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

SUMMARY: This rule revises 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 increases the CO standard from

469 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) to 519 g/kW-hr. This action

addresses 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 will 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 permits the use of open crankcases in

engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers. This change will allow

engine manufacturers to certify engines with open crankcases to be used

in snowthrowers upon a demonstration that the engine still meets all

applicable emission standards.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective November 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in EPA

Air and Radiation Docket No. A-93-25 and Docket No. A-96-02, at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, room M-1500, 401 M St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460. The materials in these dockets may be viewed

from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The docket may also be reached

by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a

reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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:

I. 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.

Industry......................... 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 Sec. 90.1 of title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability

of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the

preceding ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.

II. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents

Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this

final rule 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 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.epa.gov Follow menus for: Offices/Air/OMS

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 Helpline: 919-541-5384.

Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 AM to 12:00 noon EST.

A user who has not called TTN previously 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 and Background

Authority for the actions set forth in this rule is granted to EPA

by sections 213(a) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42

U.S.C. 7547(a) and 7601(a)).

On July 3, 1996, the Agency published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule.1 That proposed rule contains

substantial background information relevant to the matters discussed

throughout this final rule. The reader is referred to that document for

additional background information and discussion of various issues.

Discussion in this notice will focus on the comments received during

the public comment period and describe changes made from the proposal

to the final rule. The two issues discussed in

[[Page 58297]]

the NPRM and this final rule are revision to the Phase 1 carbon

monoxide exhaust emission standard for nonhandheld small engines, and

changes to the closed crankcase requirement for engines used

exclusively in snowthrowers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 61 FR 34778 (July 3, 1996).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.2 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 3 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.4 Class I engines are less

than 225 cubic centimeters (cc) displacement, and Class II engines are

greater than or equal to 225 cc displacement.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995, codified at 40 CFR part 90. The

docket for the Phase 1 small SI engine rulemaking, EPA Air Docket

#A-93-25, is incorporated by reference.

\3\ See Sec. 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.

\4\ For additional discussion of engine classes and handheld

engine qualifications, see 60 FR 34585, July 3, 1995.

\5\ 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific engine manufacturers and the Engine Manufacturers

Association (EMA) have also raised concerns about the closed crankcase

certification requirement specified in the Phase 1 small SI engine

final rule at Sec. 90.109. The Agency specified in its Phase 1 small SI

rule that as a requirement of certification crankcases must be closed

in order to eliminate emissions that would otherwise occur when a

crankcase is vented to the atmosphere. Subsequent to publication of the

Phase 1 small SI engine final rule, however, the Agency was made aware

of concerns specific to manufacturers of engines used exclusively in

snowthrowers. These manufacturers 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 provided evidence that the

cost to close these crankcases and prevent freeze up would be

prohibitively expensive, with the emissions benefit not justifying the

cost. Manufacturers also claimed 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.

EPA addressed these issues in a notice of proposed rulemaking

published on July 3, 1996. The public comment period closed on August

2, 1996.

IV. Description of This Rule

This final rule revises the CO emission standard for Class I and II

nonhandheld small SI engines from 469 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr in

response to the petition submitted by Briggs and Stratton Corporation

(B&SC). 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.

In addition, 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,

the Administrator will allow open crankcases for engines used

exclusively to power snowthrowers based upon a manufacturer's

demonstration that all applicable emission standards will still be met

by the engine. This demonstration may be based on best engineering

judgment. Upon request of the Administrator, the manufacturer must

provide an explanation of the procedure or methodology used to

determine that the total CO emissions from the breather and the exhaust

are below the regulatory requirement for CO. The Agency is convinced

that the cost of abating emissions from an open crankcase would be

prohibitive, and therefore seeks no further demonstration of

prohibitive cost.

V. Public Participation and Comment

The Agency received written submissions during the comment period

for the NPRM from four commenters. Copies may be obtained from the

docket for this rule (see ADDRESSES).

This section responds to significant comments received and provides

EPA's rationale for its responses.

A. Revision of the CO Standard

In its petition to the Agency, Briggs & Stratton Corporation

requested that EPA amend the small engine Phase 1 final rule to either

permit the use of appropriate oxygenated gasoline for certification

testing or revise the CO standard for nonhandheld engines from 469 g/

kW-hr to 536 g/kW-hr to reflect emission characteristics of these

engines when tested on nonoxygenated gasoline. The Agency has decided

to address the petitioner's concern by raising the Phase 1 CO standard

for Class I and II nonhandheld engines from 469 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr.

Both the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and Briggs and

Stratton Corporation submitted comments on the NPRM indicating full

support for modifying the CO standard. EMA supported the proposal to

raise the standard to 519 g/kW-hr. However, Briggs & Stratton

Corporation expressed concern about several points contained in the

July 1996 NPRM.

One concern raised by B&SC is that in the prior rulemaking leading

to the Phase 1 standards the Agency never addressed comments submitted

August 5, 1994, by the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and the

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) which requested that EPA

include a ``Phase 2 or later California/Federal certification fuel'' in

the Phase 1 final rule. In these comments, EMA and OPEI argued that

allowing such a fuel for certification would harmonize the EPA

regulations with California's, and thereby eliminate the need for

manufacturers to duplicate certification tests for EPA and California.

In its small engine Phase 1 final rule, EPA did address the

commenters'

[[Page 58298]]

concern about the need for duplicate certification testing by allowing

for the use of Indolene fuel. 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. In addition, as EMA points out in its comments, the Agency

already provides a mechanism under the alternative test procedures

provision of the small engine Phase 1 final rule for those

manufacturers who certify in California using oxygenated fuel and wish

to use those test results for certification with EPA.

B&SC also commented that while it supports EPA's decision to raise

the CO standard, it believes the most efficient and technically correct

method for addressing the concern raised in their petition would be for

EPA to permit the use of certification test fuels allowed by CARB. As

EPA explained in the July 1996 NPRM for this rule, the Agency set

nonhandheld CO emission standards that only engines tested on

oxygenated fuel had been demonstrated to meet. In conjunction with a

test fuel like Indolene, the current 469 g/kW-hr nonhandheld CO

emission standard 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. As described in detail in

the July 1996 NPRM for this rule, it is the Agency's position that the

most effective and timely way to address this problem is to raise the

CO emission standard for nonhandheld engines. The Agency considered

addressing the problem by allowing oxygenated fuels for certification,

but because of several concerns about this approach, EPA has concluded

that revising the CO standard is the preferred way to address the

problem. In its July 1996 NPRM, the Agency described three concerns

regarding the allowance of oxygenated test fuels for small SI engine

certification. One concern is that 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 IV. Allowing the use of oxygenated certification fuel for

these other standards would be inconsistent with the technical basis

used to set the standard, and would undermine the level of stringency

expected by the Agency in adopting these standards. Secondly, 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 Phase 1 final

rule when the engines designed to meet the new emission standards are

run on nonoxygenated fuels in the field. In addition, the Agency wishes

to maintain its longheld position that engines should be certified on

fuels representative of fuels they will see in-use and representative

of fuels on which the standards are based. The Agency believes that the

current test fuel specifications meets this objective better than

California Phase II Reformulated Gasoline. For these reasons, the

Agency believes the most effective and timely method for addressing the

problem raised by B&SC is not to change the certification test fuel

specifications, but to raise the nonhandheld CO emission standard.

B&SC also raised a concern about EPA's statement in the July 1996

NPRM that the data was inconclusive regarding the potential for

increases in in-use NOX emissions from not allowing certification

testing on oxygenated gasoline. Briggs and Stratton states that a

review of the Regulatory Support Document (RSD) does not support the

position taken by EPA in the preamble that the data is inconclusive,

but instead shows that the EPA data was inconclusive and the pertinent

Briggs & Stratton data showed an increase in NOX emissions. EPA

maintains that the data is inconclusive, and believes no change in the

HC + NOX standard is required due to the change in the CO emission

standard. EPA's analysis, as presented in the RSD, indicates that the

Briggs & Stratton test data, based on the average of 6 engine models,

shows a NOX increase of 0.14 g/kW-hr with the use of an oxygenated

fuel over Indolene. EPA's data showed a NOX decrease of 0.08 g/kW-

hr with the use of an oxygenated fuel over a nonoxygenated fuel. EPA

views the combined data to be inconclusive regarding the effect of

oxygenated versus nonoxygenated fuel on NOX emissions.

In its petition, Briggs & Stratton proposed a revised CO emission

standard of 536 g/kW-hr to take into account not only the offset

between test fuels but also production variability. B&SC argued that in

order to account for the wider range in test results that would occur

when an engine model enters high volume production and the family on a

whole is tested in a product line audit, a 67 g/kW-hr change to the

standard is necessary. Briggs & Stratton commented that in the July

1996 NPRM EPA had failed to support its position that the Agency had

taken production variability into account at an earlier stage of the

small engine rulemaking process, and thus should increase the standard

by 67 g/kW-hr to 536 g/kW-hr instead of by 50 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr.

The Agency disagrees. EPA had stated in the NPRM that the data it

analyzed to determine the CO emission difference between oxygenated and

nonoxygenated fuels indicated that fuel differences may account for as

much as 50 g/kW-hr. However, as EPA does not expect the production

variability to change based on differences in fuel type, the Agency has

no reason to increase the CO standard in this rule to account for

production variability. As EPA mentions in the July 1996 NPRM and

explains in the small engine Phase 1 final rule Response to Comments

document,6 EPA took production variability into account when it

increased the CO standard from 402 g/kW-hr to 469 g/kW-hr between the

small engine Phase 1 NPRM and final rule. B&SC mischaracterizes EPA's

position by stating that the underlying premise for EPA's position is

that the degree of variability in mass emissions data will not increase

in relation to mass. This was not EPA's underlying premise; EPA

examined B&SC's production variability concern from the perspective of

specifically addressing the high volume production issue that Briggs &

Stratton raised in its petition. B&SC itself makes no claim regarding

variability in relation to mass, nor provides data concerning mass

emissions and variability. EPA believes it adequately addressed the

production variability concern B&SC raised in its petition when the

Agency increased the CO standard from 402 g/kW-hr to 469 g/kW-hr

between the small engine Phase 1 NPRM and final rule. Accordingly, EPA

believes the only rationale for increasing the CO emission standard in

this rule is to account for emission differences between oxygenated and

nonoxygenated fuels. The Agency is therefore increasing the nonhandheld

Class I and II CO standard to 519 g/kW-hr.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See EPA Air Docket #A-93-25, item V-C-01, p. 37.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Open Crankcase for Snowthrowers

In the July 1996 NPRM, EPA proposed allowing the Administrator the

option to permit the use of open crankcases in engines used exclusively

to power snowthrowers. As described in the NPRM, EPA 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

[[Page 58299]]

an open crankcase would be prohibitive. EPA received comment on this

issue from the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and two

manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers, American

Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and Tecumseh Products Company (Tecumseh).

All of the commenters expressed support for the idea of allowing

open crankcases on engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers.

However, all three commenters oppose EPA requiring a demonstration to

show that the cost of abating emissions from an open crankcase would be

prohibitive. In addition, commenters expressed concern about the

provision requiring manufacturers to demonstrate that the engine would

meet applicable emission standards even with the open crankcase. After

considering the comments received, EPA has determined that it will

permit the use of open crankcases in engines used exclusively to power

snowthrowers, based on a manufacturer's demonstration that the

applicable standards will be met. This demonstration may be based on

best engineering judgment. The Agency will not require a demonstration

of prohibitive cost. However, the Agency will require manufacturers to

provide to the Agency upon request the methodology or procedure used to

determine that the applicable CO emission standard would be met.

EPA is convinced by commenters arguments that requiring individual

demonstrations of prohibitive cost would be burdensome for the

manufacturers and the Agency, and possibly could create competitive

inequities among manufacturers. In addition, some manufacturers

previously shared information with the Agency regarding costs that the

Agency believes shows the technological fix that would generally be

required to close snowthrower crankcases are prohibitive. Consequently,

manufacturers will not need to make any demonstration of the cost to

close the crankcase on engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers.

The Agency received comment from the same three commenters on the

proposed provision that manufacturers demonstrate that the applicable

emission standards would be met with open crankcases. EMA states in its

comments that no test procedure has been defined nor test method

developed to measure the CO contained within the crankcase gasses

emitted from the open crankcase; EMA thus views the required

demonstration to be difficult if not impossible. In its comments,

Tecumseh also indicates that it does not support the requirement to

measure crankcase breather emissions because the amount of CO in

crankcase emissions is extremely small, and because no test procedure

is defined to measure CO emissions in crankcase gases. However,

Tecumseh expressed willingness to share with EPA the procedure it used

to determine the crankcase CO emissions, which it states are

approximately 1% of the exhaust CO emissions, regardless of operating

mode. Honda suggests in its concluding comments that the Agency should

allow open crankcases for snowthrower engines if the total CO emissions

from the breather and the exhaust are below the regulatory requirement

for CO. Honda's research on open crankcases indicates that gas flow

from the crankcase breather does not exceed 2.5% of the exhaust flow,

and crankcase breather CO gas flow accounts for only 0.025% of the

total exhaust flow. In its concluding comments, Honda states that since

the crankcase breather CO is very small when compared to the exhaust,

EPA should accept a manufacturer's engineering judgment when

determining the total engine CO.

Based on the comments, EPA believes that in many cases snowthrowers

with open crankcases would continue to meet all of the applicable

standards, including the CO standard. However, the data before the

agency is relatively limited and EPA is not in a position at this time

to conclude that no demonstration of compliance is needed for any such

engines before a certificate of conformity is issued. The comments do

reflect that manufacturers should often be in a position to demonstrate

that the standards are met with an open crankcase using best

engineering judgment. Only a limited amount of data generation would

seem necessary to make such a demonstration. Therefore the final rule

requires that manufacturers make such a demonstration, but makes it

clear that this may be based on best engineering judgment. Upon request

by EPA, the manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers

must explain to the Agency the procedure or methodology used to

determine that the applicable standards would be met.

C. Effective Date

As proposed in the July 1996 NPRM, this rule will be effective upon

signature by the Administrator. This rule is not adding regulatory

burdens to any regulated entities; rather, it is relieving burden. In

addition, EPA needs to act expeditiously in order that manufacturers

may certify their engine models to the Phase 1 emission standards and

make them available for the 1997 model year. Consequently, EPA believes

no delay in the effective date of this rule is necessary.

VI. 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 II nonhandheld engines subject to this rule is used

during the summer months, when CO nonattainment is generally not a

concern. Furthermore, the CO emission rate for many nonhandheld engine

models will remain unchanged despite the change in the CO standard

since CO levels often are controlled in meeting the HC+NOX

emission standards which are not affected by this action.

The provision to permit open crankcases in engines used exclusively

to power snowthrowers will require that manufacturers 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.

VII. Economic Effects

The Agency anticipates that this rule will have minimal, if any,

effect 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.

VIII. 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

[[Page 58300]]

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 selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.

Because this rule 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, and allows

manufacturers of snowthrowers to be relieved of the requirement that

crankcases be closed, thereby potentially creating beneficial effects

on small businesses by easing these two provisions required of small

engine manufacturers by the Phase 1 small SI engine regulations. As a

result, EPA has determined 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.

IX. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and required information to the U.S. Senate, the

House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal

Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 90

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 5, 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 Oxides

Engine displacement class plus oxides Hydrocarbon Carbon 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:

[[Page 58301]]

Sec. 90.109 Requirement of certification--closed crankcase.

* * * * *

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the

Administrator will allow open crankcases for engines used exclusively

to power snowthrowers based upon a manufacturer's demonstration that

all applicable emission standards will be met by the engine for the

combination of emissions from the crankcase, and exhaust emissions

measured using the procedures in subpart E of this part. This

demonstration may be made based upon best engineering judgment. Upon

request of the Administrator, the manufacturer must provide an

explanation of any procedure or methodology used to determine that the

total CO emissions from the crankcase and the exhaust are below the

applicable standard for CO.

[FR Doc. 96-29026 Filed 11-12-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P