine type        HC           CO          NOX           PM          Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snowmobiles..................  2-stroke......       67-200      196-400     0.3-1.62      0.7-6.1  g/hp-hr
Off-highway Motorcycles/ATVs.  2-stroke......         8-26        16-37     0.01-0.1  0.002-0.025  g/km a
                               4-stroke......        0.4-3         7-50     0.03-0.2  0.006-0.025  g/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Emission measurement for motorcycles is in grams per kilometer rather than grams per mile because the
  motorcycle industry, as well as Federal, California, and international motorcycle emission standards use
  ``Systeme International d'Unites'' or SI units, which measure distance in kilometers rather than miles.

2. What Technology Approaches Are Available To Control Emissions?
    A number of approaches are available to control emissions from
recreational vehicles. The simplest approach would consist of
modifications to the base engine, fuel system, cooling system, and
recalibration of the air and fuel mixture. These could, for example,
consist of changes to valve timing for four-stroke engines, changing
from air to liquid cooling, and the use of advanced carburetion
techniques and electronic fuel injection (EFI) in lieu of traditional
carburetion systems. Other approaches could include using an oxidation
catalyst alone or in conjunction with secondary air. The engine
technology that may have the most potential for maximizing emission
reductions from two-stroke engines is the use of direct fuel injection
(DI). Direct fuel injection is able to reduce or even eliminate
scavenging losses by pumping only air through the engine and then
injecting fuel into the combustion chamber after the intake and exhaust
ports have closed. The use of oxidation catalysts in conjunction with
direct injection could potentially reduce emissions even further.
Finally, because four-stroke engines emit significantly lower levels of
HC than two-stroke engines, the conversion of two-stroke engine
technology to four-stroke engine technology could be a desirable
approach.
    We request comment as to whether there are any other approaches to
emission reduction for recreational vehicles that have not been
discussed here. We are interested in information on feasibility, cost
and corresponding emission reduction potential, and other issues
associated with the above and other technologies. Specifically, we
request comment on the effectiveness and durability of oxidation
catalysts for these applications, the cost, corresponding emission
reductions, and feasibility of direct fuel injection for two-stroke
engine applications, and the cost and feasibility of switching from 2-
stroke to 4-stroke engines. Any data on engines similar to those used
in recreational equipment using these technologies is also requested.
3. What Level of Control May Be Feasible?
    Calibration changes and engine modifications can reduce HC and CO
emissions somewhat, in the range of 10 to 30 percent. While the precise
level of control anticipated from recreational vehicles is not yet
known, further HC reductions in the 70 to 90 percent range may be
achievable from current two-stroke engines. We expect that the bulk of
the HC reductions would occur through the elimination of scavenging
losses, with additional reductions possible through the use of an
oxidation catalyst. Because four-stroke engines already have low HC
emissions relative to two-stroke engines, we would expect more modest
HC reductions from four-stroke engines as a result of new emission
standards. Control strategies that would reduce HC emissions would also
generally reduce PM and toxics. This is especially true for 2-stroke
engines where high levels of PM and toxics are the result of scavenging
losses.
    We believe that similar levels of control can be expected for CO
emissions as for HC emissions. The bulk of CO reductions will come from
improvements to the fuel system, either through enleanment (i.e., less
fuel) of the air and fuel mixture, from now on referred to as A/F
ratio, or the improvement of fuel atomization (i.e., smaller fuel
droplets), with additional reductions possible through the use of an
oxidation catalyst.40-41 Such strategies are also likely to
reduce HC and PM emissions as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40-41\ Fuel atomization refers to the size of individual fuel
droplets. The smaller the fuel droplet is, the better it is
combusted or burned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NOX levels emitted from recreational vehicles,
especially for those equipped with two-stroke engines, are very low
since most recreational vehicles typically operate using a ``rich''
calibration (i.e., with excess fuel) for performance and durability
purposes.
    Some emission reduction techniques such as changes in engine design
and calibration aimed at reducing HC and CO emissions may increase
NOX. However, we expect that any increases

[[Page 76806]]

resulting from HC and CO standards would be minimal. To ensure
continued low NOX performance, we request comment on the
appropriateness of setting a capping standard for NOX
emissions or combining NOX control with HC by setting a HC +
NOX standard.
    We request comment on the various strategies available to reduce
emissions and the costs and potential corresponding emissions
reductions of those strategies.

C. Standards and Program Approaches

    Although off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles are all
categorized as recreational vehicles, we expect to establish separate
emissions standards for them. The most fundamental reason for varying
standards is that the operating characteristics are significantly
different. Since we typically try to evaluate and control emissions
performance under normal operating conditions, it is likely we will
adopt different test procedures for the different applications. Also,
the level of stringency and the timing of the standards may vary
depending on the types of emissions control technology available, cost
impacts, industry make-up, and other factors that we must consider in
establishing the program. We request comments on the appropriateness of
separate emission standards for off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, and
snowmobiles.
    Generally, we will be considering what level of emissions control
is appropriate and the lead-time necessary for manufacturers to achieve
those emissions reductions. There are a number of approaches that have
been used in programs for other nonroad engines to effectively reduce
emissions, both in the near term and long term. These approaches often
incorporate some level of flexibility into the program which has
allowed manufacturers to achieve lower overall emissions levels,
perhaps at less cost. Programs have been tailored to the particulars of
the engine categories and industries being regulated to achieve the
overall goals of the program.
    In many programs, we have established either a single set (tier) of
standards, or multiple tiers of standards that progressively achieve
further reductions over a number of years. We have also established
corporate-average standards, including declining fleet averages where
manufacturers must calculate fleet average emissions levels and reduce
those emissions incrementally each year over several model years. Also,
in some cases, standards have been phased-in over a number of years as
a percentage of sales or by an engine characteristic such as size. Some
programs also include averaging, banking and trading, discussed below
in section III.C.4.
    We have used such mechanisms, in part, to allow manufacturers to
plan their research, development, and product introductions. Such
program approaches may allow manufacturers to achieve long-term
emission reductions that may not otherwise be achievable. For example,
a declining fleet average approach over several years may provide near
term reductions and also provide manufacturers with lead-time needed to
employ advanced technology in an orderly and efficient manner. Also,
averaging can provide flexibility by allowing manufacturers to certify
some engines to levels above the standard as long as excess emissions
are offset by sales of engines certified to emissions levels below the
standard. However, such approaches may be of limited value to small
businesses or companies offering only a few models and may not be
justified for some programs. We encourage you to consider these
approaches, and any others, in commenting on the standards discussed
below.
1. Off-Highway Motorcycles and ATVs
    We are considering establishing HC, NOX, and CO
standards for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. PM is discussed
separately in section III.C.3, below. We expect the largest benefit in
terms of reducing the ozone precursors NOX and HC to come
from reducing HC emissions from two-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines
have very high HC emissions levels. Baseline NOX levels are
relatively low for engines used in these applications and therefore
initial NOX standards may serve to cap NOX
emissions. CO reductions can be expected from both 2-stroke and 4-
stroke engines, as CO levels are somewhat similar for the two engine
types.
    HC Standard. In the current off-highway motorcycle and ATV market,
consumers can choose between 2-stroke and 4-stroke models in most sizes
and categories. Each engine type offers unique performance
characteristics. Some manufacturers specialize in 2-stroke or 4-stroke
models while others offer a mix of models.
    The HC standard is likely to be a primary determining factor for
what technology manufacturers choose to employ to meet emissions
standards overall. As described in the previous section, a variety of
technological approaches appear promising to control HC emissions. HC
emissions can be reduced substantially by switching from 2-stroke to 4-
stroke engines. The California emissions control program for off-
highway vehicles provides ample data on the emissions performance
capability of 4-stroke engines in off-highway motorcycles and ATVs.
Off-highway motorcycles certified to California standards for the 2000
model year have HC certification levels ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 g/km.
The motorcycles have engines ranging in size from 50 cc to 650 cc and
none of these motorcycles are equipped with catalyst technology.
    Technologies are also available for the two stroke engine that may
reduce HC emissions levels to near those provided by 4-stroke engines.
Technologies such as direct fuel injection and catalysts have been
applied to 2-stroke engines used in other applications, such as
personal watercraft and outboard marine engines, in response to
emissions control requirements. However, only vehicles equipped with 4-
stroke engines have been certified to the California standards. Two
stroke models are sold in California, but only under California's
allowance for the sales and use of uncertified products under certain
circumstances (discussed above in section III.A.5).
    In determining what standards to propose, we will be carefully
examining the feasibility and cost of both 2-stroke and 4-stroke
technologies. Modest reductions (up to 30 percent) appear feasible
through the use of engine modifications and calibration changes. We are
also interested in approaches that would reduce HC emissions
substantially (for example, 75 to 90 percent) from baseline 2-stroke
engine levels. Clearly, switching to 4-stroke engines achieves this
goal and some manufacturers would likely choose this approach to
meeting such standards.
    However, some manufacturers may want an opportunity to achieve HC
reductions through the use of advanced technology 2-stroke engines.
This approach may require more time and investment in research and
development than switching to 4-stroke engines entirely, but could
result in more cost effective emissions control in the long term. Also,
if such engines were developed, consumers may benefit from having a
variety of engine types from which to choose. We request comment on
whether EPA should attempt to set standards in a manner that would
encourage the development of clean 2-stroke technology, and if so, how
that objective could best be accomplished.
    We request comments on the appropriate level of HC control for off-

[[Page 76807]]

highway motorcycles and ATVs. We are interested in perspectives on
whether an HC standard should be based on the capabilities of 4-stroke
or 2-stroke engine emissions control technologies. We are also
interested in comment on establishing separate standards for the two
engine types. In making their recommendations, commenters are
encouraged to consider the level of emission reductions currently
achieved under the California emissions control program, described
above, and the need and opportunity for further emissions reductions.
Commenters are also encouraged to consider the benefits of aligning
highway motorcycle HC standards, discussed in section IV below, with
the HC standards for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. We are
interested in comments on technology, cost, corresponding emission
reduction potential, necessary lead-time, phase-in, and performance
implications, including supporting rationale and data, where possible.
Commenters are also invited to address the cost and corresponding
emissions reductions of various other potential strategies.
    As described above, we may propose averaging approaches such as
corporate-average standards and averaging, banking, and trading. We
request comment on the appropriateness of averaging ATVs and off-
highway motorcycles together, assuming they are required to meet the
same standards, or standards of similar stringency. Comments on other
aspects of averaging as it might apply to HC compliance are requested
(for example, averaging recreational vehicles with other engines
identified in this document).
    NOX standard. While the focus of the program would be on
achieving HC reductions, we also request comment on the need for and
appropriateness of NOX control for these engines. We are
considering standards in the form of HC plus NOX. We would
expect a small NOX increase when going from uncontrolled
two-stroke engines to engine designs which meet new emissions
standards. This NOX increase is due to engine efficiency
improvements and emission control strategies available for 2-stroke
engines. A NOX plus HC standard recognizes this trade-off.
Also, 4-stroke engines typically have higher NOX emissions
than 2-stroke engines.
    When we established the HC plus NOX standard for
personal watercraft, we adjusted the level of the standard to account
for the inclusion of NOX. We request comment on this
approach for establishing an HC plus NOX limit for
motorcycles and ATVs. We also request comment on how much of an
adjustment to the standard is needed to account for NOX
emissions or what level would be appropriate for a NOX cap.
We also request comment on a NOX plus HC standard in the
context of averaging approaches for compliance. Finally, we request
comment on the cost implications and corresponding emission reduction
potential of NOX control strategies.
    CO standard. We expect to establish a CO limit for motorcycles and
ATVs, along with HC and NOX standards. We will be
considering the levels established by California for these vehicles and
the standards for highway motorcycles. We request comment on what level
of CO control would be appropriate for these vehicles, considering
costs (and other statutory factors). We also request comment on whether
or not the CO standard should be established as a separate technology
driver or based on the performance of technologies likely to be needed
to achieve low HC emissions levels. We request comment on the cost
implications and corresponding emission reduction potential of CO
control strategies. As with HC and NOX, we are interested in
the usefulness of considering averaging approaches for CO emissions
compliance.
    Test procedures. The form and numeric level of the standards depend
on the test procedures and test cycle over which emissions are
measured. As described above in section III.A.5., California off-
highway motorcycle and ATV standards are based on the highway light-
duty vehicle test procedure (the FTP). This is a chassis-based test
procedure, which requires the vehicle to be tested rather than only the
engine.
    Some manufacturers have noted that they do not currently have
chassis-based test facilities capable of testing ATVs. California
provides manufacturers with the option of certifying ATVs using the
engine-based, utility engine test procedure (SAE J1088), and most
manufacturers use this option for certifying their ATVs. Manufacturers
have facilities to chassis test motorcycles and therefore California
does not provide an engine testing certification option for
motorcycles. Manufacturers have noted that requiring chassis-based
testing for ATVs would require them to invest in additional testing
facilities which can handle ATVs, since ATVs do not fit on the same
roller(s) as motorcycles used in chassis testing.
    Currently, for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs, we are planning to
use the FTP test cycle, as it appears to be the best available test
cycle for these vehicles. We will be carefully examining the potential
pros and cons of using an engine-based test procedure for ATVs and
request comment on this issue. We request comment on whether or not the
approach taken by California is suitable for the federal program,
including the use of the above test procedures and their effectiveness
in ensuring in-use emissions reductions.
    We are particularly interested in comments on the use of the
utility engine cycle for ATVs, and whether or not a different engine-
based test cycle, such as the one being considered for snowmobiles
(discussed below), may be more suitable. The utility engine cycle is a
5-mode steady-state test cycle which includes testing at only one
engine speed (85 percent of rated speed). Such a test procedure is
appropriate for engines used in lawn and garden applications, but may
not be appropriate for engines used in vehicle applications. The
snowmobile engine test procedure is also a 5-mode steady-state test
procedure but the engine speed varies by mode along with torque. We
believe this is generally more representative of how an engine behaves
in a vehicle application.
2. Snowmobiles
    Emissions standards established by EPA through this rulemaking will
be the first for snowmobiles. Unlike off-highway motorcycles and ATVs,
there are no emissions standards for snowmobiles in California to use
as a point of reference. Snowmobiles are almost entirely equipped with
two-stroke engines which have very high HC and CO emission levels. Our
focus for snowmobiles will be to reduce those emission levels.
NOX emissions are much less of a concern because of the
seasonal nature of snowmobile use and low baseline levels.
    CO standard. CO emissions may be a larger concern for snowmobiles
than for off-highway motorcycles and ATVs due to their high CO
emissions levels and the general concern of high ambient CO level in
some areas during cold weather. In initial discussions with the
International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association (ISMA),
manufacturers have suggested setting standards that would result in CO
reductions of 10 to 30 percent, phased in over model years 2004-2006.
As described in section III.B. above, promising technologies are
available which have the potential to reduce emissions to significantly
lower levels. These technologies go beyond minor engine modifications
and calibration changes and may require additional lead time to
implement. However, with

[[Page 76808]]

appropriate lead time, further CO emission reductions may be reasonably
achievable.
    We will be evaluating potential technologies and the costs of those
technologies during the development of our proposal for snowmobiles. We
will consider the timing of the standards in the context of the level
of stringency we propose, recognizing that more lead-time would likely
be needed to apply and prove-out the application of certain advanced
technologies. Also, as described above, we will consider the value of
implementation flexibilities such as averaging and phase-in schedules
in allowing manufacturers to meet more stringent standards in an
orderly manner. We request comment on what level of CO emissions
control is feasible and appropriate for snowmobiles, on the cost and
corresponding emissions reduction potential of various strategies, on
the lead time needed to achieve new standards, and on the usefulness of
implementation flexibility in meeting the standards.
    HC standard. As mentioned in section II, we received comments
indicating that HC control for snowmobiles for purposes of reducing
ozone may not be necessary due to their seasonal use. However, we
believe that there may be a need to control HC emissions from
snowmobiles. In particular, even if we accept the commenters' argument
regarding ozone, HC emissions may result in increased exposure to air
toxics. As discussed in section II, hydrocarbons are made up of
numerous components, some of which have been identified as toxic air
pollutants.
    We anticipate that many of the technology approaches available to
manufacturers to reduce CO emission levels would also reduce HC
emissions levels. The two-stroke engines used in snowmobiles have very
high HC levels and we believe that establishing standards to reduce
those levels would be appropriate. Manufacturers have suggested an HC
reduction of up to 30 percent by 2008, in addition to the 30 percent
reduction in CO by 2006, discussed above. As with CO, we believe
technology is likely to be available to achieve a greater degree of
control, especially with several years lead time or phase-in.
Reductions in CO and HC of 70 percent or more may be feasible.
    We request comment on what level of HC emissions control is
feasible and appropriate for snowmobiles, the cost and corresponding
emissions reductions associated with such levels of emissions control,
the lead time needed to achieve new standards, and the usefulness of
implementation flexibility in meeting the standards. In particular, we
request comment on the appropriateness of requiring any control of HC
for snowmobiles given the seasonal nature of their use versus air toxic
concerns for riders.
    Test Procedures. Snowmobile manufacturers, in conjunction with
Southwest Research Institute, have developed a test procedure for
measuring snowmobile emissions.\42\ This effort was undertaken due to
increasing interest in snowmobile engine emission levels and a lack of
a test procedure based on a representative duty-cycle. The test cycle
is a 5-mode steady-state cycle, with different engine speed and torque
points chosen and weighted to reflect in-use engine operation (see
table below). The study also found that the utility engine cycle
(J1088), which had previously been used, was not appropriate for
snowmobiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ ``Development and Validation of a Snowmobile Engine
Emission Test Procedure,'' Christopher W. Wright and Jeff J. White,
SAE Paper 982017.

                                   Table III-3.--Snowmobile Engine Test Cycle
                                               (SAE paper 982017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      mode                            1            2            3            4            5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
normalized speed...............................          1.0         0.85         0.75         0.65         idle
normalized torque..............................          1.0         0.51         0.33         0.19            0
Weight, %......................................           12           27           25           31            5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the use of this test procedure as the basis
of future snowmobile standards. This test procedure appears to be the
best currently available for snowmobiles, but we request comment on the
need for additional tests or test modes to ensure in-use emissions
control. For example, idle CO emissions have been highlighted as a
particular concern for snowmobiles and we request comment on the need
for additional emphasis on idle CO emissions within the test procedure.
3. The Need for PM Standards
    As discussed in section II, Air Quality, we are very concerned
about current high particulate matter levels in snowmobile exhaust.
High PM levels are primarily attributable to the use of traditional 2-
stroke engines. PM emissions are also a concern for off-highway
motorcycles and ATVs to the extent that 2-stroke engines are used in
those applications.
    We believe that the technology changes that would be needed to
significantly reduce CO and HC levels, such as direct injection or 4-
stroke engines, may also dramatically reduce PM levels. If HC and CO
standards were established at a level only requiring minor
modifications to the engines, PM could remain a problem for snowmobiles
and a PM standard may be necessary. We request comment on whether or
not we should establish a PM standard for snowmobile engines and what
level of stringency would be appropriate. We also request comment on
the cost implications (equipment costs, etc.) associated with measuring
PM as part of the certification procedure.
4. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
    Depending on the structure of the proposed program, the level of
stringency of the proposed standards, and other considerations, we may
propose averaging, banking, and trading provisions (ABT) for
recreational vehicles/engines. We have established ABT programs in many
of our engine-based emissions control programs in cases where we have
set standards that require significant technology changes. The ABT
programs allow manufacturers

[[Page 76809]]

to earn credits by introducing clean engines sooner than required or by
certifying engines to levels below the standards. Manufacturers may use
the credits to certify engines to levels above the standards in the
same model year (averaging), keep the credits for use in a later model
year (banking), or transfer the credits to another manufacturer
(trading).
    In some cases, we have not established ABT programs because we
believed the standards we were adopting were achievable without the
additional flexibility. In such cases, EPA found that the added
complexity inherent in having an ABT program, both for EPA and the
manufacturers, would outweigh the potential benefits of the program.
    ABT can be beneficial in providing incentive to manufacturers for
the early introduction of new technologies, allowing certain engine
families to be trail blazers for new technology. This flexibility can
allow us to consider a more stringent program than would otherwise be
appropriate under CAA section 213. The programs also provide
flexibility to manufacturers for product planning and can provide
opportunity for more cost effective introduction of product lines. ABT
is tailored to meet the specific needs of standards and programs being
established. This is necessary to avoid issues such as windfall credits
and the potential of stockpiling credits which could result in a
significant delay of the standards being adopted or future standards
not yet considered. We request comment on integrating ABT into the
programs for recreational vehicles. We are interested in comment on the
scope of ABT, including any particular issues we should consider in
developing such a program, and whether or not credit trading among
different vehicle types should be allowed.

D. Additional Program Considerations

1. Competition Off-Highway Motorcycles
    Currently, a large portion of off-highway motorcycles are marketed
as competition/racing motorcycles. These models often represent a
manufacturer's high performance offerings in the off-highway market.
Most such motorcycles are of the motocross variety,\43\ although some
high performance enduro models \44\ are marketed for competition use.
These high performance motorcycles are largely powered by 2-stroke
engines, though some 4-stroke models have been introduced in recent
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ A motocross bike is typically a high performance off-
highway motorcycle that is designed to be operated in motocross
competition. Motocross competition is defined as a circuit race
around an off-highway closed-course. The course contains numerous
jumps, hills, flat sections, and bermed or banked turns. The course
surface usually consists of dirt, gravel, sand, and mud. Motocross
bikes are designed to be very light for quick handling and easy
manueverability. They also come with large knobby tires for
traction, high fenders to protect the rider from flying dirt and
rocks, aggressive suspension systems that allow the bike to absorb
large amounts of shock, and are powered by high performance engines.
They are not equipped with lights.
    \44\ An enduro bike is very similar in design and appearance to
a motocross bike. The primary difference is that enduros are
equipped with lights and have slightly different engine performance
that is more geared towards a broader variety of operation than a
motocross bike. An enduro bike needs to be able to cruise at high
speeds as well as operate through tight woods or deep mud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When used for competition, motocross motorcycles are mostly
involved in closed course or track racing. Other types of off-highway
motorcycles are usually marketed for trail or open area use. When used
for competition, these models are likely to be involved in point-to-
point competition events over trails or stretches of open land. There
are also specialized off-highway motorcycles that are designed for
competitions such as ice racing, drag racing, and observed trials
competition. A few races involve professional manufacturer sponsored
racing teams. Amateur competition events for off-highway motorcycles
are also held frequently in many areas of the U.S.
    Clean Air Act sections 216 (10) and (11) exclude engines and
vehicles ``used solely for competition'' from nonroad engine and
vehicle regulations. For purposes of past nonroad engine emissions
control regulatory programs (for example, the nonroad CI, recreational
marine, and Small SI programs), EPA has defined the term ``used solely
for competition'' as follows:
    Used solely for competition means exhibiting features that are not
easily removed and that would render its use other than in competition
unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely.
    If retained for the recreational vehicles program, the above
definition may be useful for identifying certain models that are
clearly used only for competition. For example, there are motorcycles
identified as ``observed trials'' motorcycles which are designed
without a standard seat because the rider does not sit down during
competition. This feature would make recreational use unlikely. Most
motorcycles marketed for competition, however, do not appear to have
physical characteristics that constrain their use to competition.
Without such distinguishing characteristics, determining that a vehicle
is used solely for competition becomes more challenging.
    Manufacturers have recommended that EPA use the definition for
competition motorcycle that EPA has previously established for purposes
of exempting motorcycles from its noise regulations, as follows:
    Competition motorcycle means any motorcycle designed and marketed
solely for use in closed course competition events.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 40 CFR 205.151(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers further recommended that closed course competition
include ``any organized competition event covering a closed, repeated,
or defined route intended for easy viewing of the route by spectators.
Such events could include, but are not limited to, motocross, enduro,
hare scrambles, observed trials, short track, dirt track, drag race,
hill climb, ice race, and land speed trials * * *''. Manufacturers
recommended that EPA require labels designating the vehicles for
competition use only.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ ``MIC Recommended Definitions for Pending EPA Recreation
Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Proposal,'' Motorcycle Industry Council,
Draft, June 1, 2000. Docket A-2000-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on confidential sales information, we believe that vehicles
designated for competition by manufacturers could exceed 50 percent of
total sales under their recommended approach. We believe that many
``competition'' style motorcycles are likely to also be used, at least
by many end users, primarily or often for recreational riding. Section
216(10) of the Act excludes from the definition of nonroad engines
vehicles used solely for competition. We are concerned that the
approach suggested by manufacturers may be overly broad and therefore
would not meet the conditions of this exclusion.
    In a recent rulemaking for marine diesel engines, we addressed
competition engines by providing exclusions for engines used in
professional competitions only.\47\ Engines used for amateur
competition or occasional competition are not excluded under that rule.
The exclusion is available both to manufacturers and to someone
modifying an engine for professional competition use (normally, we
would prohibit someone from making changes to a certified engine in
ways that adversely affect emissions control). This would be one
possible

[[Page 76810]]

approach to address the competition use issue for recreational
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 64 FR 73305, December 29, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are very interested in receiving input on the competition
exemption issue described above. We request comment on ways the program
can be established to provide an exclusion for motorcycles used solely
for competition, consistent with the Act, without excluding vehicles
that are often used for other purposes. Ideally, the program can be
established in a way that provides reasonable certainty at time of
certification. However, approaches could include reasonable measures at
time of sale or in-use that would provide assurance that the
competition exemption is being applied appropriately. We request
information and data on the use of off-highway motorcycles for
competition and recreation that would inform the rulemaking process.
2. Crankcase Emissions From Recreational Vehicles
    We will be considering proposing the elimination of crankcase
emissions from recreational vehicles. Venting the crankcase to the
atmosphere is a source of HC emissions that has been cost effectively
controlled in many other engine applications. Rather than venting these
emissions to the atmosphere, they can be routed back to the engine for
combustion. We believe that any effect on exhaust emission levels due
to the additional hydrocarbons which are routed to the engine through
the crankcase emissions control system can be substantially reduced, if
not eliminated, through the recalibration of the engine. We are not
aware of any issues particular to closing the crankcase on engines used
in recreational vehicles. California has required the elimination of
crankcase emissions on off-highway motorcycles and ATVs as part of
their program. We request comments on the costs, emission reductions,
and any other issues associated with requiring the elimination of
crankcase emissions from recreational vehicles.
3. Compliance Measures
    Along with emissions standards, we will be considering requirements
to ensure in-use compliance with those standards over the useful life
of the recreational vehicles/engines. The goal of these measures would
be to promote high quality engine design, production, and in-use
emissions performance. Compliance programs typically include
certification, production line testing, and in-use testing components.
Under these programs, manufacturers must submit data and other
information prior to introducing the engine into commerce certifying
that the engine meets applicable standards, and there is the ability to
verify compliance through engine testing at the production line and in-
use. We expect to examine the structure and effectiveness of compliance
programs contained in other nonroad emissions control programs in
determining what types of measures would be most appropriate for
recreational vehicles.
    Because of similarities in the applications, engine
characteristics, and production volumes, we will carefully consider
whether the compliance programs for recreational vehicles should be
modeled after the programs adopted to control emissions from marine
outboard engines and personal watercraft.\48\ Some manufacturers making
these marine products also make recreational vehicles, and are
therefore familiar with the structure of the marine engines program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 61 FR 52088, October 4, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We encourage interested parties to review the compliance program in
place for outboard engines and personal watercraft and provide input to
EPA on the potential for applying the same types of compliance measures
to these other recreational vehicles. In particular, we are interested
in comments on requirements for manufacturer production line and in-use
testing. For outboard engines and personal watercraft, the production
line testing program requires manufacturers to test engines as they
leave the production line. This process is used to provide a quality
control check on the manufacturer's production processes to ensure that
engines are routinely assembled in a way such that they continue to
meet emission performance requirements when coming off the assembly
line. The manufacturer in-use testing program requires manufacturers to
select engines from the in-use fleet and test a portion of their engine
families each year. These requirements focus resources on ensuring in-
use compliance and are key components to the overall compliance program
we have established for recreational marine engines.
4. Consumer Modifications
    We are aware that consumers sometimes modify engines and exhaust
systems on their recreational vehicles. Some of these changes are done
to enhance operating performance. Others are to maintain optimal
performance under varying operating conditions (i.e., changes in
altitude, weather, etc.). We request information on the types of
modifications that are common for the different types of recreational
vehicles and any information on their impact on emission performace. We
are especially interested in those modifications that would affect the
emissions performance of the vehicle, and could be considered tampering
under the Act for engines certified to emissions standards. We also
request information that would help us better understand how common
these practices are for the different types of vehicles. Understanding
the scope of these practices will help us establish standards and
program requirements that achieve in-use emissions reductions.
5. Useful Life
    For highway motorcycles, we currently have three distinct useful
life categories that are based on engine displacement. The useful life
for all three categories are five years or 12,000 km, 18,000 km, or
30,000 km depending on which category the motorcycle falls under.
California has established a useful life of 5 years or 10,000 km for
off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. For some of our nonroad engine
regulations, we have based useful life on time (i.e., hours). We
request information that would help us determine the most appropriate
method for establishing useful life for recreational vehicles. For
example, a certain number of hours may be appropriate for snowmobiles
and possibly ATVs, whereas a useful life similar to that used for
highway motorcycles or California off-highway motorcycles may be more
appropriate for off-highway motorcycles. We request comment on what the
appropriate useful life levels and values would be for the various
types of recreational vehicles.
6. Consumer Labeling
    We request comment on the potential for a consumer labeling program
for recreational vehicles. We are also interested in comment on this
topic for recreational marine engines, as discussed in section V.E.10.
The purpose of a labeling program would be to educate consumers so that
they could make informed decisions concerning engine emissions when
they purchase a recreational vehicle. One example of a consumer
labeling program is the California Air Resources Board's requirement
that personal watercraft and outboard engines sold in California
starting in 2001 be labeled as either low, very-low, or ultra-low
depending on their emission levels.
    We request comment on the merit and cost of including such a
program in our proposal for recreational vehicles and

[[Page 76811]]

whether the program should be voluntary or mandatory. We also request
comment on programmatic aspect of labeling such as the content of the
label, the number of tiers that would be useful in distinguishing among
recreational vehicle models, and the pollutant(s) that should be used
in establishing those tiers. Finally, we request comment on any other
appropriate incentives for introducing new clean technologies that may
be available.

IV. Highway Motorcycles

    In addition to the nonroad vehicles and engines noted above,
today's ANPRM also reviews EPA requirements for highway motorcycles.
The emissions standards for highway motorcycles were established
twenty-three years ago. California recently adopted new emissions
standards for highway motorcycles and new standards have also been
proposed internationally. There may be opportunities to reduced
emissions in a way that also allows manufacturers to benefit from
harmonized requirements, which may reduce product lines and production
costs. In addition, we believe it is important to consider the
emissions standards for highway motorcycles in the context of setting
standards for off-highway motorcycles. We are interested in providing
regulatory programs for off-highway and highway motorcycles that are
consistent, which may also allow for the transfer of technology across
product lines for manufacturers. Consequently, we request comment on
the appropriateness of examining and potentially revising the highway
motorcycle emission standards in the same time frame, and in the same
rulemaking, in which we plan to address emission standards for
recreational vehicles.

A. What Is a Highway Motorcycle, and Who Makes Them?

    Motorcycles come in a variety of two-and three-wheeled
configurations and styles. For the most part, however, they are two-
wheeled self-powered vehicles. Federal regulations currently define a
motorcycle as ``any motor vehicle with a headlight, taillight, and
stoplight and having: two wheels, or three wheels and a curb mass less
than or equal to 680 kilograms (1499 pounds).'' (See 40 CFR 86.402-
86.478). Vehicles that otherwise meet the motorcycle definition but
have engine displacements less than 50 cubic centimeters (cc)
(generally, youth motorcycles, most mopeds, and some motor scooters)
are currently not covered by federal regulations. Also currently
excluded are motorcycles which, ``with an 80 kg (176 lb) driver, * * *
cannot: (1) Start from a dead stop using only the engine; or (2) Exceed
a maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) on level paved surfaces' (e.g.,
some mopeds). Most scooters and mopeds have very small engine
displacements and are typically used as short-distance commuting
vehicles. Motorcycles with larger engine displacement are more
typically used for recreation (racing or touring) and may travel long
distances. Both EPA and California regulations further sub-divide
highway motorcycles into classes based on engine displacement. Table
IV-1 shows how these classes are defined.
    The currently regulated highway category includes motorcycles
termed ``dual-use'' or ``dual-sport,'' meaning that their designs
incorporate features that enable them to be reasonably competent on and
off road. Dual-sport motorcycles generally can be described as street-
legal dirt bikes, since they tend to bear a closer resemblance in terms
of design features and engines to true off-highway motorcycles than to
highway cruisers or sport bikes. However, another category of
motorcycle, referred to as ``enduros,'' are very similar in appearance
to dual-sport motorcycles, but are typically equipped with higher
performance engines and have traditionally been categorized as nonroad
motorcycles and not been subject to the highway emission standards.
Therefore, we request comment as to how we can better determine which
motorcycles are street-legal and which are not.
    Throughout this ANPRM the term ``highway motorcycle'' is intended
to include all motorcycles covered by the current federal regulations;
thus, dual-sport motorcycles are included in this definition. We
currently believe that all highway motorcycle engines sold in the U.S.,
including those that power dual-sport motorcycles, are four-stroke
engines.

                     Table IV-1.--Motorcycle Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Engine  displacement  (cubic
            Motorcycle class                       centimeters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I................................  50--169.
Class II...............................  170--279.
Class III..............................  280 and greater.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Highway motorcycles are dominated by larger engines, with engine
displacements exceeding 1000 cc for the most powerful ``superbikes.''
According to the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), in 1998 there were
about 5.4 million highway motorcycles in use in the United States (only
565,000 of these were dual-sport), more than three-fourths of which had
an engine displacement of over 449 cc.\49\ Sixty percent had an engine
displacement greater than 749 cc. Inclusion of the dual-sport
motorcycles in this figure tends to skew the numbers somewhat, even
despite the fact that their total numbers are relatively small, because
their dirt bike heritage leads them to be weighted towards smaller
engines. According to the MIC data, three-fourths of dual-sport
motorcycles had an engine displacement of less than 350 cc, whereas
two-thirds of the remaining motorcycles (those purely designed for road
use) had a displacement of over 749 cc. Total sales in 1998 of highway
motorcycles was estimated to be about 411,000, or about 72 percent of
motorcycle sales. About 13,000 of these were dual-sport motorcycles.
The remaining 28 percent of sales were strictly off-highway
motorcycles, which are currently unregulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ ``1999 Motorcycle Statistical Annual,'' Motorcycle Industry
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are aware of a half-dozen companies, Honda, Harley Davidson,
Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and BMW, which account for near 95 percent of
all motorcycles sold. Dozens of other minor players make up the
remaining few percent. Based on available information, over half of all
motorcycles sold in 1998 were made by Honda and Harley Davidson, with
the two companies maintaining almost equal market shares of about 25
percent each.

B. What Is the Regulatory History?

1. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations
    In 1974 EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that
discussed the possible implementation of emission controls for highway
motorcycles for the first time and requested comment on a number of
issues. Taking into account the comments received on the ANPRM, EPA
issued an NPRM the following year for the control of exhaust and
crankcase emissions from new motorcycles. The proposal addressed
standards for HC, CO, and NOX, proposing a set of interim
standards for 1978 and 1979 and final standards equivalent to the
light-duty vehicle standards in effect at that time. The NPRM was
followed by a Final Rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 1126, Jan. 5, 1977)
which established interim standards effective for the 1978 and 1979
model years and ultimate standards effective starting with the 1980
model year. The interim standards ranged from 5.0 to 14.0 g/km HC
depending upon engine displacement,

[[Page 76812]]

while the CO standard of 17.0 g/km applied to all motorcycles. The 1980
standards, which were more lenient than those that were proposed and
which lacked a NOX standard, are essentially those that
remain in effect today. While the final standards did not differ based
on engine displacement, the useful life over which these standards must
be met ranged from 12,000 km (7,456 miles) for Class I motorcycles to
30,000 km (18,641 miles) for Class III motorcycles. These standards
were updated in 1989 to include methanol-fueled motorcycles starting
with the 1990 model year, then again in 1994 to include natural gas-
fueled and liquefied petroleum gas-fueled motorcycles starting with the
1997 model year. Crankcase emissions from motorcycles are also
prohibited. There are no current federal standards for evaporative
emissions from motorcycles. The current federal standards are shown in
Table IV-2.

 Table IV-2.--Current Federal Exhaust Emission Standards for Motorcycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Engine size                    HC (g/km)    CO (g/km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All...........................................         5.0         12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Regulation by the California Air Resources Board
    Motorcycle emission standards in California were originally
identical to the federal standards that applied to the 1978 through
1981 model years. The definitions of motorcycle classes used by
California continue to be identical to the federal definitions.
However, California has revised their standards several times to bring
them to their current levels. In 1982 the standards were modified to
reduce the HC standard from 5.0 g/km to 1.0 or 1.4 g/km, depending upon
engine displacement. California adopted an evaporative emission
standard of 2.0 g/test for 1983 and later model year motorcycles. In
1984 California amended the regulations for 1988 and later model year
motorcycles to further lower emission standards and provide additional
compliance flexibility to manufacturers. The 1988 and later standards
could be met on a corporate-average basis, and the larger (Class III)
bikes (280 cc and above) were split into two separate categories: 280
cc to 699 cc and 700 cc and greater. These are the standards being met
in California today. Like the federal standards, there are no currently
applicable NOX standards for highway motorcycles in
California. Under the corporate-averaging scheme, no individual engine
family is allowed to exceed a cap of 2.5 g/km. Like the federal
program, California also prohibits crankcase emissions.

   Table IV-3.--Current California Highway Motorcycle Exhaust Emission
                                Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Engine size (cc)                   HC (g/km)   CO (g/km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50-279..........................................         1.0        12.0
280-699.........................................         1.0        12.0
700 and above...................................         1.4        12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed new
standards for Class III highway motorcycles that would take effect in
two phases--a ``Tier 1'' to start with the 2004 model year, followed by
a ``Tier 2'' that would take effect starting with the 2008 model year.
These standards were finalized with minor modifications on November 22,
1999. Existing California standards for Class I and II motorcycles
remained unchanged. As with the current standards, manufacturers will
be able to meet the requirements on a corporate-average basis. Perhaps
most significantly, this recent CARB action brings some level of
NOX control to motorcycles by establishing a combined
HC+NOX standard. No changes were made by the CARB action to
the CO standard, which remains at 12.0 g/km. In addition, CARB is
providing an incentive program to encourage the introduction of
motorcycles compliant with the Tier 2 standard prior to the 2008 model
year. This incentive program allows the accumulation of credits that
manufacturers can use to meet the 2008 standards. Like the federal
program, these standards will also apply to dual sport motorcycles.

        Table IV-4.--Tier 1 and Tier 2 California Class III Highway Motorcycle Exhaust Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          HC+NOX (g/
                   Model year                              Engine displacement                km)      CO (g/km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 through 2007 (Tier 1).....................  280 cc and greater.....................         1.4        12.0
2008 and subsequent (Tier 2)...................  280 cc and greater.....................         0.8        12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California also adopted a new definition of small volume that would
take effect with the 2008 model year. Historically, California had a
definition of small volume that applied to the 1984 through 1987 model
years (5,000 units per model year), but no definition that has applied
since. Thus, for the 1988 through 2007 model years, all manufacturers
must meet the standards, regardless of production volume. Small volume
manufacturers, defined in CARB's recent action as a manufacturer with
combined California sales of Class I, Class II, and Class III
motorcycles not greater than 300 units, do not have to meet new
standards until the 2008 model year, at which point the Tier 1 standard
applies. CARB intends to evaluate whether the Tier 2 standard should be
applied to small volume manufacturers in the future.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ CARB, October 23, 1998 ``Proposed Amendments to the
California On-Road Motocycles Regulation'' Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. European Regulations
    The European Commission recently proposed a new phase of motorcycle
standards, which would start in 2003, and are considering a second in
2006. Whereas the current European standards make a distinction between
two-stroke and four-stroke engines, the proposed standards would apply
to all motorcycles regardless of engine type, leading to a technology-
independent regulatory framework. The 2003 standards would require
emissions to be below the values shown in Table IV-5, as measured over
the European ECE-40 test cycle. The phase of standards being considered
for 2006 are still in a draft form and have not yet been officially
proposed, but in addition to taking another step in reducing motorcycle
emissions, the 2006 standards are expected to incorporate an improved
motorcycle test cycle, as noted in Section IV.D.2 below.

[[Page 76813]]

    Table IV-5.--European Commission Proposed 2003 Motorcycle Exhaust
                           Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NOX  (g/
                    HC (g/km)                      CO (g/km)      km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2.............................................         5.5         0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Highway Motorcycle Emission Control Technology

1. Federal Standards
    While highway motorcycles have had to apply some low-level control
technologies to meet the current standards, the current federal
standards require a technology mix comparable to the pre-catalyst stage
for passenger cars. The standards that took effect starting in the 1980
model year precipitated the elimination of highway two-stroke engines
and a transition to a fleet composed entirely of four-stroke engines.
In general, the standards prompted the use of leaner air-fuel mixtures,
electronic ignition systems, improvements in manufacturing tolerances
in the carburetor and fuel handling systems, PCV valves to control
crankcase emissions, and some engine redesign and modifications
(changes to the camshaft, valve and ignition timing, and combustion
chamber design).
2. California Standards
    Despite the greater stringency of the current California standards
(i.e., those that apply in the current model year), most manufacturers
have been able to comply without the use of catalytic converters, and
only a few expensive high-performance motorcycles have used fuel
injection systems. The majority of motorcycles have been able to meet
these standards by using, in addition to the measures noted above for
the federal standards, engine modifications and more advanced
calibration strategies, with air injection systems being commonly used
in the larger motorcycle models. A few models have been certified with
3-way catalytic converters and fuel injection systems.
    The Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards taking effect in California in 2004
and 2008, respectively, will require some additional technologies.\51\
Many of the control technologies that have been applied successfully to
four-stroke engines in passenger cars may have some potential
application to four-stroke motorcycle engines. Some, such as fuel
injection and catalytic converters, have already been successfully used
on some motorcycle engines, as noted above. Other passenger car
technologies may arrive on motorcycles soon due to the upcoming
California requirements. However, California did not base the Tier 1
standard effective in 2004 on the widespread application of catalytic
converters. California has determined the 1.4 g/km HC+NOX
standard will be largely feasible by reducing engine-out emissions
using mostly engine systems (e.g., fuel injection, pulse air injection,
valve overlap changes), rather than relying on catalytic after-
treatment. According to California, the Tier 2 standard will be more of
a challenge to industry and existing technologies are likely to be
modified and optimized for motorcycle application to achieve 0.8 g/km
HC+NOX. They claim that such technologies could include
computerized fuel injection, high-efficiency closed-loop two- or three-
way catalytic converters, precise air-fuel ratio controls, programmed
secondary pulse-air injection, low-thermal capacity exhaust pipes, and
others which are available today or in the foreseeable near future.
California has also suggested that some manufacturers may be able to
meet the Tier 2 standards on some models without the use of catalytic
converters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ California Air Resources Board, ``Final Statement of
Reasons for Rulemaking,'' December 10, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Standards and Program Approaches

    We have identified a number of key issues and decision points that
may impact any action we may take regarding standards for highway
motorcycles. We request detailed comments and data regarding the issue
areas described in this section.
1. Exhaust Emission Standards
    In general we request comment on the technological feasibility,
cost, and appropriateness of implementing new more stringent emission
standards for highway motorcycles. We also request comment on
technologies that might enable reductions in motorcycle emissions, and
the potential magnitude of such reductions. We request comment on the
appropriate time frame for implementing new emission standards for
highway motorcycles. In addition, we request detailed comments on the
following specific issue areas.
    Harmonization with California. In many program areas, including
light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, harmonization with
California has frequently been a significant objective, and is often a
desirable outcome for industry. When federal and California compliance
programs are harmonized, manufacturers are more easily able to produce
engine families that comply with both programs, rather than having to
consider whether or how to design and market engine families separately
for California and the remaining 49 states. In addition, historically
any time the California program is significantly more stringent than
the federal program there is a possibility that some individual states
will elect to enforce the California program (as several states
currently do with light-duty vehicles), further complicating
compliance, marketing, and distribution for the manufacturers. Given
that California has recently put in place technologically challenging
standards for Class III motorcycles in a time frame that we would be
likely to consider for a possible federal program, we are likely to
look very closely at the pros and cons of harmonizing the federal
program with the recently finalized California standards. We request
comment on all aspects of the California program and whether the
California standards are appropriate for a nationwide federal program.
Commenters should address technological feasibility, cost,
corresponding potential emissions reductions, appropriate time frame,
structure (e.g., a fleet average approach vs. something else), and
potential advanced emission control technologies associated with
California-level standards and with any other level of standards a
commenter may consider appropriate.
    As noted earlier, the recent action by California did not address
emissions from Class I and Class II motorcycles. We request comment on
the need to consider emission reductions from all classes of
motorcycles, including Class I and Class II.
    Harmonization with off-highway motorcycles. Since we will be
promulgating emission standards for off-highway motorcycles for the
first time, it may make sense to have standards that apply to both,
off-highway and on-highway motorcycles. This could be beneficial for
manufacturers that produce both types of motorcycles, since they could
spread their resources across both programs. In addition, the
experience and knowledge used in developing emission compliant highway
motorcycles could possibly be transferred to off-highway motorcycle
applications. However, we also acknowledge that many off-highway
motorcycles use two-stroke engines, where two-stroke engines are no
longer used in highway applications and some of the information used in
meeting highway standards may not be applicable. Therefore, we request
comment on the appropriateness of harmonization of highway and off-

[[Page 76814]]

highway motorcycle emission standards and the costs and corresponding
emissions reductions associated with this approach.
2. Test Cycle
    The test cycle currently used to for compliance with the motorcycle
emission standards, in both the federal and California programs, is the
FTP-75. Motorcycles are tested on a specialized motorcycle chassis
dynamometer on the traditional FTP, the same cycle used for light-duty
vehicles and trucks, although the driving schedule speeds and
accelerations are reduced for Class I and II motorcycles. It is now
widely acknowledged that the traditional FTP does not adequately
represent some high-emission modes that vehicles experience in actual
use. When the cycle was first adopted for passenger cars in the early
1970's, the limited capabilities of the chassis dynamometers at that
time made it necessary to limit the speeds and acceleration rates of
the driving cycle. Thus, the top speed and acceleration rates seen on
the FTP are much less than most vehicles--especially motorcycles--can
achieve on the road. Consequently, we request comment on whether the
existing US06 driving cycle for light-duty vehicles and trucks--or some
other more representative driving cycle--may be appropriate for highway
motorcycles, and if so, what standards might be appropriate. We request
data on how motorcycles are driven in actual use that might support or
reject the appropriateness of a high-speed/high-acceleration driving
cycle for motorcycles.
    In addition, there is an effort underway under the auspices of the
United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) to develop a
global harmonized world motorcycle test cycle (WMTC). The objective of
this work is to develop a scientifically supported test cycle that
accurately represents the in-use driving characteristics of
motorcycles. The United States is also a participating member of UN/
ECE. EPA has stated that present levels of environmental protection
will not be lowered in order to achieve regulatory harmonization. In
its recent proposal, the European Commission has announced its
intention to consider a global test cycle for the second phase of its
proposed standards, expected to take effect in 2006. We request comment
on all issues related to pursuing a globally harmonized test cycle.
3. Evaporative Emission Standards
    As noted earlier, the existing federal program does not require
compliance with a limit on evaporative emissions from motorcycles,
while California does. We request comments and supporting information
on the appropriateness of harmonization with the California evaporative
standards or whether other evaporative emission standards might be an
appropriate element of the federal program. We also request comment on
the costs and corresponding emissions reductions associated with
adopting evaporative emission standards.

E. Additional Program Considerations

1. Addressing Currently-Excluded Vehicles
    In addition, we may consider developing appropriate standards for
those types of vehicles now excluded from compliance with emission
standards. This would include mopeds and scooters that are under 50 cc
or that otherwise can not meet the applicability criteria in the
regulations (a mix of two-and four-stroke engines). As noted earlier,
some of these vehicles do not meet the regulatory definition of motor
vehicle by not being able to exceed 25 mph, thus it may be appropriate
to consider such vehicles as nonroad vehicles and may be appropriate to
regulate them under the recreational vehicle regulations. We request
comment on the appropriateness, technological feasibility, and cost of
implementing emission standards for these currently unregulated
vehicles. We request comment on approaches to reducing emissions from
these types of vehicles, and on the technologies that might be used to
reduce emissions, both for two- and four-stroke models.
2. Consumer Modifications
    A significant issue that emerged in the context of the new
California standards is the rate at which consumers make modifications
to their motorcycles, often using aftermarket parts, to enhance
performance, sound, and/or appearance. The Motorcycle Industry Council
expressed a concern to California that standards which result in the
widespread use of catalysts will achieve less benefits than projected
due to consumer tampering with the exhaust systems. Such tampering,
which can frequently involve the replacement of exhaust pipes that may
include the removal of the catalytic converter, can clearly offset a
significant portion of the emission benefits. We request comment on
this issue, and in particular request any data that may demonstrate the
magnitude of these consumer practices. We request comment on approaches
to standard-setting that may mitigate this problem while also enabling
motorcycles to take advantage of proven technologies such as catalytic
converters.
3. Small Volume Manufacturers
    The issue of how to define a small volume manufacturer by
regulation was also a significant one that arose in the context of the
new California standards. Motorcycle manufacturers with fewer than 500
employees meet the current definition of a small business under the
classifications established by the Small Business Administration. The
current federal regulations define a small volume motorcycle
manufacturer as one whose projected U.S. sales of motorcycles is less
than 10,000 units. We request comment on how the existing federal
definition may interact with the new California definition, and
whether, in the context of the new California definition (described
earlier), any inequities are created between the two motorcycle
compliance programs. We request comment on the appropriateness of the
existing federal definition, and, in the context of revised federal
standards, what types of compliance flexibilities might be appropriate
for those manufacturers defined as small volume.
4. Useful Life
    As noted earlier, the current federal standards were put in place
more than twenty years ago. An important aspect of the overall emission
standards, in addition to the numerical limits, is the vehicle useful
life over which applicability with the standards must be demonstrated
when the vehicle is certified. The current useful life definitions,
like the numerical emission limits, were put in place twenty years ago.
In conjunction with evaluating the possibility of revising emission
standards for highway motorcycles, we believe it may be appropriate to
reevaluate the useful life definitions in the context of current
technology and driving habits. As is clearly the case with passenger
cars, motorcycles may have evolved in the last twenty years to last
longer and be driven more miles. Congress found it necessary to
increase the useful life of passenger cars in the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments from 50,000 miles to 100,000 miles based on the longevity of
newer passenger cars. It may be time for a similar adjustment for
highway motorcycles as design and manufacturing improvements may have
extended the typical operating life of highway motorcycles. We request
comments and supporting data that may support or refute the need to
evaluate and possibly extend the useful life of highway motorcycles.
The current

[[Page 76815]]

useful life definitions are shown in Table IV-6.

       Table IV-6.--Useful Life Definitions for Motorcycle Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Motorcycle class                        Useful life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I...................................  5 years or 12,000 km (7,456
                                             miles).
Class II..................................  5 years or 18,000 km (11,185
                                             miles).
Class III.................................  5 years or 30,000 km (18,641
                                             miles).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Recreational Marine Engines

A. Background

1. What Marine Engines Are Already Covered by EPA Programs?
    We originally proposed emission standards for all marine engines in
1994.\52\ This included outboard and personal watercraft engines,
sterndrive and inboard spark-ignition engines, and recreational and
commercial compression-ignition engines. EPA then decided to set
standards for marine diesel engines in a separate rulemaking because of
the many unique issues related to those engines. Because uncontrolled
sterndrive and inboard spark-ignition engines appeared to be a low-
emission alternative to outboard engines in the marketplace, even after
outboard emission standards were fully phased in, we decided to set
emission standards only for outboard and personal watercraft
engines.\53\ Outboard and personal watercraft engines were almost all
two-stroke engines with much higher emission rates compared to the
sterndrive and inboard engines which were all four-stroke engines. We
are now working to conclude the effort to set emission standards for SI
marine engines as we develop a different set of requirements for
sterndrive and inboard SI engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 59 FR 55929 (November 9, 1994).
    \53\ See 61 FR 52088 (October 4, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the 1994 proposal, we set Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for
land-based nonroad diesel engines and marine diesel engines rated below
37kW.\54\ This led us to propose comparable emission control
requirements for larger marine diesel engines.\55\ Although all marine
diesel engines were included in the 1998 ANPRM, EPA decided to
subdivide marine diesel engines further to accommodate the special
concerns that apply to engines used in recreational marine
applications.\56\ These special concerns included high power-to-weight
ratios needed for planing vessels and potential small business impacts.
We have finalized emission standards for commercial marine diesel
engines and are now developing requirements for recreational marine
diesel engines.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 63 FR 56968 (October 23, 1998).
    \55\ See 63 FR 68508 (December 11, 1998).
    \56\ See 63 FR 28309 (May 22, 1998).
    \57\ See 64 FR 73300 (December 29, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What Marine Engines Are Included in This Rulemaking?
    In this action, we are giving advance notice for our proposal to
establish emission standards for new spark-ignition sterndrive and
inboard marine engines and new compression-ignition recreational marine
engines at or above 37 kW. For spark-ignition engines, this includes
jet boat and air boat engines, as these can be similar to sterndrive
and inboard engines and thus are part of the sterndrive/inboard (SD/I)
class. These are the only recreational marine engines for which we have
not yet promulgated emission standards.
    For the compression-ignition engines, we are focusing on reductions
in oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter emissions. For the spark-
ignition engines we are focusing on reductions in oxides of nitrogen
and hydrocarbon emissions.
    References to ``marine diesel engines'' in this document are
intended to cover compression-ignition marine engines. CI engines are
typically operated on diesel fuel although other fuels, such as
compressed natural gas, may also be used. Similarly, all references to
``gasoline marine engines'' in this document are intended to include
all spark-ignition marine engines regardless of fuel type. For SI
engines, we include all of the engines listed above without making a
distinction between recreational and commercial applications. However,
as a shorthand for this document, we are using ``recreational marine
engines'' to mean recreational marine diesel engines and all of the
gasoline SD/I engines.
    Boat builders could also be affected by this emission control
program. If engine changes significantly increase the external size,
increase heat rejection, or reduce the power of the engine, boat
builders could have to change the packaging of the engine in the
vessel. Engine builders may raise the price of the engine to boat
builders to cover the increased costs of developing, certifying and
building new compliant engines. Also we are requesting comment on
evaporative emission control which could affect boat designs.

B. Technology

1. What Technologies Appear To Be Available for Recreational Marine
Diesel Engines?
    We anticipate that significant emissions reductions from
recreational marine diesel engines can be achieved primarily with
technology that will be applied to land-based nonroad engines and
commercial marine engines. Much of this technology already has been
established in highway applications and is being used in some land-
based nonroad and marine applications.
    If emissions standards were not to go into place until the 2005-
2006 time frame, engine manufacturers would have substantial lead time
for developing, testing, and implementing emission control
technologies. This lead time, coupled with the opportunity to use
emission control technologies already developed for land-based nonroad
engines, should allow time for a comprehensive program to integrate the
most effective emission control approaches into the manufacturers'
overall design goals related to durability, reliability, and fuel
consumption. We request comment on the amount of lead time that would
be appropriate for emission standards for recreational marine diesel
applications.
    Engine manufacturers have already shown some initiative in
producing limited numbers of low-NOX marine diesel engines.
More than 80 of these engines have been placed into service in
California through demonstration programs.58 59 Through the
demonstration programs, we were able to gain insight into what
technologies can be used to achieve significant emission reductions.
Emission data from these engines supported adoption of emission
standards for commercial marine diesel engines (see Table V-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Memorandum from Jeff Carmody, Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District, to Mike Samulski, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ``Marine Engine Replacement Programs,'' July 21,
1997 (Docket A-97-50; document II-G-10).
    \59\ Facsimile from Eric Peterson, Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District, to Mike Samulski, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ``Marine Engine Replacement Programs,'' April 1,
1998 (Docket A-97-50; document II-D-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Highway engine manufacturers have been the leaders in developing
and applying new emission control technology for diesel engines.
Because of the similar engine designs in land-based nonroad and marine
diesel engines, we expect that much of the technological development
that has led to lower emitting highway engines can be transferred or
adapted for use on land-based nonroad and marine engines. Much of the
improvement in emissions

[[Page 76816]]

from these engines comes from ``internal'' engine changes such as
variation in fuel injection variables (injection timing, injection
pressure, spray pattern, rate shaping), modified piston bowl geometry
for better air-fuel mixing, and improvements intended to reduce oil
consumption. Introduction and ongoing improvement of electronic
controls have played a vital role in facilitating many of these
improvements.
    Other technological developments that are expected to be used on
land-based nonroad engines would require a greater degree of
development before they could be applied to marine diesel engines.
Turbocharging is widely used now in marine applications because it
improves power and efficiency by compressing the intake air.
Turbocharging may also be used to decrease particulate emissions in the
exhaust. Today, marine engine manufacturers generally have to rematch
the turbocharger to the engine characteristics of the marine version of
a nonroad engine and often will add water cooling (jacketing) around
the turbo housing to keep surface temperatures low. Once the Tier 2
nonroad engines are available to the marine industry, matching the
turbochargers for the engines would be an important step in achieving
low emissions.
    Aftercooling is a well established technology that can be used to
reduce NOX by reducing the temperature of the charge air
after it has been heated during compression. Reducing the charge air
temperature directly reduces the peak cylinder temperature during
combustion, which is the primary cause of NOX formation.
Air-to-water and water-to-water aftercoolers are well established for
land-based applications. For engines in marine vessels, there are two
different types of aftercooling used: jacket-water and raw-water
aftercooling. With jacket-water aftercooling, the coolant to the
aftercooler is cooled through a heat exchanger by ambient water. This
cooling circuit may be either the same circuit used to cool the engine
or a separate circuit. By moving to a separate circuit, marine engine
manufacturers would be able to achieve further reductions in the intake
charge temperature. This separate circuit could result in even lower
temperatures by using raw water as the coolant. This means that ambient
water is pumped directly to the aftercooler. Raw-water aftercooling is
currently being used widely in recreational applications. Because of
the access that marine engines have to a large ambient water cooling
medium, we anticipate that marine CI engine manufacturers will largely
achieve reductions in NOX emissions through the use of
aftercooling.
    To meet potential emission standards, recreational marine diesel
engine manufacturers could use many of the strategies discussed above.
Electronic controls also offer great potential for improved control of
engine parameters for better performance and lower emissions. Unit
pumps or injectors would allow higher-pressure fuel injection with rate
shaping to carefully time the delivery of the whole volume of injected
fuel into the cylinder. Marine engine manufacturers should be able to
take advantage of modifications to the routing of the intake air and
the shape of the combustion chamber of nonroad engines for improved
mixing of the fuel-air charge. Separate circuit jacket- and raw-water
aftercooling will likely gain widespread use in turbocharged engines to
increase performance and lower NOX. We request comment on
the technological approaches discussed here and on other emission
control technology that could effectively be used on recreational
marine diesel engines. We also request comment on the costs associated
with these technologies.
2. What Technologies Appear To Be Available for Spark Ignition SD/I
Marine Engines?
    At least three primary technologies could be used by marinizers to
reduce emissions from SD/I engines.\60\ These three technologies are
electronic fuel injection, exhaust gas recirculation, and two-way or
three-way catalysts. Electronic control gives manufacturers more
precise control of the air/fuel ratio in each cylinder thereby giving
them greater flexibility in how they calibrate their engines. With the
addition of an oxygen sensor, electronics give manufacturers the
ability to use closed loop control which is especially valuable when a
catalyst is used. Three-way catalysts operate best near stoichiometric
conditions in the exhaust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ We use the term ``marinizers'' to mean manufacturers who
take engine blocks designed for land-based applications and prepare
them for marine applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exhaust gas recirculation can be used for meaningful reductions in
NOX. The recirculated gas acts as a diluent in the fuel-air
mixture which reduces combustion temperature. These lower temperatures
significantly reduce formation rate of NOX, but HC is
increased slightly due to lower temperatures for HC burn-up during the
late expansion and exhaust strokes. Depending on the burn rate of the
engine and the amount of recirculated gases, EGR can improve fuel
consumption. Although EGR slows the burn rate (which tends to decrease
peak power), it can offset this effect with some benefits for engine
efficiency. EGR reduces pumping work since the addition of recirculated
gas increases intake pressure. Because the burned gas temperature is
decreased, there is less heat loss to the exhaust and cylinder walls.
In effect, EGR allows more of the chemical energy in the fuel to be
converted to useable work.
    Most engines sold to the marine market are primarily designed for
automotive use. Marinizers then take the basic engine blocks and adapt
them to be better suited for the marine environment. These engines are
generally already equipped with a port in the manifold for EGR. This
port is capped because EGR is not currently used in marine engines.
However, EGR has been used as an effective NOX control
strategy in automotive applications for more than 20 years. Today's
automotive applications use levels of 15-17 percent EGR. Through the
use of high swirl, high turbulence combustion chambers, manufacturers
could increase the burn rate of the engine. By increasing the burn
rate, the amount of EGR could be increased to 20-25 percent. In our
lab, we calibrated a heavy-duty highway gasoline engine for emissions
over the ISO E4 marine duty cycle.\61\ We achieved a 47 percent
reduction in NOX without significantly changing HC or CO
emissions. The result was 9.9 g/kW-hr HC+NOX and 24.3 g/kW-
hr CO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Memo from J. McDonald and M. Samulski, ``EGR Test Data from
a Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine on the E4 Duty Cycle,'' July 12, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to emissions reductions through catalytic control, we
are considering various designs that involve packaging small catalysts
in the exhaust manifold with only small changes in the size of the
exhaust manifold. By placing the catalysts here, costs to the
manufacturer may be reduced compared to a large catalyst downstream
especially when considering the packaging of the system in a boat.
Engine manufacturers water jacket the exhaust manifold to meet
temperature safety protocol then mix the water into the exhaust to
protect the exhaust couplings and muffle noise. By placing the catalyst
in the exhaust manifold, it is upstream of where the water and exhaust
mix. However, placing the catalyst in the exhaust manifold limits the
catalyst size. Using a small catalyst,

[[Page 76817]]

in turn, limits potential emissions reductions. We request comment on
the potential emission reductions available by a small catalyst placed
in or directly adjacent to the exhaust manifold.
    There have been concerns that aspects of the marine environment
could result in unique durability problems for catalysts. The primary
aspects that could affect catalyst durability are sustained operation
at high load, salt water effects on catalyst efficiency, thermal shock
from cold water coming into contact with a hot catalyst, engine
vibration, and shock effects in rough water associated with marine
applications.
    Three-way catalysts may be an effective control strategy for
gasoline marine engines. Three-way catalysts act as both an oxidation
catalyst to reduce HC, CO and as a reduction catalyst to control
NOX. They are most effective when coupled with an oxygen
sensor and a feedback loop to maintain a stoichiometric exhaust
mixture. As an alternative, a two-way oxidation catalyst could be used
effectively with less precise control of the air fuel ratio in the
exhaust. Today's catalysts perform well at temperatures higher than
would be seen in a marine exhaust manifold and have been shown, in the
lab, to withstand the thermal shock of being immersed in water. Use of
catalysts in automotive, motorcycle, and hand-held equipment has shown
that catalysts can be packaged to withstand the vibration in the
exhaust manifold in varied applications. We request comment on how the
operation of marine engines would affect catalyst durability.
    The key to using this technology in these marine applications is to
ensure that salt water does not reach the catalyst so that salt does
not accumulate on the catalyst and reduce its efficiency. Placement of
the catalyst close to the exhaust manifolds may help protect it from
salt water. Manufacturers already strive to design their exhaust
systems to prevent water from reaching the exhaust ports. If too much
water reaches the exhaust ports in today's designs, significant
durability problems would result from corrosion or hydraulic lock. We
request comment on potential design modifications which could eliminate
or significantly minimize water intrusion into the exhaust which could
deteriorate the performance of the catalyst.
    In highway applications, catalysts are designed to operate in
gasoline vehicles for more than 100,000 miles. This translates to about
5,000 hours of use on the engine/catalyst. We estimate that, due to low
annual hours of operation (50-100 hours/year), the average running time
of SD/I engines is less than one-third of this value. This is another
reason we believe catalysts are likely to be durable in marine
applications. However, unlike cars, boats often experience shock
effects from waves even when the engine is not running which could
affect the durability of a catalyst that was not packaged
appropriately.
    We have been working with the U.S. Coast Guard to identify
potential safety problems with using catalysts in marine applications.
The Coast Guard has told us that they have two concerns. First, they
want to make sure that any additional heat load in the engine
compartment will not add to the risk of fires, other safety hazards, or
other detrimental impacts on the engine or components. Second, they
want to make sure that exhaust systems with catalysts will not lead to
CO leaks due to additional joints in or maintenance of the exhaust
system.
    Through a joint effort with the California Air Resources Board
(ARB), Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), engine manufacturers/
marinizers, catalyst manufacturers, and a marine exhaust manifold
manufacturer, we are in the process of developing and testing a
comprehensive emissions control system on a SD/I engine. This system
includes both EGR and catalyst technology. The goal of this testing is
proof of concept, but as part of this testing, temperatures and
pressures relevant to safety, durability, and performance will be
measured. Also, we are focusing on an exhaust manifold design that will
prevent water reversion to the catalyst.
    We request comment on the feasibility of applying electronic fuel
injection, exhaust gas recirculation, and catalysts on SD/I engines and
on other technology that could effectively be used to reduce emissions
from these engines. We also request comment on the costs and
corresponding potential emission reductions from using such technology,
as well as the potential effects on engine performance, safety and
durability using these technologies.

C. Standards and Program Approaches

1. Recreational Marine Diesel Engines
    One approach for reducing emissions from recreational CI marine
engines would be to propose standards similar to the Tier 2 standards
for commercial CI marine engines. The commercial marine emission limits
are presented in Table V-1 and are based on the ISO E3 duty cycle. For
recreational marine engines the ISO E5 duty cycle may be more
appropriate because it is designed for smaller craft. Recreational CI
marine engines can likely use the same technologies projected for the
Tier 2 commercial marine standards. Many recreational CI marine engines
are already using these technologies including electronic fuel
management, turbocharging, and separate circuit aftercooling. In fact,
because recreational engines have much shorter design lives than
commercial engines, it is likely to be easier to apply raw water
aftercooling to these engines.

Table V-1.--Emission Standards for Commercial Marine Diesel Engines over
                                  37 kW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    HC+NOX  g/
           Subcategory                kW-hr      PM g/kW-hr   CO g/kW-hr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
disp  0.9........................          7.5         0.40          5.0
0.9  disp  1.2........          7.2         0.30          5.0
1.2  disp  5.0........          7.2         0.20          5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Engine manufacturers will generally increase the fueling rate in
recreational engines, compared to commercial engines, to gain power
from a given engine size. This extra power from a given sized engine
helps bring a planing vessel on to the water surface and increases the
maximum vessel speed without increasing the weight of the vessel. This
difference in how recreational engines are designed and used has an
effect on emissions. However, as discussed in the technology section
below, emission data suggest that recreational marine diesel engines
can meet the levels required for commercial marine engines. We request
comment on the appropriateness of the commercial marine emission limits
for recreational marine engines. We also

[[Page 76818]]

request comment on the appropriate test duty cycle for these limits.
    Diesel engine manufacturers have commented that they would need
time after the commercial marine standards go into place to transfer
technology from commercial to recreational marine engines. The
standards for the commercial marine rule go into effect in the
following model years by engine cylinder displacement: 2004 for 0.9 to
2.5 liters per cylinder, 2005 for smaller engines, and 2007 for larger
engines. These dates are after those for the nonroad land-based
standards which gives manufacturers time to transfer the land-based
technology to marine applications.
    An implementation date of 2005 for engines with displacement less
than 2.5 liters/cylinder would give a year of lead time beyond the
emission standards for commercial engines. However, this lead time may
not be necessary because much of the technology that could be used to
reduce emissions is already used in some recreational marine diesel
engine models; these engines would just need to be calibrated for
reduced emissions. Many recreational marine diesel engines with
displacement over 2.5 liters/cylinder in many cases also already use
the anticipated emission-control technologies. An implementation date
of 2007 for these engines may therefore provide adequate lead time,
even though the emission standards for commercial engines start at the
same time. We request comment on appropriate implementation dates for
recreational marine diesel engines.
2. SD/I Marine Engines
    In determining potential HC+NOX standards for sterndrive
and inboard SI marine engines, we will be evaluating emission
reductions that can be achieved using electronic fuel injection,
exhaust gas recirculation, and catalysts designed to work in marine
applications. Catalyst exhaust systems designed for marine applications
would have to ensure that salt-water did not reach the catalyst. In
addition, it would be preferable for the exhaust system to be compact
so that it would fit in current boat designs. This may necessitate
locating a small catalyst in the exhaust manifold or directly adjacent
to it, limiting the catalyst size and therefore its ability to reduce
engine emissions.
    Even if only a small, low-efficiency catalyst could be packaged
into SD/I exhaust systems, an HC+NOX standard of 5-7 g/kW-hr
may be feasible based in the ISO E4 duty cycle. Given the information
in Table V-1, a standard of 7.2 g/kW-hr for HC+NOX would
provide some level of equity of emission control for gasoline and
diesel engines. However, if larger, more efficient catalysts were used
such as in automotive applications, much larger emission reductions
could be achieved. In its September 19, 2000 workshop, the California
Air Resources Board proposed standards of 9.4 g/kW-hr HC+NOX
and 134 g/kW-hr CO in 2003 and 4 g/kW-hr HC+NOX and 50 g/kW-
hr CO in 2007. We request comment on the potential use of larger, more
efficient catalysts in SD/I applications and on appropriate emission
limits.
    We are in the process of developing and testing a catalyst system
for SD/I engines, but we do not have data from the tests at the time of
this notice. Our projected emission reductions from catalyst systems
are based on our evaluation of information from catalyst manufacturers
and observations of the success of catalytic control in land-based
applications. Because we do not yet have complete data, we request
comment on basing emissions standards on technology packages with and
without catalytic control. Using electronic fuel injection and exhaust
gas recirculation, an emission limit of 9-10 g/kW-hr of
HC+NOX may be appropriate.
    We will be evaluating varying levels of CO control. With the
application of electronic fuel injection and electronic control, CO
from SD/Is can be reduced, potentially to the range of 40-50 g/kW-hr.
If manufacturers can produce engines that achieve these CO emission
reductions over many years of operation, this may reduce the exposure
of individual boaters to elevated ambient CO concentrations. In
particular, this could reduce the occurrence of CO poisoning from
people on or swimming near a boat while the engine is idling. Because
reducing CO emissions could help reduce incidents of CO poisoning among
boaters, we are also considering the need for a CO standard which would
achieve significant CO reductions. With a catalyst, CO could be reduced
further, perhaps to the range of 15-20 g/kW-hr. At a minimum, we see no
reason for expecting emissions to increase. Therefore, we request
comment on capping CO emission at baseline levels, approximately 130 g/
kW-hr, to prevent backsliding. We also request comment on the technical
feasibility and benefits from reducing CO levels and on what
appropriate CO standards would be for SI SD/I engines.
    We are considering the 2005 or 2006 time frame for the
implementation of standards for SD/I engines. These dates are similar
to the ones discussed above for recreational marine diesel engines.
However, we recognize that SD/I marinizers would need time to apply new
technologies to their engines and optimize the systems for emissions
control. Depending on the level of eventual standards, this may be
especially difficult for SD/I manufacturers because they may need to
apply technologies, such as EGR and catalysts, that they have never
applied to their engines. Therefore, we request comment on what lead
time would be appropriate for SD/I engines.

D. Additional Program Considerations

1. Not-To-Exceed Requirements
    Our goal is to achieve control of emissions over the broad range of
in-use speed and load combinations that can occur on a recreational
marine engine so that real-world emission control is achieved, rather
than just controlling emissions under certain laboratory conditions. An
important tool for achieving this goal is an in-use program with an
objective standard and an easily implemented test procedure. Therefore
we are requesting comment on extending the not-to-exceed requirements
in place for commercial marine engines to recreational marine engines.
    The not-to-exceed (NTE) concept includes an area under the torque
map where an engine could reasonably be expected to operate in use.
Within this area the engine can not exceed a fixed limit. The limit may
be different for different areas of the NTE zone. The NTE zone not only
includes a wide range of operation, but also a wide range of ambient
conditions.
    We expect that NTE requirements for recreational CI marine engines
would be very similar to those for commercial CI marine engines (64 FR
73300) because the engines are similar. However, the limits may need to
be different within the NTE zone due to differences in the engine
applications. For example, a higher limit near full power may be
necessary for recreational engines. For SI engines, the NTE zone would
likely need to be a different shape to coincide with the differences
between the ISO E5 and ISO E4 test procedures. Also, because EGR
technology is not as efficient at high power as at lower power, a
higher limit may be necessary at high power. We request comment on how
the NTE concept could be applied to recreational marine engines. We
also request comment on alternative approaches for ensuring real world
emission control from recreational marine engines.

[[Page 76819]]

2. Evaporative Emissions
    We request comment on whether or not we should propose evaporative
emission requirements for recreational marine engines and what those
requirements should be. Vessels using gasoline marine engines emit high
amounts of volatile hydrocarbons per gallon of fuel consumed. According
to our calculations, these evaporative emissions are several times
higher than exhaust HC emissions. For diesel engines, evaporative
emissions are very low due to the low vapor pressure of diesel fuel.
    When the fuel is subject to increasing temperatures, such as daily
temperature variation or engine heat, lighter hydrocarbon molecules
evaporate and, if not stored or trapped in some fashion, will escape
into the atmosphere. Marine fuel tanks are vented to the atmosphere to
prevent pressure build up in the tank. Vapor levels on a boat can be so
high that, for fire safety reasons, blowers are often needed to remove
gasoline vapors from the engine compartment prior to starting the
engine. Also vapors are displaced from the gas tank to the atmosphere
during refueling. Finally, some emissions come from spillage during
refueling.
    In automotive applications, vapors generated in the fuel system are
passed through a canister designed to capture evaporated hydrocarbons.
When the engine is running, these hydrocarbons are drawn back into the
engine and burned. However, this emission control technology would not
be practical for marine applications. A boat may sit for weeks without
being used while typical automotive canisters are only designed to
capture a few hot days worth of evaporative emissions. After this
amount of time, the canister must be purged to the engine. A canister/
fuel system that could collect weeks worth of vapors and burn them in a
few hours of operation probably would not be practical due to the
canister size required.
    Still, there may be practical alternatives to a canister system for
boats. One such system could be a bladder-type fuel tank such as those
used in race cars. The bladder contracts as the fuel is used to prevent
a vapor space from forming.
    Another technology that could reduce evaporative emissions to a
lesser degree are non-permeable fuel lines. By replacing rubber fuel
lines with non-permeable lines, the evaporative emissions through the
fuel lines can be prevented. An added benefit is that these non-
permeable lines are non-conductive and can prevent the buildup of
static charges. Although non-permeable lines are used in automotive
applications, these fuel lines would have to meet Coast Guard
specifications for flame resistance and flexibility to be used in
marine applications. We request comment on if non-permeable fuel lines
exist that would meet the Coast Guard specifications and what their
cost would be.
    Currently, fuel systems on boats are vented to the atmosphere to
prevent pressure buildup. The Coast Guard requires that fuel systems
not be pressurized. If a low-pressure (2 psi) pressure relief valve
were used with a closed system, much of the evaporative emissions could
be reduced. This would still prevent the fuel system from building up
too much pressure. We request comment on the effectiveness of this
strategy with respect to ambient temperature, especially on hot days
when the fuel tank pressure may be higher. Note that any eventual
requirements related to fuel system pressure would need to be
consistent with Coast Guard policies and requirements.
    We request comment on safe pressures in fuel tanks and what typical
fuel tank pressures would be if they were not vented to the atmosphere.
We also request comment on the cost and effectiveness of non-permeable
fuel lines, pressure relief valves, and other systems for reducing
evaporative emissions. We also request comment on potential strategies
for reducing emissions due to refueling or spillage. We request
comments on any evaporative emission control systems such as those
described above as well as comment on potential strategies for reducing
emissions due to refueling or spillage.
    Additionally, we request comment on how we could structure
provisions to confirm the effectiveness of these systems. We would
prefer to set up a performance-based standard such as the test
procedures already in place for automobiles because it gives a better
indication of control effectiveness that a design-based standard and it
gives more design flexibility to the manufacture. However, we request
comment on appropriate performance-based test procedures and on an
appropriate design-based requirement.
3. Crankcase Emissions
    We are requesting comment on whether or not to require that new
recreational marine engines be built with closed crankcases to
eliminate crankcase emissions. Crankcase controls have been required on
cars and trucks. Controlling crankcase vapors requires a fairly simple
and inexpensive technological strategy. A line is routed from the
crankcase to the intake manifold with a pressure control valve which
will prevent crankcase overpressure and will prevent air from flowing
into the crankcase. Some SI marine engine already route crankcase vapor
to the air intake to minimize vapor buildup in the engine compartment.
    For turbocharged diesel engines, there is some concern that routing
the crankcase vapor upstream of the turbocharger could foul the
turbocharger. In addition, it would be more costly to route the low
pressure crankcase vapor downstream of the turbocharger because an
extra pump would be necessary. An alternative would be to allow
turbocharged recreational compression-ignition marine engines to be
built with open crankcases, provided the crankcase ventilation system
is designed to allow crankcase emissions to be measured. For engines
with open crankcases, we could require crankcase emissions to be either
routed into the exhaust stream to be included in the exhaust
measurement, or to be measured separately and added to the measured
exhaust mass. These measurement requirements might not add
significantly to the cost of testing, especially where the crankcase
vent is simply routed into the exhaust stream prior to the point of
exhaust sampling. This concept is consistent with our previous
regulation of crankcase emissions from such diverse sources as
commercial marine engines, locomotives and passenger cars. We request
comment on the above concepts.
4. Regulatory Flexibility
    Marinizers are engine manufacturers that take land-based engines
and convert them to be used in marine applications. In some cases,
marinizers use certified land-based engines and make changes without
changing their emission levels. We consider these marinizers to be
``engine dressers,'' and we believe that forcing these manufacturers to
certify their engines may be unnecessary. We intend to offer similar
engine dresser provisions for recreational marine engine marinizers as
exist for commercial marine engine marinizers who are not required to
certify (40 CFR part 94). We request comment on these provisions as
they apply to recreational marine engine marinizers.
    The scope of this advance notice also includes a number of engine
marinizers that have not been subject to our regulations or
certification process and would not qualify as engine dressers.

[[Page 76820]]

The majority of these marinizers are small businesses for which a
typical regulatory program may be overly burdensome. One challenge of
this rule is to implement a flexible regulatory program while still
ensuring significant emission reductions. We request comment on
appropriate regulatory flexibility strategies for small volume engine
marinizers that will minimize harmful impact on the environment.
    We request comment on what should be the definition of a small
volume engine manufacturer/marinizer for the purpose of potential
regulatory flexibility. The Small Business Administration defines a
small business (manufacturing internal combustion engines) as one that
employs less than 1000 people. Because the purpose of the regulatory
flexibility is to reduce the burden on companies for which fixed costs
cannot be distributed over a large number of engines, we believe that
the small volume engine manufacturer definition should also consider
the number of engines for sale in the U.S. in a year. This production
count would include all engines (automotive, other nonroad, etc.) and
not just recreational marine engines. Based on confidential sales
information supplied by engine marinizers and our own evaluations of
certification and development costs, we estimate that the upper limit
for the numbers of engines that a company could produce and still be
considered a small volume engine manufacturer might be in the range of
8,000 to 12,000 units per year. This would include the majority of
marinizers. To establish this threshold, we would make an assessment of
the ability of these companies to amortize development costs over
smaller sales volumes.
    The large number of boat builders and their relative inexperience
with emission control requirements also suggest a need for a flexible
implementation process. Although boat builders would not be directly
subject to emission standards under a potential program unless
evaporative emission control were required, it would still be possible
for them to need to redesign the engine compartments on some boats if
engine designs were to change significantly. We request comment on how
to best determine the extent to which engine technologies discussed
above would necessitate changes in boat design. We also request comment
on regulatory flexibility strategies for small volume boat builders
that will minimize harmful impact on the environment.
    We request comment on what should be the definition of a small
volume boat builder for the purpose of potential regulatory
flexibility. Because the flexibility is designed to reduce the burden
on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a large
number of vessels, we believe it may be appropriate to include in the
definition of a small volume boat builder an upper limit on the
production of boats for sale in the U.S. in one year. This production
count would include all power craft recreational boats. We request
comment on this approach.
    We have been in contact with several small volume engine marinizers
and boat builders in an attempt to develop concepts that would reduce
the burden of emissions standards while minimizing environmental loss.
In fact, we convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under
section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. To date,
these efforts have identified several flexibility concepts for small
volume engine manufacturers and for small volume boat builders. We
presented several flexibility concepts to small-business
representatives during the SBREFA process.\62\ These concepts are
listed in Table V-2. We request comment on the appropriateness of these
ideas and on others for minimizing burden on small businesses while
still reaching the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost,
lead time, noise, energy, and safety factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ``Preliminary EPA Staff Assessment of Small Business
Flexibility Concepts,'' June 16, 1999, Docket A-2000-01, document
II-B-03.

     Table V-2.--Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Concepts for
                           Recreational Marine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Small volume engine marinizers         Small volume boat builders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broaden engine families                     Percent of production
                                             exemption.
Minimize compliance requirements            Small volume allowance.
                                            Existing inventory and
                                             replacement engine
                                             allowance.
Expand engine dresser flexibility
Design-based certification                  Hardship provisions
Delay standards for 5 years
Hardship provisions
Use of emission credits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Definition of Recreational CI Marine Engines
    When we finalized standards for commercial marine engines last
year, we included a definition of recreational compression-ignition
marine engines. This was based on the U.S. Coast Guard definition of
recreational vessels. This definition states that a compression-
ignition propulsion marine engine intended by the manufacturer to be
installed on a recreational vessel and labeled as a recreational engine
would be considered recreational for EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 94.
A recreational vessel is one that is intended by the vessel
manufacturer to be operated primarily for pleasure but does not include
the following vessels:

--Vessels less than 100 gross tons that carry six or more paying
passengers
--Vessels greater than 100 gross tons that carry one or more paying
passengers
--Vessels used solely for competition

    Diesel engine manufacturers have since commented that they would
like to see a less restrictive definition of recreational vessel. Their
proposed definition is as follows: ``Recreational marine engine means a
propulsion marine engine that is intended by the manufacturer to be
installed on a recreational vessel. Recreational vessel means a vessel
that is intended by the vessel manufacturer to be operated primarily
for pleasure or leased, rented or chartered to another for the latter's
pleasure.'' We request comment on the appropriate definition of a
recreational marine engine.
6. Useful Life
    When we set emission standards, we require that manufacturers
produce engines that comply over their full useful life. For
recreational marine engines, a useful life that lasts either ten years
or until the engine accumulates at least 500 operating hours (or some
other value of hours specified in a certificate of conformity),
whichever occurs first, may be appropriate. In general, we would expect
that the regulatory useful life should be at least as long as the
operating lifetime for which the engine is designed. We request comment
on this view.
    Our current view that the appropriate minimum useful life may be at
least 500 hours is based on manufacturer comments that typical
recreational marine engines are used about 50 hours per year and for at
least 10 years. However, Coast Guard survey data suggests that typical
recreational marine engines are used about 100 hours per

[[Page 76821]]

year.\63\ In addition, we expect that typical recreational marine
diesel engines are used more than this, especially those rated at
several hundred horsepower. Purchasers of the more powerful marine
diesel engines usually choose them over lower cost gasoline engines
because diesel engines are generally designed to be more durable.
Actual useful lives of existing engines are likely to vary with respect
to application as well. Thus, we could propose a series of minimum
useful life values based on rated application, engine cycle (e.g.,
spark-ignited or diesel), or rated horsepower. However, we request
information on in-use engine life and comment on the appropriate
emissions compliance useful life for SI engines and CI engines; these
useful life values may vary with engine size, especially for diesel
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ ``1998 National Recreational Boating Survey Data Book,''
JSI Research & Training Institute, prepared for the U.S. Coast
Guard, February 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our emissions inventory calculations presented earlier in this
document, we used a function of the engine population, load factors,
annual hours of use, rated power, emission factors, turnover, and
growth rates. For CI engines we used 200 hours per year and for SD/I
engines, we used 48 hours per year. We are interested in more
information, especially data, on the appropriateness of these
estimates. Studies and industry comments have shown a wide range of
average annual use--from 50 to 500 hours per year. We request
information, especially reliable field data, on the annual and lifetime
operating hours for these engines which may depend on SI versus CI
design, engine size, and application.
7. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Credit Programs
    We are considering an emissions averaging, banking and trading
(ABT) program for recreational marine engines. This is a voluntary
program which would allow a manufacturer to certify one or more engine
families at emission levels above the applicable emission standards,
provided that the increased emissions are offset by one or more engine
families certified below the applicable standards. The average of all
emissions for a particular manufacturer's production would have to be
at or below the level of the applicable emission standards. In
addition, credits could be traded with other companies or banked for
future use.
    An ABT program is an important factor that EPA takes into
consideration in setting emission standards that are appropriate under
section 213 of the Clean Air Act. ABT would allow us to consider a
lower emissions standard, or one that otherwise results in greater
emissions reductions, because ABT reduces the cost and improves the
technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness of achieving a
standard. For example, it could help to ensure the attainment of the
standards earlier than would otherwise be possible. Manufacturers gain
flexibility in product planning and the opportunity for a more cost-
effective introduction of product lines meeting a new standard. ABT
also creates an incentive for the early introduction of new technology,
which allows certain engine families to act as trail blazers for new
technology. This can help provide valuable information to manufacturers
on the technology before manufacturers need apply the technology
throughout their product line. This early introduction of clean
technology improves the feasibility of achieving the standards and can
provide valuable information for use in other regulatory programs that
may benefit from similar technologies.
    For recreational marine diesel engines, an ABT program would be
similar to the one for commercial marine engines. We request comment on
all aspects of an ABT program that would apply for recreational marine
diesel engines.
    We are concerned that an ABT program may not be appropriate for SI
SD/I marine engines for three primary reasons. First, there are many
small businesses which produce SI engines for the recreational marine
market. There are also very few large businesses producing SI engines
for this market. While the large businesses tend to have broad product
offerings and could readily take advantage of the provisions of an ABT
program, the small businesses tend to have much narrower product lines
and would therefore be unlikely to benefit from ABT provisions. We are
concerned that this situation would allow the large businesses a
competitive advantage.
    Similarly, we are concerned that most manufacturers of recreational
SI engines do not have a broad enough product line to take advantage of
an ABT program. Therefore, it may not be useful to the majority of
businesses.
    Third, the emission control technology discussed above appear to be
equally applicable to all engines. Therefore, an ABT program may not be
necessary except, perhaps, as a tool to help phase-in new technology.
Adopting an ABT program in the long term may make sense if we were to
conclude that a more stringent standard is feasible at least for some
engines. We request comment on whether we should consider an ABT
program for SI engines, and what, if any, restrictions we should place
on such a program.
8. Applicability of MARPOL Annex VI
    On September 27, 1997, the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) adopted a new Annex VI to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) and opened the Annex
for acceptance by its members. This Annex, which contains regulations
for the prevention of air pollution from ships, will go into force
internationally one year after fifteen countries, representing at least
50 percent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping fleet,
have ratified it. The Annex will acquire the force of law in the United
States after it goes into force internationally and it is ratified by
the United States, following approval of the Senate.
    Regulation 13 of Annex VI requires that each diesel engine with a
power output of more than 130 kW which is installed on a ship
constructed on or after 1 January 2000, or each diesel engine with a
power output of more than 130 kW which undergoes a major conversion on
or after 1 January 2000 meet the NOX limits described by the
following formula:

17.0 g/kW-hr when n is less than 130 rpm
45.0 * n(-0.2) g/kW-hr when 130  n  2000 rpm
9.8 g/kW-hr when n  2000 rpm

Where n is rated engine speed (crankshaft revolutions per minute)

    One of the issues that will be considered in our notice of proposed
rulemaking is how these emission limits affect recreational engines and
vessels. Because recreational vessels are included in the MARPOL
definition of ``ship,'' prudent recreational vessel manufacturers
should have begun installing MARPOL-compliant engines in their newly-
constructed vessels on January 1, 2000, even though the Annex has not
yet gone into force.\64\ This is because the Annex may be enforceable
retroactive to January 1, 2000 once it goes into effect
internationally. To facilitate this process, EPA established a
voluntary compliance program whereby engine manufacturers may obtain a
Statement of Voluntary Compliance from EPA after they provide evidence

[[Page 76822]]

that their engine meets the Annex VI NOX limits.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Article 2 of MARPOL 73/78 defines ``ship'' as ``a vessel of
any type whatsoever operating in the marine environment and includes
hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft
and fixed or floating platforms.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help us prepare our proposal for recreational engine emission
requirements, we request comment on several questions. First, we
request input on the extent to which recreational vessel builders are
aware of the MARPOL requirements for marine diesel engines, and the
extent to which they are attempting to comply with them. Second, we
request comment on how many times a vessel with a marine diesel engine
over 130 kW can be expected to change owners over its life. This
information is important for compliance purposes. Third, we request
comment on whether meeting the Annex VI NOX limits will
interfere with an engine manufacturer's ability to meet the more
stringent national recreational marine diesel emission standards under
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See the fact sheet ``Frequently Asked Questions: MARPOL 73/
78 Annex VI Marine Diesel Engine Requirements,'' EPA420-F-99-038,
October 1999, www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Harmonization With the European Commission
    The European Commission has proposed emission limits for
recreational marine engines, including both diesel and gasoline
engines. These requirements would apply to all new engines sold in
member countries. The numerical emission limits, shown in Table V-2,
consist of the Annex VI NOX limit for small marine diesel
engines and the rough equivalent of Tier 1 nonroad emission levels for
HC and CO. Emission testing is to be conducted using the ISO D2 duty
cycle for constant-speed engines and the ISO E5 duty cycle for all
other engines. Table V-2 also includes the proposed limits for gasoline
engines tested on the ISO E4 duty cycle.
    Industry and others have commented to us on the value of
harmonization of emission standards. Manufacturers who sell engines in
several countries can minimize costs by designing to a single set of
standards. In setting standards under section 213 of the Act, EPA is
required to consider technology, cost, energy, and other factors to
achieve the greatest degree of emissions reductions achievable. We are
concerned that these standards would do no more than cap emissions at
baseline levels and are not the kind of appropriate technology-forcing
standards that would allow us to achieve the greatest achievable
reductions from this category. According to our data on 20 recreational
CI marine engines (tested for both NOX and PM) and 10 SI SD/
I engines, average baseline emission levels already meet the proposed
European limits. These baseline averages are included in Table V-3. We
request comment on the level of stringency of the proposed European
emission limits.

  Table V-3.--Proposed European Emission Limits and EPA Baseline Data for Recreational Marine Engines (g/kW-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Pollutant                        CI limit \a\   CI baseline   SI limit \b\   SI baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...................................................           9.8            8.9          15              9.2
PM....................................................           1.4            0.2  ............  .............
HC....................................................           1.5            0.3           6.4            5.7
CO....................................................           5.0            1.3         152           145
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ HC limit increases slightly with increasing engine power rating.
\b\ For 300 kW engine; HC and CO limits increase slightly with decreasing power rating.

10. Consumer Labeling
    We request comment on the need for, effectiveness of, and
alternatives to a consumer labeling program. The purpose of this
program would be to educate consumers so that they could make informed
decisions concerning engine emissions when they purchase a boat. One
example of a consumer labeling program is the California Air Resources
Board's requirement that personal watercraft and outboard engines sold
in California starting in 2001 be labeled as either low, very-low, or
ultra-low depending on their emission levels. We request comment on
whether or not a program such as this should be voluntary or mandatory.
We also request comment on how this should be implemented considering
that most boats and engines are produced by separate manufacturers.

VI. Large Spark Ignition Engines

A. Background

1. What Engines Are Included in This Rulemaking?
    This section applies to most nonroad spark-ignition engines rated
over 19 kW (``Large SI engines''). These engines power equipment such
as forklifts, sweepers, pumps, and generators. This would include
marine auxiliary engines, but not marine propulsion engines or engines
used in snowmobiles, motorcycles, or other recreational applications.
The applications not addressed in this section are addressed elsewhere
in this document.
    Our most recent rulemaking for nonroad diesel engines finalized a
definition of ``compression-ignition'' that was intended to include
diesel-derived natural gas engines under that program.\66\ However,
according to the manufacturers of these engines, they do not meet the
definition of compression-ignition engines. All nonroad engines are
defined as either compression-ignition or spark-ignition engines. So,
if these natural gas engines are not subject to emission standards for
nonroad diesel engines, they will instead be covered by the emission
standards for Large SI engines. We are currently reviewing the claims
of these manufacturers regarding how their engines should be
classified. We request comment on whether we should revise the
definitions that differentiate between these types of engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See 63 FR 56968 (October 23, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most Large SI engines have a total displacement greater than one
liter. The design and application of the few Large SI engines currently
being produced with displacement less than one liter are very similar
to those of engines rated below 19 kW, which are typically used for
lawn and garden applications. As described in the most recent
rulemaking for these smaller engines, we intend to propose that
manufacturers may certify engines above 19 kW with total displacement
of one liter or less to the requirements we have already adopted in 40
CFR part 90 for engines below 19 kW.\67\ These engines would then be
exempt from the requirements contemplated in this document. This

[[Page 76823]]

would be consistent with the California ARB rulemaking. This approach
would allow manufacturers of small air-cooled engines to certify their
engines rated over 19 kW with the program adopted for the comparable
engines with slightly lower power ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See 65 FR 24268 (April 25, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are concerned that treating all engines less than one liter as
Small SI engines may be inadequate. For example, lawn and garden
engines generally don't use turbochargers or other technologies to
achieve very high power levels. However, it may be possible for someone
to design an engine under one liter with unusually high power, which
would more appropriately be grouped with other Large SI engines rather
than with Small SI engines. To address this concern, we may propose a
maximum power level for engines to qualify for treatment as Small SI
engines. A power rating of 30 kW seems to represent a maximum
reasonable power output that is possible from SI engines under one
liter with technologies typical of lawn and garden engines. We request
comment on the suggested power threshold and on any other approaches to
addressing the concern for properly constraining this provision.
2. Who Makes Large SI Engines?
    The companies producing Large SI engines are typically subsidiaries
of automotive companies. In most cases, these companies modify car and
truck engines for industrial applications. However, the Large SI
industry has historically taken a much less centralized approach to
designing and producing engines. Engine manufacturers often sell
dressed engine blocks without manifolds or fuel systems. Fuel system
suppliers have played a big role in designing and calibrating nonroad
engines, sometimes participating directly in engine assembly. Several
equipment manufacturers, mostly forklift producers, also play the role
of an engine manufacturer by calibrating engine models and completing
engine assembly.
    Sales volumes are another important contrast with automotive
production. Total Large SI engine sales are about 150,000 per year in
the U.S. Sales are distributed rather evenly among several companies,
so typical sales volumes for each company range generally from 10,000
to 25,000 engines per year. These sales volumes and the overall size of
the companies limit the amount of research and development available to
meet new emission standards.
3. What Is the Regulatory History?
    Currently no federal emission standards exist for Large SI engines.
We have, however, adopted successively more stringent standards for the
automotive engines from which most Large SI engines are derived. Heavy-
duty highway otto-cycle engines provide the most direct comparison. We
have adopted emission standards for 2005 and later model year engines
and proposed more stringent standards for 2007 and later model year
engines. We request comment on the degree to which these technologies
can be readily transferred or adapted to the counterpart nonroad
engines.
    The California ARB in 1998 adopted requirements that apply to new
Large SI engines produced for California starting in 2001. We are
considering similar requirements for these engines in the near term. In
the longer term, we are also considering revised emission standards
reflecting the emission reductions achievable with available
technology, as described below.
    While we have not yet set emission standards for this category of
engines, the industry has some experience complying with standards
through the requirements for forklifts set by Underwriters
Laboratories.\68\ These standards, which focus primarily on ensuring
safety, require the industry to conduct testing and submit plans for
approval, much like certifying to emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ ``Industrial Trucks, Internal Combustion Engine-Powered,''
UL558, ninth edition, June 28, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional important consideration for Large SI engines is the
workplace air contaminant limits adopted by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration for CO and NO2. Facility managers, not
engine or equipment manufacturers, are responsible for meeting these
limits. However, concerns for high indoor pollutant concentrations have
created a small but distinct demand for aggressive emission controls on
forklifts. These emission controls have become commonplace in Europe,
even in the absence of emission standards.

B. Technology

    Although Large SI engines are often derived from automotive
engines, manufacturers have generally not incorporated the
technological advances from cars and trucks. Most fuel systems in
gasoline engines have carburetors with no feedback controls. LPG and
natural gas engines typically use mixer technology that has changed
little over the last several decades.
    Some Large SI engine models have no automotive counterpart; many of
these use air-cooling instead of a conventional radiator system. Air-
cooled engines can use the same emission-control technologies as water-
cooled engines, but they have operating characteristics that can
increase the challenge of reaching low emission levels. For example,
uneven heating of the engine block can cause distortion of the
cylinders, increasing the possibility of hydrocarbon emissions from
unburned fuel.
    The standards for spark-ignition engines would apply for all fuel
types. The majority of Large SI engines use liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG). Engines running on LPG can use fuel cylinders or draw fuel
directly from a pipeline. Gasoline is also used in many applications.
Natural gas is less common, but serves in several niche markets.
    The California ARB emission standards were developed based on the
expected capabilities of three-way catalytic converters with electronic
fueling systems to control emissions. A limited number of forklifts
have been operating with these emission-control technologies for
several years. In addition to controlling emissions, these emission-
control technologies can significantly reduce fuel consumption. In a
high-use application, the fuel savings can fully offset the increased
price for the emission controls within one year or less. The redesigned
engines also hold promise for improving engine performance, for example
with more reliable starting and better torque characteristics.
    Both EPA and California ARB have pursued emission testing to
determine the capabilities of emission-control technologies for Large
SI engines. This effort will also help us establish emission standards
that correspond with the degree of emission control achievable from the
anticipated technologies over the full operating life of industrial
equipment. We believe that manufacturers can optimize their engines to
substantially reduce CO, NOX, and HC emissions at a
reasonable cost with these redesigned engines.

C. Standards and Program Approaches

    We are considering emission standards for Large SI engines based on
what manufacturers can achieve with available technology. This may
include a combination of near-term standards similar to California
ARB's and long-term standards for optimized systems. In addition, we
are considering new procedures for measuring emissions, including a
transient duty cycle and

[[Page 76824]]

provisions to test for ``off-cycle'' emissions. These are described
further in the following sections.
    We do not presently intend to propose particulate matter emission
standards because of the low levels of particulate matter associated
with well maintained SI engines, as well as the substantial cost of
technologies designed to regulate particulate matter directly from
these engines. However, we expect that the incorporation of the
projected emission-control technologies would reduce particulate matter
emissions. This is similar to the approach we have taken for highway
gasoline engines.
    We request comment on this approach to setting standards, including
the technology basis for controlling emissions, the combination of
near-term and long-term standards, and the approach to addressing PM
emissions.
1. Near-Term Emission Standards
    We are considering near-term emission standards, including
standards consistent with those adopted by California ARB. These
standards are 4 g/kW-hr (3 g/hp-hr) for NMHC+ NOX emissions
and 50 g/kW-hr (37 g/hp-hr) for CO emissions. California ARB specifies
the ISO C2 duty cycle for measuring emissions from variable-speed
engines, and the ISO D2 duty cycle for testing constant-speed engines.
The C2 duty cycle consists mostly of intermediate-speed points, while
all the D2 test points are at rated speed. We request comment on
establishing standards consistent with those in California, including
using the duty cycles in the same way. We also request comment on the
appropriateness of requiring certification testing on both of these
duty cycles for engine models that may ultimately be used in both
variable-speed and constant-speed applications.
    California ARB adopted its emission standards based on the
capabilities of three-way catalytic converters and electronically
controlled fuel systems. These systems would be similar to those used
for many years in highway applications, but not necessarily with the
same degree of sophistication. Adopting California ARB's emission
standards would allow near-term introduction of low-emission
technologies for substantial emission reductions. The manufacturers
would in this case also be able to more easily amortize their
development costs by spreading these costs over larger production
volumes.
    The California ARB standards will be fully phased in by 2004. With
a current expectation of completing an EPA final rule by September
2002, we believe manufacturers may have enough lead time to expand
production of California-compliant engines to a nationwide market. If
EPA and California standards were consistent, manufacturers may not
need to do any additional development work or repeat any certification
testing to meet the federal standards. We request comment on whether we
should propose near-term standards for 2004 model year engines, or if
manufacturers will need additional time to manage full production of
low-emission engines.
    As described for the long-term standards below, we are interested
in the possibility of adopting standards based on total hydrocarbon
emissions, rather than nonmethane hydrocarbon. We request comment on
proposing standards based on total hydrocarbon measurement. This would
potentially save manufacturers the expense of measuring methane
emissions for certification, production-line, or in-use testing. Since
methane is largely nonreactive in the atmosphere, we have often set
emission standards excluding methane measurement. We could adjust the
standard as needed to reflect typical methane concentrations in
controlled engines. This would apply to gasoline-and LPG-fueled
engines. Natural gas-fueled engines would continue to have a standard
based on nonmethane emissions because the large majority of their total
hydrocarbon emissions consist of methane. We request comment on this
approach.
2. Long-Term Duty-Cycle Emission Standards
    We believe that, given additional time, manufacturers would be able
to optimize designs to control emissions to lower levels using the same
emission-control technologies used to meet the near-term standards.
Therefore, we are also requesting comment on more stringent emission
standards using more robust measurement procedures, as described below.
    General standards. Manufacturers have used electronically
controlled fuel systems with three-way catalysts in automotive
applications for many years. During this time, these systems and
components have undergone substantial improvements in their ability to
reduce emissions with minimal degradation during field operation.
Recent testing by Southwest Research Institute shows that these systems
can reduce NOX, HC, and CO emissions by 90 percent or more
over several thousand hours of normal operation.69-70 While
the test data help us select emission standards, we first need to
address several open issues. These issues are summarized here and
described in greater detail in the technical memoranda referenced in
this document.

    \69-70\ ``Evaluation of Emissions Durability of Off-Road LPG
Engines Equipped with Three-Way Catalysts,'' by Vlad Ulmet,
Southwest Research Institute, November 2000, (Docket A-2000-01,
document II-A-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--The combination of duty cycles for testing. Emission measurements at
Southwest Research Institute have shown that engines can achieve
effective control on a wide variety of duty cycles, but that good
performance on one duty cycle does not guarantee good performance on
another. Thus, it is important that we select the appropriate duty
cycles to provide a reasonable assurance that systems will control
emissions when operating in the field.
--Consideration of cold-start effects. Engine emissions immediately
after starting can be much higher than emissions from a hot engine. We
need to determine the appropriate treatment of cold-start effects in
the test procedure before we can propose emission standards.
--The achievable precision of control software. Electronic systems for
automotive applications have reached a high level of sophistication for
monitoring a wide variety of engine variables to maintain effective
control of combustion and after treatment processes. While Large SI
engine manufacturers can benefit from these developments, the cost and
complexity of these systems at some point may no longer be appropriate
for the more cost-sensitive, low-volume nonroad applications.
--Fuel specifications. As described further below, we need to evaluate
in-use fuel quality before proposing fuel specifications for emission
testing.

    With this wide range of test and design variables, we request
comment on long-term emissions standards ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 g/kW-
hr (1 to 2 g/hp-hr) HC+ NOX and from 4 to 10 g/kW-hr (3 to
7.5 g/hp-hr) CO. We are interested in comments as to potentially
appropriate standards within these ranges, as well as comments on the
appropriateness of the ranges themselves. The range of possible CO
emission standards is especially wide because CO emission levels are
sensitive to the degree of engine warm-up at the beginning of the test.
This range of standards is based on test data showing the emission
levels that Large SI engines can achieve with steady-state and
transient duty cycles.\71\ We request comment on the capability of
Large SI

[[Page 76825]]

engines to meet these emission levels, on the associated costs for
these emission-control systems, and on the corresponding estimated
emission reductions estimated to be achieved therefrom. We also request
comment on the applicability of the underlying test data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See ``Emission Data and Procedures for Large SI Engines''
for more information (Docket A-2000-01; document II-B-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In another rulemaking, we are pursuing even lower emission levels
for heavy-duty highway engines starting in 2008, including otto-cycle
(or spark-ignition) engines. We have proposed changing these emission
standards to 0.20 g/hp-hr (0.26 g/kW-hr) for NOX emissions
and 0.14 g/hp-hr (0.19 g/kW-hr) for NMHC emissions.\72\ We request
comment on whether Large SI engines would be able to apply the
associated highway-engine technologies at a reasonable cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 65 FR 35430 (June 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emission standards for different fuel types. Most of the emission
data on which we are likely to base the proposed emission standards was
generated from engines using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). We could
take California ARB's approach of applying the same numerical emission
standards regardless of fuel, except for the special treatment of
methane emissions from natural gas engines. Gasoline engines have very
different fuel systems than LPG or natural gas engines. Engines built
from automotive engine blocks can readily adopt port fuel injection,
which provides a great advantage over gaseous mixer technology in
controlling emissions. Also, the emission levels described above are
consistent with the requirements that apply to heavy-duty highway otto-
cycle engines starting in 2005.
    A possible exception to common emission standards may be for CO
emissions. Uncontrolled CO emission levels from gasoline engines can be
much higher than are typically found from LPG engines. We believe,
however, that a separate CO standard for gasoline engines may not be
necessary for two reasons. First, highway gasoline engines have been
controlling CO emissions to lower levels for many years. Second, fuel
systems and catalysts can be designed and calibrated for a very high CO
conversion efficiency. We request comment on the need to accommodate
higher CO emission levels from gasoline engines. Data supporting such
an argument should include engine-out CO emission levels at
stoichiometric operation and information regarding conversion
efficiencies available for gasoline engine emission-control equipment.
We also request comment on the advantages of having identical standards
for all fuels.
    Special cases. The above discussion applies generally to Large SI
engines. However, there are special concerns that warrant further
attention.
    Air-cooled engines. Some air-cooled engines are designed to operate
in applications where water-cooled engines may not function
effectively. These engines are most commonly used in industrial saws or
chippers where ambient dust levels prevent the use of radiators to cool
the engine. Air-cooled Large SI engines share some important design
features and operating characteristics with smaller air-cooled engines
that are commonly used in lawn and garden applications. As described
above, air-cooled engines face unique constraints for controlling
emissions. These constraints seem to be especially problematic for CO
emissions, causing manufacturers to add a greater degree of emission-
control technology than that needed for water-cooled engines to meet
California ARB standards.
    We have identified three possible approaches to proposing emission
standards for air-cooled engines. First, we could require them to meet
the same emission standards as water-cooled engines. Especially for any
long-term emission standards, this would require an extensive
development effort to apply emission-control technologies in a way that
would adequately control emissions. This would prevent any unfair
competitive advantages by giving special treatment to a higher-emitting
engine type.
    Second, we could propose that all air-cooled engines meet the
emission standards we have adopted for nonroad SI engines under 19 kW.
The largest engines under 19 kW (nonhandheld Class II) must meet
standards of 12.1 g/kW-hr for NOX+HC emissions and 610 g/kW-
hr for CO emissions. Since engines under 19 kW are almost all air-
cooled, they share some important design characteristics with Large SI
engines that are air-cooled.
    Third, we could propose the same NOX+HC for both air-
cooled and water-cooled engines, but to allow air-cooled engines to
meet less stringent CO emission standards. To avoid giving air-cooled
engines a broad competitive advantage in applications where they are
seldom used today, we could limit this less stringent CO standard to
engines used predominantly in severe-duty applications. Under this
approach, we would consider an application severe-duty if the majority
of engines used in that application do not use water-cooling systems.
Currently available data would suggest an adjusted CO standard of 75 to
100 g/kW-hr (55 to 75 g/hp-hr) CO for these engines.
    We request comment on these and other potential approaches to
proposing emission standards from air-cooled engines.
    Equipment Used Predominantly Indoors. Operators of Large SI engines
can today install emission-control systems with extremely low CO
emission levels. CO emission levels can be especially low in these
current systems where manufacturers are not required to simultaneously
control for NOX and HC emissions. We are concerned that
emission standards requiring simultaneous control of all the regulated
pollutants will limit manufacturers ability to continue to supply
engines with very low CO emission levels. With increased concern for
exposing individuals to engine exhaust in confined spaces, this may be
especially problematic. We therefore request comment on alternate long-
term standards that would allow the manufacturer to better balance
emission levels of the various pollutants to offer low-CO engines for
predominantly indoor applications.
    One possible scenario would be increasing the HC+NOX
emission standard somewhat (for example, to 3 or 4 g/kW-hr), while
tightening the CO emission standard (for example, to 1 or 2 g/kW-hr).
We request comment on the need for such an alternate standard and on
the emission standards that should apply. We also request comment on
whether there would be any need to (1) adopt provisions to ensure that
these engines are indeed operated predominantly in sensitive, indoor
applications; (2) limit the number of these engine sales; or (3) adopt
any other provisions to ensure that these alternate emission standards
are not used to avoid the general standards.
    Another alternative would be to adopt fuel-specific standards.
Since LPG and natural gas are more likely to be used in enclosed areas,
we could focus on adopting very stringent CO emission levels for these
engines, with less of an emphasis on NOX and HC emission
levels. Since gasoline engines are not commonly used indoors, their
emission standards could maximize NOX and HC reductions,
with less aggressive control of CO emissions. We request comment on
adopting fuel-specific emission standards to address concerns for
indoor air quality.
3. Supplemental Emission Standards
    To address concerns for controlling emissions outside of the
discrete procedures adopted for certification, we

[[Page 76826]]

are considering requirements that would apply to a wider range of
normal engine operation. We generally refer to this as off-cycle
emissions.
    Our goal is to achieve control of emissions over the broad range of
in-use speed and load combinations that can occur in a Large SI engine
to achieve real-world emission control, rather than just controlling
emissions under certain laboratory conditions. An important tool for
achieving this goal is an in-use program with an objective standard and
an easily implemented test procedure. No single test procedure can
cover all real-world applications, operations, or conditions. Yet, to
ensure that emission standards are providing the intended benefits in
use, we should have a reasonable expectation that emissions under real-
world conditions reflect those measured on the test procedure.
    Because the projected duty-cycles include specific operating modes
(engine speeds and loads), we are concerned that an engine designed
only to duty-cycle standards would not necessarily have the same
emission performance in use. In contrast, an engine operating in any
given piece of equipment may often operate at speed and load
combinations not included in the certification duty cycle. Emission
levels at speed and load points not represented in the duty cycles
could be significantly higher than those measured with the duty cycles.
Also, if manufacturers design engines to control emissions only under
relatively narrow laboratory conditions, this does not ensure that the
engines will control emissions under the wide range of ambient
temperature, pressure, and humidity the engines will experience in the
field. Testing by Southwest Research Institute highlighted this
concern, showing that steady-state emission levels can increase ten-
fold or more at speed-load points not included in the duty cycles. \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See ``Emission Data and Procedures for Large SI Engines''
for more information (Docket A-2000-01; item II-B-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Not-to-exceed'' testing would be one option for ensuring that
emissions are controlled from Large SI engines over the full range of
speed and load combinations seen in the field. Under not-to-exceed
testing, we would specify an emission standard that applies more
broadly than the traditional duty-cycle standard. The not-to-exceed
standard would apply to all regulated pollutants (NOX, HC,
and CO) during a wide range of normal operation. In other programs
where we have adopted not-to-exceed standards, the testing includes a
broad range of in-use ambient conditions (i.e., temperature, pressure,
and humidity), but excludes measurement during any kind of abnormal
operation.
    The recent testing at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) would
appear to support not-to-exceed emission standards of 1.0 to 3.5 g/kW-
hr (1.3 to 2.6 g/hp-hr) for NOX+HC emissions and 7 to 13 g/
kW-hr (5 to 10 g/hp-hr) for CO emissions. We would intend to allow
considerable development time for manufacturers to meet any not-to-
exceed provisions. If we adopt alternate emission standards for severe-
duty engines, gasoline engines, or engines used in indoor applications,
as described above, any corresponding not-to-exceed emission standards
would be higher than the duty-cycle standards to serve as a cap on
varying emission levels that result from different engine operation or
ambient conditions.

D. Additional Program Considerations

1. Compliance Program Elements
    In general, we expect to align our certification and compliance
programs with those adopted by California ARB to the greatest extent
possible. In particular, any near-term emission standards we may adopt
should require no additional development or testing beyond what
manufacturers are already doing to produce compliant engines for
California. While long-term standards and other additional provisions
may go beyond what California has already adopted, we expect to design
the program to limit the additional burden. Nevertheless, these
additional requirements would be important enhancements and would lead
to a much more effective control program.
    We request comment on the details of the compliance program adopted
by California ARB, and whether the details of the compliance program
are appropriate for use in the federal program. This includes several
elements, such as production-line testing and in-use testing by
manufacturers; useful life, deterioration factors, and warranty
requirements; and several other provisions. The principal provisions
under consideration that California ARB has not already adopted
include:

--Procedures for testing emissions in the field in lieu of laboratory
dynamometer testing.
--Specification of basic engine diagnostics to keep engines operating
in their certified configuration.
--Concepts for manufacturers to control evaporative emissions.
--Provisions for engine rebuilders to bring engines back to their low-
emission configuration when they are rebuilt.
2. Field Testing
    One possible provision that should be highlighted is the
possibility of adopting field-measurement procedures. As described
above, we are considering proposing California ARB's requirement for
manufacturers to test their in-use engines. Under this program,
manufacturers remove in-use engines from equipment for testing in the
laboratory. However, if we adopt field-measurement procedures,
manufacturers would be allowed to show that they meet emission
standards with in-use engines by measuring emissions directly from
engines without removing them from the equipment. There are significant
advantages to testing engines in the field. The reduced testing effort
could substantially reduce the cost of in-use emission testing, both
for manufacturers and for the Agency. Also, testing would capture real
in-use engine operation, rather than relying on a surrogate duty cycle
in the laboratory. We request comment on the desirability of developing
measurement procedures to allow field testing of Large SI engines.
    One constraint of measuring emissions in the field is the
difficulty in measuring methane. Because of this, we are interested in
proposing emission standards based on total hydrocarbon measurements,
at least for field testing. We request comment on proposing total
hydrocarbon standards also for laboratory testing. For gasoline and LPG
engines, methane generally accounts for less than 10 percent of
uncontrolled emissions, so this can easily be accounted for in
selecting emission standards. As described above, we would need to rely
on a nonmethane hydrocarbon emission standard for natural gas engines.
This may limit the possibility of testing natural gas engines in the
field.
3. In-Use Fuel Quality
    In addition, manufacturers have raised the concern that in-use LPG
fuels have highly varying quality. It is not clear that different LPG
fuel compositions would have a direct effect on tailpipe emission
levels. However, lower-quality fuels have a tendency to cause fuel
condensation, and eventually gumming, on fuel system components. Since
fuel systems play a central role in an engine's emission control
system, this can eventually affect an engine's ability to accurately
meter fuel, resulting in increased emission levels. We request comment
on the need for and possibility of developing an industry-wide
specification for in-use LPG fuels to

[[Page 76827]]

address this problem. In addition, we request comment on the
possibility of applying engine technology to limit condensation of
impurities or heavy-end hydrocarbon molecules from lower-quality fuel.

VII. Public Participation

    We are committed to a full and open regulatory process with input
from a wide range of interested parties. As part of any rulemaking,
opportunities for input will include a formal public comment period and
a public hearing.
    With today's action, we open a comment period for this advance
notice. We will accept comments until February 5, 2001. We encourage
comment on all issues raised here, and on any other issues you consider
relevant. The most useful comments are those supported by appropriate
and detailed rationales, data, and analyses. All comments, with the
exception of proprietary information, should be directed to the docket
(see ADDRESSES). If you wish to submit proprietary information for
consideration, you should clearly separate such information from other
comments by (1) labeling proprietary information ``Confidential
Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly
to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and
not to the public docket. This will help ensure that proprietary
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If you want us
to use a submission of confidential information as part of the basis
for a proposal, then a nonconfidential version of the document that
summarizes the key data or information should be sent to the docket.
    We will disclose information covered by a claim of confidentiality
only to the extent allowed and in accordance with the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the
submission, it will be made available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility

    Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. requires the Administrator to assess the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities. The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, Public Law 104-121, amended
the RFA to strengthen its analytical and procedural requirements and to
ensure that small entities are adequately considered during rule
development. The Agency accordingly requests comment on the potential
impacts on a small business of the program described in this notice.
These comments will help the Agency meet its obligations under SBREFA
and will suggest how EPA can minimize the impacts of this rule for
small companies that may be adversely affected.
    Depending on the number of small entities identified prior to the
proposal and the level of any contemplated regulatory action, we may
convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under section 609(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by SBREFA. The purpose of the
Panel (or multiple Panels, as necessary) would be to collect the advice
and recommendations of representatives of small entities that could be
affected by the eventual rule. If we determine that a panel is not
warranted, we would intend to work on a less formal basis with those
small entities identified.
    We request information on small entities potentially affected by
this rulemaking. Information on company size, number of employees,
annual revenues and product lines would be especially useful.
Confidential business information may be submitted as described in
section VII. The following sections address several specific issues for
different industries.

A. Recreational Vehicles and Highway Motorcycles

    We anticipate that industries related to recreational vehicles and
highway motorcycles that may be affected by this rulemaking will
largely fall within the categories listed in Table VIII-1 below. We
request comment on the completeness and accuracy of the list, and on
the suitability for this rulemaking of the definitions of small
business established by SBA. We may propose to change these
definitions, if such changes would better suit the particular
industries and regulations being considered.

  Table VIII-1.--Recreational Vehicle Industries With Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       NAICS a      Defined by SBA as a
              Industry                  codes       Small Business If:b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline engine and parts                 336312  750 employees.
 manufacturers.
Motorcycles and motorcycle parts          336991  500 employees.
 manufacturers.
Snowmobile and ATV manufacturers...       336999  500 employees.
Independent Commercial Importers of       421110  100 employees.
 Vehicles and parts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
a. North American Industry Classification System.
b. According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR part 121), businesses with no
  more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts
  are considered ``small entities'' for purposes of a regulatory
  flexibility analysis.

B. Large SI

    Table VIII-2 lists the industry segments that relate to companies
that may need to meet emission standards and other requirements for
Large SI engines. Two engine manufacturers qualify as small businesses.
Both of these companies plan to produce engines that meet the standards
adopted by California ARB in 2004. Since we don't expect the near-term
standards contemplated in this document to add any significant
requirements to the California ARB program, these standards would
impose very little new burden for these and other manufacturers. If we
adopt long-term standards, this would require manufacturers to do
additional calibration and testing work. If we adopt new test
procedures (including transient operation), there may also be a cost
associated with upgrading test facilities. If we set emission standards
to mirror the levels proposed for 2007 highway heavy-duty engines, this
would also require extensive hardware and product development to reduce
emissions.
    In addition, we are considering recordkeeping requirements for
companies that rebuild Large SI engines. These would be very similar to
the requirements we have already adopted for highway engines, nonroad
diesel engines, and commercial marine diesel engines. Many of these
companies qualify as small businesses, but we expect the added burden
to be very small.

[[Page 76828]]

        Table VIII-2.--Large SI Industries With Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Defined by SBA as a
              Industry                NAICS code    small business if:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad SI engines.................       333618  1,000 employees.
Industrial trucks..................       333924  750 employees.
Engine repair and maintenance......       811310  $5 million revenues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Recreational Marine

    The recreational marine sector includes a variety of engine and
boat manufacturers that are small businesses. We convened a Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel under section 609(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. We describe the rulemaking issues related to
these small businesses in section V.D.4.

IX. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order.
    The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as any
regulatory action (including an advance notice of proposed rulemaking)
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or,
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    This Advance Notice was submitted to OMB for review. Any written
comments from OMB and any EPA response to OMB comments are in the
public docket for this Notice.

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Section 213(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7547(a), requires
that we study the emissions from all categories of nonroad engines and
equipment (other than locomotives) to determine, among other things,
whether these emissions ``cause or significantly contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
and welfare.'' Section 213(a)(2) further requires us to determine,
through notice and comment, whether the emissions of carbon monoxide
(CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) found in the above study significantly contributes to
ozone or CO concentrations in more than one ozone or CO nonattainment
area. With such a determination of significance, section 213(a)(3)
requires us to establish emission standards applicable to CO, VOC, and
NOX emissions from classes or categories of new nonroad
engines and vehicles that cause or contribute to such air pollution.
Moreover, if we determine that any other emissions from new nonroad
engines contribute significantly to air pollution, we may promulgate
emission standards under section 213(a)(4) regulating emissions from
classes or categories of new nonroad engines that we find contribute to
such air pollution.
    As directed by the Clean Air Act, we conducted a study of emissions
from nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment in 1991.\74\ Based on the
results of that study, referred to as NEVES, we determined that
emissions of NOX, HC, and CO from nonroad engines and
equipment contribute significantly to ozone and CO concentrations in
more than one nonattainment area (see 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994).\75\
Given this determination, section 213(a)(3) of the Act requires us to
promulgate emissions standards for those classes or categories of new
nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment that in our judgment cause or
contribute to such air pollution. We have found that the nonroad
engines included in this ANPRM ``cause or contribute'' to such air
pollution.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ ``Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study--Report and
Appendices,'' EPA-21A-201, November 1991 (available in Air docket A-
96-40).
    \75\ The terms HC (hydrocarbon) and VOC (volatile organic
carbon) refer to similar sets of chemicals and are generally used
interchangeably.
    \76\ See Final Finding, ``Control of Emissions from New Nonroad
Spark-Ignition Engines Rated above 19 Kilowatts and New Land-Based
Recreational Spark-Ignition Engines'' elsewhere in today's Federal
Register for EPA's finding for Large SI engines and recreational
vehicles. EPA's findings for marine engines are contained in 61 FR
52088 (October 4, 1996) for gasoline engines and 64 FR 73299
(December 29, 1999) for diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where we determine that other emissions from nonroad engines,
vehicles, or equipment significantly contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,
section 213(a)(4) authorizes us to establish (and from time to time
revise) emission standards from those classes or categories of new
nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment that we determine cause or
contribute to such air pollution, taking into account cost, noise,
safety and energy factors associated with the application of technology
used to meet the standards. We have made this determination for
emissions of particulate matter (PM) and smoke from nonroad engines
(see 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994). In that rulemaking, we found that
smoke emissions from nonroad engines significantly contribute to such
air pollution based on smoke's relationship to the particulate matter
that makes up smoke as well as smoke's effect on visibility and soiling
of urban buildings and other property. Particulate matter can be
inhaled into the lower lung cavity, posing a potential health threat.
We cited recent studies associating PM with increased mortality.\77\ We
also promulgated standards for emissions of PM and smoke from nonroad
diesel engines in that rulemaking. We have also found that emissions of
PM from nonroad engines included in this ANPRM ``cause or contribute''
to such air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The nonroad study (NEVES) found that nonroad sources are
responsible for approximately 5.55 percent of the total
anthropogenic inventory of PM emissions and over one percent of
total PM emissions in six to ten of the thirteen nonattainment areas
surveyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 202 (a)(3)(E) provides EPA with authority to revise highway
motorcycle emissions standards, establishing standards which reflect
the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable, taking cost and
other factors into consideration. EPA may promulgate new standards
based on the effects of the air pollutants on public health and
welfare. EPA may also reclassify motorcycles as light-duty vehicles or
classify them as a separate class or

[[Page 76829]]

category. In such case that motorcycles are a separate class or
category, the Act directs EPA to consider the need to achieve
equivalency or emission reductions between motorcycles and other
vehicles to the maximum extent practicable. We request comment on how
any potential regulatory programs would be consistent with these
sections.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 86

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

40 CFR Part 94

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

40 CFR Part 1048

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 1051

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: November 20, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-30105 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U