50152 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 86, and 89

[AMS–FRL–5888–4]

RIN 2060–AF76

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution

From Nonroad Diesel Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

proposing new emission standards for

nonroad diesel engines. The affected

engines are used in most land-based

nonroad equipment and some marine

applications. If these standards are

implemented as proposed, the resulting

emission reductions would translate

into significant, long-term

improvements in air quality in many

areas of the U.S. For engines in this

large category of pollution sources, the

standards for oxides of nitrogen and

particulate matter emissions would be

reduced by up to two-thirds from

current standards. Overall, the proposed

program would provide much-needed

assistance to states facing ozone and

particulate air quality problems that are

causing a range of adverse health effects

for their citizens, especially in terms of

respiratory impairment and related

illnesses.

DATES: EPA will hold a hearing on the

proposed rulemaking on October 8,

1997. EPA requests comments on the

proposed rulemaking by November 24,

1997. More information about

commenting on this action and on the

public hearing and meeting may be

found under Public Participation in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

proposal, including the Draft Regulatory

Impact Analysis are contained in Public

Docket A–96–40, located at room M–

1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20460. The docket may be inspected

from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday. A reasonable fee may be

charged by EPA for copying docket

materials.

Comments on this proposal should be

sent to Public Docket A–96–40 at the

above address. EPA requests that a copy

of comments also be sent to Alan Stout,

U.S. EPA, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division, 2565 Plymouth

Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

The public hearing will be held at

Ramada Hotel O’Hare, 6600 North

Mannheim Road, Rosemont, IL 60018,

phone number (847) 827–5131. The

public hearing will begin at 9 a.m. and

will continue until all testimony has

been presented. A transcript of the

hearing will be placed in the docket.

Copies may also be obtained by

arrangement with the court reporter on

the day of the hearing.

For further information on electronic

availability of this proposal, see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Stout, U.S. EPA, Engine Programs

and Compliance Division, (313) 741–

7805; stout.alan@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those that manufacture or

introduce into commerce new

compression-ignition nonroad engines,

vehicles, or equipment, and entities that

rebuild or remanufacture nonroad

compression-ignition engines. Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry .... Manufacturers of new nonroad

diesel engines and equipment.

Industry .... Rebuilders and remanufacturers

of nonroad diesel engines.

This list is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. To determine

whether particular activities may be

regulated by this action, the reader

should carefully examine the proposed

regulations, especially the applicability

criteria in § 89.1, and the existing

regulatory language in 40 CFR part 89.

Questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity may be

directed to the person listed in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Obtaining Electronic Copies of the

Regulatory Documents

The preamble, regulatory language

and Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis

(Draft RIA) are 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 proposed rule is made

available on the day of publication on

the primary Web site listed below. The

EPA Office of Mobile Sources also

publishes Federal Register notices and

related documents on the secondary

Web site listed below.

1. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/

EPA–AIR/ (either select desired date

or use Search feature)

2. http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/

(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. Introduction

II. Background

A. Air Quality Problems Addressed in the

Proposed Rule

1. Ozone

2. Particulate Matter

3. Contribution of Nonroad Engines to

Emissions

B. Legislative and Regulatory History

1. U.S. Federal Action

2. State of California Action

3. Development of This Proposal

4. Harmonization

5. 2001 Feasibility Review

III. Description of Proposed Standards and

Related Provisions

A. Emission Standards

B. Test Procedures

1. Test Cycles

2. Test Fuel

C. Durability

D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

E. Flexibility for Equipment Manufacturers

F. Flexibility for Post-Manufacture

Marinizers

G. Control of Crankcase Emissions

H. Control of Smoke

I. Voluntary Low-Emitting Engine Program

IV. Technical Amendments

A. Rated Speed Definition

B. Other Technical Amendments

V. Technological Feasibility

A. Development of the Implementation

Schedule

B. Development of Numerical Standards

C. Technological Approaches

D. Conclusions Regarding Technological

Feasibility

VI. Projected Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

B. Economic Impacts

C. Cost-Effectiveness

VII. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

B. Public Hearing

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

IX. Statutory Authority

I. Introduction

Air pollution continues to represent a

serious threat to the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans and a

large burden to the U.S. economy. This

threat exists despite the fact that over

the past two decades great progress has

been made at the local, state, and

national levels in controlling emissions

from many sources of air pollution. As
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50153

1See U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2VOCs consist mostly of hydrocarbons (HC),

including nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC).

3The CAA limits the role states may play in

regulating emissions from new motor vehicles and

nonroad engines. California is permitted to

establish emission standards for new motor vehicles

and most new nonroad engines; other states may

adopt California’s programs (sections 209 and 177

of the Act).

4 Diesel-cycle engines, referred to simply as

‘‘diesel engines’’ in this notice, may also be referred

to as compression-ignition (or CI) engines. These

engines typically operate on diesel fuel, but other

fuels may be also be used. This contrasts with ottocycle engines (also called spark-ignition or SI

engines), which typically operate on gasoline.

5This proposal is based on metric units. With the

exception of engine power ratings, English units are

included parenthetically throughout the preamble.

The conversion of engine power ratings is included

in Table 1, but is not repeated in the rest of the

document.

a result of this progress, many

individual emission sources, both

stationary and mobile, pollute at only a

fraction of their precontrol rates.

However, continued industrial growth

and expansion of motor vehicle usage

threaten to reverse these past

achievements. Today, many states are

finding it difficult to meet the current

ozone and particulate matter National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) by the deadlines established

in the Act.1 Furthermore, other states

that are approaching or have reached

attainment of the current ozone and PM

NAAQSs will likely see those gains lost

if current trends persist.

In recent years, significant efforts

have been made on both a national and

state level to reduce air quality

problems associated with ground-level

ozone, with a focus on its main

precursors, oxides of nitrogen (NOX)

and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs).2 In addition, airborne

particulate matter (PM) has been a major

air quality concern in many regions. As

discussed below, ozone and PM have

been linked to a range of serious

respiratory health problems and a

variety of adverse environmental effects.

The states have jurisdiction to

implement a variety of stationary source

emission controls. In most regions of the

country, states are implementing

significant stationary source NOX

controls (as well as stationary source

VOC controls) for controlling acid rain,

ozone, or both. In many areas, however,

these controls will not be sufficient to

reach and maintain the current ozone

standard without significant additional

NOX reductions from mobile sources.

Generally, the Clean Air Act specifies

that emission standards for controlling

NOX, HC, and PM emissions from new

mobile sources must be established at

the federal level.3 Thus, the states look

to the national mobile source emission

control program as a complement to

their efforts to meet air quality goals.

The concept of common emission

standards for mobile sources across the

nation is strongly supported by

manufacturers, which often face serious

production inefficiencies when different

requirements apply to engines or

vehicles sold in different states or areas.

Mobile source emission control

programs have a history of technological

success that, in the past, has largely

offset the pressure from constantly

growing numbers of vehicles and miles

traveled in the U.S. The per-vehicle rate

of emissions from new passenger cars

and light trucks has been reduced to

very low levels. Similarly,

manufacturers of heavy-duty engines for

highway use have developed new

technological approaches over the past

two decades that have significantly

reduced emissions from these engines;

new standards scheduled to take effect

in 1998 will result in significant further

emission reductions from trucks and

buses (58 FR 15781, March 24, 1993). As

a result, increasing attention is now

focused on the engines used in a wide

range of nonroad equipment.

Manufacturers of engines for nonroad

applications have only recently become

subject to emission regulations. The

lessons learned from many years of

reducing passenger car and heavy-duty

truck emissions are being applied to

nonroad engines; however, extensive

new efforts are necessary to develop

emission control techniques that

address unique characteristics of

nonroad applications (such as special

engine cooling needs, dusty operating

environments, marine use, etc.). The

broad range of engine sizes (from a few

kilowatts of power to many hundreds of

kilowatts), the vast array of agricultural,

construction, industrial, and electrical

generation applications into which

nonroad engines are installed, the large

number of equipment manufacturers,

and the newness of many in this

industry to emission control

requirements all combine to increase the

challenge of reducing emissions from

nonroad engines. A more detailed

discussion of the history of nonroad

engine emission control is included

under Background (Section II.B.).

In addition, there are technological

challenges inherent to nonroad dieselcycle engine design that must be

addressed.4 While diesel engines

provide advantages in terms of fuel

efficiency, reliability, and durability,

controlling NOX emissions is generally

considered a greater challenge for diesel

engines than for otto-cycle engines.

Similarly, control of PM emissions,

which are very low for gasoline-fueled

engines, represents a substantial

challenge for diesel engines. Part of this

challenge for diesel engines is that most

traditional NOX control approaches tend

to increase PM emissions, and vice

versa. A more complete discussion of

technology issues is presented under

Technological Feasibility (Section V).

This notice proposes a new set of

emission standards for all nonroad

diesel engines, except for locomotive

engines, engines used in underground

mining equipment, and marine engines

rated over 37 kW.5 EPA’s Supplemental

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (Supplemental ANPRM),

published on January 2, 1997, and the

comments received on that notice

provide the framework for these new

emission standards (62 FR 200, January

2, 1997).

II. Background

A. Air Quality Problems Addressed in

the Proposed Rule

The emission standards proposed in

this notice are intended to be a major

step in reducing the human health and

environmental impacts of ground-level

ozone and particulate matter (PM). This

section summarizes the air quality

rationale for these new emission

standards and their anticipated impact

on nonroad diesel emissions.

1. Ozone

There is a large body of evidence

showing that ground-level ozone, which

is formed from photochemical reactions

of NOX and VOCs, causes harmful

respiratory effects, including chest pain,

coughing, and shortness of breath.

Ozone most severely affects people with

compromised respiratory systems and

children. In addition, NOX itself can

directly harm human health. Beyond

their effects on human health, other

negative environmental effects are also

associated with ozone and NOX. Ozone

has been shown to injure plants and

materials; NOX contributes to the

secondary formation of PM (nitrates),

acid deposition, and the overgrowth of

algae in coastal estuaries. These

environmental effects, as well as the

health effects described above, are

described in the Draft RIA. Additional

information may be found in EPA’s

‘‘staff papers’’ and ‘‘air quality criteria’’
50154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

6U.S. EPA, 1996, Review of National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for ozone, Assessment of

Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff

Paper, EPA–452/R–96–007 (found in Air Docket A–

95–58).

7U.S. EPA, 1996, Air Quality Criteria for Ozone

and Related Photochemical Oxidants, EPA/600/P–

93/004aF (found in Air Docket A–95–58).

8U.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 (found in Air

Docket A–93–06).

9U.S. EPA, 1993, Air Quality Criteria for Oxides

of Nitrogen, EPA/600/8–91/049aF (found in Air

Docket A–93–06).

10See 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

11U.S. EPA, 1996, Review of National Ambient

Air Quality Standards for Partculate Matter,

Assessment of Scientific and Technical

Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA–452/R–96–

013 (found in Air Docket A–95–54).

12U.S. EPA, 1996, Air Quality Criteria for

Particulate Matter, EPA/600/P–95/001aF (found in

Air Docket A–95–54).

13Summary of Local-Scale Source

11U.S. EPA, 1996, Review of National Ambient

Air Quality Standards for Partculate Matter,

Assessment of Scientific and Technical

Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA–452/R–96–

013 (found in Air Docket A–95–54).

12U.S. EPA, 1996, Air Quality Criteria for

Particulate Matter, EPA/600/P–95/001aF (found in

Air Docket A–95–54).

13Summary of Local-Scale Source

Characterization Studies, EPA–230–S–95–002, July,

1994 (Air Docket A–96–40).

14Memorandum to the docket from Carol

Bohnenkamp, EPA Region 9, regarding regional

nature of secondary nitratee PM in California, July

30, 1997 (Docket A–96–40).

documents for ozone and nitrogen

oxides.6,7,8,9

Today, many states are finding it

difficult to show how they can meet or

maintain compliance with the current

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

for ozone by the deadlines established

in the Act.10 There are 66 areas

currently designated ‘‘nonattainment’’

for ozone.

Local, state and federal organizations

charged with initiating programs to

achieve cleaner air have mounted

significant efforts in recent years to

reduce air quality problems associated

with ground-level ozone, and there are

signs of partial success. The main

precursors of ozone, NOX, and VOCs

appear to have been reduced, and

average levels of ozone seem to have

begun gradually decreasing. However,

this progress is in jeopardy. EPA

projects that reductions in ozone

precursors that will result from the full

implementation of current emission

control programs will fall far short of

what would be needed to offset the

normal emission increases that

accompany economic expansion. By the

middle of the next decade, the Agency

expects that the downward trends will

have reversed, primarily due to

increasing numbers of emission sources.

As discussed below, EPA expects that

NOX levels will have returned to current

levels by around 2020 in the absence of

significant new reductions. To the

extent that some areas are seeing a

gradual decrease in ozone levels in

recent years, EPA believes that the

expected increase in NOX will likely

result in an increase in ozone problems

in the future.

NOX controls are an effective strategy

for reducing ozone where its levels are

relatively high over a large region (as in

the Northeast and much of the Midwest,

Southeast, and California). EPA and

states see regional control of NOX

emissions, in addition to local-scale

VOC and NOX controls, as a key to

improving regional-scale air quality in

many parts of the country. Specifically,

EPA believes that regional-scale

reductions in NOX emissions will be

necessary for many areas to attain and

maintain compliance with the current

ozone NAAQS. For the regions listed

above, the NOX reductions needed are

very large (greater than 50 percent from

base 1990 emissions in many cases).

New programs to control emissions from

both stationary and mobile sources will

be necessary in most of these areas,

since it is unlikely that cost effective

controls of this magnitude can be

achieved with either source category

alone. Although in some locations and

circumstances moderate reductions in

local NOX emissions may be associated

with localized increases in ozone, the

Agency is convinced that the ultimate

attainment goal of all nonattainment

areas necessitates continued reduction

of regional-scale NOX emissions.

2. Particulate Matter

Particulate matter, like ozone, has

been linked to a range of serious

respiratory health problems. Particles

are deposited deep in the lungs and

result in effects including premature

death, increased hospital admissions

and emergency room visits, increased

respiratory symptoms and disease,

decreased lung function (particularly in

children and individuals with asthma),

and alterations in lung tissue and

structure and in respiratory tract

defense mechanisms. These effects are

discussed further in the Draft RIA for

this rule. (Additional information may

be found in EPA’s ‘‘staff paper’’ and ‘‘air

quality criteria document’’ for

particulate matter. 11 12)

Currently, there are 80 PM–10

nonattainment areas across the U.S.

(PM–10 refers to particles smaller than

10 microns in diameter.) As is the case

with NOX, levels of PM caused by

mobile sources are also expected to rise

in the future. EPA believes that this

projected increase will occur for two

reasons: because of the expected

continued increase in numbers of PM

sources, including nonroad diesel

engines; and because NOX from diesel

engines and other sources is

transformed in the atmosphere into fine

secondary nitrate particles.

Secondary nitrate particles account

for a substantial fraction of the airborne

particulate in some areas of the country,

especially in the West. Measurements of

ambient PM in some western U.S. urban

areas that are having difficulty meeting

the current NAAQS for PM–10 have

indicated that secondary PM is a very

important component of the problem.

Secondary nitrate PM (consisting mostly

of ammonium nitrate) is the major

constituent of this secondary PM. For

example, in Denver, on days when PM

levels are high, about 25 percent of the

measured PM–2.5 is ammonium nitrate.

In the Provo/Salt Lake City area,

secondary PM comprises about 40

percent of the measured PM–10.

Similarly, in the Los Angeles Basin,

secondary nitrate PM levels represent

about 25 percent of measured PM–10.13

Nitrate PM constitutes a smaller, but

often important, fraction of PM in other

areas of the country.

Because the atmospheric chemistry of

secondary PM formation has common

attributes to that of ozone, secondary

PM also tends to be a regional, rather

than a strictly local phenomenon. For

this reason, EPA believes that regionalscale NOX controls, including control of

mobile NOX sources, are very effective

in reducing secondary PM over a

significant area. For example,

California’s PM State Implementation

Plans for serious areas conclude that

secondary formation of nitrate

particulate due to regional-scale NOX

emissions contributes to the particulate

problem in the South Coast Air Basin,

Coachella Area, and the San Joaquin

Valley. EPA and the State of California

believe that reduction of this fraction of

the total PM will require additional

regional-scale reductions in NOX

emissions. 14

EPA believes that mobile sources,

including nonroad diesel engines,

contribute substantially to the fraction

of ambient PM that is generally

considered controllable. (The largest

fraction of ambient PM is attributed to

‘‘miscellaneous’’ and ‘‘natural’’ sources,

including wind erosion, wildfires, and

fugitive dust, which are difficult or

impossible to control.) As discussed in

more detail in the next section, mobile

sources make up more than a quarter of

‘‘controllable’’ sources (i.e., excluding
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50155

miscellaneous and natural sources),

with nonroad diesel engines accounting

for about 16 percent. In addition,

secondary PM contributes significant

additional PM in some western PM

nonattainment areas.

3. Contribution of Nonroad Engines to

Emissions

Figure 1 shows EPA’s current

estimates of the NOX emissions from the

categories of nonroad diesel engines

affected by the proposed standards. For

1996, nonroad diesel engines are

estimated to represent about 27 percent

of mobile source NOX and 13 percent of

total NOX emissions. In the future, EPA

projects NOX emissions from these

engines to drop slightly due to the Tier

1 emission standards, but then begin to

rise again as growth overtakes the Tier

1 improvements. The contributions of

the engines covered by this proposal to

mobile source NOX and total NOX are

projected to remain about constant.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
50156 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50157

15 ‘‘Emission Inventories Used in the Nonroad

Diesel Proposed Rule,’’ EPA memorandum to Air

Docket A–96–40 from Joe Somers, August 1997.

16See also, ‘‘Nonroad Engine and Vehicle

Emission Study—Report and Appendices,’’ EPA–

21A–201, November 1991 (available in Air Docket

A–96–40).

17The final rule set no standards for sterndrive/

inboards; refer to the preamble of that rule for a

discussion of that decision.

Similarly, Figure 2 presents the

Agency’s best current projections for

diesel PM emissions. EPA estimates that

nonroad diesel engines currently

contribute about 440,000 tons, or 48

percent of the directly emitted PM from

mobile sources and 16 percent of total

controllable PM emissions. In the

future, Figure 2 projects that nonroad

diesel PM emissions will steadily rise in

the absence of new emission standards.

In addition to directly emitted PM, EPA

estimates that, as a national average,

nonroad diesel engines currently

contribute approximately 130,000 tons

of PM in the form of secondary nitrate

particles, based on the estimated

3,100,000 tons of NOX emitted by these

engines. Since NOX emissions from

these engines is expected to decrease

slightly and then begin to rise (see

Figure 1), nitrate PM attributable to

these engines can be expected to follow

the same pattern.15

In this rule, EPA is for the first time

proposing emission standards for

NMHC + NOX, PM, carbon monoxide

(CO), and smoke from engines rated

under 37 kW. Engines in this category

contribute to emissions of each of these

pollutants, including emissions in

nonattainment areas. Chapter 5 of the

Draft RIA presents the Agency’s most

recent estimates of emissions from all

land-based nonroad diesel engines and

marine diesel engines rated under 37

kW.16

B. Legislative and Regulatory History

1. U.S. Federal Action

Section 213(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act

required that the Agency study the

emissions from all categories of nonroad

engines and equipment 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 required EPA to

determine whether the emissions of CO,

VOC, and NOX found in the above study

significantly contributed to ozone or CO

emissions in more than one

nonattainment area. With a

determination of significance, section

213(a)(3) requires the Agency to

establish emission standards regulating

CO, VOC, and NOX emissions from new

nonroad engines and vehicles. EPA may

also promulgate emission standards

under section 213(a)(4) regulating any

other emissions from nonroad engines

that EPA finds contribute significantly

to air pollution.

On June 17, 1994, EPA made an

affirmative determination under section

213(a)(2) that nonroad emissions are

significant contributors to ozone or CO

in more than one nonattainment area

(59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994). In the

same notice, EPA set a first phase of

emission standards (‘‘Tier 1 standards’’)

for nonroad diesel engines rated 37 kW

and above. The Tier 1 standards did not

include engines used in aircraft,

underground mining equipment,

locomotives, or marine vessels. EPA has

initiated separate rulemakings to adopt

regulations appropriate to different

subgroups of nonroad engines, as

described below.

EPA has taken several other actions

under section 213, some of which

provide important background for this

proposal and are discussed here. The

Agency recently published proposed

emission standards for locomotive

engines, which are addressed separately

by the Act under section 213(a)(5) (62

FR 6366, February 11, 1997). Aircraft,

which are regulated under sections 231

through 234 of the Act, must comply

with emission standards finalized May

8, 1997 (62 FR 25356).

With regard to marine engines, EPA

has finalized regulations for recreational

marine engines, including personal

watercraft and outboard engines (61 FR

52087, October 4, 1996).17 That final

rule sets no standards for diesel marine

engines, though emission standards

were proposed for those engines (59 FR

55929, November 9, 1994; 61 FR 4600,

February 7, 1996). The large diesel

marine rule is currently under

development. However, as discussed in

the Supplemental ANPRM, emission

standards for marine diesel engines

rated under 37 kW are included in the

scope of this proposal.

EPA has also established a first phase

of regulations for small SI engines, those

rated under 19 kW (60 FR 34582, July

3, 1995). These engines are used in

handheld and nonhandheld

applications like chainsaws and

lawnmowers. The Agency has also

published an ANPRM for a second

phase of control for these engines (62 FR

14740, March 27, 1997). SI engines rated

over 19 kW remain unregulated, though

EPA has begun work toward new

emission standards for those engines.

2. State of California Action

The California Air Resources Board

(California ARB) has the authority to

regulate emissions from all nonroad

engines, except for new engines used in

locomotives and new engines used in

farm and construction equipment rated

under 130 kW. So far, the California

ARB has adopted regulations for four

groups of nonroad engines. First,

emission standards have been

promulgated for new small off-road

engines rated under 19 kW, including

both diesel and otto-cycle models. The

California ARB, as a signatory to the

Nonroad Statement of Principles, has

indicated its intent to amend the

regulations for small off-road engines to

be consistent with the Statement of

Principles for diesel engines rated under

19 kW in this notice. The California

ARB has also set emission standards for

new land-based nonroad diesel engines

rated over 130 kW, which will be

harmonized with the standards

proposed in this notice. The California

ARB has also adopted emission

standards for nonroad recreational

engines, including both compressionignition and the more prevalent sparkignition models. EPA intends to work

cooperatively with the California ARB

to develop new emission standards for

nonroad SI engines rated over 19 kW

(including new EPA emission standards

applicable to engines for recreational

vehicles). Finally, the California ARB

has approved a voluntary registration

and control program for existing

portable equipment.

3. Development of This Proposal

In 1994 and 1995, states and

environmental groups encouraged EPA

to adopt more stringent emission

standards for highway and nonroad

diesel engines, in order to address the

need for national pollution reduction

measures to improve air quality in many

urban areas. In response, EPA initiated

discussions with engine manufacturers

regarding future emission controls for

these engines, gathering input from

other interested parties as well. EPA, the

California ARB, and engine

manufacturers subsequently developed

and agreed on a Statement of Principles

supporting proposal of new emission

standards for heavy-duty highway

engines starting with the 2004 model

year, which were published with an

ANPRM on August 31, 1995 (60 FR

45580). These emission standards were

formally proposed on June 27, 1996 (61

FR 33421), with signature on a final rule

expected in 1997.

The Statement of Principles for

highway engines included a
50158 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

18Common Position (EC) No. /96, Adopted by the

Council On llll With a View to Adopting

Directive 96/ /EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council On the Approximation of the Laws

of the Member States Relating To Measures Against

the Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants

From Internal Combustion Engines to Be Installed

In Non-Road Mobile Machinery,’’ draft dated

November 12, 1996 (available in Docket A–96–40).

commitment by the signatories to also

pursue appropriate standards for

nonroad engines, which was further

discussed in the associated ANPRM.

Subsequently, EPA, the California ARB,

and engine manufacturers completed a

similar Statement of Principles for

nonroad diesel engines, which was then

published with a Supplemental

ANPRM, announcing the initiation of

the rulemaking described in this

document (62 FR 200, January 2, 1997).

The Nonroad Statement of Principles

and the comments received on the

Supplemental ANPRM serve as a

blueprint for the emission standards and

other regulatory provisions proposed in

this document.

In addition, in accordance with the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, EPA conducted

outreach to small businesses from

various industry sectors to inform them

of regulatory provisions of this proposed

rule that may affect them and to seek

early comment. As described below in

Section VIII.B. (Regulatory Flexibility

Act), EPA convened a federal

government panel which collected

comments and made recommendations

about how the proposed program could

reduce the impact on small entities.

Several provisions to provide flexibility

or relief for small businesses were

recommended by small-entity

commenters and the panel and have

been incorporated into this proposal.

4. Harmonization

As EPA has pursued the emission

reductions from nonroad engines

needed to meet air quality goals, an

important consideration has been

harmonization with standards adopted

and under consideration in California

and Europe. The international nature of

this industry, in which many

manufacturers sell engines and

equipment globally, makes harmonized

standards and test procedures very

important. Harmonized programs can

avoid costly multiple design

configurations to meet varying

requirements, with associated cost

savings to ultimate purchasers. In

addition, with regard to international

trade, harmonization reduces the cost of

introducing a product into another

country. For these reasons, EPA has

pursued a policy of harmonizing with

both California and the European Union

(EU), to the extent this can be

accomplished under the air quality

improvement goals and process

constraints of all of the parties, and to

the extent it does not have a significant

adverse impact on EPA’s overarching

mission of improving air quality in the

United States.

To date, the goal of harmonization has

been an important factor in the context

of this rule and, in fact, harmonization

was a major impetus behind the

development of the Nonroad Statement

of Principles. EPA and the California

Air Resources Board agreed in that

document to pursue harmonized

standards and test procedures such that

a nonroad diesel engine family tested

and certified by EPA could be sold in

California and, similarly, an engine

family tested and certified in California

could be sold in the rest of the country.

Regarding international harmonization,

the Statement of Principles signatories

expressed an intent to work with the

European Union, Japan, and other

regulatory bodies in developing

harmonized future standards, including

provisions for implementation

flexibility.

Subsequent to the completion of the

Nonroad Statement of Principles, the

responsible regulatory group in the EU

issued a draft directive proposing a new

round of standards that are aligned with

the Tier 2 standards spelled out in this

proposal.18 This harmonization was a

direct result of extensive discussions on

potential standards that would be

mutually acceptable.

Though harmonized to a great degree,

the proposed EPA and EU standards are

not identical. In particular, the proposed

EU standards do not cover engines rated

under 19 kW or above 560 kW and the

EU proposal does not include Tier 3

standards. In addition, the EU proposed

separate NOX and HC standards (in

contrast to EPA’s proposed combined

standards), and specified a somewhat

different implementation schedule.

Nevertheless, the goal of harmonization

efforts, avoiding widespread duplicative

design configurations, is being

addressed at this stage of proposing new

standards. Beyond standard levels and

implementation dates, there are other

differences between EPA and EU

programs, including approaches to

averaging, banking, and trading

programs, flexibility provisions, and test

procedure specifications. EPA plans to

continue its harmonization work with

governments in Europe and in other

countries, in conjunction with the usual

public rulemaking process, to build on

the substantial successes to date. One

major area in which a coordinated

program will be pursued is the

evaluation and possible modification of

the certification test cycle discussed in

Section III.B.

It should be noted that the small

marine engines included in this

proposal are not currently addressed in

the EU program. Therefore, the ultimate

success of international harmonization

efforts with respect to these engines

depends on further efforts by regulating

agencies. It should also be noted that

these engines are not covered by

International Maritime Organization

NOX reduction efforts in the context of

the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships

(MARPOL).

5. 2001 Feasibility Review

EPA proposes to conduct a special

review, to be concluded in 2001, to

reassess the appropriateness of the Tier

2 standards for engines rated under 37

kW and the Tier 3 standards for engines

rated between 37 and 560 kW (including

whether to propose the introduction of

Tier 3 standards for PM). In addition to

reviewing whether or not the proposed

standards are technologically feasible

and otherwise appropriate under the

Clean Air Act, the Agency will examine

the need for equipment redesign due to

the proposed standards and will take

appropriate action, such as proposing to

relax or delay the standards, if

significant adverse impacts on the

nonroad equipment industry are

identified.

Before making a final decision in this

review, EPA intends to issue a proposal

and offer an opportunity for public

comment on whether the Tier 2

standards for engines rated under 37 kW

and the Tier 3 standards for engines

rated between 37 and 560 kW continue

to be consistent with the Act and

continue to be technologically feasible

for implementation according to the

proposed schedule. Any Tier 3 PM

standards would also be proposed in

such a notice. Following the close of the

comment period, EPA intends to issue

a final Agency decision under section

307 of the Act.

If by 2001 EPA finds the emission

standards are not feasible according to

the proposed schedule, or are otherwise

not appropriate under the Act, EPA will

propose changes to the program,

possibly including adjustments to the

levels of the standards. The adjusted

standards may be more or less stringent

than those already established,

including the possibility of a new

emission standard for particulate matter.

Any change to the specified certification

test procedure, including the possible

adoption of a transient test cycle, will be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50159

factored into the evaluation of the

appropriateness of the numerical

standards. The standards finalized in

the rulemaking initiated by this

proposal would stay in effect unless

revised by subsequent rulemaking

procedure. The Supplemental ANPRM

provides additional discussion of the

Agency’s plans for the feasibility

review.

Based on the information presented in

the Draft RIA and in Section V of this

notice, EPA believes the proposed

standards are technologically feasible

and otherwise appropriate under the

Act. Nonetheless, it is clear that a

significant amount of research and

development will be needed to comply

with the proposed standards. Over the

next several years, EPA will be actively

engaged in programs to evaluate

technology developments and progress

toward meeting the proposed standards.

This process will involve in-house

programs, coordination with the

involved industries, and active

interaction with other stakeholders.

III. Description of Proposed Standards

and Related Provisions

This proposed rulemaking includes a

comprehensive program to reduce

emissions from nonroad diesel engines

and equipment. The significant

potential benefits of controlling

emissions from these engines provides a

major opportunity to address the

nation’s air quality problems. The

proposed program consists of stringent

new emission standards, requirements

to ensure that engines maintain their

level of emission performance as they

age, provisions providing compliance

flexibility to engine and equipment

manufacturers, and a voluntary program

to encourage the introduction of lowemitting engines.

A. Emission Standards

EPA is proposing emission standards

covering all nonroad diesel engines

except for locomotives, engines used in

underground mining equipment, and

large (rated over 37 kW) engines used in

marine applications. Engines not

included in this proposal are or will be

addressed by other federal programs.

EPA is proposing a set of emission

standards that vary in level and

implementation date, depending on the

rated power of the engine and other

factors. The Agency believes that the

standards proposed in this notice are

consistent with the Clean Air Act

requirement that standards represent the

‘‘greatest degree of emission reduction

achievable’’ given the criteria specified

by the Act (see Section V below).

In general, emission standards for

engines rated between 37 and 560 kW

are proposed in two tiers, building on

the phase-in schedule adopted in the

Tier 1 rule (see Table 1). These

standards approximate the degree of

control anticipated from existing and

proposed standards covering engines

used in heavy-duty diesel highway

vehicles, with appropriate consideration

of differences in the operational

characteristics of the engines and in the

organization of the industries.

Specifically, the first set of proposed

standards (Tier 2) generally parallel the

emission standards that apply beginning

with 1998 model year highway engines

(58 FR 15781, March 24, 1993). The

second set of proposed standards (Tier

3) parallel standards EPA has proposed

for 2004 model year diesel highway

engines (61 FR 33421, June 27, 1996).

The standards for engines rated over 37

kW would become effective in the 2001

to 2006 time frame for Tier 2 levels and

2006 to 2008 for Tier 3 levels.

TABLE 1.—EMISSION STANDARDS IN G/KW-HR (G/HP-HR)

Engine Power Tier Model

year

NMHC +

NOX CO PM

kW<8 (hp<11) ............................................................................................. Tier 1 ....... 2000 10.5 (7.8) 8.0 (6.0) 1.0 (0.75)

Tier 2 ....... 2005 7.5 (5.6) 8.0 (6.0) 0.80 (0.60)

8≤kW<19 (11≤hp<25) ................................................................................. Tier 1 ....... 2000 9.5 (7.1) 6.6 (4.9) 0.80 (0.60)

Tier 2 ....... 2005 7.5 (5.6) 6.6 (4.9) 0.80 (0.60)

19≤kW<37 (25≤hp<50) ............................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 1999 9.5 (7.1) 5.5 (4.1) 0.80 (0.60)

Tier 2 ....... 2004 7.5 (5.6) 5.5 (4.1) 0.60 (0.45)

37≤kW<75 (50≤hp<100) ............................................................................. Tier 2 ....... 2004 7.5 (5.6) 5.0 (3.7) 0.40 (0.30)

Tier 3 ....... 2008 4.7 (3.5) 5.0 (3.7) ....................

75≤kW<130 (100≤hp<175) ......................................................................... Tier 2 ....... 2003 6.6 (4.9) 5.0 (3.7) 0.30 (0.22)

Tier 3 ....... 2007 4.0 (3.0) 5.0 (3.7) ....................

130≤kW<225 (175≤hp<300) ....................................................................... Tier 2 ....... 2003 6.6 (4.9) 3.5 (2.6) 0.20 (0.15)

Tier 3 ....... 2006 4.0 (3.0) 3.5 (2.6) ....................

225≤kW<450 (300≤hp<600) ....................................................................... Tier 2 ....... 2001 6.4 (4.8) 3.5 (2.6) 0.20 (0.15)

Tier 3 ....... 2006 4.0 (3.0) 3.5 (2.6) ....................

450≤kW<560 (600≤hp<750) ....................................................................... Tier 2 ....... 2002 6.4 (4.8) 3.5 (2.6) 0.20 (0.15)

Tier 3 ....... 2006 4.0 (3.0) 3.5 (2.6) ....................

kW≥560 (hp≥750) ....................................................................................... Tier 2 ....... 2006 6.4 (4.8) 3.5 (2.6) 0.20 (0.15)

The standards proposed in this notice

for engines rated under 37 kW would be

the first EPA emission standards for

these nonroad diesel engines. The

proposed Tier 1 standards would be

phased in by power category beginning

in 1999, with Tier 2 standards phased

in by power category beginning in 2004.

Tier 3 standards are not proposed for

these engines in this rule.

Table 1 lists the range of standards for

the different power categories, including

all the tiers of proposed standards with

the affected model years. References

throughout this notice to the engine

power ratings listed in Table 1 will

identify only the kilowatt rating. The

reader may refer to the table for

conversion between metric and English

units.

EPA is at this time proposing Tier 3

standards only for nonroad diesel

engines rated between 37 kW and 560

kW. For engines rated under 37 kW, the

Agency believes it would be

inappropriate to commit to Tier 3

standards at this time, since the

industry is only now beginning to

address emission control requirements

for the first time. The uncertainties

involved in proposing more than two

tiers of standards seem too great at this

early stage in the regulation of these

engines.

In the case of engines rated over 560

kW, the longer lead time EPA believes

is appropriate for these engines shifts

the proposed implementation schedule

for these engines later than any other
50160 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

19Springer, Karl J. (1979), ‘‘Characterization of

Sulfates, Odor, Smoke, POM and Particulates from

Light and Heavy-Duty Engines—Part IX,’’ Ann

Arbor, Michigan: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. Publication No.

EPA–460/3–79–007.

20 ‘‘Summary of Nonroad Compression Ignition

Transient and Steady-State NOX and PM Emissions

Data,’’ EPA memorandum from Cleophas Jackson to

Docket A–96–40, May 21, 1997.

engines for Tier 2 standards, starting

with the 2006 model year. This lead

time reflects the longer product redesign

cycles typical of these large engines

with very low sales volumes. The

Agency’s intent is to avoid imposing

unnecessary costs associated with

frequently changing standards. As is the

case for engines rated under 37kW, the

large uncertainties that would be

involved in proposing a third tier of

standards, in this case presumably for

sometime after 2010, led to EPA’s

decision not to propose such Tier 3

standards for these engines at this time.

Where Tier 3 standards are proposed,

the Agency is choosing not to include

more stringent PM standards. The

Agency recognizes that there is an

inverse technological relationship

between NOX and PM emission control

and believes that more stringent PM

standards may threaten the feasibility of

the proposed Tier 3 NOX standards. In

addition, as discussed in Section III.B.

below, the Agency believes that

investigation during the next few years

may conclude that a different emission

test cycle is more appropriate for

nonroad engines, especially for PM

emissions. For these reasons, EPA

believes that Tier 3 PM standards will

be more appropriately discussed in the

context of the improved technical

understanding that will exist by the

time of the 2001 Feasibility Review (see

Section II.B.5. above).

The standards proposed in this docket

assume the use of EPA’s existing steadystate (modal) test procedures. New

steady-state test cycles are proposed for

constant-speed engines, marine

propulsion engines, and engines rated

under 19 kW. The Agency and the

industry are working to better

understand the sensitivity of nonroad

diesel engine emissions to the test cycle,

as discussed in the next section.

EPA proposes to change from a

measurement of total hydrocarbons to

nonmethane hydrocarbons. There is,

however, no standardized method for

measuring methane in diesel engine

exhaust. In the absence of such a

procedure, EPA is proposing to allow

any of three options: (1) Measure total

hydrocarbons in place of nonmethane

hydrocarbons, without adjusting

numerical values, (2) manufacturers

may develop and use their own

procedure to analyze nonmethane

hydrocarbons, with prior approval from

EPA, or (3) measure total hydrocarbons

but subtract 2% from the measured

hydrocarbon mass to correct for

methane. This assumed methane

fraction is based on data from two

heavy-duty diesel engines.19

EPA is aware of the flame ionization

detector plus gas chromatography

method of determining nonmethane

hydrocarbons (SAE J1151) and requests

comment on whether this procedure or

any other would be appropriate to

measure methane. If such a procedure is

acceptable, EPA further requests

comment on whether a uniform

procedure is preferable to the proposed

options.

Finally, EPA is proposing to maintain

the current smoke standards for nonroad

diesel engines rated over 37 kW. The

Agency proposes to extend the

applicability of these standards to

nonroad diesel engines rated under 37

kW. This proposal is discussed in detail

in Section III.G.

B. Test Procedures

1. Test Cycles

The test cycle used to measure

emissions is intended to simulate some

measure of actual operation in the field.

Testing an engine for emissions consists

of exercising it over a prescribed duty

cycle of speeds and loads using an

engine dynamometer. The nature of the

test cycle used for determining

compliance with emission standards

during the certification process is

critical in evaluating the likely

emissions performance of engines

designed to those standards. To the

extent that in-use operation differs from

the certification test, there is the

possibility that a certified engine will

have higher than expected emission

rates in the field. EPA has addressed

such concerns in the past; for example,

the highway heavy-duty engine test

cycles were changed to address

transient operation (45 FR 4136, January

21, 1980) and, more recently, EPA has

revised the test cycle for light-duty

vehicles (61 FR 54852, October 22,

1996).

Because of the potential inadequacies

in the ability of test cycles to ensure

control in real-life conditions, EPA is

very concerned that engines may be

designed to control emissions well

during a certification test only to emit

at higher levels during field operation.

EPA has observed at times that

manufacturers may tailor the design of

their engines to narrowly meet emission

test requirements. Also, engine

manufacturers have a degree of

discretion in how they control engine

operation across the whole range of

engine operating modes to balance

competing demands for power, fuel

economy and emission control. The

advent of electronic controls has greatly

increased the level of sophistication in

controlling the full range of engine

operation. This advance also carries

with it some uncertainty about whether

proper control of emission-related

engine parameters is maintained during

engine operation that is not represented

in the certification test cycle. The

current nonroad test cycle, with a

limited combination of steady-state

speeds and loads, does not include

some operating modes that are

commonly experienced in the field.

Originally, certification testing of

heavy-duty highway engines was

conducted with steady-state test cycles

(one cycle for diesel engines and one for

otto-cycle engines), in which an engine

is operated at several discrete modes of

constant speed and load for measuring

emissions. EPA subsequently revised

the highway engine test instead to use

transient cycles, which continuously

vary speeds and loads. Current test

requirements for nonroad diesel engines

are based on an eight-mode steady-state

test cycle similar to the original cycle

for highway engines. This test cycle was

developed by the International

Organization for Standards (ISO) as part

of Standard 8178 and is designated as

the C1 cycle.

EPA still believes that the C1 cycle is

the most appropriate cycle available at

this time for ensuring that emissions are

controlled in the field. The Agency

therefore proposes to continue to rely on

the C1 cycle as the principal method of

testing nonroad diesel engines. NOX

emission rates depend significantly on

the degree of engine loading (as a

fraction of its rated capacity); i.e., higher

relative engine load, or load factor,

corresponds with a greater mass of NOX

emissions for each combustion event.

Testing on a limited number of

engines—with current technology—

shows that total NOX emissions from the

C1 cycle are comparable to those

generated on the transient highway test

procedure.20 Engine-to-engine

variability is significant, but available

data is insufficient to determine any

directional difference in the average

results. This testing does not provide for

conclusions on the possibility of high

in-use NOX emissions from engines that

are designed to control emissions only
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50161

21For a description of the development of the D2

cycle, see ‘‘Exhaust Emission Testing of Diesel

Engines for Industrial Applications,’’ (Docket A–

96–40, item II–D–26).

22Selection of Duty Cycle for High-Speed CI

Marine Engines,’’ EPA memorandum to Docket A–

96–40 from Mike Samulski, February 19, 1997.

in modes represented by the

certification test procedure. The same

testing shows that HC emissions, while

more sensitive to test cycle in

percentage terms, are formed at much

lower levels. The set of engines tested

emitted on average about 0.7 g/kW-hr

(0.5 g/hp-hr) of HC less on the C1 cycle

than on the highway test procedure,

which is much less than the variability

observed for NOX emissions. Tested CO

emissions were significantly lower on

the C1 cycle than on the highway test

procedure, which is reflected in the

lower numerical emission standards for

nonroad engines.

Evaluating the ability of a test cycle to

appropriately measure PM emissions,

however, requires a review of different

parameters than evaluation of

comparability for NOX emissions.

Particulate emissions, like NOX

emissions, depend on engine load, but

are most sensitive to the degree of

transient engine operation. Most

nonroad engines are used in

applications that include substantial

transient operation in use, especially

those used to propel motive equipment.

Equipment such as pumps and

generators operate mostly or exclusively

at constant engine speeds, but they may

may also depart from steady-state

operation due to variation in engine

loads over time. EPA believes that the

proposed PM emission standards, with

a steady-state certification test, will

result in a predictable improvement in

PM emissions from those engines used

in constant-speed applications. Engines

experiencing a greater degree of

transient operation will also likely have

lower rates of PM emissions, though the

degree of that reduction is harder to

predict. The concern for ensuring an

adequate level of control of PM

emissions from all nonroad engines has

been the principal motivation for EPA to

look at the possibility of incorporating

an element of transient operation in the

certification test. While the proposal

includes no testing with a transient

cycle, EPA will continue to pursue

development of a transient cycle that

can be incorporated into certification

testing, as described below.

The proposal includes additional

cycles for specific engines. The same

numerical standards apply to all test

cycles. Any engines that are limited to

operate only at a constant speed may, at

the manufacturer’s option, use the ISO

D2 cycle for emission testing. This

cycle, which omits idle and

intermediate-speed modes from the C1

cycle, is representative of engines such

as generators, which are designed never

to run at these omitted speeds.21

Because of the more limited range of

engine operation in the D2 cycle,

manufacturers must ensure that engines

certified with data generated with the

D2 cycle are used exclusively in

constant-speed applications.

Accordingly, these engines must

include labeling information indicating

this limited emission certification.

For engines rated under 19 kW, EPA

proposes an additional test cycle, the

ISO G2 cycle, though manufacturers

may also use the C1 or, for constantspeed engines, the D2 cycle for these

smaller engines. The ISO G2 cycle

includes the same modes as the D2

cycle and adds a mode for operation at

idle. This cycle was developed to

represent the operation of small diesel

engines used primarily at rated speed,

such as in lawn and garden

applications, generators, pumps,

welders, and air compressors. EPA has

investigated the representativeness of

this cycle for engines rated under 19 kW

and supports the use of this cycle at this

time. By capturing operation at rated

speed for a variety of engine loads and

including operation at idle the G2 cycle

seems appropriate for the principal

applications of these engines. The

Nonroad Statement of Principles

specifies only the G2 cycle for engines

rated under 19 kW. Since that time,

further deliberation has led EPA to

allow also the C1 cycle and, in the case

of constant-speed engines, the D2 cycle

for these engines. As described above,

the D2 cycle is appropriate for those

engines that are limited to operate only

at rated speed. By including more

operating modes, the C1 cycle can be

considered more broadly representative

of a wide range of engine applications,

including those rated under 19 kW.

While the D2 cycle clearly has a unique

role in emission certification, the C1

and G2 cycles here present

manufacturers with two optional

procedures for all the engines rated

under 19 kW that are not certified under

the D2 cycle. EPA therefore requests

comment on whether it is appropriate or

desirable to allow use of both the C1

and G2 cycles for these engines.

EPA proposes that propulsion marine

engines rated under 37 kW rely on the

E3 cycle for emission testing. The E3

cycle, which consists of engine

operation at four different engine speeds

and four different loads, was developed

by ISO to represent the operation of

propulsion marine engines, and has

been supported by an Agency

investigation.22 EPA nevertheless

requests comment on whether a similar

candidate cycle for propulsion marine

engines, the ISO E5 cycle, would be

equally or more appropriate. The E5

cycle differs from the E3 cycle by

including engine operation at idle. In

addition, EPA proposes an additional

flexibility to marine engine

manufacturers to allow marine engines

to be included in land-based engine

families. This flexibility would enable

manufacturers to certify propulsion

marine engines on the C1 test cycle,

which would be appropriate for marine

engines developed from land-based

models. Finally, EPA proposes that

auxiliary marine engines subject to this

rule (i.e., engines installed on a marine

vessel, but not used for propulsion)

should be tested using the G2, C1, or D2

test cycles, with the constraints

described above for the counterpart

land-based nonroad engines.

Except for the C1 cycle and the D2

cycle for constant-speed engines, EPA

has little data supporting the adequacy

of the test cycles described above;

however, there also seems to be no

information indicating that these cycles

are flawed. ISO committees developed

the various test cycles intending to

capture a representative portion of the

in-use operation for particular groups of

engines. EPA, supporting efforts to

harmonize emission certification

requirements with those of other

countries, supports the use of ISO test

cycles if EPA can find that they are

adequate for measuring and controlling

in-use emissions. As noted above, EPA

has reviewed the E3 and G2 cycles and

supports the use of these cycles at this

time. Technologies and emission control

strategies in the future may, however,

become more sensitive to variations in

engine operation; EPA will therefore

continue to explore the potential

benefits of a new or revised test cycle

for certifying engines.

The Supplemental ANPRM describes

the need to review the adequacy of the

certification test procedure, especially

as it relates to transient operation in the

field. The signatories to the Nonroad

Statement of Principles agreed to better

characterize in-use engine operation and

evaluate the effectiveness of the current

test procedure. In the event that the

current test procedure would be found

inadequate to address air quality

concerns, EPA has committed to

pursuing a revised test procedure to

address the problem. In so doing, the
50162 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

23 ‘‘Estimates for In-use Nonroad Diesel Sulfur

Levels,’’ EPA memorandum from David Korotney to

Docket A–96–40, July 1, 1997.

24 ICF Incorporated, ‘‘Industry Characterization:

Nonroad Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Rebuilders,’’

prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Contract 68–C5–0010, WAN 102, January 3, 1997,

(Docket A–96–40, item II–A–02).

25Letter from Norman Weir, Yanmar Diesel

America Corp., to Don Kopinski, Environmental

Protection Agency, March 10, 1997 (Docket A–96–

40, II–D–27).

Agency recognizes several constraints,

including the need for a very extensive

effort to develop revised test cycles, the

importance of the objective of

maintaining harmonization of

international standards, and the need to

re-evaluate the numerical standards

with any change in the test procedure.

Also, because of the time required to

develop revised test cycles and the

additional time for engine

manufacturers to redesign engines with

a new procedure, any change in the test

cycle would likely not apply before the

implementation of Tier 3 standards.

EPA requests comment on appropriate

test cycles for nonroad diesel engines.

2. Test Fuel

In the 1994 final rule, EPA allowed

manufacturers to test for certification of

PM emission levels using the low-sulfur

test fuel specified by the California ARB

for nonroad diesel engines. EPA’s

objective was to minimize any

difference from the protocol previously

established for California, because EPA

finalized PM standards for engines rated

over 130 kW only in response to

industry’s request to adopt California’s

PM standard, which was not considered

technology-forcing. Under current

regulations, testing with federal test fuel

involves an optional adjustment of

measured PM levels to account for the

higher PM emissions associated with

the higher fuel sulfur content.

EPA is now proposing PM standards

that are expected to provide meaningful

reductions from all sizes of engines used

nationwide. The Clean Air Act

accordingly requires EPA to ensure that

the test procedure, including fuel

specifications, adequately represent inuse operation. Typical nonroad diesel

fuel sulfur levels outside of California

are about 0.33 weight percent, though

nonroad equipment to some degree

utilizes highway fuels, which have a

maximum allowable sulfur level of 0.05

weight percent.23 California extends the

0.05 weight percent limit to include

both highway and nonroad diesel fuel.

Using the calculated adjustment to PM

emission levels for fuel sulfur finalized

in 1994, the difference between 0.33 and

0.05 weight percent would correlate

with a difference of 0.06 g/kW-hr (0.05

g/hp-hr) in PM emission levels. To the

extent that in-use emissions are higher

with high-sulfur fuel, regulated engines

could be operating at levels that

significantly exceed certification

standards. This raises concerns

regarding whether the test fuel is

representative of in-use fuels. EPA

therefore proposes to require that,

beginning with Tier 2 emission

standards (Tier 1 standards for engines

rated under 37 kW), testing with fuel

based on federal specifications be

conducted without use of any

adjustment to measured PM levels.

Testing for NOX, HC, CO, and smoke is

not affected, since the 1994 final rule

already specified that federal test fuel

was appropriate without adjustment for

measuring emissions of those

pollutants.

Manufacturers’ likely continued

interest in using California’s test fuel is

consistent with EPA’s goal of

harmonizing certification requirements

where possible. EPA will therefore

continue this practice as an option for

manufacturers. The Agency requests

comment on whether there should be an

upward adjustment to measured PM

levels when engines are tested with lowsulfur fuel. EPA also requests comment

on the appropriate form of such a PM

adjustment. The current equation for

adjusting PM measurements depends on

the relationship of PM emission levels

to fuel sulfur content and could

therefore be modified to adjust PM

measurements from testing with lowsulfur fuel. Such a calculation would

require selection of a representative inuse fuel sulfur level.

One possible resolution would be to

adopt the sulfur specification used for

European testing. European test fuel

specifications include a fuel sulfur level

between 0.1 and 0.2 weight percent

sulfur. Testing with fuel sulfur levels

between 0.05 and 0.1 weight percent are

allowed, but are adjusted upward using

the same adjustment equation specified

by EPA, referenced to a test fuel with

0.15 weight percent sulfur.

EPA currently specifies test fuel with

a range in fuel sulfur levels from 0.05

to 0.5 weight percent. EPA solicits

information related to sulfur levels

found in in-use fuels, including the

degree to which nonroad equipment

utilizes highway-grade diesel fuel. EPA

will accordingly consider changes to the

test fuel specifications to ensure that the

test fuel is representative of that used in

the field.

Whether or not the manufacturers

utilize low-sulfur test fuels and any

associated adjustment, EPA would

intend to conduct confirmatory testing

with federal test fuels, which would not

involve any adjustment to measured PM

levels.

C. Durability

To achieve the full benefit of the

emissions standards, programs are

necessary to encourage manufacturers to

design and build engines with durable

emission controls and encourage the

proper maintenance and repair of

engines throughout their lifetime. The

goal is for engines to maintain good

emission performance throughout their

in-use operation.

When the Tier 1 standards for engines

rated over 37 kW were developed,

deterioration was not expected to be a

problem for two reasons. First, the Tier

1 standards were not considered by EPA

to be technology forcing. Second, the

focus was on NOX control and NOX

emissions were thought not to

deteriorate from these engines. As a

result, there are few requirements in the

current regulations that address

deterioration concerns for nonroad

diesel engines. As tighter standards are

put into place, EPA believes that it

becomes necessary to adopt measures to

address concerns about possible in-use

emission performance degradation.

EPA is proposing to make some

changes to the existing durability

program, as the new standards are

phased in, to help ensure that engines

are still meeting applicable standards in

use. The specific areas of the durability

program that are being focused on here

are useful life, warranty period,

deterioration factors, allowable

maintenance intervals, and rebuilding

requirements.

a. Useful Life

Currently, nonroad diesel engines

rated over 37 kW are defined, for

emission control purposes, to have a

useful life of 8,000 hours or 10 years,

whichever occurs first. The in-use

testing liability period is currently 6,000

hours or 7 years, whichever occurs first.

Based on a study performed for EPA,

this is representative of the average time

until first rebuild for the majority of

nonroad diesel engines.24 EPA is

proposing no changes to these

requirements.

EPA proposes a shorter useful life and

liability period for engines rated under

37 kW. Based on EPA’s current

understanding, the smaller engines have

a shorter life expectancy than larger

engines. This is supported by data

supplied to EPA on two small engines.25

According to comments received from

some manufacturers, engines rated

under 37 kW that operate at higher rated
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50163

26Letter from Dr. Hartmut Mayer, Euromot, to

Donald Kopinski, Environmental Protection

Agency, January 16, 1997 (Docket A–96–40, II–D–

32).

speeds (<3000 rpm) have a shorter life

expectancy than engines rated under 37

kW that operate at lower speeds.26 EPA

believes that these comments are

reasonable. Table 2 presents the

proposed useful lives and in-use testing

liability periods. EPA requests comment

on the appropriateness of the proposed

useful lives for engines rated under 37

kW (land-based and marine). EPA is

also interested in any durability data on

nonroad diesel engines, especially those

rated under 37 kW.

TABLE 2.—PROPOSED USEFUL LIFE AND RECALL TESTING PERIODS

Power

rating Rated engine speed

Useful life Recall

testing

period

Hours

Hours Years Years

< 19 kW .... All ................................................................................................................................................ 3000 5 2250 4

19–37kW .. Constant speed engines 3000 rpm ............................................................................................ 3000 5 2250 4

All others .................................................................................................................................... 5000 7 3750 5

Liability periods were proposed based

on the ratio of useful life and liability

periods established for engines rated

over 37 kW. The purpose of the shorter

liability periods is to ensure that

engines used in recall testing are not

statistical outliers with poor emissions

durability. If a recall were ordered, all

engines in that family would be subject

to the recall regardless of their age.

EPA also requests comment on the

appropriateness of basing the useful life

on the typical time until first rebuild.

The ICF report cited above reports that

the average time until retirement for

nonroad diesel engines is between

12,000 and 14,000 hours. According to

this information, no one would be liable

for the emission performance of these

engines for a large percentage of their

overall operation. EPA understands,

however, that an appropriate useful life

is needed to protect manufacturers from

recall testing being based on engines

that continue to perform beyond the

emission control design life and are not

representative of typical use.

b. Warranty Period

Tied to the useful life is the minimum

warranty period imposed by the Clean

Air Act. Currently, the minimum

warranty period for nonroad diesel

engines rated over 37 kW is 3,000 hours

or 5 years of use, whichever occurs first.

EPA proposes to extend this minimum

warranty period to engines rated

between 19 and 37 kW; however, for

engines rated under 19 kW, EPA

proposes a warranty period of 1,500

hours or 3 years, whichever occurs first.

A shorter warranty for engines rated

under 19 kW is proposed due to the

shorter useful lives, and the three year

warranty period for small engines is

consistent with current warranty

practice. EPA requests comment on the

appropriateness of the proposed

warranty period.

c. Deterioration Factors

In the Tier 1 nonroad engine rule,

EPA did not require manufacturers to

accumulate operating time on durability

data engines or to generate deterioration

factors for engine certification because

that rule focused almost entirely on

modest reductions in NOX emissions.

Analysis of highway engine data at that

time led EPA to conclude that heavyduty diesel engines do not generally

produce more NOX emissions as they

get older. EPA believes that this stability

of emission control can be attributed to

the fact that diesel engine manufacturers

have met emission standards through

internal improvements to the engine

and fuel systems, rather than relying on

aftertreatment and other devices that

would be more susceptible to in-use

degradation. In fact, engine

deterioration in current technology

nonroad diesel engines could result in

lower NOX emission levels due to a loss

in cylinder compression.

As NOX, HC, and PM standards are

reduced and nonroad diesel engine

manufacturers introduce new

technologies solely for emission control

purposes, such as aftertreatment,

sophisticated fuel delivery controls, and

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), longterm emissions performance becomes a

greater concern. In addition, emission

deterioration characteristics are not well

known for aftertreatment, EGR, and

other more sophisticated emissioncontrol strategies.

EPA proposes to require the

application of a deterioration factor (DF)

to all engines covered by this rule. The

DF is a factor applied to the certification

emission test data to represent

emissions at the end of the useful life of

the engine. Currently, DFs are required

for highway heavy-duty engines but are

only required for nonroad diesel engines

rated over 37 kW if engines use

aftertreatment technologies.

Deterioration factors would be

determined by the engine manufacturers

in accordance with good engineering

practices. EPA is not proposing a

specified procedure. The deterioration

factors would, however, be subject to

EPA approval. EPA requests comment

on the need for and application of DFs.

It is not EPA’s intent to force a great

deal of data gathering on engines using

established technology for which the

manufacturers have the experience to

develop appropriate DFs. New DF

testing may not be needed where

sufficient data already exists. EPA’s

main interest is that technologies with

unproven durability in nonroad

applications, such as EGR, are

demonstrated to meet the proposed

emission requirements throughout their

useful lives. However, because this rule

creates a program that will introduce

new standards and new technologies

over many years, the DF requirement is

being proposed for all engines so that

EPA can be sure that reasonable

methods are being used to ascertain the

capability of engines to meet standards

throughout their useful lives. This

proposed DF program would allow EPA

to act in the traditional role of

establishing emission performance

standards, rather than putting EPA in a

position where it would appear to be

prejudging the durability of specific

technologies and designs.

Similar to the provisions for highway

engines, EPA proposes to allow the

nonroad engine manufacturers the

flexibility of using carryover and

carryacross of durability emission data

from a similar engine that has either

been certified to the same standard or

for which all of the data applicable for

certification has been submitted. In

addition, EPA proposes to extend this

flexibility to allow deterioration data

from highway engines to be used for

similar nonroad engine families.

EPA is especially concerned that an

unnecessarily burdensome durability
50164 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

27 40 CFR 89.1007.

28Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Control of

Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway HeavyDuty Engines; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,’’ 61

FR 33421, June 27, 1996.

demonstration not be required for

engines using established technology for

which the manufacturers have the

experience to determine appropriate

deterioration factors. In these cases, EPA

proposes to allow nonroad engine

manufacturers to perform an analysis,

based on good engineering practices, in

place of actual service accumulation.

For instance, in the case where no

durability data exists for a certain

engine but both smaller and larger

engines using similar technology have

been shown not to deteriorate for NOX

in use, it would be possible to build a

case showing no NOX deterioration for

that engine.

EPA proposes that engines using

established technology, for the purposes

of this program, are engines that do not

meet the proposed Tier 3 NMHC+NOX

and PM emission standards. However,

EPA specifically proposes to exclude

engines using exhaust gas recirculation

or aftertreatment from being considered

as using established technology. In the

case where a manufacturer believes that

a given engine is using established

technology even though it meets the

Tier 3 NMHC+NOX and PM levels, EPA

proposes that, prior to applying for

certification, the manufacturer would be

able to petition the Administrator to

consider the given engine as using

established technology.

In the past, in on-highway engine

certification, durability data have been

used for many years through carryover

and carryacross of data. One concern is

that, with repeated incremental changes

in a nonroad engine design, the data

would become unrepresentative for the

engine applying for certification. EPA

requests comment on how to ensure that

carryover and carryacross data is

appropriate (for example, by including

limit on how long data could be used).

EPA also requests comment on

alternatives to the durability program

described here which would result in

better, and more cost-effective,

confirmation of in-use emissions

performance.

d. Allowable Maintenance Intervals

Manufacturers are currently required

to furnish the ultimate purchaser of

each new nonroad engine with written

instructions for the maintenance needed

to ensure proper functioning of the

emission control system. Generally,

manufacturers require the owners to

perform this maintenance as a condition

of their emission warranties. If such

required maintenance is more than the

engine owner is likely to perform due to

cost or inconvenience, then in-use

emissions deterioration can result. For

highway diesel engines, EPA imposes

limits on the frequency of maintenance

that can be required of the engine

owners for emission-related items; these

limits also apply to the engine

manufacturer during engine certification

and durability testing. Further, the

performance of maintenance would be

considered during any in-use recall

testing conducted by the Agency.

Currently, EPA specifies no minimum

allowable maintenance intervals for

nonroad diesel engines. EPA believes,

however, that allowable maintenance

intervals for nonroad engines are

necessary to ensure that the technology

is practical in use. Because the actual

maintenance intervals for nonroad

engines are likely to be similar to

highway engines, EPA believes that

maintenance requirements should

parallel those for highway engines (40

CFR 86.094–25). EPA therefore proposes

the following minimum intervals for

adjustment, cleaning, repair, or

replacement of various components.

At 1,500 hours and 1,500 hour

intervals thereafter:

1. EGR related filters and coolers.

2. Positive crankcase ventilation

valve.

3. Fuel injector tips (cleaning only).

At 3,000 hours and 3,000-hour

intervals thereafter for engines rated

under 130 kW, 4,500-hour intervals

thereafter for engines rated over 130 kW:

1. Fuel injectors.

2. Turbocharger.

3. Electronic engine control unit and

its associated sensors and actuators.

4. PM trap or trap-oxidizer system.

5. EGR system (including all related

control valves and tubing).

6. Catalytic convertor.

7. Any other add-on emissions-related

component.

Add-on emission-related components

are those whose sole or primary purpose

is to reduce emissions or whose failure

will significantly degrade emission

control, yet not significantly affect the

performance of the engine.

Consistent with the definition for

highway engine maintenance

requirements, EPA proposes to define

the following components as critical

emission-related components:

1. Catalytic convertor.

2. Electronic engine control unit and

its associated sensors and actuators.

3. EGR system (including all related

filters, coolers, control valves and

tubing).

4. PM trap or trap-oxidizer system.

5. Any other add-on emissions-related

component.

If maintenance is scheduled on

critical emission-related components inuse, EPA proposes that the

manufacturer be required to show the

reasonable likelihood that the

maintenance will be performed in-use.

In the proposed regulations, EPA lists

the same manufacturer options for

showing that maintenance is likely to be

performed in-use as are currently

included in the highway program. This

list includes showing that performance

would degrade without maintenance,

survey data showing that the

maintenance is performed, using a

visible signal system, free maintenance

provided by the manufacturer, and other

methods approved by the

Administrator.

EPA requests comment on the need

for allowable maintenance intervals and

the appropriateness of the intervals

proposed here. EPA also requests

comment on the appropriateness and

need for the proposed critical emissionrelated scheduled maintenance

requirements.

e. Rebuilding Requirements

EPA has two concerns regarding the

rebuilding of nonroad diesel engines,

both related to new emission-related

components that may be added to the

engine to meet the new standards. First,

EPA is concerned that during engine

rebuilding, there may not be an

incentive to check and repair emission

controls that do not affect engine

performance. Second, EPA is concerned

that there may be an incentive to rebuild

engines to an older configuration due to

real or perceived performance penalties

associated with technologies that would

be used to meet the standards proposed

in this notice. Such practices would

likely result in a loss in emission

control.

Under the current program, there are

no specific rebuilding requirements for

nonroad diesel engines. However, there

is a tampering provision that states ‘‘the

manufacturer or rebuilder of the part

may certify according to 40 CFR 85.2112

that use of the part will not result in a

failure of the engine to comply with

emission standards.’’ 27 For highway

engines, engine rebuilding practices are

currently addressed in general terms

under EPA policies established under

Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3)

regarding tampering. Under a separate

action for highway heavy-duty engines,

EPA has proposed to add the highway

policies to the regulations as they apply

to tampering and has also proposed new

measures.28 EPA’s intent is to propose

the same rebuilding requirements for

nonroad diesel engines as those
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50165

proposed to be put into place for heavyduty highway engines starting with the

2004 model year.

EPA proposes that parties involved in

the process of rebuilding or

remanufacturing engines (which may

include the removal of the engine,

rebuilding, assembly, reinstallation and

other acts associated with engine

rebuilding) must follow the provisions

listed below to avoid tampering with the

engine and emission controls. The

applicability for these provisions is

proposed to be based on the build date

of the engine. The rebuild requirements

apply to any engine built on or after the

date that new standards, proposed in

this rule, go into effect for a specific

engine category, regardless of the

emission levels that the engine is

designed to achieve.

(1) EPA proposes that, during engine

rebuilding, parties involved must have a

reasonable technical basis for knowing

that the rebuilt engine is equivalent,

from an emissions standpoint, to a

certified configuration (i.e., tolerances,

calibrations, and specifications).

(2) When an engine is being rebuilt

and remains installed or is reinstalled in

the same piece of equipment, it must be

rebuilt to a configuration of the same or

later model year as the original engine.

When an engine is being replaced, the

replacement engine must be an engine

of (or rebuilt to) a configuration of the

same or later model year as the original

engine.

(3) At the time of rebuild, emissionrelated codes or signals from on-board

monitoring systems may not be erased

or reset without diagnosing and

responding appropriately to the

diagnostic codes. Diagnostic systems

must be free of all such codes when the

rebuilt engines are returned to service.

Further, such signals may not be

rendered inoperative during the

rebuilding process.

(4) When conducting an in-frame

rebuild or the installation of a rebuilt

engine, all emission-related components

not otherwise addressed by the above

provisions must be checked and

cleaned, repaired, or replaced where

necessary, following manufacturer

recommended practices.

Under this proposal, any person or

entity engaged in the process, in whole

or part, of rebuilding engines who fails

to comply with the above provisions

may be liable for tampering. Parties

would be responsible for the activities

over which they have control and as

such there may be more than one

responsible party for a single engine in

cases where different parties perform

different tasks during the engine

rebuilding process (e.g., engine rebuild,

full engine assembly, installation). EPA

is not proposing any certification or inuse emissions requirements for the

rebuilder or engine owner. EPA requests

comment on the appropriateness of

applying this rebuild program to

nonroad engines.

EPA is proposing to adopt modest

record keeping requirements that EPA

believes are in line with customary

business practices. The records would

be kept by persons involved in the

process of nonroad engine rebuilding or

remanufacturing and shall include the

hours at time of rebuild and a list of the

work performed on the engine and

related emission control systems,

including a list of replacement parts

used, engine parameter adjustments,

design element changes, and work

performed as described in item (4) of the

rebuild provisions above. EPA proposes

that such records be kept for two years

after the engine is rebuilt.

Under this proposal, parties would be

required to keep the information for two

years but would be allowed to use

whatever format or system they choose,

provided that the information can be

readily understood by an EPA

enforcement officer. EPA proposes that

parties would not be required to keep

information that they do not have access

to as part of normal business practice.

In cases where it is customary practice

to keep records for engine families

rather than specific engines, where the

engines within that family are being

rebuilt or remanufactured to an

identical configuration, such record

keeping practices are proposed to be

satisfactory. Rebuilders would be able to

use records such as build lists, parts

lists, and engineering parameters that

they keep of the engine families being

rebuilt rather than on individual

engines, provided that each engine is

rebuilt in the same way to those

specifications. EPA requests comments

on the appropriateness of the proposed

record keeping requirements including

whether the records should be kept for

a longer period of time such as for five

years.

D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

With this notice, EPA is proposing to

replace the existing nonroad engine

averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)

program with a comprehensive new

program. The proposed program is

intended to enhance the flexibility

offered to engine manufacturers that

will be needed in meeting the stringent

NMHC + NOX standards and the PM

standards being proposed. The proposed

changes to the ABT program have been

made in tandem with the proposed

emission standards. This allows EPA to

propose the most stringent emission

standards that should apply with the

proposed ABT program, while

providing the flexibility and cost

benefits to manufacturers who have to

meet the technical challenges of the

lower standards. It should be noted that

as part of the 2001 feasibility review

described earlier, the Agency plans to

reassess the appropriateness of the

averaging, banking, and trading

provisions applicable to nonroad diesel

engines and modify the provisions if

deemed necessary.

The proposed changes come in the

context of the existing ABT program for

nonroad engines, which was adopted in

1994 (see 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994).

The existing program covers diesel

engines rated over 37 kW and is

available for NOX emissions only. The

three aspects of the ABT program

(averaging, banking, and trading) are

described in the following paragraphs.

Averaging means the exchange of

emission credits among engine families

within a given engine manufacturer’s

product line. Averaging allows a

manufacturer to certify one or more

engine families at levels above the

applicable emission standard (but below

a set upper limit). However, the

increased emissions must be offset by

one or more engine families within that

manufacturer’s product line certified

below the same emission standard, such

that the average emissions from all the

manufacturer’s families (weighted by

engine power and production volume)

are at or below the level of the emission

standard. Averaging results are

calculated for each specific model year.

The mechanism by which this is

accomplished is certification of the

engine family to a ‘‘family emission

limit’’ (FEL) set by the manufacturer,

which may be above or below the

standard. An FEL that is established

above the standard may not exceed an

upper limit specified in the ABT

regulations. Once an engine family is

certified to an FEL, that FEL becomes

the enforceable emissions limit used to

determine compliance during assembly

line testing and in-use compliance

testing.

Banking means the retention of

emission credits by the engine

manufacturer generating the credits for

use in future model year averaging or

trading. Under the existing program,

banked credits have a three year life.

EPA believes banking improves the

feasibility of meeting standards,

including the development and early

introduction of advanced emission

control technology, which allows

certain engine families to act as trail

blazers for new technology. This can
50166 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

help provide valuable information to

manufacturers on the technology prior

to manufacturers needing to apply the

technology throughout their product

line. It can also provide valuable

information for use in other regulatory

programs. An incentive for early

introduction arises because the banked

credits can subsequently be used by the

manufacturer to ease the compliance

burden of new, more stringent

standards.

Trading means the exchange of

emission credits between engine

manufacturers which can then be used

for averaging purposes, banked for

future use, or traded to another engine

manufacturer. Trading can be

advantageous to smaller manufacturers

who might have limited opportunity to

optimize their costs through the use of

averaging. Trading can also be

advantageous to larger manufacturers

because extending the effective

averaging set through trading can allow

for overall optimization of costs across

manufacturers.

As described later in this section, EPA

is proposing significant changes to the

existing ABT program for nonroad

diesel engines. Behind these changes is

the recognition that the proposed

standards represent a major

technological challenge to the industry.

ABT provisions can ease the need to

bring all engines into compliance during

the exact year the proposed new

standards would take effect by allowing

credits to be used, for example, to

temporarily offset emissions from some

particularly difficult to control engine

line. While the existing ABT provisions

were designed with these same general

goals in mind, EPA believes that the

nature of the challenge presented by

standards proposed in this notice

justifies efforts to increase the flexibility

of the ABT program. The Agency wishes

to maximize the flexibility and

incentives for early introduction of

technology which ABT offers without

limiting the air quality benefits of the

proposed standards. This will help

ensure that the proposed new standards

will, in fact, be attainable for the

manufacturers, will be met at the lowest

cost, and will still achieve the expected

emissions benefit from the proposed

standards.

The ABT program contained in this

proposal would apply to all nonroad

diesel engines covered by this notice.

The following discussion of the

proposed ABT provisions is divided

into two sections. The first section

describes the proposed provisions for

engines rated over 37 kW. The second

section describes the proposed

provisions for those engines rated under

37 kW, including land-based and

marine engines, both of which are

currently unregulated by EPA. Readers

are encouraged to review the draft

regulations for a fuller understanding of

how the proposed ABT program would

operate. In addition to those areas

specifically highlighted, the Agency

solicits comments on all aspects of the

proposed ABT changes, including

comments on the benefit of these

changes to manufacturers in meeting the

proposed emission standards and any

potential air quality impacts which

might be associated with them.

1. Proposed Program for Engines Rated

Greater Than or Equal to 37 kW

EPA is proposing to implement

several new provisions upon

finalization of the proposed standards.

The following section is divided into

two subsections and describes the

proposed changes to the ABT program

for engines greater than or equal to 37

kW. The first subsection describes the

general provisions applicable to all

engines. The second subsection

describes several provisions specific to

engines certified to the existing Tier 1

standards for engines greater than or

equal to 37 kW.

i. General Provisions: Beginning with

the proposed Tier 2 standards, the form

of the standard changes from separate

HC and NOX standards to a combined

NMHC + NOX standard. Therefore, once

the proposed Tier 2 standards take

effect, credits will be based on

combined NMHC + NOX values. In the

Tier 2 time frame, NMHC + NOX credits

will be generated against the proposed

Tier 2 standards, which vary from 6.4 to

7.5 g/kW-hr (4.8 to 5.6 g/hp-hr),

depending on the power rating of the

engine. In the Tier 3 time frame, NMHC

+ NOX credits will be generated against

the proposed Tier 3 standards, which

vary from 4.0 to 4.7 g/kW-hr (3.0 to 3.5

g/hp-hr), depending on the power rating

of the engine.

The existing Tier 1 ABT program for

nonroad engines does not cover PM

emissions. Based on the certification

levels of Tier 1 engines, the Tier 2 PM

standards contained in the proposal will

require manufacturers to reduce the PM

levels of their engines. In addition, the

proposed NMHC + NOX standards will

affect the manufacturer’s ability to

comply with the proposed PM standards

due to the tradeoff between NOX

emissions and PM emissions which

exists for diesel engines. Therefore,

beginning with the introduction of Tier

2 engines, EPA is proposing to include

PM emissions in the ABT program in

order to provide manufacturers with

greater flexibility in complying with the

proposed PM standards. (As described

later, EPA is proposing to allow the

early banking of PM credits from Tier 1

engines under certain conditions.) All

PM credits will be generated against the

proposed Tier 2 standards until EPA

adopts subsequent PM standards.

Because EPA is proposing to include

both NMHC + NOX and PM in the ABT

program, EPA is also proposing to

prohibit manufacturers from generating

credits on one pollutant while using

credits on another pollutant all on the

same engine family. EPA believes such

a provision is important given the

tradeoff between NOX and PM

emissions which exists for diesel

engines.

As discussed earlier, EPA is planning

to assess the adequacy of the current

steady-state test procedure in an effort

to determine if the expected emission

benefits are being realized in use. EPA

is concerned that PM reductions

required on the current steady-state

certification test will not result in

similar reductions in use and could

possibly, under some situations, even

result in an increase in in-use

emissions. Given the lack of sufficient

information to confirm these concerns,

EPA still believes it is appropriate to

include PM emissions in the ABT

program at this time. However, should

EPA determine that the current test

procedure is inadequate and the

expected in-use emission benefits are

indeed not being fully realized, it

would, of course, be inappropriate to

allow the unconsidered use of credits

generated under the current test

procedure to demonstrate compliance

under a future, more appropriate test

procedure. EPA would therefore need to

reassess the appropriateness of the PM

provisions for any Tier 3 standards,

taking into consideration the amount of

credits generated up to that point or

taking the expected credit balances into

account in setting the Tier 3 PM

standard levels.

EPA is also proposing FEL upper

limits that go with these new proposed

standards. EPA believes the proposed

FEL upper limits provide the

manufacturers adequate compliance

flexibility while protecting against the

introduction of unnecessarily highemitting engines. EPA requests

comment on the appropriateness of the

proposed upper limits. EPA is

proposing a NMHC + NOX FEL upper

limit of 10.5 g/kW-hr (7.9 g/HP-hr) for

engines greater than or equal to 130 kW

certified in the Tier 2 time frame. The

proposed NMHC + NOX FEL upper limit

is based on the existing Tier 1 NOX and

HC standards of 9.2 and 1.3 g/kW-hr

(6.9 and 1.0 g/HP-hr), respectively.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50167

29 ‘‘Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study’’

(NEVES), U.S. EPA, EPA Report Number 21A–2001,

November 1991 (available in Air Docket A–96–40).

30There are a wide range of load factors for inuse nonroad diesel engines which are a result of the

wide variation of nonroad equipment applications.

However, EPA believes that any attempt to track

these load factors for the purposes of credit

calculations would be overly burdensome and

would have no real emissions benefit since the

credits are only allowed to be used in within the

nonroad ABT program.

Engines between 37 and 130 kW do not

currently have to show compliance with

an HC standard. However, data from

those engines currently certified with

EPA show that these engines are below

the 1.3 g/kW-hr (1.0 g/HP-hr) HC level.

Therefore, EPA is proposing the same

NMHC + NOX FEL upper limit of 10.5

g/kW-hr for Tier 2 engines greater than

or equal to 37 kW and less than 130 kW.

For Tier 3 engine families, EPA

proposes that the NMHC + NOX FEL

upper limit be the Tier 2 NMHC + NOX

standards for the same power category

of engines.

For PM, EPA is proposing a PM FEL

upper limit of 0.54 g/kW-hr (0.40 g/HPhr) for engines greater than or equal to

130 kW certified in the Tier 2 time

frame. The proposed PM FEL upper

limit is based on the existing Tier 1 PM

standard. Engines between 37 and 130

kW do not currently have to show

compliance with a PM standard.

Therefore, EPA is proposing a PM FEL

upper limit of 1.2 g/kW-hr for Tier 2

engines greater than or equal to 37 kW

and less than 130 kW. This level

represents a typical PM level for

uncontrolled engines based on an EPA

report.29 (EPA is not proposing a PM

FEL upper limit beyond Tier 2 because

EPA is not proposing Tier 3 PM

standards at this time.)

Upon finalization of the new

standards, EPA is proposing to replace

the three year credit life provision of the

existing ABT program with no limit on

credit life. EPA believes that unlimited

life is warranted given the stringency of

the proposed standards. An unlimited

credit life will promote the feasibility of

the proposed standards because it

increases the value of the credit to the

manufacturer by providing greater

flexibility. It is consistent with the

emission reduction goal of ABT, not

only because of the increased

manufacturer incentive but also because

it eliminates the ‘‘use or lose’’ aspect of

the existing program’s limit on credit

life which creates the perverse incentive

for manufacturers to use credits as

quickly as possible. As a result, unused

credits, which are extra emission

reductions beyond what the EPA

regulations require, may remain off the

market longer. EPA also believes that

removing credit life limits for the

cleaner engines will provide maximum

incentive for the development and

introduction of clean engines with

emission levels approaching the

research objectives of the Nonroad

Statement of Principles which are 2.0 g/

kW-hr (1.5 g/hp-hr) NOX and 0.07 g/kWhr (0.05 g/hp-hr) PM.

EPA is proposing to eliminate the

‘‘buy high/sell low’’ power conversion

factor provision of the existing ABT

regulations and to replace it with the

sales-weighted average power value

beginning in Tier 2. Currently, when a

manufacturer generates credits, the

credits are based on the minimum

power configuration in a family. When

a manufacturer goes to use credits, the

credits are based on the maximum

power configuration in the family. In

other words, credit generation is

calculated based on the configuration

which generates the least benefit within

the family while credit use is based on

the configuration which requires the

most credits to comply. In some cases

this can result in a sizeable offset. Based

on experience with the ABT program for

highway heavy-duty engines, EPA does

not believe such an offset is necessary.

This provision tends to introduce a

penalty for credit generating engines,

thus reducing the benefits of the ABT

program for manufacturers. Therefore,

EPA proposes to base both credit

generation calculations and credit usage

calculations on the sales-weighted

average power values within each

engine family. EPA has already

proposed to incorporate this same

change into the highway heavy-duty

diesel engine ABT program (61 FR

33421, June 27, 1996) and requests

comment on the appropriateness of such

a change for the nonroad ABT program.

EPA is proposing to include an

adjustment in the calculation of credits

for the useful life of the engine. The

existing ABT program does not include

any adjustment for useful life to the

credit calculations. All engines covered

under the Tier 1 standards were

assumed to have the same useful life of

8,000 hours. Therefore, in light of the

fact that manufacturers are allowed to

use credits across all power categories

under the existing Tier 1 program, it

was not necessary to adjust the value of

the credits for different engine lifetimes.

However, as discussed earlier, EPA is

proposing to adopt useful life periods

for engines below 37 kW that vary from

3,000 hours to 5,000 hours. In addition,

as discussed later, EPA is also proposing

to allow ABT credits to be used across

some of the power categories where

useful life will vary. Therefore, in order

to appropriately determine the relative

value of credits generated and the

relative amount of credits used by

different engines over their regulatory

lifetime, EPA is proposing to include

useful life in the equations used to

calculate credits generated or credits

used under the ABT program.

Another factor applied in the highway

heavy-duty engine program that EPA is

not proposing to include in the credit

calculation for the nonroad program is

related to engine load factor. Load factor

refers to the percentage of maximum

power at which an engine operates. An

engine class that operates at a higher

load would burn more fuel, and

therefore, generate more emissions

during an hour of operation. Including

the load factor in the equation would

lead to a more accurate estimation of inuse emissions and would be necessary

if EPA were proposing to allow credits

from the nonroad ABT program to be

transferred to other emission trading

programs, such as the Open Market

Trading Program. No adjustment to the

credit calculations for load factor is

proposed under this rule because there

do not appear to be distinct and varied

load factors for different types of

engines regulated under this rule. 30 As

an indicator, the D2 and G2 test cycles

have load factors of about 47% and the

C1 test cycle has a load factor that is

generally around 50±5%. However, the

decision not to propose the inclusion of

a load factor term to the credit

calculations should not be interpreted to

mean that this factor would not be

appropriate for any future efforts. For

example, marine engines have two very

distinct engine applications:

recreational and commercial.

Commercial marine engines often have

useful lives ten times longer and load

factors two times greater than

recreational marine engines. As noted

below, EPA’s diesel marine rule is

currently under development and may

need to address these differences as part

of that proposal.

As discussed later in more detail in

the equipment manufacturer flexibility

section, EPA is proposing that engine

manufacturers be given the option to

trade the NMHC + NOX and PM credits

generated by their engines to equipment

manufacturers. Equipment

manufacturers could use these credits to

increase their options under the

equipment manufacturer flexibility

provisions.

There are two remaining areas on

which EPA is requesting comment.

First, EPA requests comment on the

inclusion of engines certified to meet

the State of California’s standards in the
50168 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

proposed ABT program. Currently,

manufacturers may not include engines

certified for California in the ABT

program. Although the California ARB

is expected to adopt the same standards

that EPA is proposing today, they have

not yet proposed such changes to their

diesel nonroad program. Therefore, EPA

does not believe that it can propose to

include such engines in the revised ABT

program at this time without knowing

the full details of California’s program.

Second, EPA is requesting comment

on whether there should be restrictions

on trading PM credits across the

different power categories for which

EPA is proposing standards. Based on

the emission levels of Tier 1 engines

certified with EPA, the PM levels of

engines between 75 and 130 kW appear

to be similar to those of engines between

130 and 560 kW. (At this point, EPA has

very little PM emissions data on engines

between 37 and 75 kW that are required

to be certified by January 1998.) Under

the proposal, the Tier 2 PM standards

for engines less than 130 kW will be

higher than the Tier 2 PM standards for

engines greater than 130 kW. Based on

the limited certification information,

EPA has concerns that engines in one

power category could generate PM

credits against higher standards and

then use those credits for showing

compliance with another power

category of engines with a lower

standard. For this reason, EPA is

requesting comment on limiting the use

of PM credits to the power category in

which the credits were generated.

ii. Special Provisions for Tier 1

Engines: As described above, EPA is

proposing to replace the existing ABT

program with a comprehensive new

program. Based on EPA’s experience

with Tier 1 certification and because of

implementation differences between the

existing Tier 1 provisions and the

proposed Tier 2 and later provisions,

EPA is proposing two changes that will

specifically affect engines certified to

the existing Tier 1 standards. First, EPA

is proposing a methodology for

calculating NOX credits earned with

Tier 1 engines that can be used for

showing compliance with the proposed

Tier 2 NMHC + NOX standards. Second,

EPA is proposing to allow engine

manufacturers to bank early PM credits

that can be used once the proposed Tier

2 standards take effect. Both of these

proposed changes are described in more

detail below. The proposed changes in

the general provisions, described above,

including the unlimited life, use of

average power for credit calculations,

and useful life adjustment, will also

apply to engines certified to the existing

Tier 1 engines. EPA believes these

changes are warranted for Tier 1 engines

given the stringency of the proposed

standards. Also these proposed changes

are consistent with the feasibility of the

proposed standards because they

increase the value of the credits to the

manufacturer by providing greater

flexibility.

With regard to the generation of NOX

credits from engines certified to the

existing Tier 1 standards, EPA is

proposing to continue to allow

manufacturers to earn NOX credits, but

not NMHC + NOX credits. The NOX

credits earned on engines certified to

the existing Tier 1 standards could be

used to show compliance with the

proposed Tier 2 NMHC + NOX

standards. Under the existing Tier 1

regulations, manufacturers are required

to meet separate HC and NOX standards.

However, as noted earlier, beginning

with the proposed Tier 2 standards, the

form of the standard changes to a

combined NMHC + NOX standard.

Based on EPA certification information

for engines between 130 and 560 kW,

the sales-weighted average HC levels of

Tier 1 engines are 0.5 g/kW-hr, well

below the 1.3 g/kW-hr standard. EPA

believes the Tier 1 HC standard did not

require manufacturers to reduce HC

emissions, and therefore, allowing

manufacturers to earn NMHC + NOX

credits against the combined Tier 1 HC

and NOX standards would provide

manufacturers with false HC credits. For

this reason, EPA is proposing to allow

manufacturers to earn NOX credits, and

not NMHC + NOX credits, on Tier 1

engines.

With regard to the calculation of NOX

credits from Tier 1 engines that are to

be banked or traded, EPA is proposing

that an adjustment be made in the

calculation unless the engine on which

the credits were earned is below the

applicable standards by a specified

amount. EPA believes an adjustment to

the NOX credits from certain Tier 1

engines is necessary to prevent the

possibility of a significant delay in the

introduction of engines meeting the

proposed Tier 2 NMHC + NOX

standards. Based on certification

information for current Tier 1 nonroad

engines, if EPA allowed engine

manufacturers to generate NOX credits

against the Tier 1 standard from all

engines, they could potentially generate

a large number of NOX credits, and

thereby significantly delay compliance

with the proposed Tier 2 standards.

Furthermore, the smaller incremental

reductions from those engines only

slightly below the standard are less

likely to represent the cleaner, pullahead technologies which ABT is

designed to encourage. However, these

smaller credits do represent early

reductions and do have some value

given the stringency of the Tier 2

standards.

EPA is proposing to implement a

trigger as a mechanism to distinguish

between Tier 1 engine families which

are eligible for no adjustment and those

families which must be adjusted. For

engine families certified with a NOX

FEL at or below 8.0 g/kW-hr NOX, no

adjustment would be applied to any

NOX credits. EPA has set 8.0 g/kW-hr

NOX to be a reasonable discriminator for

pull-ahead technology based on the

certification levels and technologies

used to comply with the existing Tier 1

standards. For engine families certified

at a NOX FEL above the 8.0 g/kW-hr

trigger in the Tier 1 time frame, an

adjustment that reduces the value of the

credits by 35 percent would be applied

to the NOX credits. EPA requests

comment on the proposed level to be

used for adjusting the converted Tier 1

NOX credits. The proposed level was

selected based on a combination of

factors. If the rate is set too high, EPA

would create a significant disincentive

for the introduction of progressively

improved technology. There may also be

some incentive for manufacturers to

marginally recalibrate engines at higher

NOX levels for improved operating

characteristics such as fuel economy.

Conversely, if EPA set the rate too low

(or proposed no adjustment at all), there

would be little incentive to develop and

implement truly cleaner technology

than currently exists. EPA believes an

adjustment of 35 percent for credits

generated at NOX FELs above 8.0 g/kWhr, strikes a balance between these

dynamics.

With regard to PM, EPA is proposing

to allow early banking of PM credits

from Tier 1 engines, under certain

conditions, as soon as the proposed

standards are finalized. Under the

proposal, an engine will be eligible to

generate PM credits as long as the

engine meets the Tier 1 NOX standard

of 9.2 g/kW-hr. For those eligible

engines, the number of PM credits

generated will be calculated against the

proposed Tier 2 standards and may only

be used to show compliance once the

Tier 2 PM standards take effect. EPA is

not proposing to apply the trigger or

credit adjustment concept to PM credits

because the proposed provisions for PM

credits already require credits generated

in the Tier 1 time frame to be calculated

against the significantly more stringent

proposed Tier 2 standards. Based on

certification information for current Tier

1 nonroad engines, if EPA allowed

manufacturers to bank credits against

the relatively loose Tier 1 PM standard,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50169

manufacturers could potentially

generate a large number of PM credits,

and thereby significantly delay

compliance with the proposed Tier 2

standards. EPA’s main objective in ABT

is to increase the feasibility of the

proposed standards by allowing

manufacturers to meet more stringent

standards for certain engine families,

allowing manufacturers more flexibility

and lead time in bringing emissions for

more problematic families down to the

level of the standards. It is not designed

to allow manufacturers to delay

compliance with new standards for a

long period of time for large numbers of

engines. EPA requests comment on the

appropriateness of the 9.2 g/kW-hr NOX

level as a limiting factor for whether PM

credits can be generated by an engine

family.

EPA requests comment on two

additional changes for Tier 1 engines

that EPA is considering adopting upon

finalization of the proposed standards.

First, EPA is considering adopting a

safety net approach regarding the use of

the NOX credits generated from Tier 1

engines used in the Tier 2 time frame.

As noted earlier, manufacturers have the

potential to earn a large number of

credits from current Tier 1 engines that

could be used to significantly delay the

introduction of engines meeting the Tier

2 standards. Although EPA doesn’t

expect this situation will occur, EPA is

considering adopting a provision that

would apply an additional 10 percent

surcharge to the NOX credits used by a

manufacturer if they use credits to

certify more than 20 percent of their

fleet in the first or second year a Tier 2

standard applies in a given power

category. EPA believes such a provision

would provide manufacturers with

sufficient compliance flexibility while,

at the same time, encouraging them to

reasonably limit the number of engines

certified through ABT as the proposed

standards take effect. EPA requests

comment on the level of both the

surcharge and the level at which the

surcharge would apply.

Second, EPA is requesting comment

on limiting the number of years for

which early PM credits would be

available. Assuming EPA finalizes the

proposed standards prior to the

beginning of the 1999 model year,

manufacturers would have the potential

to bank early PM credits for between

two to seven years. This increases the

chances that manufacturers could

potentially generate a large number of

PM credits, and thereby delay

compliance with the proposed Tier 2

standards for many engines. Therefore,

EPA is requesting comment on limiting

the availability of early PM credits to

the three years prior to when the

applicable Tier 2 standards take effect.

2. Proposed Program for Engines Rated

Under 37 kW

As noted earlier, EPA is proposing

standards for engines rated under 37

kW, which are currently unregulated by

EPA. Therefore, the existing ABT

program does not apply to such engines.

EPA is proposing provisions to include

both land-based and marine engines

rated under 37 kW in the ABT program.

A number of provisions are being

addressed for these engines, including

credit generation, credit life, credit

calculation, trading across power

categories, credit exchange between

land-based and marine applications,

and a special multi-year averaging and

banking program.

With regard to credit generation, EPA

is proposing to make credits available

for both NMHC + NOX emissions and

for PM emissions as soon as the

standards are finalized. However,

because of the kinds of technologies

typically used by these engines, it is

necessary to put some restrictions on

how they are generated. Specifically,

EPA is proposing that all credits

generated from engines rated under 19

kW be calculated against the proposed

Tier 2 standards, even prior to the Tier

2 time frame. This will apply for both

NMHC + NOX credits and PM credits. In

other words, prior to the date when the

proposed Tier 2 standards become

effective, manufacturers who want to

generate credits can generate credits

only against the proposed Tier 2

standards, not the proposed Tier 1

standards. EPA believes this strategy for

generating emission credits from

engines rated under 19 kW is

appropriate because the majority of

engines in that power category use

indirect fuel injection designs, which

tend to have significantly lower NOX

levels compared to direct injection

engines and, in most cases, NMHC +

NOX levels significantly lower than the

proposed Tier 1 standards. For engines

rated between 19 and 37 kW, where

direct injection engines are more

common, EPA is proposing that all

engines generate credits against the

applicable proposed standards, but, as

discussed below, EPA is requesting

comment on whether credits for engines

between 19 kW and 37 kW should be

generated against the proposed Tier 2

standards even during the Tier 1 time

frame.

Because engines rated under 37 kW

are currently unregulated at the Federal

level, EPA cannot base the Tier 1 FEL

upper limits on the previously

applicable standards. However, the

California ARB currently regulates

nonroad diesel engines rated under 19

kW. Based on existing California ARB

standards for nonroad diesel engines

rated under 19 kW, EPA is proposing

Tier 1 FEL upper limits for engines

rated under 37 kW of 16.0 g/kW-hr (12.0

g/hp-hr) for NMHC + NOX and 1.2 g/

kW-hr (0.9 g/hp-hr) for PM. The

proposed FEL upper limits for the Tier

2 standards are the proposed Tier 1

standards.

With regard to credit life, EPA is

proposing to adopt the unlimited life

provisions for engines rated under 37

kW, as described earlier for engines

rated over 37 kW, with one exception.

Because of concerns over the amount of

credits manufacturers could earn on

indirect injection engines under the

proposed Tier 1 standards and the

potential for significant delay in

implementation of the Tier 2 standards,

EPA is proposing that all credits

generated prior to the Tier 2 time frame

on engines rated under 19 kW expire at

the end of 2007. With respect to credit

generation and usage calculations, EPA

is proposing that manufacturers use the

sales-weighted average power for

engines rated under 37 kW, as described

earlier for engines rated over 37 kW.

The inclusion of useful life in the

calculation of credits, as described

earlier, will also apply to the proposed

ABT program for engines rated under 37

kW.

With respect to trading across power

categories, EPA is proposing two

restrictions on such trading because of

the concerns noted above regarding the

relatively low emissions from indirect

injection engines. First, EPA is

proposing that manufacturers not be

allowed to use credits generated on

engines rated under 19 kW to

demonstrate compliance for engines

rated over 19 kW. Second, EPA is

proposing to prohibit manufacturers

from trading credits earned on indirect

injection engines rated over 19 kW to

other manufacturers. Under this second

proposed restriction, a manufacturer

would still be allowed to use such

credits for averaging or banking

purposes with other engines it produces

rated over 19 kW. EPA believes these

trading restrictions are important to

alleviate concerns that indirect injection

engines could generate significant

NMHC + NOX credits against the

proposed standards, which could then

be traded to other manufacturers to

delay compliance in the higher power

categories. As an alternative to the

proposed prohibition on trading credits

from indirect injection engines to other

manufacturers, EPA requests comment

on applying the same limitation on
50170 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

credit generation for engines greater

than or equal to 19 kW and less than 37

kW as are being proposed for engines

below 19 kW. This alternative would

require that all credits, including credits

generated on Tier 1 engines, be

generated against the proposed Tier 2

standards.

With respect to the exchange of

credits across applications, EPA is

proposing that manufacturers not be

allowed to use credits generated on

land-based engines to demonstrate

compliance for marine engines. EPA

believes that trading from land-based

nonroad engines to marine engines is

inappropriate for three reasons. First,

allowing land-based credits to offset

marine emissions could neutralize the

marine program. There are many more

land-based nonroad engines than there

are marine engines, and allowing these

trades would allow manufacturers to

effectively trade out of the marine

emission control requirements. Second,

such a program would penalize small

marinizers whose business consists of

buying engines or engine blocks and

modifying them for marine applications,

or other manufacturers of only marine

engines. These small marinizers would

not have the same access to land-based

credits as large engine manufacturers

who also marinize their own engines.

Allowing cross-application trading

would give large manufacturers an

unfair competitive advantage, since

large manufacturers could effectively

trade themselves out of the marine

program whereas smaller marinizers

would have to make the investments

necessary to reduce emissions from

their marine engines. Third, allowing

land-based nonroad engine credits to

offset marine emissions raises concerns

regarding the geographic distribution of

emission reductions. Specifically, the

emissions from diesel marine engines

are concentrated only in port areas

while the emission from land-based

nonroad are arguably spread out more

evenly across the country. This creates

a level of uncertainty as to whether the

engines that generated the credits will

be used in the same nonattainment area

as the marine engines whose emissions

are offset by the credits. While this

problem is present to a certain degree in

all nonroad programs, it is also the case

that marine engines can be used in only

one kind of area, and thus the ability to

offset potentially higher marine

emissions with lower-emitting landbased engines is limited.

While EPA is proposing not to allow

manufacturers to use credits generated

on land-based engines to demonstrate

compliance for marine engines, EPA is

proposing to allow manufacturers to use

credits generated on marine engines to

demonstrate compliance for land-based

applications. This will benefit those

engine manufacturers that only

manufacture marine engines, who

otherwise would be limited to trading

emission credits among themselves or

not trading at all. In addition, EPA

expects to propose that small diesel

marine engines be included in future

diesel marine ABT program. This would

create additional trading opportunities

for these engine manufacturers.

Last of all, EPA is proposing a special

four-year averaging and banking

program for engines rated under 37 kW

that would allow manufacturers to

create a negative balance of credits for

the first two years after the proposed

Tier 1 standards are effective. This

negative balance would have to be

eliminated by the end of the fourth year

of the Tier 1 standards. Based on

discussions with engine manufacturers,

it appears the proposed Tier 1 dates for

engines rated under 37 kW will be

challenging, especially for air-cooled

direct injection engines. Even though a

number of the small engine

manufacturers have signed the Nonroad

Statement of Principles that included

the proposed Tier 1 standards, there

may be some engine models that will

not be ready by the proposed

implementation dates. Therefore, EPA

believes the two year allowance is

important to ensure the feasibility of the

proposed standards given the short lead

time that is expected between the time

the rule is expected to be finalized and

the proposed implementation dates of

the Tier 1 standards. Under the

proposed program, manufacturers

would be allowed to certify engines

with FELs above the proposed Tier 1

standards and generate ‘‘negative

credits’’ for the first two years after the

proposed Tier 1 standards take effect.

By the end of the fourth year after the

proposed Tier 1 standards take effect,

the manufacturer would be required to

have certified enough engines with FELs

below the proposed Tier 1 standards

such that they have generated enough

credits in order to pay back the negative

credits, along with a ten percent penalty

for any negative balance of credits

carried over from one year to the next.

Because of the penalty applied to

negative credit balances, EPA believes

the multi-year averaging and banking

program will provide a small benefit to

the environment in the long run. Under

this special program, manufacturers

would not be allowed to use emission

credits obtained through trading with

other engine manufacturers to offset

their negative credit balances. In

accordance with the above described

provisions, separate programs would

apply for engines rated under 19 kW

and for engines between 19 and 37 kW.

As noted earlier, EPA solicits

comments on all aspects of the proposed

ABT changes, including comments on

the benefit of these changes to

manufacturers in meeting the proposed

emission standards and any potential air

quality impacts which might be

associated with them.

E. Flexibility for Equipment

Manufacturers

1. Overview of Approach to Providing

Flexibility

EPA has often set engine emission

standards that take full effect at a set

point in time, concurrently precluding

the installation of engines not certified

to the new standards in vehicles or

equipment. In meeting with

manufacturers of nonroad engines and

equipment to develop the Statement of

Principles, EPA determined that a

different approach to implementing new

standards might be needed to avoid

unnecessary hardship for equipment

manufacturers (sometimes referred to as

original equipment manufacturers or

OEMs), while achieving the desired

environmental benefits.

Some equipment manufacturers that

do not make their own engines have

complained that the Tier 1 rule resulted

in disruptions because their engine

suppliers did not always provide

adequate lead time for the equipment

redesigns needed to accommodate

engine design changes such as mounting

locations and heat rejection loads. The

averaging, banking, and trading program

is of little help to them, because they,

as equipment manufacturers, have no

control over which engines earn or use

credits. For some, even timely

information on the new engine designs

has not solved the problem because of

the sheer volume of redesign work

needed to change diverse product

offerings with limited engineering staffs.

The manufacturers expressed a belief

that the same problem would

accompany the transition to the

proposed Tier 2 standards. By

addressing this problem in the design of

the Nonroad Statement of Principles,

the signatories were able to consider

more stringent standards earlier than

would otherwise be feasible.

In response to these concerns, the

Agency is proposing an OEM transition

program to provide equipment

manufacturers with some control of the

transition process to new standards.

This proposed program is based on the

provisions contained in the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50171

31 ‘‘Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel for Control of Emissions of

Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines’’, May

23, 1997 (available in Air Docket A–96–40).

Supplemental ANPRM, with

modifications suggested in written

comments, in subsequent discussions

with equipment manufacturers, and in

the report of the panel convened for this

rule under the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA).31 The program consists

of six major elements, each directed at

a specific need. Although they involve

certain planning and recordkeeping

responsibilities if taken advantage of, all

of these elements are voluntary. An

OEM has the option to continue to do

business as under the current

regulations, subject to the prohibited

acts provisions of 40 CFR Part 89,

Subpart K. The elements of the program

are: (1) A percent-of-production

allowance for general applications, (2) a

larger percent-of-production allowance

for agricultural equipment, (3) a smallvolume allowance, (4) continuance of

the Tier 1 allowance to use up existing

inventories of engines, (5) access to

averaging, banking, and trading program

credits, and (6) availability of hardship

relief. Each of these is discussed in

detail below.

2. Elements of Proposed OEM

Transition Program

a. Percent-of-Production Allowance

for General Applications: This proposed

element allows each equipment

manufacturer to install engines not

certified to new emission standards in a

certain percentage of its annual

production for the U.S. market. For

equipment with engines over 37 kW, in

each year that a new Tier 2 standard

first applies, an OEM will be allowed up

to 15 percent of its equipment produced

for sale or use in the U.S. to contain

engines certified to Tier 1 standards.

This allowance drops to 5 percent in

each of the next 6 years. These

allowances can provide substantial

relief by allowing an OEM to prioritize

redesign work onto high volume

models. Many manufacturers have a

substantial number of lower volume

models with combined sales within

these percentages. The several years in

which exemptions are allowed accounts

for the very limited engineering staffs

available in many companies for the

needed redesign work. EPA believes

that allowing this latitude in the initial

years of the standards is consistent with

the Clean Air Act and that, were it not

available, many OEMs would likely be

unable to meet the redesign

requirements necessitated by the

standards. This flexibility allows the

vast majority of the equipment

population to be in compliance with

these stringent standards more quickly

than would otherwise be possible.

As presented in the Supplemental

ANPRM, this provision would apply to

equipment with engines under 37 kW as

well, except that the 5 percent

allowance would extend for 3 years

instead of 6, and the exempted

equipment could use uncontrolled

engines beginning in the Tier 1 time

frame. Manufacturers of equipment with

engines rated under 37 kW objected to

the shorter flexibility program duration

proposed for their equipment. They

argued that the 1999 and 2000 Tier 1

implementation dates that apply to

them make it even more imperative that

they receive flexibility allowances at

least as large as those applied to

manufacturers of large equipment. This

concept was also put forward for

consideration by the Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel as potentially

beneficial in addressing small business

concerns. EPA believes that this concern

has merit and also believes that the

effect of such an extension on the

environmental benefit would be small.

Therefore the Agency is proposing, as a

regulatory alternative, that the

provisions of the general percent-ofproduction allowance that apply to

manufacturers of large equipment be

applied to manufacturers of equipment

using small engines as well. Comment is

requested on which of these regulatory

alternatives is preferred. This alternative

would also apply to the special

agricultural equipment allowance and

the small volume allowance (both

discussed below) as well, so that no

distinction would be made between

equipment above and below 37 kW.

Commenters on the Supplemental

ANPRM also requested a somewhat

modified proposal from that outlined

above. Under this modified approach,

OEMs could respread the fixed

percentage allowances across the years

covered by the program. For example,

instead of 15 percent of its production

in the first year and 5 percent in each

of the next 6 years, an OEM could

exempt 45 percent in the first year and

none thereafter, or save and spread its

exemptions at 15 percent in each of

years five, six, and seven to

accommodate Tier 3 product

introductions. EPA expects that this

approach would not result in a

significant degradation of the

environmental benefit, due to the low

percentages involved after the first year

in the fixed percentage approach and

the likelihood that some OEMs would

group exemptions earlier and some

later. The Agency believes that this

added flexibility would provide

substantial benefit to the industry by

allowing each OEM to make its own

determinations regarding which

equipment is most in need of the

flexibility provisions. EPA is therefore

proposing it as a regulatory alternative

to the fixed-percentage proposal. This

concept was also put forward for

consideration by the Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel as potentially

beneficial in addressing small business

concerns (see Section VIII.B.).

To simplify the program, EPA

proposes that the allowance under this

alternative be framed as a 45 percent

cumulative allowance over seven years

(30 percent over 4 years for engines

rated under 37 kW if the shorter

duration alternative for these engines is

adopted). The percent of production of

exempted equipment in the first year

would be subtracted from this starting

allowance to determine the remaining

allowance, and so on. EPA requests

comment on the percent-of-production

allowance and on which regulatory

alternative is preferred.

Because actual production figures are

not available when product planning

decisions must be made, OEM’s will

have to base these decisions on

projected production volumes. As a

result, EPA will expect manufacturers to

factor actual production data into

annual redeterminations of remaining

allowances and to adjust their product

plans accordingly, so that all

compliance determinations are

ultimately based on actual production.

Another modification suggested by

commenters is a provision to allow

transfer of exemptions between power

categories, with appropriate weightings

to account for the differing

environmental impacts of different

engines. The Agency believes that this

flexibility could provide substantial

implementation benefits to some

manufacturers, but is concerned that

substantial losses in environmental

benefits could result unless conservative

correction factors could be devised.

Many parameters affect an engine’s

impact on the environment, including

size, life expectancy, average load

factors, annual usage, and location of

use, making the determination of

correction factors extremely difficult. Of

even more concern is the possible abuse

of transferred exemptions to

disadvantage a smaller competitor. A

large manufacturer with a diverse

product offering could stack exemptions

into a market niche it competes in,

possibly allowing it to sell machines

with cheaper noncomplying engines for

many years. EPA requests comment on
50172 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

the transfer of exemptions, including

possible ways of addressing these

concerns. EPA is especially interested in

comments on the possible allowance of

exemption transfers limited to the two

power categories under 19 kW in Tier 1,

because of the special challenges

involved in designing these small

engines to control emissions by the

implementation date, and the relatively

narrow power range for these two

categories, which may somewhat ease

concerns about proper weighting and

exemption stacking.

b. Percent-of-Production Allowance

for Agricultural Equipment: In preparing

the proposal, EPA was made aware of

some special concerns in the

implementation of new emission

controls on agricultural equipment.

First, because the prices of farm

products are strongly influenced by

economic factors other than the cost of

production, individual farmers are often

not able to pass cost increases for new

machinery on to consumers. Second,

although many agricultural operations

are quite large, there remains a sizeable

segment of this equipment user

community for which the rapid

introduction of new technologies may

be problematic. This segment is

characterized (to varying degrees) by: (1)

Small operations, often limited to family

members, (2) remoteness from dealer or

factory repair facilities, (3) traditional

reliance on user maintenance, and (4)

reticence to buy machines with

unfamiliar technologies such as

electronic controls. Third, there are

numerous agricultural equipment

models that service niche applications,

for which only a handful of machines

are sold each year. Fourth, although the

international harmonization of

standards is one of the goals of this

program, farm tractors have not yet been

included in the proposed regulations in

the EU, and so control of emissions from

these machines in Europe may therefore

lag that of other applications. Finally,

there are special challenges in

redesigning some agricultural

equipment for modified engine designs,

such as the potential for heat exchanger

plugging by airborne crop debris and the

need for tractor hood profiles that allow

a clear view of crop rows. Although

certain of these or similar issues may

apply individually to other equipment

market segments as well as the

agricultural market, they combine in the

agricultural segment to warrant

particular concern about a rapid

transition to new standards.

After considering these issues, the

Agency is proposing to grant more lead

time for this equipment through a

somewhat expanded OEM transition

provision. Specifically, in each year that

a new Tier 2 standard (Tier 1 for engines

rated under 37 kW) applies, an OEM

will be allowed up to 30 percent of its

farm equipment produced for sale or use

in the U.S. to contain engines certified

to Tier 1 standards (uncertified for

engines rated under 37 kW). This

allowance drops to 15 percent in each

of the next seven years (3 years for

engines rated under 37 kW if the shorter

duration alternative for these engines is

adopted). A company that makes some

farm equipment and some equipment

used in other applications, wishing to

take advantage of both the general and

the special allowances, would make

separate percent-of-production

determinations in each category. EPA is

also proposing that the provisions

discussed above for exemption

spreading apply to this special

allowance as well. This would in effect

provide a 135 percent cumulative

allowance over eight years (75 percent

over 4 years for engines rated under 37

kW if the shorter duration alternative for

these engines is adopted).

EPA is aware that some ambiguity

exists in the term ‘‘farm’’ equipment.

The Agency desires that this expanded

allowance be reserved for equipment

models that are clearly targeted for the

agricultural markets, but also recognizes

that machines are sometimes put to

diverse uses. EPA believes that the

current definition for ‘‘farm equipment

or vehicle’’ in 40 CFR 85.1602 is

adequate for the purposes of this

program. This definition covers

equipment primarily used in

commercial farm and logging activities.

No routine record keeping or other

evidence would be required of OEMs to

make such an a priori determination.

However, should EPA gather clear

evidence of a misapplication of this

designation, a recalculation of

exemptions under the general

application allowance would be

required. Comment on this approach

and alternative suggestions are solicited.

It should be noted that, although this

provision may have some negative air

quality implications, the impact of this

expanded allowance on air quality is

mitigated somewhat by the typical

locations of this type of equipment.

Much of this equipment is used in rural

areas of the country that are remote from

urban nonattainment areas. This is

perhaps especially true of the small

volume applications most likely to be

exempted in the transition program.

Although the regional transport of

emitted pollutants over large distances

is of concern, as explained in Section II,

it is reasonable to expect some falloff of

airborne concentrations of these

pollutants over these distances.

Commenters on the Supplemental

ANPRM suggested that companies that

make both agricultural equipment and

other equipment be allowed to transfer

exemptions between these broad

categories to further enhance

implementation flexibility. Though

supporting the goal of increased

flexibility, EPA is concerned that

substantial transfers of the large special

exemption allowance could slow the

introduction of complying construction,

industrial, and utility machines, which

is not justified by the analysis above.

The Agency is also concerned that this

added flexibility could provide an

unfair competitive advantage to large

companies with diverse product lines, a

concern reflected in the comments as

well. These concerns could be

addressed by discounting transferred

exemptions to reflect environmental or

business impact differentials. However,

at this time, EPA has no basis by which

to determine the appropriate discount

levels and so is not proposing this

flexibility. Other commenters requested

that the special allowance provision be

dropped entirely and the resulting

exemption pool be respread into the

general allowance. However, the Agency

believes that this would not address the

above-discussed concerns. EPA requests

comment on the special allowance

proposal and on the suggestions made

in the Supplemental ANPRM

comments.

c. Small Volume Allowance: The

percent-of-production approach

outlined above may provide little

benefit to small businesses focused on a

small number of equipment models. To

respond to these concerns, EPA is

proposing that equipment

manufacturers be allowed to exceed the

percent-of-production allowances

described above during the same years

affected by the allowance program for

general applications, provided they

limit the installation of Tier 1 engines

(uncertified engines for ratings under 37

kW) in each power category to a single

equipment model with an annual

production level (for U.S. sales) of 100

pieces or less. Though intended to

ensure that the flexibility program does

not disadvantage small businesses, this

provision would be available to all

equipment manufacturers. A

manufacturer’s use of this provision

would not affect the availability of the

other elements of the OEM transition

program, although it would not be

additive to the percent-of-production

allowances: an OEM could base its

exemption count on the percent-ofproduction allowance or the small
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50173

volume allowance in any power

category in any year.

EPA proposes that the exemption

spreading provisions for the percent-ofproduction allowances discussed above,

if adopted for these allowances, apply to

the small volume allowance as well.

That is, a manufacturer of a piece of

equipment with an engine rated over 37

kW may use Tier 1 engines in a total of

700 of these units produced over the

first seven years after the Tier 2

standard takes effect. Similarly, a

manufacturer of a piece of equipment

with an engine rated under 37 kW may

use uncontrolled engines in a total of

400 of these units produced over the

first four years after the Tier 1 standard

takes effect, if the shorter duration

allowance alternative is adopted for

these engines.

EPA is aware of two concerns that

must be addressed with this program

element. First, a manufacturer may need

to curtail sales of a product that, though

initially selling below 100 units

annually, experiences unanticipated

sales growth marginally beyond this

level; there would be no time to

redesign the product for the new tier of

standards. The Agency believes that the

flexibility provided by the exemption

spreading measure discussed above

would sufficiently address this concern.

A manufacturer with better than

expected sales orders for the exempted

model would use up the total exemption

allowance earlier than expected, but,

except in the last year that exemptions

are available when conservative

planning may be called for, an annual

adjustment of the following year’s

exemptions would cover any reasonable

underestimate of sales.

The second concern regards the

vagueness of the term ‘‘model.’’ Some

OEMs may wish to take greater

advantage of the small volume

allowance by grouping several small

volume products under a single model

designation, possibly using ‘‘submodel’’

designations to distinguish products.

One method of addressing this would be

to adopt a regulatory definition of the

term ‘‘model’’ for the purposes of this

program, such as requiring that products

cannot be considered to be of the same

model designation unless they have

exactly the same model number, with

no distinguishing lower level

designations.

Another approach would be to

simplify the program by not requiring

that the small volume exemption be

limited to a single model. This has the

advantage of providing more flexibility

to the OEMs by allowing any number of

models to be exempted, provided the

combined annual exemptions from all of

these models does not exceed the

allowed maximum in any one power

category. Some manufacturers have

advocated this approach. However, it

has the disadvantages of increasing the

number of exemptions likely to be taken

(thus possibly foregoing some

environmental benefit), and of moving

away from the intent of the small

volume allowance, which is to help

small OEMs with very limited product

offerings. EPA believes that these

disadvantages are not serious, and so is

proposing this approach as an

alternative to the single model

requirement. This concept was also put

forward for consideration by the Small

Business Advocacy Review Panel as

potentially beneficial in addressing

small business concerns. EPA requests

comment on the small volume

allowance and on which of the

proposed regulatory alternatives is

preferred.

d. Continuance of the Existing

Inventory Allowance: Paragraph (b)(4) of

40 CFR 89.1003 states in part: ‘‘Nonroad

vehicles and equipment manufacturers

may continue to use uncertified

nonroad engines built prior to the

effective date until uncertified engine

inventories are depleted; however,

stockpiling of uncertified nonroad

engines will be considered a violation of

this section.’’ EPA proposes to extend

this provision to the Tier 1-to-Tier 2 and

Tier 2-to-Tier 3 transitions as well. A

machine using such an engine would be

considered under the tier of emission

standards to which the engine is subject,

and would therefore be treated as

though it were produced in the previous

year for such purposes as calculating

percent-of-production and small volume

allowances. It should also be noted that

engines for which a manufacturer uses

averaging, banking, and trading program

credits to demonstrate compliance with

EPA requirements will be treated in the

OEM transition program as though they

fully meet the applicable emission

standards.

e. Access to Averaging, Banking, and

Trading Program Credits: Though not

discussed in the Supplemental ANPRM,

commenters suggested that OEMs be

provided additional flexibility by

allowing them to purchase credits

generated by engine manufacturers in

the nonroad averaging, banking, and

trading program. These credits would

then be retired in exchange for further

allowances to build equipment

containing noncomplying engines.

Although no guarantee could be made

that credits would be available at a

reasonable price, this provision would

provide one more alternative in a range

of options for OEMs to consider in

planning for the new engines. This

concept was also put forward for

consideration by the Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel as potentially

beneficial in addressing small business

concerns.

The Agency is favorable to concepts

such as this that provide flexibility

while tending to preserve the

environmental benefit of the program,

and so is proposing this additional

flexibility. EPA believes this concept

may actually benefit the environment by

providing an incentive for engine

manufacturers to pull ahead clean

technologies in order to sell their credits

at a profit. However, the Agency

requests comment on whether there may

be, on the other hand, the potential for

a loss in environmental benefit through

the creation of a market for credits that

would otherwise have gone unused, and

on the advisability of discounting

credits used by OEMs to mitigate such

losses. Comment is also sought on the

advisability of restricting this provision

to those applying for hardship relief, as

discussed below.

The Agency is also soliciting

comment on means of structuring the

program to minimize its complexity and

to preclude double-counting of credits.

EPA is proposing that the credit

amounts needed for each additional

allowance be simply determined by

multiplying the difference between the

applicable standards times the midpoint

of the applicable power range. For

example, an allowance for a machine

using a 200 kW (268 hp) Tier 1 engine

in the Tier 2 time frame would require

NMHC + NOX credits totaling:

(1.3 + 9.2 ¥ 6.6) g/kW-hr × 177.5 kW

× 8,000 hr = 5.538 Mg,

because 1.3, 9.2, and 6.6 g/kW-hr (1.0,

6.9, and 4.9 g/hp-hr) are the Tier 1

hydrocarbon, Tier 1 NOX, and Tier 2

NMHC + NOX standards, respectively;

177.5 kW (237.9 hp) is the midpoint of

the 130 to 225 kW range, and 8,000

hours is the useful life for this range.

For the sake of simplification, EPA

would assume that Tier 1 hydrocarbon

standards equate to NMHC levels, and

that the 1.3 g/kW-hr (1.0 g/hp-hr)

hydrocarbon level applies to Tier 1

power categories below 130 kW, for

which there are no Tier 1 hydrocarbon

standards. For OEMs seeking to use

credits for additional allowances to

install uncontrolled engines rated under

37 kW during Tier 1, EPA is proposing

that the credit calculation assume

uncontrolled NMHC + NOX and PM

levels of 16.0 and 1.2 g/kW-hr (11.9 and

0.9 g/hp-hr), respectively, based on a

review of test data generated in the

California small engine program.
50174 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

32 750 employees for manufacturers of

construction equipment and industrial trucks, 500

employees for manufacturers of other nonroad

equipment.

Finally, the Agency is proposing that

OEMs wishing to use ABT program

credits would submit the same type of

annual reports currently required of

engine manufacturers participating in

the ABT program, to allow the Agency

to adequately track credits. Other credit

use requirements and restrictions of the

ABT program that apply to engine

manufacturers would apply to

equipment manufacturers as well.

f. Hardship Relief Provision:

Commenters requested adoption of a

hardship appeal process by which an

OEM, especially a small business, could

obtain relief by providing evidence that,

despite its best efforts, it cannot meet

the implementation dates, even with the

OEM transition program provisions

outlined above. Such a situation might

occur if an engine supplier without a

major business interest in the OEM were

to change or drop an engine model very

late in the implementation process. This

concept was also put forward for

consideration by the Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel as potentially

beneficial in addressing small business

concerns. Based on outreach the Agency

has done in formulating this proposal,

especially to the small OEM

community, EPA agrees that the concern

of small businesses about the

uncertainty of timely supply may be

valid, and seeks to mitigate the

possibility of business failures by

providing fair, objective criteria for

hardship appeal that minimize the

potential loss in environmental benefit,

minimize the Agency’s involvement in

a business’ financial affairs, and avoid

straining Agency resources.

The Agency is proposing a hardship

relief provision under which appeals

must be made in writing, be submitted

before the earliest date of

noncompliance, be limited to firms that

fit the small business criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration ,32 include evidence that

failure to comply was not the fault of

the OEM (such as a supply contract

broken by the engine supplier), and

include evidence that the inability to

sell the subject equipment will have a

major impact on the company’s

solvency. The Agency would work with

the applicant to ensure that all other

remedies available under the flexibility

provisions are exhausted before granting

additional relief, and would limit the

period of relief to no more than one

year. Furthermore, the Agency proposes

that applications for hardship relief only

be accepted during the first year after

the effective date of an applicable new

emission standard. Comment is solicited

on all aspects of this proposal and on

whether the Agency should require

those who receive relief to recover some

of the lost environmental benefit, such

as by purchasing Blue Sky Series

engines described elsewhere in this

proposal.

3. Availability of Engines

EPA is proposing that engine

manufacturers be allowed to continue to

build and sell the engines needed to

meet the market demand created by the

OEM transition program described

above. Commenters on the

Supplemental ANPRM expressed

concern that the program will have

minimal value because engine suppliers

may decide not to continue making the

older generation engines. Based on

observation of current practice in which

older engine configurations are

routinely built to support replacement

engine needs, EPA believes that engines

will be made available to make the

transition program workable. Further

comment is solicited on this issue.

Concerns that integrated manufacturers

(who build engines for installation in

their own OEM products and for sale to

competitors) may purposely manipulate

the production or prices of these

engines to disadvantage their

competitors appear to the Agency to be

without merit, as this opportunity exists

apart from EPA programs. However, to

provide additional assurances, the

engine manufacturers that signed the

Nonroad Statement of Principles have

agreed that, if they decide to continue

the production of such engines, they

will make them available for sale at

reasonable prices to all interested

buyers. EPA does not believe that

regulation codifying this commitment is

necessary or appropriate.

EPA is proposing that equipment

manufacturers procuring engines for use

under the OEM transition program

provide written assurance to the

supplying engine manufacturer that

such engines are being procured for this

purpose. EPA requests comment on the

need for a requirement that engine

manufacturers maintain or annually

provide records on the engines

manufactured in support of the OEM

transition program, in order to help EPA

prevent abuse of the program.

4. Enforcement and Record Keeping

Requirements

The Agency desires to minimize the

administrative burden to all parties

involved with the OEM transition

program. OEMs choosing not to take

advantage of the allowances would have

no requirements beyond those already

in place from the Tier 1 rule. For OEMs

choosing to take advantage of the

allowances, EPA believes that the

following requirements will be

sufficient to allow it to enforce the

program. (1) OEMs must keep records of

the production of all pieces of

equipment with engines covered by this

rule. These records must be kept until

December 31 of the year after the last

year in which any of the allowances are

used by the company. (2) Such records

must include serial and model numbers

and dates of production of equipment

and installed engines, rated power of

each engine, and the calculations used

to determine the percent of production

allowances taken in each power

category. (3) OEMs must make these

records available to the Agency upon

request.

The Agency intends to conduct only

limited audits of these records, and

expects that scrutiny by the OEMs of

their competitors’ products will help

identify potential candidates for audits.

However, to further aid this process and

the early identification of affected OEMs

who may not be aware of the program

requirements, EPA is considering also

requiring that each OEM submit a letter

to the Agency after each year in which

allowances are utilized, providing some

summary information, such as the

number of machines sold with and

without engines certified to the new

standards. Comment is requested on the

appropriateness of such a requirement.

EPA is aware of two conflicting

concerns about the OEM transition

program expressed by equipment

manufacturers. On the one hand,

manufacturers seek the maximum

control and flexibility possible in

implementing new standards. On the

other hand, some manufacturers have

felt that the flexibility provisions

contained in the Supplemental ANPRM

are already too complicated and that the

suggested enhancements make them

more so. Unfortunately, the simpler

approaches suggested to date have

involved a substantial loss in

environmental benefits, amounting to

effectively delaying the standards.

Therefore the Agency has chosen to

propose the collection of voluntary

provisions discussed above, recognizing

that effort will be needed by both the

Agency and the industry to help

manufacturers make best use of their

options.

5. Alternative Concepts

Commenters on the Supplemental

ANPRM suggested an alternative

approach for helping OEMs implement
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50175

33U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Mobile Sources, NEVES, Appendix I, Chapter 4,

November 1991 (available in Air Docket A–96–40).

34 ibid.

the new standards, by which a period of

one to three years would be provided

between availability of complying

engines and the required date for use of

these engines in new equipment. EPA is

not proposing this approach because it

would require a regulatory enforcement

mechanism to ensure that final

production-ready prototype engines are

available long before the start of engine

production on the required

implementation date for new standards.

Without such a mechanism, engine

manufacturers could continue making

design changes, delaying the

implementation of new standards

indefinitely. EPA is unaware of any

such mechanism that would not also

cause major disruptions in the industry.

Others recommended that the Agency

set standards on a cost-effectiveness

basis, application by application.

Regulations would only apply to

engines in those applications with an

overall environmental impact high

enough, and a cost of compliance low

enough, to satisfy some specified costeffectiveness threshold. The Agency is

not proposing this approach for several

reasons. First, this approach, which

makes cost-effectiveness the primary

factor in determining applicable

standards, appears to be at odds with

the standard setting criteria of section

213 of the Clean Air Act, which is

primarily technology-based, with added

consideration of cost, noise, energy, and

safety factors. Second, accurate

determinations of application-specific

cost-effectiveness would be extremely

difficult to make. Applications would

constantly move above and below the

threshold as new information and new

design innovations are brought forth,

creating uncertainty in the industry.

Third, many engine models are used in

multiple applications, possibly leading

to multiple versions and higher costs.

Fourth, evaluation outcomes would

depend arbitrarily on how applications

are defined. Many niche markets may

have environmental impacts that are

low individually, but quite large in the

aggregate. Fifth, setting the threshold for

cost-effectiveness would have inherent

problems of arbitrariness, and would

likely be met with vastly differing views

in the public regarding the

appropriateness of any threshold.

Finally, the exempted equipment would

still have some air quality impact,

resulting in either a lower benefit of the

program or more stringent standards for

the regulated engines.

F. Flexibility for Post-Manufacture

Marinizers

EPA believes that post-manufacture

marinizers affected by the proposed

standards may need some additional

flexibility, beyond that available in the

ABT program, to meet the challenges of

new standards. By EPA’s definition, a

post-manufacture marinizer is someone

who produces marine diesel engines by

substantially modifying a complete or

partially complete diesel engine, and

who is not controlled by the

manufacturer of the base engines or by

an entity that controls both of them. For

the purpose of this definition,

‘‘substantially modify’’ means changing

an engine in a way that could change

engine emission characteristics.

In some ways the challenge of any

new standards for these marinizers

would mirror that of nonroad

equipment manufacturers, in that

changes made by the original engine

manufacturers might require changes in

the parts and process involved in

marinization. Because marinizers would

experience similar impacts from the

proposed standards as equipment

manufacturers, EPA is requesting

comment on extending some or all of

the equipment manufacturer flexibility

provisions described in Section III.E. to

post-manufacture marinizers affected by

this proposal. EPA sees the hardship

relief provision for small businesses as

perhaps especially appropriate for the

post-manufacture marinizers, many of

which are small businesses, and so is

proposing their inclusion under this

provision.

Unlike equipment manufacturers,

however, marinizers generally complete

the final stages of engine production

and thus would typically be responsible

for obtaining an EPA Certificate of

Conformity with standards, and would

bear liability for the emissions of these

engines in use. One marinizer stated in

EPA’s outreach effort to small

businesses (see Section VIII.B.) that the

impact on small marinizers could be

reduced if the proposed regulations

allowed a post-manufacture marinizer to

rely on the original engine maker’s

certificate of conformity, provided that

the marinizer also demonstrates that it

has not altered the engine’s performance

or combustion parameters. EPA is

interested in pursuing certification

streamlining options for marinizers, but

has concerns that the original engine

manufacturers may challenge their

presumed liability in EPA enforcement

actions directed at these engines. Also,

a simple demonstration of equivalent

emissions performance on pre- and

post-marinized engines would not be

sufficient to address the Agency’s

primary concern, which is the

possibility of degradation of in-use

emissions performance over time. EPA

solicits suggestions on how the postmanufacture marinizer certification

process might be streamlined while

providing assurance of ongoing

responsibility and durable emissions

control design.

G. Control of Crankcase Emissions

Crankcase emissions are those

exhaust gases that, upon leaving the

combustion chamber, do not pass

through the exhaust valve. Instead, the

gases discharge (blowby) into the

crankcase via the clearance between the

piston and the cylinder wall. On certain

engines (those engines with open

crankcases), these gases may eventually

escape from the crankcase to the

atmosphere and are therefore named

crankcase emissions. Some

manufacturers produce engines that

route crankcase vapors to the air intake

system of the equipment; such a design

is called a closed crankcase. This

method, also called positive crankcase

ventilation, recirculates blowby gases

through a valve back to the intake

manifold to be burned in the

combustion chamber.33

Since 1985, closed crankcases have

been required in naturally aspirated

(nonturbocharged) highway diesel

engines (45 FR 4136, January 21, 1980).

Currently, turbocharged highway diesel

engines are not required to have

crankcase emission controls due to

special difficulties in designing for

closed crankcase. The problem with

recirculating blowby gases in

turbocharged engines is that the

durability and effectiveness of

turbocharger and aftercooler

components can be affected by recycling

gases containing particulate matter and

corrosive gases.

There is limited data on crankcase

emissions from nonroad diesel engines.

In fact, EPA is not aware of any studies

that explicitly investigate crankcase

emissions from nonroad diesel engines.

There are, however, studies relating to

highway crankcase emissions.34

Crankcase emission data from a 1977

study, in which three diesel engines

(two naturally aspirated engines and

one turbocharged engine) were tested.

HC crankcase emissions ranged from

0.007 to 0.017 g/kW-hr (0.005 to 0.013

g/hp-hr), which represents 0.2 to 4.1

percent of corresponding exhaust

emissions. PM crankcase emissions

ranged from 0.9 to 2.9 percent of

corresponding exhaust emissions. NOX

crankcase emissions represented only

0.01 to 0.1 percent of corresponding
50176 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

35 ‘‘Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of

Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway HeavyDuty Engines,’’ U.S. EPA, June 6, 1996 (Docket A–

95–27).

exhaust emissions. A more recent study

performed by Southwest Research

Institute in 1993 provided similar

crankcase emissions from one

turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engine,

with HC, PM, and NOX all at 0.01 g/kWhr (0.01 g/hp-hr). None of the reported

highway engines had more than 500,000

miles of use, an important consideration

because of the expected increase in

blowby gases as engines experience

wear.35

EPA proposes to extend the closed

crankcase requirement to nonroad

engines, including the exemption for

turbocharged diesel engines. Many

naturally aspirated nonroad engines are

already equipped with this technology;

for those nonroad engine models still

manufactured with open crankcases,

EPA expects that closed-crankcase

technology will be readily transferable.

EPA has included the cost of closing

crankcases in the analysis of the costs of

complying with the proposed standards.

The proposed closed crankcase

requirement applies to engines rated

over 37 kW concurrent with the Tier 2

standards. Manufacturers of nonroad

diesel engines rated under 37 kW are

likely to have serious difficulties fully

complying with closed crankcase

provisions on the schedule proposed for

Tier 1 emission standards, since this

requirement would first apply to these

manufacturers starting in 1999. Thus,

for nonroad diesel engines rated under

37 kW, EPA proposes to delay the

requirement for closed crankcases until

2001, providing more lead time for

manufacturers of these engines. This

delay will not have a major

environmental impact because it is

short, directed at a small segment of the

engine market, and confined to a minor

emission source relative to exhaust

emissions. EPA requests comment on

the proposal to control crankcase

emissions and on the appropriateness of

delaying the requirement for closed

crankcases for these small engines.

H. Control of Smoke

1. Proposed Numerical Standards and

Procedures

In 1994, EPA finalized smoke

standards for nonroad diesel engines

rated over 37 kW. The specified

measurement method and calculations

are from 40 CFR 86, subpart I, which

was developed for highway engines.

EPA concluded that the highway smoke

test procedure would adequately test

non-road engines and thus control

smoke. The standards for nonroad

engines are for engine smoke not to

exceed averaged values of 20 percent on

acceleration mode or 15 percent on lug

mode and not to exceed peak opacity

levels of 50 percent on either the

acceleration or lug mode. EPA is

proposing no changes to the smoke

emission standards and procedures

currently in place.

EPA proposes to extend the smoke

standards to multiple-cylinder diesel

engines rated under 37 kW, bringing

these engines under the same regulatory

framework as the larger engines. While

these new standards may lead to lower

smoke levels from some engines, the

principal intent of setting standards is to

prevent increased levels of smoke as

engines are redesigned to comply with

Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for gaseous

and particulate emissions. The same

numerical standards would apply to the

small engines. With minor exceptions,

the same procedure, equipment, and

calculation methods would also be used

for these engines.

Extending smoke standards to the

smaller engines raises some important

issues. First, two-cylinder engines

operating on the specified test

procedure may produce puffs of smoke

that may make the smoke measurement

erratic. EPA proposes to permit the

option of testing these engines with a

preconditioned muffler of the type used

in the field. Such an engine

configuration is the same as that found

in use, and thus represents meaningful

control of in-use smoke; however, the

smoke measurement response may be

flattened out somewhat, resulting in

potentially reduced levels of measured

smoke. Engines with more than two

cylinders will continue to be tested

without a muffler, which is a ‘‘worst

case’’ condition.

Second, specifying the correct exhaust

pipe diameter requires extrapolation of

specifications found in 40 CFR 86,

subpart I. The current procedure calls

for a 2 inch (5 cm) inside diameter

exhaust pipe for testing engines rated

under 101 horsepower maximum (75

kW). Yet, for constant visibility as a

function of measured opacity (which is,

in turn, a function of pipe diameter),

this test pipe diameter should be

smaller for engines with lower rated

power. The same is true for the larger

engines, where the procedure specifies

the use of a 5 inch (13 cm) inside

diameter exhaust pipe for the testing

engines with a maximum rated power of

301 hp (225 kW) or greater.

Consequently, the Agency is proposing

that engines rated between 50 and 100

horsepower (37 and 75 kW) be tested

with a 2 inch (5 cm) inside diameter

exhaust pipe, while engines rated under

50 horsepower (37 kW) should be tested

with an exhaust pipe of 1.5 inches (3.8

cm). Engines rated between 100 and 200

horsepower (75 and 150 kW) should be

tested with the established 3 inch (7.6

cm) pipe diameter. Similarly, engines

rated between 200 and 300 horsepower

(150 and 220 kW) should be tested with

the established 4 inch (10.2 cm) pipe

diameter. For engines rated between 300

and 500 hp (225 and 373 kW), testing

should be performed with the 5 inch (13

cm) inside diameter exhaust pipe, while

engines rated over 500 horsepower (373

kW) should be tested with an exhaust

pipe of 6 inches (15.2 cm). Perspectives

and data on all issues related to testing

these engines for smoke are solicited.

In applying the smoke standards and

procedures to engines rated under 37

kW, EPA proposes to exempt onecylinder engines. EPA believes that

operation and testing of these engines is

unique in ways that would need to be

addressed before applying smoke

standards. For example, it is not known

if the smoke puffs emitted after each

combustion stroke can be

accommodated by the test procedure

and if so, what the procedure features

should be. The same is true of the

dynamometer control specification

elements of the procedure. Also, since

there is no certainty as to the

appropriate test procedure, there is no

basis for selecting numerical standards.

EPA is therefore proposing to postpone

the regulation of smoke from these onecylinder engines until a later

rulemaking. The Agency believes there

will be minimal air quality impact in

the interim, since the large majority of

one-cylinder diesel engines are used in

generator sets and other steady-state

applications; these engines therefore

rarely experience acceleration modes,

which are the the principal focus of

smoke standards. EPA requests

comment on the appropriate treatment

of smoke requirements for one-cylinder

engines.

In addition, EPA proposes to omit the

smoke requirements for propulsion

marine diesel engines rated under 37

kW. Manufacturers of these engines

have stated that this is reasonable for at

least the following two reasons. First,

they state that smoke is not a problem

with propulsion marine diesel engines.

Most marine engine manufacturers

already supply reduced-smoke engines

because consumers demand low smoke

levels for their own personal comfort.

Second, they state that there is no

reliable smoke test for propulsion

marine engines, as the smoke test

designed for land-based nonroad

engines does not exercise the engine
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50177

over the typical marine engine operating

cycle, which is governed by the

propeller. EPA solicits comments on

this issue.

2. Consideration of ISO Procedure

Since promulgation of the Tier 1 rule,

an International Standards Organization

committee (ISO TC70/SC8/WG1) has

been developing a smoke test procedure

specifically for nonroad engines. The

EPA and regulated industry recognize

the value of harmonized test procedures

and standards limits. The Statement of

Principles therefore states:

The Signatories support the completion

and worldwide adoption of the new smoke

test being developed by the International

Standards Organization (ISO 8178–9). EPA

intends to propose to replace its current

smoke test with the ISO test procedure for

the sake of harmonization and improved

control of smoke, provided that it provides

for a level of smoke control at least as

adequate as the current test.

However, this ISO procedure has not

been finalized and thus it is not being

proposed in this rulemaking. In

anticipation of EPA’s eventual

consideration of the ISO 8178–9 test

procedure, the Agency welcomes

comments (including test data)

addressing issues related to this

procedure.

The draft ISO 8178–9 test procedure

has several important features that

distinguish it from the smoke test

procedure developed for highway

engines. First, the duty cycle over which

the engine is to be operated is very

similar to the procedure for highway

engines, except that it deletes the 200

rpm initial speed increase and first-shift

feature of the engine duty cycle. These

types of operation are seldom, if ever,

found in nonroad equipment.

A second important difference is the

use of a Bessel filter algorithm to

compute the peak, acceleration, and lug

data from the instantaneous smoke

values given by the smoke meter. The

Bessel algorithm specified in the ISO

procedure emulates a low-pass secondorder filter and uses iterative

calculations to determine coefficients

that are a function of the smoke meter’s

physical and electrical response times

and the sampling rate. This Bessel filter

method of calculating results contrasts

with the method specified in 40 CFR 86

subpart I, which calls for simple

mathematical averages of one-half

second data. The ISO Bessel filter

calculation procedure selects the

highest calculated value for each

reported mode (acceleration, lug and

peak), using Bessel averaging times that

are less than or equal to those of the

highway-based test procedure. The ISO

procedure will likely result in values

that are greater than those generated

from the same data by the averaging

procedure specified in 40 CFR 86

subpart I. Information, addressing this

question, including test data if possible,

is solicited.

Another issue is the form used for

expressing the level of the standards.

The current form is units of opacity—20

percent acceleration, 15 percent lug, and

50 percent peak. Opacity measurements

are, however, a function of the effective

optical path length, which is

determined by the exit diameter of the

exhaust pipe upon which the smoke

meter is mounted. The diameter of the

exhaust pipe specified in the current

procedure is a function of engine power,

as described above. However, this

creates a step-wise relationship in the

level of stringency as a function of

engine power, which, at a minimum,

creates different levels of stringency for

engines close to the horsepower cut

points. One solution is to express the

measurements in units of light

absorption coefficient, k (inverse

meters), which is the form that the ISO

committee has stated is the most

technically correct. The numerical level

of the standards would be expressed in

terms such as the standard level, k,

being a function (to some degree) of a

parameter such as displacement, engine

power, or other basic engine descriptor,

and some constant. The EPA solicits

data and comments on these issues.

3. In-Use Smoke Testing

Some state governments have

expressed a desire for a smoke

regulatory program that would enable

them to test in-use nonroad engines in

a manner that would permit action

against gross emitters of smoke. The

main elements of such a program would

be a certification smoke requirement for

new engines, EPA guidance for state inuse smoke control programs (including

an in-use smoke test procedure and

accompanying limit values), and a

means by which the data from the two

programs can be related. The current

smoke test procedure from part 86,

subpart I, does not provide data

comparable to the most practical in-use

smoke test procedure (a snap

acceleration with measured opacity).

Based on the current draft ISO 8178–9

certification smoke test procedure, EPA

believes this test will provide the

desired linkage. The Agency requests

comment on the advisability of

establishing such a smoke control

program and on any interim steps that

should be pursued while the ISO test is

under development. Any such program

would need to meet the requirements of

section 209 of the Act regarding

preemption of certain state programs.

I. Voluntary Low-Emitting Engine

Program

a. Background

The Nonroad Statement of Principles

includes a commitment to work towards

a goal of achieving emission levels in

the future that are even lower than those

proposed in this notice. Specifically, the

signatories agreed to strive to develop

engines capable of controlling NOX

emissions to 2.0 g/kW-hr (1.5 g/hp-hr)

and PM emissions to 0.07 g/kW-hr (0.05

g/hp-hr), while maintaining

performance, reliability, durability,

safety, efficiency, and compatibility

with nonroad equipment.

Some technologies that will be

pursued in the context of the research

agreement have already undergone

significant development. Officials

representing certain cities, states, or

regions in the U.S. have expressed

interest in developing incentive

programs to encourage the use of

engines that go beyond federal emission

standards. EPA also would like to

encourage manufacturers to initiate

demonstration projects to prove out

these technologies in areas where there

is a particular need for superior

emission controls. EPA is therefore

proposing a set of voluntary standards

that may be used to earn a designation

as a low-emitting engine. The program,

if successful, will lead to the

introduction and more widespread use

of these low-emission technologies.

Ongoing research has led to much

improved prospects for a variety of lowemitting diesel engine technologies.

Some particulate traps are now designed

for regeneration without an active

control system, sometimes using fuelbased catalyst materials to reduce

regeneration temperature requirements.

Selective catalytic reduction, long used

very effectively in stationary source

applications, is now in several

demonstration heavy-duty vehicles.

Plasma and thermoelectric techniques

are also under consideration for large

particulate and NOX reductions. EPA is

very interested in seeing a

demonstration of the emission-control

potential for these engines in nonroad

applications, especially related to the

capability of maintaining low emission

levels over extended field operation.

Alternative fuels also have the

potential to reduce emissions from

internal combustion engines.

Alternative-fuel engines have made

significant inroads into some segments

of the nonroad market. Forklifts running

on propane and generators fueled by
50178 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

natural gas are the most visible

examples of nonroad applications with

established roles for alternative fuels.

Table 3 includes data derived from the

PSR PartsLink database for these and

other applications in which equipment

with alternative-fueled engines was sold

in 1995. This information is

approximate and does not reflect the use

of battery-powered equipment or any

engine retrofits for fuel conversion.

TABLE 3.—APPROXIMATE SALES OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL APPLICATIONS MARKETED IN 1995

Application

1995 Sales

Natural

gas LPG Diesel Gasoline

Forklift ............................................................................................................................................... 0 43,000 12,000 17,000

Generator .......................................................................................................................................... 4,500 1,500 53,000 13,000

Gas Compressor .............................................................................................................................. 2,400 0 0 0

Oil Field Equip. ................................................................................................................................. 370 0 1,300 15

Terminal Tractor ............................................................................................................................... 0 230 3,700 750

Scrubber/Sweeper ............................................................................................................................ 10 170 6,200 3,400

Irrigation Set ..................................................................................................................................... 150 0 4,700 1,600

Refrigeration, A/C ............................................................................................................................. 90 0 48,000 0

Pump ................................................................................................................................................ 40 0 10,000 6,600

In addition to these existing uses of

alternative fuels, ground service

equipment at airports provides a case

study of the potential to increase

reliance on alternative fuels in the

nonroad arena. A concern for reducing

emissions to improve local air quality

and limit worker exposures has led

some airlines to see alternative fuels as

a cost-effective alternative for their

existing diesel-fueled equipment.

Greater use of alternative fuels at

airports has been limited by the

availability of engines. A challenge for

the engine manufacturers is to develop

a nonroad alternative fuel engine

without needing to charge a large

premium (to recoup R&D) that makes

the engines unaffordable. EPA’s intent

in pursuing a program of voluntary

standards for low-emitting engines is to

help justify development of these

nonroad engines.

EPA believes that nonroad equipment

is in some cases much better suited to

alternative fuels than are highway

vehicles. Nonroad equipment, when

operated within a well-defined local

area, often has the advantage of central

fueling. Also, several high-power

engines running consistently over long

periods can consume great amounts of

fuel and generate correspondingly high

emissions. Alternative fuels have the

potential to lower operating costs (for

example, from less expensive fuel and

longer oil-change intervals) in addition

to reducing emissions.

b. Proposal for Blue Sky Series Engines

EPA proposes to adopt voluntary

emission standards that manufacturers

could use to earn a designation of ‘‘Blue

Sky Series’’ engines. The range of

possible incentives to produce these

engines are described below.

Central to the purpose of the

voluntary standards is the need to

demonstrate superior control of

particulate emissions. Because of the

sensitivity of particulate emissions to

test cycles, as described in Section III.B.,

testing on a transient cycle is an

important element of the proposed

program for Blue Sky Series engines.

EPA has begun work toward developing

transient test cycles for nonroad

equipment, but there is not yet any

established or proven nonroad transient

cycle. The highway test cycle, while not

developed for nonroad engine

operation, would result in a significant

degree of control for nonroad

equipment. EPA therefore proposes to

specify the highway transient test cycle

to evaluate emission levels relative to

the voluntary standards. A commenter

on the Supplemental ANPRM

recommended that engine

manufacturers have the option of

selecting alternative test cycles

applicable to specific engines or

applications. EPA requests further

comment on alternative test cycles. If

EPA adopts a transient test for certifying

nonroad engines in the future, the

Agency will accordingly re-evaluate the

test cycle and standards for Blue Sky

Series engines.

Manufacturers could certify to one of

three levels to demonstrate emission

control that goes beyond the Tier 2

certification requirements, as described

in Table 4. The percentage reductions

would apply to all power categories.

EPA requests comment on whether

simplifying the program to include only

one or two emission levels to qualify for

the Blue Sky Series program would

make it more effective. Engines would

need to meet all the requirements

established to demonstrate durability of

emission controls, including allowable

maintenance, warranty, useful life,

rebuild, and deterioration factor

provisions. Manufacturers would

demonstrate compliance with the CO

standard by comparing the emission

levels generated on the highway test

cycle with the numerical value of the

CO standard for the applicable tier of

nonroad engines for that model year.

Manufacturers would also need to

demonstrate compliance with

applicable smoke standards.

TABLE 4.—PROPOSED STANDARDS

AND DESIGNATIONS FOR BLUE SKY

SERIES ENGINES

Designation

Percent reduction

relative to Tier 2

standards

NMHC +

NOX PM

Blue Sky Series—

Class A∗ ................ 35 35

Blue Sky Series—

Class AA ................ 50 50

Blue Sky Series—

Class AAA ............. 65 65

∗ The Class A option would no longer be

available beginning any year that the Tier 2

standards apply to a particular power range.

EPA recognizes that among the

candidate engines for the Blue Sky

Series program are those low-emitting

engines that have already been designed

and certified for highway use. EPA

therefore requests comment on whether

it would be more appropriate to set the

optional emission standards based on

established highway standards,

defining, for example, an engine

meeting the 2004 highway emission

standards as a Blue Sky Series engine.

Repeating the certification process to

develop and submit test data to make a

highway engine available for nonroad
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50179

36 ‘‘Justification for Amendments to 40 CFR Part

89,’’ EPA memorandum from Greg Orehowsky to

Docket A–96–40, August 21, 1997.

use adds a significant hurdle to engines

expected to sell in low volumes for

nonroad applications. EPA therefore

proposes for the Blue Sky Series engine

program that manufacturers with

highway-certified engines may waive

the testing requirements for obtaining

nonroad certification. This would

include the need to comply with the

provisions related to the durability of

emission controls. EPA, however, would

need to ensure that engine designs are

not tailored to the transient cycle with

much higher emissions on a steady-state

cycle. To accommodate this, EPA would

need to retain the ability to conduct inuse testing to verify that engines are

operating in steady-state modes with

substantially the same level of emission

control. EPA therefore proposes that

NOX and PM emissions be no more than

20 percent higher on the appropriate

nonroad steady-state test cycle

compared with the highway test cycle.

This is intended to provide relief for

development testing needed to protect

against in-use liability, while preventing

any active strategies designed

specifically for the transient test cycle at

the expense of controlling emissions

during steady-state operation. For

evaluation of the performance of one of

these engines in steady-state operation

at any point in an engine’s useful life,

the Agency would conduct paired data

generated on both the appropriate

steady-state test cycle and the highway

transient test cycle.

Engine manufacturers could generate

credits under the averaging, banking,

and trading program with Blue Sky

Engines, provided that emission testing

is also conducted on the appropriate

steady-state test to facilitate calculation

and exchange of credits. For this reason

and for avoiding the uncertainty

associated with surrogate test cycles,

EPA would encourage manufacturers to

conduct and submit steady-state test

data with their application for

certification even without a requirement

to do so.

The Blue Sky Series program would

begin immediately upon promulgation

and would continue through the 2004

model year. EPA would evaluate the

program to determine if it should be

continued for 2005 and later engines,

and if so, whether any changes are

needed. This evaluation will be

considered as part of the 2001

Feasibility Review. The experience

gained with these engines and the Tier

3 resolution of certification test cycles

and PM standards will factor into this

evaluation.

c. Incentives for Producing Blue Sky

Series Engines

Creating a program of voluntary

standards for low-emitting engines,

including testing and durability

provisions to help ensure their in-use

performance, will be a major step

forward in advancing innovative

emission control technologies, because

EPA certification will provide

protection against false claims of

environmentally beneficial products.

For the program to be most effective,

however, incentives for the production

of these engines must be created as well.

The Agency sees substantial potential

for users and state and local

governments to establish these incentive

programs. For example, the increasing

public concern about the effects of

diesel engine emissions on health raises

the possibility that some construction

companies will purchase Blue Sky

Series engines to protect its workers or

the public from localized emissions,

especially if benefits can also be gained

in employee or public relations, such as

with highly visible projects in polluted

city centers. Similarly, a mining

company could select these lowemitting engines for underground

applications to minimize miners’

exposure to exhaust pollutants. A state

or local government may be able to add

incentives for companies committing to

rely on Blue Sky Series engines in

contract bidding on publicly-funded

construction projects in nonattainment

areas. Some farmers may be willing to

pay more for equipment with the

cleaner engines to lower their field

exposure to engine exhaust pollutants.

In some of these applications,

alternative fuels may be readily

available, possibly even providing a cost

savings compared to diesel fuel.

The Agency solicits ideas that could

encourage the creation of these

incentive programs by users and state

and local governments. EPA also solicits

comment on additional measures that

that could be taken at a federal level to

encourage these engines as well. One

measure already suggested is adoption

of a labeling program, by which EPA

would regulate the form and display of

prominent labels on equipment with

Blue Sky Series engines. The Agency is

not convinced at this point that such

labels would provide sufficient

incentive for users to purchase these

engines to justify labeling requirements,

but welcomes comment on this

suggestion.

The Agency is concerned that

incentive programs not lead to a net

detriment to the environment through

the double counting of benefits. For

example, a manufacturer of a Blue Sky

Series engine that claims credit under

the averaging, banking, and trading

program should not also be allowed to

generate State Implementation Plan

credit for emission reductions, such as

under a state highway construction

project program that encourages Blue

Sky Series engines. The Agency intends

to ensure that steps are taken to avoid

such double counting of benefits.

IV. Technical Amendments

This proposed rule contains technical

amendments to the procedures

previously adopted for nonroad diesel

engines (40 CFR part 89). These

amendments result from the experience

gained in conducting compliance

programs for the recently implemented

Tier 1 standards. Also, EPA’s

discussions with the industry on similar

amendments related to testing highway

engines have been translated into

changes to nonroad test requirements

where appropriate. This section

describes proposed changes to the

definition of rated speed and related

terms and a variety of other

modifications. A complete description

of the technical amendments is detailed

in a memorandum to the docket.36

A. Rated Speed Definition

EPA is proposing changes to the

definitions of rated speed and

intermediate speed. The current

language allows the manufacturer to

specify both of these speeds. Since these

speeds are used to generate the test

cycle, their definitions should permit

only one rated and one intermediate

speed for each engine. The proposed

language links these speeds to speeds on

the power and torque curves.

EPA is concerned that the current

language allows a manufacturer to

specify rated and intermediate speeds to

any speeds. A manufacturer may specify

these speeds to develop a less stringent

test cycle. This test cycle would allow

an otherwise failing engine to meet

emission standards. Similarly, a

manufacturer could take advantage of

the current definitions by specifying

speeds that maximize credits generated

or minimize credits used in the

Averaging, Banking, and Trading

program.

Rated speed is proposed to be defined

as the full load governed speed. The

term full load is used to avoid confusion

between the terms governed speed and

high idle speed. High idle speed is the

no-load governed speed. The maximum
50180 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

full load speed is the highest speed with

an advertised power greater than zero.

EPA is linking full load governed speed

to advertisements at this time since no

adequate language has been developed

that mathematically defines full load

governed speed as a point on the torque

or power curve. Power curves in

manufacturer’s advertisements typically

end at the governed speed. EPA believes

that manufacturers will continue to

advertise the full range of power of its

engine. Therefore, manufacturers will

not set rated speed at less than full load

governed speed. It is unlikely that

manufacturers will advertise powers

beyond the full load governed speed

since a manufacturer cannot guarantee

their customers power beyond this

point.

The change in the definition of rated

speed should not have any effect on

manufacturers. EPA does not believe

that any manufacturer will need to

recertify their engines because of this

new definition. By linking the definition

to advertisements, EPA will not require

manufacturers to perform an engine

map for compliance testing. The

advertised value will be the test value.

EPA plans to evaluate the

appropriateness of the rated speed

definition in a future test program. EPA

would prefer to have a technical

definition of full load governed speed,

possibly in terms of rate of change of

power. Given the large power range of

engines covered by these regulations, an

adequate definition using a singular rate

could not be determined at this time.

EPA will continue to evaluate this

possibility.

Since the steady state test cycles test

engines at a maximum of three engine

speeds, it is important to test at speeds

representative of in-use operation to

control emissions during in-use

operation. As the shapes of power and

torque curves vary with future engine

design, the emissions from engines will

vary. Testing at the full load governor

speed regulates emissions at this speed

but may not effectively limit emissions

from the engine. As part of the planned

evaluation of the steady-state test

procedure, EPA intends to evaluate

whether another speed, such as the

speed at maximum power, is more

effective at controlling emissions.

EPA is proposing to amend the

intermediate speed definition to be

consistent with the definition of

intermediate speed for the smoke test

procedure. This definition will

eliminate the possibility of a

manufacturer specifying an intermediate

speed to lower emissions from the

engine. The proposed definition

provides for testing at a median engine

speed while still linking the definition

to the torque curve of the engine and

being a speed representative of in-use

operation.

B. Other Technical Amendments

Additional amendments make a

variety of clarifications and correct

typographical errors and omissions from

the original rule. The most significant of

these are described in the following

paragraphs.

The amendments change the criteria

for test engine selection. The current

language bases test engine selection on

the maximum fuel per stroke at

maximum power. However, EPA had

intended in the original rule to make the

test engine selection based primarily on

the highest fuel per stroke at peak

torque and secondarily on the highest

fuel per stroke at rated speed.

The calibration requirements for the

gaseous emission measurement

analyzers are modified in various ways.

The requirements for measurement

accuracy below fifteen percent of full

scale are revised to include a specific

number of gas concentrations at the low

end of the calibration curve. Also,

calibration requirements are simplified

to allow laboratories to calibrate only

one analyzer range and still ensure

accurate measurements. Additional

changes to calibration requirements for

other equipment are described in EPA’s

memorandum to the docket.

Other modifications relate to the test

sequence and calculation of emission

results. A ‘‘mode’’ is defined and the

procedure for dealing with void modes

is included. The equations used to

calculate emissions during raw

sampling are corrected. The

amendments also correct errors in the

currently listed equations and include

new equations that were mistakenly

omitted.

V. Technological Feasibility

The emission standards proposed

above would apply to a broad range of

diesel engines used in a wide variety of

nonroad applications. Section 213(a)(3)

of the Clean Air Act calls for EPA to

establish standards that provide for the

‘‘greatest degree of emission reduction

achievable through the application of

technology which the Administrator

determines will be available for the

engines or vehicles to which such

standards apply, giving appropriate

consideration to the cost of applying

such technology within the period of

time available to manufacturers and to

noise, energy, and safety factors

associated with the application of such

technology.’’ This section describes

EPA’s understanding of the range of

technologies that will be available for

manufacturers to comply with the

proposed standards. The costs

associated with these technologies are

considered in Section VI.B. EPA has

concluded, as described in the Draft

RIA, that the proposed standards will

have no significant negative effect on

noise, energy, or safety.

EPA has considered the diversity of

the nonroad engine and equipment

industries and believes that the

standards being proposed will require

the most advanced technology that will

be available for the various engines

classes in this time frame. While

meeting these standards will be

challenging, EPA believes compliance

with the standards will be feasible for

manufacturers, as described in the

following discussion. In the course of

the 2001 Feasibility Review, EPA will

verify the appropriateness of the Tier 2

standards for engines rated under 37 kW

and the Tier 3 standards for engines

rated between 37 and 560 kW, including

consideration of the same factors

described above. A more detailed

description of the technologies and their

potential for controlling emissions is

contained in the Draft RIA.

In developing the various numerical

standards and implementation dates

proposed in this notice, EPA depended

heavily on extending the analysis of

technological feasibility for the

preceding proposal for highway heavyduty engines. While the proposed

standards for highway engines applied

equally to all sizes of engines starting in

the same year, the standards proposed

in this notice are a complex

combination of numerical values and

applicable model years. Varying

numerical standards were considered

necessary to account for the very wide

range of engines represented in nonroad

applications. Also, because of the range

of engines offered by individual

manufacturers, EPA agreed with

manufacturers that new standards could

be implemented most expeditiously by

phasing the standards in at different

times for different power ranges. EPA

applied a similar phase-in for the first

tier of nonroad emission standards

promulgated in 1994.

A. Development of the Implementation

Schedule

The timing of the new and revised

standards was calculated to maximize

the introduction of emission-reduction

technologies. For engines rated under 37

kW, introducing new Tier 1 standards

for 1999 and 2000 is very aggressive.

EPA considered the five years of lead

time between Tier 1 and Tier 2

standards for these engines to be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50181

necessary for manufacturers to recover

their initial investment and prepare for

the next round of changes.

For engines rated between 37 and 560

kW, the Tier 2 standards follow the

introduction of comparable emission

standards for highway engines. Within

this range, engines rated between 225

and 450 kW were considered most

susceptible to technologies transferred

from highway engines and were

therefore scheduled to be the first

engines subject to the Tier 2 standards,

starting in 2001. This provides three

years following implementation of

EPA’s 1998 highway NOX emission

standard of 5.4 g/kW-hr (4.0 g/hp-hr) for

manufacturers to incorporate highwaybased technologies into nonroad engines

to meet the Tier 2 standards, which are

comparable to the 1998 highway

standards. Other power ratings within

this range follow over the next three

years. Engines rated between 37 and 75

kW are the last ones in this group to be

subject to Tier 2 standards; this

additional lead time (until 2004) is due

to the need for a greater effort to transfer

technology from the larger highway

engines to these engines, many of which

are naturally aspirated. Proposed

implementation of Tier 3 standards for

these engines is scheduled between two

and four years following the

implementation of comparable emission

standards for highway engines. Also,

implementation of Tier 3 standards

between 2006 and 2008 allows three to

five years following implementation of

the Tier 2 nonroad standards for

different power ratings. EPA believes

that implementing the proposed Tier 3

standards any sooner could either forego

the potential of transferring highway

technology or pose an unreasonably

short period between the Tier 2 and Tier

3 standards for manufacturers to recoup

their costs for complying with Tier 2

standards.

Engines rated over 560 kW are in a

unique category. Because of the very

low sales volumes of these engines,

manufacturers need a longer period to

recoup their development costs. For that

reason, these engines and the associated

equipment generally have much longer

product development cycles. EPA has

accordingly proposed only one

additional tier of emission standard for

these engines. Tier 2 standards would

then apply beginning in 2006, six years

after the Tier 1 standards take effect.

B. Development of Numerical Standards

The next paragraphs lay out the

rationale for the numerical standards in

this proposal (see Table 1 for emission

standards). Individual technologies and

the unique characteristics of various

sizes of engines are considered in

greater detail in the next section.

Selecting the numerical standards

involved a measure of extrapolation of

information available for highway

engines, with additional judgment to

take into account the unique operating

characteristics typical of nonroad

applications of the various power

ranges. For nonroad engines most

similar to models available as highway

heavy-duty engines, EPA made a

relatively straightforward adjustment of

the technological capabilities

established for highway engines.

Expectations for other engines,

especially smaller models, were

adjusted according to their size-related

limitations, with the expectation that

most of the control technologies were

adaptable to any size diesel engine.

1. NMHC + NOX

The targeted level of emission control

for engines rated under 37 kW is based

on engine designs utilizing direct

injection, rather than the lower-emitting

indirect injection designs. The direct

injection engines have significantly

better fuel economy; EPA therefore does

not want to set emission standards that

preclude the use of direct injection

engines. The Tier 1 standards allow very

little lead time, which limits the degree

of control achievable from these

engines. EPA chose a NMHC + NOX

standard of 9.5 g/kW-hr (7.1 g/hp-hr) for

engines rated between 8 and 37 kW,

expecting these engines to use similar

technologies to those adopted for larger

Tier 1 engines in response to EPA’s

1994 rulemaking. Direct injection

engines rated under 8 kW are expected

to have a greater challenge reducing

emissions in the near term, due to the

design constraints related to the smaller

cylinders and higher engine speeds, and

would therefore be subject to a NMHC

+ NOX standard of 10.5 g/kW-hr (7.8 g/

hp-hr). The 1994 rulemaking set a NOX

standard of 9.2 g/kW-hr (6.9 g/hp-hr) for

engines rated over 37 kW and an HC

standard of 1.3 g/kW-hr (1.0 g/hp-hr) for

engines rated over 130 kW. The

technologies needed to meet this

standard would generally involve

combustion chamber optimization and

timing retard, both of which are well

established for diesel engines and

should be readily adaptable to the

smaller engine models.

The proposed Tier 2 and Tier 3

numerical standards for NMHC + NOX

emissions are derived most directly

from highway engines. Engines rated

over 75 kW were believed to have little

difficulty in transferring technology

developed for highway engines. Two

principal factors were considered in

selecting the numerical standard. First,

though nonroad engines have much in

common with their highway

counterparts, some aspects of operation

in nonroad applications differs

significantly from that of highway

engines. The main distinction in

nonroad applications is the lack of highspeed air for cooling the engine and

intake air (after being heated by a

turbocharger). Less effective heat

transfer in the aftercooler translates into

higher combustion temperatures and

higher levels of NOX formation. Second,

the different test cycles specified for

certification testing prevent a direct

translation of numerical standards;

however, as described in Section III.B.

above, test data shows that NOX and HC

levels are roughly comparable on the

highway test cycle and the primary

nonroad test cycle (C1). Taking these

factors into consideration led EPA to

choose numerical standards for NMHC

+ NOX approximately 0.7 g/kW-hr (0.5

g/hp-hr) higher than the comparable

highway standards for nonroad engines

rated over 75 kW. The resulting NMHC

+ NOX standards are either 6.4 or 6.6 g/

kW-hr (4.8 or 4.9 g/hp-hr) for Tier 2

engines and 4.0 g/kW-hr (3.0 g/hp-hr)

for Tier 3 engines.

Engines rated under 75 kW have

additional distinctions relative to

highway engines. These engines are

typically naturally aspirated, in which

case they do not have the benefit of a

turbocharger and aftercooler for

controlling intake air characteristics.

These engines also have progressively

smaller cylinder displacements and

higher rotation speeds, which increase

the challenge of controlling the

combustion event. The proposed

numerical standards for these engines

are therefore set higher than those for

larger engines. The proposed Tier 2

NMHC + NOX standard for all engines

rated under 75 kW is 7.5 g/kW-hr (5.6

g/hp-hr). Similarly, the proposed Tier 3

NMHC + NOX standard for engines rated

between 37 and 75 kW is 4.7 g/kW-hr

(3.5 g/hp-hr)

2. PM

In 1994, EPA set a PM standard of

0.54 g/kW-hr (0.40 g/hp-hr), using the

steady-state ISO C1 cycle, for engines

rated over 130 kW. EPA is interested in

the possibility of developing a nonroad

transient test for greater assurance of

reduced PM emissions in the field.

Because there is still no such cycle

established for nonroad engines, EPA is

proposing to adopt PM standards that

represent the greatest degree of control

appropriate for testing on the current

test cycles in the Tier 2 time frame,

including engines of all power ratings.
50182 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

37 ‘‘Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of

Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway HeavyDuty Engines,’’ U.S. EPA, June 6, 1996 (Docket A–

95–27).

More stringent PM standards for Tier 3

are not included in the proposal, with

the hope that questions related to test

cycles can be resolved in time for a

subsequent action, if appropriate.

For engines rated over 130 kW, EPA

proposes a Tier 2 PM standard of 0.20

g/kW-hr (0.15 g/hp-hr). For the same

reasons described above for NMHC and

NOX emissions, EPA expects smaller

engines to face a greater challenge in

controlling PM emissions. The proposed

Tier 2 PM standard for engines rated

between 75 and 130 kW is therefore set

at 0.30 g/kW-hr (0.22 g/hp-hr); the

comparable standard for engines rated

between 37 and 75 kW is 0.40 g/kW-hr

(0.30 g/hp-hr). For engines rated under

37 kW, EPA is proposing new PM

standards for both Tier 1 and Tier 2

engines. The near-term standards for

Tier 1 engines are 1.0 and 0.80 g/kW-hr

(0.75 and 0.60 g/hp-hr) for engines rated

under 8 kW and engines rated between

8 and 37 kW, respectively. Proposed

Tier 2 standards are set at 0.80 and 0.60

g/kW-hr (0.60 and 0.45 g/hp-hr) for

engines rated under 19 kW and engines

rated between 19 and 37 kW,

respectively.

3. CO

Formation of CO in diesel combustion

is inhibited by the presence of excess

oxygen, resulting in relatively low CO

emissions without any active control

strategies. Setting numerical standards

for CO emissions therefore serves

largely to prevent unexpected problems.

Where two tiers of standards are set

forth in this proposal, the numerical CO

standard is the same for both tiers.

Again, the largest engines have the

lowest numerical standard.

C. Technological Approaches

Because the proposed emission

standards for nonroad diesel engines

depend on the evaluation of

technologies for complying with the

standards for highway engines, the

discussion of technological feasibility in

that rulemaking is central to supporting

the feasibility of the proposed standards

for nonroad engines. This analysis of

diesel engine technologies is contained

in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA for the

highway rule.37 This analysis is

considered and applied to nonroad

engines in Chapter 3 of the Draft RIA for

this proposal, which is summarized in

the following paragraphs.

By proposing multiple tiers of

standards that extend well into the next

decade, EPA is providing engine

manufacturers with substantial lead

time for developing, testing, and

implementing emission control

technologies. This lead time and the

coordination of standards with those for

highway engines allows time for a

comprehensive R&D program to

integrate the most effective emission

control approaches into the

manufacturers’ overall design goals

related to durability, reliability, and fuel

consumption.

To meet the emission standards

proposed above, manufacturers would

need to move beyond the steps used to

comply with the first phase of nonroad

engine controls. Understanding the

control technologies applied to engines

complying with the Tier 1 standards is

important in assessing the feasibility of

meeting more stringent numerical

standards. Engines rated between 75

and 560 kW have begun to comply with

the first nonroad emission standards,

providing a clearer picture of the

starting point from which manufacturers

of these engines will be working to

reduce emissions for subsequent

emission standards. In the case of

manufacturers of engines rated under 37

kW, the standards proposed in this

notice would represent the first

emission requirements for these engines

under EPA regulations; the starting

point for improving emissions would

therefore be focused on basic engine

technology with new emission controls.

Highway heavy-duty engines will be

subject to a 5.4 g/kW-hr (4.0 g/hp-hr)

NOX standard beginning in the 1998

model year. For those manufacturers

that produce engines for both highway

and nonroad service, variations on a

single engine model are sometimes sold

for both markets. Because these engines

have similar emission levels on the

eight-mode test, they could likely

comply with the proposed Tier 2 NMHC

+ NOX standards with relatively minor

modifications to adapt the technology to

nonroad applications. Similarly, Tier 3

standards are intended to follow the

highway engine standards proposed for

the 2004 model year, with the

expectation that technology transfer will

be a very important element of

achieving compliance with the nonroad

standards. Even where engines are

dedicated to nonroad applications, the

very similar engine design makes clear

that much of the technological

development that has led to loweremitting highway engines can be

transferred or adapted for use on

nonroad engines. Specifically, much of

the improvement in highway engines

has come from ‘‘internal’’ engine

changes such as variation in fuel

injection variables (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 for

highway heavy-duty engines require a

greater degree of development before

they can be applied to nonroad engines.

Turbocharging is widely used now in

nonroad applications, especially in

larger engines, because it improves

power and efficiency by compressing

the intake air. Turbocharging can also

decrease PM emissions; however,

changing an engine from naturally

aspirated to turbocharged may raise

concerns about ‘‘packaging,’’ since with

the added turbocharger the equipment

may have to be adapted to accommodate

a physically larger engine. The concern

for packaging is especially sensitive for

small, compact equipment designs.

Space constraints, though, are generally

a matter of cost rather than feasibility

and are further addressed in the

discussion of cost to equipment

manufacturers. Turbochargers increase

the power density of engines, but

switching to a smaller engine with

equivalent power may require

substantial equipment redesign. EPA

expects that, over the long term,

equipment specifications will be

updated to take advantage of the

substantial growth in power density

from all engines; however, the difficulty

of making this transition prevents any

straightforward analysis of addressing

engine packaging concerns with more

compact engines.

Aftercooling is a well established

highway engine technology that has

only recently been widely used in

nonroad engines. The aftercooler chills

the hot air coming from the turbocharger

before it enters the cylinder, which

decreases fuel consumption and helps

prevent NOX formation by reducing

combustion temperatures. Air-to-water

aftercoolers, which use the engine’s

coolant to provide partial cooling of the

the intake air, can fit readily into most

engine applications. In the long term,

manufacturers are expected to move

toward air-to-air aftercooling, which

provides much better benefits for fuel

economy and NOX control. Because of

the additional space required for air-toair aftercoolers (for a separate heat

exchanger and a bigger fan), these

improved aftercoolers may in some

cases be integrated when equipment

manufacturers are ready to rework the

overall designs for their equipment

models.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50183

In evaluating the feasibility of the

proposed nonroad standards, it is

helpful to separately consider three

broad categories of engines. First,

manufacturers of turbocharged nonroad

diesel engines, most often rated over 75

kW, generally have the flexibility to

incorporate more sophisticated

technological innovations for

performance, fuel economy, and

emission control, including those

derived from counterpart highway

engines. Electronic controls offer great

potential for improved control of engine

operating parameters for better

performance and lower emissions. Unit

pumps or injectors would allow higherpressure fuel injection with rate shaping

to carefully time the delivery of the

whole volume of injected fuel into the

cylinder. Routing of the intake air and

the shape of the combustion chamber

can be redesigned for improved mixing

of the air-fuel charge. Air-to-air

aftercooling will likely gain widespread

use in turbocharged engines, primarily

for its fuel consumption and durability

benefits, though it also lowers NOX

emissions. Manufacturers will be able to

combine many of these technologies to

comply with Tier 2 standards. Tier 3

standards will require deployment of

additional technologies. Common rail

injection systems provide greater overall

control of the fuel injection strategy by

maintaining a constant supply of highpressure fuel at the injectors. Also,

exhaust gas recirculation will likely be

introduced in highway diesel engines

over the next several years, providing

valuable experience in developing those

systems for nonroad engines. EPA

believes these technologies will be

important in achieving compliance with

Tier 3 emission standards. A more

detailed treatment of the feasibility of

these engines meeting the proposed

standards is included in the regulatory

impact analyses, as described above.

Because the long-term standards depend

on significant progress in technology

development, EPA will be reviewing

requirements for Tier 3 engines by 2001

to confirm that developments are

progressing as expected.

The second category is the set of

water-cooled naturally aspirated

engines, which are most often rated

under 50 or 75 kW. The lack of

turbocharging (and aftercooling) and the

greater sensitivity to increased costs for

these relatively inexpensive engines

suggest that manufacturers will likely

depend on basic technologies to control

emissions to the necessary levels.

Expected changes can be divided into

two broad categories. First, combustion

optimization includes changes to basic

engine design for improved air-fuel

mixing and management of the

combustion process. These changes

might include retarded injection timing,

re-entrant piston bowl shapes, greater

swirl of the intake air, and improved

ring design for lower oil consumption.

Second, fuel injection parameters

provide many variables for the engine

designer. Manufacturers might modify

fuel pumps, injectors, or controls to

achieve higher injection pressures, more

rapid injection, better control of

injection timing (including rate

shaping), and reduced sac volume. In

addition to exhaust emission control

strategies, emissions from the crankcase

of naturally aspirated engines can be

eliminated by routing vapors from the

crankcase directly to the air intake.

These technological developments are

well understood and should provide

manufacturers with the tools needed to

comply with Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards

for engines rated under 37 kW.

Similarly, engines rated between 37 and

75 kW should be able to comply with

Tier 2 standards using these

technologies; compliance with Tier 3

standards may in addition require use of

exhaust gas recirculation. EPA believes

these engines can meet the proposed

emission standards without needing to

incorporate turbocharging. EPA believes

that increasing the numerical NMHC +

NOX standard by 0.9 g/kW-hr (0.7 g/hphr) relative to the larger engines

appropriately compensates for the

design constraints imposed by these

engines.

Third, many of the air-cooled diesel

engines rated under 8 kW face unique

design challenges. The small cylinders

and low cost of these engines limit the

flexibility of designing or adapting

technologies to control emissions. Tier 1

standards for these engines are therefore

set at less stringent levels than larger

engines. To reach these levels,

manufacturers will need to rely on

several of the strategies used for other

engines. For example, increasing swirl

and redesigning piston head geometries

can be an effective way of improving

fuel-air mixing in small engines, with

the additional benefit of allowing higher

injection pressures without increasing

fuel wetting on the cylinder walls. The

position and design of piston rings can

be improved to reduce the contribution

of engine oil to particulate emissions.

Incorporating fuel injectors that provide

mechanically controlled rate shaping

would allow substantial control of NOX

emissions at a low cost. Using injectors

with valve-closed-orifice nozzles would

similarly control HC emissions. Engines

that operate within a relatively narrow

range of engine speeds can achieve a

degree of charge-air compression with

intake manifold designs that rely on

pulse tuning. The unique characteristics

of the smallest engines pose a challenge

to the designer, but these and other

technologies are available for complying

with the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards.

Also, certification data from the

California ARB shows that most direct

injection diesel engines rated under 19

kW are currently emitting between 8

and 11 g/kW-hr (6 and 8 g/hp-hr) NMHC

+ NOX; all these engines will need to

improve, but the current best performers

support the feasibility of the Tier 1 and

Tier 2 standards for all these engines.

Finally, any engines relying on

natural aspiration technology are also

subject to the proposed requirement to

eliminate crankcase emissions. This

requirement has long been in place for

naturally aspirated highway engines.

EPA believes that the technology

required to close the crankcase is well

established and easily transferrable to

any size of nonroad engine.

D. Conclusions Regarding Technological

Feasibility

The standards set by this proposal are

the most challenging that can be

justified in this time frame. Engine

manufacturers will need to use the

available lead time to develop the

necessary emission control

technologies, including transfer of

technology from highway engines. This

development effort will require not only

achieving the targeted emission levels,

but also ensuring that each engine will

meet all performance and emission

requirements over its useful life. The

proposed standards clearly represent

major reductions compared with current

emission levels.

Emission control technology for diesel

engines is in a period of rapid

development in response to the range of

emission standards anticipated for the

years ahead. This effort will need to

continue to meet the requirements in

this proposal. However, the emission

targets are set in the framework of a long

lead time, which provides

manufacturers the time they will need

to apply emission control technology

developments to nonroad engines. Also,

the experience gained in response to

EPA’s emission standards for highway

engines will be invaluable in meeting

the comparable requirements for

nonroad engines. Because the

technology development for highway

engines will to a large extent constitute

basic research of diesel engine

combustion, this effort will also benefit

manufacturers that produce no highway

engines.
50184 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

38 ‘‘Nonroad CI Nodeling Methodology and

Request for Comment,’’ EPA memorandum from

Peter J. Caffrey to Docket A–96–40.

On the basis of information currently

available, EPA believes that it is feasible

for nonroad diesel engine manufacturers

to meet the standards proposed in this

notice within the the proposed time

frame, using combinations of the

technological approaches discussed

above and in the Draft RIA. In addition,

EPA believes that the flexibilities

incorporated into this proposal will

permit nonroad vehicle and equipment

manufacturers to respond to engine

changes in an orderly way. For both

industries, EPA expects meeting these

requirements will pose a significant

challenge. As described above, EPA

plans to assess, as part of the 2001

Feasibility Review, the appropriateness

of the proposed Tier 3 standards and the

proposed Tier 2 standards for engines

rated under 37 kW.

VI. Projected Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

To assess the environmental impact of

the proposed standards, EPA has

created a computer program for

predicting emissions from the nonroad

equipment covered by this proposal. A

memorandum describing the computer

program has been placed in the public

docket for this rulemaking.38 Chapter 5

of the Draft RIA also contains a

thorough discussion of the methodology

used to project the emission inventories

and emission reductions from nonroad

equipment covered by the proposed

standards. The reader is directed to both

of these documents for more

information on the environmental

impact of this proposal. EPA requests

comment on all aspects of the computer

program and the methodology for

projecting the emissions impact of the

proposed standards.

The amount of growth experienced in

the nonroad market will have a

significant impact on the emission

inventories and emission reductions

expected from the proposed standards.

For this environmental impact analysis,

EPA has examined the impact of the

proposed standards under two different

growth scenarios. (The growth rates

used in the nonroad modeling are

compounded growth rates.) The first

scenario uses the growth rates

developed by the Bureau of Economic

Analysis (BEA). The BEA growth rates,

which are based on a variety of

economic indicators, vary by nonroad

segment (i.e., agriculture, construction,

etc.) and typically range from one to two

percent per year. However, based on

trends in nonroad equipment sales,

trends in nonroad fuel usage, and the

continuing strong performance of the

U.S. economy, EPA believes that the

BEA growth rates may underestimate

the future growth of the nonroad

market. Therefore, EPA has also

modeled the impact of the proposed

standards using a moderately higher

growth rate of three percent for all

nonroad segments. EPA believes the

results from the two growth scenarios

serve to bracket the expected

environmental impact of the proposed

standards. The following discussion of

environmental impacts presents the

results from both the BEA growth

scenario and the three percent growth

scenario. EPA requests comments on the

appropriateness of the BEA growth rates

and the three percent growth rate.

EPA modeled the impact of the

proposed standards for NOX, NMHC,

and PM emissions. The modeling inputs

conservatively assume that equipment

manufacturers take full advantage of the

flexibility provisions described earlier.

EPA did not model the impacts of the

proposed standards on CO because CO

emissions from nonroad diesel

equipment are a very small portion of

the overall CO inventory and the

proposed standards are not expected to

have a significant impact on CO levels.

Because of the uncertainties about the

degree to which the steady-state test

procedure will control PM emissions in

use, especially from the many nonroad

engines that frequently operate in

transient modes, EPA cannot be certain

that any assessment of expected PM

emission reductions made at this time

will be completely accurate.

Nevertheless, EPA has attempted to

make a reasonable estimate of these

reductions by assuming an in-use perengine reduction equal to the difference

between the Tier 1 and proposed

standards. The baseline levels used in

this analysis are consistent with the

position taken in the Tier 1 rule that no

PM benefits are claimed from the Tier

1 PM standard. EPA believes that this

approach provides a reasonable estimate

of PM benefits from the proposed

standards but actual benefits could vary

significantly from these levels.

Based on the results of the modeling,

the expected emission benefits from the

proposed standards are quite

substantial. Tables 5, 6, and 7 contain

the nationwide NOX, NMHC, and PM

inventories, respectively, under the

baseline scenario, which assumes only

the current Tier 1 standards are in

effect, and under the control scenario,

which assumes the proposed standards

take effect. (The PM reductions

contained in Table 7 are direct PM and

do not include secondary PM benefits,

which are described below.) By 2020,

the emission reductions due to the

proposed standards reach 50 percent for

NOX, 15 percent for NMHC, and 20

percent for PM. All percentages are

calculated relative to the baseline

inventories, which assumes only the

current Tier 1 standards are in effect.

TABLE 5.—NOX EMISSIONS INVENTORY FROM NONROAD DIESEL ENGINES

[Short tons]

Calendar year

BEA growth rates 3% growth rates

With the current standards

With the proposed standards

With the current standards

With the proposed standards

2000 .................................................................................................................. 2,920,000 2,890,000 3,150,000 3,120,000

2010 .................................................................................................................. 2,740,000 1,850,000 3,450,000 2,330,000

2020 .................................................................................................................. 3,070,000 1,460,000 4,520,000 2,150,000
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50185

39 ‘‘Benefits of Mobile Source NOX Related

Particulate Matter Reductions,’’ Systems

Applications International, EPA Contract No. 68–

C5–0010, WAN 1–8, October 1996 (available in Air

Docket A–96–40).

TABLE 6.—NMHC EMISSIONS INVENTORY FROM NONROAD DIESEL ENGINES

[Short tons]

Calendar year

BEA growth rates 3% growth rates

With the current standards

With the proposed standards

With the current standards

With the proposed standards

2000 .................................................................................................................. 503,000 497,000 543,000 536,000

2010 .................................................................................................................. 582,000 509,000 730,000 638,000

2020 .................................................................................................................. 673,000 541,000 980,000 789,000

TABLE 7.—PM EMISSIONS INVENTORY FROM NONROAD DIESEL ENGINES

[Short tons]

Calendar year

BEA growth rates 3% growth rates

With the current standards

With the proposed standards

With the current standards

With the proposed standards

2000 .................................................................................................................. 478,000 476,000 515,000 513,000

2010 .................................................................................................................. 553,000 483,000 693,000 606,000

2020 .................................................................................................................. 639,000 534,000 931,000 778,000

In addition to the effect of the

proposed emission standards on direct

PM emissions noted above, the

proposed standards are expected to

reduce the concentrations of secondary

PM. Secondary PM is formed when NOX

reacts with ammonia in the atmosphere

to yield ammonium nitrate particulate.

SAI, under contract with EPA, recently

evaluated the effect of the NOX

reductions on the formation of nitrate

particulate.39 The report concluded that,

as a national average, each 100 tons of

NOX reduction will result in about 4

tons of secondary PM reduction. This

conversion rate varies from region to

region, and is greatest in the West. EPA

estimates that the approximately 1.6

million tons per year of NOX reduction

projected in 2020 resulting from this

proposal (assuming BEA growth rates)

will result in a national average of about

64,000 tons per year reduction in

secondary PM. This level of secondary

PM reduction represents about 60

percent of the projected direct PM

reductions presented in Table 7.

B. Economic Impacts

In assessing the economic impact of

changing the emission standards, EPA

has made a best estimate of the

combination of technologies that an

engine manufacturer might use to meet

the new standards at an acceptable cost.

While equipment manufacturers bear no

responsibility for meeting emission

standards, they will need to make

changes in the design of their

equipment models to accommodate the

new engines. EPA’s treatment of the

impacts of the proposal therefore

includes an analysis of costs for

equipment manufacturers. Full details

of EPA’s cost and cost-effectiveness

analyses can be found in Chapters 4 and

6 of the Draft RIA.

Estimated cost increases are broken

into purchase price and total life-cycle

operating costs. The incremental

purchase price for new engines and

equipment is comprised of variable

costs (for hardware and assembly time)

and fixed costs (for R&D, retooling, and

certification). Total operating costs

include any expected increases in

maintenance or fuel consumption. Cost

estimates based on these projected

technology packages represent an

expected incremental cost of engines as

they begin to comply with new emission

standards. Costs in subsequent years

would be reduced by several factors, as

described below. Separate projected

costs were derived for engines and

equipment used in six different ranges

of rated power; costs were developed for

engines near the middle of the listed

ranges. All costs are presented in 1995

dollars. Life-cycle costs have been

discounted to the year of sale. EPA

requests comment on all aspects of the

economic impact analysis.

1. Engine Technologies

The following discussion provides a

brief description of those technologies

EPA projects will be needed to comply

with the new emission standards. In

some cases it is difficult to make a

distinction between technologies

needed to reduce emissions for

compliance with emission standards

and those technologies that offer other

benefits for improved fuel economy,

power density, and other aspects of

engine performance. EPA believes that

without new emission standards,

manufacturers would continue research

on and eventually deploy many

technological upgrades to improve

engine performance or more costeffectively control emissions.

Turbocharging, aftercooling, and

variable-valve timing are examples of

technologies whose primary benefit is

for improved performance.

Modifications to fuel injection systems

and the introduction of electronic

controls will also continue, regardless of

any change in emission standards, to

improve engine performance. Some

further development with a focus on

NOX, HC, and PM emissions will

nevertheless play an important role in

achieving emission reduction targets.

A variety of technological

improvements are projected for

complying with the multiple tiers of

proposed emission standards. Selecting

these technology packages requires

extensive engineering analysis and

judgment. The fact that manufacturers

have nearly a full decade before

implementation of the most challenging

of the proposed standards ensures that

technologies will develop significantly

before reaching production. This

ongoing development will lead to

reduced costs in three ways. First,

research will lead to enhanced

effectiveness for individual

technologies, allowing manufacturers to

use simpler packages of emission
50186 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

40 ‘‘Engine Price (On-Highway and Nonroad) &

Life-cycle Cost Methodology,’’ memorandum from

Thomas Uden, ICF, Inc. to Alan Stout, U.S. EPA,

March 21, 1997 (available in Air Docket A–96–40).

control technologies than we would

predict given the current state of

development. Similarly, the continuing

effort to improve the emission control

technologies will include innovations

that allow lower-cost production.

Finally, manufacturers will focus

research efforts on any potential

drawbacks, such as increased fuel

consumption or maintenance costs,

attempting to minimize or overcome any

negative effects.

A combination of technology

upgrades are anticipated as a result of

the proposed emission standards.

Modifications to basic engine design

features, such as piston bowl shape and

engine block and head geometry, can

improve intake air characteristics and

distribution during combustion. For this

analysis, EPA anticipates that

manufacturers will make these basic

engine modifications for the first tier of

proposed standards. These redesigned

engines are then expected to serve as a

platform for the other changes

anticipated for the next tier of

standards. This will be less true for

engines rated under 37 kW, which have

less time to incorporate design changes

before Tier 1 standards become

effective. Manufacturers are expected to

introduce electronic controls on some

engines. Advanced fuel-injection

techniques and hardware will allow

designers to modify various fuel

injection parameters for higher pressure,

further rate shaping, and some split

injection. For Tier 3 standards, EPA

expects that many engines will see

further fuel injection improvements and

will incorporate a moderate degree of

cooled exhaust gas recirculation. Details

of the mix of technologies included in

the cost analysis can be found in

Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA.

While the following analysis projects

a relatively uniform emission control

strategy for designing the different

categories of engines, this should not

suggest that EPA expects a single

combination of technologies will be

used by all manufacturers. In fact,

depending on basic engine emission

characteristics, EPA expects that control

technology packages will gradually be

fine-tuned to different applications.

Furthermore, EPA expects

manufacturers to use averaging,

banking, and trading programs as a

means to deploy varying degrees of

emission control technologies on

different engines. EPA nevertheless

believes that the projections presented

here provide a cost estimate

representative of the different

approaches manufacturers may

ultimately take.

2. Engine Costs

The projected costs of these new

technologies for meeting the proposed

standards are itemized in the Draft RIA

and summarized in Table 8. For the

proposed Tier 1 standards for engines

rated under 37 kW, estimated costs vary

widely. Those engines that already

operate with emissions low enough to

meet the proposed Tier 1 standards

would bear costs only for closing the

crankcase and certifying the engine, or

about $20 per engine. For the remaining

one-third of engines expected to need

reduced emissions, adding engine

modifications leads to total costs of

around $70. The anticipated increase in

operating costs would similarly be

focused on the minority of engines that

need design improvements, totaling

about $220 in net present value (npv)

over the lifetime of those engines. The

calculated sales-weighted composite

increase in both the purchase price and

the operating costs for all engines rated

under 37 kW is $75 or less.

TABLE 8.—PROJECTED UNIT COSTS—ENGINES

Cost category Year of production

Power (kW)

0–37 37–75 75–130 130–450 450–560 560+

Tier 1

Incremental purchase price ....................... 1 $53 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Life-cycle Operating costs (npv) ............... all 73 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Tier 2

Incremental purchase price ....................... 1 28 180 321 328 916 1214

Life-cycle Operating costs (npv) ............... all 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tier 3

Incremental purchase price ....................... 1

6

.................... 322

111

424

177

436

194

1645

291

....................

Life-cycle Operating costs (npv) ............... all .................... 89 103 125 180 ....................

Tier 2 standards, which apply to to

the full range of power ratings, involve

higher estimated cost impacts. The set

of technologies anticipated for Tier 2

engines, including engine

modifications, improved fuel injection

and some use of electronic controls, are

not expected to cause any increase in

operating costs, as described in the Draft

RIA. The price of engines rated under

450 kW is expected to increase by up to

$330, while engines rated over 450 kW

may see price increases approaching or

exceeding $1,000. The projected cost of

compliance with Tier 3 standards

entails increases from Tier 2 costs that

follow a similar pattern to the increases

for Tier 2 standards, though the

proposed Tier 3 standards apply only to

engines rated between 37 and 560 kW.

Characterizing these estimated costs

in the context of their fraction of the

total purchase price and life-cycle

operating costs is helpful in gauging the

economic impact of the proposed

standards. ICF conducted a study to

characterize the range of current engine

costs.40 Although the incremental cost

projections in Table 8 increase

dramatically with increasing power

rating, they in fact represent a

comparable price change relative to the

total price of the engine. The estimated

cost increases for all engines are

between 2 and 10 percent of estimated

engine prices (after typical discounts

and rebates). Moreover, the cost savings
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50187

41 ‘‘Learning Curves in Manufacturing,’’ Linda

Argote and Dennis Epple, Science, February 23,

1990, Vol. 247, pp. 920–924 (available in Air Docket

A–96–40).

42U.S. EPA, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis

and Regulatory Support Document, ‘‘Control of Air

Pollution; Determination of Significance for

Nonroad Sources and Emission Standards for New

Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above

37 Kilowatts (50 Horsepower),’’ May 27, 1994

(found in Air Docket A–91–24, item VI–B–1).

described below would further reduce

the impact of the proposed emission

standards; long-term cost increases are

expected to be 4 percent of total engine

price or less.

Another way of evaluating the

variation of compliance costs with

increasing power rating is to compare

the ratio of projected cost to rated power

(in kilowatts). For the Tier 2 standards,

engines rated under 130 kW all have

cost-per-kilowatt ratios near 3.5, while

the ratios for larger engines is around

1.5. This shows again that the

apparently high projected compliance

costs for the largest engines, upon closer

analysis, are consistent with their

greater size and price.

For the long term, EPA has identified

two principal factors that would cause

the estimated incremental costs to

decrease over time. First, since fixed

costs are assumed to be recovered over

a fixed period, these costs disappear

from the analysis after they have been

fully recovered. This has a most striking

effect on the projected costs for engines

rated over 450 kW, for which the much

higher projected costs are dominated by

fixed costs. Second, the analysis

incorporates the expectation that

manufacturers will apply ongoing

research to making emission controls

more effective and less costly over time.

Research in the costs of manufacturing

has consistently shown that as

manufacturers gain experience in

production, they are able to apply

innovations to simplify machining and

assembly operations, use lower cost

materials, and reduce the number or

complexity of component parts.41 The

analysis incorporates the effects of this

learning curve by projecting that the

variable costs of producing the lowemitting engines decreases by 20

percent starting with the third year of

production and by reducing variable

costs again by 20 percent starting with

the sixth year of production. Table 8

lists the projected costs for each

category of vehicle over time, including

the set of numbers that illustrate the

projected reduction in long-term costs

for Tier 3 engines.

3. Equipment Costs

In addition to the costs directly

associated with engines that are

redesigned to meet new standards, costs

may also result from the need to

redesign the nonroad equipment in

which these engines are used. Such

redesigns, though not generally

technologically challenging, could occur

if the engine has a different shape or

heat rejection rate, or is no longer made

available in the configuration previously

used. Based on their experience with

the Tier 1 standards set in 1994,

equipment manufacturers have told EPA

that the main barrier to accommodating

complying engines is the late delivery of

such engines by engine manufacturers,

which cuts into the lead time that

equipment manufacturers need to

properly redesign their equipment.

Thus, attempts were made in the

developing this proposal to provide

stability and predictability in the setting

of standards so engine and equipment

manufacturers can more easily plan

their product releases and can

reasonably recoup the investment made

to meet the standards.

In addition, the Tier 3 emission

standards and implementation dates for

engines rated over 37 kW and Tier 2

emission standards and implementation

dates for engines rated under 37 kW are

based on the premise that no significant

equipment redesign beyond that

required to accommodate engines

meeting the previous tier of standards

will be required to accommodate the

new engines. Equipment manufacturers

may, of course, choose to spread

equipment redesigning over the time

frame for both first and second tiers of

standards. This analysis accounts for

this flexibility by projecting one major

redesign for each equipment model,

spreading the costs of these redesigns

over both tiers of standards. For each

tier of standards, EPA projects that

equipment manufacturers will have

sufficient opportunity to accommodate

complying engines and to market their

product. EPA will consider the potential

for multiple design changes to

equipment models during the 2001

Feasibility Review.

In assessing the economic impact of

the proposed emissions standards, EPA

has made a best estimate of the

modifications to equipment that relate

to packaging (installing engines in

equipment engine compartments),

power train (torque curve), and heat

rejection effects of the new complying

engines. The incremental purchase price

for new engines is comprised of fixed

costs (for R&D and retooling) and

variable costs (for hardware and

assembly time for a small percentage of

the equipment). In its analysis, EPA

attributes all increases in operating costs

(i.e., expected increases in maintenance

or fuel consumption) to incremental

engine costs, and thus, equipment costs

do not include operating costs. As

described in the engine cost section

above, after a new standard takes effect,

projected costs in subsequent years

would be reduced by several factors.

Separate projected costs were

determined for equipment in the same

ranges of power ratings used for engine

costs. Full details of EPA’s equipment

cost analysis can be found in Chapter 4

of the Draft RIA.

a. Projected Equipment Changes: Key

measures being taken by engine

manufacturers to meet the Tier 1

standards set in 1994 are retarding the

injection timing and adding air-to-water

aftercooling. EPA projected in the Tier

1 rulemaking that, though the standards

may lead to some additional heat

rejection, it would not add enough heat

rejection to require equipment changes

such as increasing the cooling capacity

and cooling fan speed (i.e., change the

size of radiators or cooling fan blades). 42

However, equipment manufacturers

claim that such changes are occurring

due to Tier 1 standards. For the most

part, this additional heat rejection

occurred due to the retarded injection

timing, and thus some equipment

manufacturers needed to increase the

size of their radiators to accommodate

these Tier 1 engines. Some equipment

manufacturers also increased the engine

fan speed for additional airflow and

cooling (increasing engine fan size can

increase fan speed). In some cases,

equipment manufacturers experienced a

small increase in fuel consumption. In

many cases equipment manufacturers

needed to alter the engine compartment

to accommodate these changes as well

as making room for added turbochargers

and aftercoolers.

A small percentage of equipment is

projected to have modifications to the

radiator and the engine fan to

compensate for some additional heat

rejection resulting from the proposed

emission standards. Equipment with

direct injection engines rated under 37

kW (about one third of the equipment in

that size range) are expected to meet the

proposed standards through retarded

injection timing, which is expected to

lead to some additional heat rejection.

Some equipment/engines introducing or

improving air-to-water aftercooling may

still require more heat rejection and

thus a somewhat larger radiator and fan,

because the engine coolant would be

routed ( and thus heated up) through

both the radiator and the aftercooler.

Many equipment manufacturers are

expected to install engines using air-to-
50188 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

air aftercooling, which greatly reduces

the heat load compared with current airto-water aftercooling models. Also, no

more retarding of the timing is expected

for these engines as a result of the

proposed emission standards. Therefore,

no increase in heat rejection and thus in

the size of the radiator and engine fan

is expected for equipment with air-to-air

aftercooling. However, even with air-toair aftercooling, some equipment may

need a larger engine fan (increase engine

fan size or speed), because there may be

some reduction in the airflow out of the

engine compartment due to the

aftercooler. In addition, exhaust gas

recirculation may lead to some

additional heat load in the Tier 3 time

frame.

With sufficient lead time provided,

engine and equipment manufacturers

are expected to have an opportunity to

integrate several changes not directly

related to emission control (i.e., air-toair aftercooling). Therefore, the

equipment changes are projected to be

needed only to compensate for some

additional heat rejection. Thus, EPA

estimated that a small percentage of the

equipment would have an increase in

the size of their radiators and cooling

fans to accommodate the new

complying engines. In addition, for

engine compartment modifications

(engine panels, brackets, etc.), EPA

estimated that, for all power ranges, a

large percentage of the equipment

would need additional miscellaneous

steel since it is expected that many

nonroad equipment models would need

some additional steel in accommodating

complying engines.

b. Projected Equipment Costs: The

costs of the projected equipment

changes due to the proposed standards

are itemized in the Draft RIA and

summarized in Table 9. The effort for

the R&D and tooling was estimated for

modifying equipment in all the above

power categories based on those

changes needed to accommodate the

engine technology modifications

described earlier in this preamble. In

addition, variable costs for engine

compartment, radiator, and engine fan

changes as described in the above

section were added for all the

equipment power categories. For all the

power categories it was estimated that

equipment manufacturers would

expend significant effort to generally

redesign the engine compartments of

their equipment due to emissions

control and its related effects.

TABLE 9.—PROJECTED UNIT COSTS

Tier

Power (kW)

0–37 37–75 75–130 130-450 450-560 560+

Tier 1:

Equipment .................................................................. $12 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Total Engine and Equipment ..................................... 65 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Tier 2:

Equipment .................................................................. 5 55 137 118 159 136

Total Engine and Equipment ..................................... 33 235 458 446 1,075 1,350

Tier 3 short-term:

Equipment .................................................................. .................... 18 46 39 53 ....................

Total Engine and Equipment ..................................... .................... 340 470 475 1,698 ....................

Tier 3 long-term:

Equipment .................................................................. .................... 1 2 4 4 ....................

Total Engine and Equipment ..................................... .................... 112 179 198 295 ....................

For the proposed Tier 1 standards that

apply to equipment with engines rated

under 37 kW, the estimated composite

cost increase is $12 per piece of

equipment. As described in the Engine

Cost section, this cost estimate is based

on the determination that a large

percentage of the engines for this range

of equipment already operate with

emissions low enough to meet the Tier

1 standards.

For Tier 2 standards, the low engine

costs for equipment rated under 75 kW

reflect the relatively high sales volume

of this range even though most of the

equipment would need relatively more

effort for accommodating complying

engines versus equipment with engines

rated over 75 kW. The highest projected

cost of $159 for equipment utilizing

engines rated between 450 and 560 kW

demonstrates that high per-equipment

piece costs are due to amortizing large

fixed costs over small sales volumes

even though most of the equipment in

this large power range would require

relatively less effort in accommodating

complying engines. Also, the higher

projected cost of $137 for equipment

with engines rated between 75 and 130

kW results from amortizing slightly

lower fixed costs compared to ratings

under 75 kW over a much smaller sales

volume.

The projected incremental cost of

complying with Tier 3 standards are

lower than that for Tier 2 standards,

because EPA expects most of the

significant changes to equipment

designs would occur for Tier 2

standards (the previous or first set of

standards). For Tier 3 standards,

equipment with engines rated between

37 and 560 kW are expected to have

incremental costs ranging from $18 to

$53. In addition, EPA estimated that, for

equipment with engines rated under 37

kW, the incremental cost of Tier 2

standards is only $5.

As discussed in the Engine Cost

section, characterizing both these

estimated incremental equipment and

engine costs in the context of their

fraction of the total equipment purchase

price is useful for evaluating the

economic impact of the proposed

standards. EPA collected quoted retail

(list) prices on several equipment pieces

to characterize the range of current

equipment prices. The combined

incremental costs estimated for

equipment and engines together for all

power ranges are mostly under 2

percent of list prices with the exception

of a few low power rated equipment

(e.g., a 3 kW centrifugal pump), which

may have relatively low sales prices and

thus estimated incremental costs that

are up to 4 percent of list prices.

Furthermore, as described above in

the Engine Cost section, the cost savings

below would further reduce the

projected cost of the proposed

standards. For the long term, EPA has

identified two principal factors that

would cause the estimated incremental

costs to decrease over time. First, since

fixed costs are assumed to be recovered

over a ten-year period, these costs

disappear from the analysis after the

first ten model years. Second, as
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50189

described further in the Engine Cost

section, the analysis incorporates the

effects of a learning curve by projecting

that the variable costs of making

equipment changes to accommodate

low-emitting engines decreases by 20

percent starting with the third year of

production and by reducing variable

costs again by 20 percent starting with

the sixth year of production. Table 9

shows the schedule of projected

equipment costs for each category of

equipment over time, and it also

presents the combined costs estimated

for equipment and engines together.

(The combined engine and equipment

costs presented in Table 9 do not

include increased operating costs.)

4. Aggregate Costs to Society

The above analysis develops unit cost

estimates for each power category. With

current data for equipment sales for

each category and projections for the

future, these costs can be translated into

a total projected cost to the nation for

the proposed emission standards in any

year. Increased purchase prices and

operating costs lead to aggregate costs of

about $3 million in the first year,

increasing to a peak of $320 million in

2008 as increasing numbers of engines

become subject to the proposed

standards. The following years show

declining aggregate costs as the per-unit

cost of compliance decreases, as

described above, to a low point of about

$190 million in 2014. After 2014, stable

engine costs applied to a slowly growing

market lead to slowly increasing

aggregate costs.

Commenters on the Supplemental

ANPRM suggested that new nonroad

diesel engine standards would

negatively impact other entities such as

equipment distributors/dealers, ultimate

purchasers (e.g., farmers, construction

contractors, loggers), and suppliers of

parts and services for engines and

equipment. In the segment of the

economy involving nonroad diesel

engines and equipment, distributors/

dealers and purchasers are downstream

of engine and equipment manufacturers,

and suppliers of parts and services are

upstream. EPA recognizes that there

may be some potential impact on these

entities from the proposed rule. For

example, as some commenters

suggested, were a sudden large increase

in equipment prices to occur, it might

result in a slowing of purchases of new

equipment, possibly causing upstream

suppliers or downstream dealers to lose

business. As described in Section

IV.B.3., EPA estimates that the

combined incremental costs for

equipment and engines together for all

power ranges would generally be under

2 percent of the list prices of equipment.

Considering that price changes are

already a common occurrence in this

market, EPA believes the impacts will

be minimal. Also, such small cost

increments, together with the

complexity of this market, make it

extremely difficult to quantitatively

analyze the impacts on entities

upstream and downstream of engine

and equipment makers. Therefore, EPA

included in the cost analysis only those

entities that are expected to be directly

impacted by the proposed rule.

C. Cost-Effectiveness

EPA has estimated the costeffectiveness (i.e., the cost per ton of

emission reduction) of the proposed

Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for

the same power categories of nonroad

equipment highlighted earlier in this

section. Chapter 6 of the Draft RIA

contains a more detailed discussion of

the cost-effectiveness analysis. EPA

requests comments on all aspects of the

cost-effectiveness analysis.

As described above in the Economic

Impacts section, the projected cost of

complying with the proposed standards

will vary by power category and model

year. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness

will also vary from model year to model

year. For comparison purposes, the

discounted lifetime costs (including

increased engine costs, equipment costs

and operating costs), emission

reductions (in short tons), and costeffectiveness of the proposed NMHC +

NOX standards are shown in Table 10

for the same model years discussed

above in the Economic Impacts section.

EPA believes this is a conservative

estimate because EPA assumed that all

of the increased costs presented earlier

were attributable to NMHC+NOX control

and none of the costs were attributed to

PM control. NOX reductions represent

approximately 90 percent of the total

NMHC+NOX emission reductions

expected from the proposed standards.

TABLE 10.—COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSED NMHC+NOX Standards

Standard Power (kW) Year of production Discounted lifetime cost

Discounted lifetime

NMHC+NOX

reductions

(tons)

Discounted lifetime

cost-effectiveness

(per ton)

Tier 1 ... 0–37 1 $138 0.32 $440

Tier 2 ... 0–37 1 33 0.04 790

....................................... 6 15 ............................................ 360

37–75 1 235 0.59 400

75–130 1 458 1.19 390

130–450 1 446 2.11 210

450–560 1 1,075 8.11 130

560 1 1,350 11.44 120

....................................... 6 207 ............................................ 20

Tier 3 ... 37–75 1 430 0.62 700

6 217 ............................................ 350

75–130 1 573 0.94 610

6 325 ............................................ 350

130–450 1 601 1.71 350

6 356 ............................................ 210

450–560 1 1,878 6.08 310

6 522 ............................................ 90

Weighting the projected cost and

emission benefit numbers presented

above by the populations of the

individual power categories, EPA

calculated the cost-effectiveness of the

proposed NMHC + NOX standards for

the entire nonroad diesel engine fleet.

Table 11 contains the resulting fleet-
50190 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

wide cost-effectiveness results for the

Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards.

TABLE 11.—FLEET-WIDE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSED

NONROAD NMHC + NOX Standards

Standard Discounted lifetime

cost-effectiveness

Tier 2 ......................... $300/ton.

Tier 3—Short term .... $400/ton.

Tier 3—Long term ..... $180/ton.

For comparison to other PM control

strategies, EPA has also analyzed the

cost-effectiveness of the proposed

standards assuming half of the increased

costs were attributable to PM control.

Such a fleet-wide discounted lifetime

cost-effectiveness represents the highest

figure that could be expected for costeffectiveness of the proposed standards

and was calculated to provide an

indication of the upper bound of PM

cost-effectiveness. The resulting fleetwide discounted lifetime costeffectiveness of the proposed Tier 1 and

Tier 2 PM standards was approximately

$1,500 per ton.

In an effort to evaluate the costeffectiveness of the proposed NMHC +

NOX controls for nonroad engines, EPA

has summarized the cost-effectiveness

results for three other recent EPA

mobile source rulemakings that required

reductions in NOX (or NMHC + NOX)

emissions. The heavy-duty vehicle

portion of the Clean Fuel Fleet Vehicle

Program yielded a cost-effectiveness of

approximately $1,500/ton of NOX, Phase

II of the Reformulated Gasoline Program

yielded approximately $5,000/ton of

NOX, and the most recent NMHC + NOX

standards for highway heavy-duty diesel

engines yielded a cost-effectiveness of

$100–$600/ton of NMHC + NOX. The

cost-effectiveness of the proposed

NMHC + NOX standards for nonroad

diesel engines presented above are more

favorable than the cost-effectiveness of

both the clean fuel fleet vehicle program

and reformulated gasoline. The costeffectiveness of the proposed NMHC +

NOX standards for nonroad diesel

engines is comparable to the costeffectiveness of the most recent NMHC

+ NOX standards for heavy-duty

highway diesel engines.

EPA has also summarized the costeffectiveness results for two other recent

EPA mobile source rulemakings that

required reductions in PM emissions.

The cost-effectiveness of the most recent

urban bus engine PM standard was

estimated to be $10,000–$16,000/ton

and the cost-effectiveness of the urban

bus retrofit/rebuild program was

estimated to be approximately $25,000/

ton. The PM cost-effectiveness of the

proposed nonroad engine standards

presented above are more favorable than

either of the urban bus programs.

In addition to the benefits of reducing

ozone within and transported into urban

ozone nonattainment areas, the NOX

reductions from the proposed nonroad

engine standards are expected to have

beneficial impacts with respect to crop

damage, secondary particulate, acid

deposition, eutrophication, visibility,

and forests, as described earlier.

Because of the difficulty of quantifying

the monetary value of these societal

benefits, the cost-effectiveness values

presented do not assign any numerical

value to these additional benefits.

However, based on an analysis of

existing studies that have estimated the

value of such benefits in the past, the

Agency believes that the actual

monetary value of the multiple

environmental and public health

benefits that would be produced by

large NOX reductions similar to those

projected under this proposal will likely

be greater than the estimated

compliance costs. EPA requests

comment on including these benefits in

an estimate of the cost-effectiveness of

the proposed standards.

VII. Public Participation

As mentioned above, EPA issued a

Supplemental ANPRM releasing the

Nonroad Statement of Principles and

announcing EPA’s intent to formally

propose regulatory action relating to

nonroad diesel emissions consistent

with the Statement of Principles. By the

time the comment period closed, the

Agency had received more than 20

communications relating to this

program and the Supplemental ANPRM.

Additional comments have been

received as a part of the Agency’s

special outreach to small entities (see

Section VIII.B.). These comments have

been very valuable in developing this

proposal, and the Agency looks forward

to additional comment as the formal

rulemaking process now begins. All of

these comments are available in the

rulemaking docket and many of them

are discussed in the context of various

issues in this preamble. EPA has

considered each of the comments and

has attempted to address them in this

proposal.

A. Comments and the Public Docket

Publication of this notice opens a

formal comment period for this

proposal. EPA will accept comments for

the period indicated under ‘‘DATES’’

above. The Agency encourages all

parties that have an interest in the

program described in this notice to offer

comment on all aspects of the action.

Throughout this proposal are requests

for specific comment on various topics.

The most useful comments are those

supported by appropriate and detailed

rationales, data, and analyses. The

Agency also encourages commenters

that disagree with the proposed program

to suggest and analyze alternate

approaches to meeting the air quality

goals of this proposed program. All

comments, with the exception of

proprietary information, should be

directed to the EPA Air Docket Section,

Docket No. A–96–40 before the date

specified above.

Commenters who wish to submit

proprietary information for

consideration 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 a commenter wants EPA to use a

submission of confidential information

as part of the basis for the final rule,

then a nonconfidential version of the

document that summarizes the key data

or information should be sent to the

docket.

Information covered by a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA

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 when it is received by EPA,

it will be made available to the public

without further notice to the

commenter.

B. Public Hearing

The Agency will hold a public

hearing as noted in the DATES section

above. Any person desiring to present

testimony at the public hearing is asked

to notify the contact person listed above

at least five business days prior to the

date of the hearing. This notification

should include an estimate of the time

required for the presentation of the

testimony and any need for audio/visual

equipment. EPA suggests that sufficient

copies of the statement or material to be

presented be available to the audience.

In addition, it is helpful if the contact

person receives a copy of the testimony

or material prior to the hearing.

The hearing will be conducted

informally, and technical rules of

evidence will not apply. A sign-up sheet

will be available at the hearing for

scheduling the order of testimony. A

written transcript of the hearing will be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50191

prepared. The official record of the

hearing will be kept open for 30 days

after the hearing to allow submittal of

supplementary information.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866, 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 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993). The

order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as any regulatory action 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.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, EPA has determined that

this proposal is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ because the proposed standards

and other regulatory provisions, if

implemented, would have an annual

effect on the economy in excess of $100

million. A Draft RIA has been prepared

and is available in the docket associated

with this rulemaking. This action was

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review as

required by Executive Order 12866. Any

written comments from OMB and any

EPA response to OMB comments are in

the public docket for this proposal.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act was

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, to

ensure that concerns regarding small

entities are adequately considered

during the development of new

regulations that affect them. In response

to the provisions of this statute, EPA has

identified industries subject to this

proposed rule and has provided

information to and received comment

from small entities and representatives

of small entities in these industries. The

Agency has also convened a panel

under section 609(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act as added by SBREFA.

The purpose of the Panel is to collect

the advice and recommendations of

representatives of small entities that

will be affected by the rule and to report

on those comments and the Panel’s

findings as to issues related to the key

elements of an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis under section 603 of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Those

elements of an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis are:

• The number of small entities to

which the proposed rule will apply.

• Projected reporting, recordkeeping,

and other compliance requirements of

the proposed rule, including the classes

of small entities which will be subject

to the requirements and the type of

professional skills necessary for

preparation of the report or record.

• Other relevant Federal rules which

may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with

the proposed rule.

• Any significant alternatives to the

proposed rule which accomplish the

stated objectives of applicable statutes

and which minimize any significant

economic impact of the proposed rule

on small entities.

Once completed, the Panel report is

provided to the Agency issuing the

proposed rule and included in the

rulemaking record. In light of the Panel

report, the Agency is to make changes

to the proposed rule or the initial

regulatory flexibility analysis for the

proposed rule, where appropriate.

EPA has prepared an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis to analyze the

economic impacts of this proposed rule

on small companies; the initial

regulatory flexibility analysis is found

in Chapter 4 of the Draft RIA. EPA’s

outreach to small entities and EPA’s

responses to the recommendations of

the Panel are described in the initial

regulatory flexibility analysis and

summarized below. The Agency

continues to be interested in the

potential impacts of the proposed rule

on small entities and welcomes

additional comments during the

rulemaking process on issues related to

such impacts.

1. Applicable Small Businesses

The initial regulatory flexibility

analysis analyzes four separate but

related industries that will be subject to

this proposed rule and that contain

small businesses as defined by

regulations of the Small Business

Administration (SBA): nonroad diesel

engine manufacturing, manufacturing of

nonroad diesel equipment, postmanufacture marinizing of diesel

engines, and the rebuilding or

remanufacturing of diesel nonroad

engines. According to SBA’s regulations

(13 CFR 121), businesses with no more

than the following numbers of

employees or dollars of annual receipts

are considered ‘‘small entities’’ for

purposes of a regulatory flexibility

analysis:

• Manufacturers of engines (includes

marinizers)—1000 employees.

• Equipment manufacturers

• Manufacturers of construction

equipment—750 employees.

• Manufacturers of industrial trucks

(forklifts)—750 employees.

• Manufacturers of other nonroad

equipment—500 employees.

• Rebuilders/Remanufacturers of

engines—$5 million.

2. Small Business Economic Impact

Analysis

The initial regulatory flexibility

analysis evaluates in detail the financial

impacts of the proposed standards on

small manufacturers of nonroad diesel

equipment. Along with small

manufacturers of equipment, the

potential impacts on small

manufacturers of diesel engines, small

marinizers, and small engine rebuilders/

remanufacturers were assessed as part of

the SBREFA Panel process as discussed

below; however, a detailed economic

analysis was conducted only for

equipment manufacturers, for the

following reasons. There is only one

small manufacturer of diesel engines

affected by the proposed rule that meets

the Small Business Administration’s

(SBA) small business criteria, and this

small engine manufacturer would have

impacts from the proposal that are

similar to those impacts experienced by

large nonroad engine manufacturers,

which are described in Section VI.B. of

this proposal. Marinizers are expected

to experience impacts similar to those of

nonroad equipment manufacturers since

changes made by the original engine

manufacturers might require changes in

the parts and process involved in

marinization. Engine rebuilders/

remanufacturers would not be

economically impacted by this proposed

rule since as described in Section III.C.

of this proposal, the proposed

provisions for these entities would not

require a change to their current

practices.

As described in Section IV.B.4.,

commenters on the Supplemental

ANPRM suggested that new nonroad

diesel engine standards would

negatively impact other small entities

such as equipment distributors/dealers,

ultimate purchasers, and suppliers of
50192 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

43 ‘‘Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel for Control of Emissions of

Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines’’, May

23, 1997 (available in Air Docket A–96–40).

parts and services for engines and

equipment. EPA recognizes that these

downstream and upstream small entities

may be adversely impacted by the

proposed rule. However, for the reasons

described in Section IV.B.4., EPA

included in the cost analysis and the

initial regulatory flexibility analysis

only those entities that are expected to

be directly impacted by the proposed

rule. EPA asks for comments on the

potential impacts of the proposed rule

on any downstream and upstream small

entities, with supporting data or

methodologies to assist in analyzing

these impacts whenever possible.

The initial regulatory flexibility

analysis applies an economic measure

known as the ‘‘sales test’’ to evaluate the

economic impact of the proposed

standards on small manufacturers of

nonroad diesel equipment. The sales

test involves calculation of annualized

compliance costs as a function of sales

revenue. According to the sales test

results in the initial regulatory

flexibility analysis, an estimated 9

percent of small equipment

manufacturers would be economically

impacted by greater than 1 percent by

the proposed rule. Also, an estimated 5

percent of small equipment

manufacturers would experience an

impact greater than 3 percent.

As described in Section III.E. of this

proposal, this proposed rule includes

flexibility provisions for equipment

manufacturers (both large and small

manufacturers). As shown in the initial

regulatory flexibility analysis, the

flexibility provisions should reduce any

economic impacts of the proposed

regulations on small equipment

manufacturers. However, the effects of

the provisions are likely conservatively

estimated because the hardship relief

provisions described in Section III.E.

were not included in the analysis. EPA

considers the flexibility provisions to be

a significant regulatory alternative since

they meet the Agency’s air quality

objectives while minimizing significant

economic impacts on small equipment

manufacturers.

3. SBREFA Panel and Other Regulatory

Alternatives

Consistent with SBREFA, EPA

convened a Small Business Advocacy

Review Panel on March 25, 1997 to

collect the advice and recommendations

of representatives of small entities that

may be affected by the proposed rule

and to report on those comments. The

Panel, consisting of representatives of

the Small Business Administration, the

Office of Management and Budget, and

EPA, issued a report on May 23, 1997.43

Accordingly, during the development

of this proposal, EPA and the SBREFA

Panel were in contact with

representatives of small nonroad diesel

equipment manufacturers, small

nonroad diesel engine manufacturers,

small nonroad engine rebuilders/

remanufacturers, and small postmanufacture engine marinizers. In its

final report, the SBREFA Panel

encouraged EPA to continue to seek

information and conduct analysis

relating the number of small entities

potentially affected by this proposed

rule. The Panel also encouraged EPA to

consider the potential overlap with

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) regulations

related to ambient CO levels and to

design the rule to minimize the need for

record keeping and reporting. The

Agency requests additional information,

comments, and suggestions on the

number of small entities and the

potential overlap with OSHA CO limits

in response to this proposal. Proposed

measures to minimize record keeping

and reporting are discussed in Section

III.E. of this proposal.

In addition, the Panel believed that a

set of five alternatives to the provisions

outlined in the Supplemental ANPRM,

considered as an integrated package,

would provide significant flexibility and

burden reduction for small entities

subject to the proposed rule. The Panel

believed that EPA should consider

conducting further analysis on these

five alternatives and proposing or

soliciting comment on them in this

proposal. It is important to note that the

Panel’s findings are based on the

information available at the time the

Panel report was drafted. The Panel

makes its report at an early stage of the

process of promulgating a rule and its

report should be considered in that

light.

EPA is proposing or soliciting

comment in this proposal on the five

regulatory alternatives, based on EPA’s

analysis and agreement with the Panel’s

findings (see Section III.E.). These

alternatives meet the Agency’s air

quality objectives while maximizing the

compliance flexibility for small

manufacturers of nonroad equipment

and small marinizers. A more detailed

discussion on EPA’s outreach and these

significant regulatory alternatives is

provided in the initial regulatory

flexibility analysis (found in Chapter 4

of the Draft RIA) and in Section III.E. of

this proposal.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. A copy of

any of the submitted Information

Collection Requests (ICR) documents

may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740. The

following ICR documents have been

prepared by EPA:

EPA ICR # Title

0011.09 .... Selective Enforcement Auditing

and recordkeeping requirements for on-highway HDE,

nonroad compression ignition

engines, and on-highway lightduty vehicles and light duty

trucks.

0095.10 .... Pre-certification and testing exemption reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0282.10 .... Emission Defect Information and

Voluntary Emission recall reports.

1684.04 .... Compression ignition non-road

engine certification application.

1695.03 .... Amendment to the Information

Collection Request Emission

Standards for New Nonroad

Spark-Ignition Engines.

1826.01 .... Information Collection for Equipment Manufacturer Flexibility.

The Agency proposes to collect

information related to certification

results, durability, maintenance, and

averaging, banking and trading. This

information will be used to ensure

compliance with and enforce the

provisions in this rule. Section 208(a) of

the Clean Air Act requires that

manufacturers provide information the

Administrator may reasonably require to

determine compliance with the

regulations; submission of the

information is therefore mandatory. EPA

will consider confidential all

information meeting the requirements of

§ 208(c) of the Clean Air Act.

These collections of information have

an estimated annual burden averaging

3100 hours annually for a typical engine

manufacturer. The estimated likely

respondents is 58 with annual

operational and maintenance costs of

$195,000. However, the hours and

annual cost of information collection

activities by a given manufacturer

depends on manufacturer-specific

variables, such as the number of engine
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50193

families, production changes, emissions

defects, and so forth. Burden means the

total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide

information to or for a federal agency.

This includes the time needed to review

instructions; develop, acquire, install,

and utilize technology and systems for

the purposes of collecting, validating,

and verifying information, processing

and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing ways to comply with

any previously applicable instructions

and requirements; train personnel to be

able to respond to a collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after

publication in the Federal Register, a

comment to OMB is best assured of

having its full effect if OMB receives it

within 30 days after publication in the

Federal Register. The final rule will

respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on state, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may result

in expenditures to state, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

for any one year. Before promulgating

an EPA rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

This proposed rule contains no

federal mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

state, local, or tribal governments. The

rule imposes no enforceable duties on

any of these governmental entities.

Nothing in the proposed program would

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. EPA has determined that

this rule contains federal mandates that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more in any one year for the

private sector. EPA believes that the

proposed program represents the least

costly, most cost-effective approach to

achieving the air quality goals of the

proposed rule. The cost-benefit analysis

required by UMRA is contained in the

RIA. The reader is directed to Section

VIII.A. above, Administrative

Designation and Regulatory Analysis,

for further information regarding these

analyses.

IX. Statutory Authority

In accordance with section 213(a) of

the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7547(a),

EPA conducted a study of emissions

from nonroad engines, vehicles, and

equipment in 1991. Based on the results

of that study, EPA determined that

emissions of NOX, VOCs (including 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). Given this

determination, section 213(a)(3) of the

Act requires EPA to promulgate (and

from time to time revise) emissions

standards for those classes or categories

of new nonroad engines, vehicles, and

equipment that in EPA’s judgment cause

or contribute to such air pollution. EPA

has determined that the engines that

would be regulated under this proposal

‘‘cause or contribute’’ to such air

pollution. (See the June 1994 final rule

and Section II.A.3. above).

Where EPA determines that other

emissions from new 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 EPA to establish

(and from time to time revise) emission

standards from those classes or

categories of new nonroad engines,

vehicles, and equipment that EPA

determines cause or contribute to such

air pollution. In the June 1994 final rule,

EPA made this determination for

missions of PM and smoke from

nonroad engines in general and for CI

nonroad engines rated over 37 kW. With

this document, EPA is making the same

findings for nonroad diesel engines

rated under 37 kW. (See Section II.A.3.

above).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 86

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Labeling, Motor vehicle

engine pollution, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 89

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Motor

vehicles, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Research.

Dated: August 29, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 9, 86,

and 89 of the Code of Federal

Regulations are proposed to be amended

as set forth below.
50194 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

PART 9—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321,

1326, 1330, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O.

11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975

Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246,

300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 300g–3, 300g–4,

300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–

4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 6901–6992k, 7401–

7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended in the table

by removing the center heading

‘‘Control of Emissions From New and

In-Use Nonroad Engines’’ and the

entries under that center heading and

adding a new center heading and entries

in numerical order to read as follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

* * * * *

Control of Emissions From New and InUse Compression-Ignition Nonroad Engines

89.1 ........................................... 2060–0124

89.2 ........................................... 2060–0124

89.114–89.120 .......................... 2060–0104

89.122–89.127 .......................... 2060–0104

89.129 ....................................... 2060–0104

89.203–89.207 .......................... 2060–0104

89.209—89.211 ........................ 2060–0104

89.304–89.331 .......................... 2060–0104

89.404–89.424 .......................... 2060–0104

89.505–89.510 .......................... 2060–0064

89.511–89.512 .......................... 2060–0064

89.603–89.605 .......................... 2060–0095

89.607–89.610 .......................... 2060–0095

89.611 ....................................... 2060–0007

2060–0095

89.612 ....................................... 2060–0095

89.801–89.803 .......................... 2060–0048

89.903 ....................................... 2060–0124

89.905–89.911 .......................... 2060–0007

* * * * *

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS

FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY

VEHICLES AND ENGINES

3. The heading of part 86 is revised

as set forth above.

4. The authority citation for part 86

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

5. Section 86.884–8 as amended at 62

FR 47122 effective January 5, 1998, is

amended by revising the table in

paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:

§ 86.884–8 Dynamometer and engine

equipment.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) * * *

Maximum rated horsepower

Exhaust

pipe diameter (inches)

HP≤50 ....................................... 1.5

50≤HP<100 ............................... 2.0

100≤HP<200 ............................. 3.0

200≤HP<300 ............................. 4.0

300≤HP<500 ............................. 5.0

HP≥500 ..................................... 6.0

* * * * *

PART 89—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS

FROM NEW AND IN-USE

COMPRESSION-IGNITION NONROAD

ENGINES

6. The heading of part 89 is revised

as set forth above.

7. The authority citation for part 89

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 202, 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216, and 301(a)

of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.

7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542,

7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)).

8. The following sections are

redesignated as set forth in the

following table:

Old designation New designation

89.101–96 89.101

89.102–96 89.102

89.103–96 89.103

89.104–96 89.104

89.105–96 89.105

89.106–96 89.106

89.107–96 89.107

89.108–96 89.108

89.109–96 89.109

89.110–96 89.110

89.111–96 89.111

89.112–96 89.112

89.113–96 89.113

89.114–96 89.114

89.115–96 89.115

89.116–96 89.116

89.117–96 89.117

89.118–96 89.118

89.119–96 89.119

89.120–96 89.120

89.121–96 89.121

89.122–96 89.122

89.123–96 89.123

89.124–96 89.124

89.125–96 89.125

89.126–96 89.126

89.127–96 89.127

89.128–96 89.128

89.129–96 89.129

89.201–96 89.201

89.202–96 89.202

89.203–96 89.203

89.204–96 89.204

89.205–96 89.205

89.206–96 89.206

Old designation New designation

89.207–96 89.207

89.208–96 89.208

89.209–96 89.209

89.210–96 89.210

89.211–96 89.211

89.212–96 89.212

89.301–96 89.301

89.302–96 89.302

89.303–96 89.303

89.304–96 89.304

89.305–96 89.305

89.306–96 89.306

89.307–96 89.307

89.308–96 89.308

89.309–96 89.309

89.310–96 89.310

89.311–96 89.311

89.312–96 89.312

89.313–96 89.313

89.314–96 89.314

89.315–96 89.315

89.316–96 89.316

89.317–96 89.317

89.318–96 89.318

89.319–96 89.319

89.320–96 89.320

89.321–96 89.321

89.322–96 89.322

89.323–96 89.323

89.324–96 89.324

89.325–96 89.325

89.326–96 89.326

89.327–96 89.327

89.328–96 89.328

89.329–96 89.329

89.330–96 89.330

89.331–96 89.331

89.401–96 89.401

89.402–96 89.402

89.403–96 89.403

89.404–96 89.404

89.405–96 89.405

89.406–96 89.406

89.407–96 89.407

89.408–96 89.408

89.409–96 89.409

89.410–96 89.410

89.411–96 89.411

89.412–96 89.412

89.413–96 89.413

89.414–96 89.414

89.415–96 89.415

89.416–96 89.416

89.417–96 89.417

89.418–96 89.418

89.419–96 89.419

89.420–96 89.420

89.421–96 89.421

89.422–96 89.422

89.423–96 89.423

89.424–96 89.424

89.425–96 89.425

89.501–96 89.501

89.502–96 89.502

89.503–96 89.503

89.504–96 89.504

89.505–96 89.505

89.506–96 89.506

89.507–96 89.507

89.508–96 89.508

89.509–96 89.509

89.510–96 89.510

89.511–96 89.511

89.512–96 89.512
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50195

Old designation New designation

89.513–96 89.513

89.514–96 89.514

89.515–96 89.515

89.516–96 89.516

89.601–96 89.601

89.602–96 89.602

89.603–96 89.603

89.604–96 89.604

89.605–96 89.605

89.606–96 89.606

89.607–96 89.607

89.608–96 89.608

89.609–96 89.609

89.610–96 89.610

89.611–96 89.611

89.612–96 89.612

89.613–96 89.613

9. In part 89, all internal section

references are revised as indicated in

the above redesignation table.

Subpart A—[Amended]

10. Section 89.1 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) to read

as follows:

§ 89.1 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to nonroad

compression-ignition engines.

(b) * * *

(4) Engines used in marine vessels as

defined in the General Provisions of the

United States Code, 1 U.S.C. 3 , if those

engines have a rated power at or above

37 kW.

11. Section 89.2 is amended by

adding new definitions in alphabetical

order to read as follows:

§ 89.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Auxiliary marine diesel engine means

a marine diesel engine that is not a

propulsion marine diesel engine.

Blue Sky Series engine means a lowemitting nonroad engine meeting the

requirements of § 89.112(f).

* * * * *

Compression-ignition engine means

an engine with operating characteristics

significantly similar to the theoretical

Diesel combustion cycle. The non-use of

a throttle during normal operation is

indicative of a compression-ignition

engine.

Constant-speed engine means an

engine that is governed to operate only

at rated speed.

Crankcase emissions means airborne

substances emitted to the atmosphere

from any portion of the engine

crankcase ventilation or lubrication

systems.

* * * * *

Farm equipment or vehicle has the

meaning contained in 40 CFR part 85,

subpart Q.

Full load governed speed is the

maximum full load speed as specified

by the manufacturer in the sales and

service literature and certification

application. This speed is the highest

engine speed with an advertised power

greater than zero.

* * * * *

Intermediate speed means peak

torque speed if peak torque speed

occurs from 60 to 75 percent of rated

speed. If peak torque speed is less than

60 percent of rated speed, intermediate

speed means 60 percent of rated speed.

If peak torque speed is greater than 75

percent of rated speed, intermediate

speed means 75 percent of rated speed.

* * * * *

Marine diesel engine means a

compression-ignition engine that is

intended to be installed on a vessel.

* * * * *

Post-manufacture marinizer means a

person who produces a marine diesel

engine by substantially modifying a

certified or uncertified complete or

partially complete engine; and is not

controlled by the manufacturer of the

base engine or by an entity that also

controls the manufacturer of the base

engine. For the purpose of this

definition, ‘‘substantially modify’’

means changing an engine in a way that

could change engine emission

characteristics.

* * * * *

Propulsion marine diesel engine

means a marine diesel engine that is

intended to move a vessel through the

water or direct the movement of a

vessel.

Rated speed is the maximum full load

governed speed for governed engines

and the speed of maximum horsepower

for ungoverned engines.

Specific emissions means emissions

expressed on the basis of observed brake

power, using units of g/kW-hr. Observed

brake power measurement includes

accessories on the engine if these

accessories are required for running an

emission test (except for the cooling

fan). When it is not possible to test the

engine in the gross conditions, for

example, if the engine and transmission

form a single integral unit, the engine

may be tested in the net condition.

Power corrections from net to gross

conditions will be allowed with prior

approval of the Administrator.

* * * * *

Tier 1 engine means an engine subject

to the Tier 1 emission standards listed

in § 89.112(a).

Tier 2 engine means an engine subject

to the Tier 2 emission standards listed

in § 89.112(a).

Tier 3 engine means an engine subject

to the Tier 3 emission standards listed

in § 89.112(a).

* * * * *

U.S.-directed production volume

means the number of nonroad

equipment or vehicles units produced

by a manufacturer for which the

manufacturer has reasonable assurance

that sale was or will be made to ultimate

purchasers in the United States.

* * * * *

Vessel has the meaning given to it in

1 U.S.C. 3.

12. Section 89.3 is amended by

adding new acronyms in alphabetical

order to read as follows:

§ 89.3 Acronyms and abbreviations.

* * * * *

EGR Exhaust gas recirculation

* * * * *

NMHC Nonmethane hydrocarbon

* * * * *

PM Particulate matter

* * * * *

§ 89.4 [Removed and reserved]

13. Remove and reserve § 89.4.

14. Section 89.6 is amended in

paragraph (b)(1) by removing the last

entry in the table and adding a new

entry in its place and in paragraph (b)(2)

by adding in alpha-numeric order a new

entry to the table to read as follows:

§ 89.6 Reference materials.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

Document No. and name 40 CFR part 89

reference

* * * * *

ASTM E29–93a: ‘‘Standard Practice for Using

Significant Digits in

Test Data to Determine

Conformance with

Specifications’’ ............. 89.120; 89.207;

89.509

(2) * * *

Document number and

name

40 CFR part 89

reference

* * * * *

SAE J1151 December

1991: ‘‘Methane Measurement Using Gas

Chromatography’’ ........ 89.309

* * * * *

Subpart B—[Amended]

15. The newly designated § 89.102 is

amended by revising paragraph (a) and
50196 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

adding new paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f),

and (g) to read as follows:

§ 89.102 Effective dates, optional

inclusion.

(a) This subpart applies to all engines

described in § 89.101 with the following

power rating and manufactured after the

following dates:

(1) Less than 19 kW and

manufactured on or after January 1,

2000;

(2) Greater than or equal to 19 kW but

less than 37 kW and manufactured on

or after January 1, 1999;

(3) Greater than or equal to 37 kW but

less than 75 kW and manufactured on

or after January 1, 1998;

(4) Greater than or equal to 75 kW but

less than 130 kW and manufactured on

or after January 1, 1997;

(5) Greater than or equal to 130 kW

but less than 560 kW and manufactured

on or after January 1, 1996;

(6) Greater than or equal to 560 kW

and manufactured on or after January 1,

2000.

* * * * *

(c) Engines meeting the voluntary

standards described in § 89.112(f) may

be designated as Blue Sky Series

engines through the 2004 model year.

(d) Implementation flexibility for

equipment and vehicle manufacturers.

Nonroad equipment and vehicle

manufacturers and may take any of the

otherwise prohibited actions identified

in § 89.1003(a)(1) with respect to the

following nonroad equipment and

vehicles, subject to the requirements of

paragraph (e) of this section. The

following allowances apply separately

to each engine power category subject to

standards under § 89.112:

(1) Percent-of-production

allowances—(i) Farm equipment or

vehicles at or above 37 kW. For farm

equipment or vehicles with engines

rated at or above 37 kW, a manufacturer

may take any of the actions identified in

§ 89.1003(a)(1) [Alternative 1: for up to

30 percent of its U.S.-directed

production volume of such equipment

and vehicles in the first year that Tier

2 engine standards apply to such

engines, and for up to 15 percent of its

U.S.-directed production volume in

each of the seven years following the

first year,] [Alternative 2: for a portion

of its U.S.-directed production volume

of such equipment and vehicles during

the eight years immediately following

the date on which Tier 2 engine

standards first apply to engines used in

such equipment and vehicles, provided

that the eight-year sum of these portions

in each year, as expressed as a

percentage for each year, does not

exceed 135, and] provided that all such

equipment and vehicles or equipment

must contain Tier 1 engines;

(ii) Farm equipment or vehicles rated

under 37 kW. For farm equipment or

vehicles with engines rated under 37

kW, a manufacturer may take any of the

actions identified in § 89.1003(a)(1)

[Alternative 1: for up to 30 percent of its

U.S.-directed production volume of

such equipment and vehicles in the first

year that Tier 1 engine standards apply

to such engines, and for up to 15

percent of its U.S.-directed production

volume in each of the three [seven]

years following the first year]

[Alternative 2: for a portion of its U.S.-

directed production volume of such

equipment and vehicles during the four

[eight] years immediately following the

date on which Tier 1 engine standards

first apply to engines used in such

equipment and vehicles, provided that

the four[eight]-year sum of these

portions in each year, as expressed as a

percentage for each year, does not

exceed 75 [135]];

(iii) Other equipment rated at or

above 37 kW. For all other nonroad

equipment and vehicles with engines

rated at or above 37 kW, a manufacturer

may take any of the actions identified in

§ 89.1003(a)(1) [Alternative 1: for up to

15 percent of its U.S.-directed

production volume of such equipment

and vehicles in the first year that Tier

2 engine standards apply to such

engines, and for up to 5 percent of its

U.S.-directed production volume in

each of the six years following the first

year,] [Alternative 2: for a portion of its

U.S.-directed production volume of

such equipment and vehicles during the

seven years immediately following the

date on which Tier 2 engine standards

first apply to engines used in such

equipment and vehicles, provided that

the seven-year sum of these portions in

each year, as expressed as a percentage

for each year, does not exceed 45, and]

provided that all such equipment and

vehicles or equipment must contain Tier

1 engines;

(iv) Other equipment rated under 37

kW. For all other nonroad equipment

and vehicles with engines rated under

37 kW, a manufacturer may take any of

the actions identified in § 89.1003(a)(1)

[Alternative 1: for up to 15 percent of its

U.S.-directed production volume of

such equipment and vehicles in the first

year that Tier 1 engine standards apply

to such engines, and for up to 5 percent

of its U.S.-directed production volume

in each of the three [six] years following

the first year][Alternative 2: for a

portion of its U.S.-directed production

volume of such equipment and vehicles

during the four [seven] years

immediately following the date on

which Tier 1 engine standards first

apply to engines used in such

equipment and vehicles, provided that

the four[seven]-year sum of these

portions in each year, as expressed as a

percentage for each year, does not

exceed 30 [45]].

(2) Small volume allowances. A

nonroad equipment or vehicle

manufacturer may exceed the

production percentages in paragraph

(d)(1) of this section in any of the years

for which these percentages apply,

provided that in each regulated power

category, the manufacturer’s excepted

equipment and vehicles in that year

does not exceed 100 units[, and is

limited to a single equipment or vehicle

model].

Potential Alternative for Paragraph

(d)(2)

(d)(2) Small volume allowances. A

nonroad equipment or vehicle

manufacturer may exceed the

production percentages in paragraph

(d)(1) of this section, provided that in

each regulated power category, the

manufacturer’s total of excepted

equipment and vehicles over the years

in which the percent-of-production

allowance applies does not exceed 100

units times the number of years in

which the percent-of-production

allowance applies[, and is limited to a

single equipment or vehicle model].

(3) Emission credit-derived

allowances. A nonroad equipment or

vehicle manufacturer may exceed the

allowances in paragraphs (d)(1) and

(d)(2) of this section in any of the years

for which these allowances apply, by

retiring sufficient NMHC + NOX and PM

emission credits obtained under the

provisions of subpart C of this part.

Equipment or vehicles for which these

emission credit-derived allowances are

used shall be excluded from the

determinations required in paragraph (e)

of this section.

(i) The amount of emission credits, in

megagrams, to be retired for each

additional allowance shall be

determined separately for NMHC + NOX

and for PM as follows:

Emission credits = [(Previous level)—

(New level)] × (Category PR) × (UL) ×

(10 –6)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50197

Where:

Previous level = 10.5 g/kW-hr NMHC + NOX

and 0.54 g/kW-hr PM if the equipment

for which the allowance is being used

has an engine rated at or above 37 kW,

or 16.0 g/kW-hr NMHC + NOX and 1.2

g/kW-hr for PM if the equipment for

which the allowance is being used has

an engine rated under 37 kW.

New level = The emission standard that

would apply to the engine used in the

equipment if no allowance were to be

used.

Category PR = The midpoint of the power

range in § 89.112 applying to the engine

used in the equipment for which the

allowance is being used.

UL = The useful life for the engine family,

in hours.

(ii) A nonroad equipment or vehicle

manufacturer choosing to retire

emission credits must submit an end-ofthe-year report in accordance with the

requirements of § 89.211 in each year

that credits are retired.

(4) Inclusion of previous-tier engines.

Equipment and vehicles built with

previous tier or noncertified engines

under the existing inventory provisions

of § 89.1003(b)(4) need not be included

in determining compliance with

paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of

this section, at the manufacturer’s

option.

(e) Determination of compliance and

recordkeeping. The following shall

apply to nonroad equipment or vehicle

manufacturers who produce excepted

equipment or vehicles under the

provisions of paragraph (d) of this

section:

(1) After each year in which excepted

equipment or vehicles are produced, a

determination of compliance with the

requirements of paragraph (d) of this

section shall be made. This

determination shall be based on actual

production information from the subject

year and shall be made within 3 months

after the availability of such

information. Should any such

determination reveal that a production

percentage allowance (or small volume

allowance where applied) for a power

category has been exceeded for the

subject year, the nonroad equipment or

vehicle manufacturer shall adjust that

category’s percentage allowance and

small volume allowance for the year

after the subject year. The percentage

allowance shall be recalculated by

subtracting the excess percentage of

excepted machines from the percentage

allowance that would otherwise apply

in the year after the subject year (from

zero in the year after the final year of the

allowance). The small volume

allowance shall be recalculated by

subtracting the excess number of

excepted machines in the subject year

from 100 (from zero in the year after the

final year of the allowance). If both the

recalculated percentage allowance and

the recalculated small volume

allowance for the year after the subject

year is less than zero in any power

category, then the manufacturer is in

violation of section 203 of the Act and

§ 89.1003.

Potential Alternative for Paragraph (e)(1)

(e)(1) For each power category in

which excepted equipment or vehicles

are produced, a determination of

compliance with the requirements of

paragraph (d) of this section shall be

made. This determination shall be made

no later than December 31 of the year

following the last year in which

allowances apply, and shall be based on

actual production information from the

subject years. Should any such

determination reveal that both the

percentage allowance and the small

volume allowance have been exceeded,

then the manufacturer is in violation of

section 203 of the Act and § 89.1003.

(2) A nonroad equipment or vehicle

manufacturer shall keep records of all

equipment and vehicles excepted under

the provisions of paragraph (d) of this

section, for each power category in

which exceptions are taken. These

records shall include equipment and

engine model numbers, serial numbers,

and dates of manufacture, and engine

rated power. In addition, the

manufacturer shall keep records

sufficient to demonstrate the

determinations of compliance required

in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. All

such records shall be kept until at least

two full years after the final year in

which exceptions are available for each

power category.

(f) Hardship relief. Nonroad

equipment and vehicle manufacturers,

and post-manufacture marinizers, that

qualify as small entities under 13 CFR

part 121 may take any of the otherwise

prohibited actions identified in

§ 89.1003(a)(1) beyond those allowed

under paragraph (d) of this section,

subject to approval by the Administrator

and the following requirements:

(1) Application for relief must be

submitted to the Engine Programs and

Compliance Division of the EPA in

writing prior to the earliest date in

which the applying manufacturer would

be in violation of § 89.1003.

(2) Evidence must be provided that

the conditions causing the impending

violation are not substantially the fault

of the applying manufacturer.

(3) Evidence must be provided that

the applying manufacturer may be

forced to permanently close or sell its

equipment-producing operation if relief

is not granted.

(4) Any relief granted must begin

within one year after the

implementation date of the standard

applying to engines being used in the

equipment for which relief is requested,

and may not exceed one year in

duration.

(g) Allowance for the production of

engines. Engine manufacturers may take

any of the otherwise prohibited actions

identified in § 89.1003(a)(1) with regard

to uncertified engines or Tier 1 engines,

as appropriate, if the engine

manufacturer has received written

assurance that the engine is required to

meet the demand for engines created

under paragraphs (d) and (f) of this

section.

16. The newly designated § 89.104 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),

and (c) to read as follows:

§ 89.104 Useful life, recall, and warranty

periods.

(a) The useful life is based on the

rated power and rated speed of the

engine.

(1) For all engines rated under 19 kW,

and for constant speed engines rated

under 37 kW rated speeds greater than

or equal to 3,000 rpm, the useful life is

a period of 3,000 hours or five years of

use, whichever first occurs.

(2) For all other engines rated at or

above 19 kW and under 37 kW, the

useful life is a period of 5,000 hours or

seven years of use, whichever first

occurs.

(3) For all engines rated at or above 37

kW, the useful life is a period of 8,000

hours of operation or ten years of use,

whichever first occurs.

(b) Engines are subject to recall testing

for a period based on the rated power

and rated speed of the engines.

However, in a recall, engines in the

subject class or category would be

subject to recall regardless of actual

years or hours of operation.

(1) For all engines rated under 19 kW

and for constant speed engines rated

under 37 kW with rated speeds greater

than or equal to 3,000 rpm, the engines

are subject to recall testing for a period

of 2,250 hours or four years of use,

whichever first occurs.

(2) For all other engines rated at or

above 19 kW and under 37 kW, the

engines are subject to recall for a period

of 3,750 hours or five years of use,

whichever first occurs.

(3) For all engines rated at or above 37

kW, the engines are subject to recall for

a period of 6,000 hours of operation or

seven years of use, whichever first

occurs.

(c) Warranties imposed by the Clean

Air Act for engines rated under 19 kW
50198 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

are for 1,500 hours of operation or three

years of use, whichever first occurs. For

engines rated at or above 19 kW,

warranties imposed by the Clean Air

Act are for 3,000 hours of operation or

five years of use, whichever first occurs.

* * * * *

17. The newly designated § 89.109 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.109 Maintenance instructions and

minimum allowable maintenance intervals.

(a) The manufacturer must furnish or

cause to be furnished to the ultimate

purchaser of each new nonroad engine

written instructions for the maintenance

needed to ensure proper functioning of

the emission control system. Paragraphs

(b) through (g) of this section do not

apply to Tier 1 engines with rated

power at or above 37 kW.

(b) Maintenance performed on

equipment, engines, subsystems or

components used to determine exhaust

emission deterioration factors is

classified as either emission-related or

nonemission-related and each of these

can be classified as either scheduled or

unscheduled. Further, some emissionrelated maintenance is also classified as

critical emission-related maintenance.

(c) This paragraph (c) specifies

emission-related scheduled

maintenance for purposes of obtaining

durability data and for inclusion in

maintenance instructions furnished to

purchasers of new nonroad engines. The

maintenance intervals specified below

are minimum intervals:

(1) All emission-related scheduled

maintenance for purposes of obtaining

durability data must occur at the same

hours of use intervals that will be

specified in the manufacturer’s

maintenance instructions furnished to

the ultimate purchaser of the engine

under paragraph (a) of this section. This

maintenance schedule may be updated

as necessary throughout the testing of

the engine, provided that no

maintenance operation is deleted from

the maintenance schedule after the

operation has been performed on the

test vehicle or engine.

(2) Any emission-related maintenance

which is performed on vehicles,

engines, subsystems, or components

must be technologically necessary to

assure in-use compliance with the

emission standards. The manufacturer

must submit data which demonstrate to

the Administrator that all of the

emission-related scheduled

maintenance which is to be performed

is technologically necessary. Scheduled

maintenance must be approved by the

Administrator prior to being performed

or being included in the maintenance

instructions provided to the purchasers

under paragraph (a) of this section. The

Administrator has determined that

emission-related maintenance in

addition to or at shorter intervals than

those outlined in paragraphs (c)(3) and

(c)(4) of this section is not

technologically necessary to ensure inuse compliance and therefore will not

be accepted. However, the

Administrator may determine that

maintenance even more restrictive (e.g.,

longer intervals) than that listed in

paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this

section is also not technologically

necessary.

(3) For nonroad compression-ignition

engines, the adjustment, cleaning,

repair, or replacement listed in

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii) of

this section shall occur at 1,500 hours

of use and at 1,500-hour intervals

thereafter.

(i) Exhaust gas recirculation systemrelated filters and coolers.

(ii) Positive crankcase ventilation

valve.

(iii) Fuel injector tips (cleaning only).

(4) The adjustment, cleaning and

repair in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through

(c)(4)(vii) of this section shall occur at

3,000 hours of use and at 3,000-hour

intervals thereafter for nonroad

compression-ignition engines rated

under 130 kW, or at 4,500-hour intervals

thereafter for nonroad compressionignition engines rated at or above 130

kW.

(i) Fuel injectors.

(ii) Turbocharger.

(iii) Electronic engine control unit and

its associated sensors and actuators.

(iv) Particulate trap or trap-oxidizer

system (including related components).

(v) Exhaust gas recirculation system

(including all related control valves and

tubing) except as otherwise provided in

paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.

(vi) Catalytic convertor.

(vii) Any other add-on emissionrelated component (i.e., a component

whose sole or primary purpose is to

reduce emissions or whose failure will

significantly degrade emission control

and whose function is not integral to the

design and performance of the engine).

(5)(i) The components listed in

paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through

(c)(5)(i)(F) of this section are currently

defined as critical emission-related

components.

(A) Catalytic convertor.

(B) Electronic engine control unit and

its associated sensors and actuators.

(C) Exhaust gas recirculation system

(including all related filters, coolers,

control valves, and tubing).

(D) Positive crankcase ventilation

valve.

(E) Particulate trap or trap-oxidizer

system.

(F) Any other add-on emission-related

component (i.e., a component whose

sole or primary purpose is to reduce

emissions or whose failure will

significantly degrade emission control

and whose function is not integral to the

design and performance of the engine).

(ii) All critical emission-related

scheduled maintenance must have a

reasonable likelihood of being

performed in-use. The manufacturer

shall be required to show the reasonable

likelihood of such maintenance being

performed in-use. Critical emissionrelated scheduled maintenance items

which satisfy one of the conditions

defined in paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A)

through (c)(5)(ii)(F) of this section will

be accepted as having a reasonable

likelihood of the maintenance item

being performed in-use.

(A) Data are presented which

establish for the Administrator a

connection between emissions and

vehicle performance such that as

emissions increase due to lack of

maintenance, vehicle performance will

simultaneously deteriorate to a point

unacceptable for typical driving.

(B) Survey data are submitted which

adequately demonstrate to the

Administrator that, at an 80 percent

confidence level, 80 percent of such

engines already have this critical

maintenance item performed in-use at

the recommended interval(s).

(C) A clearly displayed visible signal

system approved by the Administrator

is installed to alert the equipment

operator that maintenance is due. A

signal bearing the message

‘‘maintenance needed’’ or ‘‘check

engine,’’ or a similar message approved

by the Administrator, shall be actuated

at the appropriate usage point or by

component failure. This signal must be

continuous while the engine is in

operation and not be easily eliminated

without performance of the required

maintenance. Resetting the signal shall

be a required step in the maintenance

operation. The method for resetting the

signal system shall be approved by the

Administrator. The system must not be

designed to deactivate upon the end of

the useful life of the engine or

thereafter.

(D) A manufacturer may desire to

demonstrate through a survey that a

critical maintenance item is likely to be

performed without a visible signal on a

maintenance item for which there is no

prior in-use experience without the

signal. To that end, the manufacturer

may in a given model year market up to

200 randomly selected vehicles per

critical emission-related maintenance

item without such visible signals, and

monitor the performance of the critical
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50199

maintenance item by the owners to

show compliance with paragraph

(c)(5)(ii)(B) of this section. This option

is restricted to two consecutive model

years and may not be repeated until any

previous survey has been completed. If

the critical maintenance involves more

than one engine family, the sample will

be sales weighted to ensure that it is

representative of all the families in

question.

(E) The manufacturer provides the

maintenance free of charge, and clearly

informs the customer that the

maintenance is free in the instructions

provided under paragraph (a) of this

section.

(F) Any other method which the

Administrator approves as establishing

a reasonable likelihood that the critical

maintenance will be performed in-use.

(iii) Visible signal systems used under

paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(C) of this section are

considered an element of design of the

emission control system. Therefore,

disabling, resetting, or otherwise

rendering such signals inoperative

without also performing the indicated

maintenance procedure is a prohibited

act.

(d) Nonemission-related scheduled

maintenance which is reasonable and

technologically necessary (e.g., oil

change, oil filter change, fuel filter

change, air filter change, cooling system

maintenance, adjustment of idle speed,

governor, engine bolt torque, valve lash,

injector lash, timing, lubrication of the

exhaust manifold heat control valve,

etc.) may be performed on durability

vehicles at the least frequent intervals

recommended by the manufacturer to

the ultimate purchaser, (e.g., not the

intervals recommended for severe

service).

(e) Adjustment of engine idle speed

on emission data engines may be

performed once before the low-hour

emission test point. Any other engine,

emission control system, or fuel system

adjustment, repair, removal,

disassembly, cleaning, or replacement

on emission data vehicles shall be

performed only with advance approval

of the Administrator.

(f) Equipment, instruments, or tools

may not be used to identify

malfunctioning, maladjusted, or

defective engine components unless the

same or equivalent equipment,

instruments, or tools will be available to

dealerships and other service outlets

and:

(1) Are used in conjunction with

scheduled maintenance on such

components; or

(2) Are used subsequent to the

identification of a vehicle or engine

malfunction, as provided in paragraph

(e) of this section for emission data

engines; or

(3) Unless specifically authorized by

the Administrator.

(g) All test data, maintenance reports,

and required engineering reports shall

be compiled and provided to the

Administrator in accordance with

§ 89.124.

18. The newly designated § 89.110 is

amended by removing ‘‘and’’ at the end

of paragraph (b)(9), by adding a

semicolon at the end of paragraph

(b)(10), and by adding new paragraphs

(b)(11) and (b)(12) to read as follows:

§ 89.110 Emission control information

label.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(11) Engines belonging to an engine

family that has been certified as a

constant-speed engine using the test

cycle specified in Table 2 of appendix

B to subpart E of this part must contain

the statement on the label: ‘‘constantspeed only’’;

(12)(i) Engines meeting the voluntary

standards described in § 89.112(f)(1) to

be designated as Blue Sky Series

engines must contain the statement on

the label: ‘‘Blue Sky—Class A’’.

(ii) Engines meeting the voluntary

standards described in § 89.112(f)(2) to

be designated as Blue Sky Series

engines must contain the statement on

the label: ‘‘Blue Sky—Class AA’’.

(iii) Engines meeting the voluntary

standards described in § 89.112(f)(3) to

be designated as Blue Sky Series

engines must contain the statement on

the label: ‘‘Blue Sky—Class AAA’’.

* * * * *

19. The newly designated § 89.112 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),

and (d), and adding new paragraphs (e)

and (f) to read as follows:

§ 89.112 Oxides of nitrogen, carbon

monoxide, hydrocarbon, and particulate

matter exhaust emission standards.

(a) Nonroad engines to which this

subpart is applicable must meet the

exhaust emission standards contained

in Table 1 as follows:

TABLE 1.—EMISSION STANDARDS (G/KW-HR)

Rated brake power (kW) Tier Model

year NOX HC NMHC+NOX CO PM

kW<8 .................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 2000 .......... .......... 10.5 8.0 1.0

Tier 2 ....... 2005 .......... .......... 7.5 8.0 0.80

8≤kW<19 .............................................................................................. Tier 1 ....... 2000 .......... .......... 9.5 6.6 0.80

Tier 2 ....... 2005 .......... .......... 7.5 6.6 0.80

19≤kW<37 ............................................................................................ Tier 1 ....... 1999 .......... .......... 9.5 5.5 0.80

Tier 2 ....... 2004 .......... .......... 7.5 5.5 0.60

37≤kW<75 ............................................................................................ Tier 1 ....... 1998 9.2 .......... ..................... ............ ............

Tier 2 ....... 2004 .......... .......... 7.5 5.0 0.40

Tier 3 ....... 2008 .......... .......... 4.7 5.0 ............

75≤kW<130 .......................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 1997 9.2 .......... ..................... ............ ............

Tier 2 ....... 2003 .......... .......... 6.6 5.0 0.30

Tier 3 ....... 2007 .......... .......... 4.0 5.0 ............

130≤kW<225 ........................................................................................ Tier 1 ....... 1996 9.2 1.3 ..................... 11.4 0.54

Tier 2 ....... 2003 .......... .......... 6.6 3.5 0.20

Tier 3 ....... 2006 .......... .......... 4.0 3.5 ............

225≤kW<450 ........................................................................................ Tier 1 ....... 1996 9.2 1.3 ..................... 11.4 0.54

Tier 2 ....... 2001 .......... .......... 6.4 3.5 0.20

Tier 3 ....... 2006 .......... .......... 4.0 3.5 ............

450≤kW<560 ........................................................................................ Tier 1 ....... 1996 9.2 1.3 ..................... 11.4 0.54

Tier 2 ....... 2002 .......... .......... 6.4 3.5 0.20

Tier 3 ....... 2006 .......... .......... 4.0 3.5 ............

kW≥560 ................................................................................................ Tier 1 ....... 2000 9.2 1.3 ..................... 11.4 0.54

Tier 2 ....... 2006 .......... .......... 6.4 3.5 0.20
50200 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(b) Exhaust emissions of oxides of

nitrogen, carbon monoxide,

hydrocarbon, and nonmethane

hydrocarbon are measured using the

procedures set forth in subpart E of this

part.

* * * * *

(d) In lieu of the NOX standards,

NMHC + NOX standards, and PM

standards specified in paragraph (a) of

this section, manufacturers may elect to

include engine families in the averaging,

banking, and trading program, the

provisions of which are specified in

subpart C of this part. The manufacturer

must set a family emission limit (FEL)

not to exceed the levels contained in

Table 2. The FEL established by the

manufacturer serves as the standard for

that engine family. Table 2 follows:

TABLE 2.—UPPER LIMIT FOR FAMILY EMISSION LIMITS (G/KW-HR)

Rated brake power (kW) Tier Model

year NOX FEL NMHC+NOX FEL PM FEL

kW<8 ........................................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 2000 ................ 16.0 1.2

Tier 2 ....... 2005 ................ 10.5 1.0

8≤kW<19 ..................................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 2000 ................ 16.0 1.2

Tier 2 ....... 2005 ................ 9.5 0.80

19≤kW<37 ................................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 1999 ................ 16.0 1.2

Tier 2 ....... 2004 ................ 9.5 0.80

37≤kW<75 ................................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 1998 14.6 ................ ................

Tier 2 ....... 2004 ................ 10.5 1.2

Tier 3 ....... 2008 ................ 7.5

75≤kW<130 ................................................................................................................. Tier 1 ....... 1997 14.6 ................ ................

Tier 2 ....... 2003 ................ 10.5 1.2

Tier 3 ....... 2007 ................ 6.6

130≤kW<225 ............................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 1996 14.6 ................ ................

Tier 2 ....... 2003 ................ 10.5 0.54

Tier 3 ....... 2006 ................ 6.6

225≤kW<450 ............................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 1996 14.6 ................ ................

Tier 2 ....... 2001 ................ 10.5 0.54

Tier 3 ....... 2006 ................ 6.4

450≤kW<560 ............................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 1996 14.6 ................ ................

Tier 2 ....... 2002 ................ 10.5 0.54

Tier 3 ....... 2006 ................ 6.4

kW≥560 ....................................................................................................................... Tier 1 ....... 2000 14.6 ................ ................

Tier 2 ....... 2006 ................ 10.5 0.54

(e) Naturally aspirated nonroad

engines to which this subpart is

applicable shall not discharge crankcase

emissions into the ambient atmosphere.

For engines rated under 37 kW, this

provision applies to all 2001 model year

engines and later models. For engines

rated at or above 37 kW, this provision

applies to all Tier 2 engines and later

models. This provision does not apply

to engines using turbochargers, pumps,

blowers, or superchargers for air

induction.

(f) Engines may be designated ‘‘Blue

Sky Series’’ engines through the 2004

model year by meeting the following

voluntary standards, which apply to all

certification and in-use testing.

Emissions are measured using the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 86,

subpart N. Manufacturers may use an

alternate procedure to demonstrate the

desired level of emission control if

approved in advance by the

Administrator. Engines meeting the

requirements to qualify as Blue Sky

Series engines must be capable of

maintaining a comparable level of

emission control when tested using the

procedures set forth in paragraph (c) of

this section and subpart E of this part.

The numerical emission levels

measured using the procedures from

this part may be up to 20 percent higher

than those measured using the

procedures from 40 CFR part 86, subpart

N, and still be considered comparable.

Engines designated as Blue Sky Series

engines must meet the requirements

related to in-use durability detailed in

§§ 89.104, 89.109, 89.118, and 89.130;

alternatively, manufacturers may fulfull

these requirements with the comparable

provisions from 40 CFR part 86.

(1) Engines certified to voluntary

standards at least 35 percent below the

numerical level established for Tier 2

engines, for both particulate matter and

NMHC + NOX, may be designated as a

‘‘Blue Sky Series engine—Class A’’.

Manufacturers must also demonstrate

compliance with the numerical level

established for CO emissions from the

applicable tier of engines, as described

in paragraph (a) of this section, and with

the smoke emission standards described

in § 86.113 of this chapter. This

designation will no longer be available

beginning in the year for which Tier 2

standards apply to an engine’s power

category.

(2) Engines certified to voluntary

standards at least 50 percent below the

numerical level established for Tier 2

engines, for both particulate matter and

NMHC + NOX, may be designated as a

‘‘Blue Sky Series engine—Class AA’’.

Manufacturers must also demonstrate

compliance with the numerical level

established for CO emissions from the

applicable tier of engines, as described

in paragraph (a) of this section, and with

the smoke emission standards described

in § 86.113 of this chapter.

(3) Engines certified to voluntary

standards at least 65 percent below the

numerical level established for Tier 2

engines, for both particulate matter and

NMHC + NOX, may be designated as a

‘‘Blue Sky Series engine—Class AAA’’.

Manufacturers must also demonstrate

compliance with the numerical level

established for CO emissions from the

applicable tier of engines, as described

in paragraph (a) of this section, and with

the smoke emission standards described

in § 86.113 of this chapter.

20. The newly designated § 89.117 is

amended by revising paragraph (a) and

adding a new paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 89.117 Test fleet selection.

(a) The manufacturer must select for

testing, from each engine family, the

engine with the most fuel injected per

stroke of an injector, primarily at the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50201

speed of maximum torque and

secondarily at rated speed.

* * * * *

(d) For establishing deterioration

factors, the manufacturer shall select the

engines, subsystems, or components to

be used to determine exhaust emission

deterioration factors for each enginefamily control system combination.

Whether engines, subsystems, or

components are used, they shall be

selected so that their emission

deterioration characteristics may be

expected to represent those of in-use

engines, based on good engineering

judgment.

21. The newly designated § 89.118 is

amended by adding a new paragraph (e)

to read as follows:

§ 89.118 Service accumulation.

* * * * *

(e) This paragraph (e) describes

service accumulation requirements for

the purpose of deterioration factor

development. Paragraphs (b) through (d)

of this section also apply here.

(1) Service accumulation on engines,

subsystems, or components selected by

the manufacturer under § 89.117(d). The

manufacturer determines the form and

extent of this service accumulation,

consistent with good engineering

practice, and describes it in the

application for certification.

(2) Determination of exhaust emission

deterioration factors. The manufacturer

determines the deterioration factors

based on the service accumulation in

paragraph (e)(1) of this section and

related testing, according to the

manufacturer’s procedures.

(3) Alternatives to service

accumulation and testing for the

determination of a deterioration factor.

A written explanation of the

appropriateness of using an alternative

must be included in the application for

certification.

(i) Carryover and carryacross of

durability emission data. In lieu of

testing an emission data or durability

data engine selected under § 89.117(d),

and submitting data therefore, a

manufacturer may, with Administrator

approval, use exhaust emission

deterioration data on a similar engine

for which certification to the same

standard has previously been obtained

or for which all applicable data required

under § 89.124 has previously been

submitted. This data must be submitted

in the application for certification.

(ii) Use of on-highway deterioration

data. In the case where a manufacturer

produces a certified on-highway engine

that is similar to the nonroad engine to

be certified, deterioration data from the

on-highway engine may be applied to

the nonroad engine. This application of

deterioration data from an on-highway

engine to a nonroad engine is subject to

Administrator approval, and the

determination of whether the engines

are similar must be based on good

engineering judgment.

(iii) Engineering analysis for

established technologies. (A) In the case

where an engine family uses technology

which is well established, an analysis

based on good engineering practices

may be used in lieu of testing to

determine a deterioration factor for that

engine family.

(B) Engines using exhaust gas

recirculation or aftertreatment are

excluded from the provision set forth in

paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section.

(C) Engines for which the certification

levels are not at or below the Tier 3

NMHC+NOX or PM standards described

in § 89.112 are considered established

technology.

(D) Manufacturers may petition the

Administrator to consider an engine

with a certification level below the Tier

3 NMHC+NOX and PM standards as

established technology. This petition

must be based on proof that the

technology used is not significantly

different than that used on engines that

have certification levels that are not

below the Tier 3 NMHC+NOX and PM

levels.

(E) The manufacturer shall provide a

written statement to the Administrator

that all data, analyses, test procedures,

evaluations, and other documents, on

which the deterioration factor is based,

are available to the Administrator upon

request.

22. The newly designated § 89.119 is

amended by revising paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 89.119 Emission tests.

* * * * *

(d) Test fuels. EPA may use the fuel

specified in either Table 4 or Table 5 of

Appendix A to subpart D of this part in

confirmatory testing or other testing on

any test engine.

23. The newly designated § 89.120 is

amended by revising paragraph (c) and

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 89.120 Compliance with emission

standards.

* * * * *

(c) For each nonroad engine family,

except Tier 1 engines with rated power

at or above 37 kW that do not employ

aftertreatment, a deterioration factor

must be determined and applied.

(1) The applicable exhaust emission

standards (or family emission limits, as

appropriate) for nonroad compressionignition engines apply to the emissions

of engines for their useful life.

(2) Since emission control efficiency

generally decreases with the

accumulation of service on the engine,

deterioration factors will be used in

combination with emission data engine

test results as the basis for determining

compliance with the standards.

(3)(i) This paragraph (c)(3) describes

the procedure for determining

compliance of an engine with emission

standards (or family emission limits, as

appropriate), based on deterioration

factors supplied by the manufacturer.

Deterioration factors shall be established

using applicable emission test

procedures. NMHC + NOX deterioration

factors shall be established based on the

sum of the pollutants. When

establishing deterioration factors for

NMHC + NOX, a negative deterioration

(emissions decrease from the official

emissions test result) for one pollutant

may not offset deterioration of the other

pollutant. Where negative deterioration

occurs for NOX or NMHC, the official

exhaust emission test result shall be

used for purposes of determining the

NMHC + NOX deterioration factor.

(ii) Separate exhaust emission

deterioration factors, determined from

tests of engines, subsystems, or

components conducted by the

manufacturer, shall be supplied for each

engine-system combination. Separate

factors shall be established for NMHC,

CO, NOX, NMHC + NOX, and exhaust

particulate. For smoke testing, separate

factors shall also be established for the

acceleration mode (designated as ‘‘A’’),

the lugging mode (designated as ‘‘B’’),

and peak opacity (designated as ‘‘C’’).

(iii) Compression-ignition nonroad

engines not utilizing aftertreatment

technology (e.g., particulate traps). For

NMHC, CO, NOX, NMHC + NOX, and

exhaust particulate, the official exhaust

emission results for each emission data

engine at the selected test point shall be

adjusted by addition of the appropriate

deterioration factor. However, if the

deterioration factor supplied by the

manufacturer is less than zero, it shall

be zero for the purposes of this

paragraph (c).

(iv) Compression-ignition nonroad

engines utilizing aftertreatment

technology (e.g., particulate traps). For

NMHC, CO, NOX, NMHC + NOX, and

exhaust particulate, the official exhaust

emission results for each emission data

engine at the selected test point shall be

adjusted by multiplication by the

appropriate deterioration factor.

However, if the deterioration factor

supplied by the manufacturer is less

than one, it shall be one for the

purposes of this paragraph (c).

(v) For acceleration smoke (‘‘A’’),

lugging smoke (‘‘B’’), and peak opacity
50202 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(‘‘C’’), the official exhaust emission

results for each emission data engine at

the selected test point shall be adjusted

by the addition of the appropriate

deterioration factor. However if the

deterioration supplied by the

manufacturer is less than zero, it shall

be zero for the purposes of this

paragraph (c).

(vi) The emission values to compare

with the standards (or family emission

limits, as appropriate) shall be the

adjusted emission values of paragraphs

(c)(3) (iii) through (v) of this section,

rounded to the same number of

significant figures as contained in the

applicable standard in accordance with

ASTM E29–93a, for each emission data

engine. This procedure has been

incorporated by reference (see § 89.6).

(4) Every test engine of an engine

family must comply with all applicable

standards (or family emission limits, as

appropriate), as determined in

paragraph (c)(3)(vi) of this section,

before any engine in that family will be

certified.

* * * * *

(e) For the purposes of setting an

NMHC + NOX certification level or FEL,

one of the following options shall be

used for the determination of NMHC for

an engine family. The manufacturer

must declare which option is used in its

application for certification of that

engine family.

(1) THC may be used in lieu of NMHC

for the standards set forth in § 89.112.

(2) The manufacturer may choose its

own method to analyze methane with

prior approval of the Administrator.

(3) The manufacturer may assume that

two percent of the measured THC is

methane (NMHC=0.98×THC).

24. The newly designated § 89.126 is

amended by revising paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 89.126 Denial, revocation of certificate of

conformity.

* * * * *

(c) If a manufacturer knowingly

commits an infraction specified in

paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(4) of this section,

knowingly commits any other

fraudulent act which results in the

issuance of a certificate of conformity,

or fails to comply with the conditions

specified in §§ 89.203(d), 89.206(c),

89.209(c) or 89.210(g), the

Administrator may deem such

certificate void ab initio.

* * * * *

25. A new § 89.130 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 89.130 Rebuild practices.

(a) The provisions of this section are

applicable to engines subject to the

standards prescribed in section § 89.112

and are applicable to the process of

engine rebuilding (or rebuilding a

portion of an engine or engine system).

This section does not apply to Tier 1

engines rated at or above 37 kW. The

process of engine rebuilding generally

includes disassembly, replacement of

multiple parts due to wear, and

reassembly, and also may include the

removal of the engine from the vehicle

and other acts associated with

rebuilding an engine. Any deviation

from the provisions contained in this

section is a prohibited act.

(b) When rebuilding an engine,

portions of an engine, or an engine

system, there must be a reasonable

technical basis for knowing that the

resultant engine is equivalent, from an

emissions standpoint, to a certified

configuration (i.e., tolerances,

calibrations, specifications) of the same

or newer model year as the original

engine. A reasonable basis would exist

if:

(1) Parts installed, whether the parts

are new, used, or rebuilt, are such that

a person familiar with the design and

function of motor vehicle engines would

reasonably believe that the parts

perform the same function with respect

to emission control as the original parts;

and

(2) Any parameter adjustment or

design element change is made only:

(i) In accordance with the original

engine manufacturer’s instructions; or

(ii) Where data or other reasonable

technical basis exists that such

parameter adjustment or design element

change, when performed on the engine

or similar engines, is not expected to

adversely affect in-use emissions.

(c) When an engine is being rebuilt

and remains installed or is reinstalled in

the same equipment, it must be rebuilt

to a configuration of the same or later

model year as the original engine. When

an engine is being replaced, the

replacement engine must be an engine

of (or rebuilt to) a configuration of the

same or later model year as the original

engine.

(d) At time of rebuild, emissionrelated codes or signals from on-board

monitoring systems may not be erased

or reset without diagnosing and

responding appropriately to the

diagnostic codes, regardless of whether

the systems are installed to satisfy

requirements in § 89.109 or for other

reasons and regardless of form or

interface. Diagnostic systems must be

free of all such codes when the rebuilt

engine is returned to service. Such

signals may not be rendered inoperative

during the rebuilding process.

(e) When conducting a rebuild

without removing the engine from the

equipment, or during the installation of

a rebuilt engine, all critical emissionrelated components listed in § 86.109–

99(d) of this chapter not otherwise

addressed by paragraphs (b) through (d)

of this section must be checked and

cleaned, adjusted, repaired, or replaced

as necessary, following manufacturer

recommended practices.

(f) Records shall be kept by parties

conducting activities included in

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this

section. The records shall include at

minimum the hours of operation at time

of rebuild, a listing of work performed

on the engine, and emission-related

control components including a listing

of parts and components used, engine

parameter adjustments, emission-related

codes or signals responded to and reset,

and work performed under paragraph

(e) of this section.

(1) Parties may keep records in

whatever format or system they choose

as long as the records are

understandable to an EPA enforcement

officer or can be otherwise provided to

an EPA enforcement officer in an

understandable format when requested.

(2) Parties are not required to keep

records of information that is not

reasonably available through normal

business practices including

information on activities not conducted

by themselves or information that they

cannot reasonably access.

(3) Parties may keep records of their

rebuilding practices for an engine family

rather than on each individual engine

rebuilt in cases where those rebuild

practices are followed routinely.

(4) Records must be kept for a

minimum of two years after the engine

is rebuilt.

Subpart C—[Amended]

26. The newly designated § 89.203 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.203 General provisions.

(a) The averaging, banking, and

trading programs for NOX, NMHC +

NOX, and PM emissions from eligible

nonroad engines are described in this

subpart. Participation in these programs

is voluntary.

(b) Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37

kW. (1) A nonroad engine family is

eligible to participate in the averaging,

banking, and trading program for NOX

emissions and the banking and trading

program for PM emissions if it is subject

to regulation under subpart B of this

part with certain exceptions specified in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. No

averaging, banking, and trading program
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50203

is available for meeting the Tier 1 HC,

CO, or smoke emission standards

specified in subpart B of this part. No

averaging program is available for

meeting the Tier 1 PM emission

standards specified in subpart B of this

part.

(2) Nonroad engines may not

participate in the averaging, banking,

and trading programs if they are subject

to state engine emission standards, are

exported, or use an alternate or special

test procedure under § 89.114. Meeting

the voluntary standards described in

§ 89.112(f) for Blue Sky Series engines

does not preclude participation in the

averaging, banking, and trading

programs; however, participation in the

averaging, banking, and trading

programs depends on manufacturers

developing test data on a steady-state

test cycle, as specified in § 89.410(a), for

credit computation purposes.

(3) A manufacturer may certify one or

more nonroad engine families at NOX

family emission limits (FELs) above or

below the Tier 1 NOX emission

standard, provided the summation of

the manufacturer’s projected balance of

all NOX credit transactions in a given

model year is greater than or equal to

zero, as determined under § 89.207(a). A

manufacturer may certify one or more

nonroad engine families at PM FELs

below the Tier 2 PM emission standard

that will be applicable to those engine

families.

(i) FELs for NOX may not exceed the

Tier 1 upper limit specified in

§ 89.112(d).

(ii) An engine family certified to an

FEL is subject to all provisions specified

in subparts B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K

of this part, except that the applicable

FEL replaces the emission standard for

the family participating in the

averaging, banking, and trading

program.

(iii) A manufacturer of an engine

family with an NOX FEL exceeding the

Tier 1 NOX emission standard must

obtain NOX emission credits sufficient

to address the associated credit shortfall

via averaging, banking, or trading.

(iv) An engine family with a NOX FEL

below the applicable Tier 1 standard

may generate emission credits for

averaging, banking, trading, or a

combination thereof. An engine family

with a PM FEL below the Tier 2

standard that will be applicable to that

engine family may generate emission

credits for banking, trading, or a

combination thereof. Emission credits

may not be used to offset an engine

family’s emissions that exceed its

applicable FEL. Credits may not be used

to remedy nonconformity determined by

a Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) or

by recall (in-use) testing. However, in

the case of an SEA failure, credits may

be used to allow subsequent production

of engines for the family in question if

the manufacturer elects to recertify to a

higher FEL.

(4) NOX credits generated in a given

model year may be used to address

credit shortfalls with other engines

during that model year or in any

subsequent model year except as noted

under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section.

PM credits may be used to address

credit shortfalls with Tier 2 and later

engines greater than or equal to 37 kW

and Tier 1 and later engines less than 37

kW and greater than or equal to 19 kW.

Credits generated in one model year

may not be used for prior model years.

(5) Using Tier 1 NOX credits for

showing compliance with Tier 2 NMHC

+ NOX credits.

(i) A manufacturer may use NOX

credits from engines subject to the Tier

1 standards to address NMHC + NOX

credit shortfall with engines in the same

averaging set subject to Tier 2 NMHC +

NOX emission standards.

(ii) NOX credits generated from Tier 1

engines may not be used to address

credit shortfalls with engines subject to

the Tier 3 NMHC + NOX standards.

(c) Tier 2 and later engines rated at

or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and later

engines rated under 37 kW. (1) A

nonroad engine family is eligible to

participate in the averaging, banking,

and trading programs for NMHC + NOX

emissions and PM emissions if it is

subject to regulation under subpart B of

this part with certain exceptions

specified in subsection (c)(2) of this

section. No averaging, banking, and

trading program is available for meeting

the CO or smoke emission standards

specified in subpart B of this part.

(2) Nonroad engines may not

participate in the averaging, banking,

and trading programs if they are subject

to state engine emission standards, are

exported, or use an alternate or special

test procedure under § 89.114. Meeting

the voluntary standards described in

§ 89.112(f) for Blue Sky Series engines

does not preclude participation in the

averaging, banking, and trading

programs; however, participation in the

averaging, banking, and trading

programs depends on manufacturers

developing test data on a steady-state

test cycle, as specified in § 89.410(a), for

credit computation purposes.

(3)(i) A manufacturer may certify one

or more nonroad engine families at FELs

above or below the applicable NMHC +

NOX emission standard and PM

emission standard, provided the

summation of the manufacturer’s

projected balance of all NMHC + NOX

credit transactions and the summation

of the manufacturer’s projected balance

of all PM credit transactions in a given

model year in a given averaging set is

greater than or equal to zero, as

determined under § 89.207(b).

(A) FELs for NMHC + NOX and FELs

for PM may not exceed the upper limits

specified in § 89.112(d).

(B) An engine family certified to an

FEL is subject to all provisions specified

in subparts B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K

of this part, except that the applicable

FEL replaces the emission standard for

the family participating in the

averaging, banking, and trading

program.

(C) A manufacturer of an engine

family with an FEL exceeding the

applicable emission standard must

obtain emission credits sufficient to

address the associated credit shortfall

via averaging, banking, or trading,

within the restrictions described in

§§ 89.204(c) and 89.206(b)(4).

(D) An engine family with an FEL

below the applicable standard may

generate emission credits for averaging,

banking, trading, or a combination

thereof. Emission credits may not be

used to offset an engine family’s

emissions that exceed its applicable

FEL. Credits may not be used to remedy

nonconformity determined by a

Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) or

by recall (in-use) testing. However, in

the case of an SEA failure, credits may

be used to allow subsequent production

of engines for the family in question if

the manufacturer elects to recertify to a

higher FEL.

(ii)(A) In lieu of generating credits

under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section,

a manufacturer may certify one or more

nonroad engine families rated under 37

kW at family emission limits (FELs)

above or below the applicable NMHC +

NOX emission standard and PM

emission standard. The summation of

the manufacturer’s projected balance of

all NMHC + NOX credit transactions and

the summation of the manufacturer’s

projected balance of all PM credit

transactions in a given model year, as

determined under § 89.207(b), is

allowed to be less than zero. Separate

calculations shall be required for the

following two categories of engines:

engines rated under 19 kW and engines

rated at or above 19kW and under 37

kW.

(B) A penalty equal to ten percent of

the year end negative credit balance

shall be added to the negative credit

balance. The resulting negative credit

balance shall be carried into the next

model year.

(C) For engines rated under 19 kW, a

manufacturer will be allowed to carry
50204 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

over a negative credit balance until

December 31, 2003. For engines rated at

or above 19 kW and under 37 kW, a

manufacturer will be allowed to carry

over a negative credit balance until

December 31, 2002. As of these dates,

the summation of the manufacturer’s

projected balance of all NMHC + NOX

credit transactions and the summation

of the manufacturer’s projected balance

of all PM credit transactions must be

greater than or equal to zero.

(D) FELs for NMHC + NOX and FELs

for PM may not exceed the upper limits

specified in § 89.112(d).

(E) An engine family certified to an

FEL is subject to all provisions specified

in subparts B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K

of this part, except that the applicable

NMHC + NOX FEL or PM FEL replaces

the NMHC + NOX emission standard or

PM emission standard for the family

participating in the averaging and

banking program.

(F) A manufacturer of an engine

family with an FEL exceeding the

applicable emission standard must

obtain emission credits sufficient to

address the associated credit shortfall

via averaging or banking. The exchange

of emission credits generated under this

program with other nonroad engine

manufacturers in trading is not allowed.

(G) An engine family with an FEL

below the applicable standard may

generate emission credits for averaging,

banking, or a combination thereof.

Emission credits may not be used to

offset an engine family’s emissions that

exceed its applicable FEL. Credits may

not be used to remedy nonconformity

determined by a Selective Enforcement

Audit (SEA) or by recall (in-use) testing.

However, in the case of an SEA failure,

credits may be used to allow subsequent

production of engines for the family in

question if the manufacturer elects to

recertify to a higher FEL.

(4)(i) Except as noted in paragraphs

(c)(4)(ii), (c)(4)(iii), and (c)(4)(iv) of this

section, credits generated in a given

model year may be used during that

model year or used in any subsequent

model year. Except as allowed under

paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section,

credits generated in one model year may

not be used for prior model years.

(ii) Credits generated from engines

rated under 19 kW prior to the

implementation date of the applicable

Tier 2 standards, shall expire on

December 31, 2007.

(iii) Credits generated from engines

rated under 19 kW under the provisions

of paragraph (c)(3)(ii) shall expire on

December 31, 2003.

(iv) Credits generated from engines

rated at or above 19 kW and under 37

kW under the provisions of paragraph

(c)(3)(ii) shall expire on December 31,

2002.

(d) Manufacturers must demonstrate

compliance under the averaging,

banking, and trading programs for a

particular model year by 270 days after

the model year. Engine families without

an adequate amount of emission credits,

except as allowed under paragraph

(c)(3)(ii) of this section, will violate the

conditions of the certificates of

conformity. The certificates of

conformity may be voided ab initio

under § 89.126(c) for those engine

families.

(e) Engine families may not generate

credits for one pollutant while also

using credits for another pollutant in the

same model year.

(f) An engine manufacturer may

exchange NOX emission credits, NMHC

+ NOX emission credits, and PM

emission credits to equipment or

vehicle manufacturers in trading. Such

credits may be used within the

provisions specified in § 89.102(d)(3).

27. The newly designated § 89.204 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.204 Averaging.

(a) Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37

kW. (1) A manufacturer may use

averaging to offset an emission

exceedance of a nonroad engine family

caused by a NOX FEL above the

applicable emission standard. NOX

credits used in averaging may be

obtained from credits generated by

another engine family in the same

model year, credits banked in a previous

model year, or credits obtained through

trading.

(2) Credits scheduled to expire in the

earliest model year must be used first,

before using other available credits.

(b) Tier 2 and later engines rated at

or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and later

engines rated under 37 kW. (1) A

manufacturer may use averaging to

offset an emission exceedance of a

nonroad engine family caused by an

NMHC + NOX FEL or a PM FEL above

the applicable emission standard.

Credits used in averaging may be

obtained from credits generated by

another engine family in the same

model year, credits banked in previous

model years that have not expired, or

credits obtained through trading. The

use of credits shall be within the

restrictions described in paragraph (c) of

this section and § 89.206(b)(4).

(2) Credits scheduled to expire in the

earliest model year must be used first,

before using other available credits.

(c) Averaging sets for emission credits.

The averaging and trading of NOX

emission credits, NMHC + NOX

emission credits, and PM emissions

credits will only be allowed between

engine families in the same averaging

set. The averaging sets for the averaging

and trading of NOX emission credits,

NMHC + NOX emission credits, and PM

emission credits for nonroad engines are

defined as follows:

(1) Eligible engines, other than marine

diesel engines rated at or above 19 kW,

constitute an averaging set.

(2) Marine diesel engines rated at or

above 19 kW constitute an averaging set.

Emission credits generated from marine

diesel engines rated at or above 19 kW

may be used to address credit shortfalls

for eligible engines other than marine

diesel engines rated at or above 19 kW.

(3) Eligible engines, other than marine

diesel engines rated under 19 kW,

constitute an averaging set.

(4) Marine diesel engines rated under

19 kW constitute an averaging set.

Emission credits generated from marine

diesel engines rated under 19 kW may

be used to address credit shortfalls for

eligible engines other than marine diesel

engines rated under 19 kW.

28. The newly designated § 89.205 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.205 Banking.

(a) Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37

kW. (1) A manufacturer of a nonroad

engine family with a NOX FEL below

the applicable standard for a given

model year may bank credits in that

model year for use in averaging and

trading in any subsequent model year.

(2) A manufacturer of a nonroad

engine family may bank NOX credits up

to one calendar year prior to the

effective date of mandatory certification.

Such engines must meet the

requirements of subparts A, B, D, E, F,

G, H, I, J, and K of this part.

(3)(i) A manufacturer of a nonroad

engine family may bank PM credits from

Tier 1 engines under the provisions

specified in § 89.207(b) for use in

averaging and trading in the Tier 2 or

later timeframe provided the engine

family is certified without an FEL above

the Tier 1 NOX standard.

(ii) Such engine families are subject to

all provisions specified in subparts B, D,

E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this part, except

that the applicable PM FEL replaces the

PM emission standard for the family

participating in the banking and trading

program.

(b) Tier 2 and later engines rated at

or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and later

engines rated under 37 kW. (1) A

manufacturer of a nonroad engine

family with an NMHC + NOX FEL or a

PM FEL below the applicable standard

for a given model year may bank credits

in that model year for use in averaging
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50205

and trading in any following model

year. (2) For engine rated under 37 kW, a

manufacturer of a nonroad engine

family may bank credits prior to the

effective date of mandatory certification.

Such engines must meet the

requirements of subparts A, B, D, E, F,

G, H, I, J, and K of this part. (c) A manufacturer may bank actual

credits only after the end of the model

year and after EPA has reviewed the

manufacturer’s end-of-year reports.

During the model year and before

submittal of the end-of-year report,

credits originally designated in the

certification process for banking will be

considered reserved and may be

redesignated for trading or averaging in

the end-of-year report and final report. (d) Credits declared for banking from

the previous model year that have not

been reviewed by EPA may be used in

averaging or trading transactions.

However, such credits may be revoked

at a later time following EPA review of

the end-of-year report or any subsequent

audit actions.

29. The newly designated § 89.206 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.206 Trading.

(a) Tier 1 engines rated at or above 37

kW. (1) A nonroad engine manufacturer

may exchange emission credits with

other nonroad engine manufacturers

within the same averaging set in trading. (2) Credits for trading can be obtained

from credits banked in a previous model

year or credits generated during the

model year of the trading transaction. (3) Traded credits can be used for

averaging, banking, or further trading

transactions within the restrictions

described in § 89.204(c).

(b) Tier 2 and later engines rated at

or above 37 kW and Tier 1 and later

engines rated under 37 kW. (1) A

nonroad engine manufacturer may

exchange emission credits with other

nonroad engine manufacturers within

the same averaging set in trading. (2) Credits for trading can be obtained

from credits banked in previous model

years that have not expired or credits

generated during the model year of the

trading transaction. (3) Traded credits can be used for

averaging, banking, or further trading

transactions within the restrictions

described in § 89.204(c) and paragraph

(b)(4) of this section.

(4) Emission credits generated from

engines rated at or above 19 kW

utilizing indirect fuel injection may not

be traded to other manufacturers.

(c) In the event of a negative credit

balance resulting from a transaction,

both the buyer and the seller are liable,

except in cases involving fraud.

Certificates of all engine families

participating in a negative trade may be

voided ab initio under § 89.126(c).

30. The newly designated § 89.207 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.207 Credit calculation.

(a) NOX credits from Tier 1 engines

rated at or above 37 kW. (1) For each

participating engine family, emission

credits (positive or negative) are to be

calculated according to one of the

following equations and rounded, in

accordance with ASTM E29–93a, to the

nearest one-tenth of a megagram (Mg).

This procedure has been incorporated

by reference (see § 89.6). Consistent

units are to be used throughout the

equation.

(i) For determining credit availability

from all engine families generating

credits:

Emission credits = (Std—FEL) ×

(Volume) × (AvgPR) × (UL) ×

(Adjustment) × (10–6)

(ii) For determining credit usage for

all engine families requiring credits to

offset emissions in excess of the

standard:

Emission credits = (Std—FEL) ×

(Volume) × (AvgPR) × (UL) × (10–6)

Where:

Std = the applicable Tier 1 NOX nonroad

engine emission standard, in grams per

brake horsepower hour.

FEL = the NOX family emission limit for the

engine family in grams per brake

horsepower hour.

Volume = the number of nonroad engines

eligible to participate in the averaging,

banking, and trading program within the

given engine family during the model

year. Engines sold to equipment or

vehicle manufacturers under the

provisions of § 89.102(g) shall not be

included in this number. Quarterly

production projections are used for

initial certification. Actual applicable

production/sales volumes is used for

end-of-year compliance determination.

AvgPR = the average power rating of all of

the configurations within an engine

family, calculated on a sales-weighted

basis.

UL = the useful life for the engine family, in

hours.

Adjustment = a one-time adjustment, as

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, to be applied to Tier 1 NOX

credits to be banked or traded for

determining compliance with the Tier 1

NOX standards or Tier 2 NOX+NMHC

standards specified in subpart B of this

part. Banked credits traded in a

subsequent model year will not be

subject to an additional adjustment.

Banked credits used in a subsequent

model year’s averaging program will not

have the adjustment restored.

(2) If an engine family is certified to

a NOX FEL of 8.0 g/kW-hr or less, an

Adjustment value of 1.0 shall be used in

the credit generation calculation

described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this

section. If an engine family is certified

to a NOX FEL above 8.0 g/kW-hr, an

Adjustment value of 0.65 shall be used

in the credit generation calculation

described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this

section. If the credits are to be used by

the credit-generating manufacturer for

averaging purposes in the same model

year in which they are generated, an

Adjustment value of 1.0 shall be used

for all engines regardless of the level of

the NOX FEL.

(b) NMHC + NOX Credits from Tier 2

and later engines rated at or above 37

kW and Tier 1 and later engines rated

under 37 kW and PM credits from all

engines. (1) For each participating

engine family, NOX + NMHC emission

credits and PM emission credits

(positive or negative) are to be

calculated according to one of the

following equations and rounded, in

accordance with ASTM E29–93a, to the

nearest one-tenth of a megagram (Mg).

This procedure has been incorporated

by reference (see § 89.6). Consistent

units are to be used throughout the

equation.

(i) For determining credit availability

from all engine families generating

credits:

Emission credits = (Std—FEL) ×

(Volume) × (AvgPR) × (UL) × (10¥6)

(ii) For determining credit usage for

all engine families requiring credits to

offset emissions in excess of the

standard:

Emission credits = (Std—FEL) ×

(Volume) × (AvgPR) × (UL) × (10¥6)

Where:

Std = the current and applicable nonroad

engine emission standard, in grams per

brake horsepower hour, except for PM

calculations where it is the applicable

nonroad engine Tier 2 PM emission

standard, and except for engines rated

under 19 kW where it is the applicable

nonroad engine Tier 2 emission

standard, in grams per brake horsepower

hour. (Engines rated under 19 kW

participating in the averaging and

banking program provisions of

§ 89.203(c)(3)(ii) shall use the Tier 1

standard for credit calculations.)

FEL = the family emission limit for the

engine family in grams per brake

horsepower hour.
50206 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Volume = the number of nonroad engines

eligible to participate in the averaging,

banking, and trading program within the

given engine family during the model

year. Engines sold to equipment or

vehicle manufacturers under the

provisions of § 89.102(g) shall not be

included in this number. Quarterly

production projections are used for

initial certification. Actual applicable

production/sales volumes is used for

end-of-year compliance determination.

AvgPR = the average power rating of all of

the configurations within an engine

family, calculated on a sales-weighted

basis.

UL = the useful life for the given engine

family, in hours.

31. The newly designated § 89.208 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.208 Labeling.

For all nonroad engines included in

the averaging, banking, and trading

programs, the family emission limits to

which the engine is certified must be

included on the label required in

§ 89.110.

32. The newly designated § 89.209 is

amended by revising paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 89.209 Certification.

(a) In the application for certification

a manufacturer must:

(1) Declare its intent to include

specific engine families in the

averaging, banking, and trading

programs.

(2) Submit a statement that the

engines for which certification is

requested will not, to the best of the

manufacturer’s belief, cause the

manufacturer to have a negative credit

balance when all credits are calculated

for all the manufacturer’s engine

families participating in the averaging,

banking, and trading programs, except

as allowed under § 89.203(c)(3)(ii).

(3) Declare the applicable FELs for

each engine family participating in

averaging, banking, and trading.

(i) The FELs must be to the same

number of significant digits as the

emission standard for the applicable

pollutant.

(ii) In no case may the FEL exceed the

upper limits prescribed in § 89.112(d).

(4) Indicate the projected number of

credits generated/needed for this family;

the projected applicable production/

sales volume, by quarter; and the values

required to calculate credits as given in

§ 89.207.

(5) Submit calculations in accordance

with § 89.207 of projected emission

credits (positive or negative) based on

quarterly production projections for

each participating family.

(6)(i) If the engine family is projected

to have negative emission credits, state

specifically the source (manufacturer/

engine family or reserved) of the credits

necessary to offset the credit deficit

according to quarterly projected

production, or, if the engine family is to

be included in the provisions of

§ 89.203(c)(3)(ii), state that the engine

family will be included in those

provisions.

(ii) If the engine family is projected to

generate credits, state specifically

(manufacturer/engine family or

reserved) where the quarterly projected

credits will be applied.

* * * * *

33. The newly designated § 89.210 is

amended by revising paragraphs (b) and

(c) to read as follows:

§ 89.210 Maintenance of records.

* * * * *

(b) The manufacturer of any nonroad

engine family that is certified under the

averaging, banking, and trading

programs must establish, maintain, and

retain the following adequately

organized and indexed records for each

such family:

(1) EPA engine family;

(2) Family emission limits (FEL);

(3) Power rating for each

configuration tested;

(4) Projected applicable production/

sales volume for the model year; and

(5) Actual applicable production/sales

volume for the model year.

(c) Any manufacturer producing an

engine family participating in trading

reserved credits must maintain the

following records on a quarterly basis

for each engine family in the trading

program:

(1) The engine family;

(2) The actual quarterly and

cumulative applicable production/sales

volume;

(3) The values required to calculate

credits as given in § 89.207;

(4) The resulting type and number of

credits generated/required;

(5) How and where credit surpluses

are dispersed; and

(6) How and through what means

credit deficits are met.

* * * * *

34. The newly designated § 89.211 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(c) to read as follows:

§ 89.211 End-of-year and final reports.

(a) End-of-year and final reports must

indicate the engine family, the actual

applicable production/sales volume, the

values required to calculate credits as

given in § 89.207, and the number of

credits generated/required.

Manufacturers must also submit how

and where credit surpluses were

dispersed (or are to be banked) and/or

how and through what means credit

deficits were met. Copies of contracts

related to credit trading must be

included or supplied by the broker, if

applicable. The report shall include a

calculation of credit balances to show

that the summation of the

manufacturer’s use of credits results in

a credit balance equal to or greater than

zero, except as allowed under

§ 89.203(c)(3)(ii).

* * * * *

(c)(1) End-of-year reports must be

submitted within 90 days of the end of

the model year to: Director, Engine

Programs and Compliance Division

(6405–J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

(2) Final reports must be submitted

within 270 days of the end of the model

year to: Director, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6405–J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.

* * * * *

35. The newly designated § 89.212 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.212 Notice of opportunity for hearing.

Any voiding of the certificate under

§§ 89.203(d), 89.206(c), 89.209(c) and

89.210(g) will be made only after the

manufacturer concerned has been

offered an opportunity for a hearing

conducted in accordance with §§ 89.512

and 89.513 and, if a manufacturer

requests such a hearing, will be made

only after an initial decision by the

Presiding Officer.

Subpart D—[Amended]

36. The newly designated § 89.302 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.302 Definitions.

The definitions in subpart A of this

part apply to this subpart. For terms not

defined in this part, the definitions in

part 86, subparts A, D, I, and N, of this

chapter apply to this subpart.

37. The newly designated § 89.304 is

amended by revising paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 89.304 Equipment required for gaseous

emissions; overview.

* * * * *

(c) Analyzers used are a nondispersive infrared (NDIR) absorption

type for carbon monoxide and carbon

dioxide analysis; a heated flame

ionization (HFID) type for hydrocarbon

analysis; and a chemiluminescent

detector (CLD) or heated

chemiluminescent detector (HCLD) for

oxides of nitrogen analysis. A gas

chromatograph (GC) may also be

required for methane analysis. Sections
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50207

89.309 through 89.324 set forth a full

description of analyzer requirements

and specifications.

38. The newly designated § 89.307 is

amended by revising paragraphs (b)(7)

and (b)(8) to read as follows:

§ 89.307 Dynamometer calibration.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(7) The measured torque must be

within either 2 percent of point or 1

percent of the engine maximum torque

of the calculated torque.

(8) If the measured torque is not

within the above requirements adjust or

repair the system. Repeat steps in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this

section with the adjusted or repaired

system.

* * * * *

39. The newly designated § 89.308 is

amended by revising paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 89.308 Sampling system requirements

for gaseous emissions.

* * * * *

(b) If water is removed by

condensation, the sample gas

temperature shall be monitored within

the water trap or the sample dewpoint

shall be monitored downstream. In

either case, the indicated temperature

shall not exceed 7 °C.

40. The newly designated § 89.309 is

amended by removing and reserving

paragraph (a)(3) and revising paragraphs

(a)(4)(iii), (a)(5)(i)(C), and (a)(5)(i)(D) and

adding paragraph (a)(6) to read as

follows:

§ 89.309 Analyzers required for gaseous

emissions.

(a) * * *

(3) [Reserved]

(4) * * *

(iii) The FID oven must be capable of

maintaining temperature within 5.5 °C

of the set point.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) For raw analysis, an ice bath or

other cooling device located after the

NOX converter (optional for dilute

analysis).

(D) A chemiluminescent detector

(CLD or HCLD).

* * * * *

(6) Methane analysis. (i) Using a

methane analyzer consisting of a gas

chromatograph combined with an FID,

the measurement of methane shall be in

accordance with SAE Recommended

Practice J1151, ‘‘Methane Measurement

Using Gas Chromatography.’’

(Incorporated by reference pursuant to

§ 86.1(b)(2).)

(ii) As an option, the manufacturer

may choose the analyzer to be used for

methane measurement with the prior

approval of the Administrator.

* * * * *

41. The newly designated § 89.310 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)

and (c) to read as follows:

§ 89.310 Analyzer accuracy and

specifications.

(a) * * *

(1) Response time. As necessary,

measure and account for the response

time of the analyzer.

* * * * *

(c) Emission measurement accuracy—

Bagged sampling. (1) Good engineering

practice dictates that exhaust emission

sample analyzer readings below 15

percent of full-scale chart deflection

should generally not be used.

(2) Some high resolution read-out

systems, such as computers, data

loggers, and so forth, can provide

sufficient accuracy and resolution below

15 percent of full scale. Such systems

may be used provided that additional

calibrations of at least 4 non-zero

nominally equally spaced points, using

good engineering judgement, below 15

percent of full scale are made to ensure

the accuracy of the calibration curves. If

a gas divider is used, the gas divider

must conform to the accuracy

requirements specified in § 89.312(c).

The procedure in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section may be used for calibration

below 15 percent of full scale.

(3) The following procedure shall be

followed:

(i) Span the l analyzer using a

calibration gas meeting the accuracy

requirements of § 89.312(c), within the

operating range of the analyzer, and at

least 90% of full scale.

(ii) Generate a calibration over the full

concentration range at a minimum of 6,

approximately equally spaced, points

(e.g. 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 percent

of the range of concetrations provided

by the gas divider). If a gas divider or

blender is being used to calibrate the

analyzer and the requirements of

paragraph (c)(2) of this section are met,

verify that a second calibration gas

between 10 and 20 percent of full scale

can be named within 2 percent of its

certified concentration.

(iii) If a gas divider or blender is being

used to calibrate the analyzer, input the

value of a second calibration gas (a span

gas may be used for the CO2 analyzer)

having a named concentration between

10 and 20 percent of full scale. This gas

shall be included on the calibration

curve. Continue adding calibration

points by dividing this gas until the

requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this

section are met.

(iv) Fit a calibration curve per

§§ 89.319 through 89.322 for the full

scale range of the analyzer using the

calibration data obtained with both

calibration gases.

* * * * *

42. The newly designated § 89.312 is

amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2),

(d), and (f) and adding a new paragraph

(g) to read as follows:

§ 89.312 Analytical gases.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Mixtures of gases having the

following chemical compositions shall

be available:

C3H8 and purified synthetic air;

C3H8 and purified nitrogen (optional for

raw measurements);

CO and purified nitrogen;

NOX and purified nitrogen (the amount

of NO2 contained in this calibration

gas must not exceed 5 percent of the

NO content);

CO2 and purified nitrogen.

* * * * *

(d) Oxygen interference check gases

shall contain propane with 350

ppmC±75 ppmC hydrocarbon. The three

oxygen interference gases shall contain

21%±1% O2,10%±1% O2, and 5%±1%

O2. The concentration value shall be

determined to calibration gas tolerances

by chromatographic analysis of total

hydrocarbons plus impurities or by

dynamic blending. Nitrogen shall be the

predominant diluent with the balance

oxygen.

* * * * *

(f) Hydrocarbon analyzer burner air.

The concentration of oxygen for raw

sampling must be within 1 mole percent

of the oxygen concentration of the

burner air used in the latest oxygen

interference check (%O2I). If the

difference in oxygen concentration is

greater than 1 mole percent, then the

oxygen interference must be checked

and, if necessary, the analyzer adjusted

to meet the %O2I requirements. The

burner air must contain less than 2

ppmC hydrocarbon.

(g) Gases for the methane analyzer

shall be single blends of methane using

air as the diluent.

43. The newly designated § 89.314 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(b) to read as follows:

§ 89.314 Pre- and post-test calibration of

analyzers.

* * * * *

(a) The calibration is checked by

using a zero gas and a span gas whose

nominal value is between 75 percent
50208 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and 100 percent of full-scale, inclusive,

of the measuring range.

(b) After the end of the final mode, a

zero gas and the same span gas will be

used for rechecking. As an option,the

zero and span may be rechecked at the

end of each mode or each test segment.

The analysis will be considered

acceptable if the difference between the

two measuring results is less than 2

percent of full scale.

§ 89.316 [Amended]

44. The newly designated § 89.316 is

amended by removing and reserving

paragraph (b).

45. The newly designated § 89.317 is

amended by revising paragraphs (g), (h),

and (k) to read as follows:

§ 89.317 NOX converter check.

* * * * *

(g) Turn on the NOX generator O2 (or

air) supply and adjust the O2 (or air)

flow rate so that the NO indicated by the

analyzer is about 10 percent less than

indicated in paragraph (f) of this

section. Record the concentration of NO

in this NO+O2 mixture.

(h) Switch the NOX generator to the

generation mode and adjust the

generation rate so that the NO measured

on the analyzer is 20 percent of that

measured in paragraph (f) of this

section. There must be at least 10

percent unreacted NO at this point.

Record the concentration of residual

NO.

* * * * *

(k) Turn off the NOX generator O2 (or

air) supply. The analyzer will now

indicate the NOX in the original NO-inN2 mixture. This value should be no

more than 5 percent above the value

indicated in paragraph (f) of this

section.

* * * * *

46. The newly designated § 89.318 is

amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i)

and (c)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

§ 89.318 Analyzer interference checks.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) NOX analyzer water quench check.

(i) This check applies to wet

measurements only. An NO span gas

having a concentration of 80 to 100

percent of full scale of a normal

operating range shall be passed through

the CLD (or HCLD) and the response

recorded as D. The NO span gas shall

then be bubbled through water at room

temperature and passed through the

CLD (or HCLD) and the analyzer

response recorded as AR. Determine and

record the bubbler absolute operating

pressure and the bubbler water

temperature. (It is important that the NO

span gas contains minimal NO2

concentration for this check. No

allowance for absorption of NO2 in

water has been made in the following

quench calculations. This test may be

optionally run in the NO mode to

minimize the effect of any NO2 in the

NO span gas.)

* * * * *

(iv)(A) The maximum raw or dilute

exhaust water vapor concentration

expected during testing (designated as

Wm) can be estimated from the CO2

span gas (or as defined in the equation

in this paragraph and designated as A)

criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this

section and the assumption of a fuel

atom H/C ratio of 1.8:1 as:

Wm(%)=0.9×A(%)

Where:

A= maximum CO2 concentration

expected in the sample system

during testing.

(B) Percent water quench shall not

exceed 3 percent and shall be

calculated by:

%Water Quen D AR

D

Wm

Z

ch = × − 100 ×

1

1 1

47. The newly designated § 89.319 is

amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(2), (c), (d) introductory text, (d)(2),

and (d)(6) to read as follows:

§ 89.319 Hydrocarbon analyzer calibration.

* * * * *

(b) Initial and periodic optimization

of detector response. * * *

(1) Follow good engineering practices

for initial instrument start-up and basic

operating adjustment using the

appropriate fuel (see § 89.312(e)) and

zero-grade air.

(2) Optimize the FID’s response on the

most common operating range. The

response is to be optimized with respect

to fuel pressure or flow. Efforts shall be

made to minimize response variations to

different hydrocarbon species that are

expected to be in the exhaust. Good

engineering judgement is to be used to

trade off optimal FID response to

propane-in-air against reductions in

relative responses to other

hydrocarbons. A good example of

trading off response on propane for

relative responses to other hydrocarbon

species is given in Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) Paper No.

770141, ‘‘Optimization of Flame

Ionization Detector for Determination of

Hydrocarbon in Diluted Automotive

Exhausts’’; author Glenn D. Reschke. It

is also required that the response be set

to optimum condition with respect to

air flow and sample flow. Heated Flame

Ionization Detectors (HFIDs) must be at

their specified operating temperature.

One of the following procedures is

required for FID or HFID optimization:

(i) The procedure outlined in Society

of Automotive Engineers (SAE) paper

No. 770141, ‘‘Optimization of a Flame

Ionization Detector for Determination of

Hydrocarbon in Diluted Automotive

Exhausts’’; author, Glenn D. Reschke.

This procedure has been incorporated

by reference. See § 89.6.

(ii) The HFID optimization procedures

outlined in 40 CFR 86.331–79.

(iii) Alternative procedures may be

used if approved in advance by the

Administrator.

(iv) The procedures specified by the

manufacturer of the FID or HFID.

* * * * *

(c) Initial and periodic calibration.

Prior to introduction into service, after

any maintenance which could alter

calibration, and monthly thereafter, the

FID or HFID hydrocarbon analyzer shall

be calibrated on all normally used

instrument ranges using the steps in this

paragraph (c). Use the same flow rate

and pressures as when analyzing

samples. Calibration gases shall be

introduced directly at the analyzer,

unless the ‘‘overflow’’ calibration option

of § 86.1310–90(b)(3)(i) of this chapter

for the HFID is taken. New calibration

curves need not be generated each

month if the existing curve can be

verified as continuing to meet the

requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this

section.

(1) Adjust analyzer to optimize

performance.

(2) Zero the hydrocarbon analyzer

with zero-grade air.

(3) Calibrate on each used operating

range with propane-in-air (dilute or raw)

or propane-in-nitrogen (raw) calibration

gases having nominal concentrations

starting between 10–15 percent and

increasing in at least six incremental

steps to 90 percent (e.g., 15, 30, 45, 60,

75, and 90 percent of that range) of that

range. The incremental steps are to be

spaced to represent good engineering

practice. For each range calibrated, if

the deviation from a least-squares bestfit straight line is 2 percent or less of the

value at each data point, concentration

values may be calculated by use of a

single calibration factor for that range. If

the deviation exceeds 2 percent at each

non-zero data point and within ±0.3

percent of full scale on the zero, the

best-fit non-linear equation which

represents the data to within these

limits shall be used to determine

concentration.

(d) Oxygen interference optimization

(Required for raw). Choose a range

where the oxygen interference check

gases will fall in the upper 50 percent.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50209

Conduct the test, as outlined in this

paragraph, with the oven temperature

set as required by the instrument

manufacturer. Oxygen interference

check gas specifications are found in

§ 89.312(d).

* * * * *

(2) Span the analyzer with the 21%

oxygen interference gas specified in

§ 89.312(d).

* * * * *

(6) Calculate the percent of oxygen

interference (designated as percent O2I)

for each mixture in paragraph (d)(4) of

this section as follows:

percent O2I=((B¥C)×100)/B

Where:

A= hydrocarbon concentration (ppmC)

of the span gas used in paragraph

(d)(2) of this section.

B= hydrocarbon concentration (ppmC)

of the oxygen interference check

gases used in paragraph (d)(4) of

this section.

C= analyzer response (ppmC) = A/D.

D= (percent of full-scale analyzer

response due to A) × (percent of fullscale analyzer response due to B).

* * * * *

48. The newly designated § 89.320 is

amended by revising paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 89.320 Carbon monoxide analyzer

calibration.

* * * * *

(c) Initial and periodic calibration.

Prior to its introduction into service,

after any maintenance which could alter

calibration, and every two months

thereafter, the NDIR carbon monoxide

analyzer shall be calibrated. New

calibration curves need not be generated

every two months if the existing curve

can be verified as continuing to meet the

requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this

section.

(1) Adjust the analyzer to optimize

performance.

(2) Zero the carbon monoxide

analyzer with either zero-grade air or

zero-grade nitrogen.

(3) Calibrate on each used operating

range with carbon monoxide-in-N2

calibration gases having nominal

concentrations starting between 10 and

15 percent and increasing in at least six

incremental steps to 90 percent (e.g., 15,

30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 percent) of that

range. The incremental steps are to be

spaced to represent good engineering

practice. For each range calibrated, if

the deviation from a least-squares bestfit straight line is 2 percent or less of the

value at each non-zero data point and

within ±0.3 percent of full scale on the

zero, concentration values may be

calculated by use of a single calibration

factor for that range. If the deviation

exceeds these limits, the best-fit nonlinear equation which represents the

data to within these limits shall be used

to determine concentration.

* * * * *

49. The newly designated § 89.321 is

amended by revising paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 89.321 Oxides of nitrogen analyzer

calibration.

* * * * *

(c) Initial and periodic calibration.

Prior to its introduction into service,

after any maintenance which could alter

calibration, and monthly thereafter, the

chemiluminescent oxides of nitrogen

analyzer shall be calibrated on all

normally used instrument ranges. New

calibration curves need not be generated

each month if the existing curve can be

verified as continuing to meet the

requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this

section. Use the same flow rate as when

analyzing samples. Proceed as follows:

(1) Adjust analyzer to optimize

performance.

(2) Zero the oxides of nitrogen

analyzer with zero-grade air or zerograde nitrogen.

(3) Calibrate on each normally used

operating range with NO-in-N2

calibration gases with nominal

concentrations starting at between 10

and 15 percent and increasing in at least

six incremental steps to 90 percent (e.g.,

15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 percent) of

that range. The incremental steps are to

be spaced to represent good engineering

practice. For each range calibrated, if

the deviation from a least-squares bestfit straight line is 2 percent or less of the

value at each non-zero data point and

within ±0.3 percent of full scale on the

zero, concentration values may be

calculated by use of a single calibration

factor for that range. If the deviation

exceeds these limits, the best-fit nonlinear equation which represents the

data to within these limits shall be used

to determine concentration.

* * * * *

50. The newly designated § 89.322 is

amended by revising paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 89.322 Carbon dioxide analyzer

calibration.

(a) Prior to its introduction into

service, after any maintenance which

could alter calibration, and bi-monthly

thereafter, the NDIR carbon dioxide

analyzer shall be calibrated on all

normally used instrument ranges. New

calibration curves need not be generated

each month if the existing curve can be

verified as continuing to meet the

requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this

section. Proceed as follows:

(1) Follow good engineering practices

for instrument start-up and operation.

Adjust the analyzer to optimize

performance.

(2) Zero the carbon dioxide analyzer

with either zero-grade air or zero-grade

nitrogen.

(3) Calibrate on each normally used

operating range with carbon dioxide-inN2 calibration or span gases having

nominal concentrations starting

between 10 and 15 percent and

increasing in at least six incremental

steps to 90 percent (e.g., 15, 30, 45, 60,

75, and 90 percent) of that range. The

incremental steps are to be spaced to

represent good engineering practice. For

each range calibrated, if the deviation

from a least-squares best-fit straight line

is 2 percent or less of the value at each

non-zero data point and within ±0.3

percent of full scale on the zero,

concentration values may be calculated

by use of a single calibration factor for

that range. If the deviation exceeds these

limits, the best-fit non-linear equation

which represents the data to within

these limits shall be used to determine

concentration.

* * * * *

51. The newly designated § 89.324 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.324 Calibration of other equipment.

(a) Other test equipment used for

testing shall be calibrated as often as

required by the instrument

manufacturer or necessary according to

good practice.

(b) If a methane analyzer is used, the

methane analyzer shall be calibrated

prior to introduction into service and

monthly thereafter:

(1) Follow the manufacturer’s

instructions for instrument startup and

operation. Adjust the analyzer to

optimize performance.

(2) Zero the methane analyzer with

zero-grade air.

(3) Calibrate on each normally used

operating range with CH4 in air with

nominal concentrations starting

between 10 and 15 percent and

increasing in at least six incremental

steps to 90 percent (e.g., 15, 30, 45, 60,

75, and 90 percent) of that range. The

incremental steps are to be spaced to

represent good engineering practice. For

each range calibrated, if the deviation

from a least-squares best-fit straight line

is 2 percent or less of the value at each

non-zero data point and within ±0.3

percent of full scale on the zero,

concentration values may be calculated

by use of a single calibration factor for

that range. If the deviation exceeds these

limits, the best-fit non-linear equation
50210 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

which represents the data to within

these limits shall be used to determine

concentration.

52. The newly designated § 89.328 is

amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)

and (b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 89.328 Inlet and exhaust restrictions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Equip the test engine with an air

inlet system presenting an air inlet

restriction within 5 percent of the upper

limit at maximum air flow, as specified

by the engine manufacturer for a clean

air cleaner. A system representative of

the installed engine may be used. In

other cases a test shop system may be

used.

(2) The exhaust backpressure must be

within 5 percent of the upper limit at

maximum declared power, as specified

by the engine manufacturer. A system

representative of the installed engine

may be used. In other cases a test shop

system may be used.

53. The newly designated § 89.330 is

amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 89.330 Lubricating oil and test fuels.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Use petroleum fuel meeting the

specifications in Table 4 in Appendix A

of this subpart, or substantially

equivalent specifications approved by

the Administrator, for exhaust emission

testing. Alternatively, petroleum fuel

meeting the specifications in Table 5 in

Appendix A of this subpart may be used

in exhaust emission testing. The grade

of diesel fuel used must be

commercially designated as ‘‘Type 2–D’’

grade diesel fuel and recommended by

the engine manufacturer.

* * * * *

54.–57. Tables 1 through 4 of

Appendix A to subpart D are revised to

read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart D—Tables

TABLE 1.—ABBREVIATIONS USED IN

SUBPART D OF THIS PART

CLD ....... Chemiluminescent detector.

CO ......... Carbon monoxide.

CO2 ....... Carbon dioxide.

HC ......... Hydrocarbons.

HCLD .... Heated chemiluminescent detector.

HFID ...... Heated flame ionization detector.

GC ......... Gas chromatograph.

NDIR ..... Non-dispersive infra-red analyzer.

NIST ...... National Institute for Standards

and Testing.

NO ......... Nitric Oxide.

NO2 ....... Nitrogen Dioxide.

NOX ....... Oxides of nitrogen.

O2 .......... Oxygen.

TABLE 2.—SYMBOLS USED IN

SUBPARTS D AND E OF THIS PART.

Symbol Term Unit

conc ....... Concentration (ppm by

volume).

ppm

f ............. Engine specific parameter considering atmospheric conditions.

FFCB ....... Fuel specific factor for

the carbon balance

calculation.

FFD ........ Fuel specific factor for

exhaust flow calculation on dry basis.

FFH ........ Fuel specific factor representing the hydrogen to carbon ratio.

FFW ........ Fuel specific factor for

exhaust flow calculation on wet basis.

FR ......... Rate of fuel consumed .. g/h

GAIRW .... Intake air mass flow rate

on wet basis.

kg/h

GAIRD ..... Intake air mass flow rate

on dry basis.

kg/h

GEXHW ... Exhaust gas mass flow

rate on wet basis.

kg/h

GFuel ...... Fuel mass flow rate ....... kg/h

H ............ Absolute humidity (water

content related to dry

air).

g/kg

i ............. Subscript denoting an individual mode.

KH .......... Humidity correction factor.

L ............ Percent torque related to

maximum torque for

the test mode.

%

TABLE 2.—SYMBOLS USED IN SUBPARTS D AND E OF THIS PART.—

Continued

Symbol Term Unit

mass ...... Pollutant mass flow ........ g/h

nd,i ......... Engine speed (average

at the i’th mode during

the cycle).

1/min

Ps ........... Dry atmospheric pressure.kPa

Pd .......... Test ambient saturation

vapor pressure at ambient temperature.

kPa

P ............ Observed brake power

output uncorrected.

kW

PAUX ...... Declared total power absorbed by auxiliaries

fitted for the test.

kW

PM ......... Maximum power measured at the test speed

under test conditions.

kW

Pi ........... Pi = PM,i + PAUX,i ...........

PB .......... Total barometric pressure (average of the

pre-test and post-test

values).

kPa

Pv .......... Saturation pressure at

dew point temperature.

kPa

Ra .......... Relative humidity of the

ambient air.

%

S ............ Dynamometer setting ..... kW

T ............ Absolute temperature at

air inlet.

K

Tbe ......... Air temperature after the

charge air cooler (if

applicable) (average).

K

Tclout ...... Coolant temperature outlet (average).K

TDd ......... Absolute dewpoint temperature.K

Td,i ......... Torque (average at the

i’th mode during the

cycle).

N-m

TSC ......... Temperature of the intercooled air.K

Tref. ........ Reference temperature .. K

VEXHD .... Exhaust gas volume flow

rate on dry basis.

m3/h

VAIRW .... Intake air volume flow

rate on wet basis.

m3/h

PB .......... Total barometric pressure.kPa

VEXHW ... Exhaust gas volume flow

rate on wet basis.

m3/h

WF ......... Weighing factor ..............

WFE ....... Effective weighing factor

TABLE 3.—MEASUREMENT ACCURACY AND CALIBRATION FREQUENCY

No. Item Calibration accuracy 1 Calibration frequency

1 ........ Engine speed ................................................................... ±2% ........................................................... 30 days.

2 ........ Torque ............................................................................. ±2% ........................................................... 30 days.

3 ........ Fuel consumption (raw measurement) ............................ ±2% of engine maximum .......................... 30 days.

4 ........ Air consumption (raw measurement) .............................. ±2% of engine maximum .......................... As required.

5 ........ Coolant temperature ........................................................ ±2°K .......................................................... As required.

6 ........ Lubricant temperature ..................................................... ±2°K .......................................................... As required.

7 ........ Exhaust backpressure ..................................................... ±0.5% ........................................................ As required.

8 ........ Inlet depression ............................................................... ±0.5% ........................................................ As required.

9 ........ Exhaust gas temperature ................................................ ±15°K ........................................................ As required.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50211

TABLE 3.—MEASUREMENT ACCURACY AND CALIBRATION FREQUENCY—Continued

No. Item Calibration accuracy 1 Calibration frequency

10 ...... Air inlet temperature (combustion air) ............................. ±2°K .......................................................... As required.

11 ...... Atmospheric pressure ...................................................... ±0.5% ........................................................ As required.

12 ...... Humidity (combustion air) (relative) ................................ ±3.0% ........................................................ As required.

13 ...... Fuel temperature ............................................................. ±2°K .......................................................... As required.

14 ...... Temperature with regard to dilution tunnel ..................... ±2°K .......................................................... As required.

15 ...... Dilution air humidity (specific) ......................................... ±3% ........................................................... As required.

16 ...... HC analyzer ..................................................................... ±2% ........................................................... Monthly or as required.

17 ...... CO analyzer ..................................................................... ±2% ........................................................... Bi-monthly or as required.

18 ...... NOX analyzer .................................................................. ±2% ........................................................... Monthly or as required.

19 ...... Methane analyzer ............................................................ ±2% ........................................................... Monthly or as required.

20 ...... NOX converter efficiency check ...................................... 90% ........................................................... Monthly.

21 ...... CO2 analyzer ................................................................... ±2% ........................................................... Monthly or as required.

1All accuracy requirements pertain to the final recorded value which is inclusive of the data acquisition system.

TABLE 4.—FEDERAL TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS

Item Procedure (ASTM) 1 Value (type 2–D)

Cetane .................................................................................................................................. D613–86 ...................................... 42–48

Distillation Range:

IPB, °C .......................................................................................................................... D86–90 ........................................ 171–204

10% point, °C ................................................................................................................ D86–90 ........................................ 204–235

50% point, °C ................................................................................................................ D86–90 ........................................ 243–283

90% point, °C ................................................................................................................ D86–90 ........................................ 293–332

EP, °C ........................................................................................................................... D86–90 ........................................ 321–366

Gravity, API ................................................................................................................... D287–92 ...................................... 33–37

Total sulfur, % mass ..................................................................................................... D129–91 or D2622–92 ................ >0.05–0.5

Hydrocarbon composition:

Aromatics, % vol. .......................................................................................................... D1319–89 .................................... 2 10

Parafins ......................................................................................................................... D1319–89 .................................... (3)

Napthenes ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................... ..............................

Olefins ........................................................................................................................... ..................................................... ..............................

Flashpoint, °C (minimum) ............................................................................................. D93–90 ........................................ 54

Viscosity @ 38 °C, centistokes ..................................................................................... D445–88 ...................................... 2.0–3.2

1All ASTM procedures in this table have been incorporated by reference. See § 89.6. 2 Minimum.

3 Remainder.

* * * * *

Appendix A, Table 5 [Amended]

58. Table 5 of Appendix A to subpart

D is amended by revising the heading to

read as follows:

* * * * *

TABLE 5.—CALIFORNIA TEST FUEL

SPECIFICATIONS

* * * * *

Subpart E—[Amended]

59. The newly designated § 89.401 is

amended by revising paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 89.401 Scope; applicability.

* * * * *

(b) Exhaust gases, either raw or dilute,

are sampled while the test engine is

operated using the appropriate test cycle

on an engine dynamometer. The exhaust

gases receive specific component

analysis determining concentration of

pollutant, exhaust volume, the fuel

flow, and the power output during each

mode. Emissions are reported as grams

per kilowatt hour (g/kW-hr).

* * * * *

60. The newly designated § 89.402 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.402 Definitions.

The definitions in subpart A of this

part apply to this subpart. For terms not

defined in this part, the definitions in

part 86, subparts A, D, I, and N, of this

chapter apply to this subpart.

61. The newly designated § 89.404 is

amended by revising paragraph (b) and

removing paragraph (e) to read as

follows:

§ 89.404 Test procedure overview.

* * * * *

(b) The test is designed to determine

the brake-specific emissions of

hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides

of nitrogen, and particulate matter. For

more information on particulate matter

sampling, see § 89.112(c). The test

cycles consist of various steady-state

operating modes that include different

combinations of engine speeds and

loads. These procedures require the

determination of the concentration of

each pollutant, exhaust volume, the fuel

flow, and the power output during each

mode. The measured values are

weighted and used to calculate the

grams of each pollutant emitted per

kilowatt hour (g/kW-hr).

* * * * *

62. The newly designated § 89.405 is

amended by revising paragraphs (d), (e),

and (f) to read as follows:

§ 89.405 Recorded information.

* * * * *

(d) Test data; pre-test.

(1) Date and time of day.

(2) Test number.

(3) Intermediate speed and rated

speed as defined in § 89.2 and

maximum observed torque for these

speeds.

(4) Recorder chart or equivalent.

Identify for each test segment zero traces

for each range used, and span traces for

each range used.
50212 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(5) Air temperature after and pressure

drop across the charge air cooler (if

applicable) at maximum observed

torque and rated speed.

(e) Test data; modal.

(1) Recorder chart or equivalent.

Identify for each test mode the emission

concentration traces and the associated

analyzer range(s). Identify the start and

finish of each test.

(2) Observed engine torque.

(3) Observed engine rpm.

(4) Record engine torque and engine

rpm continuously during each mode

with a chart recorder or equivalent

recording device.

(5) Intake air flow (for raw mass flow

sampling method only) and depression

for each mode.

(6) Engine intake air temperature at

the engine intake or turbocharger inlet

for each mode.

(7) Mass fuel flow (for raw sampling)

for each mode.

(8) Engine intake humidity.

(9) Coolant temperature outlet.

(10) Engine fuel inlet temperature at

the pump inlet.

(f) Test data; post-test.

(1) Recorder chart or equivalent.

Identify the zero traces for each range

used and the span traces for each range

used. Identify hangup check, if

performed.

(2) Total number of hours of operation

accumulated on the engine.

63. The newly designated § 89.406 is

amended by revising paragraphs (b) and

(c)(1) to read as follows:

§ 89.406 Pre-test procedures.

* * * * *

(b) Replace or clean the filter elements

and then vacuum leak check the system

per § 89.316(a). Allow the heated

sample line, filters, and pumps to reach

operating temperature.

(c) * * *

(1) Check the sample-line

temperatures (see § 89.309 (a)(4)(ii) and

(a)(5)(i)(A)).

* * * * *

64. The newly designated § 89.407 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c),

and (d)(2) to read as follows:

§ 89.407 Engine dynamometer test run.

(a) Measure and record the

temperature of the air supplied to the

engine, the fuel temperature, the intake

air humidity, and the observed

barometric pressure during the sampling

for each mode. The fuel temperature

shall be less than or equal to 43 °C

during the sampling for each mode.

* * * * *

(c) The following steps are taken for

each test:

(1) Install instrumentation and sample

probes as required.

(2) Perform the pre-test procedure as

specified in § 89.406.

(3) Read and record the general test

data as specified in § 89.405(c).

(4) Start cooling system.

(5) Precondition (warm up) the engine

in the following manner:

(i) For variable-speed engines:

(A) Operate the engine at idle for 2 to

3 minutes;

(B) Operate the engine at

approximately 50 percent power at the

peak torque speed for 5 to 7 minutes;

(C) Operate the engine at rated speed

and maximum horsepower for 25 to 30

minutes;

(ii) For constant-speed engines:

(A) Operate the engine at minimum

load for 2 to 3 minutes;

(B) Operate the engine at 50 percent

load for 5 to 7 minutes;

(C) Operate the engine at maximum

load for 25 to 30 minutes;

(iii) Optional. It is permitted to

precondition the engine at rated speed

and maximum horsepower until the oil

and water temperatures are stabilized.

The temperatures are defined as

stabilized if they are maintained within

±2 percent of point on an absolute basis

for 2 minutes. The engine must be

operated a minimum of 10 minutes for

this option. This optional procedure

may be substituted for the procedure in

paragraph (c)(5)(i)or (c)(5)(ii) of this

section;

(iv) Optional. If the engine has been

operating on service accumulation for a

minimum of 40 minutes, the service

accumulation may be substituted for the

procedure in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)

through (iii) of this section.

(6) Read and record all pre-test data

specified in § 89.405(d).

(7) Start the test cycle (see § 89.410)

within 20 minutes of the end of the

warmup. (See paragraph (c)(13) of this

section.) A mode begins when the speed

and load requirements are stabilized to

within the requirements of § 89.410(b).

A mode ends when valid emission

sampling for that mode ends. For a

mode to be valid, the speed and load

requirements must be maintained

continuously during the mode.

Sampling in the mode may be repeated

until a valid sample is obtained as long

as the speed and torque requirements

are met.

(8) Calculate the torque for any mode

with operation at rated speed.

(9) During the first mode with

intermediate speed operation, if

applicable, calculate the torque

corresponding to 75 and 50 percent of

the maximum observed torque for the

intermediate speed.

(10) Record all modal data specified

in § 89.405(e) during a minimum of the

last 60 seconds of each mode.

(11) Record the analyzer(s) response

to the exhaust gas during the minimum

of the last 60 seconds of each mode.

(12) Test modes may be repeated, as

long as the engine is preconditioned by

running the previous mode. In the case

of the first mode of any cycle,

precondition according to paragraph

(c)(5) of this section.

(13) If a delay of more than 20

minutes, but less than 4 hours, occurs

between the end of one mode and the

beginning of another mode,

precondition the engine by running the

previous mode. If the delay exceeds 4

hours, the test shall include

preconditioning (begin at paragraph

(c)(2) of this section).

(14) The speed and load points for

each mode are listed in Tables 1 through

4 of Appendix B of this subpart. The

engine speed and load shall be

maintained as specified in § 89.410(b).

(15) If at any time during a test mode,

the test equipment malfunctions or the

specifications in paragraph (c)(14) of

this section are not met, the test mode

is void and may be aborted. The test

mode may be restarted by

preconditioning with the previous

mode.

(16) Fuel flow and air flow during the

idle load condition may be determined

just prior to or immediately following

the dynamometer sequence, if longer

times are required for accurate

measurements.

(d) * * *

(2) Each analyzer range that may be

used during a test mode must have the

zero and span responses recorded prior

to the execution of the test . Only the

zero and span for the range(s) used to

measure the emissions during the test

are required to be recorded after the

completion of the test .

* * * * *

65. The newly designated § 89.408 is

amended by revising paragraph (e) to

read as follows:

§ 89.408 Post-test procedures.

* * * * *

(e) For a valid test, the zero and span

checks performed before and after each

test for each analyzer must meet the

following requirements:

(1) The span drift (defined as the

change in the difference between the

zero response and the span response)

must not exceed 3 percent of full-scale

chart deflection for each range used.

(2) The zero response drift must not

exceed 3 percent of full-scale chart

deflection.

66. The newly designated § 89.410 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),

and (c) to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50213

§ 89.410 Engine test cycle.

(a) Test cycles. The manufacturer

shall determine from of the following

test cycles the most appropriate cycle

for each engine family using the

following guidelines. These cycles shall

be used to test engines on a

dynamometer.

(1) The 8-mode test cycle described in

Table 1 of Appendix B of this subpart

may be used for any land-based or

auxiliary marine diesel engine.

(2) The 5-mode test cycle described in

Table 2 of Appendix B of this subpart

may be used for any constant-speed

engine (see § 89.2). Any engine certified

under this test cycle must meet the

labeling requirements of § 89.110(b)(11).

(3) The 6-mode test cycle described in

Table 3 of Appendix B of this subpart

may be used for any land-based or

auxiliary marine diesel engine rated

under 19 kW.

(4) The 4-mode test cycle described in

Table 4 of Appendix B of this subpart

is intended for all propulsion marine

diesel engines. Manufacturers may

measure emissions from propulsion

marine diesel engines using the 8-mode

test cycle described in Table 1 of

Appendix B of this subpart if the engine

has been derived from a model already

certified with that cycle, if approved in

advance by the Administrator.

(b) During each non-idle mode, hold

the specified load to within 2 percent of

the engine maximum value and speed to

within ±2 percent of point. During each

idle mode, speed must be held within

the manufacturer’s specifications for the

engine, and the throttle must be in the

fully closed position and torque must

not exceed 5 percent of the peak torque

value of mode 5.

(c) For any mode except those

involving either idle or full-load

operation, if the operating conditions

specified in paragraph (b) of this section

cannot be maintained, the

Administrator may authorize deviations

from the specified load conditions. Such

deviations shall not exceed 10 percent

of the maximum torque at the test

speed. The minimum deviations above

and below the specified load necessary

for stable operation shall be determined

by the manufacturer and approved by

the Administrator prior to the test run.

* * * * *

67. The newly designated § 89.411 is

amended by revising paragraph (e)(5) to

read as follows:

§ 89.411 Exhaust sample procedure—

gaseous components.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(5) If the difference between the

readings obtained is 2 percent of full

scale deflection or more, clean the

sample probe and the sample line.

* * * * *

68. The newly designated § 89.412 is

amended by revising paragraph (c)(3)

and removing and reserving paragraph

(g)(1) to read as follows:

§ 89.412 Raw gaseous exhaust sampling

and analytical system description.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) The location of optional valve V16

may not be greater than 61 cm from the

sample pump.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(1) [Reserved]

* * * * *

69. The newly designated § 89.413 is

amended by revising paragraph (d) and

removing paragraph (e) to read as

follows:

§ 89.413 Raw sampling procedures.

* * * * *

(d) All heated sampling lines shall be

fitted with a heated filter to extract solid

particles from the flow of gas required

for analysis. The sample line for CO and

CO2 analysis may be heated or

unheated.

70. The newly designated § 89.414 is

amended by revising paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 89.414 Air flow measurement

specifications.

(a) The air flow measurement method

used must have a range large enough to

accurately measure the air flow over the

engine operating range during the test.

Overall measurement accuracy must be

±2 percent of the maximum engine

value for all modes. The Administrator

must be advised of the method used

prior to testing.

* * * * *

71. The newly designated § 89.415 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 89.415 Fuel flow measurement

specifications.

The fuel flow rate measurement

instrument must have a minimum

accuracy of 2 percent of the engine

maximum fuel flow rate. The

controlling parameters are the elapsed

time measurement of the event and the

weight or volume measurement.

72. The newly designated § 89.418 is

amended by revising paragraphs (c) and

(d), the table in paragraph (e),

paragraphs (f) introductory text and

(f)(1), and the text of paragraph (g)

preceding the equation to read as

follows:

§ 89.418 Raw emission sampling

calculations.

* * * * *

(c) When applying GEXHW the

measured ‘‘dry’’ concentration shall be

corrected to a wet basis, if not already

measured on a wet basis. This section is

applicable only for measurements made

on raw exhaust gas. Correction to a wet

basis shall be according to the following

formula:

ConcWET = KW x Conc‘‘dry’’

Where:

KW is determined according to the

equations in paragraphs (c)(1),

(c)(2), and (c)(3) of this section.

(1) For measurements using the mass

flow method (see § 89.416(a)):

K F

G

G W FH K only appli fuel

aird

= − × W1





 



1  − cable for raw exhaust

F ALF

G

G

FH

fuel

airw

= × ×

+ 



 





0 1448 1

1

. for diesel fuel only

ALF=Hydrogen mass percentage of fuel

= 13.12 for CH1.8 fuel.
50214 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ALF = ×

+ ×

×

1 008

12 01 1 008

100 .

. .

α

α

α=H/C mole ratio of the fuel.

(2) For measurements using the fuel

consumption and exhaust gas

concentrations method (see

§ 89.416(b)):

K

DCO DCO

W W1 = K

+ × × + 



 





− 1

1 18 0 005

104 2 . .

f

a

f a f a

DCO DHC DHC

K

DCO

K

DHC







 = +

×





 



 − ×





 



 + −

×





 



 −

×





















+ −

−

×( )





















4 77 1 4

2 10 10 4

1

10

75

10

1

1

10

6 6 6

6 6

. ( / )( / )( / )

( ) ( ) ( )

.

( )

( )

α

α α

 stoich

1

X





or

f

a

G

G

Mass Fuel 

H

fuel

aird







 = =

× − 







Measured

Gairw 1

1000

K=3.5

X DCO DCO DHC= + + 2

2 6 6 10 10 10

f a Stoich M M c H /

. / ( ) = ( ) +

+α

13818 1 4 α

(3) For both methods, H is calculated

as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this

section:

K H

H W1 = ×+ ×

1 608

1000 1 608

.

.

(d) As the NOX emission depends on

intake air conditions, the NOX

concentration shall be corrected for

intake air temperature and humidity

with the factor KH given in the following

formula. For engines operating on

alternative combustion cycles, other

correction formulas may be used if they

can be justified or validated. The

formula follows:

K

A H B T H = + − + −

1

1 10 71 298 ( . ) ( )

Where:

A=0.309 (f/a)–0.0266

B=¥0.209 (f/a)+0.00954

T=temperature of the air in K

H=humidity of the inlet air in grams of

water per kilogram of dry air, in

which:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50215

H R p

p p R

a d

R d a

= × ×

− × × ( ) −

6 22

10 2

. or

H

P

P P

v

B v

= ×

( ) −

622

(e) * * *

Gas u v w Conc.

NOX .............................................................................................................................. 0.001587 0.00205 0.00205 ppm.

CO ................................................................................................................................ 0.000966 0.00125 0.00125 ppm.

HC ................................................................................................................................. 0.000478 — 0.000618 ppm.

CO2 ............................................................................................................................... 15.19 19.64 19.64 Percent.

NOTE: The given coefficients u, v, and w are calculated for 273.15 °K (0 °C) and

101.3 kPa. In cases where the reference conditions vary from those stated, an

error may occur in the calculations.

(f) The following equations may be

used to calculate the coefficients u, v,

and w in paragraph (e) of this section for

other conditions of temperature and

pressure:

(1) For the calculation of u, v, and w

for NOX (as NO2), CO, HC (in paragraph

(e) of this section as CH1.80), CO2, and

O2:

Where:

w=4.4615.10¥5×M if conc. in ppm

w=4.4615.10¥1×M if conc. in percent

v=w

u=w/ρAir

M=Molecular weight

ρAir=Density of dry air at 273.15 °K (0

°C), 101.3 kPa=1.293 kg/m3

* * * * *

(g) The emission shall be calculated

for all individual components in the

following way where power at idle is

equal to zero:

* * * * *

§ 89.423 [Removed and reserved]

73. Remove and reserve the newly

designated § 89.423.

74. The newly designated § 89.424 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a),

(d)(6), and (e) to read as follows:

§ 89.424 Dilute emission sampling

calculations.

(a) The final reported emission test

results are computed by use of the

following formula:

A

g WF

P WF

WM

i i

i

i n

i i

i

i n =

( ) ×

( ) ×

=

=

=

= −

∑

∑

1

1

1

Where:

Awm=Weighted mass emission level

(HC, CO, CO2, PM, or NOX) in g/

kW-hr.

gi=Mass flow in grams per hour, = grams

measured during the mode divided

by the sample time for the mode.

WFi=Effective weighing factor.

Pi=Power measured during each mode

(Power set = zero for the idle mode)

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(6) Equations for H and KH are found

in § 89.418.

Wet concentration = Kw X dry

concentration

Where:

Kw=

1¥(α/200)×CO2e(′)¥((1.608×H)/

(7000+1.608×H)), or

1¥(α/200)×CO2e(′)¥((1.608×H)/

(1000+1.608×H))

for SI units.

CO2e(′) = either CO2e or CO2e′ as

applicable.

CO2e (′) = average intergrated carbon

dioxide concentration (wet basis) in

percent (for continuous

measurement).

(e) The final modal reported brakespecific fuel consumption (bsfc) shall be

computed by use of the following

formula:

bsfc M

kW hr = −

Where:

bsfc = brake-specific fuel consumption

for a mode in grams of fuel per

kilowatt-hour (kW-hr).

M = mass of fuel in grams, used by the

engine during a mode.

kW-hr = total kilowatts integrated with

respect to time for a mode.

* * * * *

§ 89.425 [Removed and reserved]

75. Remove and reserve the newly

designated § 89.425.

76.–80. Appendix B to subpart E of

part 89 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart E of Part 89—

Tables

TABLE 1.—8-MODE TEST CYCLE FOR VARIABLE-SPEED ENGINES

Test segment Mode No. Engine speed 1

Observed

torque 2

(percent of

max. observed)

Minimum

time in

mode

(minutes)

Weighting

factors

1 ................................................................. 1 Rated ........................................................ 100 5.0 0.15

1 ................................................................. 2 Rated ........................................................ 75 5.0 .15

1 ................................................................. 3 Rated ........................................................ 50 5.0 .15

1 ................................................................. 4 Rated ........................................................ 10 5.0 .10

2 ................................................................. 5 Int .............................................................. 100 5.0 .10

2 ................................................................. 6 Int .............................................................. 75 5.0 .10

2 ................................................................. 7 Int .............................................................. 50 5.0 .10
50216 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—8-MODE TEST CYCLE FOR VARIABLE-SPEED ENGINES—Continued

Test segment Mode No. Engine speed 1

Observed

torque 2

(percent of

max. observed)

Minimum

time in

mode

(minutes)

Weighting

factors

2 ................................................................. 8 Idle ............................................................ 0 5.0 .15

1Engine speed (non-idle): ±2 percent of point. Engine speed (idle): Within manufacturer’s specifications. Idle speed is specified by the manufacturer. 2Torque (non-idle): Throttle fully open for 100 percent points. Other non-idle points: ±2 percent of engine maximum value. Torque (idle): Throttle fully closed. Load less than 5 percent of peak torque.

TABLE 2.—5-MODE TEST CYCLE FOR CONSTANT-SPEED ENGINES

Mode No. Engine

speed 1

Observed

torque 2

(percent of

max. observed)

Minimum

time

in mode

(minutes)

Weighting

factors

1 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 100 5.0 0.05

2 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 75 5.0 0.25

3 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 50 5.0 0.30

4 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 25 5.0 0.30

5 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 10 5.0 0.10

1 Engine speed: ±2 percent of point. 2 Torque: Throttle fully open for 100 percent point. Other points: ±2 percent of engine maximum value.

TABLE 3.—6-MODE TEST CYCLE FOR ENGINES RATED UNDER 19 KW

Mode No. Engine

speed 1

Observed

torque 2

(percent of

max. observed)

Minimum

time

in mode

(minutes)

Weighting

factors

1 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 100 5.0 0.09

2 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 75 5.0 .20

3 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 50 5.0 .29

4 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 25 5.0 .30

5 .......................................................................................................................................... Rated ....... 10 5.0 .07

6 .......................................................................................................................................... Idle ........... 0 5.0 .05

1Engine speed (non-idle): ±2 percent of point. Engine speed (idle): Within manufacturer’s specifications. Idle speed is specified by the manufacturer. 2Torque (non-idle): Throttle fully open for operation at 100 percent point. Other nonidle points: ≤2 percent of engine maximum value. Torque

(idle): Throttle fully closed. Load less than 5 percent of peak torque.

TABLE 4.—4-MODE TEST CYCLE FOR PROPULSION MARINE DIESEL ENGINES

Mode No.

Engine

speed 1

(percent of

max. observed)

Observed

power 2

(percent of

max. observed)

Minimum

time in

mode

(minutes)

Weighting

factors

1 ...................................................................................................................................... 100 100 5.0 020

2 ...................................................................................................................................... 91 75 5.0 .50

3 ...................................................................................................................................... 80 50 5.0 .15

4 ...................................................................................................................................... 63 10 5.0 .15

1Engine speed: ±2 percent of point. 2Power: Throttle fully open for operation at 100 percent point. Other points: ±2 percent of engine maximum value.

Subpart F—[Amended]

81. The newly designated § 89.505 is

amended by revising paragraph (e) to

read as follows:

§ 89.505 Maintenance of records;

submittal of information.

* * * * *

(e) All reports, submissions,

notifications, and requests for approvals

made under this subpart are addressed

to: Director, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6405–J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

82. The newly designated § 89.506 is

amended by revising paragraph (g) to

read as follows:

§ 89.506 Right of entry and access.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50217

(g) A manufacturer is responsible for

locating its foreign testing and

manufacturing facilities in jurisdictions

where local law does not prohibit an

EPA enforcement officer(s) or EPA

authorized representative(s) from

conducting the entry and access

activities specified in this section. EPA

will not attempt to make any

inspections which it has been informed

that local foreign law prohibits.

83. The newly designated § 89.509 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(b) to read as follows:

§ 89.509 Calculation and reporting of test

results.

(a) Initial test results are calculated

following the applicable test procedure

specified in § 89.508(a). The

manufacturer rounds these results, in

accordance with ASTM E29–93a, to the

number of decimal places contained in

the applicable emission standard

expressed to one additional significant

figure. This procedure has been

incorporated by reference. See § 89.6.

(b) Final test results are calculated by

summing the initial test results derived

in paragraph (a) of this section for each

test engine, dividing by the number of

tests conducted on the engine, and

rounding in accordance with the

procedure specified in paragraph (a) of

this section to the same number of

decimal places contained in the

applicable standard expressed to one

additional significant figure.

* * * * *

84. The newly designated § 89.512 is

amended by revising paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 89.512 Request for public hearing.

* * * * *

(b) The manufacturer’s request must

be filed with the Administrator not later

than 15 days after the Administrator’s

notification of the decision to suspend

or revoke, unless otherwise specified by

the Administrator. The manufacturer

must simultaneously serve two copies of

this request upon the Director of the

Engine Programs and Compliance

Division and file two copies with the

Hearing Clerk of the Agency. Failure of

the manufacturer to request a hearing

within the time provided constitutes a

waiver of the right to a hearing.

Subsequent to the expiration of the

period for requesting a hearing as of

right, the Administrator may, at her or

his discretion and for good cause

shown, grant the manufacturer a hearing

to contest the suspension or revocation.

* * * * *

85. The newly designated § 89.513 is

amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to

read as follows.

§ 89.513 Administrative procedures for

public hearing.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) To the maximum extent possible,

testimony will be presented in written

form. Copies of written testimony will

be served upon all parties as soon as

practicable prior to the start of the

hearing. A certificate of service will be

provided on or accompany each

document or paper filed with the

Hearing Clerk. Documents to be served

upon the Director of the Engine

Programs and Compliance Division

must be sent by registered mail to:

Director, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6405–J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Service by registered mail is complete

upon mailing.

* * * * *

Subpart G—[Amended]

86. The newly designated § 89.602 is

amended by revising the definition for

‘‘Fifteen working day hold period’’ to

read as follows:

§ 89.602 Definitions.

* * * * *

Fifteen working day hold period. The

period of time between a request for

final admission and the automatic

granting of final admission (unless EPA

intervenes) for a nonconforming

nonroad engine conditionally imported

pursuant to § 89.605 or § 89.609. Day

one of the hold period is the first

working day (see definition for

‘‘working day’’ in this section) after the

Engine Programs and Compliance

Division of EPA receives a complete and

valid application for final admission.

* * * * *

87. The newly designated § 89.603 is

amended by revising paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 89.603 General requirements for

importation of nonconforming nonroad

engines.

* * * * *

(d) The ICI must submit to the Engine

Programs and Compliance Division of

EPA a copy of all approved applications

for certification used to obtain

certificates of conformity for the

purpose of importing nonconforming

nonroad engines pursuant to § 89.605 or

§ 89.609. In addition, the ICI must

submit to the Engine Programs and

Compliance Division a copy of all

approved production changes

implemented pursuant to § 89.605 or

subpart B of this part. Documentation

submitted pursuant to this paragraph

must be provided to the Engine

Programs and Compliance Division

within 10 working days of approval of

the certification application (or

production change) by EPA.

88. The newly designated § 89.604 is

amended by revising paragraphs (c)(4)

and (d) to read as follows:

§ 89.604 Conditional admission.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) A copy of the written record is to

be submitted to the Engine Programs

and Compliance Division of EPA within

five working days of the transfer date.

(d) Notwithstanding any other

requirement of this subpart or U.S.

Customs Service regulations, an ICI may

also assume responsibility for the

modification and testing of a

nonconforming nonroad engine which

was previously imported by another

party. The ICI must be a holder of a

currently valid certificate of conformity

for that specific nonroad engine or

authorized to import it pursuant to

§ 89.609 at the time of assuming such

responsibility. The ICI must comply

with all the requirements of § 89.603,

§ 89.604, and either § 89.605 or § 89.609,

as applicable. For the purposes of this

subpart, the ICI has ‘‘imported’’ the

nonroad engine as of the date the ICI

assumes responsibility for the

modification and testing of the nonroad

engine. The ICI must submit written

notification to the Engine Programs and

Compliance Division of EPA within 10

working days of the assumption of that

responsibility.

89. The newly designated § 89.605 is

amended by revising paragraphs

(a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(vi), and (c) to read as

follows:

§ 89.605 Final admission of certified

nonroad engines.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) The ICI attests that the nonroad

engine has been modified in accordance

with the provisions of the ICI’s

certificate of conformity; presents to

EPA a statement written by the

applicable Original Engine

Manufacturer (OEM) that the OEM must

provide to the ICI, and to EPA,

information concerning production

changes to the class of nonroad engines

described in the ICI’s application for

certification; delivers to the Engine

Programs and Compliance Division of

EPA notification by the ICI of any

production changes already

implemented by the OEM at the time of

application and their effect on

emissions; and obtains from EPA
50218 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

written approval to use this

demonstration option; or

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(vi) A report concerning these

production changes is to be made to the

Engine Programs and Compliance

Division of EPA within ten working

days of initiation of the production

change. The cause of any failure of an

emission test is to be identified, if

known;

* * * * *

(c) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, EPA approval for

final admission of a nonroad engine

under this section is presumed to have

been granted if the ICI does not receive

oral or written notice from EPA to the

contrary within 15 working days of the

date that the Engine Programs and

Compliance Division of EPA receives

the ICI’s application under paragraph (a)

of this section. EPA notice of

nonapproval may be made to any

employee of the ICI. It is the

responsibility of the ICI to ensure that

the Engine Programs and Compliance

Division of EPA receives the application

and to confirm the date of receipt.

During this 15 working day hold period,

the nonroad engine is to be stored at a

location where the Administrator has

reasonable access to the nonroad engine

for the Administrator’s inspection. The

storage is to be within 50 miles of the

ICI’s testing facility to allow the

Administrator reasonable access for

inspection and testing. A storage facility

not meeting this criterion must be

approved in writing by the

Administrator prior to the submittal of

the ICI’s application under paragraph (a)

of this section.

90. The newly designated § 89.609 is

amended by revising paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 89.609 Final admission of modification

nonroad engines and test nonroad engines.

* * * * *

(d) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, EPA approval for

final admission of a nonroad engine

under this section is presumed to have

been granted if the ICI does not receive

oral or written notice from EPA to the

contrary within 15 working days of the

date that the Engine Programs and

Compliance Division of EPA receives

the ICI’s application under paragraph (b)

of this section. Such EPA notice of

nonapproval may be made to any

employee of the ICI. It is the

responsibility of the ICI to ensure that

the Engine Programs and Compliance

Division of EPA receives the application

and to confirm the date of receipt.

During this 15 working day hold period,

the nonroad engine is stored at a

location where the Administrator has

reasonable access to the nonroad engine

for the Administrator’s inspection. The

storage is to be within 50 miles of the

ICI’s testing facility to allow the

Administrator reasonable access for

inspection and testing. A storage facility

not meeting this criterion must be

approved in writing by the

Administrator prior to the submittal of

the ICI’s application under paragraph (b)

of this section.

* * * * *

91. The newly designated § 89.610 is

amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)

to read as follows:

§ 89.610 Maintenance instructions,

warranties, emission labeling.

* * * * *

(b) Warranties. (1) ICIs must submit to

the Engine Programs and Compliance

Division of EPA sample copies

(including revisions) of any warranty

documents required by this section

prior to importing nonroad engines

under this subpart.

* * * * *

92. The newly designated § 89.611 is

amended by revising paragraph (g) to

read as follows:

§ 89.611 Exemptions and exclusions.

* * * * *

(g) An application for exemption and

exclusion provided for in paragraphs

(b), (c), and (e) of this section is to be

mailed to: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Mobile

Sources, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6405–J), 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,

Attention: Imports.

Subpart J—[Amended]

93. Section 89.903 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 89.903 Application of section 216(10) of

the Act.

* * * * *

(b) EPA will maintain a list of

nonroad engines that have been

determined to be excluded because they

are used solely for competition. This list

will be available to the public and may

be obtained by writing to the following

address: Chief, Selective Enforcement

Auditing Section, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6405–-J),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

* * * * *

94. Section 89.905 is amended by

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 89.905 Testing exemption.

* * * * *

(f) A manufacturer of new nonroad

engines may request a testing exemption

to cover nonroad engines intended for

use in test programs planned or

anticipated over the course of a

subsequent one-year period. Unless

otherwise required by the Director,

Engine Programs and Compliance

Division, a manufacturer requesting

such an exemption need only furnish

the information required by paragraphs

(a)(1) and (d)(2) of this section along

with a description of the record-keeping

and control procedures that will be

employed to assure that the engines are

used for purposes consistent with

paragraph (a) of this section.

95. Section 89.906 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory

text, (a)(3)(iii)(D), and (b) to read as

follows:

§ 89.906 Manufacturer-owned exemption

and precertification exemption.

(a) * * *

(3) Unless the requirement is waived

or an alternate procedure is approved by

the Director, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division, the manufacturer

must permanently affix a label to each

nonroad engine on exempt status. This

label should—

* * * * *

(iii) * * *

(D) The statement ‘‘This nonroad

engine is exempt from the prohibitions

of 40 CFR 89.1003.’’

* * * * *

(b) Any independent commercial

importer that desires a precertification

exemption pursuant to § 89.611(b)(3)

and is in the business of importing,

modifying, or testing uncertified

nonroad engines for resale under the

provisions of subpart G of this part,

must apply to the Director, Engine

Programs and Compliance Division. The

Director may require such independent

commercial importer to submit

information regarding the general nature

of the fleet activities, the number of

nonroad engines involved, and a

demonstration that adequate recordkeeping procedures for control purposes

will be employed.

96. Section 89.911 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 89.911 Submission of exemption

requests.

Requests for exemption or further

information concerning exemptions

and/or the exemption request review

procedure should be addressed to:

Chief, Selective Enforcement Auditing

Section, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6405–J),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50219

97. Section 89.1003 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6),

and (b)(4) to read as follows:

§ 89.1003 Prohibited acts.

(a) * * *

(3)(i) For a person to remove or render

inoperative a device or element of

design installed on or in a nonroad

engine, vehicle or equipment in

compliance with regulations under this

part prior to its sale and delivery to the

ultimate purchaser, or for a person

knowingly to remove or render

inoperative such a device or element of

design after the sale and delivery to the

ultimate purchaser; or

(ii) For a person to manufacture, sell

or offer to sell, or install, a part or

component intended for use with, or as

part of, a nonroad engine, vehicle or

equipment, where a principal effect of

the part or component is to bypass,

defeat, or render inoperative a device or

element of design installed on or in a

nonroad engine in compliance with

regulations issued under this part, and

where the person knows or should

know that the part or component is

being offered for sale or installed for this

use or put to such use; or

(iii) for a person to deviate from the

provisions of § 89.130 when rebuilding

an engine (or rebuilding a portion of an

engine or engine system).

* * * * *

(5) For a person to circumvent or

attempt to circumvent the residence

time requirements of paragraph (2)(iii)

of the nonroad engine definition in

§ 89.2.

(6) For a manufacturer of nonroad

vehicles or equipment to distribute in

commerce, sell, offer for sale, or

introduce into commerce a nonroad

vehicle or piece of equipment,

manufactured on or after the model year

applicable to engines in such vehicle or

equipment under § 89.112, which

contains an engine not covered by a

certificate of conformity.

(b) * * *

(4) Certified nonroad engines shall be

used in all vehicles and equipment

manufactured on or after the applicable

model years in § 89.112 that are selfpropelled, portable, transportable, or are

intended to be propelled while

performing their function, unless the

manufacturer of the vehicle or

equipment can prove that the vehicle or

equipment will be used in a manner

consistent with paragraph (2) of the

definition of nonroad engine in § 89.2.

For any model year for which a new

standard takes effect, nonroad vehicle

and equipment manufacturers may

continue to use previous model year

nonroad engines until inventories of

those engines are depleted; however,

stockpiling of noncertified nonroad

engines will be considered a violation of

this section.

98. Section 89.1007 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 89.1007 Warranty provisions.

* * * * *

(c) For the purposes of this section,

the owner of any nonroad engine

warranted under this part is responsible

for the proper maintenance of the

engine. Proper maintenance includes

replacement and service, at the owner’s

expense at a service establishment or

facility of the owner’s choosing, of all

parts, items, or devices related to

emission control (but not designed for

emission control) under the terms of the

last sentence of section 207(a)(3) of the

Act, unless such part, item, or device is

covered by any warranty not mandated

by this Act.

[FR Doc. 97–24237 Filed 9–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P