ARCHIVED - Reply to Comments Received on the proposed Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulations

Transportation Systems Branch
Environment Canada
November 2004

1.0  Introduction

In May 2004, Environment Canada published the Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulations¹ in the Canada Gazette Part I. This document provides a detailed summary of the comments received from stakeholders and provides Environment Canada's responses.

Please note that the information contained in this document, and in particular that which relates to the contents of the revised draft Regulations, is subject to change pending final approval. Once final approval is received, the Regulations will be published in Part II of the Canada Gazette.

The comments received are divided into two subsections: broad policy-related questions, and technical questions related to interpretation of the proposed Regulations or editorial suggestions regarding the regulatory text.

2.0  Parties providing submissions

Submissions on the proposed Regulations were received from:

1. Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited
2. Quebec Cartier Mining Company
3. Frontier Equipment Ltd.
4. Toyota Canada Inc.
5. Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
6. Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
7. Canadian Trucking Alliance
8. Toronto Community & Neighbourhood Services
9. B. McDowell Equipment Ltd.

Comments from Quebec Cartier Mining Company were translated from French.

Policy Issue

Alignment with and reference to U.S. EPA Emission Standards

Comment

"We agree with comments made that the Canadian regulations be exactly the same as those enacted in the US." [3]

"EMA supports EC's efforts to improve air quality by aligning Canada's emission standards for nonroad diesel engines with those of EPA." [6]

"[...] The proposed Off-road Compression-ignition Engine Regulations [...] would help align the emission limits for large off-road engines in Canada with those of the United States [...]. Given the importance of fulfilling the commitments made by Canada under the Ozone Annex of the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement [...] Canada must pursue dramatic emissions reductions from engine, vehicle and fuel sectors." [8]

"MECA is pleased to provide support for your efforts in aligning the proposed Environment Canada Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulations beginning with model year 2006 with the U.S. EPA's standards." [5]

Response

The comments reaffirm support from respondents for Canada to align emission standards with the corresponding U.S. standards. The proposed Regulations incorporate by reference where possible the applicable technical standards contained in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.

Policy Issue

Regulatory versus non-regulatory approach

Comment

"Although the MOU [editor - Memorandum of Understanding] may still be at times an appropriate policy tool for government and the private sector to achieve policy objectives, CTA cannot understand the inconsistency in application of prescriptive and voluntary regulations in the control of NO_x and PM emissions from all off-road sources - i.e. locomotive engines. [...] why does it make sense to Environment Canada to apply prescriptive regulation on truck engines and fuels but not upon other freight modes of transportation? [...] Harmonization with the EPA emission standards for both on-road and off-road sources appears to be the norm for Canadian public policy except when it comes to off-road freight transportation." [7]

Response

Division 5, Part 7 of CEPA 1999 (Vehicle, Engine and Equipment Emissions) does not provide Environment Canada with the authority to regulate emissions from the rail and commercial marine sectors.

Policy Issue

Regulation of Marine and Locomotive Engines
Exemption of competition engines

Comment

We also support initiating a rulemaking in the future to set standards to further reduce emissions from locomotives and marine vessels. We believe with the availability of 15 ppm sulfur fuel and with adequate lead-time significant emission reductions from these categories could be achieved using advanced emission control technology." [5]

"[...] the marine and rail sector continue to be promoted by various government departments as the solution to the reduction of emissions from the freight transportation sector. CTA has been mystified by this approach taken by the Government of Canada as it appears to not to take into account the current and future state of NO_x and PM emissions from trucks, locomotives and Category 2 and 3 marine engines. [...] CTA respectfully requests Environment Canada's current position regarding the regulation of NO_x and PM emissions from Category 1 and 2 marine engines as well as the Department's intention to align itself with any future EPA regulations of marine engines through classes one-three. [...] CTA would respectfully request comment from Environment Canada with regards to the department's intention to move forward on regulating Canadian locomotive emissions in a like manner to the EPA 1997 regulation and the intended 2011 direction. [...]CTA would request that Environment Canada clarify its regulatory authority in the area of newly manufactured locomotive engines. Furthermore, if indeed Environment Canada has such an authority to regulate the emissions of newly manufactured locomotives, CTA would respectfully request the department's position regarding the harmonization of Canadian locomotive engine emission requirements with those of the EPA." [7]

"Given that the human body does not differentiate between pollutant molecules based on the type of engine from which they were released, I recommend that the federal government ensure that the proposed off-road emission limits be applied to marine and competition engines as well. This could be accomplished through changes to the proposed regulation, or through a separate regulation for marine engines." [8]

Response

For the marine sector, new international regulations have been finalized by the International Maritime Organization in Annex VI of MARPOL, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and will come into force in May 2005. Annex VI, entitled "Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships," includes standards to limit the sulphur content of marine fuel oils and NO_x emission standards from marine engines. Transport Canada is developing domestic regulations to align with these international standards, allowing Canada to ratify the MARPOL annex.

For the rail sector, the Railway Association of Canada (RAC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Environment Canada regarding locomotive emissions. Under the MOU, the RAC agreed to publish annual total locomotive emissions in Canada and to uphold a voluntary cap of 115 kilotonnes on NO_x emissions produced by its member companies. The MOU remains in effect to December 2005. Environment Canada, Transport Canada and the RAC have initiated discussions towards a new agreement aimed at reaching emission reductions equivalent to those that would be achieved if standards aligned with those of the U.S. EPA were in effect in Canada.

Policy Issue

Delay coming into force of Regulations until 2009

Comment

Quebec Cartier Mining Company initially expressed concerns regarding the operability of engines in cold climates and the increased operational costs upon the company's competitiveness. During follow-up discussions the company requested a delay to 2009 for implementation of emission standards for 750 hp and larger engines to ensure adequate lead time to field test such engines.

"The information received to date brings about the following comments:

1. There is no demonstration that these new engines will not present cold climate operational problems. If problems arise in the northern regions, the negative economic impact could be disastrous for us.
2. The increased acquisition costs, operations and maintenance costs will make us less competitive with our Brazilian competitors and could jeopardize continuation of our operation.
3. The impact of engine emissions on the population and the environment is different in a remote northern region as compared to large urban centres.

Given those comments, Québec Cartier Mining believes that the regulations must be reviewed and revised to take into account the technical uncertainties, the added costs, and the specific conditions associated with remote northern region operations." [2]

Response

No changes have been made to the Regulations.

Should technical information indicating a problem become available, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) enables a company to apply to the Governor in Council to be granted an exemption from any standards prescribed under the Regulations. Under section 156 of CEPA 1999, an exemption from any prescribed standards will be granted only if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, conformity with that standard would:

• create substantial financial hardship for the company;
• impede the development of new features for safety, emission monitoring or emission control that are equivalent or superior to those that conform to prescribed standards; or
• impede the development of new kinds of engines or engine components.

With regard to the cost estimates, as discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, in 1998, the U.S. EPA estimated price increases for off-road diesel engines designed to meet the corresponding U.S. Tier 2 and 3 standards of about 0.5 to 3 percent for some power ranges. Most engines sold in Canada are already certified to U.S. EPA standards and therefore this is reflected in Canadian prices. Price increases due to this regulation are expected to be minimal.

Policy Issue

Adoption of Tier 4 standards

Comment

"[...] MECA would also like to very much support Environment Canada's intention to institute a separate regulatory process that will adopt the U.S. EPA's Tier 4 Regulations in order to align fuel and engine standards along with those in the U.S." [5]

"[...] Environment Canada proposes that the off-road standards presented therein will maintain alignment with the EPA 2008 rules once they are finalized. [...] CTA believes this is also the most practical approach." [7]

"I further encourage the federal government to adopt stricter emission standards for off-road diesel engines in the near future, specifically the US Tier 4 standards or better. [...] To protect health, I recommend that the Government of Canada proceed to adopt, as a minimum, the US Tier 4 emission standards for non-road diesel engines, and the required US sulphur standards for off-road diesel. [...] Canada is encouraged to meet these deadlines, or commit to earlier target dates." [8]

Response

The February 2001 Federal Agenda on Cleaner Vehicles, Engines and Fuels sets out Canada's policy to develop emission standards aligned with the U.S. federal emission standards. Environment Canada plans to propose alignment with the EPA Tier 4 (2008) engine emission standards through a separate regulatory process.

Environment Canada proposed amendments to the Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations to regulate sulphur levels for off-road diesel fuel in alignment with U.S. EPA levels and as necessary to support engine emission control technologies.

Policy Issue

Low-sulphur diesel fuel for the rail and marine sectors

Comment

"MECA supports the concept of extending the 15 ppm sulfur limit to diesel fuel sold for use by marine vessels and locomotives." [5]

"The proposed Environment Canada regulation makes the following comment regarding the sulphur content contained in off-road diesel: "The U.S. EPA has concluded that engines can meet the most stringent emission standards under Tier 2 and Tier 3 without requiring any changes to the current sulphur levels of diesel fuels sold in Canada which should not impede the implementation of the proposed Regulations." However, the May 2004 EPA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that the Agency plans to limit the sulphur content of marine and locomotive diesel to 15 ppm by 2012 and perhaps as early as 2011 so as to facilitate the enabling of truck like emission reduction technology into the marine and locomotive market. CTA would ask that Environment Canada review its position regarding the usage of higher grades of sulphur fuel by the off-road freight market so as to not create a barrier to the introduction of NO_x and PM reducing technology into these freight modes." [7]

Response

The proposed Regulations Amending the Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations include limits on the sulphur content of diesel fuel for rail and marine applications, with the level and timing aligned with EPA requirements.

Regulatory Issue (Section within Proposed Regulations)

Prescribed classes of engines (Section 5)

Comment

"On page 1454 of the Gazette Part I, there is an exemption listed for "engines designed to be used exclusively in underground mines". Can you please provide a clearer definition of this clause? The only emission data that is available for the Toyota engines is from emission tests performed in Japan for Australia. Can Toyota Canada Inc. use this data as the basis for compliance to the Canadian standards?" [4]

Response

New engines designed exclusively for use in underground mines are exempt from the Regulations. Provincial requirements govern the use of diesel engines used in underground mines.

Regulatory Issue (Section within Proposed Regulations)

National emissions mark (Section 6)

Comment

"If the manufacturer affixes the "National Emissions Mark" to all engines, whether intended for the US or Canadian market it would not matter to us. However, if the "EC" mark is only applied to engines built for Canadian customers it would prevent us from buying compliant engines from other US sources unless it was a simple process to apply for an "EC" mark based on the engine's compliance with US EPA regulations." [3]

Response

Companies are only required to apply the national emissions mark to prescribed engines that are manufactured in Canada for sale in Canada.

Regulatory Issue (Section within Proposed Regulations)

Replacement engines (Section 12)

Comment

"In the interests of minimizing differences between EC and EPA replacement engine provisions, EMA suggests the following changes (in bold) to section 12(1). 12.(1) In this section, "replacement engine" means an engine manufactured exclusively to replace an engine in a machine for which no current model year engine produced by the manufacturer of the original engine or the manufacturer of the replacement engine with the physical or performance characteristics necessary for the operation of the machine exists." [6]

Response

Section 12 has been modified to enable alternative standards in the case of a replacement engine if there is no current model year engine with the physical or performance characteristics necessary for the operation of the machine available from the original engine manufacturer or the manufacturer offering the replacement engine.

Regulatory Issue (Section within Proposed Regulations)

Labelling requirements (Sections 13 and 24)

Comment

"EMA has some concerns with section 13(4) and section 24(1) of the proposed regulations with respect to the reference within those sections to labelling requirements in subsections 7(3) and (4). It is our understanding that the intent of the reference is to incorporate only the visibility and durability requirements set out in subsections 7(3) and (4), but not the requirement for a national emissions mark itself. In the interest of minimizing the potential for misinterpretation, EMA suggests the addition of the words "visibility and durability" to clarify the reference. Sections 13(4) and 24(1) would read "...engine shall bear a label that meets the visibility and durability requirements set out in subsections 7(3) and (4)..." [6]

Response

The references within subsections 13(4) and 24(1) of the proposed Regulations to labelling requirements of subsections 7(3) and (4) incorporate only the visibility and durability requirements.

No change is being made to the labelling requirements.

Regulatory Issue (Section within Proposed Regulations)

Importation requirements and documents (Section 19)

Comment

"EMA supports EC's approach which minimizes additional importation documentation reporting, and offers the option of bulk reporting. In addition, we urge EC to work with Canada Customs to ensure that the Canadian regulations, when implemented, are fully understood. For instance, remanufactured engines are not subject to EPA labelling requirements and are currently imported into Canada without undue delay, and this should not change. [...] We would like to assist EC in the development of guidance documents for Canada Customs to ensure that confusion and delay is minimized [...]." [6]

"[...] I import/export new and used heavy equipment around the world. In Europe it is called "CE" approved. In USA EPA approved. When implementing these new laws please do not infringe on our right of trade. Install this legislation so "CE" is recognized same as "EPA". By doing so you will keep the trade channels open for Canadians. Otherwise you will have domestic/foreign manufacturers deciding which products can be sold where by a simple sticker applied to the engine. [...]" [9]

Response

The Regulations do not specify importation documentation. The required information corresponds to information provided on a commercial invoice submitted at the time of importation. A company may add the statement of conformity onto their commercial invoice. This should reduce the administrative burden on both importers and the government by eliminating the need to create and submit additional forms.

Environment Canada is working with the Canada Border Services Agency to ensure a smooth transition once the Regulations come into force.

The Department is preparing a guidance document for the Regulations.

The Regulations include a provision (section 16) enabling a company to demonstrate compliance through a valid EPA certificate of conformity.

European Union standards are not fully aligned with the proposed Canadian standards and therefore are not accepted as evidence of conformity. Work is underway to develop global technical regulations with a view to facilitating trade in these kinds of engines.

Also, note that under paragraph 5(2)(f) of the Regulations, "engines that are being exported and are accompanied by a written statement establishing that they will not be sold or used in Canada" are exempt from the standards.

Regulatory Issue (Section within Proposed Regulations)

Defect information (Section 25)

Comment

"EMA recognizes that in developing the Defect Information requirements (section 25) of the proposed regulation, EC is bound by the provisions of section 157 of the CEPA. We also recognize that the provisions of section 157 are somewhat different than the defect reporting requirements defined by EPA in 40 CFR Part 85 Subpart T. CEPA does, however, provide the Minister with certain discretion in the administration of section 157 that will allow the Canadian and U.S. programs to be brought into reasonably close alignment. EMA members fully support the concept of defect identification, reporting and correction and in the past have voluntarily taken the same steps to correct defects on Canadian engines as on their U.S. counterparts. EMA members would like to continue this practice in the future and, insofar as possible, we would like to avoid separate programs for Canada and the U.S. We encourage EC to include a discussion of this issue in the guidance document for the regulations, to ensure that Canadian Defect Information requirements are administered in a manner that parallels the U.S. EPA's defect reporting requirements. We would be happy to assist EC in the development of these guidelines." [6]

Response

While Environment Canada intends to administer notice of defect requests in a manner compatible with U.S. practice, the Canadian legislation is different and the Regulations will not align exactly.

Section 157 of CEPA 1999 outlines the obligations of a company on "becoming aware of a defect in the design, construction or functioning of the engine that affects or is likely to affect its compliance with the prescribed standard." This includes an initial notice and follow-up reports for a period of two years unless the Minister directs otherwise. Environment Canada expects to be given a report similar to that described by the EPA under subsection 85.1903 of the CFR.

Environment Canada plans to provide further information in the guidance document for the Regulations.

Regulatory Issue (Section within Proposed Regulations)

Miscellaneous questions

Comment

1. "Is there any requirement to change out existing engines to meet the new regulations when 2006 regulations take effect?
2. Are the engines we currently run going to be grandfathered until they need to be replaced?
3. Do you know how many of the engine manufacturers have engines that will meet the new standards? Do you have a listing?
4. Equipment that needs to be repowered after 2006, do you know what the extra costs are going to be to run on this new engine ie. fuel economy, maintenance costs, life in hours of new engines.
5. What if anything, do we have to do in the way of listing existing engine prior to 2006 to ensure they are grandfathered?" [1]

Response

1. There is no requirement to change existing engines. The Regulations apply to 2006 and later model-year engines and come into force on January 1, 2006. The definition of a model year is contained in the Regulations.
2. The Regulations do not address the existing or in-use fleet of engines.
3. Once the Regulations come into force, 2006 and later model-year engines must meet the standards, as in the U.S., as a condition of importation into Canada. A full range of engines is expected to be available.
4. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) that accompanied the Regulations has further information regarding the expected costs of new engines designed to meet the standards. The RIAS can be retrieved from the Environment Canada CEPA Registry at Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulations (SOR/2005-32)
5. See #2.

¹ The Regulations are available at: Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulations (SOR/2005-32)

Date modified:

2012-08-23