Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-01-2018, 18:31   #16
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Boat: Catalina 22 Capri, 15' Catboat, Bristol 35.5
Posts: 1,677
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Unfortunately, I bet we will see a lot more of this in the future. Others are marinizing engines that the manufacturer can't meet emissions standards at the higher RPM levels but the marinizers claim they can. I don't believe it. Kubota reduces output by lowering the max RPM's and creating higher usable torque at lower RPM's. The EPA standards a less stringent at less than 19kw output and that's why they operate just under that. A fixed timing engine just can't meet the EPA standards over a wider RPM range.
__________________

kmacdonald is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-02-2018, 13:50   #17
Registered User
 
Dsanduril's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Africa, Toward Caribbean
Boat: Outremer 50S
Posts: 1,728
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Thought I'd update with what I found out. The warranty registration address for our two engines was not in the US (the PO was European) and, since they were out of warranty I never prioritized updating that information. When checked on the website and by the dealer the engines showed no recall. I had the dealer update the warranty address to our US address in California. About 24 hours after he did that both engines showed up as being recalled, both on the website and at the dealer. The dealer contacted me with that information and I now also have the letter from Volvo. So, short version, the engines will not show up as being recalled unless the address for the warranty within Volvo's system is in the US.

We're halfway around the world at the moment (NZ) so I've been trying to work out with Volvo what we can do. In the end, this was their response:

Quote:
I met with our warranty department and they already have an established protocol to ensure you are taken care of. With all of the information you provided in your email we were able to pull your engines up in our system and have you flagged for your new engines. Our warranty department will be ready to order your new engines in the beginning of 2019. We request that you work with a US Volvo Penta Dealer. You will need to contact XXXXX (if that is your chosen authorized Volvo Penta Dealer) approximately 2 to 3 months before you are ready for installation. They will place the order for the engines via their Volvo Penta software. And please make sure you have a scheduled appointment to have the work completed. Please keep in mind the campaign ends July 1, 2019. If your dates should change and you will be available for the engine swap out before beginning of 2019 please coordinate with a US dealer, allowing 2 to 3 months lead time to order and schedule an appointment. Again, please note the ending of this campaign of July 1, 2019.
Basically they've told me we can only get the engines replaced in the US despite their worldwide service guarantee. Our current cruising plans put us back in the US in spring 2019, so we're hoping we can get it all coordinated to happen then. I guess it won't be terrible to have almost completed a circumnavigation and be gifted two new engines
__________________

Dsanduril is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-02-2018, 16:57   #18
Registered User
 
Cotemar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Boat: Mahe 36, Helia 44 Evo, MY 37
Posts: 5,765
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsanduril View Post
Thought I'd update with what I found out. The warranty registration address for our two engines was not in the US (the PO was European) and, since they were out of warranty I never prioritized updating that information. When checked on the website and by the dealer the engines showed no recall. I had the dealer update the warranty address to our US address in California. About 24 hours after he did that both engines showed up as being recalled, both on the website and at the dealer. The dealer contacted me with that information and I now also have the letter from Volvo. So, short version, the engines will not show up as being recalled unless the address for the warranty within Volvo's system is in the US.

We're halfway around the world at the moment (NZ) so I've been trying to work out with Volvo what we can do. In the end, this was their response:



Basically they've told me we can only get the engines replaced in the US despite their worldwide service guarantee. Our current cruising plans put us back in the US in spring 2019, so we're hoping we can get it all coordinated to happen then. I guess it won't be terrible to have almost completed a circumnavigation and be gifted two new engines
That is Great news, and Thanks for sharing. This will help others that were on the sidelines wondering why they never received a recall.
Cotemar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-02-2018, 17:26   #19
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 78
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

What are the consequences of not having the engine replaced? I've not had an emissions inspection imposed on me. Would there be a time when an emissions check would be made, and an action imposed on the owner?
gbgreen59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 21:17   #20
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2013
Boat: Antares 44i
Posts: 173
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

We read that the engines have to be switched out in the USA. Does anyone know if the Volvo dealership in America Samoa qualifies? It would be a lot easier for us to get to than the USA proper given that we're currently in Vanuatu! Thanks
__________________
Ellen & Rand
sv Golden Glow, an Antares 44i catamaran sailing around the world
svGoldenGlow.com
EllesBelles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 21:31   #21
Registered User
 
Dsanduril's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Africa, Toward Caribbean
Boat: Outremer 50S
Posts: 1,728
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbgreen59 View Post
What are the consequences of not having the engine replaced? I've not had an emissions inspection imposed on me. Would there be a time when an emissions check would be made, and an action imposed on the owner?
Volvo says there are no consequences other than not meeting emissions laws. The only time I am aware of an emissions check being completed is when a boat is imported into the US. At that time the importer (you, if you bought a used boat overseas) must certify that any engines meet EPA requirements. The Volvo engines were sold worldwide with an EPA emissions sticker, so they say they meet the requirements, but the older engines do not in fact meet them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EllesBelles View Post
We read that the engines have to be switched out in the USA. Does anyone know if the Volvo dealership in America Samoa qualifies? It would be a lot easier for us to get to than the USA proper given that we're currently in Vanuatu! Thanks
We're struggling with our own passage planning in this regard, so I've forwarded your question to the VPA customer service rep I've been dealing with (and added Puerto Rico and the USVI to the list). Will respond here once I get a response.

We talked with Volvo about Hawaii, which is quite acceptable, but be advised that Volvo advised us that it would take 4 months to get replacement engines in stock in Hawaii, so careful planning is required, I imagine Samoa (if it qualifies) is the same.
Dsanduril is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 22:48   #22
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Global Travels
Boat: Antares 44i
Posts: 61
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsanduril View Post
We're struggling with our own passage planning in this regard, so I've forwarded your question to the VPA customer service rep I've been dealing with (and added Puerto Rico and the USVI to the list). Will respond here once I get a response.
We are still trying to find the best way to get our engines registered to us. Prior owner was Canadian, boat currently is US owned and registered. Any tips to where to start the re-registration process and what official docs are needed to accomplish the task? Thank you for all the other great info.
__________________
Rand and Ellens/v Golden Glow
Anteres 44i a Glorious Good Day starts w a sunrise over a new bay...
Perfect Ride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 23:03   #23
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2013
Boat: Antares 44i
Posts: 173
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Dsanduril,
In our case we already imported our boat into the USA because we bought it in the USA from a Canadian owner. Perhaps a statement back in 2014 that the engines met EPA standards was accurate because there was no issue brought up then about the Volvos not meeting code.

The engines have performed just fine in the 4 years we’ve used them, but we feel it’s wise to take advantage of the recall is for eventual resale.

I’ll post an update once we learn more about if Unincorporated territories like American Samoa qualify for the “in the USA” requirement.

Given the 4 months for dealers to procure the replacement engines, and Volvo’s deadline of next July, now is the right time to get all these logistics sorted out!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsanduril View Post
Volvo says there are no consequences other than not meeting emissions laws. The only time I am aware of an emissions check being completed is when a boat is imported into the US. At that time the importer (you, if you bought a used boat overseas) must certify that any engines meet EPA requirements. The Volvo engines were sold worldwide with an EPA emissions sticker, so they say they meet the requirements, but the older engines do not in fact meet them.



We're struggling with our own passage planning in this regard, so I've forwarded your question to the VPA customer service rep I've been dealing with (and added Puerto Rico and the USVI to the list). Will respond here once I get a response.

We talked with Volvo about Hawaii, which is quite acceptable, but be advised that Volvo advised us that it would take 4 months to get replacement engines in stock in Hawaii, so careful planning is required, I imagine Samoa (if it qualifies) is the same.
__________________
Ellen & Rand
sv Golden Glow, an Antares 44i catamaran sailing around the world
svGoldenGlow.com
EllesBelles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 08:24   #24
Registered User
 
Dsanduril's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Africa, Toward Caribbean
Boat: Outremer 50S
Posts: 1,728
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Well, I only had partial success The question I asked:

Quote:
Can you tell me if dealers in the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or American Samoa qualify under this program as “US dealers”?
The answer I got back was:

Quote:
We have had success with shipping to/having these engines swapped out in Puerto Rico. If that location works, please let us know approximately 2 months ahead of time.
Doesn't answer the questions about USVI or AS, but it does seem to indicate that at least some territories do qualify. I'd recommend starting with the dealer in AS and ask them to arrange the recall, they should contact Volvo on your behalf and get some kind of answer.

If you want to try Volvo corporate yourself you can try:

Click image for larger version

Name:	VPA Addy.JPG
Views:	22
Size:	14.0 KB
ID:	178838
I hate posting e-mail in the forum, so that's a picture and the domain is spelled backwards, you should be able to sort out the correct domain.

(Mods - I don't know if there's a formal rule about addresses or just best practice, so if this needs to be removed I understand, in that case I can PM to others if requested)

@PerfectRide - Just contact a dealer in the US. If you have a US address it is easiest/best to contact a dealer with a service area covering that address (even if you don't happen to be located there at the moment - since that is your address they are your 'local' dealer). I wasn't even asked to provide a bill of sale or anything else - just provided the serial # and my information. I did have the PO's warranty information (registered address, etc.) but was never even asked for that. I just told them I now owned the boat and the dealer made the update in the Volvo system.
Dsanduril is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 09:14   #25
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Global Travels
Boat: Antares 44i
Posts: 61
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsanduril View Post
@PerfectRide - Just contact a dealer in the US. If you have a US address it is easiest/best to contact a dealer with a service area covering that address (even if you don't happen to be located there at the moment - since that is your address they are your 'local' dealer). I wasn't even asked to provide a bill of sale or anything else - just provided the serial # and my information. I did have the PO's warranty information (registered address, etc.) but was never even asked for that. I just told them I now owned the boat and the dealer made the update in the Volvo system.
Thank you, I was successful getting that done yesterday and now waiting on the update to appear on the recall site. Our engine manufacture dates are late 2008 and 2009 so am hopeful we will be included.
Can anyone tell me where the March 2008 start date came from? and if anyone knows of US registered and owned D2-40 in that date range that were NOT covered? Thanks
__________________
Rand and Ellens/v Golden Glow
Anteres 44i a Glorious Good Day starts w a sunrise over a new bay...
Perfect Ride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 09:41   #26
Registered User
 
Dsanduril's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Africa, Toward Caribbean
Boat: Outremer 50S
Posts: 1,728
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

The 'problem' with these engines is not meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 1042. In particular, 40CFR1042.101, Table 1. Table 1 says that engines from "model year" 2009 and newer must meet the requirements. Unfortunately the definition of model year is complex (below) and was determined by Volvo, so exactly how they made the cutoff determination is unknown (to me).

Quote:
Model year means any of the following:
(1) For freshly manufactured marine engines (see definition of “new marine engine,” paragraph (1)), model year means one of the following:
(i) Calendar year of production.
(ii) Your annual new model production period if it is different than the calendar year. This must include January 1 of the calendar year for which the model year is named. It may not begin before January 2 of the previous calendar year and it must end by December 31 of the named calendar year. For seasonal production periods not including January 1, model year means the calendar year in which the production occurs, unless you choose to certify the applicable engine family with the following model year. For example, if your production period is June 1, 2010 through November 30, 2010, your model year would be 2010 unless you choose to certify the engine family for model year 2011.
(2) For an engine that is converted to a marine engine after being certified and placed into service as a motor vehicle engine, a nonroad engine that is not a marine engine, or a stationary engine, model year means the calendar year in which the engine was originally produced. For an engine that is converted to a marine engine after being placed into service as a motor vehicle engine, a nonroad engine that is not a marine engine, or a stationary engine without having been certified, model year means the calendar year in which the engine becomes a new marine engine. (See definition of “new marine engine,” paragraph (2)).
(3) For an uncertified marine engine excluded under § 1042.5 that is later subject to this part 1042 as a result of being installed in a different vessel, model year means the calendar year in which the engine was installed in the non-excluded vessel. For a marine engine excluded under § 1042.5 that is later subject to this part 1042 as a result of reflagging the vessel, model year means the calendar year in which the engine was originally manufactured. For a marine engine that become new under paragraph (7) of the definition of “new marine engine,” model year means the calendar year in which the engine was originally manufactured. (See definition of “new marine engine,” paragraphs (3) and (7).)
(4) For engines that do not meet the definition of “freshly manufactured” but are installed in new vessels, model year means the calendar year in which the engine is installed in the new vessel (see definition of “new marine engine,” paragraph (4)).
(5) For remanufactured engines, model year means the calendar year in which the remanufacture takes place.
(6) For imported engines:
(i) For imported engines described in paragraph (6)(i) of the definition of “new marine engine,” model year has the meaning given in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this definition.
(ii) For imported engines described in paragraph (6)(ii) of the definition of “new marine engine,” model year means the calendar year in which the engine is remanufactured.
(iii) For imported engines described in paragraph (6)(iii) of the definition of “new marine engine,” model year means the calendar year in which the engine is first assembled in its imported configuration, unless specified otherwise in this part or in 40 CFR part 1068.
(iv) For imported engines described in paragraph (6)(iv) of the definition of “new marine engine,” model year means the calendar year in which the engine is imported.
(7) [Reserved]
(8) For freshly manufactured vessels, model year means the calendar year in which the keel is laid or the vessel is at a similar stage of construction. For vessels that become new under paragraph (2) or (3) of the definition of “new vessel” (as a result of modifications), model year means the calendar year in which the modifications physically begin.
Source
40 CFR § 1042.901
Dsanduril is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 09:49   #27
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Global Travels
Boat: Antares 44i
Posts: 61
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsanduril View Post
The 'problem' with these engines is not meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 1042. In particular, 40CFR1042.101, Table 1. Table 1 says that engines from "model year" 2009 and newer must meet the requirements. Unfortunately the definition of model year is complex (below) and was determined by Volvo, so exactly how they made the cutoff determination is unknown (to me).
Very informative, thank you.
__________________
Rand and Ellens/v Golden Glow
Anteres 44i a Glorious Good Day starts w a sunrise over a new bay...
Perfect Ride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 10:06   #28
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2013
Boat: Antares 44i
Posts: 173
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

I can tell you that there is no volvo penta service outlet in American Samoa. On the volvo dealer website, there is one location in Guam, but they are a dive shop and are only a retail outfit.


When you go to the dealer locator on the volvo site, you have to choose marine leisure (and then diesel) and click the filters for what you want, which for bringing a boat in to have its engines replaced porbably are their selections for "accessible from the water" "crane" and "shipyard".

With those search parameters, in all of Southern California, for instance, there are just two dealers who fit that bill, one in Dana Point and another in Marina del Rey.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsanduril View Post
Well, I only had partial success The question I asked:



The answer I got back was:



Doesn't answer the questions about USVI or AS, but it does seem to indicate that at least some territories do qualify. I'd recommend starting with the dealer in AS and ask them to arrange the recall, they should contact Volvo on your behalf and get some kind of answer.

If you want to try Volvo corporate yourself you can try:

Attachment 178838
I hate posting e-mail in the forum, so that's a picture and the domain is spelled backwards, you should be able to sort out the correct domain.

(Mods - I don't know if there's a formal rule about addresses or just best practice, so if this needs to be removed I understand, in that case I can PM to others if requested)

@PerfectRide - Just contact a dealer in the US. If you have a US address it is easiest/best to contact a dealer with a service area covering that address (even if you don't happen to be located there at the moment - since that is your address they are your 'local' dealer). I wasn't even asked to provide a bill of sale or anything else - just provided the serial # and my information. I did have the PO's warranty information (registered address, etc.) but was never even asked for that. I just told them I now owned the boat and the dealer made the update in the Volvo system.
__________________
Ellen & Rand
sv Golden Glow, an Antares 44i catamaran sailing around the world
svGoldenGlow.com
EllesBelles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2018, 09:31   #29
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Global Travels
Boat: Antares 44i
Posts: 61
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alterboy 65 View Post
I understand that they go by serial numbers , but why only till March of 2018 ? Why not earlier than that ....what was the reason for cutting it off then .
There are a lot of owners of 2007.s , Myself included who missed out by 5 months .
Is there anyone out there with a 2008 engine that has been approved for the recall?

It would be extremely helpful to us to know of any 2008 engine that was approved. We are in the South Pacific with one engine approved and the other not, and trying to decide if we head back for the swap out prior to July 2019.

Thank you.
__________________
Rand and Ellens/v Golden Glow
Anteres 44i a Glorious Good Day starts w a sunrise over a new bay...
Perfect Ride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2018, 14:30   #30
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2013
Boat: Antares 44i
Posts: 173
Re: Volvo Penta D1-30 & D2-40 Engine Recall

Dang, Dsanduril, that is complex! It’s like wading through molasses reading it. That said, I did dig deeper to see if there was precedent for support of older engines to argue they should be covered.

On the interpretation of the definitions in 1068.30 and whether an engine is in the right model year, this may help. In addition to the CFR law you quoted (and thanks again for that!) here is a lot of very dense but helpful verbiage in these comments that could help us, and perhaps help others in the same “boat”

What I did, and may help others too, is download the document at this link
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_f...99619&Lab=OTAQ
These are the comments from engine manufacturers on the law when it was drafted and open for industry comments.

You can look up your engine manufacturer in the chart at the beginning (some will have a nickname code). Then, search for that name or code to see all their comments. Maybe you can find and use something they said on the record to bolster your case for getting your engine covered if it’s an older one.

Also search “model year” and “date of manufacture” and you’ll find a lot of comments on that.

What I’m about to quote is lengthy, but very informative about the whole mystery of year of manufacture and designation of model year, all of which are vitally important in the question of whether a engine is covered or not for the recall. I hope it helps you!

(Excerpted from the comments) EMA commented that EPA is proposing a significant regulatory change – not a clarification – that would define an engine’s date of manufacture based on when the engine is capable of running or on when an incomplete engine is imported to the U.S. This significant change is both unwarranted and misguided. EPA’s proposed change will alter the way in which manufacturers currently operate, will impose significant costs and administrative burdens, and will not provide any emission benefit. Indeed, EPA has not identified any “problem” that it is attempting to solve. The fact of the matter is that EPA’s new definition will create problems.

EMA continued commenting that under EPA’s rules, a manufacturer on a calendar year model year (which is the vast majority of manufacturers) cannot produce an engine for the current model year after December 31 of that model year. However, EPA’s proposed new rules would require the manufacturer that begins production of an engine in one model year to meet the regulatory requirements of the next model year (when the engine can actually run or when the incomplete engine is imported). That is wrong and unfair. It is obvious that, as a practical matter, an engine built on December 31st could not run or would not be imported until January 1st. So, the December 31st engine would either have to be built to the next model year’s standards, or it could not be sold. It is just as obvious that such a scenario could occur for engines built on December 30th, and probably for all of December, and, indeed, for engines built even earlier in that model year. The nature of the manufacturing process, exacerbated by the location of engine plants throughout the world and the non-integrated nature of the industry, makes EPA’s proposed new date of manufacture definition not only impractical, but likely impossible.

EMA commented that manufacturers cannot live with a rule that prohibits them from assigning the date of manufacture at the point within the engine assembly process that is relevant to their specific manufacturing workflow. The assignment process established for a given manufacturing facility does not (and should not) change from day to day or from the beginning to the end of a model year. For products that are imported as incomplete engines, the date of manufacture likewise is determined and assigned during the manufacturing process - - a timing and process that is independent of shipment and importation.

EMA continued that to a large degree, EPA’s proposed change seems to be a “solution in search of a problem.” Certainly, for those model years where there is no change in standards (i.e. most model years), the potential for somehow “gaming” the system around defining the date of manufacture simply does not exist. But, even for those model years in which there is a change in standards, any potential for “gaming” can be eliminated by EPA simply requiring that whatever process and procedure the manufacturer uses for establishing date of manufacture remain constant for an engine family throughout all of its model years.

Finally, EMA noted that engine manufacturers are required to control inventory of either in-process engines, or incomplete engines being imported, to normal levels through both EPA anti-stockpiling requirements and also normal business practices. Accordingly, manufacturers should be allowed to maintain their current production process for the determination of the engine date of manufacture.

OPEI commented that the definition for Date of Manufacture in section 1068.30 is too obscure. Paragraph (1)(i) of the definition has a very narrow interpretation. An engine being able to run is different than an engine set to run properly for emission and performance. OPEI suggests this wording be revised as follows: “The date on which the engine is assembled and adjusted to the point of being able to properly run for compliance to these standards.”

OPEI also commented that EPA should clarify section 1060.201. The certificate of conformity will list an effective date (signature date). The manufacturer may not introduce into commerce before this date but may produce equipment/engines prior to the effective date.

California ARB recommended that procedures be adopted to prevent any stockpiling of engines that could be used to circumvent the regulations.

OPEI/EMA suggested that EPA clarify the allowance for equipment manufacturers to use up inventories of previous MY engines, adding an allowance for engine manufacturers to sell engines that they had built in the previous MY.
IMPCO commented that §1068.103(c) appropriately allows for production of engines while an application for certification is pending, but the regulation should prohibit introduction into U.S. commerce only rather than also prohibiting the selling and offering to sell such engines.

Manufacturers also raised a variety of issues related to our proposal to adopt certain restrictions on naming an engine’s model year for importation, as described in Section 2.10.3.

Letters: Commenter OPEI EMA California ARB IMPCO

Document # 0675 0691 0682 0812

Our Response:

Until now, the regulations have not specified the point in the assembly process that should serve as the basis for establishing an engine’s date of manufacture. For the large majority of engines, this is not an issue, since total assembly time from start to finish is measured in hours or perhaps days. As a result, it is relatively uncommon for there to be any uncertainty regarding an engine’s date of manufacture for purposes of deciding which standards apply. Nevertheless, we have learned that there are widely diverging practices for establishing an engine’s date of manufacture, which means there is a different effective date of new emission standards for different manufacturers. This is especially of interest for larger engines, which are more likely to be assembled in multiple stages at different facilities. We believe it is important to establish a clear requirement in this regard to avoid ambiguity and different interpretations. A consistent approach preserves a level playing field and may prevent some manufacturers from manipulating their build dates to circumvent the regulations.

We expected that the proposed definition of “date of manufacture,” based on reaching a final, running configuration, was the most straightforward and logical interpretation. The comments received and the ensuing discussions made clear that this interpretation was not universally held. The diversity of views underscores the need for the regulations to establish a clear and uniform requirement. Once we are able to establish such a requirement, we believe there would be a “cost and burden” only for those companies that would otherwise be attempting to delay complying with new emission standards. Requiring only that manufacturers continue their normal business practice or maintain a consistent approach from year to year would not do enough to establish uniform and enforceable requirements related to the transition to new emission standards.

However, we recognize the concern that manufacturers need a rather high degree of certainty regarding applicable emission standards when they initiate assembly of an engine. Any number of variables in the production process could affect how long it takes to finish building an engine. We therefore believe it is most appropriate to match up the definitions for “date of manufacture” and “engine” by specifying that an engine’s date of manufacture should be based on the date that the crankshaft is installed in the engine. This provides manufacturers with the control they need to determine which emission standards apply when they start to build the engine.

We are aware that secondary engine manufacturers may have inventory and assembly procedures that are not tied to the actual date of crankshaft installation by the original engine manufacturer. We are therefore specifying for this situation that the date of manufacture is generally the date the secondary engine manufacturer receives shipment of the partially complete engine. The manufacturer may alternatively specify a date of manufacture up to 30 days earlier as long as that date is not earlier than the date the crankshaft was actually installed in the engine. This puts the secondary engine manufacturer in a similar position relative to companies with sole responsibility for assembling complete engines, without placing unreasonable expectations on secondary engine manufacturers.

Some manufacturers would be interested in naming a date of manufacture that is later than we specify in the regulation, as suggested in the comments. This may be for marketing purposes, managing inventories of engine components, or for other recordkeeping or product-development reasons. There is no risk of manufacturers gaining an advantage of being subject to less stringent standards by delaying the date of manufacture for an engine, so we would have no objection to that. However, we limit the selection of date of manufacture to a later point in the assembly process. Selecting a date of manufacture after the end of the assembly process for an engine would raise concerns about the risk of manipulating emission credits for a given model year and about ensuring that engine assembly and dates of manufacture are always within the production period established for a given engine family, as described in the certificate of conformity or the manufacturer’s records. We see no legitimate reason to select a date of manufacture after completing assembly for an engine.

This approach addresses manufacturers’ concerns for knowing which standards apply to an engine, but we are concerned that manufacturers could ramp up production of engine blocks with installed crankshafts as a method to delay compliance with new emission standards. EPA regulations have always included provisions describing limits on inventory and stockpiling practices for equipment manufacturers. The regulations until now have not clearly addressed issues related to stockpiling for engine manufacturers. We agree with the suggestion from commenters that anti-stockpiling provisions would be appropriate. The Clean Air Act contemplates the need for such provisions in §202(b)(3) where there is direction for EPA to consider establishing a definition of model year that prevents stockpiling. At the same time, we received other comments related to production periods and model year, leading us to adopt a collection of related provisions in §1068.103.

The new text in §1068.103 includes three main provisions that are already in place for motor vehicles and heavy-duty highway engines in §§85.2304 and 85.2305. First, we are clarifying that the scope of a certificate of conformity may be limited to established engine models, production periods, or production facilities. Any such limits would be included in the manufacturer’s application for certification or in the certificate of conformity. Second, we are defining the limits on selecting production periods for purposes of establishing the model year. Third, we are clarifying that engine manufacturers may start producing engines after they submit an application for certification and before the certification is approved. This includes provisions to address the manufacturers’ responsibility to ensure (1) that engines are not introduced into U.S. commerce or offered for sale until the certification is approved, (2) that all engines are assembled consistent with the certification, including any changes that may have come from the certification review process, and (3) that manufacturers make these early-production engines available for production-line testing or selective enforcement audits, as appropriate.

In addition, we are adding provisions to establish limits on stockpiling for engine manufacturers. We are doing this by stating that manufacturers must use their normal inventory and assembly processes for initiating assembly of their engines. We include a clarifying expectation that we would expect normal assembly processes to involve no more than one week to complete engine assembly once the crankshaft is installed. We understand that assembly processes in some cases are more complicated, and that engine manufacturers may be unable to complete engine assembly in some cases based on delivery of certain components. To put some boundaries on these exceptional situations, the regulation specifies a presumption that the engine manufacturer has violated the stockpiling prohibition if engine assembly is completed more than 30 days after the end of the model year. This presumption date is 60 days after the end of the model year for engines with per-cylinder displacement above 2.5 liters. This generally distinguishes engines that may have relatively high sales volumes (including heavy-duty highway engines) from bigger engines that are only sold in lower sales volumes.

Two additional provisions are intended to minimize potential burden and disruption related to transitioning to new model years. We specify that the restrictions related to date of manufacture and model year do not apply if there is no change in emission standards for the coming model year. We are also including hardship provisions to allow manufacturers to request approval to extend the final assembly deadline for their engines if circumstances outside their control prevent them from completing engine assembly in time. We would approve such a request only if the manufacturer could not have avoided the situation and took all possible steps to minimize the extent of the delay.

Note that we are also clarifying in the standard-setting parts that the certificate is valid starting with the indicated effective date, but that it is not valid for any production after December 31 of the model year for which it is issued. We are also adopting a provision to preclude issuance of certificates after December 31 of a given model year. This will avoid a situation in which a manufacturer receives certification after it is no longer valid for further production.

Finally, note that we are adopting a provision specifying that imported products may not have a model year more than one year earlier than the calendar year of importation, as described in Section 2.10.3. We proposed this in part 1054 for Small SI engines and requested comment on including it in part 1068 for all nonroad engines. Manufacturers generally had no objection to expanding the scope of this provision to other categories of nonroad engines. We are therefore adopting this provision in §1068.360.

We understand Impco’s interest in making arrangements to sell engines once they have submitted an application for certification for a given engine family. However, making such commitments to supply products before the certification is approved would put EPA in an difficult position if the application included significant shortcomings. If the manufacturer would need to do further testing, modify the engine design, or make other changes to adequately demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements, there could be substantial delays in the certification process. During this time, the manufacturer would likely insist on accelerating the approval because of their premature business commitments. We believe this could interfere with the normal review process. Furthermore, the Clean Air Act prohibits selling or offering to sell engines that are not yet covered by a certificate of conformity, so it is not clear how we could create such an allowance that is consistent with the Act.

Finally, we note that we are adding a new paragraph to §1054.601 to clarify how engine manufacturers can sell engines after the end of the model year. This text does not change the prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.103(f) against engine manufacturers deviating from normal production and inventory practices to stockpile engines with a date of manufacture before new or changed emission standards take effect. It does add a requirement that manufacturers get our prior approval for model years in which emission standards change if their normal practice for producing engines includes maintaining engines in inventory for some engine families for more than 12 months. Manufacturers would be required to show that this is necessary and consistent with their normal business practice. They would also be required to include relevant inventory and production records from the preceding eight years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsanduril View Post
The 'problem' with these engines is not meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 1042. In particular, 40CFR1042.101, Table 1. Table 1 says that engines from "model year" 2009 and newer must meet the requirements. Unfortunately the definition of model year is complex (below) and was determined by Volvo, so exactly how they made the cutoff determination is unknown (to me).
__________________

__________________
Ellen & Rand
sv Golden Glow, an Antares 44i catamaran sailing around the world
svGoldenGlow.com
EllesBelles is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
recall, volvo, penta, cal, engine

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lipari 41: Volvo D1-30 Recall seaclone Fountaine Pajot 18 24-07-2017 21:12
A Recent Marine Survey / Engine Survey in Fort Lauderdale of a Volvo-Penta Engine SuenosAzules Powered Boats 5 25-11-2016 06:17
'02 Volvo Penta Engine S Campbell Engines and Propulsion Systems 91 19-08-2014 04:56
Loss of Power - Inboard Volvo Penta Diesel Engine Kiwi@Sea Engines and Propulsion Systems 6 24-11-2011 08:24
Volvo Penta Diesel Engine Is Hard to Start wsvoboda Engines and Propulsion Systems 13 14-02-2010 18:16



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 18:01.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.