Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2002)765 - Amendment of Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2002)765 - Amendment of Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2002)765  |
| date | 27-12-2002 |
Requirements concerning emissions of air pollutants from compression ignition (CI) engines intended for use in non-road mobile machinery and with an engine power of 18-560 kW are covered by Directive 97/68/EC. The Directive includes two stages of emission standards. Stage I standards have already entered into force for all power bands and Stage II standards will enter into force between 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2003 depending on the power band. In December 2000, the Commission, in accordance with recital i of the said Directive, presented a proposal to include small (19 kW or below) spark-ignition (petrol) engines within its scope. This proposal was voted on by the European Parliament for second reading in July 2002 and the Council has accepted the result of that voting.
Furthermore, Article 19 of the Directive provides for a tightening of the emission standards for compression ignition engines. The Commission should submit a proposal for a further reduction in limit values based on the techniques generally available for controlling air-polluting emissions and the air quality situation.
Contents
- 2. BACKGROUND
- 2.1. Air quality situation
- 2.1.1. General
- 2.1.2. Emissions from CI engines in non-road mobile machinery (NRMM)
- To give a rough idea of the overall level of emissions the data from the final Auto-Oil II report has been incorporated into the table below
- 2.1.3. Conclusions
- 2.2. Globally available technology
- 2.2.1. On-road legislation in Europe
- 2.2.2. On-road legislation in the US
- 2.2.3. On-road legislation in Japan
- 2.2.4. Conclusions
- 3. Issues of importance for the implementation of Stage III
- 3.1. Global alignment
- 3.1.1. Conclusions
- 3.2. Scope of the Directive
- 3.2.1. Engine power band
- 3.2.2. Exempted applications
- 3.2.3. Conclusions
- 3.3. Test procedure
- 3.3.1. Conclusions
- 3.4. Limit values and implementation dates for Stage III
- 3.4.1. Limit values
- 3.4.1.1. Limit values for power bands 37-560 kW
- 3.4.2. Implementation dates for Stage III
- 3.4.3. Conclusions
- Table: Stage III A limit values
- Table: Stage III B limit values
- Category: Net power
- Table: Limit values for inland waterway vessels
- 3.5. The importance of fuel quality
- 3.5.1. General
- 3.5.2. Reference fuel
- 3.5.3. Conclusions
- 3.6. Durability requirements
- 3.6.1. Conclusions
- 3.7. Costs and cost-effectiveness
- 3.7.1. Costs
- 3.7.2. Benefits
- Benefits of emission reductionsin rural areas
- Benefits of emission reductions in urban areas
- NOx - 4200 EUR/tonne
- 3.7.3. Emission reductions
- 3.7.4. Cost- efficiency (feasibility)
- 3.7.5. Conclusions
- 3.8. Flexibilities
- 3.8.1. General
- 3.8.2. Engine manufacturers
- 3.8.2.1. Small volume manufacturers
- 3.8.2.2. Small volume engine families
- 3.8.3. Equipment manufacturers
- 3.8.4. Possible solutions
- 3.8.5. Conclusions
- 3.9. Technical feasibility review
- 4. CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL
- 4.1. Scope of the Directive (Annex I)
- 4.2. Test procedure (Annex III)
- 4.3. Limit values for Stage III (Annex I)
- 4.4. Implementation dates for Stage III (Article 9)
- 4.5. Fuel quality
- 4.5.1. General
- 4.5.2. Reference fuel
- 4.6. Durability requirements (Annex III - Appendix 5)
- 4.7. Flexibilities (Article 9 and Annex XIV)
- 4.8. Technical feasibility study
The Auto-oil Programme (COM (2000) 626 final) concluded that, although air quality within the Community has improved and would further improve as the result of action already decided upon, environmental air quality problems would still remain. It mentioned in particular the need to address ozone formation (the emission of nitrogen oxides, NOx, and volatile organic compounds, VOCs,) and particulate emissions. In addition, local air quality problems in the form of high NO2 levels would remain in some cities.
In relation to the remaining air quality problems, as presented in the Auto-Oil II Programme, the pollutants of importance from CI engines are NOx and particulate matter (PM). Emissions of VOCs, the other precursor of ozone, are generally low from these engines.
With a few exemptions, non-road mobile machinery is not registered. Furthermore, the actual uses of the different types of NRMM vary considerably. It is therefore difficult to estimate the actual emissions from this equipment with any degree of accuracy.
At Community level a rather comprehensive inventory was made in 1994 as a basis for the implementation of Directive 97/68/EC. The study did of course include some uncertainties, and is now some years old, but it does nevertheless give a rough estimate of emissions from non-road mobile machinery - including tractors. According to this inventory, emissions before the introduction of Stage I of Directive 97/68/EC were as follows:
>TABLE POSITION>
The implementation of Stages I and II of the current legislation has reduced and will further reduce those emissions. It is reasonable to assume that compared with a 'non-regulated' engine, a Stage II engine emits around 40% less NOx and 60% less PM. To a certain extent this reduction has been counteracted by the increased number of engines. Based on that inventory, overall emissions from non-road mobile machinery with engines of 19 kW or above, including tractors, will be as shown in the table below once all current engines have been replaced by Stage II engines.
To give a rough idea of the overall level of emissions the data from the final Auto-Oil II report has been incorporated into the table below
>TABLE POSITION>
Tailpipe emissions only
It can be concluded that there is a need for further action to tackle air quality problems in the future. This was mentioned in Article 19 of the current Directive 97/68/EC as one of the prerequisites for Stage III. It can further be concluded that emissions from non-road mobile machinery, even allowing for the uncertainty of the emission inventories, will significantly add to those air quality problems.
The number of engines produced for non-road mobile machinery is much lower than for on-road applications. A global market has therefore been developed for these products. This is the reason for mentioning the availability of abatement technology on a global basis in Article 19 of the current Directive 97/68/EC.
Primarily because of higher production volume, the development of advanced technology to reduce pollutant emissions from CI engines has generally taken place within the field of on-road applications. These technical solutions are then applied, with the necessary modifications, in the non-road sector some years later. So it makes sense when estimating future availability of advanced abatement technology to use legislation and technical development in the on-road sector as a starting point. When doing this it needs to be borne in mind that non-road equipment works in a different environment and that on-road technologies cannot always be directly transferred to all kinds of non-road applications.
As a result of the Auto-Oil Programme, the emission standards for on-road vehicles are to be tightened in stages. In 2005 Euro IV standards will be implemented with very low limit values for particulate emissions. When deciding on this legislation, it was anticipated that manufacturers would need to use particulate traps or technology with corresponding performance to meet those limit values.
For heavy-duty vehicles, a further tightening of the NOx limit values will be introduced from 2008, although subject to a technical review clause. To meet these limit values manufacturers need to use some kind of after-treatment device.
In December 2000, the US administration decided on a next set of limit values for heavy-duty vehicles. Those limit values will enter into force starting in 2007. For particulate emissions the limit value is more or less the same as the European Euro IV/V value and for NOx emissions the limit value is in principle a sixth of the Euro V limit value. Thus - to meet those US-standards - manufacturers have to use after-treatment devices for both PM and NOx emissions.
Emission legislation for CI engines on heavy-duty vehicles has traditionally been less stringent in Japan than the corresponding legislation in the US and the EU. However, because of the deterioration in air quality, Japan has decided to implement far-reaching legislation in stages to reduce the emission of NOx and PM. A first stage, which is in the same order of magnitude as the Euro IV standards, will be implemented in 2005 and a further stage is planned for the future.
It can be concluded that, in principle, technology to further limit the emissions of air pollution from CI engines is available or will be available on the global market within 3 to 5 years (prerequisite 2 in Article 19). However, since this technology has been developed for on-road applications, it will in many cases have to be modified for non-road applications. Indeed, for certain applications it might ultimately be technically impossible or very expensive to use. This issue will be discussed later in this explanatory memorandum.
As mentioned previously, engines for use in NRMM are to a large extent produced for a global market. Production volumes for different engine types are low and development costs would therefore be difficult to bear if different regional emission requirements were introduced.
Consequently, global alignment was a high priority when the current legislation was developed. It also succeeded to the extent that the current emission requirements of Directive 97/68/EC are similar to those in Japanese and US legislation, making it possible for engine manufacturers to offer one and the same concept on those markets.
Concerning future legislation, the USA has already decided to introduce Tier III standards for engines from 37 kW to 560 kW. Those standards, which cover only gaseous emissions, will be implemented between 2006 and 2008 depending on the power band of the engines. A future Tier IV is being discussed by the US administration and according to information from the EPA (the US Environmental Protection Agency) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is expected at the beginning of 2003. The EPA has also indicated that it intends to base this proposal on what has already been decided for on-road vehicles, i.e. the use of after-treatment equipment.
Furthermore emission limit values for the power band 19-37 kW going beyond the current Stage II limits in Directive 97/68/EC are included in the current US legislation.
Japan has so far taken no decision on further tightening of the emission standards beyond the current EU Stage II standards, but it is participating in the international discussions now taking place between the authorities and the industry.
Global alignment is a high priority issue as regards future emission standards. Accordingly, the process of amending Directive 97/68/EC on Stage III limit values has been discussed very closely with industry and authorities in the USA and Japan. The aim has been to achieve a win-win situation where the industry can operate with one and the same set of concepts on a global market and by so doing save money that can be used in part to achieve a high level of environmental protection.
The current Directive 97/68/EC covers CI engines of 18 kW to 560 kW. The corresponding US legislation covers the power band 19-560 kW. In practice it does not matter if the power band starts at 19 or 18 kW but for the sake of future alignment the Directive 97/68/EC should use 19 kW instead of 18 kW in any future requirements.
In the USA engines below 19 kW and above 560 kW are also covered by legislation and to achieve further alignment it could be argued that limit values for these engines should also be included in Directive 97/68/EC. However, the inventory referred to in point 1.1.2 above does not show that these engines notably contribute to the overall emissions in the EU. It is therefore currently difficult to justify devising legislation for this category of CI engines. However, to further align the legislation, this should be studied further and be included as a part of the technical review discussed below in paragraph 3.9.
Moreover, under an amendment recently decided upon by the Council and the European Parliament, the Directive will cover small petrol engines (19 kW or below).
In addition to limitations imposed by engine power, certain applications are currently exempted from the scope of the Directive, namely:
the propulsion of:
- vehicles (on-road vehicles) as defined by Directive 70/156/EEC, and by Directive 92/61/EEC,
- agricultural tractors as defined by Directive 74/150/EEC
and
applications in:
- ships
- railway locomotives
- aircrafts
- generating sets
- recreational vehicles.
For on-road vehicles existing standards, and those adopted for the future, are tighter than those for NRMM and there is no reason to include those within the scope of Directive 97/68.
Tractors are covered by another Directive - Directive 2000/25/EC - with requirements basically identical to those in Directive 97/68/EC (but with some differences as regards implementation dates). The tractor Directive states that as soon as the provisions referred to in Article 19 of Directive 97/68/EC are adopted, the limit values and implementation dates are to be aligned without delay. Consequently, as soon as a formal decision on the amendment to Directive 97/68/EC has been taken, the Commission will forward a proposal on the same limit values and entry into force dates to be implemented into Directive 2000/25/EC using the committee procedure.
The abovementioned amendment on spark ignition engines also included limit values for generating sets and other constant speed engines - CI engines as well as SI engines - thereby removing the exemption for generating sets.
Recreational vehicles are of interest chiefly as regards petrol engines only and will not be discussed in this proposed amendment on diesel engines.
Railway locomotives, defined as locomotives that are 'not designed to carry any passengers or freight by themselves', are covered by separate legislation in the USA. The engines they use normally are more powerful than 560 kW. Other railway applications, e.g. engines in rail-cars, are covered by the normal NRMM legislation.
The current Directive 97/68/EC contains no definition of 'locomotives'. For better alignment, we should use the same definition as in US legislation. This would then cover 'small' engines used for railway applications.
Furthermore, the Commission addressed this issue in its communication 'Towards an integrated European railway area' (COM (2002) 18 final). Concerning air pollution, it declared its intention to include 'light-duty diesel train engines ' into the revision of Directive 97/68/EC and to develop technical interoperability specifications for heavy-duty diesel engines.
It has been argued that emission standards for railway applications should be based on a separate test cycle, since of course the driving pattern of a railway vehicle is different from that of an excavator or an agricultural tractor. This is especially so for genuine locomotives. However, for reasons discussed under 'test procedure' below, it is proposed not to include a separate test procedure in Directive 97/68/EC.
Ships have recently been shown to be a major contributor to overall emissions of NOx and particulates. This is true in particular of sea-going ships but also vessels on inland waterways are contributers.
In its White Paper on a common transport policy the Commission pointed out not only railways but also inland waterways as environmentally friendly modes of transport. To confirm this role vessels used on inland waterways have to improve their environmental performance.
On an international level the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has developed regulations covering emissions of NOx from ships (MARPOL, Annex VI). However this Annex has still not entered into force due to the lack of necessary ratification. Furthermore it does not address the emissions of particulates, which is an issue of very high priority.
Engine manufacturers have expressed their favour of implementing the limit values (and ISO test procedure) used in the USA for this kind of engines. These limit values are ambitious from an environmental point of view and will meet the overall target of alignment and could therefore also be used in the EU legislation.
The strategy on how to address the emissions from sea-going ships will be addressed in a separate Communication from the Commission.
Recreational Craft are covered by another Directive - Directive 94/25/EC. The Commission proposed in October 2000 an amendment to this Directive to include exhaust and sound emission limits for engines to be used in recreational craft (COM(2000)639). The Council's common position on this amendment, adopted on 22 April 2002, contains a review clause in its Article 2. This clause provides that the Commission shall submit by 31 December 2005 a report on the possibilities of further reducing emissions from recreational craft and personal watercraft and, in the light of this report, submit by 31 December 2006 appropriate proposals to the European Parliament and the Council on more stringent requirements and emission values. Therefore there is no reason to include recreational craft engines within the scope of Directive 97/68.
To achieve further alignment with US legislation, the current lowest power limit of 18 kW should be changed to 19 kW. Engines below 19 kW and above 560 kW should, for the moment being, remain outside the scope of the Directive.
For agricultural and forestry tractors, implementation dates and limit values are to be aligned through the Commission proposal on an amendment to Directive 2000/25/EC, which is being presented in parallel to this proposal.
A clarification of definitions should be inserted in order to cover emissions from railway applications, except for locomotives that 'are not designed to carry any passengers or freight by themselves' to align it with US legislation.
Vessels used on inland waterways should be included within the scope of Directive 97/68/EC. Since they have so far been excluded and since they are of a different technical nature, separate emission limits and entry into force dates should apply.
The current procedure for measuring emissions in Directive 97/68/EC is based on a steady state test cycle, the ISO 8178-4 C1 8-mode cycle. Since NRMM covers a lot of different applications with different practical operations, it will be very difficult to cover all of those with one test cycle. Consequently, the current test cycle does not represent all the actual operating conditions for NRMM. Furthermore, it does not include some of the modes of operation which generate the most air pollution. However, with the new stringent emission levels it is considered a good compromise.
When tightening emission limits, it becomes more important to have a test procedure covering the most important modes of operation in order to avoid any discrepancy between real-life emissions and laboratory measurements. Particulate matter (PM) in particular is far more prevalent when operating under 'transient conditions'. This was confirmed when developing the current EU legislation on emissions from on-road vehicles, which resulted in the introduction of a transient test procedure.
Most non-road engines are used for applications that are largely transient in nature. Even equipment such as pumps and generators, which operate mostly at constant speeds, may depart from steady-state operation because of variations in engine load over time. Through broad co-operation between the authorities and industry in the USA, Japan and Europe efforts have therefore been made to develop a new test cycle which will better reflect this.
This co-operation has resulted in a new transient test cycle that will meet those requirements. The test cycle has been developed so that it can be run on eddy-current dynamometers with significant cost saving (between a third and a quarter of the usual cost) over conventional equipment (AC dyno or DC dyno) used for transient tests without compromising onenvironmental objectives.
Even higher cost saving (a fifth of usual cost or less) can be obtained if the transient test is carried out using the partial flow dilution systems already used for the steady-state procedure, instead of using the conventional CVS (Constant Volume Sampling) facility. The work, performed under ISO/FDIS 16183 'Heavy duty engines - Measurement of gaseous and particulate exhaust emissions under transient test conditions - Raw exhaust gas and partial flow dilution systems', has now been concluded and, according to the EC, the procedure can be transferred from on-road to non-road engines.
This new test procedure should be mandatory for measuring PM emissions as soon as the Stage III B values enter into force. For gaseous pollutants the manufacturer could use the current test procedure, but in order to avoid two tests, manufacturers will most likely use the transient test procedure for gaseous pollutants too, once the Stage III B values apply.
The attention has been drawn to the fact that locomotives have different patterns of operation compared to other NRMM applications, and thus a separate test procedure ought to be used. Indeed, a separate test procedure already exists - the ISO 8178-4 steady-state test cycle type F 'Rail traction'. This type F test cycle appears to accurately reflect the operational behaviour of the old power-train system used on the railways.
However it is important to bear in mind the purpose of the emission legislation - to reduce the environmental and health impact. In this respect it is rather the local emissions, which occur around railway stations in urban areas, than the contribution to the overall emissions that are of importance for railways. Those emissions occur during accelerations and under heavy load of the engines whereas emissions during constant speed, mostly in rural areas, are very low. Using a separate test procedure would allow an averaging of the emissions and thus not address the real environmental problems.
Nevertheless further studies should be carried out and if appropriate modify the test procedure before stringent particulate emission limit values enter into force. This can be covered in the technical review discussed below in paragraph 3.9.
It should also be noted that in the corresponding US legislation a separate test procedure is only used for genuine locomotives, which anyhow will not be covered by the scope of Directive 97/68/EC.
The future Stage IIIB standards on particulate matter should be based on a new dedicated transient test procedure to better reflect actual operating conditions, and especially to represent real emissions of particulates and to ensure that emissions reduction technology is developed to address those operating conditions.
For the measurement of gaseous emissions, manufacturers should have the option of using either the new transient test cycle or the current steady-state test procedure.
Different test procedures should be used for all variable speed engines except those for inland waterways, though specific consideration should be given to engines for constant speed applications and railway applications in the technical review discussed below in paragraph 3.9. For engines intended to be used for propulsion of inland waterway vessels, the internationally accepted test procedures according to ISO 8178-4, test cycles E2 and E3 should be applied.
The current possibility for manufacturers to choose between full flow systems or partial flow systems should remain.
Although in theory a large number of possible limit values can be chosen for Stage III, these will in practice be limited by the number of technological steps that can be implemented.
In principle we are talking about two different levels of intervention: engine modifications only, and the use of after-treatment equipment. These 'technical levels' must of course be converted into limit values, allowing manufacturers to choose the specific technical solutions necessary to meet the standards.
The possible scenarios for the Stage III level are basically the following:
>TABLE POSITION>
(*) Environmental improvements as emission reductions [%] with respect to Stage II engines.
Scenario 1 corresponds to the Tier III already decided upon by the USA. It can be met by engine modifications, it could be implemented with a short lead time and it would meet the industry's wish for alignment. It would not however address the issue of emissions of PM, which was highlighted in the Auto-Oil II Communication as a high-priority form of pollution and which has been addressed as an important issue by several Member States. It is therefore questionable whether a proposal based on this scenario would adequately meet the identified environmental needs. In the long term this scenario cannot achieve global alignment since additional PM limit values will be implemented in the USA. Under this scenario there is no need for further restrictions on fuel sulphur level, beyond those already decided (1000 ppm).
Scenario 2 includes limit values for PM. These can be met by engine modifications (including the use of cooled EGR) in line with the on-road Euro 3 technology. It should be noted that, compared with Stage II emissions, the main reduction in PM is due to the lower sulphur content of the fuel even though engine modifications are expected to reduce emissions still further by another 10%. To meet the requirements of this scenario the use of fuels with a lower sulphur content (max. 350 ppm) must be made mandatory by amending Directive 98/70/EC. This scenario needs a longer lead time than Scenario 1 and will not achieve global alignment.
Scenario 3 is based on the assumption that after-treatment equipment is used to reduce emissions of particulates. This technology is already available in the road vehicle sector and, given a reasonable lead time, should be available for most applications in the non-road sector too. Reduction of NOx is in line with Scenario 2. A maximum sulphur content of 50 ppm is required. This scenario could lead to global alignment.
Scenario 4 differs from Scenario 3 to the extent that after-treatment equipment is also expected to reduce NOx. In the USA, the EPA has unofficially announced that in the future they would like to move towards something like Scenario 4. However, they do agree that uncertainty about the technology is greater for NOx after-treatment technology than for PM traps within the NRMM sector and therefore expect to introduce tighter limit values later for NOx than for PM. As for Scenario 3, a maximum sulphur content of 50 ppm is required. This scenario could lead to global alignment.
It is obvious that the availability and feasibility of after-treatment equipment will be of great importance when deciding on Stage 3 limit values. Auto-oil II considered particulates to be one remaining air quality problem for the future. Many reports have identified small (ultrafine) particles as perhaps the most important issue affecting health. As explained above, basic after-treatment technology (PM traps) is already available for the on-road sector and to a certain extent also for the non-road sector. Tests also show that technology developed for on-road vehicles can generally also be used for certain applications in the non-road sector, and given enough lead time possibly for most other applications.
It is of course true that the environment in which NRMM machinery operates tends to be different from the on-road sector. For instance, the exhaust temperature might be too low to use PM traps with passive regeneration. This could also apply to city buses, which are not exempt from the Euro IV standards. Nevertheless, it might ultimately prove that the use of PM traps or technology with similar performance is not possible for some applications even if industry is allowed a long lead time. To address this uncertainty, a technical review could be carried out before the entry into force dates to determine whether there will have to be certain exemptions from the standards. This solution was used when introducing Euro V standards for Heavy Duty Vehicles in Directive 1999/96/EC.
Bilateral discussions with the EPA have clearly indicated that its intention is to base the next stage of US legislation in this field on the use of after-treatment equipment originally developed for the road sector. It seems that the EPA plans to implement these stringent requirements for PMs first, and then for NOx some years later.
As regards, PMs there are no basic differences between the situation in the USA and the situation in the EU. There will be the same need for low-sulphur fuel, and the technology is global and can be applied in the same way. Thus a Stage III standard for particulate emissions equal to the corresponding Tier IV standard in the USA seems feasible.
For NOx emissions, however, the current situation is a bit more complicated. For the on-road sector, standards have been decided upon in the USA and in the EU that will require after-treatment equipment. The limit value in the EU legislation though is about eight times higher than the US limit value.The EPA has declared quite categorically that it is in favour of NOx absorbers as the technology to be used whilst manufacturers in Europe seem to favour the use of SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction), which needs a separate ammonium/urea distribution system. For the on-road sector the choice of different strategies is somewhat less important since the market is not global as is the case for the non-road sector. For the non-road sector, however, the current strongly global approach could be jeopardised if Europe favours technological development of SCR and the US opts for NOx absorbers.
Furthermore, in the EU the Euro V standards for NOx are subject to a technical review by the Commission before the end of 2002. Even though this review will probably conclude that the necessary technology will be available for the on-road sector by 2008 (when Euro V enters into force), the Commission cannot be expected to present conclusions on the use of this technology in the non-road sector before that review is published. Neither can it be excluded that the Euro V limit values will be tightened as a result of the technical review.
In addition, the Commission is currently studying the future air quality situation and the need for action under the CAFE project (Clean Air For Europe). The result of this project will be available in 2004/2005 and should serve as input for a subsequent decision on a possible Stage IV limit value for NOx. This kind of consideration should be covered by the technical review discussed below in paragraph 3.9.
3.4.1.2. Limit values for power band 19-37 kW.
US legislation to be implemented in 2004 makes engines with a power output between 19 and 37 kW subject to Tier II emission limit values. The emission limits for these engines do not require the use of after-treatment equipment.
Engines within the 19-37 kW power band are already covered by Directive 97/68, but are subject to only one set of limit values. The Tier II limit values in US legislation are somewhat more stringent than the ones in Directive 97/68/EC, especially as regards particulate matter (see below). The inventory carried out in 1994 also indicates that the contribution to overall emissions by those engines is not negligible. In addition, discussions with the industry concerned indicate that they prefer to align by incorporating the US legislation into Directive 97/68/EC.
>TABLE POSITION>
Whatever scenario is adopted will of course be closely linked to implementation dates. In this respect, for the power band above 37 kW, Scenario I could be implemented (in stages) as from 2006, since in any case manufacturers have to meet the requirements of the US market. Scenario 2 will need a longer lead time, at least as regards PM limit values, since additional requirements are imposed on engine manufacturers and the use of low-sulphur fuel has to be made mandatory in all Member States. For Scenario 3, a longer lead time is also needed for the PM requirements. To give manufacturers enough development time it is reasonable to assume that the PM standards can enter into force around 2009-2011. For Scenario 4, theuncertainty on the availability of NOx after-treatment equipment in the non-road sector and especially concerning the final decision for the on-road sector in EU is greater. Further clarifications therefore are needed before a decision can be made on the implementation of limit values based on the use of aftertreatment equipment for NOx.
For power band 19-37 kW the corresponding US legislation is to be implemented in 2004. However, for practical reasons, it is not possible to introduce it into the EU before 2006.
One specific issue is implementation dates for constant-speed engines. These are exempted under Directive 97/68/EC as it stands. However, under the amendment described above these engines will become subject to emission limit values, though not until 31 December 2006. To give manufacturers a reasonable lead time the entry into force date for these engines should therefore be some years later than for other types of engines.
For some types of equipment covered in Directive 97/68/EC new noise limit values will be implemented in 2006 (Directive 2000/14/EC). It would have been advantageous to co-ordinate the implementation dates. However it is not possible to have an enter into force date for stage IIIA by (next) 2006 for all kind of engines. At the revision of Directive 2000/14/EC on noise, foreseen by 2005, the need for future co-ordination of implementation dates will be taken into account.
To properly address environmental needs, Stage III limit values should be introduced for NOx as well as for PM. They should be based on the best available technology, they should be applicable to NRMM and they would have to be globally aligned.
In doing so the limit values for gaseous pollutants (Stage III A) would be equivalent to the US Tier III standards for power bands above 37 kW and to the Tier II standards for the 19-37 kW power band. They should be implemented in stages starting on 31 December 2006. The PM limit values (Stage III B) for the power bands above 37 kW should be based on the assumption that PM traps, or technology with a similar effect, will be available in the non-road sector. To allow the necessary lead time, those limit values should be implemented in the EU in stages starting on 31 December 2009. However the necessary fuel will not be available in the USA until a year later and to maintain the alignment and to offer the industry a global market the implementation should start a year later, 31 December 2010.
To ensure that the necessary technology is generally available, a review clause should be inserted to the effect that the Commission should review technical progress so as to confirm the PM limit values and propose any necessary exemptions not later that 2006. This review should also consider a Stage IV set of limit values for NOx based on the availability and feasibility of using after-treatment equipment and also consider a further tightening of the limit values for engines in the powerband 19-37 kW.
A Stage III set of limit values in Directive 97/68/EC should thus be implemented in two steps as follows:
>TABLE POSITION>
>TABLE POSITION>
Category: Net power
| (P ) | Entry into force |
H: 130 kW <= P <=
| 560 kW | 31 December |
I: 75 kW <= P <
| 130 kW | 31 December |
J: 37 kW <= P <75
| kW | 31 December |
K: 19 kW <= P <37
| kW | 31 December |
Table: Stage III A. Entry into force dates (placing on the market dates.) For constant speed engines the implementation dates for Stage III B should also be used for gaseous pollutants.
| (P) | Entry into force |
L: 130 kW <= P <=
| 560 kW | 31 December |
M: 75 kW <= P <
| 130 kW | 31 December |
N: 37 kW <= P <75
| kW | 31 December |
Table: Stage III B. Entry into force dates (placing on the market dates).
For inland waterway vessels the following limit values and implementation dates will be used:
>TABLE POSITION>
| Category: | Entry into force |
| V1:1 | 31 December |
| V1:2 | 31 December |
| V1:3 | 31 December |
| V1:4 | 31 December |
| V2 | 31 December |
Table: Entry into force dates for emission limits for inland waterway vessels (placing on the market dates).
The two stages of emission standards in the current Directive 97/68/EC can be met without any specific fuel quality requirements therefore some Member States also allow the use of heating oil for non-road mobile machinery. Other Member States require the same fuel quality to be used as for the on-road sector. One Member State - Spain - has introduced a separate fuel quality standard for the NRMM sector. The main reason for the choice of fuel quality is taxation and not the production cost of different fuel qualities. The tax on heating oil is normally low while the tax on motor fuel is high.
With more stringent emission standards and more sophisticated technology needed to meet those standards, fuel quality will become more important. The most important parameter in this respect is sulphur content. A high sulphur content will cause higher emissions of particulates and in addition, if after-treatment devices have to be used to meet emission limits, might damage or reduce the efficiency of after-treatment equipment. To prevent this, sulphur content has to be at least below 50 ppm.
Requirements concerning sulphur content in gas oils are laid down in Directive 98/70/EC (on petrol and diesel fuels for on-road and non-road vehicles) and Directive 1999/32/EC (on heating oil). According to the latter Directive, the maximum sulphur content of gas oil used for purposes other than on-road vehicles is 2000 ppm. From 2008 this limit will be lowered to 1000 ppm.
Directive 98/70/EC requires a maximum sulphur content of 50 ppm for diesel intended for use in on-road vehicles from 1 January 2005. A proposed amendment to this Directive, currently awaiting a final decision in the Council and the EP, would further tighten this maximum to 10 ppm. It would seem that the Council and the European Parliament will agree to make this mandatory from 2009.
In principle the quality of diesel fuel for use in non-road mobile machinery is also covered by Directive 98/70/EC. However, since there is no technical need for any specific fuel requirements to meet the Stage I and II emission standards it has been left to Member States to decide on sulphur content as long as it does not exceed the content specified in Directive 1999/32/EC and is not more stringent than for on-road applications. The Common position on the proposed amendment mentioned above states that the Commission should present more detailed requirements on diesel fuel for the non-road sector when proposing emission limit values for Stage III.
Today about 9% of gas oil consumption is for non-road purposes - if inland waterways are included. About 50% is used for the on-road sector and about 40% as heating oil. At European level, there is no separate non-road diesel quality, and with a market share of less than 10% this situation is unlikely to change in the future. At national level, special fuel qualities might well be made available.
As previously mentioned, for tax reasons, some Member States are allowing low-taxed heating oil to be used for non-road applications too. In this respect, there might be a need for specific action, especially in the agricultural sector. A marker is now added to low-tax oil to help enforce the legislation and check that low-tax fuel is not used for applications where on-road quality should be used. If a better fuel quality than heating oil is needed to meet the Stage III limit values, certain practical problems might arise in those Member States that still want to allow the use of low-tax fuel.
This might be solved in different ways, for instance by having one dyed grade gas oil for heating purposes, a second dyed grade diesel for NRMM, which could also be used as heating oil by farmers with one storage tank, and a third non-dyed (high-tax) diesel oil for on-road purposes.
It is up to Member States to decide on what tax policy they want to apply and also on how they want to implement the distribution systems. The example above is only to illustrate that there are solutions which can also be used in those Member States that want to continue to allow low-tax diesel oil to be used for NRMM purposes in the future.
Given the above conclusions on limit values, we will in the future have a situation where the Stage III A limit values for gaseous pollutants can be met by using heating oil. However, to meet the Stage III B PM limit values, a fuel with a maximum of 10-50 ppm sulphur must be used. Thus, it is necessary to ensure that low-sulphur fuel is used once the PM limit values enter into force or in Member States that want to encourage earlier implementation of those limit values.
The reference fuel used for type-approval purposes should reflect the fuel quality used under real operational conditions. Since legislation in the Member States differs as regards the market fuel, the current reference fuel specification is a compromise. The most important parameter - sulphur content - must be between 1000 and 2000 ppm.
The proposed Stage III B limit values for particulate emissions will require the use of low-sulphur fuel (10-50 ppm). Accordingly, the reference fuel should be changed to reflect the proposal to make the use of low-sulphur fuel mandatory for all non-road mobile machinery applications. In addition, some Member States might want to offer incentives to encourage manufacturers to meet the more stringent PM standards before they become mandatory. In this case manufacturers should be allowed to use a low-sulphur reference fuel when type-approving engines.
The availability of appropriate fuels will not be a limiting factor in introducing Stage III emission limits for non-road mobile machinery.
Stage III A limit values can be met without any further fuel quality specifications. To meet the III B limit values the sulphur content of the fuel must be in the order of 10-50 ppm at the highest. The Commission will propose an amendment to Directive 98/70/EC to secure the European-wide introduction of the relevant fuel.
To reflect this a separate reference fuel should be brought into use once the Stage III B PM limit values enter into force, or when a manufacturer voluntarily type-approves engine families to meet those limit values.
The corresponding US legislation includes definitions on the useful life during which limit values must be met, as well as provisions for recall schemes.
Europe has generally been later in implementing this kind of legislation. It was introduced for light vehicles by Directive 98/69/EC and there are ongoing efforts to introduce similar provisions for heavy duty vehicles, intended to enter into force in 2005.
In principle the same kind of legislation should also apply to non-road engines. However, since this kind of equipment is not registered, it is more difficult to implement in-use compliance programmes. However, a first step would be to define useful life for different categories of engines and to require that manufacturers establish deterioration factors to apply to type-approval.
A further stage - to include in-use compliance checks and recalls - could be addressed in the technical review mentioned above.
A definition of useful life should be included in the legislation - 3000 hours for engines below 37 kW and 5000 hours for engines at or above 37 kW.
The manufacturer has to establish a deterioration factor for each engine family. If the established factor is below 1.0, then 1.0 should be used.
The main issues for the development of the stage III limit values have been to establish a world wide aligned legislation based on the environmental need and the availability of emission reducing technology. Even so it is important to examine the cost - effectiveness/benefit of the proposal and to see to that it is in the same order of magnitude as other introduced legislation addressing the same environmental issues, bearing in mind that the benefits for manufacturers of an alignment can not be included
As mentioned above there is a lack of precise information on the number of NRMM and the use of them. In addition existing emission models are normally developed for road transport and is not possible to use for NRMM emission calculations. To overcome this shortage of information the calculations have been made on an engine basis, taking into account the life time emissions and life time costs of the engines. Using the different power bands in the current directive the following life costs to meet the stage III limit values (stage IIIA + stage IIIB) have been used in a consultant study that the Commission has carried out. These costs include the cost for equipment and engineering. It should though be noted that the costs for the power band 18-37 kW includes a further tightening of the PM limit values compared to the one proposed in this amendment. In the absence of better estimates those costs have been used in the analyses.
>TABLE POSITION>
Table: Additional cost (technology and engineering) for the implementation of stage III limit values.
Source: Consultant study by VTT Process.
In addition to those cost there will be additional costs for low sulphur fuel, which is required to meet the stage IIIB limit values on PM. Low sulphur fuel is not required for engines in the power band 18-37 kW since no after-treatment device is needed. However in practice it will be difficult to distribute fuel with higher sulphur content only for that category of engines. Therefore the additional cost for low sulphur fuel has been added also to this category of engines.
In a separate consultant study carried out by Beicip-Franlab the cost for going from a fuel with a sulphur content of 1000 ppm to one with a sulphur content of 10 ppm has been estimated to 1,5-1,9 Euro-cent per litre. Net value of 1.5 Euro-cent per litre has been used for the further analyses.
>TABLE POSITION>
Table: Additional costs for the use of low sulphur fuel.
Sources: Consultant studies by VTT Process and Beicip-Franlab.
Costs of this kind are difficult to estimate with sufficient accuracy since these are standards that are to be implemented a long time in the future. Experience in the on-road sector shows that these costs are normally overestimated when comparing real costs with the estimates made as the legislation was decided upon. In addition, since the market is almost 100% global, it could be argued that the costs of meeting the Stage III A standards are already there since the EPA has confirmed that it will be continuing with its Tier III standards. Furthermore the consultant has based its costs on the use of two sets of particulate filters for all engines which is not likely to happen. The corresponding cost calculations (preliminary) made by the US EPA indicates much lower costs.
In a separate consultant study, 'Estimates of the marginal external costs of air pollution in Europe', carried out by the company Netcen, the marginal external costs for different pollutants were estimated as follows:
>TABLE POSITION>
>TABLE POSITION>
As can be seen in the tables, the marginal costs differ widely depending on where the emissions take place. In 1999 80% of the population in EU lived in urban areas. However, since a large share of the engines is used in the agricultural sector and thus the emissions taking place in rural areas the following assumptions are made concerning the use of and the emissions from NRMM: 50% of the emissions take place in rural areas, 30% in cities with 100.000 inhabitants, 8% in cities with 500.000 inhabitants and 2% in cities with more than 1 million inhabitants.
Under those assumptions the benefits will be the following:
PM - 36420 EUR/tonne
SO2 - 8220 EUR/tonne
In the above study by VTT Process the life time 'savings' (tonne/engine) of the emissions has been estimated to the following.
>TABLE POSITION>
Based on the data above and on data given by equipment manufacturers on the distribution of different engine sizes in Europe the overall benefits of the package proposed for the NRMM engines shows that the benefits per engine are about 75 Euro higher than the costs. The same calculation indicates that the overall result is due to high benefits for larger engines.No separate calculation has been made for inland waterway vessels.
Cost estimates on technical measures that are supposed to be implemented rather far in the future will for natural reasons be uncertain. Experience shows that at the time of the development of the legislation those costs are overestimated compared to the real costs when they once have to be implemented.
Furthermore in this particular case it could be questionable whether the cost for stage IIIA should be fully included since the majority of manufacturers anyhow has to meet the corresponding US legislation which is already decided on. For the engines in the power band 19-37 kW the consultant's cost estimates are based on a stage IIIB limit value for PM of 0.3 g/kWh whilst the proposal only requires 0.6 g/kWh. The consultant has also assumed that every engine must use two sets of PM traps, which can be questioned since durability requirements are included in the proposal. Furthermore preliminary cost calculations made by the EPA indicate much lower values.
On the other hand no cost for increased fuel consumption has been inserted. The use of more advanced technology will open the possibility for manufacturers to improve the fuel economy and thereby compensate for the fuel penalty that will occur due to the use of particulate traps.
Furthermore great uncertainties are linked to the estimates of benefits. In this respect it should be noted that all particles emitted from NRMM are so called nano-particles, which seems to be more and more a concern from a health point of view..
Bearing those uncertainties, which can go in both directions, in mind it seems as if the stage III package as such is positive from a cost benefit point of view. It should however be noted that this overall outcome is due to the very positive effect on large engines and this underlines the importance of the technical review which is suggested as a part of the package.
Non-road mobile machinery have a large number of different applications. Furthermore, although legislation in this field is basically geared towards engine manufacturers. it will still involve many manufacturers of equipment (OEMs), who may or may not produce engines as well. To cover these different aspects and yet not just aim at the lowest common denominator in legislation, or delay its introduction and consequently the use of advanced technology, certain so called flexibilities (exemptions) should be used. This is also a concept that has been used in the corresponding US legislation.
On the other hand, legislation should be as clear as possible so that it is given the same interpretation in all Member States. Consequently, there should be as few exemptions as possible. It is also difficult to copy US legislation completely due to the different administrative systems.
The following cases are covered by special arrangements in the legislation.
Small volume manufacturers have fewer resources for developing new technology. They also have fewer products to cover the development costs. If they are not operating on the global market they are not forced to comply with US legislation.
Basically the development costs should be covered by the specific engine family. The smaller the engine family the more difficult to do so. It is especially difficult for small-volume manufacturers who cannot transfer costs to other engine families.
Directive 97/68/EC is an engine Directive, meaning that it is the engine manufacturer that has to meet the standards. Ultimately, however, engines are mounted into pieces of equipment, either by the engine manufacturers themselves or by separate equipment manufacturers. In the latter case especially it is necessary to allow the equipment manufacturer time to adapt his product to the design of the engine. One way of meeting this need would be to allow engines to be placed on the market over a certain period providing that the engines have been produced before the entry into force dates.
The current Directive allows for this, but makes it subject to decisions by individual Member States. In theory the whole market would be open even if only one Member State accepted the option. However, in practice this creates problems for manufacturers since they then have to place their engines on the market in that Member State (or States) and then transport the engine to the customer in another Member State. It could be argued that this option might encourage a manufacturer to produce and stockpile a large number of engines just before the new emission limits enter into force. However, in practice this is unlikely to happen as the economic uncertainty for the manufacturer would be too great. To simplify the legislation this option of designing equipment for engines already manufactured should not be left to the discretion of individual Member States.
The corresponding US legislation allows a certain amount of flexibility. One essential element of this flexibility is the use of averaging, banking and trading of emissions. Basically this allows an engine manufacturer to place an engine that exceeds the emission limit values on the market providing that this is offset by placing on the market engines with emissions below the limit values and that the average emission of the total production is below the limit values. This is a way of allowing the necessary flexibility without losing environmental benefits.
The Commission proposal on emissions from spark ignition engines (COM(2000) 840 final) included this system. However, both the Council and the European Parliament rejected it as too complicated and unfair. This time the Commission is not proposing to include such a system.
Nevertheless, manufacturers will face similar problems in complying with EU legislation, so they have to be addressed properly. Any solution will involve deviation from the conventional type-approval system and it is therefore essential to implement flexibile arrangements that will be interpreted in the same way by different Member States and create a minimum of administrative burden.
A way of doing this is to basically use the same concept as is used in the US legislation when dealing with the difficulties for equipment manufacturers. In other words, a manufacturer is allowed to use a limited number of engines that only comply with the previous emission limit standards. He can then use this flexibility in the way that best helps him solve his specific problems. One manufacturer might need more time for technical development of his production while another might need a longer development time only for a small engine family. The benefit of this kind of flexibility is that approval authorities do not have to decide on the details, but that this framework ensures that the environmental consequences will be known in advance and will be the same whatever strategy the manufacturer is using.
To resolve the special difficulties which might occur for equipment manufacturers, including small volume manufacturers, and for small-volume products, a voluntary flexibility scheme should be introduced whereby an OEM is allowed, for a four-year period, to use engines that only comply with the previous stage of limit values. The number of engines in each engine power band should be limited to 20% of one year's production or a maximum of units depending on powerband (50, 100, 150 or 200).
As mentioned above, it might ultimately prove difficult to apply trap technology (or similar solutions) to certain kinds of NRMM by the time Stage III B limit values enter into force. For this kind of equipment it might be necessary to delay the implementation dates or to allow exemptions from the Stage III B limits. In the latter case some other limit values should apply, probably based on those in the Scenario 2 described in point 3.4.1.1 above, meaning a PM limit value 40% lower than the current Stage II limits. A technical feasibility study should therefore be carried out on the applicability of PM trap technology in the non-road mobile machinery sector, and any exemptions necessary should be proposed. This study, and the decisions linked to it, have to be carried out early enough to allow manufacturers time they need. On the other hand, if it is done too early it will not leave enough time for technical development and might then result in exemptions even though the technology would have been available by the date of implementation. As a compromise solution between those two needs a proposal from the Commission should be presented not later than by the end of December 2006.
Some other issues of major interest might be included in the study and, if appropriate, in the proposals. One such topic is of course the need to further reduce NOx, which is closely linked to the availability of after-treatment equipment. By addressing this in the technical review in 2006, information from the on-going CAFE project will be available on the overall need for further reductions and on the cost-efficiency of measures in other sectors.
Other topics that could be included in the technical review are:
- the need to reconsider the scope of the Directive concerning railway applications according to the last developments and possibilities offered by the new railway legislative framework, in particular in the field of railway interoperabililty,
- the need for and feasibility of in-use compliance checks and specific test procedures for railway applications.
The current Directive 97/68/EC covers CI engines from 18 kW to 560 kW. The corresponding US legislation covers the power band 19-560 kW. To achieve alignment the lower limit of 19 kW will be used in Directive 97/68/EC from the dates when Stage III enters into force.
Railway locomotives are currently excluded from the scope of the Directive, but there is no specific definition. A definition of railway locomotives is now to be included in accordance with the corresponding US legislation. This means that small engines used in rail-cars for example will be covered. This is line with what the Commission stated in its White Paper on a Common Transport Policy (COM (2001) 370).
Engines used in inland waterway vessels will also be included within the scope of the Directive.
The current procedure for measuring emissions in Directive 97/68/EC is based on a steady-state test cycle - the ISO C1 8-mode cycle.
Most non-road engines are used for applications that are largely transient in nature. Even equipment such as pumps and generators, which operate mostly at constant speeds, may depart from steady-state operation due to variations in engine loads over time. Thanks to widespread co-operation between the authorities and industry in USA, Japan and Europe, efforts have been made to develop a new test cycle which will better reflect this. This co-operation has resulted in a new transient test cycle that can also be run on what are known as eddy-current dynamometers with a significant cost saving (between one third and one quarter) of the conventional equipment (AC dyno or DC dyno) used for transient tests.
The future Stage IIIB standards for particulate matter will be based on this new dedicated transient test procedure to better reflect actual operating conditions and in particular to represent real emissions of particulates and to ensure that emissions reduction technology is developed to take account of those driving conditions. For measurement of gaseous emissions it will be optional for the manufacturer to use either the new transient test cycle or the current steady-state test procedure.
A significant cost saving (one fifth or less) can be obtained if the transient test is carried out by means of the partial flow dilution systems instead of using the conventional CVS (Constant Volume Sampling) facility. In this respect, manufacturers will still be able to choose between full-flow systems or partial-flow systems as at present.
To properly address environmental needs, Stage III limit values are being introduced for NOx as well as for PM. They are based on the best available technology, and applied as feasible to NRMM, taking account of the need for global alignment.
Accordingly, the Stage III limit values for gaseous pollutants (Stage III A) are basically equivalent to the US Tier III standards for the power bands above 37 kW and to the Tier II standards for power band 19-37 kW. The PM limit values (Stage III B) for the power bands above 37 kW are based on the assumption that PM traps, or technology with similar effect, will be generally available in the non-road sector if enough time is allowed.
To ensure that the necessary technology is available a review clause is included to the effect that the Commission should review technical progress, confirm the PM limit values and propose necessary exemptions not later that 2006. This review could include an additional study into the possible use of after-treatment equipment to reduce gaseous pollutants (NOx) at a later stage.
For the power band above 37 kW, the Stage III A limit values can be implemented (in stages) from 2006, since by then manufacturers will be having to meet the requirements of the US market. For Stage III B limit values on particulates, a longer lead time is needed. To give manufacturers enough time for the necessary technical development work, those limit values will enter into force in stages between 2010 and 2012.
For power band 19-37 kW, the corresponding US legislation is to be implemented in 2004. However, for practical reasons, it is not possible to introduce it into the EU before 2006.
A specific issue is implementation dates for constant-speed engines. These are exempt in Directive 97/68/EC. However, following the amendment on spark-ignition engines recently decided upon by the Council and the European Parliament, they will be covered as of 31 December 2006, which is 3-6 years later than for other types of engine. To allow manufacturers reasonable time the entry into force dates for this kind of engines have been adjusted accordingly.
The two stages of emission standards in the current Directive 97/68/EC can be met without any specific requirements as regards fuel quality. To meet the proposed Stage III B standards for particulates, however, a low-sulphur fuel (below 50 ppm) will have to be used. A separate amendment to Directive 98/70/EC will therefore be proposed by the Commission in good time before the entry into force dates of those limit values.
The reference fuel used for type-approval purposes should reflect the fuel quality used under real operating conditions. Since legislation on market fuels in the Member States differs, the current reference fuel specification is a compromise. The most important parameter - sulphur content - must be between 1000 and 2000 ppm.
The proposed Stage III B limit values for particulate emissions will require the use of low-sulphur fuel. To reflect this, a reference fuel, equivalent to the one used for on-road vehicle, is included. The manufacturer may use this fuel quality when type-approving engines to meet the Stage III B limit values, whether mandatory or voluntary.
The corresponding US legislation includes definitions of the useful life during which the limit values must be complied with, as well as provisions on recall schemes.
Since this kind of equipment is not registered, it is more difficult to carry out in-use compliance programmes. Therefore, at this initial stage, useful life is defined only for the different categories of engines - 3000-5000 hours for engines below 37 kW and 8000 hours for engines of 37 kW or over - and the manufacturers are required to establish deterioration factors to be used at the type-approval stage.
A further stage - to include in-use compliance checks and recalls - could be addressed in the technical review mentioned above.
Directive 97/68/EC is an engine Directive, meaning that it is the engine manufacturer that has to meet the standards. Ultimately, however, engines are mounted into pieces of equipment, either by the engine manufacturers themselves or by separate equipment manufacturers. In the latter case especially it is necessary to allow the equipment manufacturer time to adapt his product to the design of the engine. Specific problems in this respect will occur for small-volume manufacturers, or in the case of small-volume products.
To provide a flexible approach, two possibilities have been introduced.
The first is to allow equipment manufacturers to use 'old' engines for a period of two years providing that those engines are produced before the date of entry into force of the new limit values. This option is already included in the current Directive, but subject to the decision of a Member State.
The second is a voluntary option allowing equipment manufacturers to use a limited number of engines that comply only with the previous limit values. The number of these engines is limited to 20% of one year's production within each power band or a maximum of units depending on powerband (50, 100, 150 or 200) and they can be used for the period between two stages of limit values. This allows each manufacturer to adopt the solution which best suits his situation; one manufacturer might have problems with one engine family while another manufacturer might be suffering from a general delay with the development of his products. Under this option, the environmental consequences are known in advance and the main responsibility for dealing with the difficulties is transferred to the manufacturers. This is also the best way of solving potential discrepancies between small and big manufacturers.
A similar option is provided in the corresponding US legislation, which also includes a number of other flexibilities like averaging and banking. Some of these other options might be practical in the USA since the legislation there is implemented by one single administration. In Europe, theoretically 15 different approval authorities are involved and it is not therefore practical to introduce all of those different options.
The European engine and equipment manufacturer organisations (Euromot and CECE/CEMA respectively) have explained that they are satisfied with the solution proposed. In the Commission's opinion, these organisations represent the whole range of manufacturers.
As mentioned above, a technical feasibility study should be carried out into whether PM trap technology can be applied in the non-road mobile machinery sector, if appropriate proposing which applications should meet only the less stringent PM standards. This study has to be carried out early enough to give manufacturers information on the appropriate limit values in good time. On the other hand, it must allow reasonable time for the necessary technical development be carried out. A compromise solution is for the Commission to present any proposals by December 2006 at the latest.