[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 28, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40940-40972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18477]
[[Page 40939]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
_______________________________________________________________________
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 90
Phase 2 Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Handheld
Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 28, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 40940]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 90
[FRL-6374-7]
RIN 2060-AE29
Phase 2 Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition
Handheld Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is reproposing a second phase of emission
regulations to control emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition
handheld engines at or below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower). The engines
covered by this proposal are used principally in handheld lawn and
garden equipment applications such as trimmers, leaf blowers and
chainsaws. EPA originally proposed standards for these engines in
January 1998, however, recent dramatic advancements in small engine
emission control technology have led EPA to repropose significantly
more stringent standards for handheld engines than originally proposed.
The newly proposed standards are expected to result in an estimated 78
percent reduction of emissions of hydrocarbons plus oxides of nitrogen
from those achieved under the current Phase 1 standards applicable to
handheld engines. The proposed standards for handheld engines are
scheduled to be phased in beginning with the 2002 model year. The
standards would result in important reductions in emissions which
contribute to excessively high ozone levels in many areas of the United
States.
Today's action also includes two provisions that would affect Phase
2 nonhandheld engines. EPA is proposing standards for two additional
classes of nonhandheld engines that would apply to engines below 100
cubic centimeters displacement used in nonhandheld equipment
applications. EPA is also proposing an option that allows manufacturers
to certify engines greater than 19 kilowatts and less than or equal to
one liter in displacement to the small engine Phase 2 standards. EPA
recently adopted Phase 2 regulations for small SI engines used in
nonhandheld equipment generally, and today's proposed standards for
additional classes of nonhandheld engines and the option to include
engines greater than 19 kilowatts and less than or equal to one liter
in displacement would partially modify the scope of the recent final
rule.
DATES: Written comments on this SNPRM must be submitted on or before
September 17, 1999. EPA will hold a public hearing on August 17, 1999
starting at 10:00 a.m.; requests to present oral testimony must be
received on or before August 13, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No. A-96-
55, Room M-1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460, and to the EPA contact person listed below. Materials relevant
to this supplemental proposed rulemaking are contained in this docket
and 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.
The public hearing will be held in Ann Arbor, MI at the National
Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood; call (734) 214-
4270 for further information.
For further information on electronic availability of this
supplemental proposed rulemaking, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Carlson, U.S. EPA, Office of
Mobile Sources, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, (734) 214-
4270; carlson.philip@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that
manufacture or introduce into commerce new small spark-ignition
handheld or nonhandheld nonroad engines or equipment. Regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................ Manufacturers or importers of new
nonroad small (at or below 19 kW)
spark-ignition handheld or
nonhandheld engines and
equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. 90.1 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Regulatory Documents
The preamble, proposed regulatory language and Supplemental Draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis are also available electronically from the
EPA Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any
cost already incurred for Internet connectivity. The electronic version
of this supplemental proposed rule is made available on the day of
publication on the primary Web site listed below. The EPA Office of
Mobile Sources also publishes Federal Register notices and related
documents on the secondary Web site listed below.
1. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/(either select desired
date or use Search feature).
2. http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/(look in What's New or under the
specific rulemaking topic)
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Background
B. Overview of Re-Proposed Program
II. Content of the Supplemental Proposed Rule
A. Emission Standards and Related Provisions
1. Class Structure
2. Emission Standards
3. NMHC+NOx Standard for Class I-B Natural Gas-Fueled Engines
4. Useful Life Categories
5. Selection of Useful Life Category
B. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
C. Compliance Program
1. Certification
2. Production Line Testing--Cumulative Summation Procedure
3. Voluntary In-Use Testing
4. Selective Enforcement Auditing
D. Flexibilities
1. Carry-Over Certification
2. Flexibilities for Small Volume Engine Manufacturers and Small
Volume Engine Families
3. Small Volume Engine Manufacturer Definition
4. Small Volume Engine Family Definition
5. Flexibilities for Equipment Manufacturers and Small Volume
Equipment Models
6. Small Volume Equipment Manufacturer Definition
7. Small Volume Equipment Model Definition
[[Page 40941]]
E. General Provisions and Recommendations
1. Definition of Handheld Engine
2. Engines Used in Recreational Vehicles and Applicability of
the Small SI Regulations to Model Airplanes
3. Engine Labeling
4. Emission Warranty
III. Projected Impacts
A. Environmental Benefit Assessment
1. Roles of HC and NOx in Ozone Formation
2. Health and Welfare Effects of Tropospheric Ozone
3. Estimated Emissions Impact of the Supplemental Proposed
Regulations
4. Health and Welfare Effects of CO Emissions
5. Health and Welfare Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions
B. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness
1. Class I-A and Class I-B
2. Engine Technologies for Handheld Engines
3. Handheld Engine Costs
4. Handheld Equipment Costs
5. Handheld Operating Costs
6. Cost Per Engine and Cost-Effectiveness
IV. Public Participation
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children's Health
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
VI. Statutory Authority
I. Introduction
A. Background
On January 27, 1998, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing a second phase of regulations to control emissions
from new handheld and nonhandheld nonroad SI engines at or below 19
kilowatts (25 horsepower) hereafter referred to as ``small SI engines''
(63 FR 3950). This action was preceded by a March 27, 1997, Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (62 FR 14740). EPA solicited comment on
all aspects of the January 1998 NPRM. EPA held a public hearing on
February 6, 1998, and the public comment period for the January 1998
NPRM closed March 13, 1998. EPA finalized Phase 2 standards and
compliance program requirements for Class I and Class II nonhandheld
engines on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15208). In the final rule for
nonhandheld engines, EPA noted that it planned to address the Phase 2
program for handheld engines in future Federal Register documents. The
purpose of today's supplemental proposal is to propose revised Phase 2
standards and compliance program requirements for handheld engines.
Today's supplemental proposal also includes proposed standards and
compliance program requirements for two newly designated classes of
nonhandheld engines with displacements below 100 cubic centimeters
(cc), hereafter referred to as Class I-A and Class I-B engines.
Today's proposed action is taken in response to section 213(a)(3)
of the Clean Air Act which requires EPA's standards for nonroad engines
and vehicles 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
standards and other compliance program requirements being proposed
today are intended to satisfy this Clean Air Act mandate.
The January 1998 NPRM contained lengthy discussion of the first set
of proposed standards, the expected costs of their implementation, the
technologies that EPA expected manufacturers would use to meet the
standards, and the potential costs and benefits of adopting more
stringent standards such as those that were then under consideration by
the California Air Resources Board (ARB). In the January 1998 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 EPA to establish the most appropriate
standards in the final rule. In particular, EPA requested comment on
the impacts and timing for 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 and after 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 January 1998 NPRM.
EPA's January 1998 NPRM already contained estimates of the costs and
feasibility of more stringent standards. Some commenters had charged
that, based on these 1998 NPRM discussions, EPA's proposed standards
would not be stringent enough to 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 engine and equipment manufacturers,
with developers of emission control technologies and suppliers of
emission control hardware, with representatives of state regulatory
associations, and with members of Congress. 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 January 1998 NPRM. Additionally, EPA
received numerous comments on the January 1998 NPRM requesting closer
harmonization with the compliance program provisions that were
ultimately adopted by the State of California. In some cases, EPA also
discussed these harmonization issues with manufacturers and industry
association representatives to improve the Agency's understanding of
the needs and benefits to the industry of such harmonization.
As stated on prior occasions, in adopting final Phase 2
requirements for small SI engines, EPA wished to consider all relevant
information that became available during the rule development process.
This includes information received during the comment period on the
January 1998 NPRM, and, to the extent possible, important information
which became available after the formal comment period had concluded on
the January 1998 NPRM. 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, costs to manufacturers, costs to consumers and similar
factors, it is reasonable to expect that the improved information may
result in changing assessments of how a pending rule can best achieve
regulatory goals compared to what had been expected at the time of the
January 1998 NPRM. This is especially true in the case of a rulemaking
concerning an industry, like the small SI engine industry, that is
undergoing relatively rapid technological innovation.
EPA published a Notice of Availability on December 1, 1998
highlighting the additional information gathered in response to the
January 1998 NPRM (see 63 FR 66081). After analyzing this information,
the Agency concluded that more stringent standards for Class I
nonhandheld engines, used in applications such as lawn mowers,
[[Page 40942]]
consistent with those adopted by California were indeed achievable on
the national scale with existing, well-understood overhead valve
technology. EPA had discussed issues regarding the use of this
technology in nonhandheld equipment in the January 1998 NPRM. In
response to the additional information and to the comments on the NPRM,
EPA adopted a final rule for nonhandheld engines that included emission
standards considerably more stringent than those proposed for Class I
nonhandheld engines in the January 1998 NPRM. In the same final rule,
EPA also adopted standards for Class II engines at the levels proposed
in the January 1998 NPRM that were based on the use of the same
overhead valve technology.
However, since the publication of the January 1998 NPRM, there have
been rapid and dramatic advances in emission reduction technologies for
handheld engines used in applications such as trimmers, brush cutters,
and chainsaws. EPA had not been able to fully evaluate these
technologies or discuss their possible availability at the time of the
January 1998 NPRM. Having reviewed the available information regarding
these new technologies, EPA now believes this new information supports
proposed Phase 2 standards for handheld engines that are significantly
more stringent than those proposed in the January 1998 NPRM. In light
of this information, and in the interest of providing an opportunity
for public comment on the stringent levels being considered for the
Phase 2 handheld engine emission standards and the technologies
available for meeting these standards, EPA is reproposing the Phase 2
regulations for handheld engines in this Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM).
With today's SNPRM, EPA is also proposing standards for two new
classes of small displacement nonhandheld engines. EPA requested
comment on the need for such standards in the January 1998 preamble and
received comments from a number of engine manufacturers supporting such
standards. Originally, the Agency did not propose different standards
for small displacement nonhandheld engines citing the availability of
the averaging, banking and trading program as a reason for not
proposing separate standards. However, because the standards EPA
recently finalized for nonhandheld Class I engines are more stringent
than originally proposed in the January 1998 NPRM and because it is
technologically more difficult to meet a given level of emissions as
the engine displacement is decreased, manufacturers who would likely
produce such small displacement engines would not likely be able to
meet the Phase 2 Class I standards recently finalized and would not be
able to produce such small displacement nonhandheld engines even if
they could take advantage of the averaging, banking and trading
program. Therefore, EPA is proposing standards for two classes of small
displacement nonhandheld engines. The first small displacement class
would cover nonhandheld engines with displacements below 66 cc and
would be referred to as Class I-A engines. The second small
displacement class would cover nonhandheld engines at or above 66 cc
and below 100 cc and would be referred to as Class I-B engines.
In response to a request from small SI engine manufacturers,
today's SNPRM is proposing to allow manufacturers the option of
certifying engines greater than 19 kW and less than or equal to one
liter in displacement to the small SI engine Phase 2 regulations for
nonhandheld engines beginning with the 2001 model year. Because of
their size, these engines would not need to be certified under the
current Phase 1 small SI engine program. However, because there are a
small number of these engines that are primarily derivatives of other
certified small SI engines at or below 19 kW, EPA believes it would be
appropriate for manufacturers to have the option to certify these
engines to the Phase 2 requirements for small SI engines. Engines
certified under this option would be required to certify for the
longest useful life period of 1,000 hours. This requirements of this
option would be consistent with a recently adopted requirement by the
California ARB that allows engines above 19 kW and less than or equal
to one liter in displacement to certify as small SI engines with a
useful life of 1,000 hours.
EPA is also proposing a number of changes to the compliance program
for handheld engines originally proposed in the January 1998 NPRM. Most
of these proposed changes are to make the Phase 2 handheld engine
compliance program the same as the compliance program requirements
recently finalized for Phase 2 nonhandheld engines. The proposed
requirements for handheld engines are intended to establish a
consistent approach to the compliance program for all nonroad small SI
engines.
The reader is referred to the March 1999 final rule for nonhandheld
engines, the December 1998 Notice of Availability, the January 1998
NPRM, as well as to the docket for this rulemaking, for the range of
information upon which the Agency has relied in reproposing Phase 2
standards and compliance program requirements for small SI handheld
engines, and for proposing standards for Class I-A and I-B nonhandheld
engines.
B. Overview of Re-Proposed Program
The following provides an overview of the reproposed Phase 2
provisions for handheld engines and the proposed provisions for Class
I-A and Class I-B nonhandheld engines. Additional detail explaining the
program as well as discussion of information and analyses which led to
the selection of these proposed requirements is contained in subsequent
sections. The reader should note there are a number of provisions
contained in the January 1998 NPRM that EPA is not revising in this
SNPRM. Thus, those proposed provisions remain as part of EPA's proposed
Phase 2 program for handheld engines. Such provisions may not be
addressed in detail in this SNPRM, but they could become part of the
final program for Phase 2 handheld engines and will be addressed in the
final rulemaking document that establishes the Phase 2 requirements for
handheld engines, as appropriate.
Consistent with Phase 1 rules, the recently finalized Phase 2
program for nonhandheld engines and this SNPRM distinguish between
engines used in handheld equipment and those used in nonhandheld
equipment. In today's action, Phase 2 emission standards are proposed
for distinct engine size categories referred to as ``engine classes''
within the handheld engine equipment designation. Table 1 summarizes
the re-proposed hydrocarbon plus oxides of nitrogen (HC+NOx) emission
standards for Class III, Class IV, and Class V handheld engines in
grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) and when these standards are proposed
to take effect under this SNPRM. For comparison purposes, Table 2
contains the Phase 2 standards for handheld engines originally proposed
in the January 1998 NPRM. The standards originally proposed in the
January 1998 NPRM would have required manufacturers to certify a
specified percentage of their sales to the proposed Phase 2 standards
during the 2002 to 2005 model years. (The proposed percentages were 20
percent in 2002, 40 percent in 2003, 70 percent in 2004, and 100
percent in 2005.) Table 2 also lists the effective standards factoring
in the mix of Phase 1 and Phase 2 engines assuming the proposed phase
in schedule contained in the January 1998 NPRM.
[[Page 40943]]
Table 1.--Re-Proposed Phase 2 HC+NOx Emission Standards for Handheld Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-Proposed HC+NOx Standards (g/kW-hr) by Model Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Class 2008 and
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III................... 226 200 150 100 50 50 50
Class IV.................... 187 168 129 89 50 50 50
Class V..................... .......... .......... 138 129 110 91 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Originally Proposed Phase 2 HC+NOx Emission Standards for Handheld Engines and Effective Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Effective HC+NOx Standards (g/kW-hr) by Model
Proposed HC+NOx Year
Engine Class Standards (g/kW------------------------------------------------
hr) in January 2005 and
1998 NPRM* 2002 2003 2004 later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III...................................... 210 282 264 237 210
Class IV....................................... 172 231 217 194 172
Class V........................................ 116 156 146 131 116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The originally proposed Phase 2 standards were to be phased in at 20% in 2002, 40% in 2003, 70% in 2004 and
100% in 2005 and later model years.
After complete phase-in, the re-proposed emission standards
contained in this SNPRM for handheld engines (see Table 1) are
considerably more stringent than the proposed standards included in the
January 1998 NPRM (see Table 2). In addition, except for Class V, the
reproposed standards are more stringent during all years of the phase-
in than were originally proposed in the January 1998 NPRM. For Class V,
the reproposed standards have been delayed until 2004 to allow
manufacturers additional time to comply with the significantly more
stringent standards included in today's SNPRM. EPA believes that the
limited emission reductions forfeited in the short term with the
delayed implementation date for Class V engines would be offset in the
long term by significantly greater emission reductions once the
reproposed standards take effect due to the increased stringency of the
reproposed Phase 2 standards.
The more stringent reproposed standards reflect the Agency's
analysis of the information received in direct response to the
questions posed in the January 1998 NPRM concerning the desirability
and feasibility of more stringent standards than the levels first
proposed, as well as other information made available to the Agency
since the January 1998 NPRM. When fully phased in, these newly proposed
Phase 2 standards are expected to result in an estimated 78 percent
annual reduction in combined HC+NOx emissions from small SI
handheld engines compared to the Phase 1 emission requirements for such
engines. The HC+NOx reductions expected from the standards
contained in today's SNPRM represent more than a 100 percent increase
in reductions over the standards proposed in the January 1998 NPRM once
the Phase 2 standards are fully phased in.
One feature of the newly proposed Phase 2 handheld standards is
that they would decline over a number of model years, allowing
manufacturers to transition orderly and efficiently from their existing
Phase 1 engine designs and technologies to those necessary to meet the
new Phase 2 requirements. In addition, as described later, EPA is
proposing a certification averaging, banking and trading (ABT) program
that would include handheld engines. As an example, under today's
proposal, a manufacturer of Class III engines would be required to meet
a gradually decreasing standard on average for this segment of its
product line during model years 2002 through 2006. During this time
frame, EPA anticipates that a manufacturer would begin selling engine
designs certified to meet the California ARB's Tier 2
HC+NOx standard of 72 g/kW-hr nationwide while continuing to
change more and more of its Class III engine designs to designs capable
of meeting a 50 g/kW-hr standard, averaging emission performance with
older designs and thus meeting on average the declining standard in
effect for that model year as noted in Table 1. Finally, EPA expects
that the manufacturer would have had sufficient time and resources to
change the remainder of its engine designs and production tooling to
meet a 50 g/kW-hr standard on average for all of its Class III engines
by 2006 or shortly thereafter. Because the reproposed standards are a
fleet average standard, a manufacturer could continue selling Class III
engines certified above the 50 g/kW-hr HC+NOx standard even
after the 2006 model year provided it has sufficient ABT credits from
engines certified below the standard in the same model year, credits
banked from previous model years, and/or credits obtained from another
small SI engine manufacturer.
As noted earlier, EPA is also proposing to add two new classes of
small SI nonhandheld engines that were not proposed in the January 1998
NPRM. As proposed, Class I-A would cover engines with displacement less
than 66 cc that are installed in nonhandheld equipment. Class I-B would
cover engines equal to or greater than 66 cc but less than 100 cc that
are installed in nonhandheld equipment. Table 3 contains the proposed
HC+NOx standards for Class I-A and Class I-B engines.
Without these added classes and their specific standards, all engines
less than 225 cc would be included in Class I and would have to meet
the recently finalized Phase 2 standard adopted for Class I engines
(also noted in Table 3).
[[Page 40944]]
Table 3.--Proposed Phase 2 HC+NOx Emission Standards for Class I-A and
Class I-B Engines and the Final Phase 2 HC+NOx Emission Standard for
Class I Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC+NOx
Engine Class Standard g/ Time
kW-hr frame
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I-A........................................ 50 2000
Class I-B........................................ 40 2000
Class I.......................................... I6.1 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing the Class I-A and Class I-B designations in
response to comments submitted on the January 1998 NPRM indicating that
new applications for nonhandheld equipment were being developed which
would use engines in these displacement ranges. Because it is generally
more technically difficult to control emissions of smaller engines, at
this time EPA believes it is too costly to require manufacturers to
design engines under 100 cc for use in nonhandheld equipment to achieve
the Phase 2 Class I HC+NOx standard of 16.1 g/kW-hr and
still have the power and performance capabilities to be useful in
powering such equipment. Although EPA does not anticipate that
significant numbers of equipment in this category will be produced in
comparison to the other engine classes, EPA believes it is reasonable
to provide the opportunity to market such equipment since, if sold,
such equipment will have reasonably demonstrated consumer value.
Further, at the low production volumes anticipated, the contribution to
the emissions inventory from such small engines would be extremely
small.
As noted above, EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers the option
of certifying engines greater than 19 kW and less than or equal to one
liter in displacement to the small SI engine Phase 2 regulations
beginning with the 2001 model year. Because of their power rating,
these engines are currently unregulated by EPA and therefore are not
required to meet any emission standards at the federal level. EPA
recently issued a Notice of Proposed Finding (see 64 FR 6008) which
announced EPA's intent to propose regulations for ``large nonroad SI
engines.'' EPA is expecting to issue a NPRM for large nonroad SI
engines sometime in 2000. Based on information released along with the
Notice of Proposed Finding, EPA expects to propose that engines greater
than 19 kW and less than one liter in displacement would be required to
comply with the small SI nonroad engine requirements. Therefore,
allowing manufacturers to optionally elect to certify engines above 19
kW with displacement less than or equal to one liter is consistent with
the program EPA expects to propose for large SI nonroad engines. If for
some reason, EPA does not finalize such a requirement for engines above
19 kW and less than or equal to one liter in displacement as part of
the large SI nonroad engine program, EPA would expect to consider
reasonable approaches to minimize disruption to the affected engine
industry. In addition, interested parties would be able to suggest any
approaches they believed were appropriate in comments on the large SI
nonroad engine NPRM.
To offer an incentive for the early introduction of clean engines
and to provide engine manufacturers with additional flexibility in
meeting the reproposed Phase 2 handheld standards, EPA is proposing to
make the recently adopted ABT program for Phase 2 nonhandheld engines
also available to handheld engines, as well as to Class I-A and Class
I-B engines. EPA did not originally propose an ABT program for handheld
engines in the January 1998 NPRM. However, because of the increased
stringency of the proposed handheld engine standards contained in this
SNPRM, and after manufacturers have indicated an interest in such a
program, EPA believes that an ABT component can be an integral part of
the Phase 2 standards being proposed for Classes III, IV, and V as well
as Classes I-A and I-B.
The standards and the compliance program elements being reproposed
today also consider expected in-use deterioration. In contrast to the
Phase 1 rules which only regulate the emission performance of engines
when new, the Phase 2 standards being proposed today would require
manufacturers to account for expected deterioration in emission
performance as an engine is used. Manufacturers would be required to
evaluate the emission deterioration performance of their engine designs
and certify their designs to meet the proposed standards after
factoring in the anticipated emission deterioration of a typical in-use
engine over its useful life. As contained in today's SNPRM, a handheld
engine manufacturer would select from one of three different useful
life categories based on the type of engine and equipment in which the
engine is installed. Under the proposed program, handheld engines would
be certified to the emissions standards for a period of 50, 125, or 300
hours of use based on design features and the intended use of the
installation. (A high priced piece of industrial equipment would more
likely be equipped with an engine with design features intended to make
it most durable and thus certified to the emission standards assuming a
useful life period of 300 hours, for example.) For Class I-A engines,
EPA is proposing the handheld engine useful life periods of 50, 125,
and 300 hours. For Class I-B engines, EPA is proposing that a
manufacturer would choose to certify for a useful life period of 125,
250, or 500 hours.
The proposed certification program would require manufacturers to
determine an appropriate methodology for accumulating hours of
operation to ``age'' an engine in a manner which duplicates the same
type of wear and other deterioration mechanisms expected under typical
consumer use which could affect emission performance. EPA expects bench
testing would be used to conduct this aging operation because this can
save time and perhaps money, but actual in-use operation (e.g.,
trimming grass) would also be encouraged. Emission tests would be
conducted when the engine is new and when it has finished accumulating
the equivalent of its useful life. The engine would have to pass
standards both when it is new and at the end of its designated useful
life to qualify for certification. Additionally, the new engine and
fully aged engine emission test levels would be compared to determine
the expected deterioration in emission performance for other engines of
this design; such engines could be tested as they come off the end of a
production line, in which case their new engine emission levels would
be adjusted by the deterioration factor determined from the
certification engine to predict the emission performance or the engine
at the end of its useful life.
Selection of engines for testing as they come off the production
line would be conducted according to the provisions of the proposed
Production Line Testing (PLT) program. This program is explained in
more detail in a following section but, briefly, its intent is to allow
a sampling of production line engines to be tested for emission
performance to assure that the design intent as certified prior to
production has been successfully transferred by the manufacturer to
mass production. The volume of PLT testing required by the manufacturer
would depend on how close the test results from the initial engines
tested are to the standards; if these test engines indicate the design
is particularly low emitting, few engines would need to be tested,
while those designs with emission levels very close to the standards
would need additional tests to make sure the design is being
[[Page 40945]]
produced with acceptable emission performance.
While the proposed compliance program would not require the
manufacturer to conduct any in-use testing to verify continued
satisfactory emission performance in the hands of typical consumers, an
optional program for such in-use testing is being proposed. EPA
believes it is important for manufacturers to conduct in-use testing to
assure the success of their designs and to factor back into their
design and/or production process any information suggesting emission
problems in the field. While not proposing to mandate such a program,
the proposal would encourage such testing by allowing a manufacturer to
avoid the cost of the PLT program for a portion of its product line by
instead supplying data from in-use engines. Under this voluntary in-use
testing program, up to twenty percent of the engine families certified
in a year could be designated for in-use testing by the manufacturer.
For these families, no PLT testing would be required for two model
years including that model year. Instead, the manufacturer would select
a minimum of three engines off the assembly line or from another source
of new engines and emission test them when aged to at least 75 percent
of their useful life under typical in-use operating conditions for this
engine. The information relating to this in-use testing program would
be shared with EPA. If any information derived from this program
indicates a possible substantial in-use emission performance problem,
EPA anticipates the manufacturer would seek to determine the nature of
the emission performance problem and what corrective actions might be
appropriate. EPA would offer its assistance in analysis of the reasons
for unexpectedly high in-use emission performance and what actions
might be appropriate for reducing these high emissions.
As proposed in the January 1998 NPRM, EPA could choose to conduct
its own in-use compliance program whether or not a manufacturer chose
to conduct such a voluntary in-use testing program. If EPA were to
determine that an in-use noncompliance investigation was appropriate,
the Agency expects it would conduct its own in-use testing program,
separate from any voluntary manufacturer testing program, to determine
whether a specific class or category of engines is complying with
applicable standards in use.
All of the general provisions of this proposed compliance program
have been adopted as part of California's compliance program for these
classes of small engines.\1\ Importantly, the testing and data
requirements, engine family descriptors, compliance statements and
similar testing and information requirements of these proposed federal
Phase 2 handheld regulations are, to the best of EPA's knowledge, the
same general compliance program requirements adopted by the California
ARB. This will be advantageous to manufacturers marketing the same
product designs in California as in the other states, as they would
need to prepare only one set of certification application information,
supplying one copy to the California ARB for certification in the State
of California and one copy to EPA for federal certification. This
similar treatment under the regulations would also extend to the
proposed PLT program and would also likely extend to the proposed
optional in-use testing program, such that any test data and related
information developed for the California ARB should also satisfy the
federal regulatory requirements being proposed today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While the voluntary in-use test program has not been
codified in the California ARB Tier 2 rules for these engines, EPA
has discussed the program with the California ARB. EPA expects that
the California ARB would consider allowing manufacturers to
participate in the voluntary in-use test program and receive the
same decreased PLT testing as contained in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the regulatory provisions outlined above, this
proposal includes special provisions for small volume engine
manufacturers, small volume engine families produced by other engine
manufacturers, small volume equipment manufacturers who rely on other
manufacturers to supply them with these small SI handheld engines, and
small volume equipment models. These special small volume handheld
provisions are intended to lessen the demonstration requirements and in
some cases delay the effective dates of the standards so as to smooth
the transition to these Phase 2 requirements. This is especially
important for small volume applications because the eligible
manufacturers involved may not have the resources to ensure that
engines complying with the proposed Phase 2 standards will be available
within the time frames otherwise envisioned under these regulations.
Since these proposed flexibility provisions are limited to small volume
applications, the risk to air quality should be negligible. However,
without these provisions, the economic impacts to small volume
manufacturers could be increased and the possibility of reduced product
offering would be greater, especially for those products intended to
serve niche markets which satisfy special needs. The proposed small
volume flexibilities are explained more fully in section II.D. of
today's SNPRM and are detailed in the proposed regulations.
II. Content of the Supplemental Proposed Rule
The following sections provide additional detail on the provisions
of the supplemental proposed rule outlined above.
A. Emission Standards and Related Provisions
1. Class Structure
This SNPRM retains the same basic class structure for small SI
engines as implemented in the Phase 1 regulations and proposed in the
January 1998 NPRM with the addition of the proposed designations of
Class I-A and Class I-B engines. The Phase 1 rules established separate
classes based on engine size in recognition of the greater difficulty
in controlling emissions from smaller displacement engines compared to
larger displacement engines. The Phase 1 program also separated engine
classes into those intended for use in equipment typically carried by
the operator during its use such as chain saws or string trimmers
(referred to as handheld equipment) and those engines normally used in
equipment which is not carried by the operator such as lawnmowers and
generators (referred to as nonhandheld equipment). These usage
distinctions seemed appropriate because the small engine industry is
for the most part split between these two categories, with very few
manufacturers making both handheld engines and nonhandheld engines. In
addition, the nature of these two industry segments is quite different.
For example, handheld engine manufacturers produce engines primarily
for use in equipment they also manufacture. In contrast, nonhandheld
engine manufacturers typically supply engines to separate nonhandheld
equipment manufacturers and do not make their own equipment.
As noted above, EPA is proposing standards for two new classes of
nonhandheld engines in this SNPRM. Under the existing Phase 1 program,
Class I includes all nonhandheld engines with displacements below 225
cc. EPA received several comments on the January 1998 NPRM supporting
the adoption of standards for additional nonhandheld categories below
225 cc. EMA requested the creation of a new class of small displacement
nonhandheld engines in order to fill a void in the equipment market
left by
[[Page 40946]]
products that would no longer be able to utilize 2-stroke engines if
the proposed Phase 2 Class I standards were adopted. They noted that
production of some 4-stroke side valve (SV) engines under 76 cc had
already been discontinued with the advent of Phase 1 standards due to
practicality, and that with the more stringent standards proposed for
Phase 2, even greater numbers of these engines would be eliminated from
the market. EMA also noted that the California ARB had proposed an
HC+NOX standard of 72 g/kW-hr for engines below 60 cc,
recognizing that engines below 60 cc are designed for functionally
different types of equipment than those above 60 cc. Honda commented
that the Phase 1 standards and the proposed Phase 2 standards for Class
I are not appropriate for the smallest engines in the class because of
the increased difficulty in reducing emissions with small displacement
engines. Honda recommended the addition of a small displacement
nonhandheld engine class with the emission standard harmonized with the
California ARB's standard for 0-60 cc engines. Suzuki recommended the
addition of a small displacement nonhandheld class of 100 cc and less,
arguing that overhead valve (OHV) engines in this size already have
difficulty meeting the Phase 1 HC+NOX standards because of
large combustion chamber surface-to-volume ratios. They commented that
the addition of a new class of small displacement nonhandheld engines
would allow the use of lightweight 4-strokes in applications that
require mobility but do not qualify as multi-positional under the
handheld classification. Suzuki recommended that the HC+NOX
standard should be 40 g/kW-hr, with the same durability classes and in-
use programs as proposed for Class I engines. Tecumseh noted that they
foresee a need for 4-stroke engines in the 50-100 cc range, which would
not be able to meet the proposed Phase 2 Class I standard. They
commented that an additional class below 225 cc was needed and they
also suggested a 40 g/kW-hr HC+NOX standard for 50-100 cc
engines.
Based on the fact that it is more difficult for smaller
displacement engines to meet the same emission standards as larger
displacement engines, EPA believes that a standard which is technically
feasible and economically viable for the larger displacement Class I 4-
stroke engines (which have displacements typically above 125 cc and are
primarily used in lawnmowers), could be too costly for manufacturers to
be achievable for smaller displacement engines that manufacturers would
need to use in new equipment applications requiring the use of much
smaller displacement nonhandheld engines. Therefore, it appears that
the span of engine displacements within Class I is too large to allow
for a technologically appropriate engine standard for both the larger
and smaller engines in that class. Although this has not significantly
affected manufacturers' ability to produce engines for applications
under the Phase 1 rules, EPA believes this may not be the case in the
future based on the comments noted above. If EPA were to retain the
broader Class I category, products like those noted by manufacturers in
their comments above would need to be dropped or could not be
introduced. Thus, to allow for the marketing of a wide range of
nonhandheld products, including applications that could be powered by
the smallest displacement engines, EPA is proposing to subdivide the
Class I engine category by adding two new nonhandheld engine classes
and redesignating the span of displacements covered by Class I. Under
today's proposal, Class I-A would include nonhandheld engines below 66
cc, Class I-B would include nonhandheld engines equal to or greater
than 66 cc but less than 100 cc, and Class I would cover engines equal
to or greater than 100 cc but less than 225 cc. The proposed
displacement range for Class I-A would harmonize the requirements with
those adopted by the California ARB. Based on the comments submitted by
manufacturers, EPA believes the proposed displacement range for Class
I-B is appropriate and should not compromise the emissions benefits of
the recently finalized Phase 2 program for Class I engines since more
than 99 percent of the currently certified Class I engines (based on
estimated production levels submitted by manufacturers to EPA) have
displacements greater than 100 cc. EPA requests comments on EPA's
proposal for Class I-A and I-B engines and new information regarding
manufacturer's plans to develop and market such engines.
If the proposed Class I-A and I-B standards are adopted, EPA would
not expect that manufacturers would shift significant production from
Class I to the smaller displacement engines. In addition, EPA would not
expect that manufacturers would certify 2-stroke engines to the
proposed Class I-A and I-B standards and use such engines in popular
Class I equipment applications such as walk-behind mowers. If such a
change in the market were to occur, the benefits of the recently
finalized Phase 2 program for Class I engines which anticipates a
turnover to clean 4-stroke OHV technology would be seriously
compromised. EPA requests comments on the potential for 2-stroke
engines to meet the proposed Class I-A and I-B standards and the
potential for such engines to be used in existing nonhandheld
applications such as mowers.
As noted above, EPA is proposing an option that would allow
manufacturers to certify engines above 19 kW and less than one liter in
displacement to the small SI engine program beginning with the 2001
model year. Such engines would need to be certified to the Phase 2
requirements for the appropriate class of nonhandheld engines, which is
expected to be the Class II requirements (i.e., engines above 225 cc in
displacement), for a useful life period of 1,000 hours. EPA requests
comment on the requirements of this proposed option.
2. Emission Standards
As noted earlier, EPA is proposing more stringent HC+NOX
emission standards for all three classes of handheld engines than were
originally proposed in the January 1998 NPRM. The Clean Air Act at
section 213(a)(3) requires the Agency to adopt standards that result in
the greatest emission reductions 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. As a result of information now available, much of it in the
form of comments received during and after the comment period on the
January 1998 NPRM, and due to the rapid technological advances the
industry is making in an effort to design engines which are more
environmentally friendly, EPA believes that standards more stringent
than those originally proposed are achievable during the next decade.
Extensive discussions over several months with several manufacturers of
handheld engines and equipment have provided EPA with information to
decide on the standards and phase in schedules being proposed today.
(Records of these discussions have been included in the docket for this
rule.) Specific advances for 2-stroke engines include stratified
scavenged engines and novel approaches to improve fuel metering, both
of which should allow 2-stroke engines to have substantially lower
emissions and remain viable
[[Page 40947]]
powerplants for handheld equipment. In addition, there have been recent
technical advances for handheld engines including the feasibility of
catalysts and the expanded application of the mini 4-stroke design.
While not all technologies under consideration have been fully
proven on a production engine operated under typical in-use conditions,
EPA is confident that these and other technologies will be proven in
the near future providing the industry with several alternatives for
emission control. Certification or manufacturer prototype information
as listed in Chapter 3 of the Supplemental Draft RIA, demonstrates that
currently available technology can achieve lower emission levels than
the standards set by the California ARB, especially if one considers
the use of a low-efficiency catalyst. For low engine out emissions,
prototypes of the LE Engine technology developed by John Deere and the
stratified scavenging design developed by Komatsu Zenoah have shown the
ability for 2-stroke engines to achieve very low emission levels in the
range of 36 g/kW-hr to 66.8 g/kW-hr with the John Deere technology
2 (assuming a emissions deterioration factor of 1.1 over the
useful life of the engine) and 67 g/kW-hr with the Komatsu Zenoah
technology (based on California ARB certification information for the
2000 model year). A low efficiency catalyst could lower these emission
levels by 20 g/kW-hr and result in emission levels of 16 g/kW-hr to 47
g/kW-hr HC+NOX. In addition, mini 4-stroke engines in Class
IV have been certified to a range of new engine values from 15.7 g/kW-
hr to 37.6 g/kW-hr. With an assumed emissions deterioration factor of
1.5 over the useful life of the engine, the mini 4-stroke engines would
yield emissions at a full useful life of 23.6 g/kW-hr to 56.4 g/kW-hr.
Use of a catalyst that achieves a 20 g/kW-hr reduction on the highest
emitting 4-stroke engine would yield an emissions level of 36.4 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX. These stringent emission levels show that very low
emission standards for handheld engines are feasible especially given
the inherently low deterioration of 2-stroke emissions, and the ability
to use a low efficiency catalyst or thermal reactor on some engine
families.3 EPA requests comment on the ability of the John
Deere LE technology, the Komatsu Zenoah stratified scavenging design,
or mini 4-stroke technologies to accommodate a catalyst. Specific areas
on which EPA is requesting comment include the ability to provide
sufficient engine and muffler cooling with each of the technologies,
catalyst conversion efficiencies, and engine or equipment design
changes needed to accommodate a catalyst specifically in response to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service requirements
for equipment used on Federal land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The reader is directed to items IV-G-30, IV-G-32, and IV-B-
05 of Docket A-96-55 for further information on the John Deere
technology.
\3\ In addition to the technologies described in today's notice
other potential emission control technologies have been examined by
EPA. Two of these technologies, a spark ignition technology by
Pyrotek and a vaporizing carburetor technology by Boswell, are
described in further detail in Chapter 3 of the Draft Supplemental
RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions information cited above is from engines designed for
use in Class III or Class IV applications. In most cases, EPA believes
similar designs should be able to be designed for Class V applications
as well. However, because most Class V engines are used in higher power
commercial applications, the ability to utilize a ``low'' efficiency
catalyst (and the related muffler skin and exhaust plane temperatures
that result from the throughput of exhaust emissions through the
catalyst) may be inhibited due to the USDA Forest Service requirements
for equipment used on Federal land. In addition, the high power
equipment in Class V requires additional cooling compared to the amount
of cooling typically required in Class III and IV engines. Cooling may
be achieved by directing more of the fuel/oil mixture through the
crankcase. For the John Deere LE technology, this will result in higher
level of emissions than for Class IV engines, since more fuel/oil will
be scavenged. These factors may affect the ability of some designs to
be applied to the largest of Class V applications or for such designs
to meet a 50 g/kW-hr HC+NOX standard. EPA therefore believes
that a HC+NOX standard of 72 g/kW-hr is most appropriate for
Class V engines. EPA requests comment on the ability of 4-stroke
engines, redesigned 2-stroke engines, or other technologies, such as
electronic fuel injection or the application of catalysts, to achieve a
50 g/kW-hr HC+NOX standard.
Based on the information noted above, EPA is proposing emission
standards that require handheld engines in Class III and Class IV, on
average, to meet an HC+NOX standard of 50 g/kW-hr and
handheld engines in Class V, on average, to meet an HC+NOX
standard of 72 g/kW-hr by the end of the applicable phase-in period.
For a full discussion of the technologies EPA believes could be
employed to achieve the proposed handheld engine standards, the reader
is directed to Chapters 3 and 4 of the Supplemental Draft RIA.
A number of issues have been raised by various parties regarding
the technologies noted above which could affect the potential for
manufacturers to use these technologies to achieve the proposed
standards. A list of the most important issues is noted below. While
EPA believes that a number of important issues have been highlighted
and would need to be addressed before successful introduction of these
technologies, EPA also believes that given the amount of leadtime
before manufacturers would be required to certify their entire product
range to the proposed HC+NOX standards, the variety of
technology options available, and the work manufacturers have already
performed in anticipation of the California ARB Tier 2 regulations,
that the reproposed set of standards are achievable, especially given
the provisions of the proposed ABT program which allow for early
credits generation and the exchange of credits across engine classes
and the proposed flexibilities for small volume engine families and
small volume engine manufacturers. Specifically, manufacturers are
anticipated to sell in the initial years of the program engine families
with emission levels substantially below the phase in standards. Many
could accumulate a large number of banked credits by, for example,
offering their designs certified to the California ARB standards for
sale in the other 49 states. EPA requests comments on these assumptions
and on the issues listed below, including the potential for addressing
these concerns and any resulting impact on manufacturers' ability to
meet the standards contained in this SNPRM which, as noted earlier,
allow for the use of the ABT program.
With regard to the John Deere LE technology, a number of concerns
have been raised including the ability of the design to provide
adequate lubrication to the crankcase, the ease of use and operation of
the fuel system in real world conditions, the potential for increased
PM emissions, the need for redesign of equipment to incorporate the
technology, durability due to the potential for carbon buildup in the
transfer ports (as described in the Supplemental RIA, Chapter 2,
section 3.2.5), and the applicability to Class V engines, especially
professional chainsaws, which have unique operating characteristics
(e.g., cold weather operation) and cooling requirements. However, John
Deere has made substantial progress toward resolving such potential
problems as
[[Page 40948]]
adequate performance across the range of operating conditions and
speeds. Indeed, EPA expects John Deere to market in California handheld
equipment (Class IV trimmers and chainsaws) using this technology
beginning with the 2000 model year. Comments are requested on the
likelihood that cost-effective solutions can be made available over the
next two to three years across the full range of handheld engines and
applications.
In addition to these technically related concerns, a number of
engine manufacturers have raised concerns about the level of the
licensing fees that John Deere has stated that it would charge for use
of the patented equipment designs. The fees noted by John Deere in
their literature to other handheld engine manufacturers noted a minimum
licensing fee of $7.50 per engine with fees ranging as high as 5% of
the wholesale price of the equipment for an application costing above
$300 with a sales volume less than 50,000 units per year, which is a
typical cost for Class V commercial applications. These manufacturers
have suggested that the fees are higher than typically paid for
patented technologies and noted that the fees suggested by John Deere
may, in some cases, be as high as the profit margin on the equipment
currently being sold. 4 EPA specifically requests comments
on the licensing fees suggested by John Deere, the impact such fees
would have on competition given the cost for other technology options,
and the level of licensing fee necessary to allow this licensed
technology to be a cost effective option for other manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Meetings with Husqvarna/Frigidaire Home Products on Small
Engine Phase 2 Handheld Regulations,'' EPA memo from Phil Carlson to
Docket A-96-55, June 29, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the stratified scavenging engine technology, a number of
concerns have been raised about the technology. These issues include
the ability to design engines that achieve the amount of power
necessary for all applications, the feasibility of providing additional
cooling which may be required by the design, as well as the ability for
all applications to provide sufficient cooling for a low efficiency
catalyst. In fact, Komatsu has already certified a model year 2000
Class IV engine with both EPA and the California ARB at levels meeting
the California ARB's Phase 2 standard. EPA expects Komatsu to market
their stratified scavenging engine technology nationwide in certain
handheld equipment (Class IV trimmers) using this technology beginning
with the 2000 model year.
With regard to the mini 4-stroke technology, a number of concerns
have been raised primarily regarding the application to Class V
engines. These issues primarily relate to the limited ability to apply
such technology because of the power, weight, and acceleration
requirements of Class V handheld equipment applications. It can be
noted that both Ryobi and Honda have introduced 4-stroke engines for
Class IV handheld applications weighing about seven pounds which are
comparable to the weight of 2-stroke engines used in similar handheld
applications. Although these 4-stroke engines were once thought to be
limited to trimmer type applications only, EPA is aware of developments
of the use of 4-stroke engines to higher speed applications. Therefore,
EPA believes that 4-stroke engines could be used for the majority of
Class IV applications. Request comments on this assumption. As noted
later in section III.B.2 of today's document, EPA has assumed that 4-
stroke technology would likely only be applicable to the smallest of
Class V engine designs.
However, to the extent that 4-stroke engines might replace some 2-
stroke engines in certain applications, EPA is interested in receiving
additional information to better compare their expected performance.
EPA is specifically requesting information on the following areas: the
durability of 4-stroke engines and how this might impact the certified
useful life of such engines, the amount and cost of maintenance
required to maintain performance, and the likelihood such maintenance
would be performed (including a comparison to maintenance requirements
and in-use maintenance experience for 2-stroke engines) and how the
relative cost of the handheld piece of equipment might affect these
considerations (e.g., is it more likely that maintenance will be
performed on the engine of a more expensive piece of equipment than on
the engine installed in a less expensive piece of similar equipment,
even if the engines are certified to the same useful life?). Other
information relevant to a comparison of 4-stroke engines versus 2-
stroke engines such as weight and performance differences is also
requested.
For the application of catalysts to handheld equipment, the
concerns raised include user safety due to potential excessive heat
generated by the catalyst, which may influence engine operation and
durability, and the ability to provide additional cooling of the
exhaust gas and catalyst area which may be necessary for operator
safety or for manufacturers to meet the USDA Forestry Service
requirements that apply to equipment used on Federal land. EPA is aware
that manufacturers have been researching and developing catalyst
technology for handheld engine applications and have already been
working to address the issues noted above through innovative catalyst
designs, use of low efficiency catalysts and more engine improvements,
catalyst shielding, and catalyst placement. In addition, one handheld
engine manufacturer, Husqvarna, is currently using low-efficiency
catalysts on several of their 1999 model year Class IV engine families
used primarily in commercial trimmer/edger applications. A second
manufacturer, Tanaka, has publicized their PureFire technology which
includes engine improvements and a catalyst. EPA requests comment on
the status of catalyst technology development for handheld engine
applications and the likelihood that catalysts will be able to be
applied to the full range of handheld engine applications to meet the
proposed standards and appropriate safety requirements.
As noted earlier, the proposed standards would be phased in through
a set of declining average in-use standards by model year. For Classes
III and IV, the standards would be phased in between the 2002 and 2006
model years. For Class V, the proposed Phase 2 standards would be
phased in between the 2004 and 2008 model years. (Table 1, presented
earlier, contains the actual emission standards by model year of the
proposed Phase 2 standards for handheld engines.) EPA believes the
proposed leadtime before the standards are scheduled to take effect is
appropriate based on the fact that the proposed HC+NOX
standards for Class III and Class IV are more stringent than the
California ARB's HC+NOX standards for these engines (i.e.,
72 g/kW-hr for engines 0-65cc with the exception of exempted
applications), on which industry had been focusing and developing
technologies over the past few years, and because many of the Class V
engine families are used in certain farm and construction equipment
applications which are exempted from meeting the California ARB
standards as discussed below. In addition, EPA had been discussing
standards similar in stringency to the California ARB's standards with
the handheld industry in the time since the January 1998 NPRM through
December 1998. EPA believes that industry needs sufficient time in the
near term to finish developing products for the California market that
meet the California ARB
[[Page 40949]]
emission standards which take effect on January 1, 2000. However, not
all engines will necessarily be redesigned to meet the California ARB
standards due to the farm and construction equipment exemption noted
above, and because some manufacturers have told EPA that they expect to
provide a limited lineup of engines for the California market.
Furthermore, EPA believes the proposed schedule of standards will allow
manufacturers to sell their engines designed to meet the California ARB
Tier 2 standards nationwide for a number of years, recouping the
investments made for such designs, while redesigning their product
offerings to meet the proposed HC+NOX standards on average.
Although the standards contained in today's SNPRM envision that
manufacturers will phase in engines meeting a 50 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX level in Class III and Class IV and a 72 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX level in Class V, manufacturers of handheld engines
would be required to certify all of their engine families in a given
engine class (unless they qualify for some type of small volume
provision as described later) for a specific useful life period in the
first year of the applicable phase-in. (As noted earlier, EPA's Phase 1
program only requires compliance for new engines.) Manufacturers need
enough time to perform the useful life tests on each of the engine
families, with the exception of those already certified for California
(since California also requires full useful life compliance) which the
manufacturer is planning to sell outside of California, as well as to
research, develop and adopt low emitting technology on engine families
such that each manufacturer meets the average emission standards
through the final year of the phase-in schedule.
EPA is proposing a two year delay in the effective date for the
Class V engines. This delay is based on an analysis of EPA's Phase 1
certification database shows that a significant proportion of Class V
engine production is likely to be exempted from California ARB
regulation because of the type of equipment in which the engines are
used. Manufacturers of these products, which have a long list of
certified engine families, have not had to address these engines for
California, and therefore will need additional time to comply with
EPA's proposed Phase 2 standards. In addition, this delay takes into
consideration leadtime concerns raised by the two major engine
manufacturers in this class who manufacture professional high quality
equipment in light of their extensive product development process. EPA
requests comment on the appropriateness of the proposed two year delay
for Class V engines.
For all categories of handheld engines, the HC+NOX
standards being proposed today represent significant increases in
stringency and will require virtually all of the currently certified
Phase 1 engines to be redesigned. Under the proposed HC+NOX
standards, EPA expects emissions from handheld engines on average will
be reduced by approximately 78 percent compared to Phase 1 engines.
Under this proposal, the nation should continue to benefit from
improved emission performance for handheld engines at least through
2011 as these standards take effect and fleet turnover to cleaner
engines occurs.
As noted earlier, the standards being proposed today are more
stringent than the California ARB's Phase 2 standard. (California's
Phase 2 standard for small SI engines is 72 g/kW-hr HC+NOX,
except for engines used in exempted farm and construction
applications). EPA requests comments on the costs, feasibility, and
other effects of complying nationwide with a 72 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX standard for all three classes of handheld engines
versus the standards being reproposed today.5 Specific areas
on which EPA is requesting comments include the engine designs and
technologies that would be used to comply with a 72 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX standard, the cost of adopting such technologies
(both relative to engines currently certified under the Phase1 program
and as an extension of production of California compliant engines), and
the potential for such Class III and Class IV engines to be modified to
meet a 50 g/kW-hr HC+NOX standard. Recently, a number of
handheld engine manufacturers indicated to EPA that they would prefer
the following alternative set of HC+NOX standards: 72 g/kW-
hr for Classes III and IV phased in between 2002 and 2007, and 87 g/kW-
hr for Class V phased in between 2004 and 2007. These manufacturers do
not presently employ the kinds of technology EPA expects would be used
to meet EPA's reproposed standards, and they specifically raised
questions regarding the applicability of light-weight 4-stroke
technology and the developmental state of John Deere's LE technology.
In addition to the information requested above, EPA requests comment on
the alternative standard set nominated by this segment of the handheld
industry. EPA is particularly interested in receiving information about
the costs associated with this alternative set of standards. As part of
the final rulemaking, EPA plans to consider this cost information and
use it, as appropriate, in an analysis of the potential costs and
emission reductions of these alternative standards for comparison with
the additional emission reductions (and presumably higher costs) of the
proposed standards. This information will be useful as the Agency
determines the appropriate level of standards consistent with Clean Air
Act section 213(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Commenters are asked to consider energy, noise, and safety
impacts in their comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is not proposing tighter CO standards for handheld engines in
this SNPRM. This proposal would maintain the same CO emission standards
contained in the January 1998 NPRM. At this time, it does not appear
that additional reductions in CO emissions from these engines will be
needed to allow most areas of the country to attain the CO ambient air
quality standard. Absent this air quality need, EPA does not believe
that requiring manufacturers to achieve additional reductions in CO
emissions by a more stringent standard is necessary. It should be noted
that many of the emission control techniques likely to be adopted to
meet the proposed Phase 2 HC+NOX standards on 2-stroke
engines, including for example the use of improved fuel metering and
combustion chamber improvements, have shown lower CO emissions than
Phase 1 engines. Although EPA is not proposing tighter CO standards,
EPA expects some CO emission reduction will occur as a result of the
technologies likely to be adopted to meet the proposed Phase 2
HC+NOX standards. EPA is not able at this time, however, to
quantify the expected level of CO reductions to a sufficiently precise
degree that the Agency believes it can confidently propose a more
stringent standard than that contained in the January 1998 NPRM.
Neither EPA's Phase 1 rule for small SI nonroad engines nor the
recent Phase 2 rule for nonhandheld engines included particulate matter
(PM) standards and today's proposal continues the same approach. EPA is
not proposing PM standards for Phase 2 handheld engines. EPA believes
that the types of technologies expected to be used to meet the proposed
Phase 2 gaseous emission standards will result in reduced PM levels
from handheld engines. EPA requests information on PM emissions from
handheld engines and the need for PM standards for small SI nonroad
engines in general. Relevant information might include PM emission
rates from small SI engines, loading contributions to ambient PM
concentrations from these engines, user
[[Page 40950]]
health effects from direct exposure to PM contained in engine exhaust
from small SI engines, and contribution from small SI engine PM
emissions to visibility impairment.
For Class I-A engines (i.e, nonhandheld engines with displacement
less than 66 cc), because these new nonhandheld equipment applications
are expected to use engines with much the same displacement and design
as their handheld Class IV counterparts, EPA is proposing to apply the
Class IV standards of 50 g/kW-hr for HC+NOX and 610 g/kW-hr
for CO. Although the California ARB's standards are less stringent than
the standards contained in today's SNPRM, the addition of this class
harmonizes the use of these engine sizes within this rulemaking between
EPA and the California ARB. Because the Class I-A engines will be
designs that are not currently certified as nonhandheld engines, EPA is
proposing that the standards for Class I-A engines take effect
immediately upon the effective date of finalization of these proposed
standards, which EPA expects would occur during the 2000 model year.
With regard to the test procedure manufacturers use for certification
testing of Class I-A engines, EPA is proposing to adopt the handheld
engine test procedure, typically referred to as cycle ``C''. EPA
requests comment on the proposed requirements for Class I-A engines.
For Class I-B engines (i.e., nonhandheld engines with displacement
from 66 cc to less than 100 cc), 4-stroke engines have certain
disadvantages which make it more difficult for them to meet the
recently adopted Phase 2 HC+NOX standard for nonhandheld
engines compared to their larger size counterparts (i.e., nonhandheld
engines with displacement above 100 cc in Class I and Class II). EPA
recognized this difference when it adopted the Phase 2
HC+NOX emission standards for engines less than 225 cc
(i.e., Class I where the standard is 16.1 g/kW-hr) and engines greater
than 225 cc (i.e., Class II where the standard is 12.1 g/kW-hr). The
current set of engines certified to EPA's Phase 1 standards includes
three Class I engines (1 OHV engine and 2 SV engines) below 100 cc that
are certified at new engine levels close to the Phase 1
HC+NOX standard (i.e., 16.1 g/kW-hr) ranging from 13.3 to
15.9 g/kW-hr. Assuming an in-use HC+NOX deterioration factor
of 1.5, the Phase 2 emission values of the engines would be 19.9 and
23.9 g/kW-hr, respectively, which is above the Phase 2 standard of 16.1
g/kW-hr. In the January 1998 NPRM, EPA made the assumption that
averaging of emission credits would allow these smaller size engines to
utilize credits from an engine manufacturer's larger size engines.
Comments on the NPRM suggested that this was not the case for all
engine manufacturers. Comments from one of these manufacturers
suggested that EPA establish a standard of 40 g/kW-hr because they
produced a side valve engine under 100 cc which required this value to
be able to certify. Due to the very small production estimates of
engines in this size range (i.e., 0.1% of Class I), EPA is proposing
standards for Class I-B engines of 40 g/kW-hr for HC+NOX and
610 g/kW-hr for CO. As proposed for Class I-A engines, EPA is proposing
that the standards for Class I-B engines take effect immediately upon
the effective date of finalization of these proposed standards, which
EPA expects will occur during the 2000 model year. For the test
procedure manufacturers use for certification testing, EPA is proposing
to adopt the nonhandheld engine test procedures, typically referred to
as cycle ``A'' and cycle ``B'.
Based on comments from manufacturers, EPA is establishing the Class
I-B category to allow for the production of engines to meet niche
markets. The Agency would not expect a migration into this category of
current 4-stroke Class I engines, almost all of which are above 125 cc,
because of the minimum size apparently necessary to meet the power
demands of typical current applications such as walk behind lawnmowers.
However, EPA is concerned that the relatively higher performance of 2-
stroke engines could allow 2-stroke engines in the high end of the
Class I-B category (e.g., between 90 cc and 100 cc) to meet the 40 g/
kW-hr standard and create interest in using them in such current
applications as small walk behind lawnmowers. EPA would not want to
proliferate the use of such higher emitting engines in current
applications and does not intend to allow migration of 2-stroke engines
into nonhandheld applications. EPA requests comment on these
assumptions and on ways to prevent this proliferation from occurring.
EPA also requests comment on the level of the proposed Class I-B
standards and the feasibility of achieving lower emission standards
with OHV, SV, and 2-stroke engines.
3. NMHC+NOX Standard for Class I-B Natural Gas-Fueled
Engines
In the recent final rule for small SI Phase 2 nonhandheld engines,
EPA adopted separate standards for small spark ignition engines fueled
by natural gas which manufacturers could certify to in lieu of the
otherwise applicable HC+NOX standards. Because EPA believes
it is possible that there could be Class I-B applications designed to
run on natural gas, EPA is proposing similar separate standards for
Class I-B spark ignition engines fueled by natural gas which could be
certified to in lieu of the HC+NOX standards. EPA believes
this option is necessary because the methane portion for gasoline
fueled engines is around 5 to 10 percent of total hydrocarbons, whereas
for engines fueled with natural gas, the methane portion can be around
70 percent. Because the methane from these engines has a very low ozone
forming potential compared to the other hydrocarbons in the engine's
exhaust, EPA believes it is appropriate to provide an alternative set
of emission standards for engines fueled with natural gas. Otherwise,
requiring such engines to meet the same HC standard as gasoline-fueled
applications would result in a more stringent standard for natural gas-
fueled engines. The proposed NMHC+NOX standard of 37 g/kW-hr
for Class I-B natural gas-fueled applications would provide equivalent
stringency to the HC+NOX standards for gasoline-fueled
engines being proposed today. EPA is proposing standards for Class I-B
only, as EPA does not expect that natural gas-fueled handheld engines
or Class I-A engines might be built. EPA requests comment on the need
to establish standards for Class I-A engines operated on natural gas.
Aside from having the option to certify to NMHC+NOX
standards, all other aspects of this proposal would pertain equally to
engines fueled with natural gas as with gasoline-fueled engines.
4. Useful Life Categories
In the January 1998 NPRM, EPA proposed two useful life categories
of 50 and 300 hours for handheld engines. EPA received several comments
supporting the addition of a mid-range useful life category for
handheld engines, with one manufacturer supporting a level of 125
hours. While EPA believes that 50 hours is appropriate for most of the
products targeted at the home consumer, some engines targeted for home
consumer use (including some new engines which are expected to enter
the market in the next few years) are expected to have designs which
tend to be more durable than the 50 hour level yet are not as durable
as the commercial grade of 300-hour equipment. As a result, EPA is
proposing to add a midrange to the useful life categories for handheld
engines of 125 hours as recommended by one manufacturer. Therefore,
under
[[Page 40951]]
today's proposal, a manufacturer would choose between three useful life
categories for handheld engines of 50, 125, and 300 hours. A
manufacturer would be responsible for demonstrating compliance with the
proposed standards described above in section II.A.2. at whichever
useful life level it designated for its engine families.
For the newly proposed category of Class I-A engines, EPA is
proposing the handheld engine useful life categories of 50, 125 and 300
hours. EPA believes the engine designs in Class I-A will be similar to
handheld engines in terms of durability of design. It should be noted
that the proposed useful life designations for Class I-A engines are
the same as those established by the California ARB in its Tier 2 rule
for engines of this size range. For Class I-B engines, EPA is proposing
the useful life categories of 125, 250 or 500 hours recently finalized
for nonhandheld engines. EPA believes the engines designs in Class I-B
will be similar to Class I nonhandheld engines in terms of durability
of design. The proposed useful life designations for Class I-B engines
are the same as those established by the California ARB in its Tier 2
rule for engines of this size range.
5. Selection of Useful Life Category
In the January 1998 NPRM, EPA proposed that the engine
manufacturers would be responsible for assuring that the correct useful
life was used for certification demonstration and labeling purposes.
Specific criteria were proposed which the manufacturers would have had
to evaluate and use in documenting their determinations of useful life
category selection. Comments received suggested such a requirement was
overly rigid and unnecessary. Given the comments received, EPA is still
very concerned that manufacturers select the most appropriate useful
life category for each engine to assure it is properly evaluated during
certification. In addition, because EPA is proposing to include all
handheld engines and Class I-A and Class I-B engines in the ABT program
which allows the exchange of emission credits across engine families in
different useful life categories, the proper selection of the useful
life period is important to ensure that the credit program is fair and
environmentally sound. However, so as not to add potentially
unnecessary burden on the industry, today's SNPRM proposes a less rigid
methodology for determining useful life categories that EPA recently
finalized for Phase 2 nonhandheld engines. Rather than mandating a
fixed set of criteria, this proposal rests the responsibility with the
industry to make their best, most conscientious selection. For
manufacturers of handheld engines, virtually all engines are placed in
specific equipment also manufactured by the engine manufacturer or, in
those cases where engines are supplied to another equipment
manufacturer, into equipment well known by the engine manufacturer.
Class III, IV and V engine manufacturers know the design features and
performance characteristics of both their engines and the equipment in
which they are installed, and understand the expected in-use operation
of this equipment and thus the expected useful life of the engine.
Additionally, based on design features these manufacturers build into
their engines, they have a good idea of the expected useful life in
such applications. Similarly, EPA expects that manufacturers of Class
I-A and Class I-B engines will have a good idea of the types of
equipment their engines are expected to be used in and, from their
marketing information, a reasonably accurate projection of the relative
volumes in such applications. Given that these engines will be used in
new applications, manufacturers should have an even clearer
understanding of these projections. Relying on this information,
manufacturers should be able to make good selections of appropriate
useful life categories for their engines. While this proposal leaves
that responsibility to the manufacturer, EPA expects it would
periodically review the manufacturers' decisions to ensure this
regulation is being properly implemented and to determine whether
modifications to the rules were appropriate. This proposed approach
would result in the same regulatory requirement as the State of
California, eliminating any extra burden in this regard due to federal
rules.
B. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
In today's SNPRM, EPA is proposing to make the comprehensive
certification averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program recently
adopted for nonhandheld Phase 2 engines available for Phase 2 handheld
engines, Class I-A, and Class I-B engines. Averaging means the exchange
of emission credits among engine families within a given engine
manufacturer's product line. Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify
one or more engine families to Family Emissions Limits (FELs) above the
applicable emission standard. However, the increased emissions would
have to be offset by one or more engine families certified to FELs
below the same emission standard, such that the average emissions in a
given model year from all of the manufacturer's families (weighted by
various parameters including engine power, useful life, and number of
engines produced) are at or below the level of the emission standard.
Banking means the retention of emission credits by the engine
manufacturer generating the credits for use in future model year
averaging or trading. Trading means the exchange of emission credits
between engine manufacturers which then can be used for averaging
purposes, banked for future use, or traded to another engine
manufacturer.
The following section describes the proposed ABT program for
handheld engines, Class I-A engines, and Class I-B engines. The basic
framework of the ABT program is the same as that recently finalized for
nonhandheld engines. The proposed program would be the first ABT
program for handheld engines, since the Phase 1 rule did not include an
ABT program. The January 1998 NPRM included an ABT program, however,
the proposed program was limited to nonhandheld engines only. Given the
level of the standards contained in the January 1998 NPRM for handheld
engines, EPA did not believe an ABT program was necessary for handheld
engines. However, because EPA is now proposing significantly more
stringent Phase 2 standards for handheld engines, EPA believes an ABT
program is an important element in making the stringent Phase 2
emissions standards proposed today achievable with regard to
technological feasibility, lead time, and cost. The proposed ABT
program is intended to enhance the flexibility offered to engine
manufacturers that will be needed in transitioning their product lines
to meet the stringent HC+NOX standards being proposed. The
proposed ABT program would also encourage the early introduction of
cleaner engines certified under the Phase 2 requirements, thus securing
earlier emission benefits. EPA requests comments on the proposed ABT
program as well as alternative programs that would provide incentives
for manufacturers to achieve emission reductions earlier than required
by the proposed standards.
EPA believes that the new ABT program is consistent with the
statutory requirements of section 213 of the Clean Air Act. Although
the language of section 213 is silent on the issue of averaging, it
allows EPA considerable discretion in determining what regulations are
most appropriate for implementing section 213. The statute does not
specify that a specific standard or technology must be implemented, and
it requires EPA to consider costs, lead time, and other factors in
making
[[Page 40952]]
its determination of ``the greatest degree of emissions reduction
achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available.'' Section 213(a)(3) also
indicates that EPA's regulations may apply to nonroad engine classes in
the aggregate, and need not apply to each nonroad engine individually.
As noted above, the proposed ABT program would apply to all classes
of handheld engines as well as Class I-A and Class I-B engines. The ABT
program would be available for HC+NOX emissions but will not
be available for CO emissions. The ABT program would also apply to
natural gas-fueled engines. All credits for natural gas-fueled engines
would be determined against the standards to which the engine certified
(either the HC+NOX standard or the optional
NMHC+NOX standards noted earlier). Under the proposal,
manufacturers would be allowed to freely exchange NMHC+NOX
credits with HC+NOX credits.
The ABT program contained in the January 1998 NPRM proposed some
restrictions on cross-class averaging for nonhandheld engines. However,
the recent final rule eliminated most of those restrictions. Given the
level of the standards recently finalized for nonhandheld engines and
the level of the standards contained in today's proposal, EPA is far
less concerned that credits from one class could result in delays in
technology improvement for other classes, and does not believe that any
cross-class restrictions are necessary beyond those retained in the
final nonhandheld Phase 2 rulemaking. Therefore, today's SNPRM proposes
no additional restrictions on credit exchanges across any of the
classes of small SI engines. Under the proposed program, manufacturers
would be allowed to exchange credits from handheld engines to
nonhandheld engines. EPA specifically requests comment on the cross-
class exchange of credits between handheld and nonhandheld engines.
Under an ABT program, a manufacturer establishes a family emission
limit (FEL) for an engine family that takes the place of the emission
standard for all compliance determinations. As part of the ABT program,
EPA is proposing upper limits on the FEL values that may be declared by
manufacturers under the Phase 2 standards. For Classes III, IV and V,
EPA is proposing FEL upper limits based on the Phase 1 standards,
adjusted to account for expected average deterioration over the useful
life period of these engines. The proposed HC+NOx FEL upper
limits are 300 g/kW-hr for Class III engines, 246 g/kW-hr for Class IV
engines, and 166 g/kW-hr for Class V engines. For the newly proposed
categories of Class I-A and Class I-B engines, EPA is proposing
HC+NOx FEL upper limits of 94 g/kW-hr and 50 g/kW-hr,
respectively. The Class I-A level is based on the maximum certification
level of current Phase 1 engines similar in size to those expected to
be certified as Class I-A engines (a 26 cc Class IV engine certified to
a new engine level of 37.6 g/kW-hr HC+NOx), adjusted to
account for an estimated maximum deterioration factor of 2.5 over the
useful life of the engine. The Class I-B level is based on the maximum
new engine emissions level expected from Class I-B engines (estimated
to be 20 g/kW-hr HC+NOx) adjusted to account for an
estimated maximum deterioration factor of 2.5 over the useful life of
the engine.
EPA is proposing that all credits should be calculated based on the
difference between the manufacturer-established FEL and the Phase 2
HC+NOx standard for the applicable model year using the
following equation.
Credits = (Standard--FEL) x Production x Power x Useful life
x Load Factor
At the time of certification, manufacturers would be required to
supply information to EPA on the terms used in the above noted
equation. ``Production'' represents the manufacturer's U.S. production
of engines for the given engine family, excluding exported engines and
engines that will be sold in California. ``Power'' represents the
maximum modal power of the certification test engine over the
certification test cycle. ``Useful Life'' is the regulatory useful life
established by the manufacturer for the given engine family. ``Load
Factor'' is a constant that is dependent on the test cycle over which
the engine is certified.
Under the proposed ABT program, credits would have an unlimited
credit life for the duration of the Phase 2 program and would not be
discounted in any manner.
Under the proposed ABT program, manufacturers of handheld engines
would be allowed to use portions of the ABT program prior to
implementation of the Phase 2 standards to provide an incentive to
accelerate introduction of cleaner technologies into the marketplace.
The Agency believes that making bankable credits available prior to the
effective date of the new standards would reward those manufacturers
who take on the responsibility of complying with the Phase 2
requirements sooner than required and would also result in early
environmental benefits.
Under the proposed early banking provisions for handheld engines,
manufacturers would be allowed to begin using the averaging and banking
portions of the ABT program beginning with the 2000 model year for
engines certified to the Phase 2 requirements and produced after the
effective date of this action. Manufacturers would be allowed to
generate early credits from those engine families with FELs below the
initial Phase 2 HC+NOx standards for the appropriate engine
class (i.e., 226 g/kW-hr for Class III engines, 187 g/kW-hr for Class
IV engines, and 131 g/kW-hr for Class V engines). This proposed
approach for early credits from handheld engines is different than the
approach recently finalized for nonhandheld engines. Under the recently
finalized Phase 2 rule for nonhandheld engines, early credits are only
available for engines with FELs below the final standards, not the
initial phase in standards. EPA believes a different approach is
appropriate for handheld engines because the proposed Phase 2 handheld
engine standards represent such dramatic reductions from the Phase 1
standards that will require the complete redesign of nearly every
handheld engine currently produced. In contrast for nonhandheld
engines, there are already a significant number of engines being
produced that EPA believes would already meet the recently finalized
Phase 2 standards. Because of the increased effort engine manufacturers
will need to expend to meet the proposed Phase 2 handheld standards,
EPA believes it is appropriate to allow manufacturers to generate early
credits from engines certified with FELs below the initial Phase 2
standards rather than the final Phase 2 standards. If the final Phase 2
handheld engine standards were used for the determination of early
credits, the ability of engine manufacturers to generate early credits
would be so severely constrained as to make this option not useful;
neither the manufacturer nor the environment would benefit from the
such an early credit program design. Because the proposed Phase 2
standards for Class I-A and Class I-B engines are scheduled to take
effect with the 2000 model year, there is no need to provide
manufacturers with the ability to earn early credits from such engines.
All engines for which a manufacturer generates early credits would
have to comply with all of the proposed requirements for Phase 2
engines (e.g., the Production Line Testing program
[[Page 40953]]
requirements). Manufacturers of handheld engines would not be allowed
to trade their early engine credits to other manufacturers until the
first effective model year of the Phase 2 standards for the applicable
engine class. EPA requests comments on the design of the early credits
provisions contained in today's proposal.
As discussed in section II.D. of today's document, EPA is proposing
several compliance flexibility provisions for engine manufacturers and
equipment manufacturers that allow the limited use of Phase 1 engines
in the Phase 2 time frame. Phase 1 engines sold by engine manufacturers
under the flexibility provisions would be excluded from the ABT
program. In other words, engine manufacturers would not have to use
credits to certify Phase 1 engines used for the flexibility provisions
even though they would likely exceed the proposed Phase 2 standards.
As noted elsewhere in today's document, EPA is proposing a number
of provisions that address post-certification compliance aspects of the
proposed standards. In one specific case, EPA would allow manufacturers
to use credits from the certification ABT program to address excess
emissions situations determined after the time of certification. As
noted in the discussion on compliance, EPA does not believe that the
typical type of enforcement action that could be taken when a
substantial nonconformity is identified (i.e., an engine family recall
order) would generally be workable for small SI engines given the
nature of the market. Instead, for the purposes of implementing the PLT
program, EPA is proposing provisions to allow manufacturers to use
engine certification ABT credits to offset limited emission performance
shortfalls for past production of engines determined through the PLT
program as described in section II.C. of today's SNPRM. Under the
proposed provisions, manufacturers would be allowed to use small SI
engine certification ABT credits available to them to offset such
emission performance shortfalls.
Under today's proposal, EPA would not allow manufacturers to
automatically use ABT credits to remedy a past production
nonconformance situation in the Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA)
program. As described in today's SNPRM, EPA expects to primarily rely
on the PLT program to monitor the emissions performance of production
engines. However, EPA expects that SEAs may be conducted in certain
cases. Therefore, as discussed in section II.C., if EPA were to
determine that an engine family is not complying with the standards as
the result of an SEA, EPA would work with the manufacturer on a case-
by-case basis to determine an appropriate method for dealing with such
a nonconformity. The option(s) agreed upon by EPA and the engine
manufacturer might, or might not, include the use of ABT credits to
make up for any ``lost'' emission benefits uncovered by the SEA.
All of these aspects of the proposed handheld ABT program are
consonant with the final ABT program recently adopted for nonhandheld
Phase 2 engines.
C. Compliance Program
The compliance program being proposed today is comprised of three
parts: a pre-production certification program during which the
manufacturer would evaluate the expected emission performance of the
engine design including the durability of that emission performance; an
assembly line test program which would sample products coming off the
assembly line to assure the design as certified continues to have
acceptable emission performance when put into mass production; and a
voluntary in-use test program during which participating manufacturers
would evaluate the in-use emission performance of their product under
typical operating conditions. EPA would also have the option to run an
SEA program and its own in-use testing for small SI engines.
Under the proposed compliance programs for small handheld SI
engines, a manufacturer would divide its product offering based upon
specific design criteria which have a potential for significantly
different emission performance; these subdivisions are called engine
families. Each engine family would be required to meet the standard
applicable for the class in which that engine resides unless the
manufacturer chooses to participate in the ABT program also being
proposed today. (See section II.B. of today's SNPRM for discussion of
the proposed ABT program.) The other provisions of the compliance
program are explained in more detail below. In all cases, to the best
of EPA's knowledge, the requirements of this proposed federal
compliance program would be sufficiently similar to the requirements of
the California ARB program for these engines such that for engine
families sold in both the State of California and federally, the
engines selected for testing, the test procedures under which they are
tested and the data and other information required to be supplied by
regulations can be the same under both programs. Thus, EPA expects that
a manufacturer would be able to compile one application for
certification satisfying the information needs of both programs, saving
the manufacturer time and expense. Similarly, EPA and the California
ARB expect to share information from their compliance programs such
that any production line testing or in-use testing conducted for one
agency would satisfy the similar needs of the other agency, again
minimizing the burden on the manufacturers.
1. Certification
This section addresses the proposed certification program for
engine manufacturers covered by today's proposal. The certification
process as required in the Act is an annual process and requires that
manufacturers demonstrate that regulated engines will meet appropriate
standards throughout their useful lives. The Act prohibits the sale,
importation or introduction into commerce of regulated engines when not
covered by a certificate.
Under the January 1998 proposal, manufacturers of handheld engines
would have been required to establish deterioration factors for each
engine family based on an analysis of technically appropriate data.
This data could have included results from the proposed field/bench
adjustment program, the proposed handheld engine in-use testing
program, as well as other appropriate testing data. The proposed
certification requirements for handheld engines were different than
those proposed for nonhandheld engines.
Based on comments received on the January 1998 NPRM and EPA's
further evaluation of the originally proposed certification program,
EPA is revising the proposed certification program for Phase 2 handheld
engines significantly. EPA received a significant number of comments
regarding the complexity of the proposed certification program, the
prohibitive expense of field aging engines, and the advantages of
harmonizing EPA's final certification program with that of the
California ARB. EPA now believes the complexity of the originally
proposed program would make it difficult to manage and organize the
certification program for both industry and EPA. EPA also believes that
harmonizing its programs with the California ARB would allow the
industry to more efficiently comply with the reproposed emission
standards and requirements. Additionally, EPA is concerned the field/
bench adjustment program may not be statistically reliable enough to
establish appropriate
[[Page 40954]]
deterioration factors. (In an effort to control the cost of this
program, only a minimum amount of data was proposed to be required;
this small amount of data would hurt the statistical reliability of any
resulting decision.)
In light of these comments and concerns, EPA is reproposing a
significantly less complex certification program that would harmonize
the handheld Phase 2 program with the requirements of the California
ARB's Regulations for 1995 and Later Small Off-Road Engines, amended
January 29, 1999. In the reproposed program, the requirements for
manufacturers of handheld engines would be the same as those recently
finalized for nonhandheld engines. Under today's proposal,
manufacturers of handheld engines would be required to demonstrate that
their regulated engines comply with appropriate emission standards
throughout the engines' useful lives. To account for emission
deterioration over time, manufacturers would need to establish
deterioration factors for each regulated pollutant for each engine
family. This proposal allows manufacturers to establish deterioration
factors by using bench aging procedures which appropriately predict the
in-use emission deterioration expected over the useful life of an
engine or an in-use evaluation which directly accounts for this
deterioration. As is the case with many EPA mobile source regulations,
the multiplicative deterioration factors could not be less than one.
Additionally, where appropriate and with suitable justification,
deterioration factors could be carried over from one model year to
another and from one engine family to another.
Today's proposal also provides flexibility for small volume engine
manufacturers and small volume engine families. Under the proposed
provisions, handheld engine manufacturers would be allowed the option
of using assigned deterioration factors established by the Agency. The
deterioration factors, either assigned or generated, would be used to
determine whether an engine family complies with the applicable
emission standards in the certification program, the production line
testing program, and the Selective Enforcement Auditing program.
As in Phase 1, manufacturers would be allowed to submit
certification applications to the Agency electronically, either on a
computer disk or through electronic mail, making the certification
application process efficient for both manufacturers and the Agency.
Also, EPA and the California ARB expect to have a common application
format allowing manufacturers to more easily apply for certification.
In today's SNPRM, EPA is also proposing a method by which
manufacturers can separately certify configurations for use at high
altitude. Manufacturers are currently required by the Phase 1 rule to
certify engines for use at any altitude, but the rule does not
specifically address separate high altitude and low altitude
configuration testing. The existence of, and the need for the high
altitude modifications has been a topic of recent discussions between
EPA and manufacturers. To allow an engine to perform properly and meet
emission standards while being operated at high altitudes, many
manufacturers have developed special high altitude carburetor jets or
high altitude kits. However, if an engine with such a kit installed is
removed from high altitude, the kit would have to be removed and the
engine returned to its original configuration for the engine to
continue to perform properly and meet emission standards.
Today's proposal would allow manufacturers of both handheld and
nonhandheld engines to certify an engine for separate standard and high
altitude configurations. All engines would be required to meet, under
all altitude conditions, the emission standards proposed today. The
proposed method would be available for both Phase 1 and Phase 2
handheld and nonhandheld engines. Without such a certification option,
installation of an altitude kit and other associated modifications
might be considered tampering by EPA. No test data on engines with high
altitude modifications performed would be required as a condition of
certification, as this would add significantly to the manufacturer's
certification compliance testing cost. Furthermore, no testing seems
necessary since the altitude kits and associated modifications are
intended to compensate for the change in air density when moving to
high altitude by returning the engine to approximately the same
operating point as evaluated during required certification testing.
Similarly, no special labeling would be required for engines which have
such altitude kits certified or for those in-use engines which have had
altitude modifications performed. Consumers have a natural incentive to
have the high altitude kit installed and adjustments performed when
using an engine at altitude as this greatly improves performance; for
the same reason EPA expects the modifications to be removed when
returning the engine to low altitude. However, EPA believes some
additional assurance is needed that the high altitude modifications are
designed to provide good emission control and that the instructions for
making these modifications are clear and readily available and thus
likely to be performed correctly.
To provide this assurance, this proposal would require a
manufacturer to list these altitude kits with their appropriate part
numbers along with all the other certified parts in the certification
application. In the application, the manufacturer would have to declare
the altitude ranges at which the appropriate kits would be installed on
or removed from an engine for proper emission and engine performance.
The manufacturer would also be required to include a statement in the
owner's manual for the engine or engine/equipment combination (and
other maintenance-related literature intended for the consumer) that
also declared the altitude ranges at which the appropriate kits must be
installed or removed. Finally, the manufacturer, using appropriate
engineering judgement which, at the manufacturer's option, could also
include test data, would be required to determine that an engine with
the altitude kit installed would meet each emission standard throughout
its useful life. The rationale for this assessment would need to be
documented and provided to the Agency as part of the certification
application.
2. Production Line Testing--Cumulative Summation Procedure
This section addresses the proposed production line testing (PLT)
program for engines covered by today's SNPRM. The proposed PLT program
contained is the same as that adopted recently for nonhandheld engines
and would require manufacturers to conduct manufacturer-run testing
programs using the Cumulative Summation Procedure (CumSum).\6\ The
CumSum program, as proposed today, would require manufacturers to
conduct testing on each of their engine families (unless they were
relieved of this requirement under provisions granting flexibility).
The maximum sample size that would be required for each engine family
is 30 engines or 1 percent of a family's projected production,
whichever is smaller. However, the actual number of
[[Page 40955]]
tests ultimately required would be determined by the results of the
testing. With the proposed program, the EPA PLT program and the
corresponding California ARB program would be harmonized, requiring
manufacturers to use the same CumSum procedure for testing production
engines for both agencies. Manufacturers would be able to submit PLT
reports to EPA electronically, either on a computer disk or through
electronic mail, which should save both the industry and EPA time and
money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The CumSum procedure has been promulgated for marine engines
in EPA's spark-ignition marine rule at 40 CFR part 91 (61 FR 52088,
October 4, 1996). In this section, ``PLT'' refers to the
manufacturer-run CumSum procedure. ``PLT'' does not include
Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA), which is addressed separately
in section II.C.4. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in the discussion of the proposed ABT program, above,
manufacturers could, for a limited amount of production, use ABT
credits to offset the estimated excess emissions of previously produced
noncomplying engine designs as determined in the PLT program. (The
amount of excess emissions would be determined based on the difference
between the new FEL established by the manufacturer as a result of the
PLT program and the original FEL established prior to the PLT program.)
Under today's proposal, a manufacturer could raise the FEL for one
engine family per model year. If a PLT program failure required a
manufacturer to raise the FEL for more than one engine family per model
year, the manufacturer could do so only if the applicable engine family
represented no more than ten percent of the manufacturer's production
for that model year. For any additional engine families that were found
to be in noncompliance as a result of the PLT program, the engine
manufacturer would need to conduct projects approved by EPA that were
designed to offset the excess emissions from those engines.
With regard to future production of engines identified to be in
noncompliance as a result of PLT testing, the manufacturer would be
expected to correct the noncompliance problem causing the emission
noncompliance either by changing the production process, changing the
design (which would require recertification) or raising the FEL to
compensate for the higher emissions (also requiring recertification).
In the event a manufacturer raised an FEL as a result of a PLT failure,
it could do so for future production as well as past production as
described above which would require a calculation of credits the
manufacturer would need to obtain for the past production engines. EPA
expects few instances in which the manufacturer would need to correct a
PLT failure through raising the FEL since that would imply the
manufacturer incorrectly set the initial FEL for that family. Frequent
use of this remedy would suggest the manufacturer was incapable of
correctly setting the FELs for its product, in which case EPA would
have to reconsider allowing a manufacturer to participate in the ABT
program at its option. It should also be noted that compliance with the
applicable standard (or the applicable FEL) will be required of every
covered engine. Thus, every engine that failed a PLT test would be
considered in noncompliance with the standards and must be brought into
compliance. EPA's rules allowing the use of the average of tests to
determine compliance with the PLT program is intended only as a tool to
decide when it is appropriate to suspend or revoke the certificate of
conformity for that engine family, and is not meant to imply that not
all engines have to comply with the standards or applicable FEL.
As discussed in the flexibilities section, EPA is proposing that
small volume manufacturers and small volume engine families need not be
included in the PLT program at the manufacturer's option.
3. Voluntary In-Use Testing
This section addresses the proposed voluntary in-use testing
program. The January 1998 proposal would have required manufacturers of
handheld engines to conduct in-use testing on a maximum of 25 percent
of their engine families each model year. The proposal would also have
allowed these handheld engine manufacturers to fulfill the in-use
testing requirements by testing bench-aged engines, provided the
manufacturer has successfully completed the field/bench adjustment
program. Finally, under the January 1998 proposal, handheld engine
manufacturers would have been allowed to participate in an in-use
averaging, banking, and trading program.
The foundation of the in-use compliance program for manufacturers
of handheld engines in the January 1998 proposal was the Field/Bench
Adjustment Program. Based on a thorough evaluation of the proposed
program, EPA does not believe the Field/Bench Adjustment Program would
be statistically reliable enough on which to build an in-use testing
compliance program due to the relatively small amount of data which
would have been required. Additionally, in developing this SNPRM, EPA
has attempted to harmonize this proposal as closely as possible with
the California ARB's Regulations for 1995 and Later Small Off-Road
Engines, amended January 29, 1999, allowing the industry to more
efficiently comply with the standards and requirements. Based on these
factors, as well as industry comments regarding the prohibitive expense
of conducting field aged in-use tests, EPA is not including the in-use
program contained in the January 1998 NPRM as part of today's
reproposal.
However, EPA still desires meaningful in-use data so that it can
more appropriately assess the actual emissions inventory of this
industry. Therefore, EPA is proposing a voluntary in-use testing
program. The proposed voluntary in-use testing program for engines
covered by today's SNPRM is the same as the voluntary in-use testing
program recently finalized by the Agency for nonhandheld engines. The
proposed voluntary in-use testing program would give engine
manufacturers the option of using a portion of their PLT resources to
generate field aged emissions data. At the start of each model year,
manufacturers could elect to place up to 20 percent of their engine
families in this voluntary program. For those families in this program,
manufacturers would not be required to conduct PLT for two model years,
the current year and the subsequent year. (The California ARB has
indicated that they would also exempt families in such an in-use
testing program from their PLT requirements.) Instead, manufacturers
would place a minimum of three randomly selected production engines in
existing consumer-owned, independently-owned, or manufacturer-owned
fleets. Manufacturers would install the engines in equipment that
represents at least 50 percent of the production for an engine family
and age the engine/equipment combination in actual field conditions to
at least 75 percent of each engine's useful life. Once an engine in
this program had been sufficiently field aged, the manufacturer would
conduct an emissions test on that engine. Manufacturers would have
three calendar years from the date they notified the Agency of their
intent to include a family in the program to complete testing.
While the compliance program proposed today would not require a
manufacturer to conduct any in-use testing to verify continued
satisfactory emission performance in the hands of typical consumers,
EPA believes it is worthwhile to have an optional program for such in-
use testing. EPA believes it is important for manufacturers to conduct
in-use testing to assure the success of their designs and to factor
back into their design and/or production process any information
suggesting emission problems in the field. If any
[[Page 40956]]
information derived from this program indicates a substantial in-use
emission performance problem, EPA anticipates the manufacturer would
seek to determine the nature of the emission performance problem and
what corrective actions might be appropriate. EPA would offer its
assistance in analysis of the reasons for unexpectedly high in-use
emission performance and what actions might be appropriate for reducing
such high emissions. Whether or not a manufacturer chose to conduct a
voluntary in-use testing program, EPA could always choose to conduct
its own in-use compliance program. If EPA were to determine that an in-
use noncompliance investigation was appropriate, the Agency expects it
would conduct its own in-use testing program, separate from this
voluntary manufacturer testing program, to determine whether a specific
class or category of engines is complying with applicable in-use
standards.
4. Selective Enforcement Auditing
As noted in the January 1998 proposal, the SEA program is not the
Agency's preferred production line testing program for small engines.
The CumSum procedures, described above, are being proposed as the
production line program that manufacturers would conduct. The SEA
program is included in today's SNPRM as a ``backstop'' to the CumSum
program and would be used in cases where EPA believes there is evidence
of improper testing or of a nonconformity that is not being addressed
by the CumSum program. The SEA program, as proposed, would also apply
to engine families optionally certified to the small volume
manufacturer provisions and the small volume engine family provisions,
in cases where manufacturers elect not to conduct PLT testing for such
families. However, as for other families, EPA does not expect families
certified under the small volume provisions would be routinely tested
through an SEA program.
Under today's SNPRM and in contrast to the PLT program,
manufacturers who fail an SEA would not have the automatic option of
using ABT credits to remedy noncomplying engines already introduced
into commerce. The proposed PLT program is designed to allow a
manufacturer to continually evaluate its entire production and quickly
respond to the results throughout the model year. EPA believes that
allowing a manufacturer to use credits, for a limited amount of
engines, to remedy past production emission failures is consistent with
the continual evaluation provided by the PLT program. The SEA program,
in contrast, is designed to be a one time, unannounced inspection of a
manufacturer's production line with definitive passing or failing
results. EPA believes that in this type of a compliance program, where
at most only a few engine families might be tested each year,
manufacturers must place more emphasis on the transition from
certification to the production line and must set initial FELs
accurately. To encourage accurate FEL settings at the time of
certification, the proposed SEA program would not allow manufacturers
to automatically remedy SEA failures by retroactively adjusting FELs.
EPA is proposing that remedies for an SEA failure would be best
determined on a case-by-case basis which might or might not include the
use of ABT credits depending upon EPA's assessment of the specific
case.
D. Flexibilities
In the January 1998 NPRM, EPA proposed a number of flexibilities to
ease the transition from the Phase 1 to the Phase 2 program, to ensure
that the Phase 2 standards are cost-effective and achievable, and to
reduce the compliance burden while maintaining the environmental
benefits of the rule. Several comments were received on the
flexibilities proposed, some supporting the proposals and others
offering recommended changes. In addition, the need for modifications
to the proposed set of flexibilities evolved out of the investigations
which led to other changes to the proposal including the more stringent
handheld engine standards, the addition of Class I-A and Class I-B
engine classes, and the expanded ABT program provisions being proposed.
The following section summarizes the revised flexibilities proposed
with today's SNPRM. EPA requests comments on the proposed
flexibilities.
1. Carry-Over Certification
Consistent with other mobile source emission certification
programs, EPA is proposing to allow a manufacturer to use test data and
other relevant information from a previous model year to satisfy the
same requirements for the existing model year certification program as
long as the data and other information are still valid. Such ``carry-
over'' of data and information is common in mobile source programs
where the engine family being certified in the current model year is
identical to the engine family previously certified.
2. Flexibilities for Small Volume Engine Manufacturers and Small Volume
Engine Families
EPA proposed a number of compliance flexibilities for small volume
engine manufacturers and small volume engine families in the January
1998 NPRM. With today's SNPRM, EPA is proposing a slightly revised set
of flexibilities for handheld engines that would be available to both
small volume engine families and small volume engine manufacturers. The
three proposed flexibilities that would be available to manufacturers
of small volume engine families and small volume engine manufacturers
are as follows: (1) The eligible family or manufacturer could certify
to Phase 1 standards and regulations until the third year after the end
of the proposed Phase 2 schedule (i.e., the 2009 model year for Classes
III and IV and the 2011 model year for Class V engines); such engines
would be excluded from the ABT program until they are certified to the
Phase 2 standard, (2) the eligible family or manufacturer could certify
using assigned deterioration factors, and (3) the eligible family or
manufacturer could elect to not participate in the PLT program,
however, the SEA program would still be applicable.
With regard to Class I-A and Class I-B, EPA is proposing only one
of the flexibilities for small volume engine families and small volume
engine manufacturers noted above. EPA is proposing to allow eligible
Class I-A and Class I-B small volume engine families or manufacturers
to elect to not participate in the PLT program, however, the SEA
program would still be applicable. As noted earlier, the proposed Class
I-A and Class I-B designations are new, and therefore there are no
engine families currently certified as Class I-A or Class I-B engines.
Because the engines that will be designated as Class I-A or Class I-B
engines will be new designs or existing designs that are expected to be
able to meet the proposed standards, EPA does not believe there is a
need to offer delayed implementation of the proposed standards or allow
manufacturers to use assigned deterioration factors. Therefore, EPA is
not proposing either the delayed implementation flexibility or use of
assigned deterioration factors flexibility for Class I-A or Class I-B.
EPA originally proposed allowing small volume engine manufacturers
to continue producing Phase 1 engines until the last year of the phase
in of the Phase 2 standard applicable to the engine's class. (For
handheld engines,
[[Page 40957]]
the final year of the phase in would have been 2005 under the January
1998 NPRM.) However, since the proposed standards contained in today's
SNPRM are significantly more stringent than the standards upon which
the original proposed flexibility was based, the number of engine
families expected to be modified and, especially, the degree of
modification necessary has increased. This is expected to add
significantly to the technical and resource burden on the engine
manufacturers. As anticipated in the January 1998 proposal, EPA still
expects the major engine manufacturers would choose to modify their
small volume engine families last as these represent niche markets.
Additionally, these niche applications may represent some of the more
difficult engine applications due to their unique requirements. The
experience gained in designing, producing and getting in-use feedback
on their larger engine family designs should be helpful in minimizing
the cost and assuring the performance of the small volume engines.
Similarly, the design challenges for the small volume engine
manufacturer because of the more stringent proposed Phase 2 standards
are expected to increase, suggesting more time to accomplish the
transition to Phase 2 standards would be warranted. EPA expects
manufacturers would take advantage of the extra time being proposed
today to smooth the transition to Phase 2 standards by bringing the
small volume engines into compliance throughout this time period. Due
to the fact that circumstances vary greatly from one manufacturer to
another, EPA believes it would be inappropriate to mandate a percent
phase-in schedule or some other mandatory rate of phase-in for these
small volume engine families and small volume engine manufacturers.
Therefore, EPA is proposing only a final compliance requirement that is
effective three years after the end of the proposed Phase 2 phase-in
schedule. EPA believes that a three year delay is appropriate based on
discussions with manufacturers and given the number of engine families
expected to be eligible for the proposed flexibilities. EPA has also
considered the air quality impact of this proposed flexibility and
believes that, under the reproposed provisions, less than two percent
of the total small engine production would likely take advantage of
this option to delay compliance with the Phase 2 standards with only a
negligible impact on the emission benefits expected from the program.
3. Small Volume Engine Manufacturer Definition
As described earlier, EPA proposed a number of flexibilities for
engine manufacturers defined as small volume engine manufacturers in
the January 1998 NPRM (see section II.D.2.). EPA continues to believe
flexibilities aimed at the small volume handheld engine manufacturer
are appropriate and is retaining the proposed definition of small
volume handheld engine manufacturers in this SNPRM. To qualify as a
small volume engine manufacturer, a handheld engine manufacturer would
need to produce no more than 25,000 handheld engines annually. In
addition, for manufacturers of Class I-A and Class I-B nonhandheld
engine families, where EPA is also proposing limited small volume
engine manufacturer flexibility, a manufacturer of such engines would
need to produce no more than 10,000 nonhandheld engines annually.
4. Small Volume Engine Family Definition
In the January 1998 NPRM, EPA proposed that manufacturers of small
volume engine families also be provided the same flexibilities as small
volume engine manufacturers (see section II.D.2.). To qualify as a
small volume engine family, EPA proposed that a handheld engine family
would need to have an annual production level of no more than 2,500
engines. Without such flexibilities, EPA believes the cost and other
difficulties of modifying these small volume engine families to comply
with the Phase 2 standards may be difficult enough that the
manufacturer might either be unable to complete the modification of the
engine design in time or may choose for economic reasons to discontinue
production of the small volume engine family. The impact of such a
scenario would of course fall on the engine manufacturer through
reduced engine sales, but would also fall perhaps even more
significantly on small volume equipment applications, the most typical
use for these small volume engine families. Due to the unique character
of these small volume equipment applications, it is quite possible that
some equipment manufacturers might not be able to find a suitable
replacement engine. In such a case, that equipment manufacturer would
also be significantly impacted through lost sales, and consumers would
be harmed through the loss in availability of the equipment.
In response to the January 1998 NPRM, the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association (PPEMA) requested a ``slight upward
adjustment'' of the proposed 2,500 unit cap for handheld engines. Based
on PPEMA's comments, EPA has re-examined the production limits for
small volume engine families and believes that the interests of
preserving the availability of small volume engine families would be
better served by revising the annual production cap to 5,000 units for
handheld engine families. (The recent final rule for nonhandheld
engines also adopted a production cap of 5,000 units for nonhandheld
engines.) EPA believes this proposed change to the definition would
allow a larger number of niche equipment applications to be served and
the risk of loss in engine availability should be reduced. At the same
time, EPA believes the potential for adverse emission impacts remains
very small. Based on the higher cutoffs, EPA estimates that 98 percent
of handheld engines would still be covered by the full compliance
program and subject to the earliest practical implementation of the
proposed rule.
Class I-A and Class I-B engine families would also be subject to a
cap of 5,000 engines (the same level recently adopted for nonhandheld
engines) in order to qualify as a small engine family and be eligible
for the proposed small volume engine family flexibility described
earlier.
5. Flexibilities for Equipment Manufacturers and Small Volume Equipment
Models
In the January 1998 NPRM, EPA proposed three flexibilities aimed at
assuring the continued supply under the Phase 2 regulations of engines
for unique, typically small volume equipment applications. First, EPA
proposed that small volume equipment manufacturers could continue using
Phase 1 compliant engines through the third year after the last
applicable phase-in date of the final Phase 2 standards for that engine
class if the equipment manufacturer was unable to find a suitable Phase
2 engine before then. Second, EPA proposed to allow individual small
volume equipment models to continue using Phase 1 compliant engines
throughout the time period the Phase 2 regulation is in effect if no
suitable Phase 2 engine was available and the equipment was in
production at the time these Phase 2 rules were adopted. If the
equipment is ``significantly modified'' then this exemption would end,
since design accommodations could be made during such a modification to
accept an engine meeting Phase 2 standards. Third, EPA proposed a
hardship provision that would allow any equipment
[[Page 40958]]
manufacturer, regardless of size, for any of its applications,
regardless of size, to continue using a Phase 1 engine for up to one
more year beyond the last phase-in of the final standard for that
engine class if the requirement to otherwise use a Phase 2 compliant
engine would cause substantial financial hardship. For today's SNPRM,
EPA is retaining the proposed flexibilities, except that the criteria
for determining whether someone is a small volume equipment
manufacturer is being revised (see section II.D.6. below).
Because the applications expected to use Class I-A or Class I-B
engines will be new engines and equipment designs or designs that use
engines that already exist under the Phase 1 program (and are expected
to meet the proposed Phase 2 standards), EPA does not believe there is
a need to provide flexibilities for small volume equipment
manufacturers and small volume equipment models in the newly proposed
engine classes which would allow delayed introduction of engines
certified to the proposed Phase 2 standards. Therefore, no such
flexibilities are being proposed for Class I-A or Class I-B.
6. Small Volume Equipment Manufacturer Definition
As part of the January 1998 NPRM, EPA proposed that small volume
equipment manufacturers would be defined as those whose annual
production for sale in the U.S. across all models was 5,000 or fewer
pieces of equipment utilizing handheld engines.
EPA has reexamined the production cutoff level for handheld
equipment manufacturers. EPA believes there would be advantages to
increasing the production cutoff included in the definition for small
volume handheld equipment manufacturers. (EPA's recently finalized rule
for nonhandheld engines expanded the cutoff level for the definition of
small volume nonhandheld equipment manufacturer to 5,000 units.) Such a
change would expand the flexibilities to slightly larger manufacturers
who are still, compared to the rest of the industry, among the
smallest. Therefore, EPA is proposing a revised definition for small
volume handheld equipment manufacturer that is based on an annual
production cutoff of 25,000 or fewer units. EPA estimates that this
limit would cover approximately two percent of the annual sales in the
handheld category. Providing the proposed flexibilities described in
the previous section should allow significant relief to these smallest
equipment manufacturers while at the same time assuring the vast
majority of equipment uses the lowest emitting engines available.
7. Small Volume Equipment Model Definition
EPA is retaining the small volume equipment model definition
proposed in the January 1998 NPRM for today's SNPRM. As proposed, the
small volume equipment model definition would cover handheld models of
2,500 or less annual production. Providing the proposed flexibilities
described in the section on flexibilities for small volume equipment
models should allow significant relief to equipment manufacturers while
at the same time assuring the vast majority of equipment uses the
lowest emitting engines available.
E. General Provisions and Recommendations
In the January 1998 NPRM, EPA discussed a number of general
provisions that would impact Phase 2 engines. EPA received comments on
several of these issues, as well as recommendations on other general
issues. A number of these issues, including the handheld engine
definition, use of engines in recreational equipment, engine labeling,
and emissions warranty affect some or all of the engines covered by
today's SNPRM. These general provisions and other recommendations are
discussed in this section of the preamble.
1. Definition of Handheld Engine
With today's SNPRM, EPA is retaining the same definition for
handheld engine as was in effect for Phase 1 and is not proposing a new
definition for handheld engine, except as discussed below. It should be
noted that in response to comments from Honda and others, EPA recently
proposed modifications to criteria for determining whether an engine
could be classified as handheld that, if finalized, would be applicable
for the remainder of Phase 1 and also apply for the Phase 2 program (64
FR 5251, February 3, 1999). Under the proposed modification, a
manufacturer would be permitted to exceed the weight limits (14 kg for
generators or pumps, or 20 kg for one-person augers) in cases where the
manufacturer could demonstrate that the extra weight was the result of
using a 4-stroke engine or other technology cleaner than the otherwise
allowed two stroke engine. Today's reproposed program would incorporate
the Agency's decision reached in the rulemaking addressing the proposed
modifications to the handheld definition.
2. Engines Used in Recreational Vehicles and Applicability of the Small
SI Regulations to Model Airplanes
Today's SNPRM does not propose any revisions to the provisions
relating to engines used in recreational vehicles established in the
Phase 1 program, except as discussed below. It should be noted that EPA
recently issued a proposal that addresses the applicability of the
small SI regulations to engines used in model airplane applications (64
FR 5251). Under this recent proposal, EPA has proposed to consider
engines that serve ``only to propel a flying vehicle * * * through
air'' to be recreational engines provided they also meet the other
existing criteria that apply to that term. As ``recreational'' engines
they would be effectively excluded from the small SI program. Today's
reproposed program would incorporate the Agency's decision reached in
the rulemaking addressing the proposed modifications to the
recreational vehicle definition.
3. Engine Labeling
Under the January 1998 NPRM, EPA proposed that manufacturers would
be required to state the useful life hours on the engine label. For
nonhandheld engines only, EPA proposed an alternative to this engine
labeling requirement. Under the alternative proposal, nonhandheld
engine manufacturers could use a designator of useful life hours (e.g.,
A, B, or C) and then include words on the label which would direct the
consumer to the owner's manual for an explanation of the meaning of the
useful life designator.
As indicated in the January 1998 NPRM, EPA believes that requiring
manufacturers to include on the engine label the number of hours of
emission compliance for which the engine is properly certified would
provide an important tool to consumers in making their purchase
decisions between competing engines. In addition, EPA anticipates
manufacturers will use the useful life hours of the engine as a
marketing tool. EPA originally included the alternative option noted
above based on the concern expressed by nonhandheld engine
manufacturers that consumers could be confused by the meaning of the
useful life period if the specific number of hours was included on the
label. However, as indicated in the preamble to the January 1998 NPRM,
EPA was concerned that an alternative designation, such as ``A, B, or
C'' may not provide the same useful information to the consumer as
including the useful life hours directly
[[Page 40959]]
on the label. EPA is also aware of labeling options being considered by
California that would allow removing the actual hours of operation from
the engine label and including additional information on the product,
perhaps not permanently affixed to the engine, which would satisfy the
need to properly inform consumers. Allowing such labeling would also
serve the goal of harmonization which was supported by PPEMA in their
comments on the January 1998 NPRM.
With today's SNPRM, EPA is proposing to extend the alternative
labeling option contained in the January 1998 NPRM, as noted above, to
handheld engines. The Agency sees no reason why consumers would react
differently to labeling information whether it is affixed to a handheld
engine or a nonhandheld engine. Additionally, this SNPRM proposes to
allow other labeling options provided the Administrator determines that
such options satisfy the information intent of the label. This proposed
option is intended to allow for the nationwide use of the California
labeling system. In evaluating the adequacy of an alternative label,
EPA would consider the extent to which the manufacturer's alternative
engine label combined with other readily accessible consumer
information adequately informs the consumer of the emission performance
of the engine. The reproposed labeling requirements would be the same
as those recently adopted in the final Phase 2 nonhandheld rulemaking.
It should be noted that EPA expects to work in partnership with the
industry in developing consumer outreach material to better inform
consumers of the emission improvements available through purchase of
equipment using Phase 2 engines. EPA expects such outreach material
will better serve the informational needs of consumers than just
relying on any of the proposed labeling options.
4. Emission Warranty
Under the current regulations, the base emission performance
warranty extends for a period of two years of engine use from the date
of sale. However, since the January 1998 NPRM was issued, manufacturers
of handheld engines have indicated to EPA that there are applications,
particularly for commercial equipment, in which the useful life hours
of the entire piece of equipment can be surpassed in one year of
typical in-use operation. Therefore, EPA is proposing an option whereby
manufacturers of handheld engines could request approval from EPA to
adopt an emission warranty period of one year if they can demonstrate
such a shorter warranty period would be appropriate for that engine/
equipment combination. In addition, EPA is dropping the proposed
warranty provisions from the January 1998 NPRM which would have
required a different Phase 2 warranty statement compared to the Phase 1
warranty statement. Therefore, the Phase 2 provisions specifying what
manufacturers must warrant, would remain unchanged from the existing
Phase 1 program, and would match those contained in the recently
adopted final Phase 2 nonhandheld rulemaking.
III. Projected Impacts
A. Environmental Benefit Assessment
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been set for a
number of criteria pollutants, including ozone (O3), which
adversely affect human health, vegetation, materials and visibility.
Concentrations of ozone are impacted by HC and NOX
emissions. EPA believes that the standards proposed in this rule would
reduce emissions of HC and NOX and help most areas of the
nation in their progress towards attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS for ozone. The following section provides a summary of the roles
of HC and NOX in ozone formation. The following section also
addresses the estimated emissions impact of this rule, and the health
and welfare effects of ozone, CO, and hazardous air pollutants.
1. Roles of HC and NOX in Ozone Formation
Both HC and NOX contribute to the formation of
tropospheric ozone through a complex series of reactions. EPA's primary
reason for controlling emissions from small SI handheld engines is the
role of their HC emissions in forming ozone. Of the major air
pollutants for which NAAQS have been designated under the CAA, the most
widespread problem continues to be ozone, which is the most prevalent
photochemical oxidant and an important component of smog. Ozone is a
product of the atmospheric chemical reactions involving oxides of
nitrogen and volatile organic compounds. These reactions occur as
atmospheric oxygen and sunlight interact with hydrocarbons and oxides
of nitrogen from both mobile and stationary sources.
A critical part of this problem is the formation of ozone both in
and downwind of large urban areas. Under certain weather conditions,
the combination of NOX and HC has resulted in urban and
rural areas exceeding the national ambient ozone standard by as much as
a factor of three. Thus it is important to control HC over wider
regional areas if these areas are to come into and maintain compliance
with the ozone NAAQS.
2. Health and Welfare Effects of Tropospheric Ozone
Ozone is a powerful oxidant causing lung damage and reduced
respiratory function after relatively short periods of exposure
(approximately one hour). The oxidizing effect of ozone can irritate
the nose, mouth, and throat causing coughing, choking, and eye
irritation. In addition, ozone can also impair lung function and
subsequently reduce the respiratory system's resistance to disease,
including bronchial infections such as pneumonia.
Elevated ozone levels can also cause aggravation of pre-existing
respiratory conditions such as asthma. 7 Ozone can cause a
reduction in performance during exercise even in healthy persons. In
addition, ozone can also cause alterations in pulmonary and extra
pulmonary (nervous system, blood, liver, endocrine) function. Elevated
ozone levels have also been shown to affect vegetation, including
reduced agricultural and commercial forest yields, reduced growth and
decreased survivability of tree seedlings, increased tree and plant
susceptibility to disease, pests, and other environmental stresses, and
potential long-term effects on forests and ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone--Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information: OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-450/2-
92-001, June 1989, pp. VI-11 to 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High levels of ozone have been recorded even in relatively remote
areas, since ozone and its precursors can travel hundreds of miles and
persist for several days in the lower atmosphere. Ozone damage to
plants, including both natural forest ecosystems and crops, occurs at
ozone levels between 0.06 and 0.12 ppm. 8 Repeated exposure
to ozone levels above 0.04 ppm can cause reductions in the yields of
some crops above ten percent. 9 The value of crops lost to
ozone damage, while difficult to estimate precisely, has been estimated
to be on the order of $2 billion per year in the United States.
10 The effect of ozone on complex ecosystems such as forests
is even more difficult to quantify. However, there is evidence that
some forest types are negatively affected by
[[Page 40960]]
ambient levels of ozone. 11 Specifically, in the San
Bernardino Mountains of southern California, ozone is believed to be
the agent responsible for the slow decline and death of ponderosa pine
trees in these forests since 1962. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-10.
\9\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-10.
\10\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-22.
\11\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-27.
\12\ U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, by trapping energy radiated from the earth, tropospheric
ozone may contribute to heating of the earth's surface via the
``greenhouse effect,'' thereby contributing to global warming,
13 although tropospheric ozone is also known to reduce
levels of UVB radiation reaching the earth's surface, the increase of
which is expected to result from depletion of stratospheric ozone.
14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ NRC, Rethinking the Ozone Problem, p. 22.
\14\ The New York Times, September 15, 1992, p. C4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Estimated Emissions Impact of the Supplemental Proposed Regulations
The emission standards contained in today's proposal are expected
to reduce average in-use exhaust HC+NOX emissions from small
SI handheld engines by approximately 78 percent beyond Phase 1
standards for handheld engines by the year 2027, by which time a
complete fleet turnover is expected. This translates into an annual
nationwide reduction of roughly 264,000 tons of exhaust
HC+NOX in the year 2027 over that expected from Phase 1.
Reductions in CO levels beyond Phase 1 levels, due to improved
technology, are also to be expected but have not been estimated because
EPA does not believe it can accurately quantify the expected benefit.
Along with the control of all hydrocarbons, the proposed standards
should be effective in reducing emissions of hydrocarbons considered to
be hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including benzene and 1,3-
butadiene. However, the magnitude of reduction would depend on whether
the control technology reduces the individual HAPs in the same
proportion as total hydrocarbons.
These emission reduction estimates are based on in-use population
projections using growth estimates, engine attrition (scrappage),
activity indicators and new and in-use engine emission factors. Data on
activity indicators were based on the Phase 1 nonroad small SI
regulation. Estimates of engine populations were based on population
data available from the PSR databases 15, data provided by
small SI engine and equipment manufacturers to EPA, and on a study done
for the California Air Resources Board by Booz Allen & Hamilton.
Population projections into the future are based on a linear growth
assumption. Attrition rates (based on the probability that an engine
remains in service into a specific calendar year) for all engines
included in this analysis are developed on the assumption that the
equipment attrition function may be represented by a cumulative Normal
distribution function. The in-use emission factors are based on a
multiplicative deterioration factor which is a function of the
cumulative hours of equipment usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Power Systems Research, Engine Data and Parts Link data
bases, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 presents the emission inventories for the handheld engines
covered by this proposed rule which were developed using EPA's NONROAD
Model. The total annual nationwide HC and NOX emissions from
small SI handheld engines included in this proposal were estimated for
both the baseline scenario (i.e., with Phase 1 controls applied) and
the controlled scenario (i.e., the proposed Phase 2 controls). Because
there are so few engines expected to be certified under the proposed
Class I-A and Class I-B standards, EPA has not included any emissions
from such engines in the inventory or benefit projections. The reader
is directed to Chapter 6 of the Supplemental Draft RIA for a complete
description of the inventory modeling analysis.
Table 4.--Projected Annual Exhaust HC+NOX Emissions from Handheld Equipment (Tons/Year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tons Reduced
With Phase 1 With the due to the Percentage
Year Controls Proposed Proposed Reduction
only Phase 2 Phase 2 (percent)
Program Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................................... 207,257 207,257 ............ ............
2005.................................................... 227,039 126,602 100,437 44.2
2010.................................................... 250,390 60,992 189,398 75.6
2015.................................................... 274,072 61,583 212,489 77.5
2020.................................................... 297,967 66,276 231,691 77.8
2025.................................................... 321,400 71,436 249,964 77.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Health and Welfare Effects of CO Emissions
CO is a colorless, odorless gas which can be emitted or otherwise
enters into ambient air as a result of both natural processes and human
activity. Although CO exists as a trace element in the troposphere,
much of human exposure resulting in elevated levels of
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) in the blood is due to incomplete fossil fuel
combustion, as occurs in small SI engines.
The concentration and direct health effect of CO exposure are
especially important for small SI handheld engines because the operator
of a handheld application is close to the equipment as it functions. In
some applications, the operator must be adjacent to the exhaust outlet
and is in the direct path of the exhaust as it leaves the engine.
The toxicity of CO effects on blood and tissues, and how these
effects manifest themselves as organ function changes, have also been
topics of substantial research efforts. Such studies provided
information for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for CO. The current primary and secondary NAAQS for CO are 9 parts per
million for the one-hour average and 35 parts per million for the
eight-hour average.
5. Health and Welfare Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
The focus of today's proposal is reduction of HC emissions as part
of the solution to the ozone nonattainment problem. However, direct
health effects
[[Page 40961]]
are also a reason for concern due to direct human exposure to emissions
from small SI handheld engines during the operation of handheld
equipment. Of specific concern is the emission of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). In some applications, the operator must be adjacent
to the exhaust outlet and is in the direct path of the exhaust as it
leaves the engine. Today's regulatory proposal should be effective in
reducing HAPs such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene, in so far as these are
components of the HC emissions being reduced by the Phase 2 standards.
Benzene is a clear, colorless, aromatic hydrocarbon which is both
volatile and flammable. Benzene is present in both exhaust and
evaporative emissions. Health effects caused by benzene emissions
differ based on concentration and duration of exposure. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified benzene
as a Group I carcinogen, namely an agent carcinogenic to humans.
Occupational studies continue to provide the bulk of evidence of
benzene's carcinogenicity. Workers are exposed at much higher levels
than is the general public. Human epidemiologic studies of workers in
highly exposed occupations have demonstrated that exposure to benzene
can cause acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and other blood disorders, that
is, preleukemia and aplastic anemia. Additionally, changes in blood and
bone marrow consistent with hematotoxicity are recognized in humans and
experimental animals. Benzene has also been linked with genetic changes
in humans and animals.
1,3-butadiene is a colorless, flammable gas at room temperature.
This suspected human carcinogen is insoluble in water and its two
conjugated double bonds make it highly reactive. 1,3-butadiene is
formed in internal combustion engine exhaust by the incomplete
combustion of the fuel and is assumed not present in evaporative and
refueling emissions. The Health Risk Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene (EPA/
600/P-98/001A, February 1998), concludes that 1,3-butadiene is a known
human carcinogen, based on three types of evidence: (1) Excess leukemia
in workers occupationally exposed to 1,3-butadiene (by inhalation), (2)
occurrence of a variety of tumors in mice and rats by inhalation, and
(3) evidence in animals and humans that 1,3-butadiene is metabolized
into genotoxic metabolites. Other health effects due to very high
levels of exposure include heart, blood and lung diseases.
Because air toxic levels generally decrease in proportion to
overall emissions once emission control technology is applied, the
amount of benzene and 1,3-butadiene produced by new small SI engines
should diminish once the proposed program becomes effective.
Consequently, exposure to HAPs from new handheld engines would be
reduced, as would associated health and environmental effects. Although
there is little data on direct health effects of small SI engines, one
Swedish study concluded that benzene emissions from chainsaw engines
were rather high.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Occupational Exposure to Chain Saw Exhausts in Logging
Operations,'' American Industrial Hygiene Association, J48, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness
EPA has calculated the cost-effectiveness of this proposed rule by
estimating costs and emission benefits for these engines. EPA made best
estimates of the combination of technologies that an engine
manufacturer might use to meet the proposed standards, best estimates
of resultant changes to equipment design, engine manufacturer
compliance program costs, and engine fuel savings in order to assess
the expected economic impact of the proposed Phase 2 emission standards
for handheld engines. Emission benefits are taken from the results of
the environmental benefit assessment (see section III.A. above). The
resulting cost-effectiveness result of the proposed Phase 2 standards
is approximately $2,146 per ton of HC+NOX if fuel savings
are not taken into account. If fuel savings are considered as a credit
against cost, the cost-effectiveness calculation results in
approximately $1,911 per ton of HC+NOX. This section
describes the background and analysis behind these results.
The analysis for this proposal is based on data from engine
families certified to EPA's Phase 1 standards, and information on the
latest technology development and related emission levels that the
Agency obtained prior to and since the publication of the January 1998
NPRM. The analysis does not include any production volumes that are
covered by the California ARB's standards. The California ARB will
implement emission standards for many of these engines prior to the
proposed federal Phase 2 regulations. Therefore, this analysis only
accounts for costs for each engine sold outside California and those
engines sold in California that are not covered by the California ARB
rules, such as those that California determined are used in farm and
construction equipment. EPA assumed that any Phase 1 engine design that
would need to be modified to meet Phase 2 standards was assumed to
incur the full cost of that modification, including design cost.
Similarly, the cost to equipment manufacturers was assumed to be fully
attributed to this federal rule even if an equipment manufacturer would
have to make the same modifications in response to the California ARB
regulations. The details of EPA's cost and cost-effectiveness analyses
can be found in Chapters 4 and 7 of the Supplemental Draft RIA for this
rule. EPA requests comment on its cost effectiveness analysis and
requests any relevant information that would assist the Agency in
revising the analysis as appropriate.
1. Class I-A and Class I-B
No costs for Class I-A are included in this Phase 2 regulation.
This is due to several factors. First, costs for research and
development for engines in
Class I-A are included in the research and development of handheld
engine families (Classes III-V) since they are the same engine
families, but would just be allowed to be used in nonhandheld
applications. Second, certification and PLT testing for these engine
families for use to handheld applications (Classes III-V) will likely
be used toward certification for this class. In regards to benefits, no
benefits for Class I-A engine families were estimated due to the
anticipated limited use (i.e., small niche markets) of these engines in
nonhandheld applications. Because no Class I engine families currently
exist in this displacement range, EPA would not expect a loss in the
Phase 2 Class I emission benefits from the adoption of the proposed
Class I-A standards.
The costs for Class I-B include only certification to the Phase 2
regulation. The EPA Phase 1 certification database (as of September
1998) indicates there are only three engine families (two of these meet
the proposed small volume engine family cutoff) that would be certified
to this class, two are SV engines and one is an OHV engine, all with
similar emission results for HC+NOX. The engine families can
currently meet the proposed emission standards for this class and
therefore no additional variable costs or fixed costs were included for
research and development or production. In addition, the Phase 2
program allows small volume engine families and manufacturers an option
to perform PLT. No benefits are included for it is not known if all of
the engine families in this newly proposed displacement
[[Page 40962]]
category will utilize the new class due to the fact that these engines
must be certified to the California ARB standards (16.1 g/kW-hr
HC+NOX for engines between 60 cc and 225 cc) if they are to
be sold in California. Also, the low production estimates for engine
families in this class are a very small fraction of the overall engine
sales in this category which make up the benefits for the Phase 2
nonhandheld engine rulemaking and therefore should have no appreciable
impact on the emission benefits of the Phase 2 rule for nonhandheld
engines.
2. Handheld Engine Technologies
Table 5 lists the technologies that have been considered in the
cost estimation for Class III-V engines in this proposed rulemaking.
Additional detail regarding the impact of these modifications can be
found in Chapter 3 of the Supplemental Draft RIA.
Table 5.--Potential Technology Improvements Per Class and Engine Design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine
Technologies Class design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compression Wave Technology with Catalyst........... III 2-stroke
Compression Wave Technology with Catalyst Stratified IV 2-stroke
scavenging with catalyst 4-stroke engine...........
None................................................ IV 4-stroke
Compression Wave Technology Stratified scavenging... V 2-stroke
Likely only applicable to the smallest Class V V 4-stroke
engines............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Handheld Engine Costs
The engine cost increase is based on incremental purchase prices
for new engines and is comprised of variable costs (for hardware,
assembly time and compliance programs), and fixed costs (for R&D and
retooling). Variable costs were applied on a per engine basis and fixed
costs were amortized at seven percent over five years. Engine
technology cost estimates were based on a study performed by ICF and
EF&EE in October 1996 entitled ``Cost Study for Phase Two Small Engine
Emission Regulations'' and cost estimates provided by industry in
confidence. Details of the assumed costs and analysis can be found in
Chapters 3 and 4 of the Supplemental Draft RIA.
Analysis of the EPA Phase 1 certification database, as of September
1998, was conducted to determine a potential impact of the proposed
Phase 2 standards on each manufacturer assuming the proposed ABT
program would be available to engine manufacturers. While the proposed
ABT program would allow credit exchanges across classes, this analysis
considered only ABT within each class since some manufacturers produce
substantially in only one handheld class. The choice of technologies
for emission improvement of these engine families was based on the
engine family that would be most influential in reducing a
manufacturer's overall average emission level within that class. The
cost analysis was updated with consideration of cost information
submitted in confidence by several engine manufacturers in order to
most accurately reflect expected costs.
For Class III, review of EPA's Phase 1 database showed that 78
percent of the engine families would need to incorporate at least some
of the technologies listed in Table 5. For Class IV, review of EPA's
Phase 1 certification database shows that 84 percent of the engine
families would need to incorporate emission improvements from amongst
those listed in Table 5. For Class V, review of EPA's Phase 1 database
showed that 65 percent of the engine families would need to incorporate
at least some of the technologies listed in Table 5. (It should be
noted that a small number of the engine families in Class V are
lawnmowers or snowblowers which either have their own schedule for
meeting emission standards from Phase 1 (existing handheld equipment
with 2-stroke engines, such as some lawnmowers) or do not have to meet
the HC+NOX standards due to sole wintertime use (such as
snowblowers)). The incorporation of such technologies would require
both variable and fixed expenditures.
The proposed Phase 2 emission standards for this diverse industry
would impact companies differently depending on a company's current
product offering and related deteriorated emission characteristics used
in establishing FELs for use in averaging emissions across engine
families. Some companies may improve the emission characteristics of
their large volume engine families to provide credits for their smaller
volume families. The real world impact on engine manufacturers would
also be influenced by a manufacturer's ability to reduce the emissions
from its major impact engine family in light of competition with others
in the marketplace.
4. Handheld Equipment Costs
In most cases, the companies that manufacture engines for use in
handheld equipment also manufacture the equipment. There are a small
number of independent equipment manufacturers which do not make their
own engines (ref: 1996 PSR EOLINK). Due to the overwhelming number of
equipment models manufactured by engine/equipment manufacturers
compared to the small number of independent equipment manufacturers,
information for the analysis was taken from the known data in EPA's
Phase 1 certification database which contains information from the
engine/equipment manufacturers. Additional information was added from
the auger equipment manufacturers who have been in touch with EPA
throughout the Phase 2 process. Due to the degree of estimation used in
the analysis, it is assumed that any equipment manufacturers not
included in the analysis would not have a significant impact on the
analysis. The costs for equipment conversion for handheld equipment was
derived from the ICF/EF&EE cost study 17 which contained
estimates based on the engine technology being utilized. Full details
of EPA's cost analysis can be found in Chapter 4 of the Supplemental
Draft RIA. EPA has assumed that capital costs would be amortized at
seven percent over ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ICF and Engine, Fuel and Emissions Engineering,
Incorporated; ``Cost Study for Phase Two Small Engine Emission
Regulations'', Draft Final Report, October 25, 1996, in EPA Air
Docket A-93-29, Item #II-A-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking assumes that the majority of Class III through V
engines would be converted to using some form of compression wave
technology with catalyst, mini 4-stroke or stratified scavenging with
catalyst. The split in equipment impact was dependent on the split in
technologies assumed amongst engines in each engine class. This was due
to the vertical integration of this industry. The engine design impacts
with the compression wave technologies with catalyst are assumed to be
one injection mold design change for the engine shroud to accommodate
cooling patterns for the engine and the muffler/exhaust gas
temperatures. For stratified scavenging with a catalyst, the equipment
must assure that it can house the new engine which may be slightly
larger than its predecessor due to power loss. In addition, as with the
compression wave technology, the equipment must allow for adequate
cooling and protection of the user from the hot muffler. Several engine
shroud changes are necessary along with added
[[Page 40963]]
heat shields and air flow path modifications due to the use of the
catalyst. Mini 4-strokes require a total redesign of the engine shroud,
tank placements, etc. due to the new design of the engine. For this
rulemaking, the analysis assumes that most Class III engines will
utilize compression wave technology with a catalyst and some engines
using stratified scavenging with a catalyst. The majority of Class IV
engines are assumed to use compression wave technology with a catalyst
and a small number of engines are assumed to use stratified scavenging
with a catalyst or mini 4-stroke technologies. The majority of Class V
engines are assumed to utilize compression wave technology and a small
number are assumed to use stratified charge.
5. Handheld Operating Costs
The total life-cycle operating costs for this proposal include any
expected decreases in fuel consumption. Life cycle fuel cost savings
have been calculated per class using the NONROAD emission model. The
model calculates fuel savings from the years of implementation to 2027
and takes into account factors including equipment scrappage, projected
yearly sales increase per equipment type, and engine power. Details on
the assumptions and calculations on fuel savings are included in
Chapters 4 and 7 of the Supplemental Draft RIA.
Based on information described in Chapter 3 of the Draft
Supplemental RIA (see section 3.2), a fuel consumption savings of 30
percent has been assumed from the two stroke engines as they are
converted to compression wave, mini 4-stroke, or stratified scavenging
design. The designs are expected to result in improved fuel economy
since the engine designs may run on a leaner air/fuel mixture with or
without improved combustion efficiency and reduce or altogether
eliminate scavenging with fuel/oil mixture.
6. Cost Per Engine and Cost-Effectiveness
a. Cost Per Engine
Total costs for this proposal would vary per year as engine
families are phased-in to compliance with the proposed Phase 2
standards over several years, as capital costs are recovered, and as
compliance programs are conducted. The term ``uniform annualized cost''
is used to express the cost of this proposal over the years of this
analysis.
The methodology used for estimating the uniform annualized cost per
unit is as follows. Cost estimates from 1996 and 1997 model years, for
technology and compliance programs respectively, were estimated and
increased to 1998 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price deflator (1.9%
in 1996, 1.9% in 1997 and 1.0% in 1998).18 While a number of
technologies are potentially possible for these engines, only the costs
for one technology were chosen in order to simplify the estimates of
the technologies manufacturers will choose to implement in the future
years. Engine technology costs for all engine designs in Classes III
and IV were based on compression wave (John Deere LE) with catalyst
(cost information from MECA and ICF). The most detailed cost
information was available from these sources and it is believed that
the technology will prove to be most applicable to the broad range of
engines. Engine technology costs for engine designs in Class V were
also based on the John Deere LE technology, however no catalyst cost
was applied for it is assumed that the standard does not require
catalysts. While the technology is not yet proven in Class V engines,
it is believed that it may likely be applicable. The cost estimates,
including licensing fee, are assumed to allow room for expected costs
from other technologies. EPA's Phase 1 database was then analyzed to
determine the number of engine families per class that would likely
incorporate the emission reduction technologies taking into
consideration the availability of the proposed ABT program. The
estimated costs per year were then calculated by multiplying the number
of engine families and corresponding production volume by the fixed and
variable costs per technology grouping, respectively. Since the
majority of equipment manufacturers are also engine manufacturers in
this market, retail markups used are 16 percent by the engine/equipment
manufacturer and 5 percent by the mass merchandiser. All markups are
based on industry-specific information from the Phase 1 program. For
compliance program costs, the costs for certification bench aging were
estimated based on the number of engine families in EPA's Phase 1
database and the expected certification date under the phase in of the
proposed Phase 2 standards. To complete the calculation of the uniform
annualized cost per unit, all of these costs are summed per year and
then discounted seven percent to the first year of Phase 2 regulation.
The yearly costs are summed and a uniform annualized cost is
calculated. The uniform annualized cost is then divided by production
at two points in time, the first full year of implementation of the
proposed Phase 2 standards (2006 for Classes III and IV and 2008 for
Class V), and the last year of this analysis (2027), to obtain two
separate uniform annualized costs per unit. The average of these two
values is then presented as the uniform annualized cost per unit in
Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Information obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis'
website (www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/niptbl-d.htm#).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The yearly fuel savings (tons/yr) per class were calculated from
the NONROAD model. The yearly fuel savings (tons/yr) were converted to
savings (1998$) through conversion to gallons per year multiplied by
$0.765 (a 1995 average refinery price of gasoline to end user, without
taxes) increased to 1998 using the GDP deflator for 1996, 1997 and
1998. The yearly fuel savings were then discounted by 7 percent to the
first year of Phase 2 regulation, for each engine class. The yearly
results were totaled and then divided by an annualized factor to yield
the uniform annualized fuel savings. The fuel savings for each class
was calculated for the production years of 2006, 2008 and 2027. The
average of these two values was utilized as the average fuel savings
per unit per class per year as shown in Table 6.
The average resultant cost per unit class is calculated by
subtracting the average fuel savings from the average cost, see Table
6. The reader is directed to Chapter 7 of the Supplemental Draft RIA
for more details of this analysis.
Table 6.--Engine Yearly Fuel Savings and Resultant Cost Per Unit Costs
Based on Uniform Annualized Costs (1998$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resultant
Class Cost Per Savings Cost Per
Unit Per Unit Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III...................................... $17.35 $0.50 $16.85
IV....................................... 22.84 1.02 21.82
V........................................ 53.42 3.04 50.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Nearly all of the handheld industry is vertically
integrated and therefore it is most appropriate to acknowledge cost/
unit rather than cost/engine for the engine and equipment
manufacturers are the same in nearly all cases.
b. Cost-Effectiveness
EPA has estimated the cost-effectiveness (i.e., the cost per ton of
emission reduction) of the proposed HC+NOx standards over the typical
lifetime of the handheld, Class I-A and Class I-B equipment that would
be covered by today's proposal. EPA has examined the cost-effectiveness
by
[[Page 40964]]
performing a nationwide cost-effectiveness analysis in which the net
present value of the cost of compliance per year is divided by net
present value of the HC+NOx benefits. The resultant discounted cost-
effectiveness is $2,146 cost/ton HC+NOx without fuel savings factored
in, and $1,911 with fuel savings taken into consideration. Chapter 7 of
the Supplemental Draft RIA contains a more detailed discussion of the
cost-effectiveness analysis. The overall cost-effectiveness of this
proposed rule on HC+NOx emission reductions, with fuel savings, is
shown in Table 7 compared to the cost effectiveness of other nonroad
rulemakings, which also reflect fuel savings.
Table 7.--Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed Phase 2 Handheld, Class I-A and Class I-B Engine Standards (With
fuel savings) Compared to Other Nonroad Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad Program Cost-effectiveness Pollutants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Phase 2 Small SI Handheld $1,911/ton............................... HC+NOx.
Engines.
Phase 2 Small SI Nonhandheld Engines $507/ton................................. HC+NOx.
Phase 1 Small SI Engines............ $217/ton................................. HC+NOx.
Recreational Marine SI Engines...... $1,000/ton............................... HC.
Tier 2/3 Standards for Nonroad CI $410-$650/ton............................ HC+NOx.
Engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Public Participation
The process for developing this supplemental proposed rule provided
several opportunities for formal public comment. EPA published an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on March 27, 1997 (62 FR
14740) which announced the signing of two Statements of Principles
(SOPs) with the small engine industry and several other interested
parties. The ANPRM and included SOPs outlined possible programs which
would increase the stringency of the small engine regulations compared
to Phase 1 rules. Comments were received in response to this ANPRM
which, in combination with the programs outlined in the ANPRM, formed
the basis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Phase 2
standards which was published on January 27, 1998 (63 FR 3950). A
public hearing was held on February 11, 1998 during which oral
testimony was received on the proposal. Written comments were received
during the formal comment period for the proposal and some additional
written comments were received after the formal comment period closed.
To expand upon comments received during the comment period and to
address specific questions EPA had of the industry regarding technical
feasibility and cost of some options for Phase 2 standards, EPA
received additional information after the close of the formal comment
period and participated in a number of phone conversations and meetings
with industry representatives for this purpose. All of this information
that is germane to Phase 2 handheld small SI standards, including
documentation of phone calls and meetings, has been included in the
docket for this supplemental proposed rule. Since considerable
information was received after the formal comment period closed, a
Notice of Availability highlighting the supplemental information was
also published on December 1, 1998 (63 FR 66081) alerting interested
parties to the availability of this supplemental information. Much of
this information was relied upon in support of the recently finalized
Phase 2 nonhandheld small SI program. All relevant information
received, regardless of the date of receipt, was, to the maximum extent
possible, considered in the development of this supplemental proposed
rule for the Phase 2 handheld small SI program.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must assess whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the
Executive Order (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993). The order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or,
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined
that this rulemaking is a ``significant regulatory action'' because the
proposed standards and other regulatory provisions, are expected to
have an annual effect on the economy in excess of $100 million. A
Supplemental Draft RIA has been prepared and is available in the docket
associated with this rulemaking. This proposal was submitted to OMB for
review as required by Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from
OMB are in the public docket for this rulemaking.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For the reasons set out below, this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
entities.
EPA has identified industries that would be subject to this rule
and has contacted small entities and small entity representatives to
gain a better understanding of the potential impacts of the proposed
Phase 2 handheld engine program on their businesses. This information
was useful in estimating potential impacts of this proposal on affected
small entities, the details of which are more fully discussed in
Chapter 8 of the Supplemental Draft RIA. Small not-for-profit
organizations and small governmental jurisdictions are not expected to
be impacted by this proposal. Thus EPA's impact analysis focuses on
small businesses. For purposes of the impact analysis, ``small
business'' is defined by number of employees, according to published
Small Business Administration (SBA) definitions. Since handheld
equipment
[[Page 40965]]
manufacturers also tend to be the engine manufacturers, which also tend
to be larger businesses, there are few small business entities involved
in the analysis.
However, the Agency desires to minimize, to the extent appropriate,
impacts on those companies which may be adversely affected, and to
ensure that the emissions standards are achievable. Thus, flexibility
provisions for the rule (discussed earlier in section II.D.) were
developed based on analysis of information gained through discussions
with potentially affected small entities as well as analysis of other
sources of information, as detailed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the
Supplemental Draft RIA. Many of the flexibilities in today's proposal
should benefit the engine and equipment manufacturers that do qualify
as small business entities.
The economic impact of the proposed rule on small entity engine and
equipment manufacturers was evaluated using a ``sales test'' approach
which calculates annualized compliance costs as a percent of sales
revenue. The ratio is an indication of the severity of the potential
impacts. EPA expects that, at worst, 3 small entity engine
manufacturers and 6 small entity equipment manufacturers would be
impacted by more than one percent of their sales revenue. Also, no more
than 4 entities would be impacted by more than three percent of their
annual sales revenue, as indicated by the analysis. This base case
analysis assumes that manufacturers do not take advantage of the
flexibilities being offered, but that they would be able to pass
through most necessary price increases to the ultimate consumer. EPA
would thus expect today's proposed rule to have a minimal impact on
small business entities.
However, EPA is proposing a number of flexibilities to further
reduce the burden of compliance on any small-volume engine
manufacturers, small volume equipment manufacturers and manufacturers
of small-volume engine families and small-volume equipment models. The
Agency received a number of comments from engine and equipment
manufacturers, which were generally supportive of the flexibilities
initially proposed, but which suggested changes in production caps and
other provisions. EPA has incorporated many of these suggested changes
to the extent possible in this proposal, keeping in mind equity and air
quality considerations. Given these flexibilities being afforded to the
engine and equipment manufacturers, the results of the analysis suggest
that of those small entities analyzed, only one small business engine
manufacturer and none of the small business equipment manufacturers
would likely experience an impact of greater than one percent of their
sales revenue. Other outreach activities have also indicated that the
impact of today's proposed rule could be minimized given sufficient
lead time to incorporate the new technology with normal model changes.
Again, the Agency has not attempted to quantify the beneficial impact
on small volume manufacturers of the lead time provided (which can
include delaying the impact of these rules up until the 2009 model year
for Classes III and IV and up until the 2011 model year for Class V).
Although EPA believes that the above-mentioned flexibility
provisions will minimize any adverse impact on small entities (see
Chapter 8 of the Supplemental Draft RIA), the Agency has already
adopted a hardship relief provision for nonhandheld engines that would
also apply to handheld engines. This was developed to further ensure
that standards can be achieved without undue hardship on the business
entities involved. While it is difficult to project utilization of such
a provision, EPA expects that it could further reduce any possible
adverse economic impact of the proposed rule.
The results of the impact analysis show minimal impacts on small
businesses. EPA expects that such impacts will be negligible if small
companies take advantage of the above-mentioned flexibilities. Most of
the small companies contacted considered it likely that they would be
able to pass most of their cost increases through to their customers.
Many of these entities are also involved in filling niche markets, and
are thus in a particularly good position to pass these costs along to
the ultimate consumers. Finally, the ample lead time contained by
today's proposed rule should also allow for an orderly transition to
the more advanced technology. Therefore, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities and therefore a regulatory flexibility analysis for this
proposal has not been prepared. The Agency continues to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcomes additional comments during the rulemaking process on issues
related to such impacts. In spite of the expected minimal impacts on
small entities, EPA will continue its efforts to notify small business
engine and equipment manufacturers of this proposed rule and to inform
them of their opportunities for providing feedback to the Agency.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this supplemental
proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by EPA and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer
by mail at OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460, by email
at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also
be downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information planned to be collected via this supplemental
proposed rule is necessary to assure that the engine manufacturers
required to seek certification of their engines have fulfilled all the
essential requirements of these proposed regulations. In particular,
this information will document the design of the engine for which
certification is sought, the type(s) of equipment in which it is
intended to be used and the emission performance of these engines based
upon testing performed by or on behalf of the engine manufacturer.
Additional, essential information is necessary to document the results
of testing performed by the manufacturer under a proposed production
line testing program to determine that the engines, as manufactured
continue to have acceptable emission performance. Finally, if the
manufacturer elects to conduct testing of in-use engines under a
voluntary in-use testing program contained in the proposed regulations,
information is necessary to document the results of that in-use testing
program.
Table 8 provides a listing of the information collection
requirements associated with the proposed Phase 2 program for nonroad
SI handheld engines at or below 19 kW along with the appropriate OMB
control numbers. The cost of this burden has been incorporated into the
cost estimate for this rule. The Agency has estimated that the public
reporting burden for the collection of information required under this
supplemental proposed rule would average approximately 87,120 hours
annually for the industry at an estimated annual cost of $5,360,000.
The hours spent by an individual manufacturer on information collection
activities in any given year would be highly dependent upon
manufacturer specific variables, such as the number of
[[Page 40966]]
engine families, production changes, emission defects etc.
Table 8.--Public Reporting Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB
Type of Information Control
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification............................................... 2060-0338
Averaging, banking and trading.............................. 2060-0338
Production line testing..................................... N/A
Pre-certification and testing exemption..................... 2060-0007
Engine exclusion determination.............................. 2060-0124
Emission defect information................................. 2060-0048
Importation of nonconforming engines........................ 2060-0294
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to Director,
OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Office for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after July 28, 1999, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 27, 1999. The final
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this supplemental proposal.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for
obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal governments or the private
sector of greater than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has
prepared a budgetary impact statement and has addressed the selection
of the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative. While this proposed rule does not impose enforceable
obligations on State, local, and tribal governments, because they do
not produce small SI handheld engines or equipment, EPA has estimated
the proposed rule to cost the private sector an annualized cost of $359
million per year (over the 20 year period from 2002 to 2021). However,
the Agency has appropriately considered cost issues in developing this
proposed rule as required by section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act,
and has designed the proposed rule such that it will in EPA's view be a
cost-effective program. Because small governments would not be
significantly or uniquely affected by this proposed rule, the Agency is
not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments.
The impact statement under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act
must include: (1) A citation of the statutory authority under which the
rule is adopted; (2) an assessment of the costs and benefits of the
rule including the effect of the mandate on health, safety and the
environment; (3) where feasible, estimates of future compliance costs
and disproportionate impacts upon particular geographic or social
segments of the nation or industry; (4) where relevant, an estimate of
the effect on the national economy; and (5) a description of the EPA's
consultation with State, local, and tribal officials. Because this
proposed rule is estimated to impose costs to the private sector in
excess of $100 million per year, it is considered a significant
regulatory action. Therefore, EPA has prepared the following statement
with respect to sections 202 through 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
1. Statutory Authority
This rule proposes standards for emissions of HC+NOX and
CO from small nonroad SI handheld engines pursuant to section 213 of
the Clean Air Act. Section 216 defines the terms ``nonroad engine'' and
``nonroad vehicle.'' Section 213(a)(3) requires these standards to
achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through
the application of technology which the Administrator determines will
be available for the engines or vehicles to which such standards apply,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of applying such
technology within the period of time available to manufacturers and to
noise, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of
such technology. Section 213(b) requires the standards to take effect
at the earliest possible date considering the lead time necessary to
permit the development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period and energy and safety. Section 213(d) provides that the
standards shall be subject to sections 206, 207, 208 and 209 of the
CAA, with such modifications of the applicable regulations implementing
such sections as the Administrator deems appropriate, and shall be
enforced in the same manner as standards prescribed under section 202.
Therefore, the statutory authority for this rule is as follows:
sections 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216, and
301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Moreover, this proposed rule
is being issued pursuant to a court order entered in Sierra Club v.
Browner, No. 93-0124 and consolidated cases (D.D.C.).
[[Page 40967]]
2. Social Costs and Benefits
The social costs and benefits of this proposed rule are discussed
in sections III.A. and III.B. of this notice, and in Chapters 6 through
7 of the Supplemental Draft RIA. Those discussions are incorporated
into this statement by reference.
3. Effects on the National Economy
As stated in the Unfunded Mandates Act, macroeconomic effects tend
to be measurable, in nationwide economic models, only if the economic
effect of the regulation reaches 0.25 to 0.5 percent of gross domestic
product (in the range of $15 billion to $30 billion). A regulation with
a smaller aggregate effect is highly unlikely to have any measurable
impact in macroeconomic terms unless it is highly focused on a
particular geographic region or economic sector. Because the economic
impact of the proposed Phase 2 rule for small SI handheld engines is
expected to be far less than these thresholds, no estimate of this
proposed rule's effect on the national economy has been conducted.
4. Consultation With Government Officials
Today's proposed rule would not create a mandate on State, local or
tribal governments, since it would not impose any enforceable duties on
these entities who do not produce small SI handheld engines or
equipment. Thus, EPA did not consult with State, local or tribal
governments in the context of discussing mandated costs that would
apply to such governments. However, EPA did consult with state
governmental representatives, and with representatives of associations
representing state air regulatory agencies, in the contexts of
developing the most stringent achievable regulations and of addressing
state ozone attainment needs. The consulted entities include the
California ARB and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM). These consultations are documented in the record
for this rule, and are reflected and discussed in the SOPs, the March
1997 ANPRM, the January 1998 NPRM, the December 1998 Notice of
Availability, the recently finalized Phase 2 rule for nonhandheld small
SI engines and equipment, and today's SNPRM.
5. Regulatory Alternatives Considered
To ensure the cost-effectiveness of this proposed rule and still
fulfill the intent of the Clean Air Act, EPA has proposed numerous
flexibility provisions that EPA expects would reduce the burden of the
Phase 2 program for small volume manufacturers and manufacturers of
small volume models and families. The flexibility provisions are
discussed in section II.D. of today's document. Moreover, the
technological options considered for the proposed rule's standards and
related provisions are discussed in section II.A. of the document. EPA
specifically requests comment on the standards contained in today's
reproposal and the alternative set of standards (described in section
II.A.) supported by a number of handheld engine manufacturers. Section
II.B. discusses the proposed ABT program, and section II.C. discusses
the proposed compliance program for Phase 2 handheld engines.
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rule involves technical standards. While commenters
suggested the use of ISO 8178 test procedures for measuring emissions,
the Agency has decided not to propose the ISO procedures in this SNPRM.
The Agency believes that these procedures would be impractical because
they rely too heavily on reference testing conditions. Since the test
procedures in these proposed regulations would need to be used not only
for certification, but also for production line testing, selective
enforcement audits, and voluntary in-use testing, EPA believes they
must be broadly based. In-use testing is best done outside tightly
controlled laboratory conditions so as to be representative of in-use
conditions. EPA believes that the ISO procedures are not sufficiently
broadly usable in their current form for this proposed program, and
therefore should not be adopted by reference. EPA has instead proposed
to continue relying on the procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 90. EPA
is hopeful that future ISO test procedures will be developed that are
usable for the broad range of testing needed, and that such procedures
could be adopted by reference at that point.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children's Health
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Was initiated after April 21, 1997
or for which a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published after April
21, 1998; (2) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (3) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets all
three criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because
substantive actions were initiated before April 21, 1997 and EPA
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before April 21, 1998. The
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This supplemental proposed
rulemaking is based on technology performance and not health or safety
risks. Therefore, EPA does not have reason to believe this proposed
action involves environmental health and safety risks that present a
disproportionate risk to children.
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments,
[[Page 40968]]
and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In
addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of
State, local and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant
unfunded mandates.''
Today's proposed rule would not create a mandate on State, local or
tribal governments. The proposed rule would not impose any enforceable
duties on these entities, because they do not produce small SI handheld
engines or equipment. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of
Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this proposed rule.
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive
Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
Today's proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of Indian tribal governments because it would not
impose any enforceable obligations on them. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this proposed rule.
VI. Statutory Authority
Authority for the actions set forth in this proposed rule is
granted to EPA by Sections 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213,
215, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521,
7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and
7601(a)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 90
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Nonroad source pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Warranties.
Dated: June 30, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 90--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 90 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542,
7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a).
Subpart A--General
1a. Section 90.1 is proposed to be amended by adding a sentence to
the end of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.1 Applicability.
(a) * * * To the extent permitted by other parts of this chapter,
this Part may, at the engine manufacturer's option, apply to engines
with gross power output greater than 19 kW that have an engine
displacement of less than or equal to one liter.
* * * * *
2. Section 90.3 is proposed to be amended by adding the words
``handheld and'' immediately preceding the word ``nonhandheld'' in the
definition of ``Phase 2 engine,'' by adding the words ``any handheld
engine family or'' immediately preceding the words ``any nonhandheld
engine family'' in the definition of ``Small volume engine family,''
and by adding a sentence to the end of the definitions of ``Small
volume engine manufacturer,'' ``Small volume equipment manufacturer,''
and ``Small volume equipment model'' to read as follows:
Sec. 90.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Small volume engine manufacturer * * *. For handheld engines, the
term small volume engine manufacturer means any engine manufacturer
whose total eligible production of handheld engines are projected at
the time of certification of a given model year to be no more than
25,000 handheld engines.
Small volume equipment manufacturer * * *. For handheld equipment,
the term small volume equipment manufacturer has the same meaning
except that it is limited to 25,000 pieces of handheld equipment rather
than 5,000 pieces of nonhandheld equipment.
Small volume equipment model * * *. For handheld equipment, the
term small volume equipment model has the same meaning except that it
is limited to 2,500 pieces of handheld equipment, rather than 500
pieces of nonhandheld equipment.
* * * * *
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Certification Provisions
3. Section 90.103 is proposed to be amended in paragraph (a)
introductory text, by revising the heading for Table 2, adding two new
entries to the beginning of Table 2, and adding Table 4, to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.103 Exhaust emission standards.
(a) * * *
Table 2.--Phase 2 Class I-A, Class I-B, and Class I Engine Exhaust Emission Standards
[Grams per kilowatt-hour]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine class HC+NOX NMHC+NOX CO Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-A............................. 50 ............ 610 2000 Model Year.
I-B............................. 40 37 610 2000 Model Year.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[[Page 40969]]
Table 4.--Phase 2 Handheld Exhaust Emission Standards by Model Year
[Grams per kilowatt-hour]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year
Engine class and emission ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
requirement 2008 and
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III:
HC+NOx......................... 226 200 150 100 50 50 50
CO............................. 805 805 805 805 805 805 805
Class IV:
HC+NOx......................... 187 168 129 89 50 50 50
CO............................. 805 805 805 805 805 805 805
Class V:
HC+NOx......................... ......... ......... 138 129 110 91 72
CO............................. ......... ......... 603 603 603 603 603
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
4. Section 90.103 is proposed to be amended by revising the first
and last sentences of paragraph (a)(6) and the first and last sentences
of paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(6) In lieu of certifying to the applicable Phase 2 standards,
small volume engine manufacturers as defined in this part may, at their
option, certify their engine families as Phase 1 engines until the 2010
model year for nonhandheld engine families excluding Class I-A and
Class I-B engine families, until the 2009 model year for Class III and
Class IV engine families, and until the 2011 model year for Class V
engine families. * * * Beginning with the 2010 model year for
nonhandheld engine families, the 2009 model year for Class III and
Class IV engine families, and the 2011 model year for Class V engine
families, these engines must meet the applicable Phase 2 standards.
(7) In lieu of certifying to the applicable Phase 2 standards,
manufacturers of small volume engine families, as defined in this part
may, at their option, certify their small volume engine families as
Phase 1 engines until the 2010 model year for nonhandheld engine
families excluding Class I-A and Class I-B engine families, until the
2009 model year for Class III and Class IV engine families, and until
the 2011 model year for Class V engine families. * * * Beginning with
the 2010 model year for nonhandheld engine families, the 2009 model
year for Class III and Class IV engine families, and the 2011 model
year for Class V engine families, these engines must meet the
applicable Phase 2 standards.
* * * * *
5. Section 90.104 is proposed to be amended by adding a sentence to
the end of paragraph (g)(1), by redesignating paragraph (g)(3) as
paragraph (g)(4), by adding new paragraph (g)(3), and by revising the
introductory text of paragraph (h)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.104 Compliance with emission standards.
* * * * *
(g)(1) * * * The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to Class
I-A and Class I-B engines.
* * * * *
(3) Table 2 follows:
Table 2.--Handheld Engine HC+NOx and CO Assigned Deterioration Factors for Small Volume Manufacturers and Small
Volume Engine Families
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-stroke engines Four-stroke engines
Engine class ------------------------------------------------ Engines with
HC+NOx CO HC+NOx CO aftertreatment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class III......................... 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.1 Dfa must be calculated
using the formula in
Sec. 90.104(g)(4)
Class IV.......................... 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.1 ........................
Do.
Class V........................... 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.1 ........................
Do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) For engines not using assigned dfs from Table 1 or Table 2 of
paragraph (g) of this section, dfs shall be determined as follows:
* * * * *
6. Section 90.105 is proposed to be amended by adding a sentence to
the end of paragraph (a)(1), by adding two entries to the beginning of
Table 1 of paragraph (a)(2), and adding new paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.105 Useful life periods for Phase 2 engines.
(a) * * *
(1) * * * Engines with gross power output greater than 19 kW that
have an engine displacement less than or equal to one liter that
optionally certify under this part as allowed in Sec. 90.1(a), must
certify to a useful life period of 1,000 hours.
(2) Table 1 follows:
Table 1.--Useful Life Categories for Nonhandheld Engines (Hours)
Class I-A.................................... 50 125 300
Class I-B.................................... 125 250 500
* * * *
* * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) For handheld engines: Manufacturers shall select a useful life
category from Table 2 of this paragraph (a) at the time of
certification.
(4) Table 2 follows:
[[Page 40970]]
Table 2.--Useful Life Categories for Handheld Engines (Hours)
Class III.................................... 50 125 300
Class IV..................................... 50 125 300
Class V...................................... 50 125 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
7. Section 90.107 is proposed to be amended by removing the word
``and'' at the end of paragraph (d)(6)(iv), adding the word ``and'' at
the end of paragraph (d)(6)(v), and adding a new paragraph (d)(6)(vi)
to read as follows:
Sec. 90.107 Application for certification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) * * *
(vi) Information relating to altitude kits to be certified,
including: a description of the altitude kit; appropriate part numbers;
the altitude ranges at which the kits must be installed on or removed
from the engine for proper emissions and engine performance; statements
to be included in the owner's manual for the engine/equipment
combination (and other maintenance related literature) that declare the
altitude ranges at which the kit must be installed or removed and that
state that the operation of the engine/equipment at an altitude
different from what it was certified at, for extended periods of time,
and may increase emissions; and a statement that an engine with the
altitude kit installed will meet each emission standard throughout its
useful life (the rationale for this assessment must be documented and
retained by the manufacturer, and provided to the Administrator upon
request);
* * * * *
8. Section 90.114 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(f)(1), by adding a new paragraph (f)(2), and by revising paragraph
(f)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.114 Requirement of certification--engine information label.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) For nonhandheld engines: The Emissions Compliance Period
referred to on the Emissions Compliance label indicates the number of
operating hours for which the engine has been shown to meet Federal
emission requirements. For engines less than 66 cc, Category C = 50
hours, B = 125 hours, and A = 300 hours. For engines equal to or
greater than 66 cc but less than 225 cc displacement, Category C = 125
hours, B = 250 hours, and A = 500 hours. For engines of 225 cc or more,
Category C = 250 hours, B = 500 hours, and A = 1000 hours.
(2) For handheld engines: The Emissions Compliance Period referred
to on the Emissions Compliance label indicates the number of operating
hours for which the engine has been shown to meet Federal emission
requirements. Category C = 50 hours, B = 125 hours, and A = 300 hours.
(3) The manufacturer must provide, in the same document as the
statement in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section, a statement of
the engine's displacement or an explanation of how to readily determine
the engine's displacement. The Administrator may approve alternate
language to the statement in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this
section, provided that the alternate language provides the ultimate
purchaser with a clear description of the number of hours represented
by each of the three letter categories for the subject engine's
displacement.
9. Section 90.116 is proposed to be amended by redesignating
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) as paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(7),
respectively, and by adding new paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), and
revising newly designated paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.116 Certification procedure--determining engine displacement,
engine class, and engine families.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Class I-A--engines less than 66 cc in displacement,
(2) Class I-B--engines greater than or equal to 66 cc but less than
100 cc in displacement,
(3) Class I--engines greater than or equal to 100 cc but less than
225 cc in displacement,
* * * * *
10. Section 90.119 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.119 Certification procedure--testing.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Class I, I-B, and II engines must use Test Cycle A described in
Subpart E of this part, except that Class I, I-B, and II engine
families in which 100 percent of the engines sold operate only at rated
speed may use Test Cycle B described in Subpart E of this part.
(ii) Class I-A, III, IV, and V engines must use Test Cycle C
described in Subpart E of this part.
* * * * *
Subpart C--Certification Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions
11. Section 90.203 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.203 General provisions.
* * * * *
(f) No Phase 2 engine family may have a HC + NOx FEL
that is greater than 32.2 g/kW-hr for Class I engines, 94 g/kW-hr for
Class I-A engines, 50 g/kW-hr for Class I-B engines, 26.8 g/kW-hr for
Class II engines, 300 g/kW-hr for Class III engines, 246 g/kW-hr for
Class IV engines, or 166 g/kW-hr for Class V engines.
* * * * *
Sec. 90.204 [Amended]
12. Section 90.204 is proposed to be amended by removing the word
``nonhandheld'' in paragraph (b).
13. Section 90.205 is proposed to be amended by adding new
paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5) and (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 90.205 Banking.
(a) * * *
(2) Beginning with the 2000 model year, a manufacturer of a Class
I-A or Class I-B engine family with an FEL below the applicable
emission standard for a given model year may bank credits in that model
year for use in averaging and trading.
* * * * *
(4) Beginning with the 2002 model year, a manufacturer of a Class
III or Class IV engine family with an FEL below the applicable emission
standard for a given model year may bank credits in that model year for
use in averaging and trading.
(5) Beginning with the 2004 model year, a manufacturer of a Class V
engine family with an FEL below the applicable emission standard for a
given model year may bank credits in that model year for use in
averaging and trading.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Beginning with the 2000 model year and prior to the applicable
date listed in paragraph (a) of this section for Class III engines, a
manufacturer may bank early credits for all Class III engines with
HC+NOx FELs below 226 g/kW-hr. All early credits for Class III engines
shall be calculated against a HC+NOx level of 226 g/kW-hr.
(4) Beginning with the 2000 model year and prior to the applicable
date listed in paragraph (a) of this section for Class IV engines, a
manufacturer may bank early credits for all Class IV engines with
HC+NOX FELs below 187 g/kW-hr. All early credits for Class
IV engines shall be calculated against a HC+NOX level of 187
g/kW-hr.
(5) Beginning with the 2000 model year and prior to the applicable
date listed in paragraph (a) of this section for
[[Page 40971]]
Class V engines, a manufacturer may bank early credits for all Class V
engines with HC+NOX FELs below 131 g/kW-hr. All early
credits for Class V engines shall be calculated against a
HC+NOX level of 131 g/kW-hr.
* * * * *
14. Section 90.207 is proposed to be amended in paragraph (a) by
revising the first sentence in the definition of ``load factor''
following the equation to read as follows:
Sec. 90.207 Credit calculation and manufacturer compliance with
emission standards.
(a) * * *
Load Factor = 47 percent (i.e., 0.47) for Test Cycle A and Test
Cycle B, and 85 percent (i.e., 0.85) for Test Cycle C. * * *
* * * * *
Subpart D--Emission Test Equipment Provisions
15. Section 90.301 is proposed to be amended by revising the first
and second sentences of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.301 Applicability.
* * * * *
(d) For Phase 2 Class I, Phase 2 Class I-B, and Phase 2 Class II
natural gas fueled engines, the following sections from 40 CFR part 86
are applicable to this subpart. The requirements of the following
sections from 40 CFR part 86 which pertain specifically to the
measurement and calculation of non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust
emissions from otto cycle heavy-duty engines must be followed when
determining the NMHC exhaust emissions from Phase 2 Class I, Phase 2
Class I-B, and Phase 2 Class II natural gas fueled engines. * * *
Subpart E--Gaseous Exhaust Test Procedures
16. Section 90.401 is proposed to be amended by revising the first
and second sentences of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.401 Applicability.
* * * * *
(d) For Phase 2 Class I, Phase 2 Class I-B, and Phase 2 Class II
natural gas fueled engines, the following sections from 40 CFR part 86
are applicable to this subpart. The requirements of the following
sections from 40 CFR part 86 which pertain specifically to the
measurement and calculation of non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust
emissions from otto cycle heavy-duty engines must be followed when
determining the NMHC exhaust emissions from Phase 2 Class I, Phase 2
Class I-B, and Phase 2 Class II natural gas fueled engines. * * *
17. Section 90.404 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.404 Test procedure overview.
* * * * *
(b) The test is designed to determine the brake-specific emissions
of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxides of
nitrogen and fuel consumption. For Phase 2 Class I-B, Class I, and
Class II natural gas fueled engines the test is also designed to
determine the brake-specific emissions of non-methane hydrocarbons. The
test consists of three different test cycles which are application
specific for engines which span the typical operating range of nonroad
spark-ignition engines. Two cycles exist for Class I-B, I and II
engines and one is for Class I-A, III, IV, and V engines (see
Sec. 90.103(a) and Sec. 90.116(b) for the definitions of Class I-A, I-
B, and I-V engines). The test cycles for Class I-B, I, and II engines
consist of one idle mode and five power modes at one speed (rated or
intermediate). The test cycle for Class I-A, III, IV, and V engines
consists of one idle mode at idle speed and one power mode at rated
speed. These procedures require the determination of the concentration
of each pollutant, fuel flow, and the power output during each mode.
The measured values are weighted and used to calculate the grams of
each pollutant emitted per brake kilowatt hour (g/kW-hr).
* * * * *
18. Section 90.408 is proposed to be amended by revising the table
in paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.408 Pre-test procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Engine class Test cycle mode
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, I-B, II...................................... A 6
I, I-B, II...................................... B 1
I-A, III, IV, V................................. C 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
19. Section 90.409 is proposed to be amended by revising the last
sentence of paragraph (a)(3) and by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read
as follows:
Sec. 90.409 Engine dynamometer test run.
(a) * * *
(3) * * * For Phase 2 Class I, Phase 2 Class I-B, and Phase 2 Class
II engines equipped with an engine speed governor, the governor must be
used to control engine speed during all test cycle modes except for
Mode 1 or Mode 6, and no external throttle control may be used that
interferes with the function of the engine's governor; a controller may
be used to adjust the governor setting for the desired engine speed in
Modes 2-5 or Modes 7-10; and during Mode 1 or Mode 6 fixed throttle
operation may be used to determine the 100 percent torque value.
(b) * * *
(6) For Class I, I-B, and II engines, during the maximum torque
mode calculate the torque corresponding to 75, 50, 25, and 10 percent
of the maximum observed torque (see Table 2 in Appendix A to this
subpart).
* * * * *
20. Section 90.410 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(a), the first and third sentences of paragraph (b), and the first
sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.410 Engine test cycle.
(a) Follow the appropriate 6-mode test cycle for Class I, I-B and
II engines and 2-mode test cycle for Class I-A, III, IV, and V engines
when testing spark-ignition engines (see Table 2 in Appendix A of this
subpart).
(b) For Phase 1 engines and Phase 2 Class I-A, III, IV, and V, and
Phase 2 Class I and II engines not equipped with an engine speed
governor, during each non-idle mode, hold both the specified speed and
load within five percent of point. * * * For Phase 2 Class
I, I-B, and II engines equipped with an engine speed governor, during
Mode 1 or Mode 6 hold both the specified speed and load within
five percent of point, during Modes 2-3, or Modes 7-8 hold
the specified load with five percent of point, during
Modes 4-5 or Modes 9-10, hold the specified load within the larger
range provided by +/-0.27 Nm (+/-0.2 lb-ft), or +/-ten (10) percent of
point, and during the idle mode hold the specified speed within
ten percent of the manufacturer's specified idle engine
speed (see Table 1 in Appendix A to this Subpart for a description of
test Modes). * * *
(c) If the operating conditions specified in paragraph (b) of this
section for Class I, I-B, and II engines using Mode Points 2, 3, 4, and
5 cannot be maintained, the Administrator may authorize deviations from
the specified load conditions. * * *
* * * * *
21. Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 90 is proposed to be amended in
Table 2 by revising the table heading and by removing the last entry
and adding two
[[Page 40972]]
new entries in its place to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 90--Tables
* * * * *
Table 2.--Test Cycles for Class I-A, I-B, and Class I-V Engines
Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Rated Speed
Intermediate Speed Idle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Weighting for Phase 1 Engines........................ 90% ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 10%
Weighting for Phase 2 Engines........................ 85% ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 15%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H--Manufacturer Production Line Testing Program
Sec. 90.701 [Amended]
22. Section 90.701 is proposed to be amended by adding the words
``handheld and'' immediately preceding the word ``nonhandheld'' in
paragraph (a).
Subpart K--Prohibited Acts and General Enforcement Provisions
23. Section 90.1003 is proposed to be amended by revising the first
sentence of paragraph (b)(6)(i) and adding a new sentence to the end of
paragraph (b)(6)(i), by revising the first two sentences of paragraph
(b)(6)(ii) and adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph
(b)(6)(ii), by revising paragraph (b)(6)(iii) introductory text, and by
adding a new paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.1003 Prohibited acts.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6)(i) Regulations elsewhere in this part notwithstanding, for
three model years after the phase-in of each set of Class I through
Class V Phase 2 standards; i.e. through August 1, 2010 for Class I
engines, through model year 2008 for Class II engines, through model
year 2009 for Class III and Class IV engines, and through model year
2011 for Class V engines, small volume equipment manufacturers as
defined in this part, may continue to use, and engine manufacturers may
continue to supply, engines certified to Phase 1 standards (or
identified and labeled by their manufacturer to be identical to engines
previously certified under Phase 1 standards), provided the equipment
manufacturer has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Administrator
that no certified Phase 2 engine is available with suitable physical or
performance characteristics to power a piece of equipment in production
prior to the initial effective date of Phase 2 standards, as indicated
in Sec. 90.103(a). * * * These provisions do not apply to Class I-A and
Class I-B engines.
(ii) Regulations elsewhere in this part notwithstanding, for the
duration of the Phase 2 rule in this part, equipment manufacturers that
produce small volume equipment models, as defined in this part, for a
Class I model in production prior to August 1, 2007, or a Class II
model in production prior to the 2001 model year, or a Class III or
Class IV model in production prior to the 2002 model year, or a Class V
model in production prior to the 2004 model year, may continue to use
in that small volume equipment model, and engine manufacturers may
continue to supply, engines certified to Phase 1 requirements (or
identified and labeled by their manufacturer to be identical to engines
previously certified under Phase 1 standards). To be eligible for this
provision, the equipment manufacturer must have demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that no certified Phase 2 engine is
available with suitable physical or performance characteristics to
power the small volume equipment model. * * * These provisions do not
apply to Class I-A and Class I-B engines.
(iii) An equipment manufacturer which is unable to obtain suitable
Phase 2 engines and which can not obtain relief under any other
provision of this part, may, prior to the date on which the
manufacturer would become in noncompliance with the requirement to use
Phase 2 engines, apply to the Administrator to be allowed to continue
using Phase 1 engines, through August 1, 2008 for Class I engines,
through the 2006 model year for Class II engines, through the 2007
model year for Class III and Class IV engines, and through the 2009
model year for Class V engines, subject to the following criteria
(These provisions do not apply to Class I-A and Class I-B engines.):
* * * * *
(7) Actions for the purpose of installing or removing altitude kits
and performing other changes to compensate for altitude change as
described in the application for certification pursuant to
Sec. 90.107(d) and approved at the time of certification pursuant to
Sec. 90.108(a) are not considered prohibited acts under paragraph (a)
of this section.
Subpart L-- Emission Warranty and Maintenance Instructions
24. Section 90.1103 is proposed to be amended by adding two
sentences to the end of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.1103 Emission warranty, warranty period.
(a) * * * Manufacturers of handheld engines subject to Phase 2
standards may apply to the Administrator for approval for a one year
warranty period for handheld engines that are subject to severe service
in seasonal equipment and are likely to run their full useful life
hours in one year. Such an application must be made prior to
certification.
* * * * *
Subpart M--Voluntary In-Use Testing
Sec. 90.1201 [Amended]
25. Section 90.1201 is proposed to be amended by adding the words
``handheld and'' immediately preceding the word ``nonhandheld''.
[FR Doc. 99-18477 Filed 7-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
