[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34778-34784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16856]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 90
[FRL-5530-8]
Revised Carbon Monoxide (CO) Standard for Class I and II
Nonhandheld New Nonroad Phase 1 Small Spark-Ignition Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today EPA is proposing a revision of the Phase 1 carbon
monoxide (CO) emission standard for Class I and II new nonroad spark-
ignition (SI) engines at or below 19 kilowatts. Today's action would
increase the standard from 469 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) to 519
g/kW-hr. This proposed action is necessary to address the CO emission
difference between oxygenated and nonoxygenated fuels that was not
reflected when the Agency previously set the CO standard for these
nonhandheld engines in a final rule published July 3, 1995. This
correction of the nonhandheld engine CO standard would ensure that the
CO standard for manufacturers of Class I and II small SI engines used
to power equipment such as lawnmowers is achievable and otherwise
appropriate under the Clean Air Act and that it is technically feasible
for manufacturers to certify their engine models to the Phase 1
emission standards and make them commercially available for the 1997
model year.
In addition, today's action proposes to give the Administrator the
option to permit the use of open crankcases in engines used exclusively
to power snowthrowers. This proposed change will give EPA the
flexibility to allow certain engine manufacturers to certify engines to
be used in snowthrowers without making technological changes that would
severely impair the ability of the engine to function or that would be
economically prohibitive.
DATES: Written comments on this NPRM must be submitted by August 2,
1996. EPA will hold a public hearing on this NPRM sometime between
[Insert date 15 days from date of publication] and August 2, 1996. If
one is requested by July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No. A-96-
02, room M-1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M St., SW, Washington, D.C.
20460. Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in docket
no. A-93-25 and docket no. A-96-02, 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. Members of the public may call the
contact person indicated below to find out whether a hearing will be
held and if so, the exact location. Requests for a public hearing
should be directed to the person indicated below. The hearing, if
requested, will be held in Michigan.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Horne, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:
(313) 741-7803. FAX: (313) 741-7816. Electronic mail:
horne.laurel@epamail.epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which
manufacture engines used in nonhandheld applications, such as
lawnmowers, and those which manufacture engines used exclusively to
power snowthrowers. Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................... Manufacturers of small (at or below
19 kW) nonroad engines used in
nonhandheld applications such as
lawnmowers.
Do............................. Manufacturers of small nonroad
engines used exclusively to power
snowthrowers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 section 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.
II. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents
Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
notice of proposed rulemaking are available electronically from the EPA
Internet site and via dial-up modem on the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN), which is an electronic bulletin board system (BBS) operated by
EPA's Office
[[Page 34779]]
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Both services are free of
charge, except for your existing cost of Internet connectivity or the
cost of the phone call to TTN. Users are able to access and download
files on their first call using a personal computer and modem per the
following information.
Internet:
World Wide Web:
http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW
Gopher:
gopher://gopher.epa.gov/ Follow menus for: Offices/Air/OMS
FTP:
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/ Change Directory to pub/gopher/OMS TTN BBS: 919-
541-5742
(1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit) Voice Help
line: 919-541-5384.
Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 AM to 12:00 noon EST.
A user who has not called TTN previously first will be required to
answer some basic informational questions for registration purposes.
After completing the registration process, proceed through the
following menu choices from the Top Menu to access information on this
rulemaking.
GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards)
OMS--Mobile Sources Information
Rulemaking and Reporting
<6> Non-Road
<2> Non-road Engines
At this point, the system will list all available files in the
chosen category in reverse chronological order with brief descriptions.
To download a file, select a transfer protocol that is supported by the
terminal software on your own computer, then set your own software to
receive the file using that same protocol.
If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e. ZIP'ed) files, go to
the TTN top menu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the
necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest
after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want
onto your computer, you can quit the TTN BBS with the oodbye
command.
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.
III. Legal Authority
Authority for the actions set forth in this rule is granted to EPA
by sections 213 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7547 and 7601(a)).
IV. The Carbon Monoxide Standard and Fuel Specification Issue
On March 4, 1996, Briggs and Stratton Corporation submitted to EPA
a petition requesting reconsideration and revision of the certification
fuel requirements and carbon monoxide (CO) emission standard for
nonhandheld engines. The petition asks the Agency to amend its July 3,
1995 final rule, Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-ignition (SI)
Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts, hereafter referred to as the Phase 1
small SI engine regulations.1 Specifically, the petition requests
that the Agency amend the Phase 1 small SI engine rule to either: (1)
permit the use of appropriate oxygenated gasolines for emissions
certification testing as a direct alternative to Indolene 2 under
the current CO standard, or (2) revise the CO standard for nonhandheld
small engines from 469 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) to 536 g/kW-
hr, in order to reflect the emission characteristics of these engines
when tested on nonoxygenated gasolines. Nonhandheld engines are
intended for use in nonhandheld applications and fall under one of two
classes based on engine displacement.3 Class I engines are less
than 225 cubic centimeters (cc) displacement, and Class II engines are
greater than or equal to 225 cc displacement.4 In response to the
Briggs and Stratton petition, EPA is revising the Phase 1 small SI
engine regulation by increasing the CO standard for Class I and II
nonhandheld small SI engines from 469 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995, codified at 40 C.F.R. part 90.
The docket for the Phase 1 small SI engine rulemaking, EPA Air
Docket #A-93-25, is incorporated by reference.
\2\ See section 90.308(b) and page 34589 of the preamble for the
certification fuel specification for the Phase 1 small SI engine
rulemaking. Indolene is one possible federal certification fuel.
Indolene is not the only eligible fuel, but it is within the
eligible range specified in part 86 (section 86.1313-94(a)) to which
the Phase 1 small SI engine rule refers. The Phase 1 small SI engine
rulemaking provides for a range and based on experience with the on-
highway program, EPA expects that engine manufacturers will use
Indolene. California Phase II Reformulated Gasoline and other
oxygenated fuels are not within the range specified in the Phase 1
small SI engine rule.
\3\ For additional discussion of engine classes and handheld
engine qualifications, see 60 FR 34585, July 3, 1995.
\4\ Class I engines are predominantly found in lawnmowers. Class
II engines primarily include engines used in generator sets, garden
tractors, and commercial lawn and garden equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help the reader understand EPA's response to the petitioner's
request, the following text provides background on prior actions taken
by the State of California's Air Resources Board (CARB), EPA, and
industry relating to the fuel requirements and the CO standard for
nonhandheld small SI engines.
Both EPA and CARB have regulations that pertain to nonhandheld
small SI engines. Nonhandheld small SI engines manufactured for sale in
the United States must meet EPA emission regulations starting with the
1997 model year. Engines produced for sale in California must also meet
regulatory requirements specified by CARB. The small engine industry
and other stakeholders have been actively involved in the development
of EPA and CARB nonroad engine regulations.
CARB's CO Standard and Fuel Specifications
CARB began the process of developing emission regulations for small
nonroad engines under the authority of the California Clean Air Act of
1988. In December 1990, the California Regulations for 1995 and Later
Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines (hereafter referred to as
the utility engine regulations) were initially approved. Among other
requirements, CARB's Tier 1 utility engine regulations, as formally
adopted in March 1992, specified that Class I and Class II engines
produced from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1998, must certify
to a 300 gram per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)carbon monoxide
exhaust emission standard.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Throughout its utility engine regulations, CARB uses
horsepower (hp) measurements, while in its small SI engine
regulations, EPA refers to kilowatts (kW). To convert kilowatts to
horsepower multiply kW by 1.34 and round to the same number of
significant digits. In this case, 300 g/bhp-hr = 402 g/kW-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regard to certification fuel specifications, CARB's utility
engine regulations referenced CARB on-road vehicle certification fuel
specifications, which were adopted in 1987 and amended in July 1991.
Consequently, engine manufacturers could select to certify their
engines using either Indolene Clear or California Phase 1 Reformulated
Gasoline. A later amendment to the utility engine regulations revised
the certification fuel specifications to incorporate the most recent
on-road motor vehicle fuel specification, California Phase II
Reformulated gasoline. In a related mail-out, CARB stated that it had
intended for engine test fuel specifications to be consistent with the
on-road motor vehicle fuel specifications 6; in the future,
approved amendments to the CARB on-road vehicle fuel specifications
will be immediately
[[Page 34780]]
applicable to engine certification test fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See CARB Mail-out #94-20, May 4, 1994, Utility and Lawn and
Garden Equipment Engine Test Fuel Specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July, 1995, Briggs and Stratton Corporation petitioned CARB to
amend its 300 g/bhp-hr CO standard for Class I and II engines to 350 g/
bhp-hr. The company argued that it was not technically feasible to meet
the 300 g/bhp-hr CO standard. After consideration of Briggs and
Stratton's petition, CARB prepared a notice of public hearing and an
accompanying staff report.7 While expressing several concerns
about the petition in the staff report, CARB staff recommended that the
Board approve Briggs and Stratton's request. At a public hearing on
January 25, 1996, the Board granted Briggs and Stratton's request, and
adopted the recommended amendment to raise the Class I and II CO
exhaust emission standard to 350 g/bhp-hr (equivalent to 469 g/kw-
hr).8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See CARB Mail-out #95-43, Notice of January 25, 1996 Public
Hearing.
\8\ CARB Resolution 96-1, January 25, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's CO Standard and Fuel Specifications
Not long after CARB began developing its utility engine
regulations, EPA decided to adopt a phased approach for regulating
emissions from small SI engines under the authority of section 213(a)
of the Clean Air Act. For the first phase, EPA determined that the
regulations would be similar to the CARB's Regulation for 1995 and
Later Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. EPA published its
proposed rules on May 16, 1994. One provision of the proposal was that
nonhandheld engines would be required to certify to a CO standard set
at 402 g/kW-hr--equivalent to CARB's original CO standard of 300 g/bhp-
hr. However, the certification test fuel specified in the Phase 1
proposal was different from CARB's. In its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), EPA specified a fuel referred to as Clean Air Act
Baseline (CAAB).9 EPA noted in its preamble that although
oxygenated and reformulated gasoline fuel was available in different
areas around the United States, the availability varied widely.10
Reformulated or oxygenated gasoline was therefore not specified as a
certification test fuel for the Phase 1 NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Table 3 in Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 90 of the
proposed Phase 1 regulations, available in EPA Air Docket #A-93-25,
item III-A-2.
\10\ 59 FR 25419, May 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following publication of the Phase 1 NPRM, Briggs and Stratton
submitted proprietary engine development data and analysis to EPA. The
company argued that the data established a need for an increase to the
nonhandheld CO standard from the proposed level of 402 g/kW-hr. The
Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) also provided comments in
support of increasing the CO emission standard for Class I and II
nonhandheld engines from the proposed 402 g/kw-hr to 469 g/kw-hr. EMA
argued that it is not technically feasible for a significant percentage
of the market to meet the more stringent proposed standard.
On July 3, 1995, EPA published its Phase 1 small SI engine final
rulemaking.11 The final provisions for both the nonhandheld CO
emission standard and the certification fuel specifications differed
from the proposed provisions. Based on its own review and analysis of
the data submitted by Briggs and Stratton following publication of the
NPRM, EPA decided to raise the CO standard for nonhandheld engines from
the proposed level of 402 g/kw-hr to 469 g/kw-hr. The rationale for the
increase of the nonhandheld CO standard is discussed in further detail
in the final rule response to comments document.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 60 FR 34584, July 3, 1995.
\12\ See Response to Comments on the NPRM, in EPA Air Docket #A-
93-25, item V-C-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preamble to its final Phase 1 small SI engine rule, EPA
discussed the provisions for the type of fuel to be used for
certification and confirmatory testing. In response to comments
received on the NPRM, the Agency decided to expand the range of
specifications for certification fuels such that the fuel commonly
referred to as Indolene Clear, in addition to the Clean Air Act
Baseline (CAAB) fuel that was discussed in the proposal, would be
allowed.13 Indolene is the trade name for the gasoline fuel
specified at 40 CFR 86.113 and 40 CFR 86.1313 for most on-highway
federal compliance test procedures. Since the CARB regulation allows
the use of either Indolene or Phase 2 fuel, a test performed using
Indolene could be used to satisfy both federal and CARB requirements
for small SI engines. Unknown by the Agency at the time EPA finalized
the rule, Briggs and Stratton's data supporting the increased standard
was based on testing conducted with oxygenated fuels, rather than the
federal fuel specified in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 40 CFR 90.308(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, while EPA had hoped its allowance of Indolene as a test
fuel would facilitate consistency with CARB's program and allow
manufacturers to conduct a single test for both the federal and CARB
program, the Agency in fact set a standard that only engines tested on
oxygenated fuel had been demonstrated to meet. In conjunction with a
test fuel like Indolene the 469 g/kW-hr nonhandheld CO emission
standard set in the Phase 1 small SI engine regulations is more
stringent than the Agency intended because it did not take into account
the effect of the oxygenated fuel used in the test data on which EPA
based the standard.
Again, at the time EPA set the standard, the Agency did not know
Briggs and Stratton's data had been generated through testing with
oxygenated fuels. In addition, when CARB decided to relax its CO
standard to 350 g/bhp-hr (469 g/kW-hr) in January 1996, it noted that
the standard would be less stringent than federal regulations due to
CARB's allowance of oxygenated, reformulated gasoline for
certification. Although the CARB 350 g/bhp-hr CO standard and the
federal 469 g/kW-hr CO standard are numerically equivalent, the latter
does not allow for the use of oxygenated fuels such as Phase II
reformulated gasoline, and is therefore more stringent than EPA
believes is appropriate in light of the factors EPA is directed to
consider in CAA section 213(a)(3). The Agency believes it is important
to correct its nonhandheld CO emission standard to align with CARB's
new standard, and more importantly, to ensure that the federal standard
is technologically achievable and otherwise appropriate under section
213(a) by accounting for the CO emission offset between nonoxygenated
and oxygenated fuels.
Following publication of the Phase 1 small SI engine final rule,
Briggs and Stratton raised concerns in meetings with EPA that the Class
I and II 469 g/kW-hr CO emission standard was not technologically
feasible given the finalized certification fuel provisions. The Agency
indicated in a letter to the EMA on November 3, 1995, that any change
to the CO standard necessary to reflect differences in fuel effects
would require that the Agency initiate a notice and comment rulemaking
process.14 Additionally, EPA stated in correspondence on January
24, 1996, that if Briggs and Stratton submitted an adequately supported
petition to reconsider the final rule on this issue, EPA would initiate
a rulemaking to raise the Phase 1 CO standard for nonhandheld engines
by the amount of the emission offset.15 On March 4, 1996, Briggs
and Stratton formally petitioned
[[Page 34781]]
the Agency to amend the Phase 1 small SI engine regulations in one of
two ways: To permit the use of oxygenated fuels for certification while
maintaining the 469 g/kW-hr CO standard, or to raise the CO standard
for nonhandheld engines to 536 g/kW-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Letter from Chester France, EPA to Jed Mandel, EMA,
November 3, 1995. A copy of this letter is included in the docket
for this rulemaking.
\15\ Letter from Paul Machiele, EPA to Addresses, January 24,
1996. A copy of this letter is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis for the Briggs and Stratton Petition
In its petition, Briggs and Stratton describes the grounds on which
it believes the Agency should grant its petition. The company argues
that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to grant the petition and that
granting the petition will further the primary purposes of the Phase 1
small SI engine regulations by enhancing the in-use control of NOX
emissions in small engine exhaust.
Briggs and Stratton states in its petition that the Agency is
compelled by statute and by its prior findings to grant the petition.
The company points out that the Clean Air Act specifies that the
emission standards must be achievable giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of applying available technology within the period of time
available to manufacturers. EPA decided in its Phase 1 small SI engine
final rule, states Briggs and Stratton, that the 469 g/kW-hr CO
standard was the most stringent achievable CO standard for Class I and
II nonhandheld engines when taking into account cost and leadtime
concerns. Briggs and Stratton additionally argues that the law requires
that the feasibility and stringency of federal emission standards
depend upon the test procedures used to measure compliance. Because the
data supplied by Briggs and Stratton and used by EPA to set the 469 g/
kW-hr CO standard for nonhandheld engines was data collected using
oxygenated fuels, while EPA's final rule does not allow for the use of
an oxygenated certification test fuel, Briggs and Stratton argues that
the rule must be revised to allow for the effect of the fuel
difference.
In general, EPA agrees with Briggs and Stratton's argument that a
change to the nonhandheld Phase 1 CO emission standard is necessary
based on the Clean Air Act's requirement that the standard reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which EPA determines will be available for
the regulated engines, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
applying such technology and other factors.16 The Agency did
determine that the 469 g/kW-hr CO standard for nonhandheld engines was
appropriate based in part on test data supplied by Briggs and Stratton.
Prior to publication of the final rule it was never indicated to EPA
that the fuel these tests were conducted on was something other than
what EPA had proposed in its NPRM. Absent any indication to the
contrary, EPA had assumed that Briggs and Stratton had used a
nonoxygenated fuel such as Clean Air Act Baseline when conducting the
tests that generated the data the Agency used to set its nonhandheld CO
emission standard. Had EPA been made aware of the fact that Briggs and
Stratton had in fact used oxygenated fuel as the test fuel, the Agency
would have taken the difference in the effect of the fuel into account
when setting its final CO standard for nonhandheld engines. Analysis of
data recently supplied by Briggs and Stratton of comparison testing
using oxygenated and nonoxygenated fuels substantiates the company's
claim that the fuel type affects CO emissions. EPA's analysis of Briggs
and Stratton's data and of data collected in testing conducted by the
Agency after publication of the Phase 1 small SI engine final rule
indicates that nonhandheld engine CO emissions are indeed lower when
run on oxygenated fuels than they are when run on nonoxygenated fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 42 U.S.C. 7547(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs and Stratton also argues, as grounds for EPA granting its
petition, that allowing the use of oxygenated fuel would improve in-use
control of NOX in small engine exhaust. However, Briggs and
Stratton's argument is theoretical, and not supported by any data
analysis. As shown in the Regulatory Support Document (RSD) for this
rule, the Agency's analysis of the test data recently supplied by
Briggs and Stratton and of EPA's own test data indicate that the
differences of changes in NOX and HC depending on the use of
oxygenated or nonoxygenated fuels are minimal.
V. Snowthrower Open Crankcase Issue
Specific engine manufacturers and the Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) have raised concerns about the closed crankcase
certification requirement specified in the Phase 1 small SI engine
final rule at section 90.109. The Agency specified in its Phase 1 small
SI proposal that crankcases must be closed as a requirement of
certification in order to eliminate emissions that would otherwise
occur when a crankcase is vented to the atmosphere. It was EPA's
understanding that since most currently produced engines do have closed
crankcases, this requirement would impact relatively few manufacturers.
No comments were submitted in response to EPA's NPRM on this issue, and
EPA finalized the provision requiring closed crankcases. Subsequent to
publication of the Phase 1 small SI engine final rule, however, the
Agency has been made aware of concerns specific to manufacturers of
engines used exclusively in snowthrowers. These manufacturers have
indicated that it is necessary to maintain an open crankcase in order
to prevent the freeze up of the intake which would likely occur if a
crankcase breather hose was required. Additionally, these manufacturers
have provided evidence that the cost to close these crankcases and
prevent freeze up would be prohibitively expensive--possibly in excess
of the cost of the engine. Furthermore, they have argued that the
emissions benefit does not justify the cost. HC + NOX emissions
resulting from having the crankcase open for snowthrower equipment will
have no impact on summer ozone concentrations. Manufacturers claim that
the CO emission impact on CO nonattainment will also be minor due to
the limited numbers of these pieces of equipment and the small impact
opening the crankcase has on overall CO emissions from this small
number of engines. The Agency seeks additional and more detailed
comment on the cost and emission impacts of open crankcases on engines
used exclusively to power snowthrowers.
At this time the Agency has not received notification from any
other parties regarding similar difficulties. The Agency seeks comment
on whether there are engines used in other equipment types that face
similar difficulties in meeting the closed crankcase requirement. The
Agency requests that if such situations are identified, commenters
submit documentation regarding the technical and economic need for
utilizing an open crankcase.
The Agency is convinced by the arguments presented by the
manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers that a change
to the closed crankcase requirement is appropriate. Therefore, EPA
proposes that the Administrator be given the flexibility to allow open
crankcases in certain circumstances for engines used exclusively in
snowthrowers. The Administrator would consider allowing open crankcases
for these engines if adequate demonstrations are made by the
manufacturers that the applicable emission standards would be met and
that the cost of abating emissions from an open crankcase would be
prohibitive. The Agency seeks comment on this proposed provision and on
what criteria the Administrator might apply in
[[Page 34782]]
determining whether costs are prohibitive.
VI. Provisions of This Rulemaking
In response to the petition submitted by Briggs and Stratton
Corporation, EPA has decided to propose revising the CO emission
standard for Class I and II nonhandheld small SI engines from 469 g/kW-
hr to 519 g/kW-hr. The underlying technical analysis and a description
of the data on which it is based is presented in the Regulatory Support
Document, a copy of which is in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Given that the Agency, had it known that Briggs and Stratton had
used an oxygenated test fuel to generate the test data which EPA used
to set the Class I and II nonhandheld standard, would have taken fuel
effects into account when determining the CO standard, the Agency
believes that it is appropriate, now knowing about the fuel
differences, to revise the Phase 1 final rule to reflect the fuel
effect on CO emissions.
Briggs and Stratton suggested two options that the Agency might
take to revise the Phase 1 rule in a way that would address the
company's concerns. The first suggested option was for the Agency to
permit the use of appropriate oxygenated gasolines for emissions
certification testing as a direct alternative to Indolene under the
current CO standard. The Agency has decided not to take this approach
for several reasons. While the Agency based its nonhandheld Class I and
II emission standards on Briggs and Stratton test data, which it now
knows was run on oxygenated fuels, the same cannot be said for the data
EPA used to set its standards for Classes III, IV, and V engines. The
Agency's greatest concern regarding the allowance of oxygenated fuels
generally is the effect on the stringency of the emission standards. If
the Agency were to allow certification testing on oxygenated fuels but
maintain its current standards, it would not be certain of the benefits
of HC and NOX emission reductions described in the final rule when
the engines are run on nonoxygenated fuels in the field. In addition,
the Agency has concerns about the nationwide availability of oxygenated
fuel. While it is required in certain nonattainment areas, those areas
of the country that are in attainment may not have reformulated or
oxygenated fuels commercially available. Correcting the CO standard is
also the simplest and least complicated solution to address the problem
presented by Briggs and Stratton's petition in a timely manner, which
is critical so that engine manufacturers will be able to certify their
model year 1997 production engines. Therefore, the Agency has decided
to address the issue of the appropriateness of the nonhandheld CO
emission standard by proposing to revise the CO standard for Class I
and II engines while retaining the specified certification test fuel.
To determine the amount by which to propose a revision to the
standard, EPA analyzed the comparative test data recently supplied by
Briggs and Stratton. When Briggs and Stratton submitted the data, the
company noted in a cover letter that the use of oxygenated fuels
reduced CO emissions by up to 47 g/kW-hr. However, Briggs and Stratton
requested in its petition that the Agency revise its CO standard upward
by 67 g/kW-hr, which would mean a new standard of 536 g/kW-hr. No
additional data was supplied to the Agency to support such an increase.
The rationale given by Briggs and Stratton for requesting an additional
20 g/kW-hr is that the test data supplied represents a limited number
of engine tests, and does not account for production variability. EPA's
response to the petitioner's argument is that the Agency took
production variability into account when setting the original 469 g/kW-
hr standard for the Phase 1 final rule. Any change to the CO emission
standard should thus be based solely on differences in fuel type.
Analysis of Briggs and Stratton data and of EPA test data indicates
that indeed there are cases where the effects of fuel differences on
the CO standard may be as much as 50 g/kW-hr. Given the limited
quantity of data, EPA considered quantifying the difference in fuel
types and the resultant change in CO emission standard by comparing the
two means from sample data using the two fuel types. As explained in
the RSD, statistical tests comparing the means of the two populations
(oxygenated fuel and nonoxygenated fuel) indicate an average difference
of 30.6 g/kW-hr for Class I engines, and 26.6 g/kW-hr for Class II
engines. However, EPA determined that it is most appropriate, and in
keeping with its approach for establishing the 469 g/kW-hr standard in
the final rule,17 to adjust the standard to take into account the
largest offsets observed in the Briggs and Stratton and EPA data, and
to ensure harmonization with CARB. The Agency thus concludes that in
order for engine manufacturers to achieve the greatest CO emission
reduction with the technology available within the given time limits of
the Phase 1 small SI engine regulation that it is appropriate to
increase the nonhandheld CO standard by 50 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr. In
reaching this conclusion, EPA has attempted to determine an appropriate
offset attributable to the effect of oxygenated fuel, while preserving
to the greatest extent possible the balance made by the final Phase 1
rule of various factors such as technical feasibility, cost, lead time,
and harmonization with CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See the Response to Comments document in EPA Air Docket #
A-93-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action will further harmonize the Class I and II CO
standard with California's analogous standard, considering CARB's
recent action to increase its CO standard to 350 g/bhp-hr (469 g/kW-
hr). The Agency considers a nonhandheld CO emission standard of 519 g/
kW-hr with the use of a nonoxygenated fuel such as Indolene to be
roughly equivalent to CARB's Class I and II CO standard of 350 g/bhp-hr
with the use of an oxygenated fuel such as California Phase II.
As indicated in EPA's November 3, 1995, letter to EMA, the Agency
already provides a mechanism for those manufacturers who certify in
California using oxygenated fuel and wish to use those test results for
certification with EPA. Manufacturers may apply to EPA under the
alternative test procedures provision contained in the Phase 1 small SI
engine final rule (section 90.120(b)). If a manufacturer's submitted
data indicates that its test engine would comply with the applicable
federal emission standard using federal fuel, EPA would determine that
the engine family meets the requirements of Phase 1 and issue a
certificate of conformity. EPA has stated 18 that it will work
with manufacturers to assist them in making the required technical
demonstrations under the alternative certification procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Letter from Chester France, EPA to Jed Mandel, EMA,
November 3, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action would also provide the Administrator with the
option of permitting open crankcases on engines used exclusively to
power snowthrowers, provided that the affected engine complies with
applicable standards and the manufacturer demonstrates that the cost of
closing the crankcase is prohibitive.
VII. Environmental Benefit Assessment
Although the change in the nonhandheld CO standard results in a
change from the 7% reduction in CO estimated in the final rule to a 2%
reduction in the CO inventory, the Agency has concluded that this rule
has no effect on the HC + NOX inventory and minimal effect on the
CO inventory in nonattainment areas. The majority of equipment powered
by the Class I and
[[Page 34783]]
II nonhandheld engines subject to this rule is used during the summer
months, when CO nonattainment is generally not a concern. Many
nonhandheld engine models are expected to have CO emission levels well
below the standard since CO levels are controlled in meeting the HC +
NOX emission standards which are not affected by this action.
The provision to provide the Administrator with the option of
permitting open crankcases in engines used exclusively to power
snowthrowers will require manufacturers seeking to demonstrate the need
for open crankcases to show compliance with applicable standards. The
Agency expects, therefore, that the proposed open crankcase option will
not affect the emission inventory or the emission reductions to be
achieved by the Phase 1 small SI engine final rule.
VIII. Economic Effects
The Agency anticipates that this rule will have minimal, if any,
affect on the costs or benefits of the Phase 1 small SI engine final
rule. Industry costs are unlikely to change because engine
manufacturers will not need to make additional modifications to meet
the relaxed CO standard. As there will be no additional cost for
industry to pass on to the consumer as a result of this rulemaking, EPA
is convinced that consumer cost impacts will remain unchanged. The
Agency therefore concludes that the economic effects of this rulemaking
are negligible.
IX. Effective Date
EPA is proposing to make these regulations effective upon signature
of the final rule because these regulations will not require any lead
time for compliance.
X. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
The Agency welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed
rulemaking. All comments (preferably in duplicate), with the exception
of proprietary information, should be directed to the EPA Air Docket
Section, Docket No. A-96-02 (see ADDRESSES). Commenters who wish to
submit proprietary information for consideration should clearly
separate such information from other comments by:
labeling proprietary information ``Confidential Business
Information'' and
sending proprietary information directly to the contact
person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and not to the
public docket.
This will help ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter wants EPA to use a
submission labeled as confidential business information as part of the
basis for the final rule, then a nonconfidential version of the
document, which summarizes the key data or information, should be sent
to the docket.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40
CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission
when it is received by EPA, the submission may be made available to the
public without notifying the commenters.
B. Public Hearing
Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the
public hearing, should one be requested, (see DATES) should, if
possible, notify the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) at least two business days prior to the day of the hearing.
The contact person should be given an estimate of the time required for
the presentation of testimony and notification of any need for audio/
visual equipment. A sign-up sheet will be available at the registration
table the morning of the hearing for scheduling those who have not
notified the contact earlier. This testimony will be scheduled on a
first-come, first-served basis, and will follow the testimony that is
arranged in advance.
The Agency recommends that approximately 50 copies of the statement
or material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution
to the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an
advance copy of any statement or material to be presented at the
hearing at least two business days before the scheduled hearing date.
This is to give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before
the hearing. Such advance copies should be submitted to the contact
person listed.
XI. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the executive
order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one 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 entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof;
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the order.
EPA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new information requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
change the information collection requirements the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has previously approved. OMB has previously assigned
OMB control number 2060-0338 to the requirements associated with the
nonroad small SI engine certification information collection request
(ICR); this action does not change those requirements in any way.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed
into law on March 22, 1995) requires that EPA 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 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
requires EPA 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, EPA must identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be
prepared. EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule, unless EPA explains why this alternative is not
selected or the
[[Page 34784]]
selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because the rule proposed here is expected to result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, EPA has not prepared
a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed selection of the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative.
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely
affected by this rule, EPA is not required to develop a plan with
regard to small governments.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) requires EPA to
consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business.
If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed regulation would
have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small business entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis must be
prepared.
This rule decreases the stringency of the CO exhaust emission
standard for Class I and II nonhandheld engines, thereby potentially
creating beneficial effects on small businesses by easing one provision
required of small engine manufacturers by the Phase 1 small SI engine
regulations. As a result, EPA certifies that this rulemaking will not
have a significant adverse effect on a substantial number of small
entities. Consequently, EPA has not prepared a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 90
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Environmental
protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Nonroad
source pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 90 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 90--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215,
216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7522,
7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)).
Subpart B--[Amended]
2. Section 90.103 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 90.103 Exhaust emission standards.
(a) * * *
Exhaust Emission Standards
[Grams per kilowatt-hour]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrocarbon
Engine displacement class plus oxides Hydrocarbon Carbon Oxides of
of nitrogen monoxide nitrogen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I........................................................... 16.1 ........... 519 ...........
II.......................................................... 13.4 ........... 519 ...........
III......................................................... ........... 295 805 5.36
IV.......................................................... ........... 241 805 5.36
V........................................................... ........... 161 603 5.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. Section 90.109 is amended by adding new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.109 Requirement of certification--closed crankcase.
* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the
Administrator may exercise the option to permit open crankcases for
engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers based upon a
manufacturer's demonstration, approved in advance by the Administrator,
that all applicable emission standards will be met by the engine and
that the cost of closing the crankcase is prohibitive.
[FR Doc. 96-16856 Filed 7-02-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
