[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66081-66083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32001]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 90
[FRL-6195-2]
RIN 2060-AE29
Phase 2 Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
At or Below 19 Kilowatts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing notice
of the availability for public review information received by the
Agency following the publication of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) for new nonroad spark-ignition (SI) engines at or below 19
kilowatts (25 horsepower). These engines are used principally in lawn
and garden equipment, both in nonhandheld applications such as
lawnmowers, and also in handheld applications such as trimmers and
chainsaws. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January
27, 1998, and the close of the comment period for the NPRM was March
13, 1998. The additional information received since the publication of
the NPRM relates to whether final standards more stringent than those
contained in the NPRM would be achievable by the regulated industry.
The additional information cited in this document was gathered in
response to the NPRM. This additional notice of availability is not
required, but is intended to inform the public of information included
in the rulemaking record upon which EPA may rely when adopting the
final program. Due to the short deadline for a final rulemaking, EPA is
not reopening the comment period on the NPRM, but will endeavor to
review and place in the docket any comments submitted in response to
this document, to the extent time allows.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in EPA
Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No. A-96-55, Room M-1500
(mail code 6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. These
materials may be viewed from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The
docket may also be reached by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided
in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for
photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Larson, Office of Mobile
Sources, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, (734) 214-4277,
larson.robert@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document contains two sections. The
first section provides background on the pending small SI engine
rulemaking. The second section contains a listing of relevant
information available in the docket for the pending rulemaking made
available to the Agency since the publication of the NPRM.
I. Background
On January 27, 1998, EPA issued a NPRM proposing a second phase of
regulations to control emissions from new nonroad SI engines at or
below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower) (``small SI engines'') (63 FR 3950).
This action was preceded by a March 27, 1997, Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (62 FR 14740). EPA solicited comment on virtually
all aspects of the NPRM. The public comment period for the NPRM closed
March 13, 1998.
EPA held a public hearing on February 11, 1998, and the oral
testimony and written material provided at that hearing have been added
to the docket for this rule. This information was supplemented by more
extensive documentation provided as written comment to the NPRM, which
is also included in the docket for this rule.1 At the public
hearing, in response to a request by the Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) to extend the comment period so as to allow written
comments to reflect the information provided at a March 26, 1998,
hearing of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) concerning its
rules impacting many of these same engines, EPA committed to also
consider all publicly available information of which EPA was informed
and which was provided to the State of California for their
deliberations. This information regarding the recently adopted small
engine standards by the State of California has also been incorporated
in the docket.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A listing of these items is in Section II.A. of this
document.
\2\ A listing of these items is in Section II.B. of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA's standards to
achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through
the application of technology which the Administrator determines will
be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost, lead time,
noise, energy and safety factors. The NPRM contained lengthy discussion
of the proposed standards, the expected costs of their implementation,
and the potential costs and benefits of adopting more stringent
standards such as those that were under consideration by the California
ARB. In the NPRM, EPA explicitly asked for comment regarding the level
of the proposed standards and the impacts and timing for implementing
more stringent standards, so as to allow it to establish the most
appropriate standards in the final rule. In particular, EPA requested
comment on the impacts and timing for
[[Page 66082]]
implementing emission standards that would require the same types of
technology as anticipated by proposed rules under consideration at that
time by the California ARB.
After the close of the comment period and upon reviewing the
information supplied during the comment period, EPA determined that it
was desirable to get further details regarding the technological
feasibility, cost and lead time implications of meeting standards more
stringent than those contained in the NPRM. EPA's NPRM already
contained estimates of the costs and feasibility of more stringent
standards. Some commenters had charged that, based on these
discussions, EPA's proposed standards would not satisfy the stringency
requirements of Clean Air Act Section 213(a)(3). For the purpose of
gaining additional information on feasibility, cost and lead time
implications of more stringent standards, EPA had several meetings,
phone conversations, and written correspondence with specific engine
manufacturers, with industry associations representing those
manufacturers, with representatives of state regulatory associations,
and with members of Congress. Summaries of those meetings, phone
conversations, and written correspondence have also been placed in the
docket.3 EPA also sought information relating to the impact
on equipment manufacturers, if any, of changes in technology
potentially required to meet more stringent standards than were
contained in the NPRM. Summaries of this information have been placed
in the docket.4 Additionally, EPA received numerous comments
on the NPRM requesting closer harmonization with the compliance program
provisions adopted by the State of California. In some cases, EPA also
discussed these harmonization issues with manufacturers to improve the
Agency's understanding of the needs and benefits to the industry of
such harmonization; when applicable, these conversations are also noted
in the meeting documentation provided to the docket.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A listing of these items is in Section II.C. of this
document.
\4\ A listing of these items is in Section II.D. of this
document.
\5\ A listing of these items is in Section II.C. of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA received numerous pieces of correspondence, much of it
after the formal comment period closed, from representatives of the
model airplane and related hobbyist community. This correspondence has
also been included in the docket and will be considered by EPA in
developing its final rule.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A listing of these items is in Section II.E. of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As EPA has stated on prior occasions, in adopting the final small
SI engine rule EPA intends to consider all relevant information that
becomes available. This includes information received during the
comment period on an NPRM, and, to the extent possible, important
information which becomes available after the formal NPRM comment
period has concluded. Regarding the small SI engine rulemaking, to the
extent that post-NPRM information has expanded or updated the knowledge
of the Agency regarding technological feasibility, production lead time
estimates for incorporating improved designs, cost to manufacturers,
cost to consumers and similar factors, it is reasonable to expect that
the improved information may result in changing assessments of how the
pending rule can best achieve regulatory goals compared to what had
been expected at the time of the NPRM. This is especially true in the
case of a rulemaking concerning an industry, like small SI engines,
that is undergoing relatively rapid technological achievement.
II. Summary of Information Available in Docket to This Rule
The following is a listing of information received by EPA after the
publication of the NPRM that is available in the docket to the pending
rulemaking, EPA Air Docket #A-96-55. This listing may be incomplete, as
new material may be added to the docket, and may have already been
added following signature of this document but before its publication
in the Federal Register. Readers may wish to review docket materials
for information other than that specifically identified in this
document.
A. Oral and Written Comment Submitted During the Comment Period to the
NPRM
Oral testimony was presented on behalf of 8 individuals or
organizations at the February 11, 1998, public hearing. The docket
contains a transcript of the hearing and a listing of hearing attendees
(Items IV-F-01 and IV-F-02), as well as copies of written materials
presented at the hearing (Item IV-D-28). In addition, written comments
from 22 individuals or organizations were submitted to the docket
(Items IV-D-01 through IV-D-22) by the close of the comment period.
B. Information Relating to the California ARB Small Off-Road Engine
Program
The California ARB issued a Mail-Out (#MSC 98-02) on January 27,
1998, noticing a March 26, 1998, Public Hearing to Consider Amendments
to the Small Off-Road Engine Regulations, and containing the staff
proposal and report on this topic (Item IV-G-06). At the March 26,
1998, Public Hearing, California ARB staff made available a modified
version of the regulation portion of Mail-Out 98-02, which staff
proposed to the Board at the hearing (Item IV-G-07). The California ARB
staff presentation made at the hearing, as well as written materials
submitted in response to the hearing notice are also contained in the
docket (Items IV-G-05, and Item IV-D-27). Finally, on March 9, 1998,
the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association (PPEMA)
forwarded to EPA the ``PPEMA Proposal for ARB Tier II Emissions
Regulations'' (Item IV-D-23).
C. Summaries of Meetings, Phone Conversations, and Correspondence
Received by the Agency Regarding Programs for Nonhandheld and Handheld
Engines
First, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or
meetings with nonhandheld engine manufacturers or industry associations
representing those manufacturers, including EMA, Tecumseh Products,
Briggs & Stratton, Honda, and Kohler, between May 1998 and September
1998, regarding topics such as standards and implementation dates for
Class I engines, in-use verification testing and compliance, useful
life definitions, a technology to reduce emissions on OHV engines, and
Class I and II Phase 2 Final Regulations, are contained in the docket
(see Items IV-C-01, IV-C-02, IV-D-25, IV-D-26, IV-E-15, IV-E-16, IV-E-
19, IV-E-25. IV-E-44, IV-E-45, IV-E-46, IV-E-48, IV-E-49, IV-E-53, IV-
E-54, IV-E-57, IV-E-59, IV-E-60, IV-E-63, IV-E-64, and IV-G-26).
Second, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or
meetings with handheld engine manufacturers or industry associations
representing those manufacturers, including PPEMA, John Deere, Poulan,
McCulloch, Dolmar, Tanaka, and Stihl, between June 1998 and September
1998, regarding topics such as a PPEMA proposal for Phase 2 standards
and effective dates, including Phase 3 standards in the Phase 2 final
rule, standards for handheld engines that would skip Phase 2 levels and
go directly to Phase 3 levels, appropriate emission standards for
commercial
[[Page 66083]]
products, a technology for reducing handheld 2-stroke emissions, and
Phase 2 handheld engine emission standard feasibility, are contained in
the docket (see Items IV-C-03, IV-E-09, IV-E-11 through IV-E-14, IV-E-
17, IV-E-18, IV-E-20, IV-E-21, IV-E-23, IV-E-26, IV-E-40, IV-E-43, IV-
E-50, IV-E-51, IV-E-56, IV-E-62, IV-E-65, IV-E-66, IV-G-22, IV-G-27,
and IV-G-28).
Third, summaries of separate discussions held between EPA and
Honda, American Suzuki Motor Corporation, and Tecumseh Products
concerning the displacement cutoff for an additional nonhandheld class
are contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-24, IV-E-52).
Fourth, summaries of a September 16, 1998 telephone conversation
between EPA and Tom Cackette (California Air Resources Board) and a
September 17, 1998 telephone conversation between EPA and Jason Grumet
(NESCAUM) regarding the development of final Phase 2 regulations for
small engines is contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-61 and IV-E-
22).
Fifth, summaries of correspondence between EPA and members of
Congress, including Representative Jo Ann Emerson and three colleagues
to EPA, regarding pending Phase 2 regulations for small SI engines,
Senator Herb Kohl to EPA on behalf of constituent Cliff Feldmann,
President of the Auger and power Equipment Manufacturers Association
(APEMA), Representative Frank Lucas to EPA on behalf of constituent Mr.
Dick Roberts, a member of the Auger and Power Equipment Manufacturers
Association (APEMA), are contained in the docket, (Items IV-C-06, IV-C-
05 and IV-C-04).
Finally, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or
meetings with other individuals or organizations, including May 20,
1998 information from and September 3, 1998 meeting with Boswell Energy
Systems regarding a technology for reducing emissions from small SI
engines and June 22, 1998 correspondence from Autonnic Research to EPA
regarding the Autonnic Maintenance Alert Meters, June 16, 1998 meeting
and October 20 telephone conversations between EPA, Pyrotek Inc. and
others regarding Spark Plug Technology for Emission Reductions for
Small SI Engines At or Below 19 kW, and correspondence from MECA to EPA
regarding catalytic technology for small SI nonroad engines, are
contained in the docket (Items IV-D-24, IV-E-07, IV-G-13, IV-E-42 and
IV-E-41, and IV-G-25).
D. Information on the Impact of More Stringent Standards on Equipment
Manufacturers
EPA sought information on the impact on equipment manufacturers, if
any, of changes in technology potentially required to meet more
stringent standards than were contained in the NPRM. Summaries of
substantive correspondence received or conversations or meetings held
regarding the impact of standards on equipment manufacturers are
contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-27 through IV-E-39, IV-E-52,
IV-E-55, IV-E-58 , IV-E-67, and IV-G-20).
E. Correspondence from Representatives of the Model Airplane and
Hobbyist Community
EPA received numerous pieces of correspondence before and after the
close of the comment period on the NPRM from representatives of the
model airplane and related hobbyist community (Items IV-D-07; IV-G-08
through IV-G-12; IV-G-14 through IV-G-19; IV-G-21; IV-G-23, and IV-G-
24).
Dated: November 20, 1998.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 98-32001 Filed 11-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
