Phase 2 Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 90

[FRL-6195-2]

RIN 2060-AE29

Phase 2 Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines

At or Below 19 Kilowatts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing notice

of the availability for public review information received by the

Agency following the publication of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) for new nonroad spark-ignition (SI) engines at or below 19

kilowatts (25 horsepower). These engines are used principally in lawn

and garden equipment, both in nonhandheld applications such as

lawnmowers, and also in handheld applications such as trimmers and

chainsaws. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January

27, 1998, and the close of the comment period for the NPRM was March

13, 1998. The additional information received since the publication of

the NPRM relates to whether final standards more stringent than those

contained in the NPRM would be achievable by the regulated industry.

The additional information cited in this document was gathered in

response to the NPRM. This additional notice of availability is not

required, but is intended to inform the public of information included

in the rulemaking record upon which EPA may rely when adopting the

final program. Due to the short deadline for a final rulemaking, EPA is

not reopening the comment period on the NPRM, but will endeavor to

review and place in the docket any comments submitted in response to

this document, to the extent time allows.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in EPA

Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No. A-96-55, Room M-1500

(mail code 6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. These

materials may be viewed from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The

docket may also be reached by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided

in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for

photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Larson, Office of Mobile

Sources, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, (734) 214-4277,

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document contains two sections. The

first section provides background on the pending small SI engine

rulemaking. The second section contains a listing of relevant

information available in the docket for the pending rulemaking made

available to the Agency since the publication of the NPRM.

I. Background

On January 27, 1998, EPA issued a NPRM proposing a second phase of

regulations to control emissions from new nonroad SI engines at or

below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower) (``small SI engines'') (63 FR 3950).

This action was preceded by a March 27, 1997, Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (62 FR 14740). EPA solicited comment on virtually

all aspects of the NPRM. The public comment period for the NPRM closed

March 13, 1998.

EPA held a public hearing on February 11, 1998, and the oral

testimony and written material provided at that hearing have been added

to the docket for this rule. This information was supplemented by more

extensive documentation provided as written comment to the NPRM, which

is also included in the docket for this rule.1 At the public

hearing, in response to a request by the Engine Manufacturers

Association (EMA) to extend the comment period so as to allow written

comments to reflect the information provided at a March 26, 1998,

hearing of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) concerning its

rules impacting many of these same engines, EPA committed to also

consider all publicly available information of which EPA was informed

and which was provided to the State of California for their

deliberations. This information regarding the recently adopted small

engine standards by the State of California has also been incorporated

in the docket.2

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

\1\ A listing of these items is in Section II.A. of this

document.

\2\ A listing of these items is in Section II.B. of this

document.

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

Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA's standards to

achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through

the application of technology which the Administrator determines will

be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost, lead time,

noise, energy and safety factors. The NPRM contained lengthy discussion

of the proposed standards, the expected costs of their implementation,

and the potential costs and benefits of adopting more stringent

standards such as those that were under consideration by the California

ARB. In the NPRM, EPA explicitly asked for comment regarding the level

of the proposed standards and the impacts and timing for implementing

more stringent standards, so as to allow it to establish the most

appropriate standards in the final rule. In particular, EPA requested

comment on the impacts and timing for

[[Page 66082]]

implementing emission standards that would require the same types of

technology as anticipated by proposed rules under consideration at that

time by the California ARB.

After the close of the comment period and upon reviewing the

information supplied during the comment period, EPA determined that it

was desirable to get further details regarding the technological

feasibility, cost and lead time implications of meeting standards more

stringent than those contained in the NPRM. EPA's NPRM already

contained estimates of the costs and feasibility of more stringent

standards. Some commenters had charged that, based on these

discussions, EPA's proposed standards would not satisfy the stringency

requirements of Clean Air Act Section 213(a)(3). For the purpose of

gaining additional information on feasibility, cost and lead time

implications of more stringent standards, EPA had several meetings,

phone conversations, and written correspondence with specific engine

manufacturers, with industry associations representing those

manufacturers, with representatives of state regulatory associations,

and with members of Congress. Summaries of those meetings, phone

conversations, and written correspondence have also been placed in the

docket.3 EPA also sought information relating to the impact

on equipment manufacturers, if any, of changes in technology

potentially required to meet more stringent standards than were

contained in the NPRM. Summaries of this information have been placed

in the docket.4 Additionally, EPA received numerous comments

on the NPRM requesting closer harmonization with the compliance program

provisions adopted by the State of California. In some cases, EPA also

discussed these harmonization issues with manufacturers to improve the

Agency's understanding of the needs and benefits to the industry of

such harmonization; when applicable, these conversations are also noted

in the meeting documentation provided to the docket.5

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

\3\ A listing of these items is in Section II.C. of this

document.

\4\ A listing of these items is in Section II.D. of this

document.

\5\ A listing of these items is in Section II.C. of this

document.

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

Finally, EPA received numerous pieces of correspondence, much of it

after the formal comment period closed, from representatives of the

model airplane and related hobbyist community. This correspondence has

also been included in the docket and will be considered by EPA in

developing its final rule.6

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

\6\ A listing of these items is in Section II.E. of this

document.

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

As EPA has stated on prior occasions, in adopting the final small

SI engine rule EPA intends to consider all relevant information that

becomes available. This includes information received during the

comment period on an NPRM, and, to the extent possible, important

information which becomes available after the formal NPRM comment

period has concluded. Regarding the small SI engine rulemaking, to the

extent that post-NPRM information has expanded or updated the knowledge

of the Agency regarding technological feasibility, production lead time

estimates for incorporating improved designs, cost to manufacturers,

cost to consumers and similar factors, it is reasonable to expect that

the improved information may result in changing assessments of how the

pending rule can best achieve regulatory goals compared to what had

been expected at the time of the NPRM. This is especially true in the

case of a rulemaking concerning an industry, like small SI engines,

that is undergoing relatively rapid technological achievement.

II. Summary of Information Available in Docket to This Rule

The following is a listing of information received by EPA after the

publication of the NPRM that is available in the docket to the pending

rulemaking, EPA Air Docket #A-96-55. This listing may be incomplete, as

new material may be added to the docket, and may have already been

added following signature of this document but before its publication

in the Federal Register. Readers may wish to review docket materials

for information other than that specifically identified in this

document.

A. Oral and Written Comment Submitted During the Comment Period to the

NPRM

Oral testimony was presented on behalf of 8 individuals or

organizations at the February 11, 1998, public hearing. The docket

contains a transcript of the hearing and a listing of hearing attendees

(Items IV-F-01 and IV-F-02), as well as copies of written materials

presented at the hearing (Item IV-D-28). In addition, written comments

from 22 individuals or organizations were submitted to the docket

(Items IV-D-01 through IV-D-22) by the close of the comment period.

B. Information Relating to the California ARB Small Off-Road Engine

Program

The California ARB issued a Mail-Out (#MSC 98-02) on January 27,

1998, noticing a March 26, 1998, Public Hearing to Consider Amendments

to the Small Off-Road Engine Regulations, and containing the staff

proposal and report on this topic (Item IV-G-06). At the March 26,

1998, Public Hearing, California ARB staff made available a modified

version of the regulation portion of Mail-Out 98-02, which staff

proposed to the Board at the hearing (Item IV-G-07). The California ARB

staff presentation made at the hearing, as well as written materials

submitted in response to the hearing notice are also contained in the

docket (Items IV-G-05, and Item IV-D-27). Finally, on March 9, 1998,

the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association (PPEMA)

forwarded to EPA the ``PPEMA Proposal for ARB Tier II Emissions

Regulations'' (Item IV-D-23).

C. Summaries of Meetings, Phone Conversations, and Correspondence

Received by the Agency Regarding Programs for Nonhandheld and Handheld

Engines

First, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or

meetings with nonhandheld engine manufacturers or industry associations

representing those manufacturers, including EMA, Tecumseh Products,

Briggs & Stratton, Honda, and Kohler, between May 1998 and September

1998, regarding topics such as standards and implementation dates for

Class I engines, in-use verification testing and compliance, useful

life definitions, a technology to reduce emissions on OHV engines, and

Class I and II Phase 2 Final Regulations, are contained in the docket

(see Items IV-C-01, IV-C-02, IV-D-25, IV-D-26, IV-E-15, IV-E-16, IV-E-

19, IV-E-25. IV-E-44, IV-E-45, IV-E-46, IV-E-48, IV-E-49, IV-E-53, IV-

E-54, IV-E-57, IV-E-59, IV-E-60, IV-E-63, IV-E-64, and IV-G-26).

Second, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or

meetings with handheld engine manufacturers or industry associations

representing those manufacturers, including PPEMA, John Deere, Poulan,

McCulloch, Dolmar, Tanaka, and Stihl, between June 1998 and September

1998, regarding topics such as a PPEMA proposal for Phase 2 standards

and effective dates, including Phase 3 standards in the Phase 2 final

rule, standards for handheld engines that would skip Phase 2 levels and

go directly to Phase 3 levels, appropriate emission standards for

commercial

[[Page 66083]]

products, a technology for reducing handheld 2-stroke emissions, and

Phase 2 handheld engine emission standard feasibility, are contained in

the docket (see Items IV-C-03, IV-E-09, IV-E-11 through IV-E-14, IV-E-

17, IV-E-18, IV-E-20, IV-E-21, IV-E-23, IV-E-26, IV-E-40, IV-E-43, IV-

E-50, IV-E-51, IV-E-56, IV-E-62, IV-E-65, IV-E-66, IV-G-22, IV-G-27,

and IV-G-28).

Third, summaries of separate discussions held between EPA and

Honda, American Suzuki Motor Corporation, and Tecumseh Products

concerning the displacement cutoff for an additional nonhandheld class

are contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-24, IV-E-52).

Fourth, summaries of a September 16, 1998 telephone conversation

between EPA and Tom Cackette (California Air Resources Board) and a

September 17, 1998 telephone conversation between EPA and Jason Grumet

(NESCAUM) regarding the development of final Phase 2 regulations for

small engines is contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-61 and IV-E-

22).

Fifth, summaries of correspondence between EPA and members of

Congress, including Representative Jo Ann Emerson and three colleagues

to EPA, regarding pending Phase 2 regulations for small SI engines,

Senator Herb Kohl to EPA on behalf of constituent Cliff Feldmann,

President of the Auger and power Equipment Manufacturers Association

(APEMA), Representative Frank Lucas to EPA on behalf of constituent Mr.

Dick Roberts, a member of the Auger and Power Equipment Manufacturers

Association (APEMA), are contained in the docket, (Items IV-C-06, IV-C-

05 and IV-C-04).

Finally, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or

meetings with other individuals or organizations, including May 20,

1998 information from and September 3, 1998 meeting with Boswell Energy

Systems regarding a technology for reducing emissions from small SI

engines and June 22, 1998 correspondence from Autonnic Research to EPA

regarding the Autonnic Maintenance Alert Meters, June 16, 1998 meeting

and October 20 telephone conversations between EPA, Pyrotek Inc. and

others regarding Spark Plug Technology for Emission Reductions for

Small SI Engines At or Below 19 kW, and correspondence from MECA to EPA

regarding catalytic technology for small SI nonroad engines, are

contained in the docket (Items IV-D-24, IV-E-07, IV-G-13, IV-E-42 and

IV-E-41, and IV-G-25).

D. Information on the Impact of More Stringent Standards on Equipment

Manufacturers

EPA sought information on the impact on equipment manufacturers, if

any, of changes in technology potentially required to meet more

stringent standards than were contained in the NPRM. Summaries of

substantive correspondence received or conversations or meetings held

regarding the impact of standards on equipment manufacturers are

contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-27 through IV-E-39, IV-E-52,

IV-E-55, IV-E-58 , IV-E-67, and IV-G-20).

E. Correspondence from Representatives of the Model Airplane and

Hobbyist Community

EPA received numerous pieces of correspondence before and after the

close of the comment period on the NPRM from representatives of the

model airplane and related hobbyist community (Items IV-D-07; IV-G-08

through IV-G-12; IV-G-14 through IV-G-19; IV-G-21; IV-G-23, and IV-G-

24).

Dated: November 20, 1998.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 98-32001 Filed 11-30-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P