Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76797

1 ‘‘Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study—

Report and Appendices,’’ EPA–21A–201, November

1991 (available in Air docket A–91–24). It is also

available through the National Technical

Information Service, referenced as document PB

92–126960.

2 59 FR 31306 (July 17, 1994).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86, 94, 1048 and 1051

[FRL–6907–6]

Control of Emissions From Nonroad

Large Spark Ignition Engines,

Recreational Engines (Marine and

Land-Based), and Highway

Motorcycles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: With this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), we are

continuing with our process of

establishing standards for nonroad

engines and vehicles that cause or

contribute to air pollution. The ANPRM

addresses nonroad engines and vehicles

that have yet to be regulated by EPA,

including: Large spark ignition (SI)

engines such as those used in forklifts

and airport tugs; Recreational vehicles

using spark ignition engines such as offhighway motorcycles, all-terrain

vehicles, and snowmobiles; and

Recreational marine diesel engines and

marine spark ignition sterndrive and

inboard engines.

These engines and vehicles contribute

to ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and

particulate matter (PM) nonattainment.

We are also concerned in some cases

about personal exposure to high levels

on CO, air toxics, and PM to persons

operating or close to this equipment.

With this ANPRM, we invite early input

to the process to establishing standards

and programs for these nonroad sources.

We are also seeking comment on

whether EPA should pursue rulemaking

to establish more stringent emissions

standards for highway motorcycles.

While standards are in place for

highway motorcycles, the current

standards were established more than

twenty years ago. Since off-highway

motorcycles are included this ANPRM

as part of nonroad recreational vehicles,

we believe it may be appropriate to

consider standards for both types of

motorcycles together.

DATES: We request comment on this

Advance Notice by February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may send written

comments in paper form and/or by email. Send paper copies of written

comments (in duplicate if possible) to

the contact person listed below. You

may also submit comments via e-mail to

‘‘nranprm@epa.gov’’. In your

correspondence, refer to Docket A–

2000–01.

EPA’s Air Docket makes materials

related to this rulemaking available for

review in Dockets A–2000–01 and A–

98–01. These materials are located at

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M–

1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460 (on the ground floor in

Waterside Mall) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, except on

government holidays. You can reach the

Air Docket by telephone at (202) 260–

7548 and by facsimile at (202) 260–

4400. We may charge a reasonable fee

for copying docket materials, as

provided in 40 CFR part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National

Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory,

2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI

48105; Telephone: (734) 214–4334, Fax:

(734) 214–4050, e-mail:

borushko.margaret@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic

Copies of Documents

This document is also available

electronically from the EPA Internet

Web site. This service is free of charge,

except for any cost already incurred for

internet connectivity. The electronic

version of this document is made

available on the day of publication on

the primary web site listed below. We

also publish Federal Register

documents and related documents on

the secondary web site listed below.

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

EPA-AIR/ (either select desired date or

use search feature)

2. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ (look in

What’s New or under the specific

rulemaking topic)

Please note that due to differences

between the software used to develop

the document and the software into

which the document may be

downloaded, changes in format, page

length, etc., may occur.

Table of Contents

I. Overview

II. Air Quality

III. Recreational Vehicles

IV. Highway Motorcycles

V. Recreational Marine Engines

VI. Large Spark Ignition Engines

VII. Public Participation

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility

IX. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Overview

A. History of Nonroad Engine

Regulations

The process of establishing standards

for nonroad engines began in 1991 with

a study to determine whether emissions

of carbon mononxide (CO), oxides of

nitrogen ( NOX), and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) from new and

existing nonroad engines, equipment,

and vehicles are significant contributors

to ozone and CO concentrations in more

than one area that has failed to attain

the national ambient air quality

standards for ozone and CO.1 In 1994,

EPA finalized its finding that nonroad

engines as a whole ‘‘are significant

contributors to ozone or carbon

monoxide concentrations’’ in more than

one ozone or carbon monoxide

nonattainment area.2

Upon this finding, EPA was tasked by

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) to

establish standards for all classes or

categories of new nonroad engines that

cause or contribute to air quality

nonattainment in more than one ozone

or carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment

area. Since the finding in 1994, EPA has

been engaged in the process of

establishing programs to control

emissions from nonroad engines used in

many different applications. Nonroad

categories already regulated include:

• Land-based compression ignition

(CI) engines (e.g., farm and construction

equipment),

• Small land-based spark-ignition (SI)

engines (e.g., lawn and garden

equipment, string trimmers),

• Marine engines (outboards,

personal watercraft, CI commercial)

• Locomotive engines

B. Today’s ANPRM

Today’s ANPRM provides an initial

overview of possible regulatory

strategies for nonroad vehicles and

engines that have yet to be regulated

under EPA’s nonroad engine programs.

It is a continuation of the process of

establishing standards for nonroad

engines and vehicles, as required by

CAA section 213(a)(3). If, as expected,

standards for these engines and vehicles

are established, essentially all new

nonroad engines will be required to

meet emissions control requirements.

The rulemaking that begins with this

ANPRM therefore is the final round of

initial regulations for nonroad engines.

The ANPRM covers diesel engines used

in recreational marine applications. The

ANPRM also covers several nonroad

spark ignition (SI) engine applications,

as follows:

• Land-based recreational engines (for

example, engines used in snowmobiles,

76798 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

3As a shorthand notation in this document, we

are using ‘‘recreational marine engines’’ to mean

recreational marine diesel engines and all gasoline

SD/I engines, even though some SD/I applications

could be commercial.

4See Final Finding, ‘‘Control of Emissions from

New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines Rated above

19 Kilowatts and New Land-Based Recreational

Spark-Ignition Engines’’ elsewhere in today’s

Federal Register for EPA’s finding for Large SI

engines and recreational vehicles. EPA’s findings

for marine engines are contained in 61 FR 52088

(October 4, 1996) for gasoline engines and 64 FR

73299 (December 29, 1999) for diesel engines. 5See 42 U.S.C. 7409. 6 65 FR 48058, August 4, 2000.

off-highway motorcycles, and all-terrain

vehicles (ATVs))

• Marine sterndrive and inboard (SD/

I) engines 3

• Land-based engines rated over 19

kw (Large SI) (for example, engines used

in forklifts); this category includes

auxiliary marine engines, which are not

used for propulsion.

We have found that the nonroad

engines included in this ANPRM cause

or contribute to air quality

nonattainment in more than one ozone

or carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment

area.4 CAA section 213(a)(3) requires

EPA to establish standards that achieve

the greatest degree of emissions

reductions achievable taking cost and

other factors into account. We plan to

propose emissions standards and related

programs consistent with the

requirements of the Act and, with this

ANPRM, are seeking early input from

interested parties.

In addition to the nonroad vehicles

and engines noted above, today’s

ANPRM also reviews EPA requirements

for highway motorcycles. The emissions

standards for highway motorcycles were

established twenty-three years ago.

California recently adopted new

emissions standards for highway

motorcycles and new standards have

also been proposed internationally.

There may be opportunities to reduce

emissions in a way that also allows

manufacturers to benefit from

harmonized requirements, which may

reduce product lines and production

costs. In addition, we believe it is

important to consider the emissions

standards for highway motorcycles in

the context of setting standards for offhighway motorcycles. We are interested

in providing regulatory programs for offhighway and highway motorcycles that

are consistent, and which may also

allow for the transfer of technology

across product lines for manufacturers.

This ANPRM covers engines and

vehicles that vary in design and use,

and many readers may only be

interested in one or two of the

applications. There are various ways we

could group the engines and present

information. For purposes of this

ANPRM, we have chosen to group

engines by common applications (e.g,

recreational land-based engines, marine

engines, large spark ignition engines

used in commercial applications). We

have attempted to organize the

document in a way that allows each

reader to focus on the applications of

particular interest. The Air Quality

discussion which follows in section II is

general in nature and applies to all the

categories covered by the ANPRM.

Sections III through VI of the ANPRM

present self-contained discussions of

standards and programs for each of the

vehicle and engine categories. While

some of the information may be

repetitive among the discussions, we

hope that this structure helps the reader

focus on the categories and information

of interest. The remaining sections VII

through X are generally applicable to all

of the engines and vehicles.

II. Air Quality

A. Overview

As directed by the Act, EPA has set

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

for, among other pollutants, groundlevel carbon monoxide, ozone, NO2, and

particulate matter.5 States are divided

into discrete areas for air quality

planning purposes. Currently, 17 areas

around the U.S. are classified as CO

nonattainment areas. Additionally, 31

areas are not in attainment with ozone

air quality standards.

State and local governmental

organizations charged with designing

and implementing emission control

programs to bring specific areas into

attainment with these air quality

standards have mounted significant

efforts in recent years to reduce CO and

ozone concentrations. Their state

implementation plans, combined with

federal stationary and mobile source

emission control programs, have yielded

encouraging signs of success. Emissions

of the targeted pollutants have been

significantly reduced in many areas.

Average carbon monoxide and ozone

levels, as well as the number of

nonattainment areas, are beginning to

decrease. We project, however, that

emission increases accompanying

general growth and economic expansion

will eventually outpace per-source

emission rate reductions. Increases in

the number of sources, as well as

increased use of existing sources, mean

that even full implementation of current

emission control programs may fall

short of that needed to achieve long

term attainment and maintenance of the

air quality standards.

In addition to nonattainment

concerns, we are also concerned about

hazardous air pollutants (air toxics). In

August 2000, we proposed a list of

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) of

concern, including those emitted from

nonroad engines.6 These pollutants are

known or suspected to have serious

health impacts. The engines and

vehicles included in this ANPRM are

sources of MSATs which are included

on the proposed list, including diesel

exhaust and several components of VOC

emissions.

B. Public Health and Welfare Concerns

The nonroad engines included in this

ANPRM and highway motorcycles all

contribute to air pollution with a wide

range of adverse health and welfare

impacts. The following sections contain

a brief description of some of the health

effects associated with ozone, PM, air

toxics and CO and the importance of

continuing to reduce the associated

emissions. This section also contains a

brief description of issues that are

unique to the engines and vehicles

being considered in this document. The

NPRM will contain a more detailed

discussion of the health and welfare

benefits which can be expected from a

program regulating these engines.

1. Ozone and its Precursors

Ground-level ozone, the main

ingredient in smog, is formed by

complex chemical reactions of volatile

organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen

oxides ( NOX) in the presence of heat

and sunlight. Ozone forms readily in the

lower atmosphere, usually during hot,

summer weather. VOCs are a broad

group of compounds composed mainly

of hydrocarbons (HC). Aldehydes,

alcohols, and ethers are also present, but

in small amounts. VOCs are emitted

from a variety of sources, including

motor vehicles, chemical plants,

refineries, factories, consumer and

commercial products, and other

industrial sources. NOX is emitted

largely from motor vehicles, nonroad

equipment, power plants, and other

sources of combustion.

Ozone is a highly reactive chemical

compound which can damage both

biological tissues and man-made

materials. When inhaled, ozone can

cause acute respiratory problems;

aggravate asthma; cause significant

temporary decreases in lung function of

15 to over 20 percent in some healthy

adults; cause inflammation of lung

tissue; may increase hospital admissions

and emergency room visits; and impair

the body’s immune system defenses,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76799

7 ‘‘U.S. EPA (1995), Review of National Ambient

Air Quality standards for Nitrogen Dioxide,

Assessment of Scientific and Technical

Information,’’ OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA–452/R–95–

005.

8 ‘‘U.S. EPA (1993), Air Quality Criteria for

Oxides of Nitrogen,’’ EPA/600/8–91/049aF.

9The emissions inventory contributions for these

sources are provided in the Final Finding document

referenced in footnote 4. 10 International Snowmobile Manufacturers

Association, Docket A–98–01, document IV–D–03.

making people more susceptible to

respiratory illnesses. In addition to

human health effects, ozone adversely

affects crop yield, vegetation and forest

growth, and the durability of materials.

Because ground-level ozone interferes

with the ability of a plant to produce

and store food, plants become more

susceptible to disease, insect attack,

harsh weather and other environmental

stresses. Ozone causes noticeable foliar

damage in many crops, trees, and

ornamental plants (i.e., grass, flowers,

shrubs, and trees) and causes reduced

growth in plants. Studies indicate that

current ambient levels of ozone are

responsible for damage to forests and

ecosystems (including habitat for native

animal species).

Besides their role as an ozone

precursor, NOX emissions produce a

wide variety of health and welfare

effects.7,8 Nitrogen dioxide can irritate

the lungs and lower resistance to

respiratory infection (such as influenza).

NOX emissions are an important

precursor to acid rain and may affect

both land and water ecosystems.

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen

leads to excess nutrient enrichment

problems (‘‘eutrophication’’) in the

Chesapeake Bay and several nationally

important estuaries along the East and

Gulf Coasts. Eutrophication can produce

multiple adverse effects on water

quality and the aquatic environment,

including increased algal blooms,

excessive phytoplankton growth, and

low or no dissolved oxygen in bottom

waters. Eutrophication also reduces

sunlight, causing losses in submerged

aquatic vegetation critical for healthy

estuarine ecosystems.

Need for NOX and VOC Control.

Photochemical modeling highlights the

fact that ozone pollution is a regional

problem, not simply a local or state

problem. Ozone and its precursors are

transported long distances by winds and

other meteorological events. Thus,

achieving ozone attainment for an area,

and thereby protecting its citizens from

ozone-related health effects, often

depends on the ozone and precursor

emission levels of upwind areas. For

many areas with persistent ozone

problems, attainment of the ozone

NAAQS will require control strategies

for both NOX and VOC that extend

beyond the areas’ boundaries.

We expect that reducing NOX and HC

emissions from engines that would be

regulated under this potential program

would help reduce the health and

welfare effects of ozone.9 Manufacturers

and users of snowmobiles provided

comments during the ‘‘finding’’

rulemaking indicating that snowmobiles

should not be regulated for ozone

precursors because snowmobiles are

used during cold weather, when ozone

is less of a health concern.10 However,

ozone precursors are also responsible

for other pollution problems including

air toxics, discussed below, and indirect

PM. We are examining the need to

reduce precursors of ozone in the

context of this rulemaking and request

comment. In particular, we request

comment on whether EPA should

distinguish snowmobiles from other

recreational vehicles in regulating ozone

precursors and whether emissions of

ozone precursors such as NOX and VOC

should in any case be regulated due to

other pollution problems.

2. Particulate Matter

Particulate matter (PM) is the general

term used for a mixture of solid

particles and liquid droplets found in

the air. These particles, which come in

a wide range of sizes, originate from

many different stationary and mobile

sources as well as from natural sources.

They may be emitted directly by a

source (direct emissions) or formed in

the atmosphere by the transformation of

gaseous precursor emissions such as

sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides

(NOX), or organic compounds

(secondary particles). Their chemical

and physical compositions vary

depending on source location, time of

year and meteorology.

Scientific studies show a link between

inhalable PM (alone, or combined with

other pollutants in the air) and a series

of significant health effects. Inhalable

PM includes both fine and coarse

particles. Fine particles can be generally

defined as those particles with an

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or

less (also known as PM2.5), and coarse

particles are those with an aerodynamic

diameter between 2.5 and 10 microns.

All particles 10 microns or smaller are

called PM10. The health and

environmental effects of PM are strongly

related to the size of the particles.

Diesel particles are a component of

both coarse and fine PM, but fall mostly

in the fine range. Both coarse and fine

particles can accumulate in the

respiratory system and are associated

with numerous health effects. Exposure

to coarse fraction particles is primarily

associated with the aggravation of

respiratory conditions such as asthma.

Fine particles are more deeply inhaled

into the lungs than course particles.

They are most closely associated with

such health effects as decreased lung

function, increased hospital admissions

and emergency room visits, increased

respiratory symptoms and disease, and

premature death. Sensitive groups that

appear to be at greatest risk to such

effects include the elderly, individuals

with cardiopulmonary disease such as

asthma, and children.

In addition, PM causes adverse

impacts to the environment. Fine PM is

the major cause of reduced visibility in

parts of the United States, including

many of our National Parks. Other

environmental impacts occur when

particles deposit onto soils, plants,

water or materials. For example,

particles containing nitrogen and

sulphur that deposit on to land or water

bodies may change the nutrient balance

and acidity of those environments. An

ecosystem condition known as

‘‘nitrogen saturation,’’ where addition of

nitrogen to soil over time exceeds the

capacity of the plants and

microorganisms to utilize and retain the

nitrogen, has already occurred in some

areas of the United States. When

deposited in sufficient quantities such

as near unpaved roads, tilled fields, or

quarries, particles block sunlight from

reaching the leaves, stressing or killing

plants. Finally, PM causes soiling and

erosion damage to materials, including

culturally important objects such as

carved monuments and statues.

Recreational marine diesel engines

tend to be concentrated in specific areas

of the country (ports, coastal areas, lakes

and rivers), so the emissions

contribution of these engines in local

areas can be more important.

Consequently addressing PM and other

emissions from recreational marine

diesel engines can be an important tool

toward the goal of reducing health and

environmental hazards.

Considerations For PM From

Recreational Two-Stroke Gasoline

Engines. Two-stroke engines used in

land-based recreational vehicles

generally use a fuel and oil mixture to

both produce power while lubricating

the engine. As much as 30 percent of the

intake charge passes through the engine

unburned and exhausts to the

atmosphere. As a consequence, PM

emissions from these engines can be

very high. Two stroke gasoline engines

are commonly used in off-highway

motorcycles and snowmobiles.

Snowmobile engine emissions are of

particular concern in environmentally

76800 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

11 ‘‘Characterization of Snowmobile Particulate

Emissions conducted for Yellow Stone Park

Foundation Inc.,’’ James N. Carroll and Jeff J. White,

Southwest Research Institute, June 1999.

12 ‘‘Emissions from Snowmobile Engines using

bio-based fuels and lubricants conducted for the

Montana department of Environmental Quality,’’

Jeff J. White and James N. Carroll, Southwest

Research Institute, October 1998.

13 65 FR 48058, August 4, 2000.

14U.S. EPA(2000) Health Assessment Document

for Diesel Exhaust: SAB Review Draft EPA/600/8–

90/057 Office of Research and Development,

Washington, D.C. The document is available

electronically at www.epa.gov/ncea/dieslexh.htm.

15 ‘‘Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust at a

Toxic Air Contaminant, Health risk assessment for

diesel exhaust,’’ California Environmental

Protection Agency, April 1998.

16 ‘‘Carcinogenic effects of exposure to diesel

exhaust,’’ NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin 50.

DHHS, Publication No. 88–116, 1988.

17 ‘‘Diesel and gasoline engine exhausts and some

nitroarenes,’’ Vol. 46, Monographs on the

evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans,

International Agency for Research on Cancer, World

Health Organization, 1989.

18 ‘‘Diesel fuel and exhaust emissions:

International program on chemical safety,’’ World

Health Organization, 1996.

19 ‘‘U.S. EPA, Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An

Update,’’ National Center for Environmental

Assessment, Washington, D.C. 1998.

sensitive areas, such as Yellowstone

National Park. Snowmobiles are

typically powered by 2-stroke engines

that have high emissions of

hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide

(CO) and PM compared to 4-stroke

engines. Recent studies have concluded

that particulate emission rates from a

snowmobile engine are more

comparable to those of older, precontrol diesel engines.11,12 Particle

diameters were found to be typically

less than 0.1 microns, which is of

respirable size and able to be delivered

into the deepest and most sensitive

areas of the human lung. While

formation rates of secondary PM may be

lower in the winter months, PM

concentrations can be elevated under

some meteorological conditions (e.g.,

low mixing heights). We request

comment on the health benefits of

reducing PM emissions from

recreational vehicle 2-stroke gasoline

engines.

3. Air Toxics

These engines are also sources of a

number of chemical species which we

have proposed to list as mobile source

air toxics (MSATs), that are known or

suspected human or animal

carcinogens, or have serious noncancer

health effects.13 They include pollutants

such as diesel exhaust, benzene, 1,3-

butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,

and acrolein, described in more detail

below. While the harmful effects of air

toxics are of particular concern in areas

closest to where they are emitted, they

can also be transported and affect other

geographic areas. Some can persist for

considerable time in the environment.

Many of the air toxics discussed

below are components of VOC and we

expect that the HC standards discussed

in this document would reduce

exposure to air toxics and therefore

reduce the incidence of cancer and

noncancer health effects related to

emissions from these engines. We

request comment on the need to control

air toxics emissions from the engines

and vehicles included in this document.

Considerations for Diesel Exhaust.

Diesel exhaust emissions are a byproduct of incomplete combustion and

include gaseous and particulate

components. Gaseous components of

diesel exhaust include organic

compounds, sulfur compounds, carbon

monoxide, carbon dioxide, water vapor,

and excess air (nitrogen and oxygen).

Particulate components include many

organic compounds that are mutagenic

as well as several trace metals

(including chromium, manganese,

mercury and nickel) that may have

general toxicological significance

(depending on the specific chemical

species). In addition, small amounts of

dioxins have been measured in diesel

exhaust, some of which may partition to

the particle phase.

Because the chemical composition of

diesel exhaust includes hazardous air

pollutants, or air toxics, diesel exhaust

emissions are of concern to the agency.

There have been health studies specific

to diesel exhaust emissions which

indicate potential hazards to human

health that appear to be specific to this

emissions source. For chronic exposure,

these hazards include respiratory

system toxicity and carcinogenicity.

Acute exposure also causes transient

effects (a wide range of physiological

symptoms stemming from irritation and

inflammation mostly in the respiratory

system) in humans though they are

highly variable depending on individual

human susceptibility.

The EPA draft Health Assessment

Document for Diesel Exhaust was

reviewed in a public session by the

Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee (CASAC) of EPA’s Science

Advisory Board on October 12–13,

2000.14 The CASAC, in public session,

found that the Agency’s conclusion that

diesel exhaust is likely to be

carcinogenic to humans by inhalation,

was scientifically sound. The comments

provided by CASAC on the draft

Assessment are being incorporated into

the final Assessment to be released in

late 2000 or early 2001. California EPA

has identified diesel PM as a toxic air

contaminant.15 Several other agencies

and governing bodies have also

designated diesel exhaust or diesel PM

as a ‘‘potential’’ or ‘‘probable’’ human

carcinogen.16,17,18 The International

Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

considers diesel exhaust a ‘‘probable’’

human carcinogen and the National

Institutes for Occupational Safety and

Health have classified diesel exhaust a

‘‘potential occupational carcinogen’’.

Thus, the concern for the health hazard

resulting from diesel exhaust exposures

is widespread. We request comment on

the health benefits of reducing PM

emissions from marine diesel engines.

Benzene. Benzene is an aromatic

hydrocarbon which is present as a gas

in both exhaust and evaporative

emissions from motor vehicles. Benzene

in the exhaust expressed as a percentage

of total organic gases (TOG), varies

depending on control technology (e.g.,

type of catalyst) and the levels of

benzene and aromatics in the fuel, but

is generally about four percent from

gasoline engines. The benzene fraction

of gasoline evaporative emissions also

depends on control technology (i.e., fuel

injector or carburetor) and fuel

composition (e.g. benzene level and

Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) and is

generally about one percent.

The EPA has recently reconfirmed

that benzene is a known human

carcinogen by all routes of exposure

(including leukemia at high, prolonged

air exposures), and is associated with

additional health effects including

genetic changes in humans and animals

and increased proliferation of bone

marrow cells in mice.19 Respiration is

the major source of human exposure.

Long-term exposure to high levels of

benzene in the air has been shown to

cause cancer of the tissues that form

white blood cells. Among these are

acute nonlymphocytic leukemia,

chronic lymphocytic leukemia and

possibly multiple myeloma (primary

malignant tumors in the bone marrow).

A number of adverse noncancer health

effects, blood disorders such as

preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have

also been associated with low-dose,

long-term exposure to benzene. People

with long-term exposure to benzene

may experience harmful effects on the

blood-forming tissues, especially the

bone marrow. Many blood disorders

associated with benzene exposure may

occur without symptoms.

OSHA recently conducted an

industrial hygiene survey to examine

park employee exposures during winter

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76801

20 ‘‘U.S. Department of Labor, Industrial Hygiene

Survey of Park Employee Exposures During Winter

Use at Yellowstone National Park,’’ February, 2000.

21 ‘‘U.S. EPA Health Risk Assessment of 1,3–

Butadiene,’’ EPA/600/P–98/001A, February 1998.

22 ‘‘An SAB Report: Review of the Health Risk

Assessment of 1,3–Butadiene,’’ EPA–SAB–EHC–98,

August 1998.

23 ‘‘U.S. EPA Assessment of health risks to

garment workers and certain home residents from

exposure to formaldehyde,’’ Office of Pesticides and

Toxic Substances, April 1987.

24 ‘‘U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Assessment System

(IRIS),’’ Office of Health and Environmental

Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, 1993.

25U.S. EPA (March 2000). ‘‘National Air Pollutant

Emission Trends, 1900–1998,’’ Office of Air Quality

and Standards.

at Yellowstone National Park.20 They

reported exposure to benzene above the

NIOSH recommended exposure levels

(REL) of 0.10 ppm. Since exhaust

emission benzene levels generally

decrease as HC emissions decrease, we

expect new emission control technology

to substantially reduce ambient benzene

levels.

1,3-Butadiene. 1,3-butadiene is

formed in engine exhaust by incomplete

combustion of fuel. It is not present in

evaporative and refueling emissions,

because it is not present in any

appreciable amount in gasoline fuel.

1,3-butadiene accounts for 0.4 to 1.0

percent of total exhaust TOG, depending

on control technology and fuel

consumption. Nonroad mobile sources

contribute 15.2 percent to the 1,3-

butadiene inventory (baseline NTI).

The Environmental Health Committee

of EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board

(SAB), in reviewing the draft document,

issued a majority opinion that 1,3-

butadiene should be classified as a

probable human carcinogen.21,22 The

Agency has revised the draft Health Risk

Assessment of 1,3-butadiene based on

the SAB and public comments. The

draft Health Risk Assessment of 1,3-

butadiene will undergo the Agency

consensus review, during which time

additional changes may be made prior

to its public release and placement on

the Integrated Risk Information System

(IRIS).

Formaldehyde. Nonroad mobile

sources contribute 23 percent to the

formaldehyde inventory (baseline NTI).

EPA has classified formaldehyde as a

probable human carcinogen based on

evidence in humans and in rats, mice,

hamsters, and monkeys.23

Epidemiological studies in

occupationally exposed workers suggest

that long-term inhalation of

formaldehyde may be associated with

tumors of the nasopharyngeal cavity,

nasal cavity and sinus. Formaldehyde

exposure also causes a range of

noncancer health effects, including

irritation of the eyes (tearing of the eyes

and increased blinking) and mucous

membranes. Sensitive individuals may

experience these adverse effects at lower

concentrations than the general

population. In persons with bronchial

asthma, the upper respiratory irritation

caused by formaldehyde can precipitate

an acute asthmatic attack.

The OSHA industrial hygiene survey

at Yellowstone, described above,

reported exposure to formaldehyde at

0.033 ppm, which is above the NIOSH

recommended exposure level of 0.016

ppm.

Acetaldehyde. Nonroad mobile source

emissions are responsible for 27 percent

of the total acetaldehyde inventory

(Baseline NTI). Acetaldehyde is

classified as a probable human

carcinogen and humans are exposed by

inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.

The primary acute effect of exposure to

acetaldehyde vapors is irritation of the

eyes, skin and respiratory tract. At high

concentrations, irritation and

pulmonary effects can occur, which

could facilitate the uptake of other

contaminants.

Acrolein. Nonroad mobile source

emissions are responsible for 11 percent

of the total acrolein invenory (Baseline

NTI). Acrolein is extremely toxic to

humans when inhaled, with acute

exposure resulting in upper respiratory

tract irritation and congestion. The

Agency has developed a reference

concentration for inhalation (RfC) of

acrolein of 0.02 micrograms/m3.

Although no information is available on

its carcinogenic effects in humans, EPA

considers acrolein a possible human

carcinogen based on laboratory animal

data.24

4. Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless,

odorless gas produced through the

incomplete combustion of carbon-based

fuels. Carbon monoxide enters the

bloodstream through the lungs and

reduces the delivery of oxygen to the

body’s organs and tissues. The health

threat from CO is most serious for those

who suffer from cardiovascular disease,

particularly those with angina or

peripheral vascular disease. Healthy

individuals also are affected, but only at

higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated

CO levels is associated with impairment

of visual perception, work capacity,

manual dexterity, learning ability and

performance of complex tasks.

Several recent epidemiological

studies have shown a link between CO

and premature morbidity (including

angina, congestive heart failure, and

other cardiovascular diseases). Several

studies in the United States and Canada

have also reported an association of

ambient CO exposures with frequency

of cardiovascular hospital admissions,

especially for congestive heart failure

(CHF). An association of ambient CO

exposure with mortality has also been

reported in epidemiological studies,

though not as consistently or

specifically as with CHF admissions.

EPA is reviewing these studies as part

of the CO Criteria Document process.

The toxicity of CO effects on blood,

tissues and organs have also been topics

of substantial research efforts. Such

studies provided information for

establishing the NAAQS for CO. The

current primary NAAQS for CO are 35

parts per million for the one-hour

average and 9 parts per million for the

eight-hour average. There are currently

17 designated CO nonattainment areas,

with a combined population of 31

million. EPA estimated that emissions

from nonroad gasoline engines and

vehicles have increased by 24 percent

from 1980 to 1998.25

In addition to concerns related to air

quality standards for broad areas,

exhaust emissions from indoor

applications can cause CO poisoning

from individual human exposure. These

engines (for example, engines used in

forklifts) routinely operate in

warehouses and production facilities.

Unregulated industrial SI engines

frequently have exhaust CO

concentrations over 30,000 ppm (3

percent). The maximum allowable timeweighted average 8-hour workplace

exposure set by the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration is 50 ppm.

Manufacturers in some cases may adjust

engine calibration for somewhat lower

CO emission levels. Also, engines used

indoors are often fueled with LPG,

which typically has lower CO exhaust

concentrations than gasoline-fueled

engines. However, improper

maintenance or poor calibrations can

lead to even higher levels than the

30,000 ppm level noted above from any

industrial SI engine.

The typical snowmobile, which

utilizes a two-stroke engine, produces

significantly more CO than a modern

automobile on a unit of work basis.

There has been an increasing concern

that snowmobile emissions in and

around some national parks are reaching

significant levels. During the winters of

1994–95 and 1995–96, studies were

conducted at Yellowstone, Flagg Ranch,

and Grand Teton National Park which

indicated that snowmobile tourists are

potentially exposed to significant CO

76802 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

26Exposure to Snowmobile Riders to Carbon

Monoxide, Park Science Volume 17—No. 1,

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior.

27Snook and Davis, 1997, ‘‘An Investigation of

Driver Exposure to Carbon Monoxide While

Traveling Behind Another Snowmobile.’’

28Summarized in an e-mail Phil Cappel of the

U.S. Coast Guard to Mike Samulski of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, October 19,

2000.

29 Inventory data is further provided in Tables 1

and 2 of the Final Finding (see footnote 4).

30ATVs are typically four-wheeled vehicles that

are straddled by the operator.

31Almost all recreational vehicles are equipped

with SI engines. Any diesels used in these

applications must meet our nonroad diesel engine

standards.

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

levels.26 While the studies did not

record official exceedances of the CO

NAAQs, levels near and in some cases

above the 35 ppm NAAQS standard

were observed. These measurements

were not considered NAAQS

exceedances because sampling methods

and measurement locations did not

meet the criteria for NAAQS

measurements. However, the

measurements were reported to be

scientifically valid and an indication of

potentially significant exposure to CO.

A study of snowmobile rider exposure

conducted at Grand Teton National Park

showed that CO levels when trailing a

single snowmobile at distances of 25–

125 feet at speeds of 10–40 mph ranged

from 0.5–23 ppm, with a maximum

level of 45 ppm (as compared to the

current NAAQS for CO of 35 ppm).27

Since snowmobile riders typically travel

in large groups, the riders towards the

back of the group are likely to

experience significantly higher

exposures to CO. An additional

consideration is that the risk to health

from CO exposure increases with

altitude, especially for un-acclimated

individuals. Therefore, a park visitor

who lives at sea level and then rides his

or her snowmobile on trails at highaltitude is more susceptible to the

effects of CO than local residents. In

addition, the OSHA industrial hygiene

survey mentioned earlier reported a

peak CO exposure of 268 ppm for a

Yellowstone employee, in exceedance of

the NIOSH peak recommended

exposure limit of 200 ppm.

The U.S. Coast Guard reported cases

of CO poisoning caused by recreational

boat usage.28 These Coast Guard

investigations into recreational boating

accident reports between 1989 to1998,

show that 57 accidents were reported,

totaling 87 injuries and 32 fatalities, that

involved CO poisoning. We believe that

controlling CO emissions from marine

engines could provide some benefits to

boaters.

C. National Emissions Inventory

We have estimated the contribution of

the sources included in this ANPRM to

the nationwide emissions inventories

for the 2000 and 2007 calendar years, as

shown in Table II–1.29

TABLE II–1.—ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE ANNUAL EMISSION LEVELS

[in thousand short tons (percent of mobile source inventory)]

NOX HC CO PM

Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent

Year 2000:

Nonroad Sources in

ANPRM ................. 371 2.8 822 11.0 7,15

7

9.0 8.4 1.2

Highway Motorcycles 22 0.2 21 0.3 147 0.2 0.4 0.1

Year 2000 Total 393 3.0 843 11.3 7,30

4

9.2 8.8 1.3

Year 2007:

Nonroad Sources in

ANPRM ................. 444 4.3 870 16.6 7,53

6

9.7 9.2 1.5

Highway Motorcycles 25 0.2 26 0.5 171 0.2 0.5 0.1

Year 2007 Total 469 4.5 896 17.1 7,70

7

9.9 9.7 1.6

III. Recreational Vehicles

A. Background

1. What Recreational Vehicles Would be

Included in This Rulemaking?

The vast majority of vehicles that fall

into the land-based recreational vehicles

category are snowmobiles, off-highway

motorcycles (e.g., dirt bikes), and all

terrain vehicles (ATVs).30 The engines

used in these vehicles are a subset of

nonroad SI engines.31 Engines used in

recreational vehicles include both Small

SI (at or below 19 kW) and Large SI

engines (above 19 kW). These engines,

however, were excluded from our Small

SI program (for lawn mowers, chain

saws, etc.) because they have different

design characteristics and usage

patterns than other engines in the Small

SI category. This suggests that the

recreational engines covered by this

ANPRM should be tested differently

than Small SI engines. We would

similarly expect to treat them separately

from our Large SI engine program

(discussed later in this ANPRM). We

therefore request comment on whether

engines used in recreational vehicles

should be tested and regulated

differently from other small and Large

SI engines.

In our rulemaking regulating Small SI

engines (defined as nonroad SI engines

below 19 kW), we established criteria

that effectively excluded the types of

engines used in the recreational vehicles

listed above.32 These criteria, such as

normal range of operating engine rpm,

can greatly affect the basic engine

design and the opportunities for

emissions control. Engines used in some

other types of recreational vehicles may

be covered by the Small SI standards,

depending on the characteristics of the

engines. For example, lawnmower-type

engines used in go carts would typically

be covered by the Small SI standards.

Engines used in golf carts are also

typically included in the Small SI

program due to their design and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76803

33The definition of motor vehicle excludes ‘‘any

vehicle that cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25

miles per hour over level, paved surfaces’’ (see 40

CFR 85.1703(a)(1)). Such vehicles are therefore

considered nonroad vehicles.

34 80 FR 24292, April 25, 2000.

35 63 FR 56971, October 23, 1998.

36Otto cycle is another name for a spark-ignition

engine which utilizes a piston with homogenous

external or internal air and fuel mixture formation

and spark ignition.

operating characteristics being similar to

lawnmower-type applications.

There may be other types of

recreational vehicles that should be

included in the recreational vehicles

program in addition to snowmobiles,

off-highway motorcycles, and ATVs. For

example, some small mopeds or motor

scooters could be included in the

program depending on their

characteristics.33 We are interested in

information and request comment about

other types of vehicles that may exist so

that we may consider them in

developing our proposals.

There may be some uncertainty

surrounding the use of ‘‘recreational’’ in

distinguishing between vehicle types

and in determining which set of

standards a vehicle or engine must

meet. ATVs, for example, may have

some utility aspects to their use. We

request comment how to best

differentiate among engines types. We

could establish a definition for

‘‘recreational’’, for example, based on

the primary intended use of the vehicle

model. Under such an approach,

vehicles primarily intended for utility or

work use by the manufacturer would be

part of either the Small or Large SI

programs, as applicable. We could also

differentiate engines based solely upon

engine design and operating

characteristics without regard to usage;

this option might eliminate potential

confusion over whether a particular

engine should be appropriately certified

as a ‘‘recreational’’ or ‘‘utility’’ engine.

Hobby engines. The Small SI rule

categorized engines used in model cars,

boats, and airplanes as recreational

engines and exempted them from the

Small SI program.34 Historically, we

have exempted hobby engines from our

regulations. The nonroad diesel engine

final rule exempted hobby engines due

to feasibility, testing, and compliance

concerns related to regulating such

small engines. Also noted in the

nonroad diesel engine rule, because

hobby engines are very small with very

low power output relative to other

nonroad engines and have low annual

usage rates, they contribute very little to

emissions inventories.35 We request

comment on how to proceed for SI

hobby engines, including data and

information that would allow us to

further consider the potential for

establishing standards for them or for

exempting them from this rule.

2. Who Makes Recreational Vehicles?

Based on industry information

available to us, the recreational vehicle

industry appears to be dominated by

eight manufacturers. Of these eight

manufacturers, seven of them

manufacture a combination of two or

more of the three recreational vehicle

sub-categories: off-highway motorcycles,

ATVs, and snowmobiles. For example,

there are four major companies that

manufacture both off-highway

motorcycles and ATVs. There are three

major companies that manufacture

ATVs and snowmobiles and one major

company that manufactures all three.

These eight companies represent

approximately 95 percent of all

domestic sales of recreational vehicles.

We are aware of five major companies

that dominate sales of off-highway

motorcycles. Four of these companies,

Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and Yamaha,

are long established, major corporations

that manufacture a number of products

including highway and off-highway

motorcycles. They have dominated the

off-highway motorcycle market for over

thirty years. The fifth major company,

KTM, is also long established but has

had a major impact in domestic sales

over the last 10 to 15 years. These five

companies account for approximately

90 to 95 percent of all domestic sales for

off-highway motorcycles. There are also

several relatively small companies that

manufacture off-highway motorcycles,

many of which specialize in racing or

competition machines.

Based on available industry

information, four major manufacturers,

Arctic Cat, Bombardier (also known as

Ski-Doo), Polaris, and Yamaha, account

for approximately 99 percent of all

domestic snowmobile sales. The

remaining percent comes from very

small manufacturers who tend to

specialize in unique designs or racing

machines. The ATV sector has the

broadest assortment of major

manufacturers. With the exception of

KTM, all of the companies noted above

for off-highway motorcycles and

snowmobiles are significant ATV

producers. These seven companies

represent over 95 percent of total

domestic ATV sales. The remaining 5

percent come from importers who tend

to import inexpensive, youth-oriented

ATVs from China and other Asian

nations.

3. What Types of Engines Are Used in

the Vehicles?

The engines used in recreational

vehicles tend to be small, air- or liquidcooled, reciprocating Otto-cycle engines

that operate on gasoline.36 They are

designed to be used in vehicles, where

engine performance is characterized by

highly transient operation, with a wide

range of engine speed and load

capability. Maximum engine speed is

typically well above 5,000 rpm. Also,

the vehicles are equipped with

transmissions to ensure performance

under a variety of operating conditions.

These engines can be separated into

two-stroke and four-stroke designs. The

distinction between two-stroke and

four-stoke engines is important for

emissions because two-stroke engines

tend to emit much greater amounts of

unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and

particulate matter (PM) than four-stroke

engines of similar size and power. Twostroke engines also have greater fuel

consumption resulting in poorer fuel

economy than four-stroke engines, but

they also tend to have higher power

output per unit displacement, lighter

weight, and better cold starting

performance. These advantages

combined with a simple design and

lower manufacturing costs tend to make

two-stroke engines a popular choice as

the power unit for recreational vehicles.

Currently, snowmobiles use two-stroke

engines almost exclusively, whereas

about 63 percent of all off-highway

motorcycles (predominantly in high

performance, youth, and entry-level

bikes) and 12 percent of all ATVs sold

in the United States use two-stroke

engines. Engine displacement for offhighway motorcycles and ATVs

typically range from 50 cubic

centimeters (cc) to 500 cc for two-stroke

engines, and 50 cc to 650 cc for fourstroke engines. Snowmobile engines

range from 100 cc to over 1,000 cc.

The basis for the differences in engine

and exhaust emissions performance

between two-stroke and four-stroke

engines can be found in the

fundamental differences in how twostroke and four-stroke engines operate.

Four-stroke operation takes place in four

distinct steps: intake, compression,

power, and exhaust. Each step

corresponds to one up or down ‘‘stroke’’

of the piston or 180° of crankshaft

rotation. The first step of the cycle is for

an ‘‘intake’’ valve in the combustion

chamber to open during the intake

stroke allowing a mixture of air and fuel

to be drawn into the cylinder while the

piston moves down the cylinder. The

intake valve then closes and the

momentum of the crankshaft causes the

76804 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

37Notice to Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle

Manufacturers and All Other Interested Parties

Regarding Alternate Emission Standards for AllTerrain Vehicles, Mail Out #95–16, April 28, 1995,

California Air Resources Board (Docket A–2000–01,

document II–D–06).

38 Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to

Consider Amendments to the California Regulations

for New 1997 and Later Off-highway Recreational

Vehicles and Engines, State of California Air

Resources Board, October 23, 1998 (Docket A–

2000–01, II–D–08).

piston to move back up the cylinder

compressing the air and fuel mixture. At

the very end of the compression stroke,

the air and fuel mixture is ignited by a

spark from a spark plug, and begins to

burn. As the air and fuel mixture burns,

increasing temperature and pressure

cause the piston to move back down the

cylinder. This is referred to as the

‘‘power’’ stroke. At the bottom of the

power stroke, an exhaust valve opens in

the combustion chamber and as the

piston moves back up the cylinder, the

burnt gases are pushed out through the

exhaust valve to the exhaust manifold,

and the cycle is complete.

In a four-stroke engine, combustion

and the resulting power stroke only

occur once every two revolutions of the

crankshaft. In a two-stroke engine, on

the other hand, combustion occurs in

every revolution of the crankshaft. Twostroke engines eliminate the intake and

exhaust strokes, leaving only

compression and power strokes. This is

due to the fact that two-stroke engines

do not use intake and exhaust valves.

Instead, they have intake and exhaust

‘‘ports’’ in the sides of the cylinder

walls. With a two-stroke engine, as the

piston approaches the bottom of the

power stroke, it uncovers exhaust ports

in the wall of the cylinder. The high

pressure combustion gases blow into the

exhaust manifold. As the piston gets

closer to the bottom of the power stroke,

the intake ports are uncovered, and

fresh mixture of air and fuel are forced

into the cylinder while the exhaust

ports are still open. Exhaust gas is

‘‘scavenged’’ or forced into the exhaust

by the pressure of the incoming charge

of fresh air and fuel. In the process,

however, some mixing between the

exhaust gas and the fresh charge of air

and fuel takes place, so that some of the

fresh charge is also emitted in the

exhaust. The loss of part of the fuel out

of the exhaust during scavenging is one

of the major reasons for the very high

hydrocarbon emission characteristics of

two-stroke engines. The other major

reason for high HC emissions from twostroke engines is their tendency to

misfire under low load conditions due

to greater combustion instability.

4. What Are the Pollutants of Interest for

Each Type of Vehicle?

Recreational vehicles utilizing twostroke engines, such as snowmobiles

and some models of off-highway

motorcycles and ATVs, emit significant

quantities of fine particulate matter

(PM), unburned hydrocarbons (HC), and

carbon monoxide (CO). Recreational

vehicles utilizing four-stroke engines,

such as some models of off-highway

motorcycles and most ATVs, also emit

significant quantities of CO, however,

they tend to emit considerably lower

levels of HC and PM than their twostroke counterparts. Both engine types

emit oxides of nitrogen ( NOX). Twostroke engines tend to emit very low

levels of NOX whereas four-stroke

engines emit greater quantities, similar

to four-stroke HC emission levels.

Exhaust hydrocarbon emissions also

include significant quantities of toxic air

contaminants including benzene,

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3

butadiene. The most important source of

recreational vehicle emissions is the

engine exhaust, but HC emissions are

also produced from the crankcase in

four-stroke engines, by evaporation from

the fuel system, and by vapor

displacement during refueling.

5. What Programs Are in Place in

California and Elsewhere To Control

Emissions from Recreational Vehicles?

California established standards for

off-highway motorcycles and ATVs

which took effect in January 1997 (1999

for vehicles with engines of 90 cc or

less). The standards, shown in Table III–

1, are based on the highway motorcycle

chassis test procedures. Manufacturers

may certify ATVs to optional standards,

also shown in Table III–1, which are

based on the utility engine test

procedure.37 This is the test procedure

over which Small SI engines are tested.

The stringency level of the standards

was based on the emissions

performance of 4-stroke engines and

advanced 2-stroke engines equipped

with a catalytic converter. California

anticipated that the standards would be

met initially through the use of high

performance 4-stroke engines.

TABLE III–1.—CALIFORNIA OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE AND ATV STANDARDS FOR MODEL YEAR 1997 AND LATER

[1999 and later for engines at or below 90 cc]

HC NOX CO PM

Off-highway motorcycle and ATV standards (g/km) ....................................................... a 1.2 .................... 15 ....................

HC + NOX CO PM

Optional standards for ATV engines below 225 cc (g/bhp-hr) ........................................ a 10.0 300 ....................

Optional standards for ATV engines below 225 cc (g/bhp-hr) ........................................ a 12.0 300 ....................

Optional standards for ATV engines at or above 225 cc (g/bhp-hr) ............................... a 10.0 300 ....................

a Corporate-average standard.

California revisited the program in the

1997 time frame because a lack of

certified product from manufacturers

was reportedly creating economic

hardship for dealerships. The number of

certified off-highway motorcycle models

was particularly inadequate.38 In 1998,

California revised the program, allowing

the use of uncertified products in offhighway vehicle recreation areas with

regional/seasonal use restrictions.

Currently, noncomplying vehicles can

be legally sold in California and used in

attainment areas year-round and in

nonattainment areas during months

when exceedances of the state ozone

standard are not expected. For

enforcement purposes, certified and

uncertified products are identified

respectively with green and red stickers.

Only about one-third of off-highway

motorcycles sold in California are

certified. All certified products are

powered by 4-stroke engines.

California has not adopted standards

for snowmobiles. In addition, EPA is not

aware of emission control programs for

nonroad recreational vehicles that have

been adopted in other countries.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76805

39The engines are small relative to automotive

engines. For example, automotive engines typically

range from one liter to well over five liters in

displacement, whereas off-highway motorcycles

would range from 0.05 liters to 0.65 liters.

40–41Fuel atomization refers to the size of

individual fuel droplets. The smaller the fuel

droplet is, the better it is combusted or burned.

B. Technology

1. What Are the Baseline Technologies

and Emissions Levels?

As discussed earlier, recreational

vehicles are equipped with relatively

small high performance two- or fourstroke engines that are either air- or

liquid-cooled.39 The fuel system used

on these engines are almost exclusively

carburetors. Two-stroke engines

lubricate the piston and crankshaft by

mixing oil with the air and fuel mixture.

This is accomplished by most

contemporary 2-stroke engines with a

pump that sends two-cycle oil from a

separate oil reserve to the carburetor

where it is mixed with the air and fuel

mixture. Some less expensive twostroke engines require that the oil be

mixed with the gasoline in the fuel tank.

Four-stroke engines inject oil via a

pump throughout the engine as the

means of lubrication. With the

exception of those vehicles certified in

California, most of these engines are

unregulated and thus have no emission

controls. In fact, because performance

and durability are such important

qualities for recreational vehicle

engines, they all operate with a ‘‘rich’’

air and fuel mixture. That is, they

operate with excess fuel, which

enhances performance and allows

engine cooling which promotes longer

lasting engine life. However, rich

operation results in high levels of HC,

CO, and PM emissions. Also, two-stroke

engines tend to have high scavenging

losses, where up to a third of the

unburned air and fuel mixture goes out

of the exhaust resulting in high levels of

raw HC.

TABLE III–2.—TYPICAL RANGE OF EXHAUST EMISSIONS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

Recreational vehicle type Engine

type HC CO NOX PM Units

Snowmobiles ........................................................................ 2-stroke .... 67–200 196–400 0.3–1.62 0.7–6.1 g/hp-hr

Off-highway Motorcycles/ATVs ............................................ 2-stroke .... 8–26 16–37 0.01–0.1 0.002–0.025 g/km a

4-stroke .... 0.4–3 7–50 0.03–0.2 0.006–0.025 g/km

aEmission measurement for motorcycles is in grams per kilometer rather than grams per mile because the motorcycle industry, as well as Federal, California, and international motorcycle emission standards use ‘‘Syste`

me International d’Unite`s’’ or SI units, which measure distance in kilometers rather than miles.

2. What Technology Approaches Are

Available To Control Emissions?

A number of approaches are available

to control emissions from recreational

vehicles. The simplest approach would

consist of modifications to the base

engine, fuel system, cooling system, and

recalibration of the air and fuel mixture.

These could, for example, consist of

changes to valve timing for four-stroke

engines, changing from air to liquid

cooling, and the use of advanced

carburetion techniques and electronic

fuel injection (EFI) in lieu of traditional

carburetion systems. Other approaches

could include using an oxidation

catalyst alone or in conjunction with

secondary air. The engine technology

that may have the most potential for

maximizing emission reductions from

two-stroke engines is the use of direct

fuel injection (DI). Direct fuel injection

is able to reduce or even eliminate

scavenging losses by pumping only air

through the engine and then injecting

fuel into the combustion chamber after

the intake and exhaust ports have

closed. The use of oxidation catalysts in

conjunction with direct injection could

potentially reduce emissions even

further. Finally, because four-stroke

engines emit significantly lower levels

of HC than two-stroke engines, the

conversion of two-stroke engine

technology to four-stroke engine

technology could be a desirable

approach.

We request comment as to whether

there are any other approaches to

emission reduction for recreational

vehicles that have not been discussed

here. We are interested in information

on feasibility, cost and corresponding

emission reduction potential, and other

issues associated with the above and

other technologies. Specifically, we

request comment on the effectiveness

and durability of oxidation catalysts for

these applications, the cost,

corresponding emission reductions, and

feasibility of direct fuel injection for

two-stroke engine applications, and the

cost and feasibility of switching from 2-

stroke to 4-stroke engines. Any data on

engines similar to those used in

recreational equipment using these

technologies is also requested.

3. What Level of Control May Be

Feasible?

Calibration changes and engine

modifications can reduce HC and CO

emissions somewhat, in the range of 10

to 30 percent. While the precise level of

control anticipated from recreational

vehicles is not yet known, further HC

reductions in the 70 to 90 percent range

may be achievable from current twostroke engines. We expect that the bulk

of the HC reductions would occur

through the elimination of scavenging

losses, with additional reductions

possible through the use of an oxidation

catalyst. Because four-stroke engines

already have low HC emissions relative

to two-stroke engines, we would expect

more modest HC reductions from fourstroke engines as a result of new

emission standards. Control strategies

that would reduce HC emissions would

also generally reduce PM and toxics.

This is especially true for 2-stroke

engines where high levels of PM and

toxics are the result of scavenging

losses.

We believe that similar levels of

control can be expected for CO

emissions as for HC emissions. The bulk

of CO reductions will come from

improvements to the fuel system, either

through enleanment (i.e., less fuel) of

the air and fuel mixture, from now on

referred to as A/F ratio, or the

improvement of fuel atomization (i.e.,

smaller fuel droplets), with additional

reductions possible through the use of

an oxidation catalyst.40–41 Such

strategies are also likely to reduce HC

and PM emissions as well.

The NOX levels emitted from

recreational vehicles, especially for

those equipped with two-stroke engines,

are very low since most recreational

vehicles typically operate using a ‘‘rich’’

calibration (i.e., with excess fuel) for

performance and durability purposes.

Some emission reduction techniques

such as changes in engine design and

calibration aimed at reducing HC and

CO emissions may increase NOX.

However, we expect that any increases

76806 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

resulting from HC and CO standards

would be minimal. To ensure continued

low NOX performance, we request

comment on the appropriateness of

setting a capping standard for NOX

emissions or combining NOX control

with HC by setting a HC + NOX

standard.

We request comment on the various

strategies available to reduce emissions

and the costs and potential

corresponding emissions reductions of

those strategies.

C. Standards and Program Approaches

Although off-highway motorcycles,

ATVs, and snowmobiles are all

categorized as recreational vehicles, we

expect to establish separate emissions

standards for them. The most

fundamental reason for varying

standards is that the operating

characteristics are significantly

different. Since we typically try to

evaluate and control emissions

performance under normal operating

conditions, it is likely we will adopt

different test procedures for the

different applications. Also, the level of

stringency and the timing of the

standards may vary depending on the

types of emissions control technology

available, cost impacts, industry makeup, and other factors that we must

consider in establishing the program.

We request comments on the

appropriateness of separate emission

standards for off-highway motorcycles,

ATVs, and snowmobiles.

Generally, we will be considering

what level of emissions control is

appropriate and the lead-time necessary

for manufacturers to achieve those

emissions reductions. There are a

number of approaches that have been

used in programs for other nonroad

engines to effectively reduce emissions,

both in the near term and long term.

These approaches often incorporate

some level of flexibility into the

program which has allowed

manufacturers to achieve lower overall

emissions levels, perhaps at less cost.

Programs have been tailored to the

particulars of the engine categories and

industries being regulated to achieve the

overall goals of the program.

In many programs, we have

established either a single set (tier) of

standards, or multiple tiers of standards

that progressively achieve further

reductions over a number of years. We

have also established corporate-average

standards, including declining fleet

averages where manufacturers must

calculate fleet average emissions levels

and reduce those emissions

incrementally each year over several

model years. Also, in some cases,

standards have been phased-in over a

number of years as a percentage of sales

or by an engine characteristic such as

size. Some programs also include

averaging, banking and trading,

discussed below in section III.C.4.

We have used such mechanisms, in

part, to allow manufacturers to plan

their research, development, and

product introductions. Such program

approaches may allow manufacturers to

achieve long-term emission reductions

that may not otherwise be achievable.

For example, a declining fleet average

approach over several years may

provide near term reductions and also

provide manufacturers with lead-time

needed to employ advanced technology

in an orderly and efficient manner.

Also, averaging can provide flexibility

by allowing manufacturers to certify

some engines to levels above the

standard as long as excess emissions are

offset by sales of engines certified to

emissions levels below the standard.

However, such approaches may be of

limited value to small businesses or

companies offering only a few models

and may not be justified for some

programs. We encourage you to consider

these approaches, and any others, in

commenting on the standards discussed

below.

1. Off-Highway Motorcycles and ATVs

We are considering establishing HC,

NOX, and CO standards for off-highway

motorcycles and ATVs. PM is discussed

separately in section III.C.3, below. We

expect the largest benefit in terms of

reducing the ozone precursors NOX and

HC to come from reducing HC emissions

from two-stroke engines. Two-stroke

engines have very high HC emissions

levels. Baseline NOX levels are

relatively low for engines used in these

applications and therefore initial NOX

standards may serve to cap NOX

emissions. CO reductions can be

expected from both 2-stroke and 4-

stroke engines, as CO levels are

somewhat similar for the two engine

types.

HC Standard. In the current offhighway motorcycle and ATV market,

consumers can choose between 2-stroke

and 4-stroke models in most sizes and

categories. Each engine type offers

unique performance characteristics.

Some manufacturers specialize in 2-

stroke or 4-stroke models while others

offer a mix of models.

The HC standard is likely to be a

primary determining factor for what

technology manufacturers choose to

employ to meet emissions standards

overall. As described in the previous

section, a variety of technological

approaches appear promising to control

HC emissions. HC emissions can be

reduced substantially by switching from

2-stroke to 4-stroke engines. The

California emissions control program for

off-highway vehicles provides ample

data on the emissions performance

capability of 4-stroke engines in offhighway motorcycles and ATVs. Offhighway motorcycles certified to

California standards for the 2000 model

year have HC certification levels ranging

from 0.4 to 1.0 g/km. The motorcycles

have engines ranging in size from 50 cc

to 650 cc and none of these motorcycles

are equipped with catalyst technology.

Technologies are also available for the

two stroke engine that may reduce HC

emissions levels to near those provided

by 4-stroke engines. Technologies such

as direct fuel injection and catalysts

have been applied to 2-stroke engines

used in other applications, such as

personal watercraft and outboard

marine engines, in response to

emissions control requirements.

However, only vehicles equipped with

4-stroke engines have been certified to

the California standards. Two stroke

models are sold in California, but only

under California’s allowance for the

sales and use of uncertified products

under certain circumstances (discussed

above in section III.A.5).

In determining what standards to

propose, we will be carefully examining

the feasibility and cost of both 2-stroke

and 4-stroke technologies. Modest

reductions (up to 30 percent) appear

feasible through the use of engine

modifications and calibration changes.

We are also interested in approaches

that would reduce HC emissions

substantially (for example, 75 to 90

percent) from baseline 2-stroke engine

levels. Clearly, switching to 4-stroke

engines achieves this goal and some

manufacturers would likely choose this

approach to meeting such standards.

However, some manufacturers may

want an opportunity to achieve HC

reductions through the use of advanced

technology 2-stroke engines. This

approach may require more time and

investment in research and

development than switching to 4-stroke

engines entirely, but could result in

more cost effective emissions control in

the long term. Also, if such engines

were developed, consumers may benefit

from having a variety of engine types

from which to choose. We request

comment on whether EPA should

attempt to set standards in a manner

that would encourage the development

of clean 2-stroke technology, and if so,

how that objective could best be

accomplished.

We request comments on the

appropriate level of HC control for offVerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:59 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07DEP2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 07DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76807

highway motorcycles and ATVs. We are

interested in perspectives on whether an

HC standard should be based on the

capabilities of 4-stroke or 2-stroke

engine emissions control technologies.

We are also interested in comment on

establishing separate standards for the

two engine types. In making their

recommendations, commenters are

encouraged to consider the level of

emission reductions currently achieved

under the California emissions control

program, described above, and the need

and opportunity for further emissions

reductions. Commenters are also

encouraged to consider the benefits of

aligning highway motorcycle HC

standards, discussed in section IV

below, with the HC standards for offhighway motorcycles and ATVs. We are

interested in comments on technology,

cost, corresponding emission reduction

potential, necessary lead-time, phase-in,

and performance implications,

including supporting rationale and data,

where possible. Commenters are also

invited to address the cost and

corresponding emissions reductions of

various other potential strategies.

As described above, we may propose

averaging approaches such as corporateaverage standards and averaging,

banking, and trading. We request

comment on the appropriateness of

averaging ATVs and off-highway

motorcycles together, assuming they are

required to meet the same standards, or

standards of similar stringency.

Comments on other aspects of averaging

as it might apply to HC compliance are

requested (for example, averaging

recreational vehicles with other engines

identified in this document).

NOX standard. While the focus of the

program would be on achieving HC

reductions, we also request comment on

the need for and appropriateness of NOX

control for these engines. We are

considering standards in the form of HC

plus NOX. We would expect a small

NOX increase when going from

uncontrolled two-stroke engines to

engine designs which meet new

emissions standards. This NOX increase

is due to engine efficiency

improvements and emission control

strategies available for 2-stroke engines.

A NOX plus HC standard recognizes this

trade-off. Also, 4-stroke engines

typically have higher NOX emissions

than 2-stroke engines.

When we established the HC plus

NOX standard for personal watercraft,

we adjusted the level of the standard to

account for the inclusion of NOX. We

request comment on this approach for

establishing an HC plus NOX limit for

motorcycles and ATVs. We also request

comment on how much of an

adjustment to the standard is needed to

account for NOX emissions or what level

would be appropriate for a NOX cap. We

also request comment on a NOX plus HC

standard in the context of averaging

approaches for compliance. Finally, we

request comment on the cost

implications and corresponding

emission reduction potential of NOX

control strategies.

CO standard. We expect to establish

a CO limit for motorcycles and ATVs,

along with HC and NOX standards. We

will be considering the levels

established by California for these

vehicles and the standards for highway

motorcycles. We request comment on

what level of CO control would be

appropriate for these vehicles,

considering costs (and other statutory

factors). We also request comment on

whether or not the CO standard should

be established as a separate technology

driver or based on the performance of

technologies likely to be needed to

achieve low HC emissions levels. We

request comment on the cost

implications and corresponding

emission reduction potential of CO

control strategies. As with HC and NOX,

we are interested in the usefulness of

considering averaging approaches for

CO emissions compliance.

Test procedures. The form and

numeric level of the standards depend

on the test procedures and test cycle

over which emissions are measured. As

described above in section III.A.5.,

California off-highway motorcycle and

ATV standards are based on the

highway light-duty vehicle test

procedure (the FTP). This is a chassisbased test procedure, which requires the

vehicle to be tested rather than only the

engine.

Some manufacturers have noted that

they do not currently have chassis-based

test facilities capable of testing ATVs.

California provides manufacturers with

the option of certifying ATVs using the

engine-based, utility engine test

procedure (SAE J1088), and most

manufacturers use this option for

certifying their ATVs. Manufacturers

have facilities to chassis test

motorcycles and therefore California

does not provide an engine testing

certification option for motorcycles.

Manufacturers have noted that requiring

chassis-based testing for ATVs would

require them to invest in additional

testing facilities which can handle

ATVs, since ATVs do not fit on the

same roller(s) as motorcycles used in

chassis testing.

Currently, for off-highway

motorcycles and ATVs, we are planning

to use the FTP test cycle, as it appears

to be the best available test cycle for

these vehicles. We will be carefully

examining the potential pros and cons

of using an engine-based test procedure

for ATVs and request comment on this

issue. We request comment on whether

or not the approach taken by California

is suitable for the federal program,

including the use of the above test

procedures and their effectiveness in

ensuring in-use emissions reductions.

We are particularly interested in

comments on the use of the utility

engine cycle for ATVs, and whether or

not a different engine-based test cycle,

such as the one being considered for

snowmobiles (discussed below), may be

more suitable. The utility engine cycle

is a 5-mode steady-state test cycle which

includes testing at only one engine

speed (85 percent of rated speed). Such

a test procedure is appropriate for

engines used in lawn and garden

applications, but may not be appropriate

for engines used in vehicle applications.

The snowmobile engine test procedure

is also a 5-mode steady-state test

procedure but the engine speed varies

by mode along with torque. We believe

this is generally more representative of

how an engine behaves in a vehicle

application.

2. Snowmobiles

Emissions standards established by

EPA through this rulemaking will be the

first for snowmobiles. Unlike offhighway motorcycles and ATVs, there

are no emissions standards for

snowmobiles in California to use as a

point of reference. Snowmobiles are

almost entirely equipped with twostroke engines which have very high HC

and CO emission levels. Our focus for

snowmobiles will be to reduce those

emission levels. NOX emissions are

much less of a concern because of the

seasonal nature of snowmobile use and

low baseline levels.

CO standard. CO emissions may be a

larger concern for snowmobiles than for

off-highway motorcycles and ATVs due

to their high CO emissions levels and

the general concern of high ambient CO

level in some areas during cold weather.

In initial discussions with the

International Snowmobile

Manufacturers Association (ISMA),

manufacturers have suggested setting

standards that would result in CO

reductions of 10 to 30 percent, phased

in over model years 2004–2006. As

described in section III.B. above,

promising technologies are available

which have the potential to reduce

emissions to significantly lower levels.

These technologies go beyond minor

engine modifications and calibration

changes and may require additional lead

time to implement. However, with

76808 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

42 ‘‘Development and Validation of a Snowmobile

Engine Emission Test Procedure,’’ Christopher W.

Wright and Jeff J. White, SAE Paper 982017.

appropriate lead time, further CO

emission reductions may be reasonably

achievable.

We will be evaluating potential

technologies and the costs of those

technologies during the development of

our proposal for snowmobiles. We will

consider the timing of the standards in

the context of the level of stringency we

propose, recognizing that more leadtime would likely be needed to apply

and prove-out the application of certain

advanced technologies. Also, as

described above, we will consider the

value of implementation flexibilities

such as averaging and phase-in

schedules in allowing manufacturers to

meet more stringent standards in an

orderly manner. We request comment

on what level of CO emissions control

is feasible and appropriate for

snowmobiles, on the cost and

corresponding emissions reduction

potential of various strategies, on the

lead time needed to achieve new

standards, and on the usefulness of

implementation flexibility in meeting

the standards.

HC standard. As mentioned in section

II, we received comments indicating

that HC control for snowmobiles for

purposes of reducing ozone may not be

necessary due to their seasonal use.

However, we believe that there may be

a need to control HC emissions from

snowmobiles. In particular, even if we

accept the commenters’ argument

regarding ozone, HC emissions may

result in increased exposure to air

toxics. As discussed in section II,

hydrocarbons are made up of numerous

components, some of which have been

identified as toxic air pollutants.

We anticipate that many of the

technology approaches available to

manufacturers to reduce CO emission

levels would also reduce HC emissions

levels. The two-stroke engines used in

snowmobiles have very high HC levels

and we believe that establishing

standards to reduce those levels would

be appropriate. Manufacturers have

suggested an HC reduction of up to 30

percent by 2008, in addition to the 30

percent reduction in CO by 2006,

discussed above. As with CO, we

believe technology is likely to be

available to achieve a greater degree of

control, especially with several years

lead time or phase-in. Reductions in CO

and HC of 70 percent or more may be

feasible.

We request comment on what level of

HC emissions control is feasible and

appropriate for snowmobiles, the cost

and corresponding emissions reductions

associated with such levels of emissions

control, the lead time needed to achieve

new standards, and the usefulness of

implementation flexibility in meeting

the standards. In particular, we request

comment on the appropriateness of

requiring any control of HC for

snowmobiles given the seasonal nature

of their use versus air toxic concerns for

riders.

Test Procedures. Snowmobile

manufacturers, in conjunction with

Southwest Research Institute, have

developed a test procedure for

measuring snowmobile emissions.42

This effort was undertaken due to

increasing interest in snowmobile

engine emission levels and a lack of a

test procedure based on a representative

duty-cycle. The test cycle is a 5-mode

steady-state cycle, with different engine

speed and torque points chosen and

weighted to reflect in-use engine

operation (see table below). The study

also found that the utility engine cycle

(J1088), which had previously been

used, was not appropriate for

snowmobiles.

TABLE III–3.—SNOWMOBILE ENGINE TEST CYCLE

(SAE paper 982017)

mode 12345

normalized speed ..................................................................................... 1.0 0.85 0.75 0.65 idle

normalized torque .................................................................................... 1.0 0.51 0.33 0.19 0

Weight, % ................................................................................................ 12 27 25 31 5

We request comment on the use of

this test procedure as the basis of future

snowmobile standards. This test

procedure appears to be the best

currently available for snowmobiles, but

we request comment on the need for

additional tests or test modes to ensure

in-use emissions control. For example,

idle CO emissions have been

highlighted as a particular concern for

snowmobiles and we request comment

on the need for additional emphasis on

idle CO emissions within the test

procedure.

3. The Need for PM Standards

As discussed in section II, Air

Quality, we are very concerned about

current high particulate matter levels in

snowmobile exhaust. High PM levels are

primarily attributable to the use of

traditional 2-stroke engines. PM

emissions are also a concern for offhighway motorcycles and ATVs to the

extent that 2-stroke engines are used in

those applications.

We believe that the technology

changes that would be needed to

significantly reduce CO and HC levels,

such as direct injection or 4-stroke

engines, may also dramatically reduce

PM levels. If HC and CO standards were

established at a level only requiring

minor modifications to the engines, PM

could remain a problem for

snowmobiles and a PM standard may be

necessary. We request comment on

whether or not we should establish a

PM standard for snowmobile engines

and what level of stringency would be

appropriate. We also request comment

on the cost implications (equipment

costs, etc.) associated with measuring

PM as part of the certification

procedure.

4. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

Depending on the structure of the

proposed program, the level of

stringency of the proposed standards,

and other considerations, we may

propose averaging, banking, and trading

provisions (ABT) for recreational

vehicles/engines. We have established

ABT programs in many of our enginebased emissions control programs in

cases where we have set standards that

require significant technology changes.

The ABT programs allow manufacturers

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76809

43A motocross bike is typically a high

performance off-highway motorcycle that is

designed to be operated in motocross competition.

Motocross competition is defined as a circuit race

around an off-highway closed-course. The course

contains numerous jumps, hills, flat sections, and

bermed or banked turns. The course surface usually

consists of dirt, gravel, sand, and mud. Motocross

bikes are designed to be very light for quick

handling and easy manueverability. They also come

with large knobby tires for traction, high fenders to

protect the rider from flying dirt and rocks,

aggressive suspension systems that allow the bike

to absorb large amounts of shock, and are powered

by high performance engines. They are not

equipped with lights.

44An enduro bike is very similar in design and

appearance to a motocross bike. The primary

difference is that enduros are equipped with lights

and have slightly different engine performance that

is more geared towards a broader variety of

operation than a motocross bike. An enduro bike

needs to be able to cruise at high speeds as well

as operate through tight woods or deep mud.

45 40 CFR 205.151(a)(3).

46 ‘‘MIC Recommended Definitions for Pending

EPA Recreation Vehicle Exhaust Emissions

Proposal,’’ Motorcycle Industry Council, Draft, June

1, 2000. Docket A–2000–01.

47 64 FR 73305, December 29, 1999.

to earn credits by introducing clean

engines sooner than required or by

certifying engines to levels below the

standards. Manufacturers may use the

credits to certify engines to levels above

the standards in the same model year

(averaging), keep the credits for use in

a later model year (banking), or transfer

the credits to another manufacturer

(trading).

In some cases, we have not

established ABT programs because we

believed the standards we were

adopting were achievable without the

additional flexibility. In such cases, EPA

found that the added complexity

inherent in having an ABT program,

both for EPA and the manufacturers,

would outweigh the potential benefits of

the program.

ABT can be beneficial in providing

incentive to manufacturers for the early

introduction of new technologies,

allowing certain engine families to be

trail blazers for new technology. This

flexibility can allow us to consider a

more stringent program than would

otherwise be appropriate under CAA

section 213. The programs also provide

flexibility to manufacturers for product

planning and can provide opportunity

for more cost effective introduction of

product lines. ABT is tailored to meet

the specific needs of standards and

programs being established. This is

necessary to avoid issues such as

windfall credits and the potential of

stockpiling credits which could result in

a significant delay of the standards

being adopted or future standards not

yet considered. We request comment on

integrating ABT into the programs for

recreational vehicles. We are interested

in comment on the scope of ABT,

including any particular issues we

should consider in developing such a

program, and whether or not credit

trading among different vehicle types

should be allowed.

D. Additional Program Considerations

1. Competition Off-Highway

Motorcycles

Currently, a large portion of offhighway motorcycles are marketed as

competition/racing motorcycles. These

models often represent a manufacturer’s

high performance offerings in the offhighway market. Most such motorcycles

are of the motocross variety,43 although

some high performance enduro

models 44 are marketed for competition

use. These high performance

motorcycles are largely powered by 2-

stroke engines, though some 4-stroke

models have been introduced in recent

years.

When used for competition,

motocross motorcycles are mostly

involved in closed course or track

racing. Other types of off-highway

motorcycles are usually marketed for

trail or open area use. When used for

competition, these models are likely to

be involved in point-to-point

competition events over trails or

stretches of open land. There are also

specialized off-highway motorcycles

that are designed for competitions such

as ice racing, drag racing, and observed

trials competition. A few races involve

professional manufacturer sponsored

racing teams. Amateur competition

events for off-highway motorcycles are

also held frequently in many areas of

the U.S.

Clean Air Act sections 216 (10) and

(11) exclude engines and vehicles ‘‘used

solely for competition’’ from nonroad

engine and vehicle regulations. For

purposes of past nonroad engine

emissions control regulatory programs

(for example, the nonroad CI,

recreational marine, and Small SI

programs), EPA has defined the term

‘‘used solely for competition’’ as

follows:

Used solely for competition means

exhibiting features that are not easily

removed and that would render its use

other than in competition unsafe,

impractical, or highly unlikely.

If retained for the recreational

vehicles program, the above definition

may be useful for identifying certain

models that are clearly used only for

competition. For example, there are

motorcycles identified as ‘‘observed

trials’’ motorcycles which are designed

without a standard seat because the

rider does not sit down during

competition. This feature would make

recreational use unlikely. Most

motorcycles marketed for competition,

however, do not appear to have physical

characteristics that constrain their use to

competition. Without such

distinguishing characteristics,

determining that a vehicle is used solely

for competition becomes more

challenging.

Manufacturers have recommended

that EPA use the definition for

competition motorcycle that EPA has

previously established for purposes of

exempting motorcycles from its noise

regulations, as follows:

Competition motorcycle means any

motorcycle designed and marketed

solely for use in closed course

competition events.45

Manufacturers further recommended

that closed course competition include

‘‘any organized competition event

covering a closed, repeated, or defined

route intended for easy viewing of the

route by spectators. Such events could

include, but are not limited to,

motocross, enduro, hare scrambles,

observed trials, short track, dirt track,

drag race, hill climb, ice race, and land

speed trials * * *’’. Manufacturers

recommended that EPA require labels

designating the vehicles for competition

use only.46

Based on confidential sales

information, we believe that vehicles

designated for competition by

manufacturers could exceed 50 percent

of total sales under their recommended

approach. We believe that many

‘‘competition’’ style motorcycles are

likely to also be used, at least by many

end users, primarily or often for

recreational riding. Section 216(10) of

the Act excludes from the definition of

nonroad engines vehicles used solely for

competition. We are concerned that the

approach suggested by manufacturers

may be overly broad and therefore

would not meet the conditions of this

exclusion.

In a recent rulemaking for marine

diesel engines, we addressed

competition engines by providing

exclusions for engines used in

professional competitions only.47

Engines used for amateur competition or

occasional competition are not excluded

under that rule. The exclusion is

available both to manufacturers and to

someone modifying an engine for

professional competition use (normally,

we would prohibit someone from

making changes to a certified engine in

ways that adversely affect emissions

control). This would be one possible

76810 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

48 61 FR 52088, October 4, 1996.

approach to address the competition use

issue for recreational vehicles.

We are very interested in receiving

input on the competition exemption

issue described above. We request

comment on ways the program can be

established to provide an exclusion for

motorcycles used solely for competition,

consistent with the Act, without

excluding vehicles that are often used

for other purposes. Ideally, the program

can be established in a way that

provides reasonable certainty at time of

certification. However, approaches

could include reasonable measures at

time of sale or in-use that would

provide assurance that the competition

exemption is being applied

appropriately. We request information

and data on the use of off-highway

motorcycles for competition and

recreation that would inform the

rulemaking process.

2. Crankcase Emissions From

Recreational Vehicles

We will be considering proposing the

elimination of crankcase emissions from

recreational vehicles. Venting the

crankcase to the atmosphere is a source

of HC emissions that has been cost

effectively controlled in many other

engine applications. Rather than venting

these emissions to the atmosphere, they

can be routed back to the engine for

combustion. We believe that any effect

on exhaust emission levels due to the

additional hydrocarbons which are

routed to the engine through the

crankcase emissions control system can

be substantially reduced, if not

eliminated, through the recalibration of

the engine. We are not aware of any

issues particular to closing the

crankcase on engines used in

recreational vehicles. California has

required the elimination of crankcase

emissions on off-highway motorcycles

and ATVs as part of their program. We

request comments on the costs,

emission reductions, and any other

issues associated with requiring the

elimination of crankcase emissions from

recreational vehicles.

3. Compliance Measures

Along with emissions standards, we

will be considering requirements to

ensure in-use compliance with those

standards over the useful life of the

recreational vehicles/engines. The goal

of these measures would be to promote

high quality engine design, production,

and in-use emissions performance.

Compliance programs typically include

certification, production line testing,

and in-use testing components. Under

these programs, manufacturers must

submit data and other information prior

to introducing the engine into

commerce certifying that the engine

meets applicable standards, and there is

the ability to verify compliance through

engine testing at the production line and

in-use. We expect to examine the

structure and effectiveness of

compliance programs contained in other

nonroad emissions control programs in

determining what types of measures

would be most appropriate for

recreational vehicles.

Because of similarities in the

applications, engine characteristics, and

production volumes, we will carefully

consider whether the compliance

programs for recreational vehicles

should be modeled after the programs

adopted to control emissions from

marine outboard engines and personal

watercraft.48 Some manufacturers

making these marine products also

make recreational vehicles, and are

therefore familiar with the structure of

the marine engines program.

We encourage interested parties to

review the compliance program in place

for outboard engines and personal

watercraft and provide input to EPA on

the potential for applying the same

types of compliance measures to these

other recreational vehicles. In

particular, we are interested in

comments on requirements for

manufacturer production line and inuse testing. For outboard engines and

personal watercraft, the production line

testing program requires manufacturers

to test engines as they leave the

production line. This process is used to

provide a quality control check on the

manufacturer’s production processes to

ensure that engines are routinely

assembled in a way such that they

continue to meet emission performance

requirements when coming off the

assembly line. The manufacturer in-use

testing program requires manufacturers

to select engines from the in-use fleet

and test a portion of their engine

families each year. These requirements

focus resources on ensuring in-use

compliance and are key components to

the overall compliance program we have

established for recreational marine

engines.

4. Consumer Modifications

We are aware that consumers

sometimes modify engines and exhaust

systems on their recreational vehicles.

Some of these changes are done to

enhance operating performance. Others

are to maintain optimal performance

under varying operating conditions (i.e.,

changes in altitude, weather, etc.). We

request information on the types of

modifications that are common for the

different types of recreational vehicles

and any information on their impact on

emission performace. We are especially

interested in those modifications that

would affect the emissions performance

of the vehicle, and could be considered

tampering under the Act for engines

certified to emissions standards. We

also request information that would

help us better understand how common

these practices are for the different types

of vehicles. Understanding the scope of

these practices will help us establish

standards and program requirements

that achieve in-use emissions

reductions.

5. Useful Life

For highway motorcycles, we

currently have three distinct useful life

categories that are based on engine

displacement. The useful life for all

three categories are five years or 12,000

km, 18,000 km, or 30,000 km depending

on which category the motorcycle falls

under. California has established a

useful life of 5 years or 10,000 km for

off-highway motorcycles and ATVs. For

some of our nonroad engine regulations,

we have based useful life on time (i.e.,

hours). We request information that

would help us determine the most

appropriate method for establishing

useful life for recreational vehicles. For

example, a certain number of hours may

be appropriate for snowmobiles and

possibly ATVs, whereas a useful life

similar to that used for highway

motorcycles or California off-highway

motorcycles may be more appropriate

for off-highway motorcycles. We request

comment on what the appropriate

useful life levels and values would be

for the various types of recreational

vehicles.

6. Consumer Labeling

We request comment on the potential

for a consumer labeling program for

recreational vehicles. We are also

interested in comment on this topic for

recreational marine engines, as

discussed in section V.E.10. The

purpose of a labeling program would be

to educate consumers so that they could

make informed decisions concerning

engine emissions when they purchase a

recreational vehicle. One example of a

consumer labeling program is the

California Air Resources Board’s

requirement that personal watercraft

and outboard engines sold in California

starting in 2001 be labeled as either low,

very-low, or ultra-low depending on

their emission levels.

We request comment on the merit and

cost of including such a program in our

proposal for recreational vehicles and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76811

49 ‘‘1999 Motorcycle Statistical Annual,’’

Motorcycle Industry Council.

whether the program should be

voluntary or mandatory. We also request

comment on programmatic aspect of

labeling such as the content of the label,

the number of tiers that would be useful

in distinguishing among recreational

vehicle models, and the pollutant(s) that

should be used in establishing those

tiers. Finally, we request comment on

any other appropriate incentives for

introducing new clean technologies that

may be available.

IV. Highway Motorcycles

In addition to the nonroad vehicles

and engines noted above, today’s

ANPRM also reviews EPA requirements

for highway motorcycles. The emissions

standards for highway motorcycles were

established twenty-three years ago.

California recently adopted new

emissions standards for highway

motorcycles and new standards have

also been proposed internationally.

There may be opportunities to reduced

emissions in a way that also allows

manufacturers to benefit from

harmonized requirements, which may

reduce product lines and production

costs. In addition, we believe it is

important to consider the emissions

standards for highway motorcycles in

the context of setting standards for offhighway motorcycles. We are interested

in providing regulatory programs for offhighway and highway motorcycles that

are consistent, which may also allow for

the transfer of technology across

product lines for manufacturers.

Consequently, we request comment on

the appropriateness of examining and

potentially revising the highway

motorcycle emission standards in the

same time frame, and in the same

rulemaking, in which we plan to

address emission standards for

recreational vehicles.

A. What Is a Highway Motorcycle, and

Who Makes Them?

Motorcycles come in a variety of twoand three-wheeled configurations and

styles. For the most part, however, they

are two-wheeled self-powered vehicles.

Federal regulations currently define a

motorcycle as ‘‘any motor vehicle with

a headlight, taillight, and stoplight and

having: two wheels, or three wheels and

a curb mass less than or equal to 680

kilograms (1499 pounds).’’ (See 40 CFR

86.402–86.478). Vehicles that otherwise

meet the motorcycle definition but have

engine displacements less than 50 cubic

centimeters (cc) (generally, youth

motorcycles, most mopeds, and some

motor scooters) are currently not

covered by federal regulations. Also

currently excluded are motorcycles

which, ‘‘with an 80 kg (176 lb) driver,

* * * cannot: (1) Start from a dead stop

using only the engine; or (2) Exceed a

maximum speed of 40 km/h (25 mph)

on level paved surfaces’ (e.g., some

mopeds). Most scooters and mopeds

have very small engine displacements

and are typically used as short-distance

commuting vehicles. Motorcycles with

larger engine displacement are more

typically used for recreation (racing or

touring) and may travel long distances.

Both EPA and California regulations

further sub-divide highway motorcycles

into classes based on engine

displacement. Table IV–1 shows how

these classes are defined.

The currently regulated highway

category includes motorcycles termed

‘‘dual-use’’ or ‘‘dual-sport,’’ meaning

that their designs incorporate features

that enable them to be reasonably

competent on and off road. Dual-sport

motorcycles generally can be described

as street-legal dirt bikes, since they tend

to bear a closer resemblance in terms of

design features and engines to true offhighway motorcycles than to highway

cruisers or sport bikes. However,

another category of motorcycle, referred

to as ‘‘enduros,’’ are very similar in

appearance to dual-sport motorcycles,

but are typically equipped with higher

performance engines and have

traditionally been categorized as

nonroad motorcycles and not been

subject to the highway emission

standards. Therefore, we request

comment as to how we can better

determine which motorcycles are streetlegal and which are not.

Throughout this ANPRM the term

‘‘highway motorcycle’’ is intended to

include all motorcycles covered by the

current federal regulations; thus, dualsport motorcycles are included in this

definition. We currently believe that all

highway motorcycle engines sold in the

U.S., including those that power dualsport motorcycles, are four-stroke

engines.

TABLE IV–1.—MOTORCYCLE CLASSES

Motorcycle class

Engine

displacement

(cubic

centimeters)

Class I ................................ 50—169.

Class II ............................... 170—279.

Class III .............................. 280 and greater.

Highway motorcycles are dominated

by larger engines, with engine

displacements exceeding 1000 cc for the

most powerful ‘‘superbikes.’’ According

to the Motorcycle Industry Council

(MIC), in 1998 there were about 5.4

million highway motorcycles in use in

the United States (only 565,000 of these

were dual-sport), more than threefourths of which had an engine

displacement of over 449 cc.49 Sixty

percent had an engine displacement

greater than 749 cc. Inclusion of the

dual-sport motorcycles in this figure

tends to skew the numbers somewhat,

even despite the fact that their total

numbers are relatively small, because

their dirt bike heritage leads them to be

weighted towards smaller engines.

According to the MIC data, three-fourths

of dual-sport motorcycles had an engine

displacement of less than 350 cc,

whereas two-thirds of the remaining

motorcycles (those purely designed for

road use) had a displacement of over

749 cc. Total sales in 1998 of highway

motorcycles was estimated to be about

411,000, or about 72 percent of

motorcycle sales. About 13,000 of these

were dual-sport motorcycles. The

remaining 28 percent of sales were

strictly off-highway motorcycles, which

are currently unregulated.

We are aware of a half-dozen

companies, Honda, Harley Davidson,

Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and BMW,

which account for near 95 percent of all

motorcycles sold. Dozens of other minor

players make up the remaining few

percent. Based on available information,

over half of all motorcycles sold in 1998

were made by Honda and Harley

Davidson, with the two companies

maintaining almost equal market shares

of about 25 percent each.

B. What Is the Regulatory History?

1. Environmental Protection Agency

Regulations

In 1974 EPA issued an advance notice

of proposed rulemaking that discussed

the possible implementation of emission

controls for highway motorcycles for the

first time and requested comment on a

number of issues. Taking into account

the comments received on the ANPRM,

EPA issued an NPRM the following year

for the control of exhaust and crankcase

emissions from new motorcycles. The

proposal addressed standards for HC,

CO, and NOX, proposing a set of interim

standards for 1978 and 1979 and final

standards equivalent to the light-duty

vehicle standards in effect at that time.

The NPRM was followed by a Final Rule

promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 1126, Jan.

5, 1977) which established interim

standards effective for the 1978 and

1979 model years and ultimate

standards effective starting with the

1980 model year. The interim standards

ranged from 5.0 to 14.0 g/km HC

depending upon engine displacement,

76812 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

50CARB, October 23, 1998 ‘‘Proposed

Amendments to the California On-Road Motocycles

Regulation’’ Staff Report: Initial Statement of

Reasons.

while the CO standard of 17.0 g/km

applied to all motorcycles. The 1980

standards, which were more lenient

than those that were proposed and

which lacked a NOX standard, are

essentially those that remain in effect

today. While the final standards did not

differ based on engine displacement, the

useful life over which these standards

must be met ranged from 12,000 km

(7,456 miles) for Class I motorcycles to

30,000 km (18,641 miles) for Class III

motorcycles. These standards were

updated in 1989 to include methanolfueled motorcycles starting with the

1990 model year, then again in 1994 to

include natural gas-fueled and liquefied

petroleum gas-fueled motorcycles

starting with the 1997 model year.

Crankcase emissions from motorcycles

are also prohibited. There are no current

federal standards for evaporative

emissions from motorcycles. The

current federal standards are shown in

Table IV–2.

TABLE IV–2.—CURRENT FEDERAL EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR

MOTORCYCLES

Engine size HC (g/km) CO (g/km)

All .......................... 5.0 12.0

2. Regulation by the California Air

Resources Board

Motorcycle emission standards in

California were originally identical to

the federal standards that applied to the

1978 through 1981 model years. The

definitions of motorcycle classes used

by California continue to be identical to

the federal definitions. However,

California has revised their standards

several times to bring them to their

current levels. In 1982 the standards

were modified to reduce the HC

standard from 5.0 g/km to 1.0 or 1.4 g/

km, depending upon engine

displacement. California adopted an

evaporative emission standard of 2.0 g/

test for 1983 and later model year

motorcycles. In 1984 California

amended the regulations for 1988 and

later model year motorcycles to further

lower emission standards and provide

additional compliance flexibility to

manufacturers. The 1988 and later

standards could be met on a corporateaverage basis, and the larger (Class III)

bikes (280 cc and above) were split into

two separate categories: 280 cc to 699 cc

and 700 cc and greater. These are the

standards being met in California today.

Like the federal standards, there are no

currently applicable NOX standards for

highway motorcycles in California.

Under the corporate-averaging scheme,

no individual engine family is allowed

to exceed a cap of 2.5 g/km. Like the

federal program, California also

prohibits crankcase emissions.

TABLE IV–3.—CURRENT CALIFORNIA

HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST

EMISSION STANDARDS

Engine size (cc) HC (g/km) CO (g/km)

50–279 .................. 1.0 12.0

TABLE IV–3.—CURRENT CALIFORNIA

HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST

EMISSION STANDARDS—Continued

Engine size (cc) HC (g/km) CO (g/km)

280–699 ................ 1.0 12.0

700 and above ...... 1.4 12.0

In 1998 the California Air Resources

Board (CARB) proposed new standards

for Class III highway motorcycles that

would take effect in two phases—a

‘‘Tier 1’’ to start with the 2004 model

year, followed by a ‘‘Tier 2’’ that would

take effect starting with the 2008 model

year. These standards were finalized

with minor modifications on November

22, 1999. Existing California standards

for Class I and II motorcycles remained

unchanged. As with the current

standards, manufacturers will be able to

meet the requirements on a corporateaverage basis. Perhaps most

significantly, this recent CARB action

brings some level of NOX control to

motorcycles by establishing a combined

HC+NOX standard. No changes were

made by the CARB action to the CO

standard, which remains at 12.0 g/km.

In addition, CARB is providing an

incentive program to encourage the

introduction of motorcycles compliant

with the Tier 2 standard prior to the

2008 model year. This incentive

program allows the accumulation of

credits that manufacturers can use to

meet the 2008 standards. Like the

federal program, these standards will

also apply to dual sport motorcycles.

TABLE IV–4.—TIER 1 AND TIER 2 CALIFORNIA CLASS III HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

Model year Engine displacement HC+NOX

(g/km) CO (g/km)

2004 through 2007 (Tier 1) ................................................. 280 cc and greater ............................................................. 1.4 12.0

2008 and subsequent (Tier 2) ............................................ 280 cc and greater ............................................................. 0.8 12.0

California also adopted a new

definition of small volume that would

take effect with the 2008 model year.

Historically, California had a definition

of small volume that applied to the 1984

through 1987 model years (5,000 units

per model year), but no definition that

has applied since. Thus, for the 1988

through 2007 model years, all

manufacturers must meet the standards,

regardless of production volume. Small

volume manufacturers, defined in

CARB’s recent action as a manufacturer

with combined California sales of Class

I, Class II, and Class III motorcycles not

greater than 300 units, do not have to

meet new standards until the 2008

model year, at which point the Tier 1

standard applies. CARB intends to

evaluate whether the Tier 2 standard

should be applied to small volume

manufacturers in the future.50

3. European Regulations

The European Commission recently

proposed a new phase of motorcycle

standards, which would start in 2003,

and are considering a second in 2006.

Whereas the current European standards

make a distinction between two-stroke

and four-stroke engines, the proposed

standards would apply to all

motorcycles regardless of engine type,

leading to a technology-independent

regulatory framework. The 2003

standards would require emissions to be

below the values shown in Table IV–5,

as measured over the European ECE–40

test cycle. The phase of standards being

considered for 2006 are still in a draft

form and have not yet been officially

proposed, but in addition to taking

another step in reducing motorcycle

emissions, the 2006 standards are

expected to incorporate an improved

motorcycle test cycle, as noted in

Section IV.D.2 below.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76813

51California Air Resources Board, ‘‘Final

Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking,’’ December

10, 1998.

TABLE IV–5.—EUROPEAN COMMISSION

PROPOSED 2003 MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

HC (g/km) CO (g/km) NOX

(g/km)

1.2 ......................... 5.5 0.3

C. Highway Motorcycle Emission

Control Technology

1. Federal Standards

While highway motorcycles have had

to apply some low-level control

technologies to meet the current

standards, the current federal standards

require a technology mix comparable to

the pre-catalyst stage for passenger cars.

The standards that took effect starting in

the 1980 model year precipitated the

elimination of highway two-stroke

engines and a transition to a fleet

composed entirely of four-stroke

engines. In general, the standards

prompted the use of leaner air-fuel

mixtures, electronic ignition systems,

improvements in manufacturing

tolerances in the carburetor and fuel

handling systems, PCV valves to control

crankcase emissions, and some engine

redesign and modifications (changes to

the camshaft, valve and ignition timing,

and combustion chamber design).

2. California Standards

Despite the greater stringency of the

current California standards (i.e., those

that apply in the current model year),

most manufacturers have been able to

comply without the use of catalytic

converters, and only a few expensive

high-performance motorcycles have

used fuel injection systems. The

majority of motorcycles have been able

to meet these standards by using, in

addition to the measures noted above

for the federal standards, engine

modifications and more advanced

calibration strategies, with air injection

systems being commonly used in the

larger motorcycle models. A few models

have been certified with 3-way catalytic

converters and fuel injection systems.

The Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards taking

effect in California in 2004 and 2008,

respectively, will require some

additional technologies.51 Many of the

control technologies that have been

applied successfully to four-stroke

engines in passenger cars may have

some potential application to fourstroke motorcycle engines. Some, such

as fuel injection and catalytic

converters, have already been

successfully used on some motorcycle

engines, as noted above. Other

passenger car technologies may arrive

on motorcycles soon due to the

upcoming California requirements.

However, California did not base the

Tier 1 standard effective in 2004 on the

widespread application of catalytic

converters. California has determined

the 1.4 g/km HC+NOX standard will be

largely feasible by reducing engine-out

emissions using mostly engine systems

(e.g., fuel injection, pulse air injection,

valve overlap changes), rather than

relying on catalytic after-treatment.

According to California, the Tier 2

standard will be more of a challenge to

industry and existing technologies are

likely to be modified and optimized for

motorcycle application to achieve 0.8 g/

km HC+NOX. They claim that such

technologies could include

computerized fuel injection, highefficiency closed-loop two- or three-way

catalytic converters, precise air-fuel

ratio controls, programmed secondary

pulse-air injection, low-thermal capacity

exhaust pipes, and others which are

available today or in the foreseeable

near future. California has also

suggested that some manufacturers may

be able to meet the Tier 2 standards on

some models without the use of

catalytic converters.

D. Standards and Program Approaches

We have identified a number of key

issues and decision points that may

impact any action we may take

regarding standards for highway

motorcycles. We request detailed

comments and data regarding the issue

areas described in this section.

1. Exhaust Emission Standards

In general we request comment on the

technological feasibility, cost, and

appropriateness of implementing new

more stringent emission standards for

highway motorcycles. We also request

comment on technologies that might

enable reductions in motorcycle

emissions, and the potential magnitude

of such reductions. We request

comment on the appropriate time frame

for implementing new emission

standards for highway motorcycles. In

addition, we request detailed comments

on the following specific issue areas.

Harmonization with California. In

many program areas, including lightduty and heavy-duty vehicles and

engines, harmonization with California

has frequently been a significant

objective, and is often a desirable

outcome for industry. When federal and

California compliance programs are

harmonized, manufacturers are more

easily able to produce engine families

that comply with both programs, rather

than having to consider whether or how

to design and market engine families

separately for California and the

remaining 49 states. In addition,

historically any time the California

program is significantly more stringent

than the federal program there is a

possibility that some individual states

will elect to enforce the California

program (as several states currently do

with light-duty vehicles), further

complicating compliance, marketing,

and distribution for the manufacturers.

Given that California has recently put in

place technologically challenging

standards for Class III motorcycles in a

time frame that we would be likely to

consider for a possible federal program,

we are likely to look very closely at the

pros and cons of harmonizing the

federal program with the recently

finalized California standards. We

request comment on all aspects of the

California program and whether the

California standards are appropriate for

a nationwide federal program.

Commenters should address

technological feasibility, cost,

corresponding potential emissions

reductions, appropriate time frame,

structure (e.g., a fleet average approach

vs. something else), and potential

advanced emission control technologies

associated with California-level

standards and with any other level of

standards a commenter may consider

appropriate.

As noted earlier, the recent action by

California did not address emissions

from Class I and Class II motorcycles.

We request comment on the need to

consider emission reductions from all

classes of motorcycles, including Class

I and Class II.

Harmonization with off-highway

motorcycles. Since we will be

promulgating emission standards for offhighway motorcycles for the first time,

it may make sense to have standards

that apply to both, off-highway and onhighway motorcycles. This could be

beneficial for manufacturers that

produce both types of motorcycles,

since they could spread their resources

across both programs. In addition, the

experience and knowledge used in

developing emission compliant highway

motorcycles could possibly be

transferred to off-highway motorcycle

applications. However, we also

acknowledge that many off-highway

motorcycles use two-stroke engines,

where two-stroke engines are no longer

used in highway applications and some

of the information used in meeting

highway standards may not be

applicable. Therefore, we request

comment on the appropriateness of

harmonization of highway and offVerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:59 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07DEP2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 07DEP2
76814 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

highway motorcycle emission standards

and the costs and corresponding

emissions reductions associated with

this approach.

2. Test Cycle

The test cycle currently used to for

compliance with the motorcycle

emission standards, in both the federal

and California programs, is the FTP–75.

Motorcycles are tested on a specialized

motorcycle chassis dynamometer on the

traditional FTP, the same cycle used for

light-duty vehicles and trucks, although

the driving schedule speeds and

accelerations are reduced for Class I and

II motorcycles. It is now widely

acknowledged that the traditional FTP

does not adequately represent some

high-emission modes that vehicles

experience in actual use. When the

cycle was first adopted for passenger

cars in the early 1970’s, the limited

capabilities of the chassis

dynamometers at that time made it

necessary to limit the speeds and

acceleration rates of the driving cycle.

Thus, the top speed and acceleration

rates seen on the FTP are much less

than most vehicles—especially

motorcycles—can achieve on the road.

Consequently, we request comment on

whether the existing US06 driving cycle

for light-duty vehicles and trucks—or

some other more representative driving

cycle—may be appropriate for highway

motorcycles, and if so, what standards

might be appropriate. We request data

on how motorcycles are driven in actual

use that might support or reject the

appropriateness of a high-speed/highacceleration driving cycle for

motorcycles.

In addition, there is an effort

underway under the auspices of the

United Nations/Economic Commission

for Europe (UN/ECE) to develop a global

harmonized world motorcycle test cycle

(WMTC). The objective of this work is

to develop a scientifically supported test

cycle that accurately represents the inuse driving characteristics of

motorcycles. The United States is also a

participating member of UN/ECE. EPA

has stated that present levels of

environmental protection will not be

lowered in order to achieve regulatory

harmonization. In its recent proposal,

the European Commission has

announced its intention to consider a

global test cycle for the second phase of

its proposed standards, expected to take

effect in 2006. We request comment on

all issues related to pursuing a globally

harmonized test cycle.

3. Evaporative Emission Standards

As noted earlier, the existing federal

program does not require compliance

with a limit on evaporative emissions

from motorcycles, while California does.

We request comments and supporting

information on the appropriateness of

harmonization with the California

evaporative standards or whether other

evaporative emission standards might

be an appropriate element of the federal

program. We also request comment on

the costs and corresponding emissions

reductions associated with adopting

evaporative emission standards.

E. Additional Program Considerations

1. Addressing Currently-Excluded

Vehicles

In addition, we may consider

developing appropriate standards for

those types of vehicles now excluded

from compliance with emission

standards. This would include mopeds

and scooters that are under 50 cc or that

otherwise can not meet the applicability

criteria in the regulations (a mix of twoand four-stroke engines). As noted

earlier, some of these vehicles do not

meet the regulatory definition of motor

vehicle by not being able to exceed 25

mph, thus it may be appropriate to

consider such vehicles as nonroad

vehicles and may be appropriate to

regulate them under the recreational

vehicle regulations. We request

comment on the appropriateness,

technological feasibility, and cost of

implementing emission standards for

these currently unregulated vehicles.

We request comment on approaches to

reducing emissions from these types of

vehicles, and on the technologies that

might be used to reduce emissions, both

for two- and four-stroke models.

2. Consumer Modifications

A significant issue that emerged in the

context of the new California standards

is the rate at which consumers make

modifications to their motorcycles, often

using aftermarket parts, to enhance

performance, sound, and/or appearance.

The Motorcycle Industry Council

expressed a concern to California that

standards which result in the

widespread use of catalysts will achieve

less benefits than projected due to

consumer tampering with the exhaust

systems. Such tampering, which can

frequently involve the replacement of

exhaust pipes that may include the

removal of the catalytic converter, can

clearly offset a significant portion of the

emission benefits. We request comment

on this issue, and in particular request

any data that may demonstrate the

magnitude of these consumer practices.

We request comment on approaches to

standard-setting that may mitigate this

problem while also enabling

motorcycles to take advantage of proven

technologies such as catalytic

converters.

3. Small Volume Manufacturers

The issue of how to define a small

volume manufacturer by regulation was

also a significant one that arose in the

context of the new California standards.

Motorcycle manufacturers with fewer

than 500 employees meet the current

definition of a small business under the

classifications established by the Small

Business Administration. The current

federal regulations define a small

volume motorcycle manufacturer as one

whose projected U.S. sales of

motorcycles is less than 10,000 units.

We request comment on how the

existing federal definition may interact

with the new California definition, and

whether, in the context of the new

California definition (described earlier),

any inequities are created between the

two motorcycle compliance programs.

We request comment on the

appropriateness of the existing federal

definition, and, in the context of revised

federal standards, what types of

compliance flexibilities might be

appropriate for those manufacturers

defined as small volume.

4. Useful Life

As noted earlier, the current federal

standards were put in place more than

twenty years ago. An important aspect

of the overall emission standards, in

addition to the numerical limits, is the

vehicle useful life over which

applicability with the standards must be

demonstrated when the vehicle is

certified. The current useful life

definitions, like the numerical emission

limits, were put in place twenty years

ago. In conjunction with evaluating the

possibility of revising emission

standards for highway motorcycles, we

believe it may be appropriate to

reevaluate the useful life definitions in

the context of current technology and

driving habits. As is clearly the case

with passenger cars, motorcycles may

have evolved in the last twenty years to

last longer and be driven more miles.

Congress found it necessary to increase

the useful life of passenger cars in the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments from

50,000 miles to 100,000 miles based on

the longevity of newer passenger cars. It

may be time for a similar adjustment for

highway motorcycles as design and

manufacturing improvements may have

extended the typical operating life of

highway motorcycles. We request

comments and supporting data that may

support or refute the need to evaluate

and possibly extend the useful life of

highway motorcycles. The current

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76815

52See 59 FR 55929 (November 9, 1994).

53See 61 FR 52088 (October 4, 1996).

54See 63 FR 56968 (October 23, 1998).

55See 63 FR 68508 (December 11, 1998).

56See 63 FR 28309 (May 22, 1998). 57See 64 FR 73300 (December 29, 1999).

58Memorandum from Jeff Carmody, Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, to

Mike Samulski, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, ‘‘Marine Engine Replacement Programs,’’

July 21, 1997 (Docket A–97–50; document II–G–10).

59Facsimile from Eric Peterson, Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District, to Mike

Samulski, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

‘‘Marine Engine Replacement Programs,’’ April 1,

1998 (Docket A–97–50; document II–D–14).

useful life definitions are shown in

Table IV–6.

TABLE IV–6.—USEFUL LIFE DEFINITIONS FOR MOTORCYCLE CLASSES

Motorcycle class Useful life

Class I ....................... 5 years or 12,000 km

(7,456 miles).

Class II ...................... 5 years or 18,000 km

(11,185 miles).

Class III ..................... 5 years or 30,000 km

(18,641 miles).

V. Recreational Marine Engines

A. Background

1. What Marine Engines Are Already

Covered by EPA Programs?

We originally proposed emission

standards for all marine engines in

1994.52 This included outboard and

personal watercraft engines, sterndrive

and inboard spark-ignition engines, and

recreational and commercial

compression-ignition engines. EPA then

decided to set standards for marine

diesel engines in a separate rulemaking

because of the many unique issues

related to those engines. Because

uncontrolled sterndrive and inboard

spark-ignition engines appeared to be a

low-emission alternative to outboard

engines in the marketplace, even after

outboard emission standards were fully

phased in, we decided to set emission

standards only for outboard and

personal watercraft engines.53 Outboard

and personal watercraft engines were

almost all two-stroke engines with much

higher emission rates compared to the

sterndrive and inboard engines which

were all four-stroke engines. We are

now working to conclude the effort to

set emission standards for SI marine

engines as we develop a different set of

requirements for sterndrive and inboard

SI engines.

Following the 1994 proposal, we set

Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for landbased nonroad diesel engines and

marine diesel engines rated below

37kW.54 This led us to propose

comparable emission control

requirements for larger marine diesel

engines.55 Although all marine diesel

engines were included in the 1998

ANPRM, EPA decided to subdivide

marine diesel engines further to

accommodate the special concerns that

apply to engines used in recreational

marine applications.56 These special

concerns included high power-to-weight

ratios needed for planing vessels and

potential small business impacts. We

have finalized emission standards for

commercial marine diesel engines and

are now developing requirements for

recreational marine diesel engines.57

2. What Marine Engines Are Included in

This Rulemaking?

In this action, we are giving advance

notice for our proposal to establish

emission standards for new sparkignition sterndrive and inboard marine

engines and new compression-ignition

recreational marine engines at or above

37 kW. For spark-ignition engines, this

includes jet boat and air boat engines, as

these can be similar to sterndrive and

inboard engines and thus are part of the

sterndrive/inboard (SD/I) class. These

are the only recreational marine engines

for which we have not yet promulgated

emission standards.

For the compression-ignition engines,

we are focusing on reductions in oxides

of nitrogen and particulate matter

emissions. For the spark-ignition

engines we are focusing on reductions

in oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbon

emissions.

References to ‘‘marine diesel engines’’

in this document are intended to cover

compression-ignition marine engines. CI

engines are typically operated on diesel

fuel although other fuels, such as

compressed natural gas, may also be

used. Similarly, all references to

‘‘gasoline marine engines’’ in this

document are intended to include all

spark-ignition marine engines regardless

of fuel type. For SI engines, we include

all of the engines listed above without

making a distinction between

recreational and commercial

applications. However, as a shorthand

for this document, we are using

‘‘recreational marine engines’’ to mean

recreational marine diesel engines and

all of the gasoline SD/I engines.

Boat builders could also be affected

by this emission control program. If

engine changes significantly increase

the external size, increase heat rejection,

or reduce the power of the engine, boat

builders could have to change the

packaging of the engine in the vessel.

Engine builders may raise the price of

the engine to boat builders to cover the

increased costs of developing, certifying

and building new compliant engines.

Also we are requesting comment on

evaporative emission control which

could affect boat designs.

B. Technology

1. What Technologies Appear To Be

Available for Recreational Marine Diesel

Engines?

We anticipate that significant

emissions reductions from recreational

marine diesel engines can be achieved

primarily with technology that will be

applied to land-based nonroad engines

and commercial marine engines. Much

of this technology already has been

established in highway applications and

is being used in some land-based

nonroad and marine applications.

If emissions standards were not to go

into place until the 2005–2006 time

frame, engine manufacturers would

have substantial lead time for

developing, testing, and implementing

emission control technologies. This lead

time, coupled with the opportunity to

use emission control technologies

already developed for land-based

nonroad engines, should allow time for

a comprehensive program to integrate

the most effective emission control

approaches into the manufacturers’

overall design goals related to

durability, reliability, and fuel

consumption. We request comment on

the amount of lead time that would be

appropriate for emission standards for

recreational marine diesel applications.

Engine manufacturers have already

shown some initiative in producing

limited numbers of low-NOX marine

diesel engines. More than 80 of these

engines have been placed into service in

California through demonstration

programs.58 59 Through the

demonstration programs, we were able

to gain insight into what technologies

can be used to achieve significant

emission reductions. Emission data

from these engines supported adoption

of emission standards for commercial

marine diesel engines (see Table V–1).

Highway engine manufacturers have

been the leaders in developing and

applying new emission control

technology for diesel engines. Because

of the similar engine designs in landbased nonroad and marine diesel

engines, we expect that much of the

technological development that has led

to lower emitting highway engines can

be transferred or adapted for use on

land-based nonroad and marine engines.

Much of the improvement in emissions

76816 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

60We use the term ‘‘marinizers’’ to mean

manufacturers who take engine blocks designed for

land-based applications and prepare them for

marine applications.

61Memo from J. McDonald and M. Samulski,

‘‘EGR Test Data from a Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine

on the E4 Duty Cycle,’’ July 12, 1999.

from these engines comes from

‘‘internal’’ engine changes such as

variation in fuel injection variables

(injection timing, injection pressure,

spray pattern, rate shaping), modified

piston bowl geometry for better air-fuel

mixing, and improvements intended to

reduce oil consumption. Introduction

and ongoing improvement of electronic

controls have played a vital role in

facilitating many of these

improvements.

Other technological developments

that are expected to be used on landbased nonroad engines would require a

greater degree of development before

they could be applied to marine diesel

engines. Turbocharging is widely used

now in marine applications because it

improves power and efficiency by

compressing the intake air.

Turbocharging may also be used to

decrease particulate emissions in the

exhaust. Today, marine engine

manufacturers generally have to

rematch the turbocharger to the engine

characteristics of the marine version of

a nonroad engine and often will add

water cooling (jacketing) around the

turbo housing to keep surface

temperatures low. Once the Tier 2

nonroad engines are available to the

marine industry, matching the

turbochargers for the engines would be

an important step in achieving low

emissions.

Aftercooling is a well established

technology that can be used to reduce

NOX by reducing the temperature of the

charge air after it has been heated

during compression. Reducing the

charge air temperature directly reduces

the peak cylinder temperature during

combustion, which is the primary cause

of NOX formation. Air-to-water and

water-to-water aftercoolers are well

established for land-based applications.

For engines in marine vessels, there are

two different types of aftercooling used:

jacket-water and raw-water aftercooling.

With jacket-water aftercooling, the

coolant to the aftercooler is cooled

through a heat exchanger by ambient

water. This cooling circuit may be either

the same circuit used to cool the engine

or a separate circuit. By moving to a

separate circuit, marine engine

manufacturers would be able to achieve

further reductions in the intake charge

temperature. This separate circuit could

result in even lower temperatures by

using raw water as the coolant. This

means that ambient water is pumped

directly to the aftercooler. Raw-water

aftercooling is currently being used

widely in recreational applications.

Because of the access that marine

engines have to a large ambient water

cooling medium, we anticipate that

marine CI engine manufacturers will

largely achieve reductions in NOX

emissions through the use of

aftercooling.

To meet potential emission standards,

recreational marine diesel engine

manufacturers could use many of the

strategies discussed above. Electronic

controls also offer great potential for

improved control of engine parameters

for better performance and lower

emissions. Unit pumps or injectors

would allow higher-pressure fuel

injection with rate shaping to carefully

time the delivery of the whole volume

of injected fuel into the cylinder. Marine

engine manufacturers should be able to

take advantage of modifications to the

routing of the intake air and the shape

of the combustion chamber of nonroad

engines for improved mixing of the fuelair charge. Separate circuit jacket- and

raw-water aftercooling will likely gain

widespread use in turbocharged engines

to increase performance and lower NOX.

We request comment on the

technological approaches discussed

here and on other emission control

technology that could effectively be

used on recreational marine diesel

engines. We also request comment on

the costs associated with these

technologies.

2. What Technologies Appear To Be

Available for Spark Ignition SD/I Marine

Engines?

At least three primary technologies

could be used by marinizers to reduce

emissions from SD/I engines.60 These

three technologies are electronic fuel

injection, exhaust gas recirculation, and

two-way or three-way catalysts.

Electronic control gives manufacturers

more precise control of the air/fuel ratio

in each cylinder thereby giving them

greater flexibility in how they calibrate

their engines. With the addition of an

oxygen sensor, electronics give

manufacturers the ability to use closed

loop control which is especially

valuable when a catalyst is used. Threeway catalysts operate best near

stoichiometric conditions in the

exhaust.

Exhaust gas recirculation can be used

for meaningful reductions in NOX. The

recirculated gas acts as a diluent in the

fuel-air mixture which reduces

combustion temperature. These lower

temperatures significantly reduce

formation rate of NOX, but HC is

increased slightly due to lower

temperatures for HC burn-up during the

late expansion and exhaust strokes.

Depending on the burn rate of the

engine and the amount of recirculated

gases, EGR can improve fuel

consumption. Although EGR slows the

burn rate (which tends to decrease peak

power), it can offset this effect with

some benefits for engine efficiency. EGR

reduces pumping work since the

addition of recirculated gas increases

intake pressure. Because the burned gas

temperature is decreased, there is less

heat loss to the exhaust and cylinder

walls. In effect, EGR allows more of the

chemical energy in the fuel to be

converted to useable work.

Most engines sold to the marine

market are primarily designed for

automotive use. Marinizers then take

the basic engine blocks and adapt them

to be better suited for the marine

environment. These engines are

generally already equipped with a port

in the manifold for EGR. This port is

capped because EGR is not currently

used in marine engines. However, EGR

has been used as an effective NOX

control strategy in automotive

applications for more than 20 years.

Today’s automotive applications use

levels of 15–17 percent EGR. Through

the use of high swirl, high turbulence

combustion chambers, manufacturers

could increase the burn rate of the

engine. By increasing the burn rate, the

amount of EGR could be increased to

20–25 percent. In our lab, we calibrated

a heavy-duty highway gasoline engine

for emissions over the ISO E4 marine

duty cycle.61 We achieved a 47 percent

reduction in NOX without significantly

changing HC or CO emissions. The

result was 9.9 g/kW-hr HC+NOX and

24.3 g/kW-hr CO.

With regard to emissions reductions

through catalytic control, we are

considering various designs that involve

packaging small catalysts in the exhaust

manifold with only small changes in the

size of the exhaust manifold. By placing

the catalysts here, costs to the

manufacturer may be reduced compared

to a large catalyst downstream

especially when considering the

packaging of the system in a boat.

Engine manufacturers water jacket the

exhaust manifold to meet temperature

safety protocol then mix the water into

the exhaust to protect the exhaust

couplings and muffle noise. By placing

the catalyst in the exhaust manifold, it

is upstream of where the water and

exhaust mix. However, placing the

catalyst in the exhaust manifold limits

the catalyst size. Using a small catalyst,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76817

in turn, limits potential emissions

reductions. We request comment on the

potential emission reductions available

by a small catalyst placed in or directly

adjacent to the exhaust manifold.

There have been concerns that aspects

of the marine environment could result

in unique durability problems for

catalysts. The primary aspects that

could affect catalyst durability are

sustained operation at high load, salt

water effects on catalyst efficiency,

thermal shock from cold water coming

into contact with a hot catalyst, engine

vibration, and shock effects in rough

water associated with marine

applications.

Three-way catalysts may be an

effective control strategy for gasoline

marine engines. Three-way catalysts act

as both an oxidation catalyst to reduce

HC, CO and as a reduction catalyst to

control NOX. They are most effective

when coupled with an oxygen sensor

and a feedback loop to maintain a

stoichiometric exhaust mixture. As an

alternative, a two-way oxidation catalyst

could be used effectively with less

precise control of the air fuel ratio in the

exhaust. Today’s catalysts perform well

at temperatures higher than would be

seen in a marine exhaust manifold and

have been shown, in the lab, to

withstand the thermal shock of being

immersed in water. Use of catalysts in

automotive, motorcycle, and hand-held

equipment has shown that catalysts can

be packaged to withstand the vibration

in the exhaust manifold in varied

applications. We request comment on

how the operation of marine engines

would affect catalyst durability.

The key to using this technology in

these marine applications is to ensure

that salt water does not reach the

catalyst so that salt does not accumulate

on the catalyst and reduce its efficiency.

Placement of the catalyst close to the

exhaust manifolds may help protect it

from salt water. Manufacturers already

strive to design their exhaust systems to

prevent water from reaching the exhaust

ports. If too much water reaches the

exhaust ports in today’s designs,

significant durability problems would

result from corrosion or hydraulic lock.

We request comment on potential

design modifications which could

eliminate or significantly minimize

water intrusion into the exhaust which

could deteriorate the performance of the

catalyst.

In highway applications, catalysts are

designed to operate in gasoline vehicles

for more than 100,000 miles. This

translates to about 5,000 hours of use on

the engine/catalyst. We estimate that,

due to low annual hours of operation

(50–100 hours/year), the average

running time of SD/I engines is less than

one-third of this value. This is another

reason we believe catalysts are likely to

be durable in marine applications.

However, unlike cars, boats often

experience shock effects from waves

even when the engine is not running

which could affect the durability of a

catalyst that was not packaged

appropriately.

We have been working with the U.S.

Coast Guard to identify potential safety

problems with using catalysts in marine

applications. The Coast Guard has told

us that they have two concerns. First,

they want to make sure that any

additional heat load in the engine

compartment will not add to the risk of

fires, other safety hazards, or other

detrimental impacts on the engine or

components. Second, they want to make

sure that exhaust systems with catalysts

will not lead to CO leaks due to

additional joints in or maintenance of

the exhaust system.

Through a joint effort with the

California Air Resources Board (ARB),

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI),

engine manufacturers/marinizers,

catalyst manufacturers, and a marine

exhaust manifold manufacturer, we are

in the process of developing and testing

a comprehensive emissions control

system on a SD/I engine. This system

includes both EGR and catalyst

technology. The goal of this testing is

proof of concept, but as part of this

testing, temperatures and pressures

relevant to safety, durability, and

performance will be measured. Also, we

are focusing on an exhaust manifold

design that will prevent water reversion

to the catalyst.

We request comment on the feasibility

of applying electronic fuel injection,

exhaust gas recirculation, and catalysts

on SD/I engines and on other

technology that could effectively be

used to reduce emissions from these

engines. We also request comment on

the costs and corresponding potential

emission reductions from using such

technology, as well as the potential

effects on engine performance, safety

and durability using these technologies.

C. Standards and Program Approaches

1. Recreational Marine Diesel Engines

One approach for reducing emissions

from recreational CI marine engines

would be to propose standards similar

to the Tier 2 standards for commercial

CI marine engines. The commercial

marine emission limits are presented in

Table V–1 and are based on the ISO E3

duty cycle. For recreational marine

engines the ISO E5 duty cycle may be

more appropriate because it is designed

for smaller craft. Recreational CI marine

engines can likely use the same

technologies projected for the Tier 2

commercial marine standards. Many

recreational CI marine engines are

already using these technologies

including electronic fuel management,

turbocharging, and separate circuit

aftercooling. In fact, because

recreational engines have much shorter

design lives than commercial engines, it

is likely to be easier to apply raw water

aftercooling to these engines.

TABLE V–1.—EMISSION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL MARINE DIESEL ENGINES OVER 37 KW

Subcategory HC+NOX

g/kW-hr PM g/kW-hr CO g/kW-hr

disp < 0.9 ................................................................................................................................................. 7.5 0.40 5.0

0.9 ≤ disp < 1.2 ........................................................................................................................................ 7.2 0.30 5.0

1.2 ≤ disp < 5.0 ........................................................................................................................................ 7.2 0.20 5.0

Engine manufacturers will generally

increase the fueling rate in recreational

engines, compared to commercial

engines, to gain power from a given

engine size. This extra power from a

given sized engine helps bring a planing

vessel on to the water surface and

increases the maximum vessel speed

without increasing the weight of the

vessel. This difference in how

recreational engines are designed and

used has an effect on emissions.

However, as discussed in the technology

section below, emission data suggest

that recreational marine diesel engines

can meet the levels required for

commercial marine engines. We request

comment on the appropriateness of the

commercial marine emission limits for

recreational marine engines. We also

76818 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

request comment on the appropriate test

duty cycle for these limits.

Diesel engine manufacturers have

commented that they would need time

after the commercial marine standards

go into place to transfer technology from

commercial to recreational marine

engines. The standards for the

commercial marine rule go into effect in

the following model years by engine

cylinder displacement: 2004 for 0.9 to

2.5 liters per cylinder, 2005 for smaller

engines, and 2007 for larger engines.

These dates are after those for the

nonroad land-based standards which

gives manufacturers time to transfer the

land-based technology to marine

applications.

An implementation date of 2005 for

engines with displacement less than 2.5

liters/cylinder would give a year of lead

time beyond the emission standards for

commercial engines. However, this lead

time may not be necessary because

much of the technology that could be

used to reduce emissions is already

used in some recreational marine diesel

engine models; these engines would just

need to be calibrated for reduced

emissions. Many recreational marine

diesel engines with displacement over

2.5 liters/cylinder in many cases also

already use the anticipated emissioncontrol technologies. An

implementation date of 2007 for these

engines may therefore provide adequate

lead time, even though the emission

standards for commercial engines start

at the same time. We request comment

on appropriate implementation dates for

recreational marine diesel engines.

2. SD/I Marine Engines

In determining potential HC+NOX

standards for sterndrive and inboard SI

marine engines, we will be evaluating

emission reductions that can be

achieved using electronic fuel injection,

exhaust gas recirculation, and catalysts

designed to work in marine

applications. Catalyst exhaust systems

designed for marine applications would

have to ensure that salt-water did not

reach the catalyst. In addition, it would

be preferable for the exhaust system to

be compact so that it would fit in

current boat designs. This may

necessitate locating a small catalyst in

the exhaust manifold or directly

adjacent to it, limiting the catalyst size

and therefore its ability to reduce engine

emissions.

Even if only a small, low-efficiency

catalyst could be packaged into SD/I

exhaust systems, an HC+NOX standard

of 5–7 g/kW-hr may be feasible based in

the ISO E4 duty cycle. Given the

information in Table V–1, a standard of

7.2 g/kW-hr for HC+NOX would provide

some level of equity of emission control

for gasoline and diesel engines.

However, if larger, more efficient

catalysts were used such as in

automotive applications, much larger

emission reductions could be achieved.

In its September 19, 2000 workshop, the

California Air Resources Board

proposed standards of 9.4 g/kW-hr

HC+NOX and 134 g/kW-hr CO in 2003

and 4 g/kW-hr HC+NOX and 50 g/kWhr CO in 2007. We request comment on

the potential use of larger, more efficient

catalysts in SD/I applications and on

appropriate emission limits.

We are in the process of developing

and testing a catalyst system for SD/I

engines, but we do not have data from

the tests at the time of this notice. Our

projected emission reductions from

catalyst systems are based on our

evaluation of information from catalyst

manufacturers and observations of the

success of catalytic control in landbased applications. Because we do not

yet have complete data, we request

comment on basing emissions standards

on technology packages with and

without catalytic control. Using

electronic fuel injection and exhaust gas

recirculation, an emission limit of 9–10

g/kW-hr of HC+NOX may be

appropriate.

We will be evaluating varying levels

of CO control. With the application of

electronic fuel injection and electronic

control, CO from SD/Is can be reduced,

potentially to the range of 40–50 g/kWhr. If manufacturers can produce

engines that achieve these CO emission

reductions over many years of

operation, this may reduce the exposure

of individual boaters to elevated

ambient CO concentrations. In

particular, this could reduce the

occurrence of CO poisoning from people

on or swimming near a boat while the

engine is idling. Because reducing CO

emissions could help reduce incidents

of CO poisoning among boaters, we are

also considering the need for a CO

standard which would achieve

significant CO reductions. With a

catalyst, CO could be reduced further,

perhaps to the range of 15–20 g/kW-hr.

At a minimum, we see no reason for

expecting emissions to increase.

Therefore, we request comment on

capping CO emission at baseline levels,

approximately 130 g/kW-hr, to prevent

backsliding. We also request comment

on the technical feasibility and benefits

from reducing CO levels and on what

appropriate CO standards would be for

SI SD/I engines.

We are considering the 2005 or 2006

time frame for the implementation of

standards for SD/I engines. These dates

are similar to the ones discussed above

for recreational marine diesel engines.

However, we recognize that SD/I

marinizers would need time to apply

new technologies to their engines and

optimize the systems for emissions

control. Depending on the level of

eventual standards, this may be

especially difficult for SD/I

manufacturers because they may need to

apply technologies, such as EGR and

catalysts, that they have never applied

to their engines. Therefore, we request

comment on what lead time would be

appropriate for SD/I engines.

D. Additional Program Considerations

1. Not-To-Exceed Requirements

Our goal is to achieve control of

emissions over the broad range of in-use

speed and load combinations that can

occur on a recreational marine engine so

that real-world emission control is

achieved, rather than just controlling

emissions under certain laboratory

conditions. An important tool for

achieving this goal is an in-use program

with an objective standard and an easily

implemented test procedure. Therefore

we are requesting comment on

extending the not-to-exceed

requirements in place for commercial

marine engines to recreational marine

engines.

The not-to-exceed (NTE) concept

includes an area under the torque map

where an engine could reasonably be

expected to operate in use. Within this

area the engine can not exceed a fixed

limit. The limit may be different for

different areas of the NTE zone. The

NTE zone not only includes a wide

range of operation, but also a wide range

of ambient conditions.

We expect that NTE requirements for

recreational CI marine engines would be

very similar to those for commercial CI

marine engines (64 FR 73300) because

the engines are similar. However, the

limits may need to be different within

the NTE zone due to differences in the

engine applications. For example, a

higher limit near full power may be

necessary for recreational engines. For

SI engines, the NTE zone would likely

need to be a different shape to coincide

with the differences between the ISO E5

and ISO E4 test procedures. Also,

because EGR technology is not as

efficient at high power as at lower

power, a higher limit may be necessary

at high power. We request comment on

how the NTE concept could be applied

to recreational marine engines. We also

request comment on alternative

approaches for ensuring real world

emission control from recreational

marine engines.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76819

2. Evaporative Emissions

We request comment on whether or

not we should propose evaporative

emission requirements for recreational

marine engines and what those

requirements should be. Vessels using

gasoline marine engines emit high

amounts of volatile hydrocarbons per

gallon of fuel consumed. According to

our calculations, these evaporative

emissions are several times higher than

exhaust HC emissions. For diesel

engines, evaporative emissions are very

low due to the low vapor pressure of

diesel fuel.

When the fuel is subject to increasing

temperatures, such as daily temperature

variation or engine heat, lighter

hydrocarbon molecules evaporate and,

if not stored or trapped in some fashion,

will escape into the atmosphere. Marine

fuel tanks are vented to the atmosphere

to prevent pressure build up in the tank.

Vapor levels on a boat can be so high

that, for fire safety reasons, blowers are

often needed to remove gasoline vapors

from the engine compartment prior to

starting the engine. Also vapors are

displaced from the gas tank to the

atmosphere during refueling. Finally,

some emissions come from spillage

during refueling.

In automotive applications, vapors

generated in the fuel system are passed

through a canister designed to capture

evaporated hydrocarbons. When the

engine is running, these hydrocarbons

are drawn back into the engine and

burned. However, this emission control

technology would not be practical for

marine applications. A boat may sit for

weeks without being used while typical

automotive canisters are only designed

to capture a few hot days worth of

evaporative emissions. After this

amount of time, the canister must be

purged to the engine. A canister/fuel

system that could collect weeks worth

of vapors and burn them in a few hours

of operation probably would not be

practical due to the canister size

required.

Still, there may be practical

alternatives to a canister system for

boats. One such system could be a

bladder-type fuel tank such as those

used in race cars. The bladder contracts

as the fuel is used to prevent a vapor

space from forming.

Another technology that could reduce

evaporative emissions to a lesser degree

are non-permeable fuel lines. By

replacing rubber fuel lines with nonpermeable lines, the evaporative

emissions through the fuel lines can be

prevented. An added benefit is that

these non-permeable lines are nonconductive and can prevent the buildup

of static charges. Although nonpermeable lines are used in automotive

applications, these fuel lines would

have to meet Coast Guard specifications

for flame resistance and flexibility to be

used in marine applications. We request

comment on if non-permeable fuel lines

exist that would meet the Coast Guard

specifications and what their cost would

be.

Currently, fuel systems on boats are

vented to the atmosphere to prevent

pressure buildup. The Coast Guard

requires that fuel systems not be

pressurized. If a low-pressure (2 psi)

pressure relief valve were used with a

closed system, much of the evaporative

emissions could be reduced. This would

still prevent the fuel system from

building up too much pressure. We

request comment on the effectiveness of

this strategy with respect to ambient

temperature, especially on hot days

when the fuel tank pressure may be

higher. Note that any eventual

requirements related to fuel system

pressure would need to be consistent

with Coast Guard policies and

requirements.

We request comment on safe

pressures in fuel tanks and what typical

fuel tank pressures would be if they

were not vented to the atmosphere. We

also request comment on the cost and

effectiveness of non-permeable fuel

lines, pressure relief valves, and other

systems for reducing evaporative

emissions. We also request comment on

potential strategies for reducing

emissions due to refueling or spillage.

We request comments on any

evaporative emission control systems

such as those described above as well as

comment on potential strategies for

reducing emissions due to refueling or

spillage.

Additionally, we request comment on

how we could structure provisions to

confirm the effectiveness of these

systems. We would prefer to set up a

performance-based standard such as the

test procedures already in place for

automobiles because it gives a better

indication of control effectiveness that a

design-based standard and it gives more

design flexibility to the manufacture.

However, we request comment on

appropriate performance-based test

procedures and on an appropriate

design-based requirement.

3. Crankcase Emissions

We are requesting comment on

whether or not to require that new

recreational marine engines be built

with closed crankcases to eliminate

crankcase emissions. Crankcase controls

have been required on cars and trucks.

Controlling crankcase vapors requires a

fairly simple and inexpensive

technological strategy. A line is routed

from the crankcase to the intake

manifold with a pressure control valve

which will prevent crankcase

overpressure and will prevent air from

flowing into the crankcase. Some SI

marine engine already route crankcase

vapor to the air intake to minimize

vapor buildup in the engine

compartment.

For turbocharged diesel engines, there

is some concern that routing the

crankcase vapor upstream of the

turbocharger could foul the

turbocharger. In addition, it would be

more costly to route the low pressure

crankcase vapor downstream of the

turbocharger because an extra pump

would be necessary. An alternative

would be to allow turbocharged

recreational compression-ignition

marine engines to be built with open

crankcases, provided the crankcase

ventilation system is designed to allow

crankcase emissions to be measured. For

engines with open crankcases, we could

require crankcase emissions to be either

routed into the exhaust stream to be

included in the exhaust measurement,

or to be measured separately and added

to the measured exhaust mass. These

measurement requirements might not

add significantly to the cost of testing,

especially where the crankcase vent is

simply routed into the exhaust stream

prior to the point of exhaust sampling.

This concept is consistent with our

previous regulation of crankcase

emissions from such diverse sources as

commercial marine engines,

locomotives and passenger cars. We

request comment on the above concepts.

4. Regulatory Flexibility

Marinizers are engine manufacturers

that take land-based engines and

convert them to be used in marine

applications. In some cases, marinizers

use certified land-based engines and

make changes without changing their

emission levels. We consider these

marinizers to be ‘‘engine dressers,’’ and

we believe that forcing these

manufacturers to certify their engines

may be unnecessary. We intend to offer

similar engine dresser provisions for

recreational marine engine marinizers as

exist for commercial marine engine

marinizers who are not required to

certify (40 CFR part 94). We request

comment on these provisions as they

apply to recreational marine engine

marinizers.

The scope of this advance notice also

includes a number of engine marinizers

that have not been subject to our

regulations or certification process and

would not qualify as engine dressers.

76820 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

62 ‘‘Preliminary EPA Staff Assessment of Small

Business Flexibility Concepts,’’ June 16, 1999,

Docket A–2000–01, document II–B–03.

The majority of these marinizers are

small businesses for which a typical

regulatory program may be overly

burdensome. One challenge of this rule

is to implement a flexible regulatory

program while still ensuring significant

emission reductions. We request

comment on appropriate regulatory

flexibility strategies for small volume

engine marinizers that will minimize

harmful impact on the environment.

We request comment on what should

be the definition of a small volume

engine manufacturer/marinizer for the

purpose of potential regulatory

flexibility. The Small Business

Administration defines a small business

(manufacturing internal combustion

engines) as one that employs less than

1000 people. Because the purpose of the

regulatory flexibility is to reduce the

burden on companies for which fixed

costs cannot be distributed over a large

number of engines, we believe that the

small volume engine manufacturer

definition should also consider the

number of engines for sale in the U.S.

in a year. This production count would

include all engines (automotive, other

nonroad, etc.) and not just recreational

marine engines. Based on confidential

sales information supplied by engine

marinizers and our own evaluations of

certification and development costs, we

estimate that the upper limit for the

numbers of engines that a company

could produce and still be considered a

small volume engine manufacturer

might be in the range of 8,000 to 12,000

units per year. This would include the

majority of marinizers. To establish this

threshold, we would make an

assessment of the ability of these

companies to amortize development

costs over smaller sales volumes.

The large number of boat builders and

their relative inexperience with

emission control requirements also

suggest a need for a flexible

implementation process. Although boat

builders would not be directly subject to

emission standards under a potential

program unless evaporative emission

control were required, it would still be

possible for them to need to redesign the

engine compartments on some boats if

engine designs were to change

significantly. We request comment on

how to best determine the extent to

which engine technologies discussed

above would necessitate changes in boat

design. We also request comment on

regulatory flexibility strategies for small

volume boat builders that will minimize

harmful impact on the environment.

We request comment on what should

be the definition of a small volume boat

builder for the purpose of potential

regulatory flexibility. Because the

flexibility is designed to reduce the

burden on companies for which fixed

costs cannot be distributed over a large

number of vessels, we believe it may be

appropriate to include in the definition

of a small volume boat builder an upper

limit on the production of boats for sale

in the U.S. in one year. This production

count would include all power craft

recreational boats. We request comment

on this approach.

We have been in contact with several

small volume engine marinizers and

boat builders in an attempt to develop

concepts that would reduce the burden

of emissions standards while

minimizing environmental loss. In fact,

we convened a Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel under section

609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996. To date, these efforts have

identified several flexibility concepts for

small volume engine manufacturers and

for small volume boat builders. We

presented several flexibility concepts to

small-business representatives during

the SBREFA process.62 These concepts

are listed in Table V–2. We request

comment on the appropriateness of

these ideas and on others for

minimizing burden on small businesses

while still reaching the greatest degree

of emission reduction achievable

through the application of technology

which the Administrator determines

will be available, giving appropriate

consideration to cost, lead time, noise,

energy, and safety factors.

TABLE V–2.—SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CONCEPTS FOR

RECREATIONAL MARINE

Small volume engine

marinizers

Small volume boat

builders

Broaden engine familiesPercent of production

exemption.

Minimize compliance

requirements

Small volume allowance.

Existing inventory and

replacement engine

allowance.

Expand engine dresser flexibility

Design-based certificationHardship provisions

Delay standards for 5

years

Hardship provisions

Use of emission credits

5. Definition of Recreational CI Marine

Engines

When we finalized standards for

commercial marine engines last year, we

included a definition of recreational

compression-ignition marine engines.

This was based on the U.S. Coast Guard

definition of recreational vessels. This

definition states that a compressionignition propulsion marine engine

intended by the manufacturer to be

installed on a recreational vessel and

labeled as a recreational engine would

be considered recreational for EPA

regulations in 40 CFR part 94. A

recreational vessel is one that is

intended by the vessel manufacturer to

be operated primarily for pleasure but

does not include the following vessels:

—Vessels less than 100 gross tons that

carry six or more paying passengers

—Vessels greater than 100 gross tons

that carry one or more paying

passengers

—Vessels used solely for competition

Diesel engine manufacturers have

since commented that they would like

to see a less restrictive definition of

recreational vessel. Their proposed

definition is as follows: ‘‘Recreational

marine engine means a propulsion

marine engine that is intended by the

manufacturer to be installed on a

recreational vessel. Recreational vessel

means a vessel that is intended by the

vessel manufacturer to be operated

primarily for pleasure or leased, rented

or chartered to another for the latter’s

pleasure.’’ We request comment on the

appropriate definition of a recreational

marine engine.

6. Useful Life

When we set emission standards, we

require that manufacturers produce

engines that comply over their full

useful life. For recreational marine

engines, a useful life that lasts either ten

years or until the engine accumulates at

least 500 operating hours (or some other

value of hours specified in a certificate

of conformity), whichever occurs first,

may be appropriate. In general, we

would expect that the regulatory useful

life should be at least as long as the

operating lifetime for which the engine

is designed. We request comment on

this view.

Our current view that the appropriate

minimum useful life may be at least 500

hours is based on manufacturer

comments that typical recreational

marine engines are used about 50 hours

per year and for at least 10 years.

However, Coast Guard survey data

suggests that typical recreational marine

engines are used about 100 hours per

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76821

63 ‘‘1998 National Recreational Boating Survey

Data Book,’’ JSI Research & Training Institute,

prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard, February 2000.

64Article 2 of MARPOL 73/78 defines ‘‘ship’’ as

‘‘a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the

marine environment and includes hydrofoil boats,

air-cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft

and fixed or floating platforms.’’

year.63 In addition, we expect that

typical recreational marine diesel

engines are used more than this,

especially those rated at several

hundred horsepower. Purchasers of the

more powerful marine diesel engines

usually choose them over lower cost

gasoline engines because diesel engines

are generally designed to be more

durable. Actual useful lives of existing

engines are likely to vary with respect

to application as well. Thus, we could

propose a series of minimum useful life

values based on rated application,

engine cycle (e.g., spark-ignited or

diesel), or rated horsepower. However,

we request information on in-use engine

life and comment on the appropriate

emissions compliance useful life for SI

engines and CI engines; these useful life

values may vary with engine size,

especially for diesel engines.

In our emissions inventory

calculations presented earlier in this

document, we used a function of the

engine population, load factors, annual

hours of use, rated power, emission

factors, turnover, and growth rates. For

CI engines we used 200 hours per year

and for SD/I engines, we used 48 hours

per year. We are interested in more

information, especially data, on the

appropriateness of these estimates.

Studies and industry comments have

shown a wide range of average annual

use—from 50 to 500 hours per year. We

request information, especially reliable

field data, on the annual and lifetime

operating hours for these engines which

may depend on SI versus CI design,

engine size, and application.

7. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

Credit Programs

We are considering an emissions

averaging, banking and trading (ABT)

program for recreational marine engines.

This is a voluntary program which

would allow a manufacturer to certify

one or more engine families at emission

levels above the applicable emission

standards, provided that the increased

emissions are offset by one or more

engine families certified below the

applicable standards. The average of all

emissions for a particular

manufacturer’s production would have

to be at or below the level of the

applicable emission standards. In

addition, credits could be traded with

other companies or banked for future

use.

An ABT program is an important

factor that EPA takes into consideration

in setting emission standards that are

appropriate under section 213 of the

Clean Air Act. ABT would allow us to

consider a lower emissions standard, or

one that otherwise results in greater

emissions reductions, because ABT

reduces the cost and improves the

technological feasibility and costeffectiveness of achieving a standard.

For example, it could help to ensure the

attainment of the standards earlier than

would otherwise be possible.

Manufacturers gain flexibility in

product planning and the opportunity

for a more cost-effective introduction of

product lines meeting a new standard.

ABT also creates an incentive for the

early introduction of new technology,

which allows certain engine families to

act as trail blazers for new technology.

This can help provide valuable

information to manufacturers on the

technology before manufacturers need

apply the technology throughout their

product line. This early introduction of

clean technology improves the

feasibility of achieving the standards

and can provide valuable information

for use in other regulatory programs that

may benefit from similar technologies.

For recreational marine diesel

engines, an ABT program would be

similar to the one for commercial

marine engines. We request comment on

all aspects of an ABT program that

would apply for recreational marine

diesel engines.

We are concerned that an ABT

program may not be appropriate for SI

SD/I marine engines for three primary

reasons. First, there are many small

businesses which produce SI engines for

the recreational marine market. There

are also very few large businesses

producing SI engines for this market.

While the large businesses tend to have

broad product offerings and could

readily take advantage of the provisions

of an ABT program, the small

businesses tend to have much narrower

product lines and would therefore be

unlikely to benefit from ABT provisions.

We are concerned that this situation

would allow the large businesses a

competitive advantage.

Similarly, we are concerned that most

manufacturers of recreational SI engines

do not have a broad enough product line

to take advantage of an ABT program.

Therefore, it may not be useful to the

majority of businesses.

Third, the emission control

technology discussed above appear to be

equally applicable to all engines.

Therefore, an ABT program may not be

necessary except, perhaps, as a tool to

help phase-in new technology.

Adopting an ABT program in the long

term may make sense if we were to

conclude that a more stringent standard

is feasible at least for some engines. We

request comment on whether we should

consider an ABT program for SI engines,

and what, if any, restrictions we should

place on such a program.

8. Applicability of MARPOL Annex VI

On September 27, 1997, the

International Maritime Organization

(IMO) adopted a new Annex VI to the

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships

(MARPOL 73/78) and opened the Annex

for acceptance by its members. This

Annex, which contains regulations for

the prevention of air pollution from

ships, will go into force internationally

one year after fifteen countries,

representing at least 50 percent of the

gross tonnage of the world’s merchant

shipping fleet, have ratified it. The

Annex will acquire the force of law in

the United States after it goes into force

internationally and it is ratified by the

United States, following approval of the

Senate.

Regulation 13 of Annex VI requires

that each diesel engine with a power

output of more than 130 kW which is

installed on a ship constructed on or

after 1 January 2000, or each diesel

engine with a power output of more

than 130 kW which undergoes a major

conversion on or after 1 January 2000

meet the NOX limits described by the

following formula:

17.0 g/kW-hr when n is less than 130

rpm

45.0 * n(¥0.2) g/kW-hr when 130 ≤ n <

2000 rpm

9.8 g/kW-hr when n ≥ 2000 rpm

Where n is rated engine speed

(crankshaft revolutions per minute)

One of the issues that will be

considered in our notice of proposed

rulemaking is how these emission limits

affect recreational engines and vessels.

Because recreational vessels are

included in the MARPOL definition of

‘‘ship,’’ prudent recreational vessel

manufacturers should have begun

installing MARPOL-compliant engines

in their newly-constructed vessels on

January 1, 2000, even though the Annex

has not yet gone into force.64 This is

because the Annex may be enforceable

retroactive to January 1, 2000 once it

goes into effect internationally. To

facilitate this process, EPA established a

voluntary compliance program whereby

engine manufacturers may obtain a

Statement of Voluntary Compliance

from EPA after they provide evidence

76822 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

65See the fact sheet ‘‘Frequently Asked

Questions: MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI Marine Diesel

Engine Requirements,’’ EPA420–F–99–038, October

1999, www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm.

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

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

that their engine meets the Annex VI

NOX limits.65

To help us prepare our proposal for

recreational engine emission

requirements, we request comment on

several questions. First, we request

input on the extent to which

recreational vessel builders are aware of

the MARPOL requirements for marine

diesel engines, and the extent to which

they are attempting to comply with

them. Second, we request comment on

how many times a vessel with a marine

diesel engine over 130 kW can be

expected to change owners over its life.

This information is important for

compliance purposes. Third, we request

comment on whether meeting the

Annex VI NOX limits will interfere with

an engine manufacturer’s ability to meet

the more stringent national recreational

marine diesel emission standards under

consideration.

9. Harmonization With the European

Commission

The European Commission has

proposed emission limits for

recreational marine engines, including

both diesel and gasoline engines. These

requirements would apply to all new

engines sold in member countries. The

numerical emission limits, shown in

Table V–2, consist of the Annex VI NOX

limit for small marine diesel engines

and the rough equivalent of Tier 1

nonroad emission levels for HC and CO.

Emission testing is to be conducted

using the ISO D2 duty cycle for

constant-speed engines and the ISO E5

duty cycle for all other engines. Table

V–2 also includes the proposed limits

for gasoline engines tested on the ISO

E4 duty cycle.

Industry and others have commented

to us on the value of harmonization of

emission standards. Manufacturers who

sell engines in several countries can

minimize costs by designing to a single

set of standards. In setting standards

under section 213 of the Act, EPA is

required to consider technology, cost,

energy, and other factors to achieve the

greatest degree of emissions reductions

achievable. We are concerned that these

standards would do no more than cap

emissions at baseline levels and are not

the kind of appropriate technologyforcing standards that would allow us to

achieve the greatest achievable

reductions from this category.

According to our data on 20 recreational

CI marine engines (tested for both NOX

and PM) and 10 SI SD/I engines, average

baseline emission levels already meet

the proposed European limits. These

baseline averages are included in Table

V–3. We request comment on the level

of stringency of the proposed European

emission limits.

TABLE V–3.—PROPOSED EUROPEAN EMISSION LIMITS AND EPA BASELINE DATA FOR RECREATIONAL MARINE ENGINES

(G/KW-HR)

Pollutant CI limit a CI baseline SI limit b SI baseline

NOX ...................................................................................................................... 9.8 8.9 15 9.2

PM ........................................................................................................................ 1.4 0.2 ...................... ........................

HC ........................................................................................................................ 1.5 0.3 6.4 5.7

CO ........................................................................................................................ 5.0 1.3 152 145

a HC limit increases slightly with increasing engine power rating.

bFor 300 kW engine; HC and CO limits increase slightly with decreasing power rating.

10. Consumer Labeling

We request comment on the need for,

effectiveness of, and alternatives to a

consumer labeling program. The

purpose of this program would be to

educate consumers so that they could

make informed decisions concerning

engine emissions when they purchase a

boat. One example of a consumer

labeling program is the California Air

Resources Board’s requirement that

personal watercraft and outboard

engines sold in California starting in

2001 be labeled as either low, very-low,

or ultra-low depending on their

emission levels. We request comment

on whether or not a program such as

this should be voluntary or mandatory.

We also request comment on how this

should be implemented considering that

most boats and engines are produced by

separate manufacturers.

VI. Large Spark Ignition Engines

A. Background

1. What Engines Are Included in This

Rulemaking?

This section applies to most nonroad

spark-ignition engines rated over 19 kW

(‘‘Large SI engines’’). These engines

power equipment such as forklifts,

sweepers, pumps, and generators. This

would include marine auxiliary engines,

but not marine propulsion engines or

engines used in snowmobiles,

motorcycles, or other recreational

applications. The applications not

addressed in this section are addressed

elsewhere in this document.

Our most recent rulemaking for

nonroad diesel engines finalized a

definition of ‘‘compression-ignition’’

that was intended to include dieselderived natural gas engines under that

program.66 However, according to the

manufacturers of these engines, they do

not meet the definition of compressionignition engines. All nonroad engines

are defined as either compressionignition or spark-ignition engines. So, if

these natural gas engines are not subject

to emission standards for nonroad diesel

engines, they will instead be covered by

the emission standards for Large SI

engines. We are currently reviewing the

claims of these manufacturers regarding

how their engines should be classified.

We request comment on whether we

should revise the definitions that

differentiate between these types of

engines.

Most Large SI engines have a total

displacement greater than one liter. The

design and application of the few Large

SI engines currently being produced

with displacement less than one liter are

very similar to those of engines rated

below 19 kW, which are typically used

for lawn and garden applications. As

described in the most recent rulemaking

for these smaller engines, we intend to

propose that manufacturers may certify

engines above 19 kW with total

displacement of one liter or less to the

requirements we have already adopted

in 40 CFR part 90 for engines below 19

kW.67 These engines would then be

exempt from the requirements

contemplated in this document. This

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76823

68 ‘‘Industrial Trucks, Internal Combustion

Engine-Powered,’’ UL558, ninth edition, June 28,

1996.

would be consistent with the California

ARB rulemaking. This approach would

allow manufacturers of small air-cooled

engines to certify their engines rated

over 19 kW with the program adopted

for the comparable engines with slightly

lower power ratings.

We are concerned that treating all

engines less than one liter as Small SI

engines may be inadequate. For

example, lawn and garden engines

generally don’t use turbochargers or

other technologies to achieve very high

power levels. However, it may be

possible for someone to design an

engine under one liter with unusually

high power, which would more

appropriately be grouped with other

Large SI engines rather than with Small

SI engines. To address this concern, we

may propose a maximum power level

for engines to qualify for treatment as

Small SI engines. A power rating of 30

kW seems to represent a maximum

reasonable power output that is possible

from SI engines under one liter with

technologies typical of lawn and garden

engines. We request comment on the

suggested power threshold and on any

other approaches to addressing the

concern for properly constraining this

provision.

2. Who Makes Large SI Engines?

The companies producing Large SI

engines are typically subsidiaries of

automotive companies. In most cases,

these companies modify car and truck

engines for industrial applications.

However, the Large SI industry has

historically taken a much less

centralized approach to designing and

producing engines. Engine

manufacturers often sell dressed engine

blocks without manifolds or fuel

systems. Fuel system suppliers have

played a big role in designing and

calibrating nonroad engines, sometimes

participating directly in engine

assembly. Several equipment

manufacturers, mostly forklift

producers, also play the role of an

engine manufacturer by calibrating

engine models and completing engine

assembly.

Sales volumes are another important

contrast with automotive production.

Total Large SI engine sales are about

150,000 per year in the U.S. Sales are

distributed rather evenly among several

companies, so typical sales volumes for

each company range generally from

10,000 to 25,000 engines per year. These

sales volumes and the overall size of the

companies limit the amount of research

and development available to meet new

emission standards.

3. What Is the Regulatory History?

Currently no federal emission

standards exist for Large SI engines. We

have, however, adopted successively

more stringent standards for the

automotive engines from which most

Large SI engines are derived. Heavyduty highway otto-cycle engines

provide the most direct comparison. We

have adopted emission standards for

2005 and later model year engines and

proposed more stringent standards for

2007 and later model year engines. We

request comment on the degree to which

these technologies can be readily

transferred or adapted to the counterpart

nonroad engines.

The California ARB in 1998 adopted

requirements that apply to new Large SI

engines produced for California starting

in 2001. We are considering similar

requirements for these engines in the

near term. In the longer term, we are

also considering revised emission

standards reflecting the emission

reductions achievable with available

technology, as described below.

While we have not yet set emission

standards for this category of engines,

the industry has some experience

complying with standards through the

requirements for forklifts set by

Underwriters Laboratories.68 These

standards, which focus primarily on

ensuring safety, require the industry to

conduct testing and submit plans for

approval, much like certifying to

emission standards.

An additional important

consideration for Large SI engines is the

workplace air contaminant limits

adopted by the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration for CO and NO2.

Facility managers, not engine or

equipment manufacturers, are

responsible for meeting these limits.

However, concerns for high indoor

pollutant concentrations have created a

small but distinct demand for aggressive

emission controls on forklifts. These

emission controls have become

commonplace in Europe, even in the

absence of emission standards.

B. Technology

Although Large SI engines are often

derived from automotive engines,

manufacturers have generally not

incorporated the technological advances

from cars and trucks. Most fuel systems

in gasoline engines have carburetors

with no feedback controls. LPG and

natural gas engines typically use mixer

technology that has changed little over

the last several decades.

Some Large SI engine models have no

automotive counterpart; many of these

use air-cooling instead of a conventional

radiator system. Air-cooled engines can

use the same emission-control

technologies as water-cooled engines,

but they have operating characteristics

that can increase the challenge of

reaching low emission levels. For

example, uneven heating of the engine

block can cause distortion of the

cylinders, increasing the possibility of

hydrocarbon emissions from unburned

fuel.

The standards for spark-ignition

engines would apply for all fuel types.

The majority of Large SI engines use

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Engines

running on LPG can use fuel cylinders

or draw fuel directly from a pipeline.

Gasoline is also used in many

applications. Natural gas is less

common, but serves in several niche

markets.

The California ARB emission

standards were developed based on the

expected capabilities of three-way

catalytic converters with electronic

fueling systems to control emissions. A

limited number of forklifts have been

operating with these emission-control

technologies for several years. In

addition to controlling emissions, these

emission-control technologies can

significantly reduce fuel consumption.

In a high-use application, the fuel

savings can fully offset the increased

price for the emission controls within

one year or less. The redesigned engines

also hold promise for improving engine

performance, for example with more

reliable starting and better torque

characteristics.

Both EPA and California ARB have

pursued emission testing to determine

the capabilities of emission-control

technologies for Large SI engines. This

effort will also help us establish

emission standards that correspond

with the degree of emission control

achievable from the anticipated

technologies over the full operating life

of industrial equipment. We believe that

manufacturers can optimize their

engines to substantially reduce CO,

NOX, and HC emissions at a reasonable

cost with these redesigned engines.

C. Standards and Program Approaches

We are considering emission

standards for Large SI engines based on

what manufacturers can achieve with

available technology. This may include

a combination of near-term standards

similar to California ARB’s and longterm standards for optimized systems.

In addition, we are considering new

procedures for measuring emissions,

including a transient duty cycle and

76824 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

69–70 ‘‘Evaluation of Emissions Durability of OffRoad LPG Engines Equipped with Three-Way

Catalysts,’’ by Vlad Ulmet, Southwest Research

Institute, November 2000, (Docket A–2000–01,

document II–A–07).

71See ‘‘Emission Data and Procedures for Large

SI Engines’’ for more information (Docket A–2000–

01; document II–B–1).

provisions to test for ‘‘off-cycle’’

emissions. These are described further

in the following sections.

We do not presently intend to propose

particulate matter emission standards

because of the low levels of particulate

matter associated with well maintained

SI engines, as well as the substantial

cost of technologies designed to regulate

particulate matter directly from these

engines. However, we expect that the

incorporation of the projected emissioncontrol technologies would reduce

particulate matter emissions. This is

similar to the approach we have taken

for highway gasoline engines.

We request comment on this approach

to setting standards, including the

technology basis for controlling

emissions, the combination of near-term

and long-term standards, and the

approach to addressing PM emissions.

1. Near-Term Emission Standards

We are considering near-term

emission standards, including standards

consistent with those adopted by

California ARB. These standards are 4 g/

kW-hr (3 g/hp-hr) for NMHC+ NOX

emissions and 50 g/kW-hr (37 g/hp-hr)

for CO emissions. California ARB

specifies the ISO C2 duty cycle for

measuring emissions from variablespeed engines, and the ISO D2 duty

cycle for testing constant-speed engines.

The C2 duty cycle consists mostly of

intermediate-speed points, while all the

D2 test points are at rated speed. We

request comment on establishing

standards consistent with those in

California, including using the duty

cycles in the same way. We also request

comment on the appropriateness of

requiring certification testing on both of

these duty cycles for engine models that

may ultimately be used in both variablespeed and constant-speed applications.

California ARB adopted its emission

standards based on the capabilities of

three-way catalytic converters and

electronically controlled fuel systems.

These systems would be similar to those

used for many years in highway

applications, but not necessarily with

the same degree of sophistication.

Adopting California ARB’s emission

standards would allow near-term

introduction of low-emission

technologies for substantial emission

reductions. The manufacturers would in

this case also be able to more easily

amortize their development costs by

spreading these costs over larger

production volumes.

The California ARB standards will be

fully phased in by 2004. With a current

expectation of completing an EPA final

rule by September 2002, we believe

manufacturers may have enough lead

time to expand production of Californiacompliant engines to a nationwide

market. If EPA and California standards

were consistent, manufacturers may not

need to do any additional development

work or repeat any certification testing

to meet the federal standards. We

request comment on whether we should

propose near-term standards for 2004

model year engines, or if manufacturers

will need additional time to manage full

production of low-emission engines.

As described for the long-term

standards below, we are interested in

the possibility of adopting standards

based on total hydrocarbon emissions,

rather than nonmethane hydrocarbon.

We request comment on proposing

standards based on total hydrocarbon

measurement. This would potentially

save manufacturers the expense of

measuring methane emissions for

certification, production-line, or in-use

testing. Since methane is largely

nonreactive in the atmosphere, we have

often set emission standards excluding

methane measurement. We could adjust

the standard as needed to reflect typical

methane concentrations in controlled

engines. This would apply to gasolineand LPG-fueled engines. Natural gasfueled engines would continue to have

a standard based on nonmethane

emissions because the large majority of

their total hydrocarbon emissions

consist of methane. We request

comment on this approach.

2. Long-Term Duty-Cycle Emission

Standards

We believe that, given additional

time, manufacturers would be able to

optimize designs to control emissions to

lower levels using the same emissioncontrol technologies used to meet the

near-term standards. Therefore, we are

also requesting comment on more

stringent emission standards using more

robust measurement procedures, as

described below.

General standards. Manufacturers

have used electronically controlled fuel

systems with three-way catalysts in

automotive applications for many years.

During this time, these systems and

components have undergone substantial

improvements in their ability to reduce

emissions with minimal degradation

during field operation. Recent testing by

Southwest Research Institute shows that

these systems can reduce NOX, HC, and

CO emissions by 90 percent or more

over several thousand hours of normal

operation.69–70 While the test data help

us select emission standards, we first

need to address several open issues.

These issues are summarized here and

described in greater detail in the

technical memoranda referenced in this

document.

—The combination of duty cycles for

testing. Emission measurements at

Southwest Research Institute have

shown that engines can achieve

effective control on a wide variety of

duty cycles, but that good

performance on one duty cycle does

not guarantee good performance on

another. Thus, it is important that we

select the appropriate duty cycles to

provide a reasonable assurance that

systems will control emissions when

operating in the field.

—Consideration of cold-start effects.

Engine emissions immediately after

starting can be much higher than

emissions from a hot engine. We need

to determine the appropriate

treatment of cold-start effects in the

test procedure before we can propose

emission standards.

—The achievable precision of control

software. Electronic systems for

automotive applications have reached

a high level of sophistication for

monitoring a wide variety of engine

variables to maintain effective control

of combustion and after treatment

processes. While Large SI engine

manufacturers can benefit from these

developments, the cost and

complexity of these systems at some

point may no longer be appropriate

for the more cost-sensitive, lowvolume nonroad applications.

—Fuel specifications. As described

further below, we need to evaluate inuse fuel quality before proposing fuel

specifications for emission testing.

With this wide range of test and

design variables, we request comment

on long-term emissions standards

ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 g/kW-hr (1 to 2

g/hp-hr) HC+ NOX and from 4 to 10 g/

kW-hr (3 to 7.5 g/hp-hr) CO. We are

interested in comments as to potentially

appropriate standards within these

ranges, as well as comments on the

appropriateness of the ranges

themselves. The range of possible CO

emission standards is especially wide

because CO emission levels are sensitive

to the degree of engine warm-up at the

beginning of the test. This range of

standards is based on test data showing

the emission levels that Large SI engines

can achieve with steady-state and

transient duty cycles.71 We request

comment on the capability of Large SI

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76825

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

engines to meet these emission levels,

on the associated costs for these

emission-control systems, and on the

corresponding estimated emission

reductions estimated to be achieved

therefrom. We also request comment on

the applicability of the underlying test

data.

In another rulemaking, we are

pursuing even lower emission levels for

heavy-duty highway engines starting in

2008, including otto-cycle (or sparkignition) engines. We have proposed

changing these emission standards to

0.20 g/hp-hr (0.26 g/kW-hr) for NOX

emissions and 0.14 g/hp-hr (0.19 g/kWhr) for NMHC emissions.72 We request

comment on whether Large SI engines

would be able to apply the associated

highway-engine technologies at a

reasonable cost.

Emission standards for different fuel

types. Most of the emission data on

which we are likely to base the

proposed emission standards was

generated from engines using liquefied

petroleum gas (LPG). We could take

California ARB’s approach of applying

the same numerical emission standards

regardless of fuel, except for the special

treatment of methane emissions from

natural gas engines. Gasoline engines

have very different fuel systems than

LPG or natural gas engines. Engines

built from automotive engine blocks can

readily adopt port fuel injection, which

provides a great advantage over gaseous

mixer technology in controlling

emissions. Also, the emission levels

described above are consistent with the

requirements that apply to heavy-duty

highway otto-cycle engines starting in

2005.

A possible exception to common

emission standards may be for CO

emissions. Uncontrolled CO emission

levels from gasoline engines can be

much higher than are typically found

from LPG engines. We believe, however,

that a separate CO standard for gasoline

engines may not be necessary for two

reasons. First, highway gasoline engines

have been controlling CO emissions to

lower levels for many years. Second,

fuel systems and catalysts can be

designed and calibrated for a very high

CO conversion efficiency. We request

comment on the need to accommodate

higher CO emission levels from gasoline

engines. Data supporting such an

argument should include engine-out CO

emission levels at stoichiometric

operation and information regarding

conversion efficiencies available for

gasoline engine emission-control

equipment. We also request comment

on the advantages of having identical

standards for all fuels.

Special cases. The above discussion

applies generally to Large SI engines.

However, there are special concerns that

warrant further attention.

Air-cooled engines. Some air-cooled

engines are designed to operate in

applications where water-cooled

engines may not function effectively.

These engines are most commonly used

in industrial saws or chippers where

ambient dust levels prevent the use of

radiators to cool the engine. Air-cooled

Large SI engines share some important

design features and operating

characteristics with smaller air-cooled

engines that are commonly used in lawn

and garden applications. As described

above, air-cooled engines face unique

constraints for controlling emissions.

These constraints seem to be especially

problematic for CO emissions, causing

manufacturers to add a greater degree of

emission-control technology than that

needed for water-cooled engines to meet

California ARB standards.

We have identified three possible

approaches to proposing emission

standards for air-cooled engines. First,

we could require them to meet the same

emission standards as water-cooled

engines. Especially for any long-term

emission standards, this would require

an extensive development effort to

apply emission-control technologies in a

way that would adequately control

emissions. This would prevent any

unfair competitive advantages by giving

special treatment to a higher-emitting

engine type.

Second, we could propose that all aircooled engines meet the emission

standards we have adopted for nonroad

SI engines under 19 kW. The largest

engines under 19 kW (nonhandheld

Class II) must meet standards of 12.1 g/

kW-hr for NOX+HC emissions and 610

g/kW-hr for CO emissions. Since

engines under 19 kW are almost all aircooled, they share some important

design characteristics with Large SI

engines that are air-cooled.

Third, we could propose the same

NOX+HC for both air-cooled and watercooled engines, but to allow air-cooled

engines to meet less stringent CO

emission standards. To avoid giving aircooled engines a broad competitive

advantage in applications where they

are seldom used today, we could limit

this less stringent CO standard to

engines used predominantly in severeduty applications. Under this approach,

we would consider an application

severe-duty if the majority of engines

used in that application do not use

water-cooling systems. Currently

available data would suggest an

adjusted CO standard of 75 to 100 g/kWhr (55 to 75 g/hp-hr) CO for these

engines.

We request comment on these and

other potential approaches to proposing

emission standards from air-cooled

engines.

Equipment Used Predominantly

Indoors. Operators of Large SI engines

can today install emission-control

systems with extremely low CO

emission levels. CO emission levels can

be especially low in these current

systems where manufacturers are not

required to simultaneously control for

NOX and HC emissions. We are

concerned that emission standards

requiring simultaneous control of all the

regulated pollutants will limit

manufacturers ability to continue to

supply engines with very low CO

emission levels. With increased concern

for exposing individuals to engine

exhaust in confined spaces, this may be

especially problematic. We therefore

request comment on alternate long-term

standards that would allow the

manufacturer to better balance emission

levels of the various pollutants to offer

low-CO engines for predominantly

indoor applications.

One possible scenario would be

increasing the HC+NOX emission

standard somewhat (for example, to 3 or

4 g/kW-hr), while tightening the CO

emission standard (for example, to 1 or

2 g/kW-hr). We request comment on the

need for such an alternate standard and

on the emission standards that should

apply. We also request comment on

whether there would be any need to (1)

adopt provisions to ensure that these

engines are indeed operated

predominantly in sensitive, indoor

applications; (2) limit the number of

these engine sales; or (3) adopt any

other provisions to ensure that these

alternate emission standards are not

used to avoid the general standards.

Another alternative would be to adopt

fuel-specific standards. Since LPG and

natural gas are more likely to be used in

enclosed areas, we could focus on

adopting very stringent CO emission

levels for these engines, with less of an

emphasis on NOX and HC emission

levels. Since gasoline engines are not

commonly used indoors, their emission

standards could maximize NOX and HC

reductions, with less aggressive control

of CO emissions. We request comment

on adopting fuel-specific emission

standards to address concerns for indoor

air quality.

3. Supplemental Emission Standards

To address concerns for controlling

emissions outside of the discrete

procedures adopted for certification, we

76826 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

73See ‘‘Emission Data and Procedures for Large

SI Engines’’ for more information (Docket A–2000–

01; item II–B–1).

are considering requirements that would

apply to a wider range of normal engine

operation. We generally refer to this as

off-cycle emissions.

Our goal is to achieve control of

emissions over the broad range of in-use

speed and load combinations that can

occur in a Large SI engine to achieve

real-world emission control, rather than

just controlling emissions under certain

laboratory conditions. An important tool

for achieving this goal is an in-use

program with an objective standard and

an easily implemented test procedure.

No single test procedure can cover all

real-world applications, operations, or

conditions. Yet, to ensure that emission

standards are providing the intended

benefits in use, we should have a

reasonable expectation that emissions

under real-world conditions reflect

those measured on the test procedure.

Because the projected duty-cycles

include specific operating modes

(engine speeds and loads), we are

concerned that an engine designed only

to duty-cycle standards would not

necessarily have the same emission

performance in use. In contrast, an

engine operating in any given piece of

equipment may often operate at speed

and load combinations not included in

the certification duty cycle. Emission

levels at speed and load points not

represented in the duty cycles could be

significantly higher than those

measured with the duty cycles. Also, if

manufacturers design engines to control

emissions only under relatively narrow

laboratory conditions, this does not

ensure that the engines will control

emissions under the wide range of

ambient temperature, pressure, and

humidity the engines will experience in

the field. Testing by Southwest Research

Institute highlighted this concern,

showing that steady-state emission

levels can increase ten-fold or more at

speed-load points not included in the

duty cycles. 73

‘‘Not-to-exceed’’ testing would be one

option for ensuring that emissions are

controlled from Large SI engines over

the full range of speed and load

combinations seen in the field. Under

not-to-exceed testing, we would specify

an emission standard that applies more

broadly than the traditional duty-cycle

standard. The not-to-exceed standard

would apply to all regulated pollutants

(NOX, HC, and CO) during a wide range

of normal operation. In other programs

where we have adopted not-to-exceed

standards, the testing includes a broad

range of in-use ambient conditions (i.e.,

temperature, pressure, and humidity),

but excludes measurement during any

kind of abnormal operation.

The recent testing at Southwest

Research Institute (SwRI) would appear

to support not-to-exceed emission

standards of 1.0 to 3.5 g/kW-hr (1.3 to

2.6 g/hp-hr) for NOX+HC emissions and

7 to 13 g/kW-hr (5 to 10 g/hp-hr) for CO

emissions. We would intend to allow

considerable development time for

manufacturers to meet any not-toexceed provisions. If we adopt alternate

emission standards for severe-duty

engines, gasoline engines, or engines

used in indoor applications, as

described above, any corresponding notto-exceed emission standards would be

higher than the duty-cycle standards to

serve as a cap on varying emission

levels that result from different engine

operation or ambient conditions.

D. Additional Program Considerations

1. Compliance Program Elements

In general, we expect to align our

certification and compliance programs

with those adopted by California ARB to

the greatest extent possible. In

particular, any near-term emission

standards we may adopt should require

no additional development or testing

beyond what manufacturers are already

doing to produce compliant engines for

California. While long-term standards

and other additional provisions may go

beyond what California has already

adopted, we expect to design the

program to limit the additional burden.

Nevertheless, these additional

requirements would be important

enhancements and would lead to a

much more effective control program.

We request comment on the details of

the compliance program adopted by

California ARB, and whether the details

of the compliance program are

appropriate for use in the federal

program. This includes several

elements, such as production-line

testing and in-use testing by

manufacturers; useful life, deterioration

factors, and warranty requirements; and

several other provisions. The principal

provisions under consideration that

California ARB has not already adopted

include:

—Procedures for testing emissions in

the field in lieu of laboratory

dynamometer testing.

—Specification of basic engine

diagnostics to keep engines operating

in their certified configuration.

—Concepts for manufacturers to control

evaporative emissions.

—Provisions for engine rebuilders to

bring engines back to their lowemission configuration when they are

rebuilt.

2. Field Testing

One possible provision that should be

highlighted is the possibility of adopting

field-measurement procedures. As

described above, we are considering

proposing California ARB’s requirement

for manufacturers to test their in-use

engines. Under this program,

manufacturers remove in-use engines

from equipment for testing in the

laboratory. However, if we adopt fieldmeasurement procedures,

manufacturers would be allowed to

show that they meet emission standards

with in-use engines by measuring

emissions directly from engines without

removing them from the equipment.

There are significant advantages to

testing engines in the field. The reduced

testing effort could substantially reduce

the cost of in-use emission testing, both

for manufacturers and for the Agency.

Also, testing would capture real in-use

engine operation, rather than relying on

a surrogate duty cycle in the laboratory.

We request comment on the desirability

of developing measurement procedures

to allow field testing of Large SI engines.

One constraint of measuring

emissions in the field is the difficulty in

measuring methane. Because of this, we

are interested in proposing emission

standards based on total hydrocarbon

measurements, at least for field testing.

We request comment on proposing total

hydrocarbon standards also for

laboratory testing. For gasoline and LPG

engines, methane generally accounts for

less than 10 percent of uncontrolled

emissions, so this can easily be

accounted for in selecting emission

standards. As described above, we

would need to rely on a nonmethane

hydrocarbon emission standard for

natural gas engines. This may limit the

possibility of testing natural gas engines

in the field.

3. In-Use Fuel Quality

In addition, manufacturers have

raised the concern that in-use LPG fuels

have highly varying quality. It is not

clear that different LPG fuel

compositions would have a direct effect

on tailpipe emission levels. However,

lower-quality fuels have a tendency to

cause fuel condensation, and eventually

gumming, on fuel system components.

Since fuel systems play a central role in

an engine’s emission control system,

this can eventually affect an engine’s

ability to accurately meter fuel, resulting

in increased emission levels. We request

comment on the need for and possibility

of developing an industry-wide

specification for in-use LPG fuels to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76827

address this problem. In addition, we

request comment on the possibility of

applying engine technology to limit

condensation of impurities or heavy-end

hydrocarbon molecules from lowerquality fuel.

VII. Public Participation

We are committed to a full and open

regulatory process with input from a

wide range of interested parties. As part

of any rulemaking, opportunities for

input will include a formal public

comment period and a public hearing.

With today’s action, we open a

comment period for this advance notice.

We will accept comments until

February 5, 2001. We encourage

comment on all issues raised here, and

on any other issues you consider

relevant. The most useful comments are

those supported by appropriate and

detailed rationales, data, and analyses.

All comments, with the exception of

proprietary information, should be

directed to the docket (see ADDRESSES).

If you wish to submit proprietary

information for consideration, you

should clearly separate such

information from other comments by (1)

labeling proprietary information

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

and (2) sending proprietary information

directly to the contact person listed (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and

not to the public docket. This will help

ensure that proprietary information is

not inadvertently placed in the docket.

If you want us to use a submission of

confidential information as part of the

basis for a proposal, then a

nonconfidential version of the

document that summarizes the key data

or information should be sent to the

docket.

We will disclose information covered

by a claim of confidentiality only to the

extent allowed and in accordance with

the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part

2. If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission, it will be

made available to the public without

further notice to the commenter.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility

Section 605 of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq. requires the Administrator to assess

the economic impact of proposed rules

on small entities. The Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA) of 1996, Public Law 104–121,

amended the RFA to strengthen its

analytical and procedural requirements

and to ensure that small entities are

adequately considered during rule

development. The Agency accordingly

requests comment on the potential

impacts on a small business of the

program described in this notice. These

comments will help the Agency meet its

obligations under SBREFA and will

suggest how EPA can minimize the

impacts of this rule for small companies

that may be adversely affected.

Depending on the number of small

entities identified prior to the proposal

and the level of any contemplated

regulatory action, we may convene a

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

under section 609(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act as amended by SBREFA.

The purpose of the Panel (or multiple

Panels, as necessary) would be to collect

the advice and recommendations of

representatives of small entities that

could be affected by the eventual rule.

If we determine that a panel is not

warranted, we would intend to work on

a less formal basis with those small

entities identified.

We request information on small

entities potentially affected by this

rulemaking. Information on company

size, number of employees, annual

revenues and product lines would be

especially useful. Confidential business

information may be submitted as

described in section VII. The following

sections address several specific issues

for different industries.

A. Recreational Vehicles and Highway

Motorcycles

We anticipate that industries related

to recreational vehicles and highway

motorcycles that may be affected by this

rulemaking will largely fall within the

categories listed in Table VIII–1 below.

We request comment on the

completeness and accuracy of the list,

and on the suitability for this

rulemaking of the definitions of small

business established by SBA. We may

propose to change these definitions, if

such changes would better suit the

particular industries and regulations

being considered.

TABLE VIII–1.—RECREATIONAL VEHICLE INDUSTRIES WITH SMALL BUSINESSES

Industry NAICSa

codes Defined by SBA as a Small Business If:b

Gasoline engine and parts manufacturers ................................... 336312 <750 employees.

Motorcycles and motorcycle parts manufacturers ........................ 336991 <500 employees.

Snowmobile and ATV manufacturers ........................................... 336999 <500 employees.

Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and parts .......... 421110 <100 employees.

Notes:

a. North American Industry Classification System.

b. According to SBA’s regulations (13 CFR part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered ‘‘small entities’’ for purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis.

B. Large SI

Table VIII–2 lists the industry

segments that relate to companies that

may need to meet emission standards

and other requirements for Large SI

engines. Two engine manufacturers

qualify as small businesses. Both of

these companies plan to produce

engines that meet the standards adopted

by California ARB in 2004. Since we

don’t expect the near-term standards

contemplated in this document to add

any significant requirements to the

California ARB program, these

standards would impose very little new

burden for these and other

manufacturers. If we adopt long-term

standards, this would require

manufacturers to do additional

calibration and testing work. If we adopt

new test procedures (including transient

operation), there may also be a cost

associated with upgrading test facilities.

If we set emission standards to mirror

the levels proposed for 2007 highway

heavy-duty engines, this would also

require extensive hardware and product

development to reduce emissions.

In addition, we are considering

recordkeeping requirements for

companies that rebuild Large SI engines.

These would be very similar to the

requirements we have already adopted

for highway engines, nonroad diesel

engines, and commercial marine diesel

engines. Many of these companies

qualify as small businesses, but we

expect the added burden to be very

small.

76828 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

74 ‘‘Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission

Study—Report and Appendices,’’ EPA–21A–201,

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

75The terms HC (hydrocarbon) and VOC (volatile

organic carbon) refer to similar sets of chemicals

and are generally used interchangeably.

76See Final Finding, ‘‘Control of Emissions from

New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines Rated above

19 Kilowatts and New Land-Based Recreational

Spark-Ignition Engines’’ elsewhere in today’s

Federal Register for EPA’s finding for Large SI

engines and recreational vehicles. EPA’s findings

for marine engines are contained in 61 FR 52088

(October 4, 1996) for gasoline engines and 64 FR

73299 (December 29, 1999) for diesel engines.

77The nonroad study (NEVES) found that

nonroad sources are responsible for approximately

5.55 percent of the total anthropogenic inventory of

PM emissions and over one percent of total PM

emissions in six to ten of the thirteen

nonattainment areas surveyed.

TABLE VIII–2.—LARGE SI INDUSTRIES WITH SMALL BUSINESSES

Industry NAICS code Defined by SBA as a small business if:

Nonroad SI engines ...................................................................... 333618 <1,000 employees.

Industrial trucks ............................................................................. 333924 <750 employees.

Engine repair and maintenance ................................................... 811310 <$5 million revenues.

C. Recreational Marine

The recreational marine sector

includes a variety of engine and boat

manufacturers that are small businesses.

We convened a Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel under section

609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996. We describe the rulemaking issues

related to these small businesses in

section V.D.4.

IX. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), the Agency must

determine whether this regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as any regulatory

action (including an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking) that is likely to

result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or,

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

This Advance Notice was submitted

to OMB for review. Any written

comments from OMB and any EPA

response to OMB comments are in the

public docket for this Notice.

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal

Authority

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

42 U.S.C. 7547(a), requires that we

study the emissions from all categories

of nonroad engines and equipment

(other than locomotives) to determine,

among other things, whether these

emissions ‘‘cause or significantly

contribute to air pollution which may

reasonably be anticipated to endanger

public health and welfare.’’ Section

213(a)(2) further requires us to

determine, through notice and

comment, whether the emissions of

carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), and oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) found in the above study

significantly contributes to ozone or CO

concentrations in more than one ozone

or CO nonattainment area. With such a

determination of significance, section

213(a)(3) requires us to establish

emission standards applicable to CO,

VOC, and NOX emissions from classes

or categories of new nonroad engines

and vehicles that cause or contribute to

such air pollution. Moreover, if we

determine that any other emissions from

new nonroad engines contribute

significantly to air pollution, we may

promulgate emission standards under

section 213(a)(4) regulating emissions

from classes or categories of new

nonroad engines that we find contribute

to such air pollution.

As directed by the Clean Air Act, we

conducted a study of emissions from

nonroad engines, vehicles, and

equipment in 1991.74 Based on the

results of that study, referred to as

NEVES, we determined that emissions

of NOX, HC, and CO from nonroad

engines and equipment contribute

significantly to ozone and CO

concentrations in more than one

nonattainment area (see 59 FR 31306,

June 17, 1994).75 Given this

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

Act requires us to promulgate emissions

standards for those classes or categories

of new nonroad engines, vehicles, and

equipment that in our judgment cause

or contribute to such air pollution. We

have found that the nonroad engines

included in this ANPRM ‘‘cause or

contribute’’ to such air pollution.76

Where we determine that other

emissions from nonroad engines,

vehicles, or equipment significantly

contribute to air pollution that may

reasonably be anticipated to endanger

public health or welfare, section

213(a)(4) authorizes us to establish (and

from time to time revise) emission

standards from those classes or

categories of new nonroad engines,

vehicles, and equipment that we

determine cause or contribute to such

air pollution, taking into account cost,

noise, safety and energy factors

associated with the application of

technology used to meet the standards.

We have made this determination for

emissions of particulate matter (PM) and

smoke from nonroad engines (see 59 FR

31306, June 17, 1994). In that

rulemaking, we found that smoke

emissions from nonroad engines

significantly contribute to such air

pollution based on smoke’s relationship

to the particulate matter that makes up

smoke as well as smoke’s effect on

visibility and soiling of urban buildings

and other property. Particulate matter

can be inhaled into the lower lung

cavity, posing a potential health threat.

We cited recent studies associating PM

with increased mortality.77 We also

promulgated standards for emissions of

PM and smoke from nonroad diesel

engines in that rulemaking. We have

also found that emissions of PM from

nonroad engines included in this

ANPRM ‘‘cause or contribute’’ to such

air pollution.

Section 202 (a)(3)(E) provides EPA

with authority to revise highway

motorcycle emissions standards,

establishing standards which reflect the

greatest degree of emission reduction

achievable, taking cost and other factors

into consideration. EPA may promulgate

new standards based on the effects of

the air pollutants on public health and

welfare. EPA may also reclassify

motorcycles as light-duty vehicles or

classify them as a separate class or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76829

category. In such case that motorcycles

are a separate class or category, the Act

directs EPA to consider the need to

achieve equivalency or emission

reductions between motorcycles and

other vehicles to the maximum extent

practicable. We request comment on

how any potential regulatory programs

would be consistent with these sections.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 94

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Confidential

business information, Imports,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Vessels, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1048

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 1051

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–30105 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U