Revised Carbon Monoxide (CO) Standard for Class I and II Nonhandheld New Nonroad Phase 1 Small Spark-Ignition Engines

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:

[email protected]

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

Non-Road

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