[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10975]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 16, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 90
[FRL-4881-5]
RIN 2060 AE29
Control of Air Pollution; Emission Standards for New Nonroad
Spark-ignition Engines at or Below 19 Kilowatts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action proposes emission standards for new nonroad
spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower). This
action is authorized by section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act as
amended. The proposed standards are expected to result in a 32 percent
reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and a 14 percent reduction in carbon
monoxide emissions from these engines by the year 2020 when complete
fleet turnover is projected.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 15, 1994. A public
hearing will be held on June 21, at 10 a.m.; requests to present oral
testimony must be received on or before June 15, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in
triplicate, if possible) for EPA consideration by addressing them as
follows: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention: Docket Number A-93-
25, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. Materials relevant to this
rulemaking are contained in this docket and may be viewed at this
location from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. As provided in
40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying.
The public hearing will be held at Dominos Farm, Ulrich room, lobby E,
24 Frank Lloyd, Ann Arbor, MI 48104.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucie Audette, Office of Mobile
Sources, Certification Division, (313) 741-7878.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Copies of the Regulatory Language
EPA has not included in this document the proposed regulatory
language or the draft Regulatory Support Document (RSD). Electronic
copies (on 3.5'' diskettes) of both the proposed regulatory language
and the draft RSD may be obtained free of charge by visiting, calling,
or writing the Environmental Protection Agency, Certification Division,
2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 741-7878. Refer to
Docket A-93-25. A copy is available for inspection in the docket (see
ADDRESSES).
The proposed regulatory language and the draft RSD are also
available electronically on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). TTN
is an electronic bulletin board system (BBS) operated by EPA's Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Users are able to access and
download TTN files on their first call. After logging onto TTN BBS, to
navigate through the BBS to the files of interest, the user must enter
the appropriate command at each of a series of menus. The steps
required to access information on this rulemaking are listed below. The
service is free, except for the cost of the phone call.
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742 (1,200-14,400 bps, no parity, eight data bits,
one stop bit) Voice help: 919-541-5384 Internet address: TELNET
ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 - 12:00 Noon ET
1. Technology Transfer Network Top Menu: GATEWAY TO TTN
TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards) Command: T
2. TTN TECHNICAL INFORMATION AREAS OMS - Mobile Sources
Information Command: M
3. OMS BBS ==== MAIN MENU FILE TRANSFERS Rulemaking & Reporting
Command: K
4. RULEMAKING PACKAGES <6> Non-Road Command: 6
5. Non-Road Rulemaking Area: File area #2 * * * Non-Road Engines
Command: 2
6. Non-Road Engines
At this stage, the system will list all available nonroad engine
files. To download a file, select a transfer protocol which will match
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 topmenu, 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 TTN BBS with the oodbye command.
II. Contents
III. Statutory Authority and Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Background
IV. Requirements of the Proposed Rule
A. Overview
B. General Enforcement Provisions
C. Program Description and Rationale
V. Discussion of Issues
A. Use of Metric Units
B. Use of Power Rating as Cutoff for Applicability
C. Exclusion of Compression-ignition Engines
D. Exclusion of Recreational Propulsion Engines
E. Exclusion of Marine Propulsion Engines
F. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Definitions
G. Definition of Handheld Equipment
H. Requirements Applicable to Vehicle and Equipment
Manufacturers
I. Effective Date
J. Selection of Worst Case Emitter
K. Adequacy of Test Cycle
L. Alternative, Oxygenated, and Reformulated Fuels
M. HC + NOX Standard for Class I and II Engines
N. CO Standard for Handheld Engines Over 50 cc
O. Cap on Noise
P. Applicability of In-Use Standards
Q. In-Use Testing Requirement
R. Absence of Averaging, Banking, and Trading Programs
S. Engine Manufacturer Requirement--Disclosure of Maximum
Exhaust Pressure and Minimum Inlet Pressure
T. Direct Health Effects of Air Toxics and CO
U. Catalyst Durability
V. Test Procedure Requirements
W. Duration of Certificates of Conformity, Definition of Model
Year, Annual Production Period
VI. Environmental Benefit Assessment
A. Estimated Emissions Impact of Proposed Regulation
B. Health and Welfare Effects of HC Emissions
C. Health and Welfare Effects of CO Emissions
D. Roles of HC and NOX in Ozone Formation
E. Health and Welfare Effects of Tropospheric Ozone
VII. Technology Assessment
A. Achievability of Proposed Emission Standards
B. Proposed Emission Standards are Lowest Feasible
C. Impact on Equipment
D. Energy, Noise, and Safety
E. Per Engine Cost Estimates Due to Proposed Standards
VIII. Economic Effects
A. Consumer Cost
B. Incremental Economic Impacts
IX. Cost-Effectiveness
X. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Impact on Small Entities
III. Statutory Authority and Background
A. Statutory Authority
Authority for the actions proposed in this notice is granted to EPA
by sections 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216, and
301(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7522,
7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)).
CAA section 213(a) directs EPA to: (1) Conduct a study of emissions
from nonroad engines and vehicles; (2) determine whether emissions of
carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from nonroad engines and vehicles are
significant contributors to ozone or CO concentrations in more than one
area that has failed to attain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and CO; and (3) regulate those categories
or classes of new nonroad engines and vehicles that, in EPA's judgment
cause or contribute to such air pollution. Under CAA section 213(a)(4),
EPA may also regulate emissions other than CO, NOX, and VOCs from
new nonroad engines and vehicles if EPA determines that such other
emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Nonroad Engine
and Vehicle Emission Study (hereafter, ``Nonroad Study'') required by
section 213(a)(1) was completed in November 1991. The Nonroad Study is
available in docket A-91-24. The determination of the significance of
emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles in more than one NAAQS
nonattainment area, required by section 213(a)(2), was proposed on May
17, 1993 (58 FR 28809) and is incorporated by reference into this
proposal. At the same time, the first set of regulations for a class or
category of nonroad engines that contribute to air pollution, required
by section 213(a)(3), was proposed (58 FR 28809) for new nonroad
compression-ignition (CI) engines at or above 37 kilowatts (kW).
Today's action continues to implement section 213(a)(3); it proposes
emission standards for nonroad spark-ignition (SI) engines at ornd
below 19 kW (25 horsepower) (hereafter, ``small SI engines''), another
class or category of nonroad engines that contributes to air pollution.
Background
On the basis of the Nonroad Study, EPA has proposed its
determination that emissions of CO, NOX, and VOCs from nonroad
engines and vehicles contribute significantly to ozone or CO in more
than one NAAQS nonattainment area (see 58 FR 28809, May 17, 1993).
According to the Nonroad Study, nonroad engines and vehicles contribute
an average of ten percent of summer VOCs in the 19 ozone nonattainment
areas included in the study. Small SI engines are the source of half of
those nonroad summer VOC emissions. In the 16 CO nonattainment areas
included in the study, nonroad engines and vehicles account on average
for nine percent of winter CO emissions. Small SI engines are the
source of 56 percent of the nonroad winter CO contribution, according
to the study.
Since March 1992, EPA has held several public workshops and
meetings to solicit information on technical characteristics,
emissions, potential regulatory strategies, and general regulatory
issues related to small SI engines. Public notice of such meetings may
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
At the March 1992 public workshop, the Engine Manufacturers
Association and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute encouraged
federal regulation of nonhandheld small SI engines and expressed
interest in working in a cooperative program with EPA to develop
regulations by November 1993. Likewise, the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association encouraged federal regulation of portable 2-
stroke power equipment and expressed interest in working cooperatively
with EPA.
Industry's interest in federal regulation of small SI engines may
be traced to California's efforts to develop a statewide regulatory
program. CAA section 209(e)(2) authorizes California to enforce
emission standards for certain nonroad engines if: (1) California
determines that such standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards, and such standards are not arbitrary and capricious, (2)
California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions, and (3) California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are consistent with section 209(e)(2). (See 58 FR 45866,
September 6, 1991, for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
implementing section 209(e). This rulemaking is ongoing and the exact
criteria for EPA granting an authorization to California will be
prescribed in the final section 209(e) rule. Definitions of farm and
construction equipment are also provided in this section 209(e) rule.)
CAA section 209(e)(2) also authorizes other states to opt into
California standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
adopted standards for nonroad lawn and garden and utility SI and CI
engines from 0-25 horsepower (0-19 kilowatts). EPA is currently
reviewing CARB's section 209(e) authorization request for its lawn and
garden and utility rule. A decision will be issued once EPA's section
209(e) procedural rule is finalized. There is potential for other
states to adopt the California standards, which are scheduled to become
effective in 1995, if EPA decides to approve California's waiver
request.
Following the March 1992 workshop, EPA determined that setting
emission standards for the small SI engine category might be suitable
for a consultative approach to rulemaking, such as negotiated
rulemaking. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 581-590)
establishes a framework for conducting negotiated rulemaking. Under
that Act, in deciding whether to conduct a negotiated rulemaking, the
head of an agency must consider several factors, including whether, at
the preproposal stage of development, the number of identifiable
parties who would come to the negotiating table is relatively limited,
the number of specific issues for which sufficient information and
technology is in hand for resolution is limited, and a time-forcing
factor exists that lends an air of urgency to issuance of the rule in
question. Negotiations are conducted through a committee chartered
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II section
9(c)). The goal of a regulatory negotiation committee is to reach
consensus on the language or issues involved in a rule. If consensus is
reached, it is used as the basis of the Agency's proposal.
EPA initiated a convening process to determine the best way to work
with industry and other interested parties in developing regulations
for small SI engines. The conveners interviewed individuals in
leadership roles in key organizations identified by EPA to determine
what parties were interested in these regulations, what issues were
important to interested parties, and whether a consultative rulemaking
process would be feasible and appropriate. A copy of the convening
report, dated August 24, 1992, is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
The convening report recommended an exploratory meeting of
interested parties to discuss, but not initiate, a consultative
process. EPA determined that the number of parties who would come to
the negotiating table would be relatively limited, the number of
specific issues for resolution would be limited, sufficient information
and technology would be in hand or could be timely developed for
resolution of issues, and time-forcing factors existed. (See 58 FR
34389, June 25, 1993, for a complete discussion of the application of
the factors in this case.) Time-forcing factors lending an air of
urgency to issuance of the rule include the potential threat to
industry of patchwork regulation if a number of states opt into
California's program in order to attain national air quality goals.
More recently, an air of urgency has been created by the settlement of
Sierra Club v. Browner, Civ. No. 93-0197 NHJ (D.D.C. 1993), which
requires EPA to propose emission standards for small SI engines by
April 1994 and to promulgate such standards by May 1995.
The exploratory meeting recommended in the convening report was
held in Ann Arbor, Michigan on November 16-17, 1992. Participants
decided that state and public interest representatives needed more
technical information to fully understand some of the regulatory issues
participants might face. It was also decided that another meeting was
necessary to discuss the potential design of a consultative process for
a small SI engine rulemaking. The technical briefing for state and
public interest representatives was conducted in Ann Arbor on December
16, 1992. On January 28-29, 1993, a meeting to discuss consultative
process design was held in Ann Arbor.
At the January meeting, it was suggested that EPA consider a two-
phased approach to regulation of small SI engines. In the suggested
first phase, EPA would propose regulations for new small SI engines
through the normal regulatory process rather than a consultative
process. It was suggested that Phase 1 regulations could be similar to
California's Regulation for 1995 and Later Utility and Lawn and Garden
Equipment Engines, modified as necessary to meet CAA requirements. (For
example, EPA's proposal could modify CARB's program by including
engines preempted from regulation in California.) The Phase 1 proposal
would be completed as soon as possible, but no later than the spring of
1994. The final rule would be promulgated no later than spring of 1995.
The suggested second phase of regulation could be developed through the
consultative process of regulatory negotiation. It could include issues
such as useful life, in-use emissions, evaporative emissions, refueling
emissions, test procedure, and market-based incentive programs.
Negotiations could begin in Fall 1993 and continue for approximately 18
months.
EPA has decided to proceed with the phased approach. Today's action
proposes the first phase of regulation for new small SI engines. The
data that supports the proposed emission standards and the technology,
cost, and benefits assessments for this proposal are outlined herein
and in the draft Regulatory Support Document (RSD), a copy of which is
located in the public docket for this rulemaking. EPA does not
currently have sufficient data to establish useful life standards or an
in-use liability program. However, rather than lose the potential early
emission benefits while EPA develops the data necessary to establish
useful life and in-use liability, EPA is choosing to claim those early
benefits in this first phase of new small SI engine regulation and to
continue developing the data necessary for the second phase of small SI
engine regulation. EPA believes that the potential for early benefits
to public health and the environment provided by the first phase of
emission standards is of sufficient magnitude to postpone
determinations of useful life and in-use liability until the second
phase of rulemaking. The phased approach to regulation of small SI
engines is incorporated in the Sierra Club v. Browner settlement, a
copy of which is available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
IV. Requirements of the Proposed Rule
The general provisions of this rule, as well as the rationale for
the key parts of this proposal, are briefly described in the following
section.
A. Overview
EPA proposes to regulate emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), NOX,
and CO from certain new nonroad spark-ignition engines that have a
gross power output at and below 19 kW.\1\ A spark-ignition engine is an
internal combustion engine in which the air/fuel mixture is ignited in
the combustion chamber by an electric spark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\To convert kilowatts to horsepower multiply kW by 1.34 and
round to the same number of significant digits. For example 3.5
kW x 1.34=4.7 hp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of this rule would encompass a broad range of small SI
engine applications, including farm and construction equipment, which
individual states are preempted from regulating under section 209(e)(1)
of the CAA. Exclusions from the rule are detailed below.
Under this proposal, exhaust emissions from new small SI engines
could not exceed levels for a given engine class as listed in Table 1.
Engine classes would be specified both by engine displacement, as
measured in cubic centimeters (cc), and by the type of equipment the
engine powered--either handheld or nonhandheld. Five engine classes are
being proposed today. Each has a unique set of emission standards.
Nonhandheld engine classes would be: Class I--engines less than 225 cc
in displacement; and Class II--engines greater than or equal to 225 cc
in displacement. Engines powering equipment defined as handheld would
be classified as Class III, IV, or V: Class III--engines less than 20
cc in displacement; Class IV--engines equal to or greater than 20 cc
and less than 50 cc in displacement; and Class V--engines equal to or
greater than 50 cc in displacement. Emission standards being proposed
today are considered Phase 1 new small SI engine standards.
Table 1--Exhaust Emission Standards
[Grams per kilowatt hour]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrocarbon Oxides
Engine class plus oxides Hydrocarbon Carbon of
of nitrogen monoxide nitrogen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I......................... 16.1 ........... 402 ........
II........................ 113.4 ........... 402 ........
III....................... ........... 295 805 5.36
IV........................ ........... 241 805 5.36
V......................... ........... 161 402 5.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule would explicitly exclude from regulation the following
small SI engines:
(1) Engines used to propel marine vessels as defined in the General
Provisions of the United States Code, 1 U.S.C. 3 (1992). A ``vessel''
includes every description of watercraft or other artificial
contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on water. 1 U.S.C. 3 (1992).
(2) Engines used in underground mining or engines used in
underground mining equipment and regulated by the Mining Safety and
Health Administration (MHSA). See 30 CFR parts 7, 31, 32, 36, 56, 57,
70, and 75.
(3) Engines used in motorcycles and regulated in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart E.
(4) Engines used in aircraft as that term is defined in 40 CFR
87.1(a).
(5) Engines used in recreational vehicles, which are defined as
engines which have no installed speed governor and which have a rated
speed of greater than or equal to 5,000 revolutions per minute (RPM).
Engines used in recreational vehicles are not used to propel marine
vessels and do not meet the criteria to be categorized as a Class III,
IV, or V engine under this rule.
This rule proposes the following regulatory scheme:
Designation of product lines into groups of engines with
similar emission characteristics (such groups are called engine
families),
Manufacturer emission testing of selected engines with a
specified test procedure to demonstrate compliance with new engine
emission standards,
Labeling of engines, and alternatively, equipment labeling
if the engine label becomes obscured when placed in the equipment,
Submission of an application for certification for each
engine family,
Inclusion of various certification requirements such as
the prohibition of defeat devices,
Issuance of an emission certificate of conformity for each
engine family,
Prohibition against offering for sale in the United States
engines not certified by EPA,
Requirement that equipment manufacturers use the
appropriate handheld or nonhandheld certified engine in their
equipment,
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
EPA Administrator testing provisions,
Design warranty provisions and prohibition on tampering,
Inclusion of all farm and construction engines, state
regulation of which is preempted under the CAA,
Development of an engine manufacturer's program to
evaluate in-use emission deterioration,
Requirement that if catalysts are used in an engine
family, catalyst durability must be confirmed by means of the
evaluation procedure that is specified in this notice,
Defect reporting and voluntary recall,
Importation provisions,
General prohibitions and enforcement provisions, and
Production line Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA).
Certain elements of EPA's on-highway program are not being proposed for
this Phase I rule including:
No certification requirement for engine durability
demonstration,
No performance warranty,
No averaging, banking, and trading program, and
No useful life determination and no in-use enforcement.
B. General Enforcement Provisions
EPA, as authorized in the CAA, would enforce nonroad standards in a
manner similar to on-highway standards. Section 213(d) of the Act
provides that the standards promulgated under 213 ``shall be subject to
sections (206, 207, 208, and 209), with such modifications of the
applicable regulations implementing such sections as the Administrator
deems appropriate, and shall be enforced in the same manner as
standards prescribed under section (202).'' Section 206 specifies
requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle engine compliance
testing and certification; section 207 requires manufacturers to
warrant compliance by motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in
actual use; section 208 requires recordkeeping by manufacturers of new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines and authorizes EPA to
collect information and require reports; and section 209 preempts
states and political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing standards
relating to emission control, certification, or inspection of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, unless specifically authorized
to do so by EPA.
Pursuant to this authority, EPA is proposing in today's action
regulations that require manufacturers of new small SI engines to
obtain certification and that subject them to Selective Enforcement
Auditing. Any manufacturer of a new small SI engine would be
responsible for obtaining from the Administrator a certificate of
conformity covering any engine introduced into commerce in the United
States.
The Agency is also proposing certain prohibited acts and general
enforcement provisions similar to those for on-highway vehicles under
sections 203, 204, 205, and 208 of the CAA.
Section 203 specifies prohibited acts; section 204 provides for
federal court injunctions of violations of section 203(a); section 205
provides for assessment of civil penalties for violations of section
203; and section 208 provides the Agency with information collection
authority. The general enforcement language of section 213(d) provides
the Agency's authority for applying section 203, 204, 205, and 208 of
the CAA to new small SI engines and equipment.
As applied to nonroad engines, vehicles and equipment under section
213(d), Phase 1 prohibited acts would include, but would not be limited
to:
An engine manufacturer's introduction into commerce of new
small SI engines that are not covered by a certificate of conformity
issued by EPA,
The introduction into commerce of new small SI equipment
and vehicles which do not incorporate the appropriate nonhandheld or
handheld certified nonroad engine,
Tampering with emission control devices or elements of
design installed on or in a small SI engine, and
Failure to provide information to the Agency if requested.
EPA is also proposing regulations, under the authority of section 205
of the Act, which set forth the maximum statutory penalties for
violating the prohibitions.
EPA is proposing general information collection provisions similar
to current on-highway provisions under section 208 of the Act which
would include, but would not be limited to, the manufacturer's
responsibility to provide information to EPA, perform testing if
requested by EPA, and maintain records. In addition, EPA is proposing
emission system defect reporting regulations which require
manufacturers to report to EPA emission system-related defects that
affect a given class or category of engines. EPA enforcement personnel
would be authorized to gain entry and access to various facilities
under section 208 and today's action proposes these entry and access
provisions.
This rule's information requirements are similar to those proposed
in the nonroad large compression-ignition (CI) rule,\2\ but reduced
from the on-highway program requirements. EPA requests comment on
whether patterning the small SI engine information requirements after
the nonroad large CI rule is appropriate for the manufacturers of small
nonroad engines. In particular, EPA request comments on whether there
are more efficient or more effective ways than those proposed for
manufacturers to create, maintain, and report this information; whether
electronic data interchange (EDI) is a common practice within this
industrial sector; and whether EPA should consider using EDI or any
other technology in its information collection to reduce the burden and
costs of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Control of Air Pollution; Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen
and Smoke From New Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines at or above
50 Horsepower, 58 FR 28809 and 51595 (May 17, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is authorized under section 217 of the CAA to establish fees to
recover compliance program costs associated with section 206 and 207.
EPA will propose to establish fees for today's nonroad compliance
program at some future time, after this rule has been promulgated and
associated costs are determined.
C. Program Description and Rationale
This section describes several features of EPA's proposed Phase 1
small SI engine, vehicle and equipment compliance program and EPA's
rationale for including these features in the program. Specific issues
related to the proposed program which require in- depth discussion are
presented in ``V. Discussion of Issues.''
1. Applicability
This rule would apply to new nonroad spark-ignition engines that
have a gross power output at or below 19 kW and are manufactured after
August 1, 1996 for use in the United States. New engines that would be
covered by this rule are used in a large and varied assortment of
vehicles and equipment including lawnmowers, string trimmers, edgers,
chain saws, commercial turf equipment, small construction equipment,
and lawn and garden tractors.
EPA estimates that in the first year of regulation approximately
16,525,000 new engines, or approximately 19.4 percent of the in-use
fleet, would be subject to this regulation. See Chapter 4 of the draft
Regulatory Support Document (hereafter, draft RSD) for this
rulemaking.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\A copy of the draft RSD may be found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to require certification of new small SI engines,
not the vehicle or equipment which houses such engines. First, small SI
engines are used in a variety of applications. EPA believes it is
inappropriate to mandate that a specific SI engine be manufactured for
any given application. Second, the number of manufacturers and the
diversity of vehicles and equipment in which small SI engines are used
would present clear administrative problems. Regulating primarily by
vehicle or equipment type would dramatically increase administrative
cost associated with this rule with no comparable reduction in
emissions. EPA is, however, proposing to require that vehicle and
equipment manufacturers and importers use the appropriate certified
nonroad engines in their vehicles and equipment. This requirement is
discussed in ``V.H. Requirements Applicable to Vehicle and Equipment
Manufacturers.''
EPA also considered, but rejected, the idea of including SI engines
above 19 kW in this Phase 1 rule. Engines above the proposed 19 kW
cutoff tend to exhibit different operating cycle characteristics than
small SI engines. This difference necessitates the development of
additional test procedures. EPA does not have sufficient data to
undertake such a development within the timeframe of this Phase 1 rule.
As part of the Sierra Club v. Browner settlement, EPA will determine by
November 1996 whether to undertake a rulemaking which targets emissions
from SI engines over 19 kW.
Certain small SI engines which otherwise would be subject to this
rule would be explicitly excluded from regulation:
(1) Engines used to propel marine ``vessels'' as such term is
defined in 1 U.S.C. 3 (1992). EPA is not including these engines
because they are currently subject to safety regulations by the U.S.
Coast Guard (See 46 U.S.C. 331 and 46 U.S.C. 4302.), and EPA is
developing a separate rulemaking which will propose appropriate methods
of regulating emissions from these engines.
(2) Engines regulated by the Mining Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) for underground use. EPA is not including in this
proposal engines that are used in underground mining or engines used in
underground mining equipment as regulated by MSHA under the authority
of 30 CFR parts 7, 31, 32, 36, 56, 57, 70, and 75. MSHA is responsible
for protecting miners from unhealthy levels of air pollution in
underground mines and has issued air quality standards for mines and
standards for NOX and CO emissions from some types of mining
equipment. Although EPA considered applying EPA regulations to these
engines, EPA chose not to include them at this time in order to avoid
dual regulation of these engines.
(3) Engines used in motorcycles and regulated in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart E. EPA has regulated emissions from motorcycles since 1978. A
motorcycle means any motor vehicle with a headlight, taillight, and
stoplight and having two wheels or three wheels and a curb mass less
than or equal to 680 kilograms.
(4) Engines used in aircraft as that term is defined in 40 CFR
87.1(a).
(5) Engines used in recreational vehicles which are defined as
follows: (1) The engine has no installed speed governor; (2) the
engine's rated speed is greater than or equal to 5,000 RPM; (3) the
engine is not used for the propulsion of a marine vessel; and (4) the
engine does not meet the criteria to be categorized as a Class III, IV,
or V engine under this regulation. Recreational vehicles include: All-
terrain vehicles, off-road motorcycles, snowmobiles, and go-karts.
These engines are being excluded for several reasons: First, the duty
cycle is completely different from most small SI engine applications.
These engines experience highly transient operation and likely will
require completely different test procedures for purposes of emission
control testing. Second, they are designed to emphasize power output;
thus, they are typically designed to run at much higher RPMs than other
small SI engines. EPA invites comments on other criteria which may be
utilized in defining the class of nonroad engines which propel
recreational vehicles.
2. Exclusions and Exemptions to Today's Proposal
Pursuant to section 203(b)(1) of the CAA, the Agency is proposing
additional categories of exemptions from new small SI engine regulation
similar to the exclusions and exemptions that exist for on-highway
engines and that have been proposed in the nonroad large CI engine
rule. These include exemptions for purposes of research,
investigations, studies, demonstrations, training, or for reasons of
national security. Exemptions would be obtained either categorically,
that is without application to the Administrator, or by submitting a
written application to the Administrator. Export exemptions and
manufacturer-owned engine exemptions would be granted without
application. Testing exemptions, display exemptions, and national
security exemptions would be obtained by application.
Exclusions from this regulation include nonroad engines that are
used solely for competition or for combat.
Exemptions and exclusions are justified in these cases because the
sources are limited in number or scope, so minimal environmental harm
results; the particular use of the source is determined to further air
quality research; and/or the exemption is vital to the security of the
nation. (See 39 FR 10601, March 21, 1974.)
3. Effective Date for Certification
EPA is proposing that certification of new small SI engines begin
in 1996. Manufacturers of engines produced on or after August 1, 1996,
would be required to obtain from the Administrator a certificate of
conformity covering the engine family. The certificate would be
obtained prior to selling, offering for sale, introducing into
commerce, or importing into the United States the new engine.
While the small SI engines affected by this proposal include a
broad range of engine types, EPA believes that the effective date for
the proposed standards is reasonable and technologically feasible and
that engine manufacturers will be able to implement these regulations
within the short lead time provided under this rule. This issue is
discussed, in detail, in ``V.I. Effective Date.'' Further, an August 1,
1996 effective date is consistent with the Congressional mandate found
in section 213(c) of the Clean Air Act which requires that, ``Standards
* * * shall take effect at the earliest possible date considering lead
time necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology * * *''
4. Emission Standards
Section 213(a)(3) of the CAA states that nonroad emissions
standards:
* * * shall achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the engines or
vehicles to which such standards apply, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of applying such technology within the
period of time available to manufacturers and to noise, energy, and
safety factors associated with the application of such technology.
In determining what degree of reduction will be available, the
Administrator shall first consider standards equivalent in
stringency to standards for comparable motor vehicles or engines (if
any) regulated under section 7521 of this title, taking into account
the technological feasibility, costs, safety, noise, and energy
factors associated with achieving, as appropriate, standards of such
stringency and lead time * * *.
The emission standards being proposed for this Phase 1 small engine
regulation are listed in Table 1 in the Overview Section. The proposed
emission standards result in significant emission reductions in the
near term while work is going on to develop more stringent Phase 2
standards and while manufacturers work to design engines and equipment
capable of meeting lower standards at a later date.
EPA believes these proposed emission standards represent the
greatest emission reductions achievable given the short lead time prior
to this rule's effective date and the technology available during this
period. Requiring more stringent Phase 1 emission standards than those
proposed today would necessarily delay implementation of new small SI
engine standards by at least two years. This additional lead time would
be needed to allow manufacturers time to redesign engines and equipment
to accommodate requirements of more sophisticated technologies. Air
quality benefits which will accrue under the proposed emission
standards are large and meet the statutory criteria for nonroad
standards required by the CAA. These benefits are discussed in Section
VI of this preamble.
In determining the appropriate level of emission standards to
propose, EPA initially considered, as required in the CAA, comparable
motor vehicle standards. Due to technological constraints present in
small engines, EPA believes that promulgating emission standards
comparable with motor vehicle standards in a Phase 1 rule is not
technologically achievable. See chapter 1 of the draft RSD for further
discussion of small SI engine technological constraints.
In proposing these emission standards, EPA has also considered
potential safety and noise issues. Of concern is 36 CFR 261.52 which
directs the Forest Service to prohibit the operation or use of any
handheld internal or external combustion engine without a spark-
arresting device properly installed, maintained, and in effective
working order. The Forest Service also requires that multipositional
small engines used on federal park lands have exposed exhaust system
surface temperatures not exceeding 550 deg.C. Exhaust gas temperatures
may not exceed 475 deg.C.
The type of engine changes EPA expects as a result of the proposed
emission standards will not present a safety concern. Only catalytic
converters designed to produce high conversion efficiencies can
generate sufficient exotherms to raise exhaust system skin temperatures
to a level that might present a safety problem. Manufacturers have
indicated that they will not use catalytic converters to meet the
proposed emission standards for most product lines. EPA estimates that
up to 30 percent of engines in Class I may need low efficiency
catalysts to meet the standards. However, one manufacturer stated that
the exotherm generated by these low efficiency catalysts will not
affect exhaust system skin temperatures sufficiently to warrant more
advanced heat dissipation and heat shield technologies.
Noise levels of small SI engines will not be allowed to increase as
a result of the proposed emission standards. The type of engine changes
EPA expects to see among current engine designs to meet the proposed
emission standards are not expected to impact noise levels. The primary
source of noise from nonroad small engines originates from combustion
and the moving parts in the engine, such as the piston, valve train,
and so forth. Noise from combustion is controlled primarily through the
engine muffler. EPA believes the principal method to be used by all
engine manufacturers to meet the proposed emission regulation will be
leaner air/fuel ratios. Noise levels in future engines which meet the
proposed regulations must, therefore, not exceed that of current
production engines.
EPA requests comment on the possible impact of this proposed
regulation on both engine noise and safety.
In EPA's judgment, section 213(a)(3)'s requirement that EPA
regulate emissions from those classes or categories of new nonroad
engines which cause, or contribute to concentrations of ozone in
nonattainment areas allows EPA to set emission standards for HC, rather
than VOCs in general, as EPA believes that HC emissions from small
gasoline engines are those that cause or contribute to ozone
nonattainment concentrations. In addition, regulating HC rather that
VOCs would be consistent with on-highway practice. EPA requests comment
on this proposed approach.
In the Nonroad Study, EPA described VOCs as any compounds
containing carbon and hydrogen or containing carbon and hydrogen in
combination with any other element which has a vapor pressure of 1.5
pounds per square inch absolute or greater under actual storage
conditions.
HCs contain both hydrogen atoms and carbon atoms but no other atoms
and are a subset of VOCs. For small SI engines, based on engines tested
by Southwest Research Institute under contract with EPA, HCs make up
more than 99 percent of the VOCs emitted from these engines. Less than
one percent of the measured VOC emissions are from constituents other
than HC emissions (aldehydes and ketones were the measured non-
hydrocarbon constituents in this case).
In general, the types of emission controls employed to reduce HC
emissions also reduce emissions of non-hydrocarbon VOCs. Therefore, in
the case of small SI engines, setting emission limits for HC emission
accomplishes essentially the same overall reduction in VOC emission as
would setting emission limits for VOCs. Of course reductions in the
individual non- hydrocarbon VOC species varies, as does the individual
hydrocarbon species.
5. Engine Classes
The category of small SI engines is very complex and comprises a
wide range of engines used in a broad spectrum of equipment. EPA
proposes to adopt a ``class'' structure for this Phase 1 regulation. In
determining which class of emission standards a particular engine must
meet, an engine's end use or application must be determined. This rule
proposes two broad use categories--nonhandheld and handheld.
Nonhandheld engines would be required to meet either Class I or Class
II standards while handheld engines would have to meet either Class
III, IV, or V emission standards. Once the applicable use category is
determined, the engine class would be selected on the basis of engine
displacement as measured in cubic centimeters (cc).
Each engine class would have unique emission standards. EPA is
proposing five engine classes: Class I--small nonhandheld engines less
than 225 cc in displacement; Class II--small nonhandheld engines
greater than or equal to 225 cc in displacement; Class III--small
handheld engines less than 20 cc in displacement; Class IV--small
handheld engines equal to or greater than 20 cc to less than 50 cc in
displacement; Class V-- small handheld engines equal to or greater than
50 cc in displacement.
Class I engines are overwhelmingly found in lawnmowers. Class II
engines primarily include engines used in generator sets, garden
tractors, and commercial lawn and garden equipment.
Only engines used in equipment defined as handheld would be allowed
to meet Class III, IV, or V emission standards. Class III includes
engines used in consumer handheld products, such as small string
trimmers, edgers, and brush cutters. Class IV encompasses engines used
in both residential and commercial settings and includes large
trimmers, edgers, blowers, and chain saws. Class V includes a majority
of engines utilized in commercial chain saws.
EPA is proposing five separate engine classes based on a number of
factors. First, some types of equipment are currently powered
exclusively by 2-stroke engines. EPA estimates that as much as 90
percent of 2-stroke engines are utilized in handheld equipment. These
current handheld 2-stroke engines incorporate a technology which is
inherently more polluting than current 4-stroke engine technology and
which results in 2-stroke engines experiencing a higher concentration
of hydrocarbons in their exhaust. EPA's view is that it is not
technologically feasible to apply the nonhandheld Class I and II engine
standards to handheld engines in this Phase 1 rule; therefore the need
arises for Class III, IV, and V handheld engine standards. Differences
in stringency between classes III, IV, and V are due to the fact that
energy-specific emissions generally increase as engine size decreases.
This principle is also true in the case of engines used in nonhandheld
applications and meeting emission standards of either classes I or II.
See discussion in the draft RSD. Finally, the engine classification
approach for Phase 1 harmonizes federal small engine regulations with
California's lawn and garden regulations.
In summary, it is EPA's view that the emission standards proposed
today for handheld and nonhandheld engines and reflected in the five
engine class categories represent the greatest emission reduction
achievable for this Phase 1 rule.
6. Handheld Engine Qualifications
To qualify as a handheld engine under this proposal, the small SI
engine would be required to meet at least one of the following three
requirements:
(1) The engine must be used in a piece of equipment that is carried
by the operator throughout the performance of its intended function(s).
This is meant to encompass such equipment as lightweight leafblowers,
trimmers (both string and hedge), and cutters.
(2) The engine must be used in a piece of equipment that must
operate multipositionally, such as upside down and sideways, to
complete its intended function(s). EPA intends this category to include
all types of chain saws as well as items already listed in the first
requirement.
(3) The engine must be used in a piece of equipment for which the
combined engine and equipment dry weight is under 14 kilograms, no more
than two wheels are present, and at least one of the following
attributes is also present:
(a) The operator must alternately provide support or carry the
equipment throughout the performance of its intended function(s). This
allows lightweight snowblowers that are carried up stairs, or edgers
which are picked up and supported during operation to qualify for
handheld status.
(b) The operator must provide support or attitudinal control for
the equipment throughout the performance of its intended function(s).
This attribute will allow equipment such as lightweight tillers,
augers, cutoff/concrete saws, and edgers to qualify for handheld
status.
(c) The engine is used exclusively in a hand-portable generator or
pump.
For purposes of this section ``support'' would mean that the
operator holds the equipment in position so as to prevent it from
falling, slipping, or sinking. It would not be necessary for the entire
weight of the equipment to be borne by the operator. ``Attitudinal
control'' would mean that the operator regulates either the horizontal
or vertical position of the equipment, or both. ``Carry'' would mean
that the operator completely bears the weight of the equipment,
including the engine.
Section ``V.G. Definition of Handheld Engines'' provides additional
discussion on this issue. EPA believes that this proposed handheld
definition adequately covers those categories of engines which should
be allowed to meet the less stringent handheld engine standards.
EPA requests information regarding specific engine applications
which are not clearly identifiable as handheld or nonhandheld under the
proposed definition. EPA also requests alternative language which could
be incorporated in this definition to clarify the distinction between
handheld and nonhandheld. EPA is particularly concerned that
manufacturers of 2-stroke lawnmowers may attempt to qualify for
handheld status utilizing the second requirement--multiposition
operation. It is not EPA's intent that pushing a lawnmower up and down
hills would qualify as multiposition operation.
7. Standards for Classes I and II
EPA is proposing to adopt one of two options under consideration
for setting standards applicable to Class I and II engines. EPA
requests comments on each of these options.
Option 1: Phase 1 would adopt a combined HC + NOX standard for
engine classes I and II. While engines in classes I and II have high HC
emission rates, most currently produce extremely low levels of
NOX. Due to technological constraints of all small SI engines, HC
reductions would generally come at the expense of increased NOX.
See ``VII. Technology Assessment'' for a discussion of this phenomenon.
However, the resultant overall increase in NOX emission
inventories would be slight relative to the NOX produced by
sources such as nonroad large CI engines. The sensitivity of NOX
emissions to HC control varies greatly between engine designs. EPA
believes that a Phase 1 approach which allows incremental tradeoffs
between HC and NOX controls through a combined standard would be
consistent with EPA's statutory mandate that nonroad engine emission
standards reflect the greatest emission reductions achievable. See
``VII. Technology Assessment'' for further discussion.
To meet the combined standard, a manufacturer would add its HC
emission test result to the NOX test result. This combined number
would then be submitted to EPA. Individual levels of these pollutants
would not be established. The manufacturer would also be required to
meet this combined level during Administrator testing and the SEA
enforcement program. EPA believes that this approach would be workable
for a Phase 1 rule. Setting separate standards for HC and NOX
would be addressed in EPA's Phase 2 regulatory negotiations. For
further discussion of this issue, see ``V. M. HC + NOX Standard
for Class I, II Engines.''
EPA is reluctant to set such a combined standard because it is
extremely concerned that no precedent be set for promulgating combined
emission standards in future rulemakings. EPA's past practice has been
to set separate pollutant standards. EPA is considering the combined
standard approach only for this Phase 1 small SI engine rule because of
limited data availability, the aggressive timeframe of this rule, and
to harmonize with the California lawn and garden regulation.
Option 2: Under this option EPA would set separate Class I and II
emission levels for HC and NOx. Based on information currently
available to EPA, the NOx standard would be approximately 136 percent
higher than current new engine levels, while the HC standard would be
approximately equal to the difference between those levels and the HC +
NOx standards proposed in option 1. EPA requests comment on this
specific option, including industry data which addresses the
appropriate level of both HC and NOx if separate standards were to be
promulgated.
8. Engine Family Categorization
For the purpose of demonstrating emission compliance, EPA is
proposing that manufacturers of small SI engines divide their product
line into groups of engines, called engine families, which are composed
of engines having similar emission characteristics. Small SI engine
families would be determined by using the same criteria (type of fuel,
method of air aspiration, number of cylinders, and so forth) currently
used to define on-highway motorcycle engine families.
To be placed in the same engine family, engines would be required
to be identical in all the following applicable respects:
(1) Combustion cycle,
(2) Cooling mechanism,
(3) The cylinder configuration (inline, vee, opposed bore spacings,
and so forth),
(4) The number of cylinders,
(5) The engine class,
(6) The number of catalytic converters (location, volume, and
composition), and
(7) The thermal reactor characteristics.
At the manufacturer's option, engines identical in all the above
respects could be further divided into different engine families if the
Administrator determined that such engines were expected to have
different emission characteristics. This determination would be based
on a number of features, such as the intake and exhaust valve or port
size, the fuel system, exhaust system, and method of air aspiration.
EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of adding governed
engine RPM range as a criterion for the determination of an engine
family. EPA is concerned that a wide-governed RPM spread in the same
engine family, that is one engine configuration has a no-load governed
speed at 3,200 RPM and another engine configuration has a rated no-load
governed speed of 2,200 RPM, may be a sufficient reason to break up one
engine family into more than one engine family.
9. Compliance With Emission Standards
The test engine(s) representing an engine family would be required
to demonstrate that emissions are less than or equal to each separate
emission standard. If a test engine exceeded any one emission standard
in the applicable class, the engine family would be deemed not in
compliance with emission standards of that class.
EPA is proposing that if catalysts are used in an engine family to
meet the emission standards of this regulation, the engine manufacturer
must affirm that the durability of the catalysts has been confirmed on
the basis of the evaluation procedure that is specified in this notice.
10. Useful Life Period, In-use Enforcement, and Development of an In-
use Testing Program
EPA is not proposing a small SI engine useful life period or an in-
use enforcement program in today's proposal. However, EPA believes that
a critical element in the success of its nonroad program is assuring
that manufacturers build engines that continue to meet emission
standards throughout the engine's useful life. While section 213(d) of
the CAA authorizes EPA to enforce emission standards in-use, EPA is
proposing to postpone setting a useful life period and an in-use
enforcement program for small SI engines until the Phase 2 regulations
become effective and, instead, to require in this Phase 1 regulation
that manufacturers test in-use engines. The Phase 2 rulemaking for
small SI engines is under a court-ordered deadline and must be
promulgated by April 30, 1997.
EPA is not proposing a Phase 1 useful life period for several
reasons. Only limited testing data is currently available on in-use
performance of small SI engines. Additional data would be provided by
the in-use testing program described below. Second, EPA does not
believe that emission controls proposed for Phase 1 will experience
significant deterioration beyond normal engine deterioration, although
this area needs more research. For further discussion of these issues
see ``V.P. Applicability of In-Use Standards'' and ``V.Q. In-Use
Testing Requirements.''
The proposed in-use testing requirement is intended to parallel in-
use testing previously or currently conducted by industry. While
manufacturers and their associations have proposed that EPA adopt a
cooperative testing program, EPA believes cooperative programs would
not adequately or as effectively achieve the goals of this in-use
program. See ``V.Q. In-Use Testing Requirements.''
EPA is proposing that engine manufacturers test a sample of in-use
engines. In the absence of in-use emission standards, EPA believes this
testing requirement would be invaluable for manufacturers and EPA to
learn about in-use emissions and emission deterioration. Although EPA
would not enforce in-use emission standards for Phase 1 engines, EPA
expects that manufacturers would take appropriate actions to prevent
recurrence of in-use noncompliance and to also remedy in-use
noncompliance when it was discovered.
At the time of certification the engine manufacturer would propose
which engine families are to be included in the in-use test program.
The certificate of conformity issued by EPA for engine families
included in the in-use testing program would be conditional based on
completion of the test program for that family. EPA would approve a
manufacturer's test program if the selected engine families represented
an adequate consideration of the elements discussed below.
Number of engines to be tested: The number of small SI engines to
be tested by a manufacturer would be determined by the following
method:
For an engine manufacturer with total projected annual production
of more than 75,000 small SI engines, the minimum number of engines to
be tested will be the lowest of the numbers determined in (1), (2), or
(3) below:
(1) Divide the manufacturer's total projected annual production of
small SI engines by 50,000, and round to the nearest whole number,
(2) Test five engines each from 25 percent of all small SI engine
families certified in that model year,
(3) Test three engines each from 50 percent of all small SI engine
families certified in that model year.
An engine manufacturer with total projected annual production of
75,000 small SI engines or less must test a minimum of two engines.
Criteria for selecting test engines: An engine manufacturer would
be required to select test engines from engine families utilizing the
following criteria and in the order specified:
(1) Engine families using emission technology which may be used on
phase 2 engines,
(2) Engine families using aftertreatment,
(3) Engine families certified to different emission standards,
(4) Different engine designs (such as side valve versus overhead
valve engines),
(5) Engine families using emission control technology specifically
installed to achieve compliance with Phase 1 standards,
(6) The engine family with the highest projected annual sales, and
(7) Engine families which meet the above criteria, but have not
been included in prior model year in-use testing programs as required
by these provisions.
Collection and testing of in-use engines: An engine manufacturer
would be required to procure in-use engines which have been operated
for between half and three-quarters of the engine's advertised (or
projected) useful life. All testing would be completed within three
years after the certificate is issued or is effective, whichever is
later, for an engine family which requires in-use testing.
A test engine would be procured from sources not associated with
the engine manufacturer or equipment manufacturer, except that, with
prior approval of the Administrator, an engine manufacturer with annual
sales of less than 50,000 engines might obtain in-use engines
associated with itself or its equipment manufacturer.
A test engine would be required to have a maintenance history
representative of actual in-use conditions. To comply with this
requirement a manufacturer would question the end user regarding the
accumulated usage, maintenance, operating conditions, and storage of
the test engine.
The manufacturer would perform minimal set-to-spec maintenance on a
test engine. Maintenance would include only what is listed in the
owner's instructions for engines with the amount of service and age of
the acquired test engine. One valid emission test would be required for
each in-use engine. Finally, if a selected in-use engine failed to
comply with any applicable certification emission standards, the
manufacturer would be responsible for determining the reason for
noncompliance.
In-use test program reporting requirements: The manufacturer would
be required to submit to the Administrator by January 30 of each
calendar year all emission testing results generated from the in-use
testing program. At the Administrator's request, a manufacturer would
be required to provide documents used in the procurement process,
including criteria used in the procurement screening process and
information from the end user(s) related to use, maintenance, and
storage of the selected engines.
EPA is aware that engine manufacturers may have near-term concerns
regarding testing capacity and the burden this type of program may
impose on a newly regulated industry. EPA requests comments on the lack
of in-use standards, the lack of in-use enforcement, all elements of
this proposed testing requirement, and on possible alternative designs
of in-use testing programs (such as a joint program between
manufacturers and EPA) or enforcement that may be more effective,
giving consideration to the limited lead time and duration of the Phase
1 program.
11. Certificate of Conformity, Requirements of Certification
Any manufacturer of a small SI engine would be responsible for
obtaining from the Administrator a certificate of conformity covering
any engine introduced into commerce in the United States, before such
an engine is sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for
introduction into commerce, or imported into the United States.
Section 203 of the CAA does not prohibit the production of vehicles
or engines before a certificate of conformity is issued. Vehicles or
engines produced prior to the effective date of a certificate of
conformity might also be covered by the certificate if the following
conditions were met:
The engine conformed in all respects to the engines
described in the application for the certificate of conformity.
The vehicles or engines were not sold, offered for sale,
introduced into commerce, or delivered for introduction into commerce
prior to the effective date of the certificate of conformity.
The Agency was notified prior to the beginning of
production when such production would start, and the Agency was
provided full opportunity to inspect and/or test the engines during and
after their production. For example, the Agency would have the
opportunity to conduct SEA production line testing as if the engines
had been produced after the effective date of the certificate.
EPA is proposing that a number of requirements be met by the engine
manufacturer prior to granting a certificate of conformity. As is the
case for on-highway vehicles and engines, the proposed regulations
would make it illegal for any person to use a device on a nonroad
engine which senses operation outside normal emission test conditions
and reduces the ability of the emission control system to control the
engine's emissions. To guard against use of these devices, EPA would
reserve the right to require testing of a certification test engine
over a modified test procedure if EPA suspected a defeat device was
being used by an engine manufacturer on a particular engine. In
addition, use of defeat devices would be considered a prohibited act
subject to civil penalties.
Engines equipped with adjustable operating parameters would have to
comply with all the regulations with the parameters adjusted to any
setting in the full range of adjustment. For example, this could
include adjustment of the high-speed needle for alteration of the air/
fuel ratio or adjustment of the speed set screw. This would ensure that
changes to the adjustable operating parameters that might readily occur
in use would not cause the engine to fail to comply with these
regulations.
EPA is proposing to require that manufacturers label each engine
and that the label meet the same requirements with respect to
durability and visibility as required in the current on-highway
program. The engine manufacturer would be responsible for proper
labeling of engines from each engine family. In addition, EPA is
proposing labeling requirements for vehicle and equipment manufacturers
if the engine label is obscured.
EPA is also proposing that each engine must have a unique engine
identification number which may be part of the engine label or engraved
on the engine. Such identification is necessary for tracking individual
engines. Use of engine identification numbers would facilitate setting
up a tracking system and allow manufacturers to sample in-use engines
for their programs. This identification would be essential for
development of a long-term in-use durability program. EPA requests
comment on the labeling proposal as well as on current engine
identification practices within the industry.
Finally, EPA also proposes to require that all engine crankcases
must be closed to preclude the emissions that occur when a crankcase is
vented to the atmosphere. Since most currently produced engines do have
closed crankcases, EPA believes this requirement would impact
relatively few manufacturers. Finally, small SI engine noise levels
would not be allowed to increase as a result of this rule.
EPA requests comment on these proposed certification requirements.
While EPA is today proposing vehicle and equipment manufacturer
labeling responsibilities, EPA is considering whether to instead make
engine manufacturers responsible for ensuring that the emission control
label is visible once the certified engine is incorporated into a given
piece of nonroad equipment. EPA requests comment on this specific issue
as well.
12. Vehicle/Equipment Manufacturer Requirements
Commencing on this rule's effective date, manufacturers of small SI
vehicles and equipment and importers would be prohibited from
introducing into U.S. commerce any vehicle or equipment powered by a
small SI engine which does not incorporate the appropriate certified
handheld or nonhandheld engine. Failure to do so would make the
equipment manufacturer liable for the assessment of civil penalties.
EPA is proposing this requirement because it is concerned that engines
certified to meet handheld engine standards may in fact be used in
nonhandheld equipment. This would significantly and negatively impact
air quality benefits which are to accrue as a result of this rule. Due
to the potential for engines in different categories to be substituted
for one another, this prohibition would ensure that the regulated
engines are used in appropriate applications.
As noted above, EPA is proposing to require that the original
emission control engine label is visible once the certified engine is
placed in the vehicle or equipment. If the engine label is obscured as
a result of the vehicle or equipment manufacturer's placement of the
engine in the nonroad vehicle or equipment, the vehicle or equipment
manufacturer would be required to attach an identical but supplemental
label, in a readily visible location on a part necessary for normal
vehicle or equipment operation before it is introduced into United
States commerce.
Section 213 gives EPA the authority to require nonroad equipment
manufacturers to use certified nonroad engines. For further discussion,
see ``V.F. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Definitions.''
13. Certification Procedures--Application Process
The engine manufacturer would be required to submit an application
to EPA requesting a certificate of conformity for each engine family
for every model or calendar year. Certificates would be issued to cover
production for a single model year. See ``V. W. Duration of
Certificates of Conformity, Definition of Model Year, Annual Production
Period'' for further discussion of these issues. An application for a
certificate would be submitted every model year even when the engine
family does not change from the previous certificate, although
representative test data could be reused in the succeeding model year's
application. If the emissions from the test engine were below the
applicable standards and EPA believed that all other requirements of
the regulation were met, EPA would issue a certificate of conformity
for that engine family.
The application would need to provide EPA with sufficient
information to determine the appropriate test results and emission
characteristics of the engine family. It would also allow EPA to
determine test engine compliance with the applicable emission standards
in a timely manner. It would be important that the engine manufacturer
succinctly, fully, and accurately submit all pertinent information to
EPA and maintain internal records which could be easily accessed if
such access is determined to be necessary by EPA.
If changes to an engine family configuration occur after the
application is submitted which cause the changed version to be the
engine family's worst case emitter, then emission testing of the
changed version is required. Additionally, the Administrator may
require a manufacturer to conduct testing to demonstrate compliance.
The application would be submitted to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Certification Division, Office of
Mobile Sources, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. A second copy
of the application would be forwarded to Manufacturers Operation
Division, Office of Mobile Sources, 401 M St., SW (Mail Code 6405J),
Washington, DC 20460. The application would include the following
information:
A description of the basic engine design including engine
family specifications,
A complete description and explanation of how the emission
control system operates, including a detailed description of all
emission control components, and a listing of the engine and emission
control calibrations,
Part numbers for all emission control components which
might reasonably be expected to affect emissions,
Proposed test engine selection and the rationale for such
a selection,
A description of the test engine starting instructions,
fuel, and lubricants to be used,
A description of the operating cycle and the service
accumulation period necessary to break in the test engine,
A description of all adjustable operating parameters,
Information relating why the physical limits or stops used
to establish the physically adjustable range of each parameter were
effective,
A description of the rated speed(s) and power(s) within
the engine family,
Fuel flow rates for each configuration within the engine
family,
The proposed maintenance instructions, the emission
warranty, and emission control label,
All test data obtained by the manufacturer on the test
engine,
A description of the test facilities, test equipment, and
test procedures,
A section which incorporated any revisions or amendments
to the application, including any production changes,
A list of official manufacturer contacts, organizational
chart, and individual designated to receive the certificate of
conformity,
The projected annual sales for the engine family,
A statement indicating which information in the
application was confidential, and
An unconditional statement certifying that all engines in
the engine family complied with all the requirements of the Clean Air
Act and this regulation.
14. Certification Procedures--Testing Overview and Preliminaries
EPA is proposing that the emission level used to certify an engine
family be equal to the highest emission test level reported for any
engine configuration in that family. The engine manufacturer would be
responsible for selecting and testing one engine from each engine
family which is most likely to be that engine family's worst case
emitter. The criterion for selecting the worst case engine would be
that engine configuration which has the highest weighted brake-specific
fuel consumption over the appropriate engine test cycle. EPA could
verify the test results by requiring Administrator testing of this
engine. EPA would also have the option to test any available test
engine representing other configurations in the engine family.
Before emission testing was carried out, the manufacturer would
perform service accumulation on each test engine over the dynamometer
hour accumulation cycle of its choice based on good engineering
practices (for example, a cycle representative of typical ``break-in''
operation of a new production engine in actual use). For each engine
family, the manufacturer would determine the number of hours required
to stabilize the emissions of the test engine. However, the number of
hours which the manufacturer chose could not exceed 12 hours. EPA does
not believe a break-in time greater that 12 hours is necessary to
stabilize new engine emissions. In addition, this cutoff is necessary
to ensure that EPA gets an equitable view of stabilized emissions over
all engine families which may vary with respect to HC and CO emission
degradation and NOX emission improvement with time. The
manufacturer would maintain, and provide in its application to the
Administrator, a record of the rationale used both in making the
dynamometer cycle selection and in making the service accumulation
hours determination.
The manufacturer would be required to conduct emission tests of
selected engine(s) using the proposed test procedure discussed herein.
Finally, the proposed rule does provide for Administrator approval of
special test procedures if the small SI engine is not capable of being
satisfactorily tested under the proposed test procedures.
15. Certification Procedures--Emission Test Procedure for HC, CO, and
NOX
EPA is proposing a single test procedure with three different test
cycles for measuring HC, CO, and NOx. One cycle would be for all
Class III, IV, and V engines (Cycle C), while two cycles would be
possible for Class I and II engines (Cycles A and B).
Cycle B would only be used for those Class I and II engine families
in which 100 percent of the engines were sold with a governor which
maintained engine speed within two percent of rated speed
(rated speed means the speed at which the manufacturer specifies the
maximum rated power of an engine) under all operating conditions. Cycle
B would be a 6-mode steady state cycle consisting of five power modes
at rated speed and one no-load mode at idle speed. For all other Class
I and II engines, the test cycle to be used would be Cycle A. Cycle A
would be identical to Cycle B, except the five power modes would be run
at intermediate engine speed (intermediate speed is defined as 85
percent of rated speed).
For Class III, IV, and V engines, the engine manufacturer would be
required to use Cycle C. Cycle C is a 2-mode steady state cycle
consisting of one power mode (at rated speed) and one no-load mode at
idle speed. The test modes for each cycle would be run in a prescribed
order.
The three test cycles (modes and power settings) documented in the
proposed regulations are based on work performed by the Society of
Automotive Engineer's (SAE) Small Engine Committee. The SAE Small
Engine Committee has published a recommended practice for measuring
gaseous exhaust emissions from small utility engines typically less
than 20 kW. This recommended procedure is known as SAE J1088. Test
Cycles A, B, and C are all taken from J1088. The mode weighting factors
are taken from work performed by CARB.
In addition, the International Standards Organization (ISO) has
published recommended test cycles for measuring exhaust emissions from
reciprocating internal combustion engines. Recommended exhaust gas
measurement procedures and test cycles for reciprocating internal
combustion engines are contained in ISO 8178, Part 4. ISO has three
test cycles for spark-ignition engines less than 20 kW termed G1, G2,
and G3 which are identical to SAE Cycles A, B, and C, respectively.
EPA believes the proposed test procedures are adequate for the
proposed emission standards. The purpose of a certification test
procedure is to adequately represent the emission levels produced by
the test engine when it is used in actual operation. The test procedure
in this proposed rule does this. The 6-mode test cycles (Cycle A and
Cycle B) used for Class I and II engines and the 2-mode cycle (Cycle C)
used for Class III, IV, and V engines were developed by the Society of
Automotive Engineer's Small Engine Committee to cover the broad range
of engine operating conditions seen by small engines. The weighting
factors were developed by CARB using data supplied by the small engine
industry. The weighting factors are intended to be representative of
the modes (speed and power conditions) used by the broad range of small
gasoline engines. The Agency believes these weighting factors are
sufficient for this proposed rule.
The methods used to measure the gaseous emissions of HC, CO, and
NOX for all small engines would be independent of the type of
engine and test cycle. EPA proposes to allow manufacturers to sample
emissions using either the Raw Gas Method (raw) or the Constant Volume
Sampling Method (CVS). Using either method, each test engine would be
stabilized at each mode before emission measurement began. After
stabilizing the power output during each mode, the concentration of
each pollutant, exhaust volume, and fuel flow would be determined. The
measured values would be weighted and then used to calculate the grams
of exhaust pollutant emitted per kilowatt-hour.
SAE J1088 contains a recommended procedure for the measurement of
gaseous emissions using the Raw Gas Method. A recommended testing
procedure, such as SAE J1088 or ISO 8178, by definition allows
sufficient flexibility for individual manufacturers to develop unique
features in their test procedures while still being within the
allowable guidance. This flexibility is not a desirable feature in a
regulatory program where both manufacturers and EPA want to ensure
uniformity between test labs, since conformity and compliance testing
decisions are binding on the parties involved. For this reason, the
test procedures proposed by EPA are not identical to SAE J1088 or ISO
8178, but are compatible with those procedures.
EPA understands the importance of compatibility between the EPA
proposed test procedures and those used to demonstrate emission
compliance for other regulatory agencies within the U.S. and throughout
the world. Compatibility allows a manufacturer to exercise the cost
efficiencies of using one engine configuration to demonstrate emission
compliance in more than one market. EPA has tried to establish a test
procedure that is compatible with both CARB's utility engine test
procedure and with ISO 8178. As a result, EPA expects that a
manufacturer using the resultant EPA procedure would also meet the CARB
and ISO requirements. However, since the SAE and ISO procedures are
recommended practices and do not have stringent test parameter
tolerances, a manufacturer using the SAE or ISO procedure may or may
not meet EPA requirements.
16. Administrator Testing
EPA is proposing Administrator testing provisions that allow EPA
flexibility in determining when and where engine testing may occur.
This is necessary given EPA's limited testing facilities.
Specifically, this provision would allow EPA to require test engine
testing at any given location, including at a manufacturer's facility.
The Administrator would be empowered to require the manufacturer to
make available such instrumentation and equipment that was specified by
the Administrator. Any testing conducted at a manufacturer's facility
would be scheduled by the manufacturer as promptly as possible.
Authorized EPA personnel would be given access to the facilities to
observe such testing.
17. Catalyst Durability
EPA expects the emission controls used to meet the exhaust emission
standards specified in this rulemaking to be durable so that emission
reduction benefits are realized not only when the engines are new, but
also during operation in-use, over time. Although EPA is not proposing
full emission control system durability demonstration requirements in
this notice, manufacturers are fully expected to design such systems to
be effective under normal in-use operating conditions over time. Full
emission control system durability demonstration requirements are
expected to be included in the Phase 2 regulations for small SI
engines. However, EPA has concerns that certain emission control
components, namely catalysts, warrant separate consideration.
Therefore, EPA is proposing durability demonstration requirements for
catalysts in this notice as discussed in greater detail in ``V. U.
Catalyst Durability.''
18. Information Requirements, Application for Certificate of
Conformity, Amendments
This rule's information retention requirements are similar to those
proposed in the nonroad large CI rule. EPA believes that the proposed
information requirements are sufficient to adequately determine
compliance with this regulation and the appropriateness of awarding a
certificate of conformity.
A manufacturer would be responsible for retaining certain
information applicable to each test engine along with copies of the
submitted applications for individual certificates of conformity. A
manufacturer would also be required to submit an amendment(s) to the
application or certificate of conformity whenever additional small SI
engines were added to an engine family or changes were made to a
product line covered by a certificate of conformity. Notification
normally would occur prior to either producing such engines or making
such changes to a product line.
19. Selective Enforcement Auditing Program
EPA is proposing to conduct a Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA)
program of small SI engines as authorized by section 213 of the CAA.
The small engine SEA program would be an emission compliance program
for new production small SI engines in which manufacturers would be
required to test engines as they leave the assembly line, with EPA
oversight. Through SEA testing, EPA could determine with reasonable
statistical certainty whether or not tested engine families were in
compliance with the Act.
EPA believes that an SEA program is necessary to verify that
production engines comply with applicable regulations. Since
certification would be based on preproduction prototype engines which
often contain specially built and installed components, production
engines could still fail to meet emission standards if quality control
was inadequate. SEAs would provide a means to test actual production
engines as they came off the assembly line. Since no in-use enforcement
program is being proposed for small SI engines, SEA provides the only
opportunity for EPA to determine the compliance of production engines.
EPA would assign a limit to the number of SEAs each manufacturer
could receive during a model year. As in the on-highway SEA program,
this annual limit would be used to provide assurance to manufacturers
that EPA would not significantly overburden a manufacturer with an
unreasonable number of audits during the model year.
Each SEA would be an audit of one engine family, and each passing
audit would count toward the manufacturer's annual limit. EPA is
proposing an annual limit of two for each manufacturer with projected
annual production of less than 100,000 engines. For manufacturers with
annual production of 100,000 or more engines the annual limit would be
the greater of either two or the number determined by dividing the
number of engine families certified in that model year by five, and
rounding to the nearest whole number. For example, a manufacturer with
a projected annual United States production of 600,000 engines with 13
certified engine families would have an annual limit of three, and a
manufacturer with a projected annual production of 300,000 small SI
engines and 22 engine families would have an annual limit of four.
EPA believes this method of determining annual limits is most
appropriate for the small SI engine industry. EPA is proposing the
minimum annual limit of two because manufacturers may change production
during the model year. If a manufacturer passed an SEA early in a model
year, the manufacturer might subsequently implement changes in its
production process which could increase engine emissions. With an
annual limit of two, EPA would have the flexibility to audit a
manufacturer early in the model year, and then return later in the
model year if that manufacturer implemented a change in production
which could increase engine emissions.
As described above, EPA is also proposing that manufacturers with
projected annual production of 100,000 small SI engines or more may
have an annual limit of more than two. EPA believes it might be
necessary to conduct more than two SEAs on larger engine manufacturers
when they have a large variety of engine families. When manufacturers
have a variety of engine families, an SEA might only check a small
portion of the manufacturers' production. Therefore, by dividing the
number of engine families certified by larger manufacturers by five,
EPA could establish a higher annual limit for those manufacturers with
a variety of engine families with different emission characteristics.
Manufacturers with lower production should be assured that EPA would
not overburden its limited test facilities with SEAs.
Annual limits would act as a cap and would not necessarily be the
actual number of audits a manufacturer received. EPA would not exceed a
manufacturer's annual limit unless the Agency had reason to believe
noncompliance was occurring. EPA requests comment on the proposed
method for determining annual limits. The SEA program strives to
encourage manufacturers to perform self-auditing and promptly remedy
the emission noncompliance it discovers. Therefore, EPA would consider
reducing the number of audits conducted by the Agency, minimizing
audits of engine families which are unusually burdensome to audit, or
both options, if the manufacturer provided substantial data to
demonstrate conformity of actual production engines with the applicable
emission standards. EPA suggests that manufacturers unfamiliar with
self-auditing review existing on-highway programs, such as CARB's
Quality Audit Program or the manufacturers' Assembly Line Test Data,
for guidance in implementing an in-house auditing program. Examples of
audit programs are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
EPA would review self-audit data and procedures used in acquiring
the data to assess the validity and representativeness of each
manufacturer's self-audit program. The primary criteria EPA would use
in evaluating the in-house programs are sample size, randomness within
the family of the audited engine(s), frequency of testing, and the
applicable required test procedures. EPA would discount the value of
any self-audit data if the Agency received indications of noncompliance
or concluded that the data were invalid, incomplete, unrepresentative,
or insufficient. In addition, manufacturers with a comprehensive self-
audit program would be subject to spot checks with EPA oversight to
provide EPA assurance of compliance. EPA requests comment on this
issue.
Manufacturers would be notified of an SEA by means of a test order.
This test order would specify the engine family to be audited. EPA
might also specify an engine configuration or range of configurations
from a family to be audited. However, EPA would reserve the option to
select all configurations within an engine family for an SEA. To
minimize the burden on manufacturers, EPA would consider requests by
manufacturers to exclude particular engines or engine configurations
from a test sample. Justification for such requests could be to avoid a
delay in shipment of urgent customer-ordered engines or to minimize
test cell set-up time by selecting engines of similar physical
configurations.
Test orders would include information relevant to the SEA. The test
order would indicate any specific procedures, such as the time to begin
selecting engines, during the course of the audit. Additionally, the
test order would authorize EPA enforcement officers, upon presentation
of enforcement credentials, to inspect engine production, test
facilities, storage facilities, and records necessary to establish
compliance with nonroad regulations.
Due to differences between the small SI industry and the on-highway
industry, EPA is proposing that some aspects of the on-highway SEA
program be modified for small SI engines. Historically, on-highway
engine SEAs have been conducted on engine configurations: a specific
engine family, an engine code, a rated speed and an emission control
system. EPA believes that making an entire small engine family subject
to an audit would lead manufacturers to use extra care when grouping
engines in a family. Consequently, EPA is proposing that nonroad SEAs
be conducted by sampling engines from within an engine family. EPA
requests comments on this aspect of the program.
SEA engines would typically be selected from a point of final
engine assembly or from a storage or shipping facility. Most often,
this selection point would be at the end of the engine assembly line,
where no further quality control procedures happen or parts would be
installed on the engines. Selection of imported engines could occur at
a port of entry. SEA engines could not receive any additional
inspections or quality control other than that of normal production
engines and pre-test safety checks. Engines would be tested in the same
order as they were selected. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of
selecting equipment, then removing the engine for audit testing.
EPA proposes to include ports of entry or storage locations in the
United States as locations for EPA selection of foreign- produced small
SI engines for SEA emission testing at laboratories in the United
States. The location of these selections could be designated by the
manufacturer to minimize disruption and shipping costs. The
manufacturer would be responsible for ensuring that a test facility in
the United States was available for SEA testing.
``Port selection'' would assist the Agency in reducing its travel
costs. Recently, in the on-highway program, EPA has had requests from
light-duty vehicle manufacturers to conduct port selection during SEAs.
These audits were performed and ran smoothly. EPA might permit
reasonable maintenance and inspections of port-selected engines to
address problems that could result from long-term storage, ocean
shipping, or repeated handling. EPA requests comments on the port
selection aspect of the SEA program.
Prior to testing SEA engines, manufacturers could operate engines
to break in engine components. This break-in or service accumulation of
an SEA engine family would follow the same procedures and could be up
to 12 hours or the same number of break-in hours accumulated for that
family's emission data engine during certification. Service
accumulation would be performed expeditiously and in a manner using
good engineering judgment.
Audit engines would be tested using the same test cycle, either
Test Cycle A, B, or C, as was used in certification; however,
deviations allowed in certification from the full test procedures as
described in proposed 40 CFR part 90 would not be permitted in SEAs.
EPA is proposing that small SI engines will be selected for SEA
testing at a rate of at least four engines per day, unless production
is less than four engines per day. To minimize delays in shipment of
engines to customers, manufacturers could test the first engines
selected for an audit while additional engines were produced.
The total number of engines tested in an SEA would be dictated by
the number of engines required to reach the statistically acceptable
pass/fail decision within the sampling plan applied. EPA is proposing a
sequential sampling plan for small SI engine SEAs. These sampling plans
have been designed to meet a 40 percent Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)
and to ensure low statistical risks of incorrect pass/fail
determinations. The maximum theoretical percentage of failing engines
for passing an SEA is 40 percent. EPA is proposing a 40 percent AQL for
the small SI engine SEA program. EPA has used this AQL since the 1970s
for the on-highway program, and EPA currently has no reason to propose
a different AQL for a nonroad program. EPA is proposing that the small
SI engine SEA program use the same sampling plans used for the on-
highway heavy-duty engine SEA program.
EPA proposes that engine manufacturers with projected United States
annual sales of 7,500 or greater must complete a minimum of two engine
tests per day during an SEA. Engine manufacturers with projected United
States annual sales of less than 7,500 would be required to complete a
minimum of one engine test per day during an SEA. A valid emission test
or a voided test would each count as one test toward meeting the
requirement. EPA requests comments on this aspect of the proposal.
A test engine's pass or fail determination would be made by
comparing final test results to the applicable federal emission
standard. Within five working days of the conclusion of an audit,
manufacturers would be required to submit a report to EPA summarizing
engine test results, test procedures, and audit events such as the
date, time, and location of each test, repairs to engines, and the
reason for the repair.
Failure of an SEA could result in suspension or revocation of the
certificate of conformity for that family. To have the certificate
reinstated subsequent to a suspension, or reissued subsequent to a
revocation, the manufacturer would be required to demonstrate, by
showing passing data, that improvements, modifications, or replacement
had brought the family into compliance. The proposed regulations
include hearing provisions which allow the manufacturer to challenge
EPA's suspension or revocation decision based on application of the
sampling plans or the manner in which tests were conducted.
20. Importation of Nonconforming Small SI Engines
EPA is proposing certain restrictions on the importation of
nonconforming small SI engines. Such restrictions are based in part on
the existing regulations for the importation of nonconforming motor
vehicles and motor vehicle engines.
While EPA provides for an Independent Commercial Importer (ICI)
program for motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, EPA is not
certain that an ICI program is necessary or practical for small SI
engines. For the on-highway program, ICIs are responsible for all
aspects of compliance required of manufacturers (e.g., certification,
testing, labeling, warranty, recall, maintaining records). EPA solicits
comment on the need for an ICI program for small SI engines. Due to the
uncertainty about the need for an ICI program, EPA is proposing in the
alternative both to have an ICI program that parallels that of the on-
highway program, and to have no ICI program in the final rule. EPA
currently favors no ICI program for small SI engines; if the Agency
determines not to promulgate an ICI program, the proposed regulatory
language will be deleted from the final rule.
This proposal includes a special provision for individuals to
import a limited number of nonconforming small SI engines for personal
use. EPA expects that individuals may not know of the regulations
applicable to small SI engines and, without this once in a lifetime
exemption, individuals may be stopped at a port of entry with small SI
engines and equipment included with their personal possessions.
Additionally, this exemption would relieve a significant burden on EPA
and the U.S. Customs Service. EPA is proposing that, at least for Phase
1 of these regulations, individuals be permitted to import up to three
nonconforming small SI engines and not have these engines brought into
compliance with the proposed standards. This is a one-time exemption
(for one importation) in which individuals are permitted to import
these engines for personal use and not for purposes of resale. This
exemption would not require prior EPA written approval. Additional
small SI engines, after an individual's limit of three, would not be
permitted to be imported under the proposal unless otherwise provided
under another exemption or exclusion. All small SI engines imported for
purposes of resale would be required to be imported and modified by an
ICI. If EPA does not finalize an ICI program, such engines may not be
imported for resale. EPA requests comment on this proposed exemption.
Today's proposal also provides certain exemptions to the
restrictions on importing nonconforming small SI engines. These include
exemptions for repairs and alterations, testing, precertification,
display, national security, hardship, small SI engines greater than 20
original production years old, and certain small SI engines proven to
be identical, in all material respects, to their corresponding United
States certified versions. These exemptions would also include the
exclusion of nonconforming engines used solely in competition.
EPA is not proposing to include provisions for a catalyst control
program for small SI engines. The catalyst control program for motor
vehicles consists of a special provision for catalyst-equipped vehicles
to be operated in countries where the catalyst may be poisoned by the
use of leaded fuel. In the on-highway catalyst control program, owners
may either have the catalyst removed while the vehicle is operated
outside of the United States or, if the vehicle is driven only in
countries that have a wide availability of unleaded gasoline,
demonstrate by using a plumbtesmo test that the vehicle was not
operated on leaded fuel. EPA is not proposing a catalyst control
program for small SI engines because EPA does not expect that U.S.
certified small SI engines equipped with catalysts will be used in
countries that do not have a wide availability of unleaded fuel and
then imported into the United States. Additionally, EPA has no
knowledge of the extent to which catalysts will be used on Phase 1
small SI engines. EPA requests comments on the absence of a catalyst
control program and the need for such a program for Phase 1 engines.
Finally, EPA is not proposing to include a provision for small SI
engine Designated Canadian Importer (DCI). EPA's motor vehicle import
program has a special provision in which DCIs may import and sell
Canadian vehicles that were manufactured to be identical in all
material respects to U.S. certified counterparts. Because EPA has no
indication that Canada will adopt EPA's Phase 1 small SI engine
standards, engines imported from Canada into the United States will
likely be nonconforming engines and thus would not be eligible to be
imported by a small SI engine DCI. Consequently, EPA expects that
provisions for small SI engine DCI are unnecessary. EPA requests
comment on the absence of a DCI program and the need for such a program
for Phase 1 engines.
Importation regulations are joint regulations between EPA and the
United States Department of the Treasury (Customs Service). The
citation for United States Customs Service, Department of Treasury
regulations governing import requirements is reserved. The citation
will be inserted upon promulgation by the United States Customs Service
of the applicable regulations.
21. Defect Reporting and Voluntary Recall
EPA is proposing that a manufacturer of small SI engines file a
defect information report whenever a manufacturer identifies the
existence of a specific emission-related defect in 25 or more engines
in a single engine family manufactured in the same model year. However,
no report would need to be filed if the defect was corrected prior to
the sale of the affected engines to the ultimate purchaser. These
proposed reporting requirements are similar to the requirements found
in the on-highway program. EPA is currently revising the on-highway
reporting program and new regulations will shortly be proposed. The new
regulations may encompass both on-highway and the nonroad sector.
EPA is also proposing that individual manufacturers establish, when
appropriate, voluntary recall programs. EPA is proposing limited
guidelines which engine manufacturers would follow when undertaking
such a program. EPA invites comments on how such a voluntary program
might be effectively structured.
22. Emission Defect Warranty Requirements
EPA is proposing that engine manufacturers provide an emission
warranty for the first two years of engine use. The two-year warranty
period was adopted from California's lawn and garden regulations to
reduce the burden on manufacturers of administering two different
warranty programs.
EPA is also considering ``hours of engine use'' as an alternative
measure for the warranty period. Under this option, an engine
manufacturer would need to install some form of metering device to
track the hours of use for an engine. EPA solicits comments on this
metering option, the feasibility of outfitting small engines with such
devices, and the feasibility of employing the useful life hours
generated in the Nonroad Study as a measure for an hours-based warranty
period.
EPA believes that a warranty program is necessary to ensure the
quality of emission control components and systems that are used on or
in nonroad engines and also to protect consumers from costly repairs
that result from manufacturing defects. Furthermore, a warranty program
gives the engine owner/operator the incentive to get emission-related
system failures repaired, since failures to the emission control system
do not always affect the ability of an engine to work.
The warranty requirements proposed today are consistent with
emission defect warranty policies developed for on-highway vehicles,
located in section 207(a) of the Act. Manufacturers of new nonroad
engines would warrant to the ultimate purchaser and each subsequent
purchaser that such engine was (1) designed, built, and equipped so as
to conform at the time of sale with applicable regulations under
section 213 of the Act, and (2) free from defects in materials and
workmanship which cause such engine to fail to conform with applicable
regulations for its warranty period. The related parts and components
covered by section 207(a) are detailed in an advisory parts list issued
by EPA on July 15, 1991, and encompass parts and systems which are or
may be used on small SI engines. A copy of the parts list is in the
public docket for this rulemaking. EPA invites comments on this parts
list and its applicability to small SI engines.
EPA is currently developing more detailed regulations that will
further clarify manufacturers' responsibilities under section 207(a)
for both on-highway and nonroad engines. EPA will rely on the existing
207(a) practices until those regulations are finalized.
23. Tampering Enforcement
Today's action would make it illegal for any person to tamper with
any emission-related component or system installed on or in a small SI
engine. EPA believes that an engine would more likely continue to meet
the applicable emissions standards in-use if the engine maintained its
certified configuration. Therefore, EPA believes it is necessary to
impose antitampering provisions for such engines and is proposing that
the existing policies developed for on-highway tampering also apply to
engines included in this rule. See Office of Enforcement and General
Counsel; Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A, June 25, 1974. A
copy of this memorandum is in the public docket for this rulemaking.
V. Discussion of Issues
This section contains further discussion of a number of issues
raised during the development of this proposal.
A. Use of Metric Units
Metric units are used throughout the proposed rule without English
equivalents. This is done in compliance with the Metric Conversion Act
of 1975, as amended, and Executive Order 12770, July 25, 1981, which
directs all federal agencies to use metric as the primary unit in
regulations by September 30, 1992 and to only provide English
equivalents when the affected party(s) uses English as the primary
unit.
EPA acknowledges slight differences between the two systems and the
use of mixed units by CARB. Comments are solicited on the impact of
using only metric units or the need for including the English
equivalent.
B. Use of Power Rating as Cutoff for Applicability
EPA is proposing to limit the applicability of this action to
engines at or below 19 kW (25 horsepower) rated power as compared to
CARB's 25 horsepower limit. EPA considered limiting the regulation's
applicability based instead on a total displacement, but has chosen to
propose a power-based cutoff for consistency with CARB.
EPA is aware that the measurement of rated power is subject to
engine configuration and test conditions, and that a cutoff based on
power might create an incentive for manufacturers with engines just
below the cutoff to change engine and/or test procedure parameters to
result in a higher measured power.
In examining data from Power Systems Research (PSR),\4\ EPA has
identified a relationship between total displacement and rated power
which suggests that a one-liter total displacement cutoff would affect
nearly an identical group of engines as a 19 kW cutoff. However, using
such a cutoff would cause a limited number of engines to be included
that would not be included using a 19 kW cutoff (that is, engines above
19 kW but less than one liter displacement). Examples include larger
two-stroke engines. A limited number of engines would also go
unregulated under this scenario (that is, engines under 19 kW but
greater than one liter). Examples include larger industrial four-stroke
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Power Systems Research (PSR), Engindata North America and
Parts Link Aftermarket, 1992, St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the differences in applicability between a power- and
displacement-based cutoff, EPA has chosen to propose the former despite
the potential advantages of the latter. EPA requests comment on the
appropriateness of instead limiting this regulation to engines under
one-liter total displacement (or a different displacement limit), or
limiting the applicability to engines that are below displacement or
power cutoffs. Comments should address the relative market and
environmental impact of the alternative approaches, as well as the
relative enforceability.
C. Exclusion of Compression-ignition Engines
EPA is not proposing to regulate small CI engines in this action.
As part of the Sierra Club v. Browner settlement, EPA will determine by
November 1996 whether to undertake a rulemaking which targets emissions
from small CI engines. CI engines have different emission
characteristics from the engines addressed by this proposal, emitting
much lower levels of HC and considerably higher levels of NOx than
small SI engines.
In contrast to the current proposal, which is focused on achieving
reductions in emissions of HC, a regulation addressing CI engines would
likely focus on NOx. EPA lacks sufficient data regarding baseline
emissions and control technologies for nonroad CI engines in this power
range to determine appropriate standards at this time. Therefore EPA
has chosen to exclude these engines from the current proposal, which is
aimed at achieving significant reductions in small engine HC emissions
on an expedited basis.
EPA is raising this as an issue because of the potential that
unregulated CI engines could be substituted for post-control SI
engines. In EPA's view, while this may occur in some cases (for
example, small agricultural tractors), the most price-sensitive
products such as string trimmers and lawnmowers are unlikely to shift
significantly toward CI engines due to technological limitations,
consumer preference, or both.
The Agency solicits comment on the exclusion of compression-
ignition engines, and on the appropriate test procedure and standards
that should be applied to CI engines if they were to instead be covered
by this regulation.
D. Exclusion of Recreational Propulsion Engines
EPA is proposing to exclude engines used in recreational vehicles,
examples of which include snowmobiles, off-road motorcycles, and all-
terrain vehicles. Golf carts do not qualify as recreational vehicles
under this proposal, and they would be subject to the emission
standards of this rule. Engines used in such recreational vehicles are
defined by the following characteristics: Use of a continuously
variable throttle (as opposed to a governor), rated engine speeds in
excess of 5,000 RPM, and wide variations in both engine load and speed.
EPA's primary reason for this exclusion is the extremely transient
operation of the products in which these engines are used, which limits
the ability of the proposed steady state test procedure to adequately
represent exhaust emissions. This exclusion is not based on a
determination that these engines do not contribute to air pollution and
therefore need not be controlled. EPA has chosen to exclude engines
used in recreational vehicles in order that it may proceed quickly with
a program for other small SI engines. As part of the Sierra Club v.
Browner settlement, EPA will determine by November 1996 whether to
undertake a rulemaking which targets emissions from engines used in
recreational vehicles.
EPA solicits comment on the exclusion of engines used in
recreational vehicles, on the criteria used to identify such engines,
and on the appropriate test procedure and emission standards if EPA
were to include such engines in this proposal.
E. Exclusion of Marine Propulsion Engines
EPA proposes to exclude marine propulsion engines, examples of
which, in this power range, include outboard marine engines. EPA is
developing emission standards for marine propulsion engines in a
separate action. However, small SI engines used on marine vessels for
purposes other than propulsion, such as generators and pumps, are not
excluded in this proposal.
F. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Definitions
EPA is proposing to incorporate in this rule the nonroad engine
definition proposed in the large CI rule. EPA will include in this rule
any changes to that definition included in the final large CI rule. EPA
is also proposing to amend the definition of nonroad vehicle proposed
there by adding the following sentence: ``Nonroad vehicle also includes
equipment that is powered by nonroad engines.''
The statutory definition of nonroad vehicle adopted by Congress in
the 1990 CAA Amendments provides little guidance as to what is a
nonroad vehicle. Rather, statutory language describes only what is not
a nonroad vehicle, namely, motor vehicles and vehicles used solely for
competition. A review of the Conference Report, the Statement of Senate
Managers, and the Statement of House Managers does not provide any
additional guidance. It is necessary to examine both the House and
Senate Committee Reports of the original legislation before this issue
is discussed.
The United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Report on H.R. 3030, offers some insight into the meaning of
both nonroad engine and vehicle. In part the report states, ``(T)he
term `nonroad engine' is defined for purposes of this section to
include certain internal combustion engines not used in a motor vehicle
or a competition vehicle, while a nonroad vehicle is a vehicle powered
by (a) nonroad engine that is not a motor vehicle and not used solely
for competition. Stationary internal combustion engines are to be
regulated under Title I of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, and
are not subject to the requirements of this section.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\H. Rep., Legislative History of the 1990 Amendments to the
Clean Air Act of 1990, Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany
H.R. 3030, May 17, 1990, at 310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally enlightening is the report of S. 1630 from the United
States Senate, Committee of Environment and Public Works, which
discusses at some length the Committee's understanding of what the
terms nonroad engine and nonroad vehicle mean. A pertinent part of the
report states,
* * * ``non-road engines'' include a wide range of engine uses and
vehicles. The term includes, for example, diesel locomotives, farm
and construction equipment, utility engines such as lawn and garden
equipment, marine vessels, forklifts and airport vehicles. The
definition in the bill for non-road vehicles is an inclusive one
that covers all engines that are not used in motor vehicles, or in a
vehicle used solely for competition in vehicle racing, that are not
regulated by standards promulgated under section 111 of the Act, and
that are not subject to regulation under part B of title I of the
Act, related to aircraft.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\S. Rep. Legislative History of the 1990 Amendments to the
Clean Air Act, Committee on Environment and Public Works to
accompany S. 1630, December 20, 1989, at 104-105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that Congress used the terms ``non-road engine,''
``equipment,'' and ``vehicle'' interchangeably. It is EPA's belief that
Congress intended nonroad vehicles and nonroad engines to be inclusive
terms covering all manner of equipment not defined as motor vehicles,
vehicles for competition, and stationary sources. Furthermore, there is
a practical interrelationship between an engine and the equipment that
houses it or is powered by it. Equipment or vehicle characteristics may
have a significant impact on the emissions associated with the
operation of the engine. The nonroad engine definition proposed in the
large CI rule and incorporated in this rulemaking relies to a great
extent on this interrelationship between an engine and a piece of
equipment to determine whether an engine is a nonroad engine. In future
development of a small SI engine program, it may become necessary and
appropriate to regulate aspects of equipment to control fuel spillage,
evaporative emissions, or refueling emissions. EPA believes that CAA
section 213 provides authority for such regulation.
G. Definition of Handheld Equipment
EPA is proposing that engines intended for use in equipment defined
as handheld be certified to standards much less stringent than those
applicable to engines used in nonhandheld equipment. However, on a
percentage basis, the reductions obtained from handheld and nonhandheld
engines will be of similar magnitude. Because of the unique
characteristics of handheld 2-stroke engines, it is not feasible, given
the timing of this proposal and the unique performance requirements of
handheld equipment, to require that all engines covered in this
proposal meet emission levels that can be achieved by 4-stroke engines
used in nonhandheld equipment.
This distinction is based, in part, on the substantial difference
between emissions from current 4-stroke and 2-stroke engines, which is
an inherent result of the design differences of these engines. Because
of scavenging losses, current 2-stroke engines generally emit
approximately ten times more unburned HC (on an energy-specific basis)
than their 4-stroke counterparts.
However, current 2-stroke engines are generally lighter than
current 4-stroke engines of the same rated power and can be operated in
any orientation. As a result, applications requiring that the operator
pick up and/or carry the device while using it (for example, chain
saws), are nearly exclusively powered by 2- stroke engines. On the
other hand, nonhandheld applications such as lawnmowers, which are
currently sold in both 2-stroke and 4-stroke versions, can clearly be
powered by 4-stroke engines. Approximately 90 percent of the lawnmowers
sold in the United States are powered by 4-stroke engines. Section VII
discusses the present market mix of small engines.
EPA is proposing to distinguish between ``handheld'' and
``nonhandheld'' equipment in a manner that is similar to that adopted
by CARB. However, EPA proposes to clarify and expand on California's
handheld definition.
First, in cases where the operator carries all of the equipment's
weight during engine operation, the equipment would be classified as
handheld. Second, where the equipment is clearly required to operate in
any position the equipment would also be classified as handheld.
California's handheld definition requires that the equipment must both
be carried and used multipositionally in order to qualify for handheld
status. EPA requests comment on whether this approach may preclude
equipment which is in practice ``handheld'' from qualifying for
handheld status. The proposed federal definition does not require that
both stated criteria be present for a given piece of equipment to
qualify as handheld. One criterion is sufficient. It is EPA's intent
that the preceding two criteria allow leafblowers, trimmers (both
string and hedge), cutters, or chain saws to qualify for handheld
status.
In addition, EPA is proposing that engines be allowed to meet Class
III, IV, or V standards if the dry weight of the equipment they are
used in, including engine weight, is under 14 kg, there are no more
than two wheels present on the equipment, and at least one of the
following three attributes is also present: (1) The operator
alternately provides support or carries the equipment throughout its
performance; (2) the operator provides support and attitudinal control
for the equipment throughout its performance; (3) the engine is used
exclusively in a generator or pump.
EPA believes that a weight-based criterion is an appropriate
initial determinant of whether a 2-stroke engine can be handheld.
Industry data show clear weight distinctions between those engines
which are ``lightweight'' and made for handheld operations and those
which are not. For example, review of industry brochures revealed that
2-stroke engines were almost always found in equipment under 14 kg. In
addition, the presence of not more than two wheels in a given piece of
equipment is another important indicator of the need for an operator to
either support, carry, or provide attitudinal control for the
equipment.
The first attribute seeks to classify as ``handheld'' equipment
which is either carried or supported by the operator throughout the
entire engine operation. An operator carries equipment when the full
weight of the equipment is borne by the operator. Support means that
the operator holds the equipment in position so as to prevent it from
falling, slipping, or sinking. The entire weight of the equipment is
not necessarily borne by the operator. Legitimate sources of support
might include the ground, ice, wood, or concrete. EPA intends that
lightweight snowblowers, edgers, and augers qualify for handheld status
under this first attribute.
The second attribute classifies as ``handheld'' equipment which
requires either operator support or attitudinal control during the
entire operation. Attitudinal control means the operator regulates
either the horizontal or vertical position of the equipment. This
definition is meant to allow certain lightweight tillers, augers, or
edgers to qualify for handheld status. Both ice and earth augers must
be carried to each drill site by the operator, and must be supported by
the operator during operation. In addition, the operator must control
the vertical attitude of the equipment during operation including
pulling upward after each hole is drilled. Tillers without wheels or
with no more than two wheels are designed to be supported or picked up
frequently during operation while maneuvering between rows in a garden.
Likewise, the vertical and horizontal position of the tiller is
controlled by the operator.
Finally, the third attribute acknowledges that engines used in
lightweight pumps and generators should be allowed to meet the handheld
emission standards. Like augers, lightweight generators and pumps are
carried to the work site by the operator and may operate at significant
distances from electrical-power outlets.
All other equipment would be classified as nonhandheld equipment.
Examples of nonhandheld equipment include lawnmowers, compressors, lawn
tractors, garden tractors, tillers with wheels, chippers/grinders, and
log splitters.
EPA believes that the proposed handheld definition identifies
sufficient criteria by which all handheld equipment types may be
classified. However, it may still be possible that certain equipment
types which are in practice handheld applications would not meet this
definition. EPA is considering whether to institute a ``case-by-case
review process'' so that, where appropriate in the Administrator's
judgment, engines used in specific types of nonhandheld equipment would
either be reclassified as handheld or would be allowed to meet the
handheld emission standards as if that type of equipment was classified
as handheld. In such cases, the Administrator might consider factors
including, but not necessarily limited to the following: Equipment
function and design (for example, handle placement); equipment
capability; equipment weight; engine weight; rated power;
multipositional operating requirements; presence and number of wheels;
presence of other weight supports; availability of similar 4-stroke,
electric, and/or nonpowered models by the same manufacturer or
competitors; typical operating profiles (including season of use), and
nationwide annual industry-wide sales. The manufacturer requesting such
a review might be required to demonstrate, based on these and any other
pertinent factors, that a 2-stroke engine clearly was a necessary
design feature of the equipment concerned.
EPA is currently aware of at least one type of equipment that, in
EPA's view, might need to be evaluated through such a process. Unlike
CARB, EPA is not allowing all currently produced 2-stroke snowthrowers
to meet standards applicable to engines used in handheld equipment. In
approving its regulations, California accepted arguments that
nonhandheld 2-stroke snowthrowers should be allowed an exemption from
the nonhandheld standards to meet emission standards for handheld
engines. In EPA's view, at least two factors could have formed a basis
for this decision: First, snowthrowers are operated in the winter,
which means that they do not significantly impact ozone nonattainment
and thus need not be subject to stringent control aimed at improving
ambient air quality; and second, at least some of the lightweight 2-
stroke snowthrowers that were exempted from nonhandheld standards
appear to be designed to be picked up while in operation (for example,
to clear porch steps), implying that the use of a 4-stroke engine would
significantly limit critical performance features.
While the first of these factors raises questions regarding the
need to control emissions at all from products that are clearly only
used in the winter, regardless of their classification as handheld or
nonhandheld, those questions must also be weighed against the need to
address CO emissions, and the need to protect the health of equipment
operators. The second factor reveals potential problems with CARB's
definition of ``handheld.'' Specifically, CARB's action with regard to
snowthrowers raises questions regarding other ``fringe'' products.
EPA believes that it would be appropriate to classify as handheld
equipment lightweight snowthrowers under 14 kg which have no more than
two wheels and which would either be carried or supported during
operation. All other snowthrowers would be classified as nonhandheld
and required to meet the standards that were generally applicable to
engines used in nonhandheld equipment. EPA solicits comment on this
proposal.
Under EPA's proposed definitions, lawnmowers will be classified as
nonhandheld equipment and thus engines used in lawnmowers must meet the
more stringent nonhandheld emission standards. Manufacturers of 2-
stroke lawnmower engines have raised concerns over their economic
survival if required to meet nonhandheld standards, based on their
doubt that cost-effective technology now exists to bring their 2-stroke
engines into timely compliance. EPA requests comment on the ability of
2-stroke lawnmower engine manufacturers to meet the nonhandheld
standards, the impact such a requirement would have on such
manufacturers, the need for relief for such manufacturers, and the
impact such relief might have on the environmental benefits of this
proposal.
EPA further requests comment on the following options for providing
relief to 2-stroke lawnmower engine manufacturers: (1) Provide an
extended effective date, such as 1998, for 2-stroke lawnmower engines
to meet the nonhandheld standards; (2) allow 2- stroke lawnmower
engines to meet the handheld engine standards until the effective date
of the second phase of small SI engine regulations; (3) cap the number
of 2-stroke lawnmowers allowed to certify to the handheld standards to
the number sold in the year this proposal is published or promulgated
until the effective date of the second phase of small SI engine
regulations; or (4) allow a declining percentage of 2-stroke lawnmower
engines to meet the handheld standards, such as 100 percent in 1996, 75
percent in 1997, 50 percent in 1998, and 25 percent in 1999, so that by
the year 2000, all 2-stroke lawnmower engines sold would meet the
nonhandheld emission standards.
EPA solicits comment on the proposed definition of handheld
equipment and on the potential process for handling those types of
equipment that may pose difficulties to classification. EPA also
requests comment on the specific cases discussed. Finally, EPA solicits
comment on alternative definitions that may be appropriate. Alternative
definitions of ``handheld equipment'' might include, but need not be
limited to, the following elements:
Lack of wheels or other means of support (other than
operator), I11 Overall weight below some limit such as 10 kg or
20 kg, and
Portion of overall weight attributable to current engine
above some minimum, such as 75 percent.
Conversely, alternative definitions of ``nonhandheld equipment'' could
include elements such as:
Presence of wheels or other means of support other than
operator,
Overall weight above some minimum such as 10 kg or 20 kg,
and
Portion of overall weight attributable to current engine
below some limit such as 75 percent.
It should be recognized that recent engineering developments may
eventually obviate the need to provide different standards for handheld
and nonhandheld equipment engines. Future technical solutions may
provide engines used in all applications with comparable emission
performance capability. For example, one firm has recently announced
plans to begin marketing portable string trimmers, traditionally
powered by either electricity or 2-stroke gasoline engines, that are
instead powered by lightweight, high-speed 4-stroke engines. This
company claims to achieve emission rates much lower than either current
2-stroke engines or engines that would meet the handheld standards
proposed in this rulemaking. Numerous efforts are also under way to
develop direct injection systems applicable to larger 2-stroke engine-
systems that may be able to bring emissions from engines such as those
used for outboard marine engines down to levels equivalent to a well-
calibrated 4-stroke engine in the same power range. However, the
applicability of direct injection systems to small engines used in
handheld applications has not yet been investigated. In developing
Phase 2 standards, EPA intends to revisit this issue in its entirety
and may combine all engines under one set of standards, modify the
definitions of nonhandheld and handheld equipment, as well as the
applicable standards, or may promulgate an entirely different
regulatory structure.
H. Requirements Applicable to Vehicle and Equipment Manufacturers
EPA is proposing to require that vehicle and equipment
manufacturers and importers use the appropriate handheld or nonhandheld
certified engine in their vehicles and equipment. Section 213 gives EPA
the authority to require nonroad vehicle and equipment manufacturers
and importers to use certified nonroad engines. EPA has determined that
the most effective way to ensure that certified engines are used in
nonroad vehicles and equipment is to require that manufacturers and
importers use such engines. Without such a requirement, there would be
no penalty for vehicle and equipment manufacturers that knowingly
purchase noncomplying engines, thus undercutting the entire program.
EPA is proposing that vehicle and equipment manufacturers and
importers be subject to the prohibition, injunction, and penalty
provisions of CAA sections 203, 204, and 205, except that only the
nonroad engine in the vehicle or equipment, rather than the vehicle or
equipment itself, would need to be certified for compliance. Although
engine manufacturers will bear the burden of certification under this
proposal, the focus of enforcement will fall to some extent on vehicle
and equipment manufacturers because they determine whether a handheld
or nonhandheld engine is appropriate for use in their vehicle or
equipment and will ensure that those engines are certified.
No federal paperwork or reporting burden would be imposed on
vehicle and equipment manufacturers by the requirement that certified
nonroad engines be used. This is consistent with the nonroad large CI
engine proposal (58 FR 28809 at 28815 (May 17, 1993) and 58 FR 51595 at
51597 (October 4, 1993)).
Only new engines manufactured on or after the effective date of
this rule would be subject to the provisions of this rule. For example,
rebuilt engines originally manufactured prior to the effective date of
this rule would not be subject to this rule. Rebuilt engines originally
manufactured after the effective date of this rule would be subject
only to the tampering provisions. New replacement engines manufactured
after the effective date would be subject to this rule. EPA requests
comment on whether there is any need for manufacturers to produce
replacement engines for use in pre-1996 equipment, and the extent of
such a need, if any.
Labeling requirements proposed in this notice may also impact
nonroad vehicle and equipment manufacturers and importers.
I. Effective Date
EPA is proposing an effective date of August 1, 1996 for this
rulemaking. This midyear effective date coincides with model changeover
in the small SI engine industry. Engines manufactured on or after
August 1, 1996 for use within the United States would have to meet the
standards and requirements included in this rulemaking.
Vehicle and equipment manufacturers that use regulated engines
would be required to use appropriate certified nonroad engines in their
vehicles and equipment after August 1, 1996. EPA requests comment on
whether a separate effective date for nonroad vehicle and equipment
manufacturers should be established and, if so, whether that date
should be three months after the August 1, 1996 effective date for
nonroad engine manufacturers (that is, November 1, 1996). It appears,
based on best available data, that the start of large volume equipment
production is approximately November 1 of every year. EPA is
considering this separate effective date because it is concerned that
equipment manufacturers have small inventories of noncertified engines
that could not be incorporated into equipment by the August 1 effective
date. EPA would consider extending this flexibility to six months, that
is, February 1, 1997, if manufacturers could quantitatively demonstrate
that the increased risk of stockpiling noncertified engines by the
equipment manufacturers would be minimal and the inventory buildup
would be normal. EPA also requests comment on whether a separate
effective date for equipment manufacturers should be based on
introduction of equipment into commerce, rather than the date of
equipment manufacture.
The August 1996 effective date allows engine manufacturers over two
years of lead time from the date of this proposal, and more than one
year beyond the 1995 implementation date imposed by CARB. EPA is not
proposing the same effective date as CARB in order to allow
manufacturers some lead time between the CARB and federal effective
dates to bring preempted engines into compliance; however, EPA requests
comment on the feasibility of a 1995 effective date for federal
standards, particularly for those engines that are not preempted from
state regulation.
While EPA acknowledges the need for sufficient lead time to perform
research, develop testing capacity, apply emission control technology,
and manufacture clean engines, EPA's view is that engine manufacturers
have been aware for a considerable period of time that emission
regulations were likely to impact their products in the near future. In
1990, CARB was required under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) to
develop emission standards for lawn and garden and utility equipment
engines by December of 1990. In November of 1990, Congress amended the
federal Clean Air Act, requiring that EPA study emissions of nonroad
engines and vehicles by November of 1991 and promulgate applicable
regulations by November of 1992 if these sources were found to
contribute significantly to air pollution. At a public workshop held in
March of 1992, EPA discussed the importance of emissions from small SI
engines, announcing its intent to develop applicable regulations.
Consequently, manufacturers have known since March 1992, at the latest,
that EPA was planning to develop standards applicable to their
products, and have already had more than two years to assess emission
control technologies and develop testing capacity.
Several state and environmental interest groups have expressed
concerns that a 1996 effective date delays the realization of
reductions of in-use air pollutant emissions unnecessarily and limits
the ability of many states to adhere to the schedules mandated in the
CAA for reasonable further progress toward volatile organic compound
reductions from 1990 levels and for attainment of the ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard. Manufacturers have argued that a 1996
effective date offers too little lead time given that this proposed
rule covers various categories of equipment that California is
preempted from regulating.
Both the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and the Engine
Manufacturers Association have requested that EPA extend the effective
date to 1997 for all engines. The Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association has requested that EPA extend it to 1997 for
engines regulated and sold in California and to 1999 for preempted
engines and engines discontinued in California. These industry
association requests are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In all cases, these associations have argued that more lead time is
needed to apply these standards to nationwide sales.
EPA requests comment on the impact of its proposed effective date
on both engine and equipment manufacturers. EPA also requests comment
on alternative effective dates, including phased effective dates, such
as 1996 for nonpreempted engines and 1997 for preempted engines, or a
phase-in by engine size where Class I, II, III, IV, and V engines would
meet the applicable standards at different times based on environmental
impact and lead time constraints.
J. Selection of Worst Case Emitter
EPA is proposing to use the criteria of highest weighted brake-
specific fuel consumption (BSFC) over the appropriate engine test cycle
to determine that engine configuration within an engine family which
will be selected as the certification test engine. EPA believes that
BSFC is an appropriate criterion for selecting a worst case emitter. In
particular, EPA believes that an engine configuration with high BSFC
will generally emit higher levels of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide
than a second configuration in the same engine family which has a lower
BSFC. EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness of weighted BSFC as
the criterion to be used for selecting the worst case emitter.
EPA considered one alternative method of selecting the worst case
emitter. EPA considered leaving the selection of the worst case emitter
up to the engine manufacturer with the guideline that the engine
manufacturer must test that engine configuration within an engine
family which is most likely to exceed any emission standard. EPA
solicits comment on the appropriateness of this approach for selecting
the worst case emitter.
K. Adequacy of Test Cycle
The test procedure proposed in this notice is capable of predicting
emission reductions at the level of proposed emission standards. The
proposed test cycles are based on the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) recommended practice #J1088. This is a procedure that measures
emissions over a number of steady state operating modes or conditions
(speed/load points) and determines average emissions over the entire
test cycle by weighting the modes relative to their likely occurrence
in actual use. Much of the emission assessment work to date has
occurred using the J1088 test procedures.
EPA has determined that the types of technology that will be forced
by setting standards using the proposed test cycle will result in real
emission reductions in actual use. The current feasible technologies
are analogue in nature. Thus, when a technology is demonstrated to
reduce emissions on six discrete points on the engine speed/load
performance curve, EPA expects these technologies will perform in a
continuum between those test points. No large emission spikes will
occur under operating conditions that were not specifically tested.
No time is available to develop a more accurate test cycle. While
improvements can be made and must be studied before proposing more
stringent emission standards that require more sophisticated
technologies, EPA has determined this test cycle is adequate to produce
the desired emission reductions expected by the proposed emission
standards.
As part of the Phase 2 emission regulation process, EPA has
identified three test modes of the test cycle that it intends to study.
First, EPA wants to evaluate whether the test procedure should be run
using the engine's governor to control throttle. Second, EPA wants to
evaluate the method by which the load points used in the test cycle are
determined. Third, EPA wants to study the sensitivity of emissions to
the operating conditions not used in the test cycle to ensure emission
benefits are not being overlooked.
Operating the engine directly on the governor as opposed to on the
throttle is allowed in the current test procedure as proposed. However,
it is optional and most manufacturers choose to run the test by
directly controlling the throttle. Manufacturers do this to reduce the
factors that can add variability to the test. EPA believes that, since
engines in use are controlled by the governor, a test cycle that
simulates actual operation as closely as possible has the potential to
predict real in-use emissions more accurately. Before such a change is
adopted, EPA intends to analyze the validity of this hypothesis.
The average power generated during the test cycle has a large
impact on the emission result. The emission standards are based on the
mass emission generated for the amount of work accomplished (g/kWh).
Since power is a factor in how much work can be accomplished, it weighs
heavily in the final mass emission result. EPA wants to ensure that the
test cycle does not reflect how much power (and thus work) the engine
is capable of achieving, but is reflective of how much power the
equipment actually commands from the engine as it does its work. EPA is
concerned that the actual power drawn by equipment in actual use is
lower than the average power drawn from the engine during the proposed
test procedures. EPA does not have time to adequately verify this
hypothesis within the timeline of this rule, but intends to do this
during the Phase 2 rulemaking process.
Finally, EPA has not verified that the operating modes in the
proposed test procedures are the optimal representation of what happens
in actual use. Any test cycle is at best an approximation of the
operating conditions experienced by engines in actual use. Indeed, any
one engine will be installed in a range of equipment types and will
experience a different operating environment in each application. To
determine if the test procedures are doing the best possible job at
estimating real world operation, EPA intends to collect data on a full
range of operating conditions that are not represented in the current
test cycle. Manufacturers have presented histograms of a range of
equipment operations such that, for purposes of this notice, the test
cycle is directionally acceptable. Further investigation may result in
a determination that the current cycle adequately covers the range of
operation. However, time is not available to make that determination in
this proposal.
Any of the above mentioned changes to the current proposed test
cycle or procedures would require extensive testing and development.
All emission data to date is based on the proposed test procedures.
Before introducing any change in the test procedures EPA would have to
develop emission standards based on the revised procedures and would
have to assess emission impact on the procedures. The current timeline
constraints provide neither adequate time to properly assess whether
any of these changes would benefit the program, nor adequate time to
develop appropriate emission standards using the revised procedures.
Faced with these constraints, EPA believes that the proposed test
procedures are the best available to ensure early emission reduction
from the engines covered in this notice.
L. Alternative, Oxygenated, and Reformulated Fuels
EPA is not proposing the requirement of any specific type of fuel
to be used in engines produced to meet the proposed emission standards.
EPA's proposal would require that all SI engines under 19 kW meet the
proposed standards. This includes SI engines which run on
``alternative'' fuels, such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and natural
gas. A few research papers have been published which indicate well
calibrated spark-ignition engines running on LPG fuel may be able to
meet the proposed emission standards with less difficulty than an
equivalent engine running on gasoline. EPA proposes to let the engine
manufacturer decide what type of fuel a given engine application will
use and not require any specific engine to use a ``cleaner'' fuel.
EPA's proposal would not allow engines which are designed to run on
gasoline to perform certification emission testing using an alternative
fuel. EPA understands that oxygenated and reformulated gasoline fuel is
currently available in different areas around the United States.
However, availability of oxygenated and reformulated fuels varies
widely across the country. EPA does not have information that would
provide adequate assurance that the alternative fuel, and not gasoline,
would be used in these engines in actual use. Faced with the difficulty
of tracking small SI engine owners, EPA does not have adequate
resources, nor an adequate tracking mechanism to enforce a requirement
that small SI engine owners use only the specified alternative fuel. At
the same time, preliminary tests performed on small engines using
reformulated and oxygenated fuels show approximately a three to five
percent improvement in exhaust emission levels of CO and total HC. See
the draft RSD in the docket for further discussion of this issue.
Reformulated fuel was designed to lower HC levels from on-highway
vehicles, primarily engines with fuel injection and catalytic
convertors. EPA is not convinced it can reasonably expect the same type
of benefit from carbureted single and two-cylinder engines. EPA
solicits comment on the feasibility of requiring small SI engines to
run only on oxygenated or reformulated fuels.
M. HC + NOX Standard for Class I and II Engines
EPA is considering two options for setting Class I and II HC and
NOx standards. Option 1 would consist of setting a combined standard
for emissions of HC and NOX for Class I and II engines. Under
option 2, EPA would set separate HC and NOX emission levels for
Class I and II engines.
Regardless of which option EPA chooses, it anticipates that
NOX emission rates from engines meeting this proposed rule's
standards will be generally higher than those extremely low NOX
levels emitted by current engines. The Agency views this as an
inevitable consequence of the level of HC reduction being achieved in
this rule. Furthermore, EPA estimates that the resulting increase in
NOX emission inventories would be slight enough in this particular
case to be warranted given the much greater decrease in HC emission
inventories. See ``VI. Environmental Benefit Assessment'' in this
preamble.
Nonroad small SI engines currently operate on an extremely rich
fuel and air mixture--in other words, one that contains a very high
proportion of fuel relative to that used by, for example, automotive
engines. Because this results both in less complete combustion and much
lower peak combustion temperatures, exhaust concentrations of unburned
HC are extremely high, while concentrations of NOX are extremely
low. As a result, small SI engines contribute appreciably to HC
emission inventories, but very little to NOX emission inventories.
In the 19 ozone nonattainment areas studied by EPA in the 1991
Nonroad Study, emissions from all nonroad sources, on average,
represented ten percent of total HC emissions and 17 percent of total
NOX emissions. Of those contributions, small SI engines
contributed an average of 50 percent of total HC from nonroad sources,
but only one percent of total NOX. In contrast, nonroad large CI
engines, for which EPA has proposed NOX standards, contributed an
average of ten percent of total HC from nonroad sources and 75 percent
of total NOX. Consequently, EPA's primary focus in developing
emission standards for small SI engines is achieving sizeable
reductions in HC emission rates.
Given the extremely rich operation of small SI engines, EPA does
not believe that small engine technology is available to prevent
NOX levels from increasing while HC levels decrease substantially
within the short lead time period set forth in this proposal. While it
may be possible in some isolated cases to employ automotive-type
emission control systems relying on closed-loop operation and three-way
catalytic converters, the state of development of such technology is
not ready for small engine application in the short lead time proposed.
Furthermore, the sensitivity of such systems to in-use deterioration
and malmaintenance would greatly lessen their in-use effectiveness
given the state of the service industry available to these engines.
EPA has estimated that by the year 2020, when current equipment
turnover is projected, the proposed emission standards would result in
approximately a 32 percent reduction in HC emission from current
levels, or 356,710 tons per year. Under the same timeframe, in-use
NOX emission rates would be expected to increase 1.36-fold, or
34,000 tons per year. Given the magnitude of the relative contribution
of these small SI engines to HC and NOX emission inventories in
ozone nonattainment areas, EPA believes this projected decrease in HC
and increase in NOX levels would be consistent with EPA's
statutory mandate that emissions standards reflect the greatest
emission reductions achievable. This is especially the case in light of
the fact that this rule would increase the national NOX inventory
by about one quarter of one percent, while EPA's nonroad large CI
engine regulations would reduce the national NOX inventory by
about four percent.
EPA anticipates that, given the magnitude of the HC reduction
proposed, emission rates would be marginally sensitive enough that
near-term compliance with separate emission standards at the proposed
level of stringency could be difficult in some cases, whereas
compliance with a combined standard is expected to be achievable.
However, EPA is concerned that establishing a combined standard
might be viewed as setting a precedent for future rulemakings. EPA does
not intend to establish any such precedent, and is considering a
combined standard for Phase 1 only due to the present lack of available
data for setting a separate NOX standard, the current lack of
technology for achieving NOX reductions simultaneously with HC
reductions for the subject engines and vehicles, the need to achieve HC
reductions as soon as possible under the Phase 1 rule, and the desire
to harmonize with California's standards.
EPA requests comment on a combined standard (option 1). EPA also
requests comments and data supporting separate numerical standards for
HC and NOX (option 2). Based on information currently available to
EPA, if it were necessary to develop separate standards, the NOX
standard would be approximately 136 percent higher than current new
engine levels, while the HC standards would be approximately equal to
the difference between those levels and the proposed HC+NOX
standards.
N. CO Standard for Handheld Engines Over 50 cc
EPA is concerned that the CO levels for handheld engines be kept as
low as possible. The operators of equipment using these engines are in
close proximity to the exhaust pipe. The Class V engines are a large
concern. The majority of these engines are used on large commercial
chain saws used in logging operations. The high power and high load
factors associated with this equipment mean the operator is potentially
exposed to a high CO rate from the engine and could experience high CO
intake during operation.
EPA is proposing to limit CO emissions from large (Class V)
handheld engines to 402 g/kWh. In comparison, smaller (Class III, IV)
handheld engines would be required to meet the higher standard of 804
g/kWh. The larger Class V engines have technical advantages over
smaller engines, with respect to fuel metering and combustion chamber
boundary layer conditions, that would allow them to achieve these lower
levels of CO emission. This technical rationale is discussed at length
in the draft RSD in the docket. In addition to the technical rationale
that the Class V engines are capable of lower CO emission levels, a
number of engines were tested by the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association (PPEMA) and an individual manufacturer,
modified for a six percent enleanment over current production
calibration. Approximately 20 to 30 percent of these engines met the
402
g/kWh CO standard, achieving average CO levels of eight percent below
the standard. The remaining engines tested did not meet either the HC
or the CO emission standards. (See data in the draft RSD.) EPA observed
that, in general, port design may affect the ease with which engines
can meet emission standards. EPA requests comment and data on whether
there is a supportable technical rationale why it would not be feasible
to further optimize these engines to bring both the HC and CO emissions
into line with the engines capable of achieving the proposed standards.
PPEMA has argued that the 402
g/kWh level is too stringent, but did not focus on Class V engines at
the time California rules were being considered since its members
anticipated limited regulation of the Class V engines in California due
to preemption of many of the products in which these engines are used.
In a letter to EPA, a copy of which is included in the docket for this
rulemaking, PPEMA suggests that a standard of 603 g/kWh would be more
appropriate. EPA would need further data and information that
establishes 603 g/kWh as the appropriate technical limit and addresses
the need for this higher CO standard as noted above.
Based on the data currently available, EPA does not see the need
for the higher standard and believes that the proposed standard is
achievable. However, EPA is requesting additional information and data
that would verify the need for the higher standard and justify why all
engines cannot be designed to meet the CO levels achieved by the 20 to
30 percent of engines tested by PPEMA that met all proposed standards.
O. Cap on Noise
EPA is proposing to require that engine noise levels not increase
as a result of this rulemaking. The type of engine changes which EPA
believes will be used to meet the proposed exhaust gaseous emission
standards should not increase engine noise above current levels. EPA is
aware that several European nations currently have sound level
standards for different classes of nonroad equipment, some of which are
powered by SI engines less than 19 kW. EPA lacks the necessary
information to determine if regulating engine noise without regard to
the type of equipment in which the engine will eventually be used is a
sensible technical approach. EPA requests data and comments on this
issue.
P. Applicability of In-Use Standards
The proposed rule does not require that small engines meet in-use
standards over a useful life period for several reasons. First, limited
emission testing of in-use engines has been performed. Additional data
will be provided by the in-use testing program described in ``IV.C.
Program Description and Rationale.'' Second, EPA does not believe that
emission controls proposed for Phase 1 will experience significant
deterioration beyond normal engine deterioration, although this area
needs more research. EPA does acknowledge its responsibility to achieve
enforceable reductions of in-use emissions and plans to develop such
measures in its long-term Phase 2 program.
Until such measures are developed, EPA proposes to maintain
regulatory language in the Phase 1 rule that commits EPA to setting in-
use standards and useful life periods by April 1997. In developing
Phase 2 regulations, EPA intends to amend this language, replacing it
with regulatory language specifying programs that are developed to meet
this commitment.
EPA solicits comment on the lack of in-use standards and on the
appropriate level of in-use standards, useful life period, and
enforcement measures if EPA were to make these a requirement of Phase
1. EPA also invites comment on the regulatory language in the Phase 1
rule that commits EPA to developing these requirements by April 1997.
This language states, ``A useful life period for engines subject to the
provisions of subpart A of this part will be set by the Agency and will
be promulgated no later than the year 1997.''
Q. In-Use Testing Requirement
This proposal requires that manufacturers procure and test a sample
of in-use engines and report the results to EPA. In developing this
program, EPA considered manufacturer suggestions that any in-use
testing program be conducted jointly between EPA, manufacturers, and
manufacturers' organizations. EPA is concerned that a joint program
would not as efficiently address the goals of the proposed in-use
testing program.
EPA is proposing the in-use testing requirement with two main goals
in mind. Primarily, EPA believes that a critical element in the success
of its nonroad program is assuring that manufacturers build engines
that continue to meet emission standards beyond the certification and
production stages. By requiring manufacturers to test and report
results, EPA expects that manufacturers would act responsibly to avoid
or correct in-use emission problems.
EPA's authority to recall engines which do not comply with emission
standards in use provides an important incentive to on-highway
manufacturers to design and build durable engines and vehicles.
However, at this time, EPA has limited data by which to propose in-use
standards for small SI engines under section 213(d) of the CAA,
subjecting nonroad engine manufacturers to the requirements of section
207(c) of the CAA. Because EPA is not proposing to establish in-use
emission standards in this rulemaking, it is necessary to require that
manufacturers test in-use engines to gain important knowledge about the
emission deterioration of their engines and report the results to EPA.
EPA expects that this knowledge will be critical to developing more
durable emission control systems and achieving better in-use compliance
with Phase 2 engines.
An auxiliary outcome of this Phase 1 testing program would be that
manufacturers, by working closely with EPA to evaluate in-use emissions
and identify solutions to problems, would be preparing for the Phase 2
in-use compliance program. This Phase 1 testing program would permit
issues associated with a variety of maintenance and use conditions to
be identified and resolved prior to Phase 2.
As stated previously, EPA is concerned that these goals may not be
as fully achieved with joint testing programs involving several
manufacturers and their respective organizations. By requiring direct
communication with EPA, manufacturers would have to individually
provide test data showing in-use performance. EPA's experience has been
that aggregate data (sorted by organizations and stripped of engine
identification) is not effective in identifying specific in-use
problems. The generated Phase 1 in-use data would improve estimates of
in-use emissions, thereby enhancing the basis for emission inventories
used to support the State Implementation Plan (SIP) development
process.
Given the critical feedback the in-use testing program would
provide, EPA believes it is compelled to ensure the fulfillment of the
obligation to perform in-use testing. For engine families where in-use
testing would be required, certification is proposed to be conditioned
upon the completion of a number of in-use tests as agreed upon by EPA
and the manufacturer at the time of certification. Completion of the
number of valid in-use tests as agreed, regardless of the test results,
would satisfy this condition.
Under this proposal, a manufacturer's failure to fully execute the
in-use tests would be considered a failure to satisfy the conditions
under which the certificate was issued. An engine would be considered
to be covered by the certificate only if the manufacturer fulfilled the
conditions upon which the certificate was issued. Thus, failure to
satisfy the conditions of the certificate could subject a manufacturer
to the imposition of civil penalties. However, EPA recognizes that a
manufacturer, notwithstanding its best efforts, might fail to perform
the required testing due to circumstances beyond its control. Thus EPA
would consider all relevant factors when determining whether to view an
engine as not being covered by a certificate based on failure of a
manufacturer to fully execute the test program condition of the
certificate.
EPA requests comment on the proposed in-use testing program.
R. Absence of Averaging, Banking, and Trading Programs
EPA is not proposing an averaging, banking, and trading program
(ABT) for small SI engines at this time. ABT programs, which EPA uses
in its on-highway heavy-duty engine program and proposed for the
nonroad large CI engine program, provide manufacturers flexibility in
meeting the emission standards. EPA is increasingly using market-based
incentive programs such as ABT because such programs can reduce the
cost of controlling emissions. An ABT trading program can also reduce
the burden of regulation on small manufacturers by providing them
flexibility in meeting requirements.
At this time, EPA has not been able to construct an ABT program,
given the uncertainties surrounding projected in-use emission levels.
These uncertainties will be resolved as part of the Phase 2 regulatory
negotiations. However, as part of the requirements of approving an ABT
program, EPA must know the in- use emission characteristics of engine
families in order to implement an ABT standard, unless all engine
families deteriorate at the same rate.
The lifetime emissions of engine families must be averaged together
in order to compute the average emission level of a manufacturer's
product line. Use of lifetime emissions is necessary because it may be
the case that the emissions of one type of engine deteriorate at a
higher rate than another type, or a smaller engine may deteriorate at a
higher rate than a larger engine of the same type. EPA is not in a
position to determine what the in-use emission level is presently or
would be under this Phase 1 regulation. EPA's initial assessment is
that the emissions of these engines deteriorate somewhat over time and
likely deteriorate at different rates between engine families, but more
research is necessary. However, even if engine families deteriorate at
different rates, if such deterioration is not systematically biased, it
may not undermine the validity of an ABT program. EPA requests comment
on this point.
Phase 2 will directly assess in-use emission characteristics of
engine families and incorporate enforcement of in-use emission levels.
Once in-use emission levels are known with more confidence, EPA expects
that market-based programs such as ABT will be viewed favorably by the
regulatory negotiation committee during policy development.
EPA requests comment on the absence of an ABT program.
S. Engine Manufacturer Requirement--Disclosure of Maximum Exhaust
Pressure and Minimum Inlet Pressure
The design of the exhaust system can influence emissions. Most
small engines are supplied with both an air inlet system and an exhaust
system which are tested as part of the engine package, and the entire
package is used by the equipment manufacturer. However, some engines
are designed to be installed in a chassis with more complex packaging
requirements where the equipment manufacturer may supply and/or install
the exhaust system, or part of it, and even the air inlet system. In
these latter cases, EPA is considering a requirement that the engine
manufacturer would need to specify to the equipment manufacturer the
maximum exhaust pressure and the minimum inlet pressure, and the
equipment manufacturer would be required to adhere to those
specifications. EPA requests both engine and equipment manufacturer
comments regarding this issue.
T. Direct Health Effects of Air Toxics and CO
In addition to the concern of the role of HC and CO in ozone and CO
nonattainment, EPA is concerned about direct health effects of air
toxics and CO exposure. The concentrations and direct health effects of
toxic pollutants in exhaust are especially important because the
operator of a small SI engine application is typically near the
equipment as it functions. In some applications, the operator must be
adjacent to the exhaust outlet and is in the direct path of the exhaust
as it leaves the engine. See ``VI. Environmental Benefit Assessment''
for further discussion of this issue. The Agency requests additional
information on the effects of air toxics and CO exposure associated
with the use of small SI engines.
U. Catalyst Durability
Relative to all other types of emission-related engine components,
catalysts are unique in that:
Relatively small changes in chemical and/or physical
characteristics of a catalyst can result in very large deleterious
changes in operational characteristics.
The engine manufacturer is not likely to be involved in
the design or fabrication of the catalysts nor be able to verify the
acceptability of vendor-supplied catalysts by means of the simple
checks and tests that are adequate for other engine components.
The satisfactory operational durability of catalysts are
much more dependent on the catalyst manufacturer's proprietary
techniques and processes than is the case with other emission control
system components.
Since it is the last component in the emission control
system, a catalyst can compensate for sub-standard performances by
other emission control components, but it is not itself supported by
any other back-up component that is able to compensate for a reduction
in catalyst performance capability.
Substantial reductions in performance can result from:
--Abrasion or fracturing as a result of relative motion between the
catalyst and its protective outer metal jacket,
--Poisoning as a result of fuel contaminants (such as lead),
--Glazing as a result of excessive quantities of lubricating oil in the
exhaust, and
--Thermal degradation as a result of exposure to excessively high
temperatures for prolonged periods.
Catalytic converters designed for small SI engines in the short
term will be low efficiency catalysts to address safety concerns. The
catalysts designed for potential Phase 1 use would have conversion
efficiencies on the order of approximately 30 percent for HC and CO
emission. The design constraint that dictates these low efficiencies is
the need to limit the increase in exhaust temperatures, since the
exhaust is in close proximity to the operator in handheld equipment.
Efficiencies much higher than 30 percent begin to generate exotherms
that can substantially increase exhaust temperatures. Since the
industry has not yet developed the necessary solutions, such as
creative small-scale insulation approaches, to control the added
temperature, only low efficiency catalysts would be available for Phase
1 use.
While adequate durability of catalysts is a concern relative to
catalytic converters used in on-highway engine applications, EPA is
less concerned with the emission impact of failures of the catalytic
converters expected to be used for engines regulated by this rule. This
is because the conversion efficiency of catalysts used in small SI
engines would not exceed approximately 30 percent for reasons discussed
in the previous paragraph. Faced with this constraint, an engine
manufacturer would need to modify its base engine to realize
substantial emission reduction of engine-out emissions even before the
exhaust was converted further by the catalytic converter. Should such a
low efficiency catalyst fail in use, the increase in emissions would
not be as large as occurs when a high efficiency on-highway vehicle
catalyst fails.
The preceding discussion underscores the need for some means to
validate the adequacy of catalysts that would be added to engines to
provide compliance with the emission standards during in-use operation.
Various approaches could be used for ensuring that the ``long term''
conversion capabilities of catalysts would be adequate. For example,
certification engines could be tested with catalysts which had been
subjected to some type of ``aging'' process to substantiate that the
catalysts were adequately designed and fabricated. Alternatively,
certification engines could be tested with new catalysts that had been
proven to be satisfactory by meeting the requirements of a catalyst
certification procedure that would be separate from the engine emission
certification test.
The main advantage of a validation approach involving the use of
``aged'' catalysts on certification engines would be its simplicity.
The aging process would be carried out by either the engine
manufacturers or the catalyst vendors. In either case, there would be
no requirements for special catalyst performance testing and, hence, no
need for the establishment of performance standards that would be
needed for evaluating the test results.
The main disadvantage of this approach is the possible negative
impact on catalyst usage that might result from a Phase 1 certification
process which imposed durability testing requirements on catalysts but
not on certification engines or any other engine components involved in
their construction. On one hand, the dependence of successful
certification of engine families on the performance capabilities of
aged catalysts might result in engine manufacturers being reluctant to
use catalysts to meet the applicable emission standards. Also, given
that there is limited field data on small engine catalysts, it would be
extremely difficult to design a fair aging procedure that could be
evaluated by the certification engine test and accompanying emission
standards.
Such possibly adverse results would be avoided by the engine
manufacturer's use of a new catalyst that was ``certified'' by the
supplier or the engine manufacturer as having design and fabrication
details that resulted in specific long-term conversion performance
capabilities. This approach would have the disadvantage of being more
complicated in that it additionally involves the establishment of
limits on the amount of efficiency loss that would be acceptable and
would require a test procedure for determining compliance with such
limits.
As a consequence of concerns regarding possible negative impacts on
catalyst development for small engines that might result from a
provision requiring the certification of engines with aged catalysts,
EPA is not proposing such a requirement in this notice. Instead, EPA is
proposing that for systems utilizing catalysts, the certification
engine configuration to be tested must be equipped with a new catalyst
of a design that has been ``certified.'' A ``certified'' catalyst
design would be one which had successfully met the requirements of a
separate catalyst durability demonstration procedure which is described
in more detail in the following paragraphs. This approach ensures that
durable catalysts are used on small engines while avoiding excessive
requirements that could discourage the development of very promising
catalyst technology.
Comments regarding this proposal are requested. Also requested are
comments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of this
requirement, as well as the alternative requirement for the use of
preconditioned or aged catalysts during engine emission certification
testing.
The use of an oven exposure procedure for evaluating catalyst
resistance to thermal degradation is proposed in this notice. This
procedure would involve the heating of the test catalyst in air to a
temperature of 1,000 deg.C for six hours. Prior to heating the
catalyst to 1,000 deg.C, an optional pre- heating procedure is
proposed to be allowed to remove the ``green'' effect of the catalyst.
This optional procedure would consist of heating the catalyst to no
more than 500 deg.C for no more than two hours.
The oven exposure procedure described above is proposed in lieu of
procedures which involve exposure to synthetic or actual exhaust gas
mixtures because EPA believes that the oven aging procedure
aggressively and directly stresses the catalyst and is the best method
for assessing the most major catalyst durability concern: thermal
stability. Another advantage of this method is that it is much less
complex than the other exposure procedures.
For example, in the case of the procedure which involves exposure
to synthetic exhaust gas mixtures, information is lacking regarding the
most appropriate test parameters, such as the temperature of the
mixtures and the duration of the exposure. Similarly, with respect to
the procedure which involves exposure to actual exhaust gas mixtures,
information is needed regarding a number of test variables that are
related to the engine that is used to generate the exhaust gas mixture,
such as its combustion cycle and power output, the manner in which it
is operated and the operating times that are involved in each phase of
the operating cycle.
General comments regarding the applicability and suitability of the
proposed oven exposure procedure are requested. Specific comments are
also requested regarding variation in the procedure, such as: The use
of an oven atmosphere other than air; if flow through the catalyst is
recommended; and the composition and flow rate of the gas or gaseous
mixture that is used.
Regardless of which method is used to age the catalyst, some means
must be used to determine the effects of the aging process. With
respect to the intended purpose of this process, the most
straightforward evaluation would involve the determination of the
extent to which the performance characteristics of the test catalyst
had been adversely affected. Of particular significance would be the
adverse effect on the catalyst's conversion capabilities with respect
to the oxidation of HC and CO and/or the reduction of NOX.
The use of a procedure which uses a synthetic exhaust gas mixture
for evaluating the effects of thermal stressing is being proposed for
several reasons. One of the main reasons is the relative simplicity of
such a procedure. For example, it would not involve the questions
regarding the in-use representativeness of test parameters, such as the
temperature of the mixture and the duration of the test, that arise
when a synthetic exhaust gas mixture is used for actually thermally
stressing a catalyst. For evaluation purposes, any fixed temperature
which allowed the conversion reactions of interest to occur could be
specified. The specification of a particular exposure time would not be
required since the conversion efficiency existing as a result of the
previous thermal stressing would be involved rather than a time-related
change in efficiency. Furthermore, a procedure which used synthetic
exhaust gas would be simpler than a procedure that used actual exhaust
gas. Using synthetic exhaust gas mixtures alleviates the need for
detailed information not readily available at this time. Another reason
for proposing the use of synthetic exhaust gas mixtures is the
standardization that results; all catalysts would be aged under the
specific conditions that are proposed in subpart E of the proposed
regulations. The composition of the synthetic exhaust gas mixture that
is specified in this subpart is comparable to compositions of synthetic
exhaust gas mixtures currently used by catalyst manufacturers for
testing related to the kinds of engines covered by the proposal.
Comments are solicited concerning these specifications,
particularly with regard to the chemical composition and temperature of
the synthetic exhaust mixture and its flow rate as it enters the test
catalyst.
A fixed catalyst efficiency loss limit of 20 percent for HC, CO,
and NOX is proposed in this notice on the basis of on-highway
experience and the absence of information at this time regarding the
conversion efficiencies that will be used with small engines. To
illustrate this loss limit, a catalyst with initial HC conversion
efficiency of 50 percent would be required to maintain at least a
conversion efficiency of 40 percent after thermal aging.
Comments are requested regarding the use of a different fixed
deterioration limit. Comments are also requested regarding the relative
advantages and disadvantages of one fixed limit versus several limits
that are proportional to initial conversion efficiency.
V. Test Procedure Requirements
EPA received a technical review of an early draft of the test
procedure from the Small Engine Committee of the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) in September 1993. EPA requests comment on several
points mentioned in SAE's comments.
EPA is proposing that during each mode of the emission test cycle,
engine manufacturers collect and analyze exhaust constituents and
measure engine parameters during a period of time referred to as the
``sampling period.'' EPA is proposing that the sampling period be a
minimum of four minutes long. The SAE recommended test procedure J1088
recommends the sampling period be ``* * * at least two minutes. Longer
averaging times may be required to ascertain the true time averaged
emissions if data variability over time is significant.'' Based on
EPA's experience with several small (two to four kW) engines, a two-
minute averaging time for idle modes is not sufficient to make accurate
fuel flow measurements. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of
a four minute averaging time, including any available test data to
substantiate an averaging time less than four minutes.
EPA is proposing that for the final calculation of the brake-
specific emission rate (gr/kWh), any power measured during the idle
mode not be included in the calculation for the reported brake-specific
emission rate. EPA believes the idle mode is, by definition, that
engine operating mode during which no useful work is performed. Any
power measured during this mode is a result of the frictional losses
resulting from the dynamometer. EPA is concerned that an engine
manufacturer using an inappropriately large dynamometer with a large
frictional loss would not provide an accurate measurement of the engine
idle mode. EPA believes it is inappropriate to include power generated
by the engine to overcome the windage losses of the dynamometer in the
calculation of emissions during the idle mode. EPA requests comment on
the appropriateness of including power measured by the dynamometer in
the calculation of the final brake-specific emission rate.
W. Duration of Certificates of Conformity, Definition of Model Year,
Annual Production Period
EPA is considering adopting one of the following three options for
defining model year, annual production period, and duration of the
certificate of conformity. Regardless of the option selected, EPA is
also proposing in this notice that it would be a prohibited act to
introduce an uncertified small SI engine into commerce after August 1,
1996. Furthermore, it would be a prohibited act to introduce a specific
model year engine into commerce prior to or after the model year for
which the certificate of conformity was issued and in effect. EPA
requests comment on each of these three alternatives.
Option 1: EPA would incorporate the on-highway definition of model
year, annual production period, and duration of a certificate of
conformity.
The model year would include January 1 of the calendar year for
which it is designated and would not include a January 1 of any other
calendar year. Thus, the maximum duration of a model year would be one
calendar year plus 364 days.
The ``annual production period'' for any specific model within an
engine family would begin either: (1) When such an engine was first
produced, or (2) on January 2 of the calendar year preceding the year
for which the model year was designated, whichever date was later. The
annual production period would end either: (1) When the last engine was
produced, or (2) on December 31 of the calendar year for which the
model year was named, whichever date was sooner.
A certificate of conformity would be issued to cover engines
introduced into commerce for a single model year. Under option 1, the
1997 model year certificate could cover production between January 2,
1996 and December 31, 1997, although engines regulated under this
proposal would be manufactured after August 1, 1996.
Interested parties may wish to consult OMS Advisory Circular A/C
No. 6B, issued December 31, 1987, which summarizes the on-highway
treatment of model year, annual production period, and duration of the
certificate of conformity. A copy of the circular has been placed in
the docket for this rulemaking.
Option 2: This option represents a variation of Option 1. EPA
believes that the dates selected for the commencement of model year and
the annual production period more closely parallel the experience of
the small engine industry.
Under option 2, the model year would include August 1 of the
preceding calendar year for which it was designated and would not
include an August 1 of any other calendar year. The maximum duration of
a model year would remain one calendar year plus 364 days.
The ``annual production period'' for a specific model within an
engine family would begin either: (1) When such an engine was first
produced, or (2) on August 2 of two calendar years preceding the year
for which the model year was designated, whichever date was later. The
annual production period would end either: (1) When the last engine was
produced, or (2) on July 31 of the calendar year for which the model
year was named, whichever date was sooner.
The certificate of conformity would be issued to cover production
for a single model year. For example, the 1997 model year could cover
production between August 2, 1995 through July 31, 1997.
The proposed extended coverage period described in options 1 and 2
for a certificate of conformity (that is, up to one year plus 364 days)
is primarily intended to allow flexibility in the production of new
models. Under no circumstances should it be interpreted that existing
models could ``skip'' yearly certification by pulling ahead the
production of every other model year. While this situation, to our
knowledge, has not occurred in the on-highway program in the past, a
practice of producing small SI engines for a two year period would
violate Congress' intent of annual certification based upon an annual
production period. EPA is not currently proposing rules for how to
determine when abuse has occurred since this has not been a problem to
date. However, manufacturers should note EPA's concern in this area and
should use normal yearly production periods for existing models.
Option 3: Under this option, the certificate of conformity would be
issued to cover production from August 1 of a given calendar year
through July 31 of the subsequent calendar year for which it was
issued. EPA would retain the model year concept found in on-highway
programs but would define it as follows: ``Model year means the
manufacturer's annual production period which includes August 1 of a
given calendar year through July 31 of the subsequent calendar year.''
Thus the maximum duration of a model year would be 365 days.
VI. Environmental Benefit Assessment
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been set for
criteria pollutants which adversely affect human health, vegetation,
materials, and visibility. Concentrations of ozone (O3) are
impacted by HC emissions and, to a lesser extent, emissions of CO.
Ambient concentrations of CO are, of course, impacted by CO emissions.
EPA has determined that the standards set in this rule would reduce
emissions of HC and CO and, despite also increasing emissions of
NOX, help most areas come into compliance with the NAAQS for ozone
and, to a lesser extent, CO. The following provides a summary of the
emission reductions expected and the health effects of HC components,
CO, and ozone. A discussion of the roles of HC and NOX in ozone
formation is also presented. The underlying analysis is described in
greater detail in the draft RSD, a copy of which is in the public
docket for this rulemaking.
A. Estimated Emissions Impact of Proposed Regulation
The emission standards proposed in today's action should reduce
average per-engine HC and CO emission from small SI engines by 32
percent and 14 percent, respectively, by the year 2020, when complete
fleet turnover is projected. This would result in annual nationwide
reductions of roughly 350,000 tons of HC and 2,000,000 tons of CO by
the year 2020. In-use NOX emission rates are expected to increase,
roughly, from 7,000 to 34,000 tons per year. This increase represents
one quarter of one percent of the national NOX inventory, and is
small compared to the substantial NOX reductions achieved in the
nonroad large CI proposal (58 FR 28809).
In addition to control of HC, the proposed standards should be
effective in reducing emissions of air toxics, including benzene and
1,3-butadiene. However, the magnitude of reduction would depend on
whether the control technology reduces the individual toxics in the
same proportion to total hydrocarbons.
These emission reduction estimates for HC and CO are based on
population projections using estimates of annual engine consumption
(that is, sales), engine attrition (that is, scrappage), activity
indicator, and current and proposed in-use emission factors. Data on
activity indicators and the baseline emission factors were obtained
from the Nonroad Study. Estimates of annual engine consumption for
years from 1973 to 1992 were based on engine consumption data available
from the PSR databases and industry data from OPEI,\7\ PPEMA,\8\ and
Booz Allen & Hamilton.\9\ Future consumption estimates are for the most
part based on estimates of population growth for the United States.
Attrition rates (that is, likelihood, as a function of engine age, that
an engine remains in service) for all engines included in this analysis
were developed on the assumption that equipment attrition is described
by a two-parameter form of the Weibull cumulative distribution
function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Outdoor Power Equipment Institute's historical national
shipment data.
\8\Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association's shipment
data for selected equipment.
\9\Booz Allen & Hamilton, 1990 Report to California Air Resource
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the analysis summarized in Tables 2 and 3, the emission
inventories were developed for the five regulated engine classes as
well as for all pieces of equipment using engines covered by this
proposed rule. Using estimated engine consumption and attrition, EPA
projected the total in-service engine population for each year from
1973 through 2020. EPA projected the total annual nationwide HC, CO,
and NOX emissions from small SI engines included in the current
proposal under the baseline (that is, no controls applied) and
controlled scenarios.
For the controlled scenario, EPA assumed that new engines sold
beginning in 1996 would meet the proposed standards. For both
scenarios, in-use emission rates were determined so as to account for
deterioration by adjusting the difference between new engine and in-use
engine emission rates by a factor which is a function of age of the
specific engine and its B-50 or median life expressed in years.
Table 2.--Projected Annual Nationwide HC Emissions
[tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Year Baseline With proposed Reduction from of
controls baseline baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................................................. 729,458 729,458 .............. .........
1996................................................. 813,575 733,597 79,978 9.8
2000................................................. 871,723 618,876 252,847 29.0
2005................................................. 938,275 636,769 301,506 32.1
2010................................................. 1,002,164 676,759 325,405 32.5
2015................................................. 1,058,864 716,899 341,965 32.3
2020................................................. 1,112,630 755,920 356,710 32.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Projected Annual Nationwide CO Emissions
[tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Year Baseline With proposed Reduction from of
controls baseline baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................................................. 8,109,097 8,109,097 .............. .........
1996................................................. 9,499,739 9,112,559 387,180 4.1
2000................................................. 10,384,195 9,107,279 1,276,916 12.3
2005................................................. 11,379,821 9,807,781 1,572,040 13.8
2010................................................. 12,320,136 10,591,294 1,728,842 14.0
2015................................................. 13,153,741 11,303,418 1,850,323 14.1
2020................................................. 13,939,000 11,977,377 1,961,623 14.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Health and Welfare Effects of HC Emissions
The focus of today's action is reduction of HC emission as a part
of the solution to the ozone nonattainment problem. However, direct
health effects are also a reason for concern due to direct human
exposure to emissions from small SI engines during operation of
equipment using such engines. Of specific concern is the emission of
air toxics. In some applications, the operator must be adjacent to the
exhaust outlet and is in the direct path of the exhaust as it leaves
the engine. Today's regulations should be effective in reducing air
toxics such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
Based on data from the Nonroad Study, the exhaust and crankcase
emissions from a 2.9 kW lawnmower with a 4-stroke engine contain 3.5
grams of benzene per hour. Exhaust emission of a 2.9 kW, 2-stroke
lawnmower contains 17 grams of benzene per hour. A small, 2.2 kW
chainsaw emits 28.2 grams of benzene per hour, compared to a large, 4.5
kW chainsaw that emits 40.8 grams per hour.
Also, according to data from the Nonroad Study, 1,3- butadiene
content in exhaust and crankcase emissions from a 2.9 kW, 4-stroke
lawnmower is approximately 1.5 grams per hour. For a 2.9 kW, 2-stroke
lawnmower, 1,3-butadiene content in exhaust is 7.0 grams per hour.
Butadiene emitted from a small, 2.2 kW chainsaw is approximately 12.2
grams per hour, and is 17.7 grams per hour from a large 4.5 kW
chainsaw.
Benzene is a clear, colorless aromatic hydrocarbon which is both
volatile and flammable. Benzene is present in both exhaust and
evaporative emissions. Health effects caused by benzene emissions
differ based on concentration and duration of exposure.
1,3-butadiene is a colorless, flammable gas at room temperature.
This suspected human carcinogen is insoluble in water and its two
conjugated double bonds make it highly reactive. 1,3-Butadiene is
formed in internal combustion engine exhaust by the incomplete
combustion of the fuel and is assumed not present in evaporative and
refueling emissions.
Since air toxic levels generally decrease in proportion to overall
emissions once emission control technology is applied, the amount of
benzene and 1,3-butadiene produced by new small SI engines should
diminish after this rule becomes effective. Consequently, exposure to
air toxics from new small SI engines will be reduced, as will
associated health effects.
There is little data on direct health effects of small SI engine
emissions. No study has been conducted involving the health effects of
air toxic emissions specifically from small SI engines. The Agency
requests additional information on this topic.
C. Health and Welfare Effects of CO Emissions
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas which can be
emitted into ambient air as a result of both natural processes and
human activity. Although CO exists as a trace element in the
troposphere, much of human exposure resulting in elevated levels of
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) in the blood is due to incomplete fossil fuel
combustion, as occurs in small SI engines.
The concentration and direct health effect of CO exposure are
especially important in small SI engines because the operator of a
small SI engine application is typically near the equipment as it
functions. In some applications, the operator must be adjacent to the
exhaust outlet and is in the direct path of the exhaust as it leaves
the engine. According to numbers published in the Nonroad Study, a 4-
stroke, 2.9 kW lawnmower engine emits 1051.1 g/hr CO, while a 2-stroke,
2.9 kW engine emits 1188.4 g/hr CO.
Although no studies measuring the human health effects of CO
emanating from small SI engine exhaust have been conducted, ample
research results are available concerning general health effects of
exposure to CO. The toxicity of CO effects on blood and tissues, and
how these effects manifest themselves as organ function changes have
been topics of substantial research efforts. However, most of these
involved higher, more constant exposure concentration levels of CO than
are likely to be produced under normal operations of these small SI
engines. Such studies provided information for establishing the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO. The current primary and
secondary NAAQS for CO are 9 parts per million for the one-hour average
and 35 parts per million for the eight-hour average.
D. Roles of HC and NOX in Ozone Formation
Both HC and NOX contribute to the formation of tropospheric
ozone through a complex series of reactions. In general, the ratio
between the ambient concentrations of HC and NOX in a localized
area is an indicator of the likely effectiveness of HC and/or NOX
reductions as ozone control measures. If the level of HC is high
relative to the level of NOX (that is, in a ratio of 20 to one),
ozone formation is limited by the amount of NOX present, making
reduction of NOX emission an effective strategy for reducing ozone
levels. Alternatively, if the level of HC is low relative to the level
of NOX (that is, in a ratio of eight to one), efforts to control
HC would be expected to be a more effective means of reducing ozone
concentration. In a recent report, researchers emphasize that both HC
and NOX controls are needed in most areas of the United
States.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\National Research Council, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in
Urban and Regional Air Pollution, National Academy Press, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Health and Welfare Effects of Tropospheric Ozone
EPA's primary reason for controlling emissions from small SI
engines is the role of HC in forming ozone. Of the major air pollutants
for which NAAQS have been designated under the CAA, the most widespread
problem continues to be ozone, which is the most prevalent
photochemical oxidant and an important component of smog. Ozone is a
product of the atmospheric chemical reactions involving oxides of
nitrogen and other compounds. These reactions occur as atmospheric
oxygen and sunlight interact with hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen
from both mobile and stationary sources.
A critical part of this problem is the formation of ozone both in
and downwind of large urban areas. Under certain weather conditions,
the combination of NOX and HC can result in urban and rural areas
exceeding the national ambient ozone standard by a factor of three. The
ozone NAAQS represents the maximum level considered protective of
public health by the EPA.
Ozone is a powerful oxidant causing lung damage and reduced
respiratory function after relatively short periods of exposure
(approximately one hour). The oxidizing effect of ozone can irritate
the nose, mouth, and throat causing coughing, choking, and eye
irritation. In addition, ozone can also impair lung function and
subsequently reduce the respiratory system's resistance to disease,
including bronchial infections such as pneumonia.
Elevated ozone levels can also cause aggravation of pre-existing
respiratory conditions such as asthma.\11\ Ozone can cause a reduction
in performance during exercise even in healthy persons. In addition,
ozone can also cause alterations in pulmonary and extrapulmonary
(nervous system, blood, liver, endocrine) function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\United States Environmental Protection Agency, Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone--Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information: OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-450/2-
92-001, June 1989, pp. VI-11 to 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current NAAQS for ozone of 0.12 part per million (ppm) is set
at a level that, with an adequate margin of safety, is protective of
public health. However, ozone has also been shown to damage forests and
crops, watershed areas, and marine life.\12\ The NAAQS for ozone is
frequently violated across large areas in the United States, and after
20 years of efforts aimed at reducing ozone-forming pollutants,
although EPA has reported a trend toward lower average ozone
concentrations from 1982 to 1989,\13\ the ozone standard has proven to
be exceptionally difficult to achieve. High levels of ozone have been
recorded even in relatively remote areas, since ozone and its
precursors can travel hundreds of miles and persist for several days in
the lower atmosphere. Ozone damage to plants, including both natural
forest ecosystems and crops, occurs at ozone levels between 0.06 and
0.12 ppm.\14\ Repeated exposure to ozone levels above 0.04 ppm can
cause reductions in the yields of some crops above ten percent.\15\
While strains of some crops are relatively resistant to ozone, many
crops experience a loss in yield of 30 percent at ozone concentrations
below the NAAQS.\16\ The value of crops lost to ozone damage, while
difficult to estimate precisely, is on the order of $2 billion per year
in the United States.\17\ The effect of ozone on complex ecosystems
such as forests is even more difficult to quantify. However, there is
evidence that some forest types are negatively affected by ambient
levels of ozone.\18\ Specifically, in the San Bernadino Mountains of
southern California, ozone is believed to be the agent responsible for
the slow decline and death of ponderosa pine trees in these forests
since 1962.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone.
\13\NRC, Rethinking the Ozone Problem, p. 61.
\14\U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-10.
\15\U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-10.
\16\U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-10.
\17\U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-22.
\18\U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X-27.
\19\U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone. p. X-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, by trapping energy radiated from the earth, tropospheric
ozone may contribute to heating of the earth's surface, thereby
contributing to global warming (that is, the greenhouse effect,\20\
although tropospheric ozone is also known to reduce levels of UVB
radiation reaching the earth's surface, the increase of which is
expected to result from depletion of stratospheric ozone.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\NRC, Rethinking the Ozone Problem, p. 22.
\21\The New York Times, September 15, 1992, p. C4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Technology Assessment
In the draft RSD, EPA presents a comprehensive technology
assessment supporting the emission standards proposed for each class of
engines in this notice. This assessment demonstrates that small SI
engine manufacturers will be technically capable of achieving the
proposed emission standards and will not be capable of achieving lower
emission standards in this Phase 1 rule. This assessment also considers
factors of noise, energy, and safety as outlined in section 213(a)(3)
of the CAA. The public docket for this rulemaking contains a lengthier
version of this Technology Assessment section.
The levels of the proposed emission standards under this rule are
in large part driven by the aggressive timeline of Phase 1. EPA agreed
to promulgate Phase 1 small SI engine standards to realize early
emission reduction benefits while a more comprehensive long-term
program will be developed for Phase 2.
A. Achievability of Proposed Emission Standards
EPA believes that the proposed Phase l emission standards are the
lowest standards for Class I-V engines achievable by the 1996 model
year.
The engines covered by this proposed regulation are divided into
five classes with unique emission standards proposed for each class.
The lowest level of emission standards achievable was determined for
each class of engines. The unique standards for each class are driven
by differences in emission reduction capability of engines with
different combustion cycles and different displacements.
Class I and II engines represent nonhandheld engines that, in large
part, use 4-stroke combustion cycle engines, as opposed to Class III-V
engines which represent handheld engines that, in large part, use 2-
stroke combustion cycle engines. Within the time constraints for
compliance with this rule, Class I and II engines will be capable of
achieving a lower HC + NOX composite emission standard and lower
CO emission standard than the Class III-V engines are capable of
achieving. Furthermore, within each combustion cycle type, the larger
displacement classes will be capable of achieving lower HC + NOX,
HC, and CO emission standards. A full discussion of the technical
rationale for these limitations is set forth in the draft RSD.
EPA's belief that the proposed emission standards for Classes I-V
are the lowest achievable standards is based on emission data provided
on nonoptimized prototype configurations of engines that meet the
proposed standards, technical discussions with manufacturers, and EPA
analysis of information on technologies collected from a range of
sources. The following is a summary of these analyses. A complete
analysis is provided in the draft RSD.
EPA has compiled emission data on selected Class I-V engines and
prototypes that were tested at either an independent or industry
laboratory and met the proposed emission standards. These prototypes
represent the greatest degree of emission control technology achievable
given the aggressive timeline for earliest possible introduction of
these engines into commerce at reasonable cost (one of the parameters
for achievability listed in CAA section 213(a)(3)). Data was compiled
and reported on three Class I engines, two Class II engines, one Class
III engine, two Class IV engines plus one data point representing the
aggregate of 27 Class IV engines, and one Class V engine plus one data
point representing the aggregate of 18 Class V engines. These data and
the specific technologies used on each are presented in Chapter 1 of
the draft RSD.
Additional support for the proposed emission standards being the
lowest achievable standards is provided by EPA's analytical summary of
confidential discussions with manufacturers and information on
technologies collected from a range of sources. EPA used this summary
information to compile and predict the expected percentage usage of
each emission control technology discussed.
For Class I and II engines, EPA predicts that manufacturers will
use different combinations of the following technologies: Carburetor
enleanment and/or modifications; fuel system modifications; ignition
timing modifications; valve system and valve timing modifications;
combustion chamber modifications; cooling system modifications; some
conversion from side valve to overhead valve engines; and some
conversion from 2-stroke to 4- stroke engines.
For Class III, IV, and V engines, EPA predicts that manufacturers
will use combinations of the following technologies: Carburetor
enleanment and/or modifications; carburetor limiter cap installation;
fuel system modifications; combustion chamber modifications; port
timing and scavenging modifications; cooling system modifications; and
some conversion from 2-stroke to 4-stroke engines. The estimated
percent usage of each technology by engine class is presented and
discussed in the draft RSD.
In addition to the technologies listed, the use of catalytic
converters, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and air injection
technology may occur on a limited basis or not at all in the 1996 model
year. EPA estimates that manufacturers will meet proposed Phase 1
emission standards without the use of catalysts. However, some
manufacturers are developing low efficiency catalysts in case some
marginally acceptable engine family should need this technology to meet
the standards. If catalysts were to be used, EPA estimates that their
use would occur on no more than 30 percent of Class I engines and one
percent of all Class II-V engines. EPA requests information on the
likelihood that catalyst, EGR, or air injection systems will be used
and, if so, any additional information on percent usage.
B. Proposed Emission Standards Are Lowest Feasible
EPA believes that three specific emission control technologies,
while allowing engines to meet lower standards than those proposed
today, cannot be developed within the timeline of this rule or at
reasonable cost. Technologies such as high efficiency catalytic
converters, low cost fuel injection systems, and low cost electronic
control systems are currently either available on only a limited basis
or are in the early design phase. These technologies cannot be used on
the vast majority of engines by the proposed implementation date. These
technologies have the potential to develop much greater emission
reductions than those technologies determined to be achievable for this
rule. As discussed in Chapter 1 of the draft RSD, a number of technical
barriers and safety issues must still be overcome before standards can
be set that would reflect general or blanket use of these technologies.
C. Impact on Equipment
EPA estimates that the proposed emission standards can be met with
the identified engine emission control technologies with minimal impact
on equipment design. However, EPA also believes that to propose more
stringent emission standards in today's rule than those already
proposed would necessitate equipment redesign to accommodate more
sophisticated technologies, such as high efficiency catalysts.
It has been EPA's past experience that, given the latitude to
change either the engine or equipment, most manufacturers will choose
to modify the engine. EPA estimates that most engine models will
require only internal modifications (such as tighter tolerances and
fuel mixture enleanment strategies) to meet the proposed standards.
These modifications will have little, if any, effect on equipment
design.
EPA estimates that few engine models will be discontinued as a
result of the proposed standards. Models that may be discontinued
represent older engine designs and low volume sales. Since this market
generally has a large number of engine models, substitutions should be
readily available for these few incidents of model discontinuation.
Catalytic converter use is not predicted for the Phase 1 rule.
However, if catalysts should be used on a small percentage of
equipment, EPA has estimated the equipment impact of catalyst use in
terms of additional shielding as a result of higher exhaust skin
temperatures.
The draft RSD summarizes EPA's estimates of equipment impacts as a
result of this rulemaking. EPA requests comment or additional
information with respect to the estimations concerning impact of the
proposed standards on equipment.
D. Energy, Noise, and Safety
Section 213(a)(3) of the Act requires that EPA also give
appropriate consideration to energy, noise, and safety factors
associated with the application of technologies. Energy factors include
engine fuel consumption and power. Noise factors are self explanatory,
and safety factors include safety for the user as well as compliance
with other existing regulations in this country and abroad.
In Chapter 1 of the draft RSD, EPA has analyzed the likely average
fuel consumption change considering all factors that would impact the
final figure in actual use. EPA estimates that a reduction in fuel
consumption is likely to be seen in actual use and will average
approximately 13 percent for handheld engines and 26 percent for
nonhandheld engines. Since this is a desirable impact, little
additional design effort will be expended to optimize fuel consumption
effects.
Manufacturers will also optimize final designs such that the
expected power loss on resulting production engines will be minimized.
Based on analyses in Chapter 1 of the draft RSD, EPA estimates that the
resulting average power change in actual use will be a gain of
approximately five percent for Class I and II engines and a three
percent reduction for Class III-V engines. The major contributors to
this gain for Class I and II are changes in technology for Class I side
valve engines which make up a large majority of engines in this
rulemaking.
Although overall power may increase, some engines may experience a
decrease in power availability. However, real time data collected on
equipment in actual use demonstrate that many engines do not need their
full power capability in actual use. This is especially true in the
case of nonhandheld engines. The operators of these engines will likely
experience no performance impact as a result of this rule.
Engine noise level is expected to stay at current levels. Further
discussion of this issue can be found in ``V.O. Cap on Noise.''
Many safety regulations and recommendations have been established
for small engines and their related use in equipment. These regulations
will affect the feasibility of using some technologies on handheld
engines. One example is a regulation requiring spark arresters on
equipment used on certain federal lands. See 36 CFR part 261. The
regulation results in a temperature limit on exhaust and exhaust
surfaces which, to date, has resulted in a limitation on the
feasibility of the use of catalysts for handheld engines due to the
high heat levels emitted during conversion of pollutants as seen when
applied to these engines.
Safety recommendations and regulations also have an impact on the
end use of the engines. Some small SI equipment have operating
restrictions of certain speeds and loads. One example is ANSI standard
B71.1 which contains information for measuring mower blade tip speed
and a description of the use of safety brake systems. A summary of
safety regulations and recommendations is presented in the draft RSD.
EPA requests further information on additional safety regulations or
requirements which may impact engines covered by this rulemaking.
E. Per Engine Cost Estimates Due to Proposed Standards
The technical solutions required to meet the emission standards
proposed in this notice will be cost-effective. Further discussion is
presented in ``IX. Cost-Effectiveness.'' While this summary presents
only aggregate costs for nonhandheld and handheld engines, the draft
RSD gives cost estimates by technology and by engine displacement
class.
The retail price of equipment which uses nonhandheld engines ranges
from $90 to $9,000. On average, the cost to the engine manufacturer to
install the necessary emission control technology on these engines will
be approximately $0.80 to $1.13 per engine. The retail price of
equipment which uses handheld engines ranges from $60 to $1,000. On
average, the cost to install the necessary control technology on all
handheld equipment engines, hardware variable costs, and production
costs will be approximately $2.05 to $2.20 per engine to the engine
manufacturer. Tables in the draft RSD list the Agency's estimated
variable hardware and production cost broken out by engine technology
for each engine class.
EPA's cost estimate assumes that catalytic converters will not be
needed to comply with proposed standards. However, as discussed
previously, engine manufacturers may voluntarily decide to use
catalysts on a percentage of engines at risk of only marginally
complying. Should catalysts actually be used, EPA estimates that the
additional variable hardware costs for nonhandheld engines will be
$1.09 per engine and for handheld engine will be $0.10 per engine, with
an additional $0.24 per engine for equipment modifications and $0.20
per potential heat shielding. The Agency requests additional comment on
these cost estimates for application of catalyst technology and
equipment impacts.
VIII. Economic Effects
The total national average annual cost of this rule is estimated to
be $55 million. If catalysts become necessary, the average annual cost
estimate becomes $73 million.
EPA's economic analysis of the proposed rule's likely impact on
consumers and industry indicates that reducing pollution from these
engines will result in offsetting costs to consumers. Consumers will
find small increases in retail prices for most equipment powered by
these engines. The initial purchase price to the consumer will,
however, be partially offset by savings in fuel and maintenance costs.
Thus, over time, environmentally friendly, alternatively powered
equipment such as electric powered trimmers, chain saws, and lawnmowers
will become less costly to consumers. Industry will bear pollution
control costs that are moderate (roughly six percent for handheld and
two percent for nonhandheld equipment) relative to current production
costs. (The level of pollution control costs is largely due to the high
levels of pollution emitted by these engines, especially 2-stroke
engines, and the relatively outdated state of the technology compared
to on-highway engines.) However, the costs are small in absolute terms,
and it is anticipated that these costs will be passed through to
consumers in higher product prices. The complete economic analysis can
be found in Chapter 3 of the draft RSD.
A. Consumer Cost
EPA estimated the increase in consumer cost of the equipment
powered by these engines. In assessing consumer cost, three areas were
analyzed: change to the retail cost of the engine, cost of fuel, and
cost of maintenance.
1. Retail Cost
The increase in retail price of the equipment to the consumer is
estimated using a percentage increase over the average amortized and
discounted per engine manufacturers' cost, weighted by the sales mix.
As such, the estimated sales-weighted average increase in retail cost
to the consumer due to the proposed rule in 1996 is $4.04 for handheld
equipment and $2.35 for nonhandheld equipment. If catalysts are
necessary, the estimated sales-weighted average increase in retail cost
to the consumer due to the proposed rule in 1996 is $4.30 for handheld
equipment and $3.68 for nonhandheld equipment.
The retail price effects for specific engines may be more or less
than the costs shown here, depending on the specific technology of the
engine. However, the price increases shown here reflect the relative
price increases considering all types of engines in the market.
Therefore, these estimates are not indicative of the price increase
specific to any particular manufacturer's engine or equipment.
2. Fuel Cost
This rule is expected to decrease fuel consumption significantly.
The average sales-weighted handheld engine is expected to experience a
13 percent decrease in fuel consumption and the average sales-weighted
nonhandheld engine is expected to experience a 26 percent decrease in
fuel consumption. However, these decreases are translated into small
discounted lifetime sales-weighted fuel savings of approximately $0.22
for a handheld engine and $2.79 for a nonhandheld engine.
3. Maintenance Cost
EPA estimates that the engines produced to meet the proposed
emission standards will be higher quality: the parts and raw materials
will be more durable and less likely to malfunction. See Chapter 2 of
the draft RSD for further discussion of this phenomenon. This will
result in equipment which is operational a higher percentage of the
time and which lasts longer. EPA is unable to estimate the increase in
useful life or the decrease in maintenance costs at this time. EPA
requests comment on the potential decrease in maintenance costs and
potential increase in useful life.
4. Lifetime Consumer Cost Impact
The lifetime consumer cost impact was assessed by considering the
decrease in maintenance cost and the fuel savings along with the
increase in retail price of the average, sales- weighted engine. The
increase in price of an engine will be mitigated somewhat by these
other impacts. Applying the lifetime savings in fuel costs, the average
sales-weighted handheld engine's lifetime increase in cost will be
adjusted to $3.82 and the average sales-weighted nonhandheld engine's
lifetime cost impact will be a savings of $0.44. If catalysts are
necessary this will be $4.08 for a handheld engine and $.89 for a
nonhandheld engine. EPA requests comments on lifetime consumer costs.
Submission of quantified estimates would be beneficial.
B. Incremental Economic Impacts
EPA considered the potential incremental economic impacts due to
today's proposal. EPA estimates the net present value of pollution
control capital costs to be approximately $27 million. EPA estimates
that there will be no long run negative impacts on employment as a
result of this rule. Costs can be recovered through increased prices.
Any potential decreases in employment that might occur due to
obsolescence of product line should be offset by increased production
of engines meeting emission standards. Total demand for these products
has traditionally been relatively inelastic, and thus industry sales
volume is not expected to decrease. Energy impacts will be positive,
freeing up approximately $9 million for other uses in the economy.
IX. Cost-Effectiveness
Based upon the costs and benefits in the previous discussion, EPA
has prepared a cost-effectiveness analysis and has performed a
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this proposal. See ``X.A.
Administrative Requirements'' for an explanation of the mandate for an
RIA. Because the benefits of this proposal are not easily monetized, a
cost-effectiveness analysis has been prepared. The complete RIA is
contained in the draft RSD. Presented here is a summary of the cost-
effectiveness of the proposed small SI engine Phase 1 program.
If all program costs are allocated to HC reductions, today's
proposal has a cost-effectiveness of $197 per ton of HC reduced.
Alternatively, if all program costs are allocated to CO reductions, the
cost-effectiveness would be $37 per ton.
If the costs of the program were equally split between HC and CO,
the cost-effectiveness of HC reduction would be $99 per ton and the
cost-effectiveness of CO would be $19 per ton.
These cost-effectiveness numbers are significantly lower than costs
per ton of other available control strategies. The cost-effectiveness
estimates, underlying quantitative methodology, and comparisons to
other available control strategies discussed above are explained
further in the draft RSD/RIA.
In summary, the cost-effectiveness of the standard included in the
current proposal is favorable relative to the cost- effectiveness of
several other control measures required under the Clean Air Act. To the
extent that cost-effective nationwide controls are applied to small SI
engines, the need may be reduced to apply in the future more expensive
additional controls to mobile and stationary sources that also
contribute to ozone nonattainment, nutrient loading, and visibility.
X. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 Federal Register 51,735 (October
4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the 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 Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because this rulemaking adversely affects in a material way a sector of
the economy, namely manufacturers of small SI engines, particularly the
manufacturers who specialize in the production of small handheld
engines. Further, EPA believes that an RIA is important for this rule
because small SI engines have not previously been regulated. As such,
this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response
to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public
record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Copies
of the ICR document may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information
Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW (PM-223Y), Washington, DC 20460 or
by calling (202) 260-2740.
Table 4 provides a listing of this proposed rulemaking's
information collection requirements along with the appropriate
information collection request (ICR) numbers. The cost of this burden
has been incorporated into the cost estimate for this rule.
EPA has estimated that the public reporting burden for the
collection of information required under this proposed rule would
average approximately 6,100 hours annually for a typical engine
manufacturer. The hours spent by a manufacturer on information
collection activities in any given year would be highly dependent upon
manufacturer specific variables, such as the number of engine families,
production changes, emission defects, etc.
Table 4. Public Reporting Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA ICR OMB control
No. Type of information No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A Certification.................................. 2060-0104
0282 Emission defect information.................... 2060-0048
N/A Importation of nonconforming engines........... N/A
N/A Selective enforcement auditing................. N/A
0012 Engine exclusion determination................. 2060-0124
0095.03 Precertification and testing exemption......... 2060-0007
N/A In-use testing................................. N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW (PM-
223Y), Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will
contain response to OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires federal agencies to
identify potentially adverse impacts of federal regulations upon small
entities. In instances where significant impacts are possible on a
substantial number of these entities, agencies are required to perform
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA). The RFA explores options for
minimizing those impacts.
EPA has recently adopted a new approach to regulatory
flexibility\22\ for purposes of EPA's implementation of the Act, any
impact is a significant impact, and any number of small entities is a
substantial number. Thus, EPA will consider regulatory options for
every regulation subject to the Act that can reasonably be expected to
have an impact on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Habiicht, F. Henry II, Deputy Administrator, Internal EPA
Memorandum, ``Revised Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory
Flexibility Act,'' April 9, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, in light of this new approach, EPA has determined that
this rule will have a significant effect on a substantial number of
small entities. As a result, EPA has tailored this rule to minimize the
cost burdens imposed on smaller engine manufacturers.
The proposed regulations contain certification requirements for new
engines, in-use testing requirements for controlled engines, Selective
Enforcement Auditing provisions for the testing of production engines,
and prohibitions on incorrect engine use for equipment manufacturers.
The certification program has been structured in this proposal such
that all manufacturers may take advantage of a more simplified
certification process than that currently mandated in the on-highway
program. Testing requirements for test engines are reduced. The
application and certification process is more straightforward.
The in-use testing program is structured such that manufacturers
with lower annual production volumes have a lower minimum number of
engines which must be tested. This places the burden of the in-use
testing mostly on manufacturers with high production volumes.
Provisions are also allowed for manufacturers whose number of product
lines are limited. Also, manufacturers with very low production volumes
are allowed maximum flexibility in procuring engines to be tested.
Refer to ``IV.C.10. In-use Testing Program'' for a more detailed
discussion.
The SEA program is structured such that the annual limit on the
number of SEA's that EPA may perform is lower for manufacturers with
lower projected annual production. Additionally, manufacturers with
high projected annual production but fewer engine families will have a
lower annual limit. Furthermore, manufacturers with low projected
annual production may perform fewer audit tests per day to minimize the
SEA burden on its test facilities. Refer to ``IV.C.19. Selective
Enforcement Auditing Program'' for a more detailed discussion.
EPA is proposing that equipment manufacturers must correctly use
engines that are certified upon implementation of these regulations.
However, EPA has decided to make the use of non- certified engines for
United States-marketed equipment a prohibited act rather than requiring
equipment manufacturers to report to EPA that they are using certified
engines in their equipment being consumed in the United States.
Further, it is a prohibited act for equipment manufacturers to
incorrectly use an engine certified as handheld in nonhandheld
equipment marketed in the United States. EPA decided to make these
provisions prohibited acts in order to reduce any potential reporting
or recordkeeping burden for engine and equipment manufacturers.
Manufacturers who attempt to sell equipment to the United States market
which uses noncertified engines or uses handheld engines in nonhandheld
equipment will be voluntarily reported to EPA by their competitors. EPA
has proposed stiff fines on prohibited acts. Competition should
effectively police these prohibited acts as competitors have a
competitive incentive to make sure that no equipment manufacturer is
dumping equipment with lower cost, unlawful, noncertified, or
incorrectly used engines (that is, the use of a handheld engine in
nonhandheld equipment) into the U.S. market.
EPA considered, but rejected, the notion of exempting small
manufacturers from enforcement programs or from the regulation
entirely. A more proportionate sharing of cost burden was deemed
appropriate. The pollution emitted by each of these engines not only
contributes to ambient air quality problems but also has health impacts
on the user of the equipment who is in close proximity to the exhaust
emissions. See ``VI. Environmental Benefit Assessment'' for a
discussion of the health impacts of the related exhaust pollutants.
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: April 29, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-10975 Filed 5-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P