[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58296-58301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29026]
[[Page 58295]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 90
Class I and II Nonhandheld New Nonroad Phase 1 Small Spark-Ignition
Engines; Revised Carbon Monoxide (CO) Standard; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 13, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 58296]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 90
[FRL-5650-6]
Revised Carbon Monoxide (CO) Standard for Class I and II
Nonhandheld New Nonroad Phase 1 Small Spark-Ignition Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule revises the Phase 1 carbon monoxide (CO) emission
standard for Class I and II new nonroad spark-ignition (SI) engines at
or below 19 kilowatts. Today's action increases the CO standard from
469 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) to 519 g/kW-hr. This action
addresses the CO emission difference between oxygenated and
nonoxygenated fuels that was not reflected when the Agency previously
set the CO standard for these nonhandheld engines in a final rule
published July 3, 1995. This correction of the nonhandheld engine CO
standard will ensure that the CO standard for manufacturers of Class I
and II small SI engines used to power equipment such as lawnmowers is
achievable and otherwise appropriate under the Clean Air Act and that
it is technically feasible for manufacturers to certify their engine
models to the Phase 1 emission standards and make them commercially
available for the 1997 model year.
In addition, today's action permits the use of open crankcases in
engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers. This change will allow
engine manufacturers to certify engines with open crankcases to be used
in snowthrowers upon a demonstration that the engine still meets all
applicable emission standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective November 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in EPA
Air and Radiation Docket No. A-93-25 and Docket No. A-96-02, at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, room M-1500, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. The materials in these dockets may be viewed
from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The docket may also be reached
by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Horne, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:
(313) 741-7803. FAX: (313) 741-7816. Electronic mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which
manufacture engines used in nonhandheld applications, such as
lawnmowers, and those which manufacture engines used exclusively to
power snowthrowers. Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................... Manufacturers of small (at or below
19 kW) nonroad engines used in
nonhandheld applications such as
lawnmowers.
Industry......................... Manufacturers of small nonroad
engines used exclusively to power
snowthrowers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. 90.1 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
II. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents
Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
final rule are available electronically from the EPA internet site and
via dial-up modem on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), which is an
electronic bulletin board system (BBS) operated by EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Both services are free of charge,
except for your existing cost of internet connectivity or the cost of
the phone call to TTN. Users are able to access and download files on
their first call using a personal computer and modem per the following
information.
Internet:
World Wide Web: http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW
Gopher: gopher.epa.gov Follow menus for: Offices/Air/OMS
FTP: ftp.epa.gov Change Directory to pub/gopher/OMS
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742
(1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit)
Voice Helpline: 919-541-5384.
Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 AM to 12:00 noon EST.
A user who has not called TTN previously will be required to answer
some basic informational questions for registration purposes. After
completing the registration process, proceed through the following menu
choices from the Top Menu to access information on this rulemaking.
GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards)
OMS--Mobile Sources Information
Rulemaking and Reporting
<6> Non-Road
<2> Non-road Engines
At this point, the system will list all available files in the
chosen category in reverse chronological order with brief descriptions.
To download a file, select a transfer protocol that is supported by the
terminal software on your own computer, then set your own software to
receive the file using that same protocol.
If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e. ZIP'ed) files, go to
the TTN top menu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the
necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest
after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want
onto your computer, you can quit the TTN BBS with the oodbye
command.
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.
III. Legal Authority and Background
Authority for the actions set forth in this rule is granted to EPA
by sections 213(a) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7547(a) and 7601(a)).
On July 3, 1996, the Agency published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule.1 That proposed rule contains
substantial background information relevant to the matters discussed
throughout this final rule. The reader is referred to that document for
additional background information and discussion of various issues.
Discussion in this notice will focus on the comments received during
the public comment period and describe changes made from the proposal
to the final rule. The two issues discussed in
[[Page 58297]]
the NPRM and this final rule are revision to the Phase 1 carbon
monoxide exhaust emission standard for nonhandheld small engines, and
changes to the closed crankcase requirement for engines used
exclusively in snowthrowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 61 FR 34778 (July 3, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 1996, Briggs and Stratton Corporation submitted to EPA
a petition requesting reconsideration and revision of the certification
fuel requirements and carbon monoxide (CO) emission standard for
nonhandheld engines. The petition asks the Agency to amend its July 3,
1995 final rule, Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-ignition (SI)
Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts, hereafter referred to as the Phase 1
small SI engine regulations.2 Specifically, the petition requests
that the Agency amend the Phase 1 small SI engine rule to either: (1)
Permit the use of appropriate oxygenated gasolines for emissions
certification testing as a direct alternative to Indolene 3 under
the current CO standard, or (2) revise the CO standard for nonhandheld
small engines from 469 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) to 536 g/kW-
hr, in order to reflect the emission characteristics of these engines
when tested on nonoxygenated gasolines. Nonhandheld engines are
intended for use in nonhandheld applications and fall under one of two
classes based on engine displacement.4 Class I engines are less
than 225 cubic centimeters (cc) displacement, and Class II engines are
greater than or equal to 225 cc displacement.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995, codified at 40 CFR part 90. The
docket for the Phase 1 small SI engine rulemaking, EPA Air Docket
#A-93-25, is incorporated by reference.
\3\ See Sec. 90.308(b) and page 34589 of the preamble for the
certification fuel specification for the Phase 1 small SI engine
rulemaking. Indolene is one possible Federal certification fuel.
Indolene is not the only eligible fuel, but it is within the
eligible range specified in part 86 (section 86.1313-94(a)) to which
the Phase 1 small SI engine rule refers. The Phase 1 small SI engine
rulemaking provides for a range and based on experience with the on-
highway program, EPA expects that engine manufacturers will use
Indolene. California Phase II Reformulated Gasoline and other
oxygenated fuels are not within the range specified in the Phase 1
small SI engine rule.
\4\ For additional discussion of engine classes and handheld
engine qualifications, see 60 FR 34585, July 3, 1995.
\5\ Class I engines are predominantly found in lawnmowers. Class
II engines primarily include engines used in generator sets, garden
tractors, and commercial lawn and garden equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific engine manufacturers and the Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) have also raised concerns about the closed crankcase
certification requirement specified in the Phase 1 small SI engine
final rule at Sec. 90.109. The Agency specified in its Phase 1 small SI
rule that as a requirement of certification crankcases must be closed
in order to eliminate emissions that would otherwise occur when a
crankcase is vented to the atmosphere. Subsequent to publication of the
Phase 1 small SI engine final rule, however, the Agency was made aware
of concerns specific to manufacturers of engines used exclusively in
snowthrowers. These manufacturers indicated that it is necessary to
maintain an open crankcase in order to prevent the freeze up of the
intake which would likely occur if a crankcase breather hose was
required. Additionally, these manufacturers provided evidence that the
cost to close these crankcases and prevent freeze up would be
prohibitively expensive, with the emissions benefit not justifying the
cost. Manufacturers also claimed that the CO emission impact on CO
nonattainment will also be minor due to the limited numbers of these
pieces of equipment and the small impact opening the crankcase has on
overall CO emissions from this small number of engines.
EPA addressed these issues in a notice of proposed rulemaking
published on July 3, 1996. The public comment period closed on August
2, 1996.
IV. Description of This Rule
This final rule revises the CO emission standard for Class I and II
nonhandheld small SI engines from 469 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr in
response to the petition submitted by Briggs and Stratton Corporation
(B&SC). The underlying technical analysis and a description of the data
on which it is based is presented in the Regulatory Support Document, a
copy of which is in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Given that the Agency, had it known that Briggs and Stratton had
used an oxygenated test fuel to generate the test data which EPA used
to set the Class I and II nonhandheld standard, would have taken fuel
effects into account when determining the CO standard, the Agency
believes that it is appropriate, now knowing about the fuel
differences, to revise the Phase 1 final rule to reflect the fuel
effect on CO emissions.
In addition, the Agency is convinced by the arguments presented by
the manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers that a
change to the closed crankcase requirement is appropriate. Therefore,
the Administrator will allow open crankcases for engines used
exclusively to power snowthrowers based upon a manufacturer's
demonstration that all applicable emission standards will still be met
by the engine. This demonstration may be based on best engineering
judgment. Upon request of the Administrator, the manufacturer must
provide an explanation of the procedure or methodology used to
determine that the total CO emissions from the breather and the exhaust
are below the regulatory requirement for CO. The Agency is convinced
that the cost of abating emissions from an open crankcase would be
prohibitive, and therefore seeks no further demonstration of
prohibitive cost.
V. Public Participation and Comment
The Agency received written submissions during the comment period
for the NPRM from four commenters. Copies may be obtained from the
docket for this rule (see ADDRESSES).
This section responds to significant comments received and provides
EPA's rationale for its responses.
A. Revision of the CO Standard
In its petition to the Agency, Briggs & Stratton Corporation
requested that EPA amend the small engine Phase 1 final rule to either
permit the use of appropriate oxygenated gasoline for certification
testing or revise the CO standard for nonhandheld engines from 469 g/
kW-hr to 536 g/kW-hr to reflect emission characteristics of these
engines when tested on nonoxygenated gasoline. The Agency has decided
to address the petitioner's concern by raising the Phase 1 CO standard
for Class I and II nonhandheld engines from 469 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr.
Both the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and Briggs and
Stratton Corporation submitted comments on the NPRM indicating full
support for modifying the CO standard. EMA supported the proposal to
raise the standard to 519 g/kW-hr. However, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation expressed concern about several points contained in the
July 1996 NPRM.
One concern raised by B&SC is that in the prior rulemaking leading
to the Phase 1 standards the Agency never addressed comments submitted
August 5, 1994, by the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and the
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) which requested that EPA
include a ``Phase 2 or later California/Federal certification fuel'' in
the Phase 1 final rule. In these comments, EMA and OPEI argued that
allowing such a fuel for certification would harmonize the EPA
regulations with California's, and thereby eliminate the need for
manufacturers to duplicate certification tests for EPA and California.
In its small engine Phase 1 final rule, EPA did address the
commenters'
[[Page 58298]]
concern about the need for duplicate certification testing by allowing
for the use of Indolene fuel. Since the CARB regulation allows the use
of either Indolene or Phase 2 fuel, a test performed using Indolene
could be used to satisfy both Federal and CARB requirements for small
SI engines. In addition, as EMA points out in its comments, the Agency
already provides a mechanism under the alternative test procedures
provision of the small engine Phase 1 final rule for those
manufacturers who certify in California using oxygenated fuel and wish
to use those test results for certification with EPA.
B&SC also commented that while it supports EPA's decision to raise
the CO standard, it believes the most efficient and technically correct
method for addressing the concern raised in their petition would be for
EPA to permit the use of certification test fuels allowed by CARB. As
EPA explained in the July 1996 NPRM for this rule, the Agency set
nonhandheld CO emission standards that only engines tested on
oxygenated fuel had been demonstrated to meet. In conjunction with a
test fuel like Indolene, the current 469 g/kW-hr nonhandheld CO
emission standard is more stringent than the Agency intended because it
did not take into account the effect of the oxygenated fuel used in the
test data on which EPA based the standard. As described in detail in
the July 1996 NPRM for this rule, it is the Agency's position that the
most effective and timely way to address this problem is to raise the
CO emission standard for nonhandheld engines. The Agency considered
addressing the problem by allowing oxygenated fuels for certification,
but because of several concerns about this approach, EPA has concluded
that revising the CO standard is the preferred way to address the
problem. In its July 1996 NPRM, the Agency described three concerns
regarding the allowance of oxygenated test fuels for small SI engine
certification. One concern is that while the Agency based its
nonhandheld Class I and II emission standards on Briggs and Stratton
test data, which it now knows was run on oxygenated fuels, the same
cannot be said for the data EPA used to set its standards for Classes
III, IV and IV. Allowing the use of oxygenated certification fuel for
these other standards would be inconsistent with the technical basis
used to set the standard, and would undermine the level of stringency
expected by the Agency in adopting these standards. Secondly, if the
Agency were to allow certification testing on oxygenated fuels but
maintain its current standards, it would not be certain of the benefits
of HC and NOX emission reductions described in the Phase 1 final
rule when the engines designed to meet the new emission standards are
run on nonoxygenated fuels in the field. In addition, the Agency wishes
to maintain its longheld position that engines should be certified on
fuels representative of fuels they will see in-use and representative
of fuels on which the standards are based. The Agency believes that the
current test fuel specifications meets this objective better than
California Phase II Reformulated Gasoline. For these reasons, the
Agency believes the most effective and timely method for addressing the
problem raised by B&SC is not to change the certification test fuel
specifications, but to raise the nonhandheld CO emission standard.
B&SC also raised a concern about EPA's statement in the July 1996
NPRM that the data was inconclusive regarding the potential for
increases in in-use NOX emissions from not allowing certification
testing on oxygenated gasoline. Briggs and Stratton states that a
review of the Regulatory Support Document (RSD) does not support the
position taken by EPA in the preamble that the data is inconclusive,
but instead shows that the EPA data was inconclusive and the pertinent
Briggs & Stratton data showed an increase in NOX emissions. EPA
maintains that the data is inconclusive, and believes no change in the
HC + NOX standard is required due to the change in the CO emission
standard. EPA's analysis, as presented in the RSD, indicates that the
Briggs & Stratton test data, based on the average of 6 engine models,
shows a NOX increase of 0.14 g/kW-hr with the use of an oxygenated
fuel over Indolene. EPA's data showed a NOX decrease of 0.08 g/kW-
hr with the use of an oxygenated fuel over a nonoxygenated fuel. EPA
views the combined data to be inconclusive regarding the effect of
oxygenated versus nonoxygenated fuel on NOX emissions.
In its petition, Briggs & Stratton proposed a revised CO emission
standard of 536 g/kW-hr to take into account not only the offset
between test fuels but also production variability. B&SC argued that in
order to account for the wider range in test results that would occur
when an engine model enters high volume production and the family on a
whole is tested in a product line audit, a 67 g/kW-hr change to the
standard is necessary. Briggs & Stratton commented that in the July
1996 NPRM EPA had failed to support its position that the Agency had
taken production variability into account at an earlier stage of the
small engine rulemaking process, and thus should increase the standard
by 67 g/kW-hr to 536 g/kW-hr instead of by 50 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr.
The Agency disagrees. EPA had stated in the NPRM that the data it
analyzed to determine the CO emission difference between oxygenated and
nonoxygenated fuels indicated that fuel differences may account for as
much as 50 g/kW-hr. However, as EPA does not expect the production
variability to change based on differences in fuel type, the Agency has
no reason to increase the CO standard in this rule to account for
production variability. As EPA mentions in the July 1996 NPRM and
explains in the small engine Phase 1 final rule Response to Comments
document,6 EPA took production variability into account when it
increased the CO standard from 402 g/kW-hr to 469 g/kW-hr between the
small engine Phase 1 NPRM and final rule. B&SC mischaracterizes EPA's
position by stating that the underlying premise for EPA's position is
that the degree of variability in mass emissions data will not increase
in relation to mass. This was not EPA's underlying premise; EPA
examined B&SC's production variability concern from the perspective of
specifically addressing the high volume production issue that Briggs &
Stratton raised in its petition. B&SC itself makes no claim regarding
variability in relation to mass, nor provides data concerning mass
emissions and variability. EPA believes it adequately addressed the
production variability concern B&SC raised in its petition when the
Agency increased the CO standard from 402 g/kW-hr to 469 g/kW-hr
between the small engine Phase 1 NPRM and final rule. Accordingly, EPA
believes the only rationale for increasing the CO emission standard in
this rule is to account for emission differences between oxygenated and
nonoxygenated fuels. The Agency is therefore increasing the nonhandheld
Class I and II CO standard to 519 g/kW-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See EPA Air Docket #A-93-25, item V-C-01, p. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Open Crankcase for Snowthrowers
In the July 1996 NPRM, EPA proposed allowing the Administrator the
option to permit the use of open crankcases in engines used exclusively
to power snowthrowers. As described in the NPRM, EPA would consider
allowing open crankcases for these engines if adequate demonstrations
are made by the manufacturers that the applicable emission standards
would be met and that the cost of abating emissions from
[[Page 58299]]
an open crankcase would be prohibitive. EPA received comment on this
issue from the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and two
manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers, American
Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and Tecumseh Products Company (Tecumseh).
All of the commenters expressed support for the idea of allowing
open crankcases on engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers.
However, all three commenters oppose EPA requiring a demonstration to
show that the cost of abating emissions from an open crankcase would be
prohibitive. In addition, commenters expressed concern about the
provision requiring manufacturers to demonstrate that the engine would
meet applicable emission standards even with the open crankcase. After
considering the comments received, EPA has determined that it will
permit the use of open crankcases in engines used exclusively to power
snowthrowers, based on a manufacturer's demonstration that the
applicable standards will be met. This demonstration may be based on
best engineering judgment. The Agency will not require a demonstration
of prohibitive cost. However, the Agency will require manufacturers to
provide to the Agency upon request the methodology or procedure used to
determine that the applicable CO emission standard would be met.
EPA is convinced by commenters arguments that requiring individual
demonstrations of prohibitive cost would be burdensome for the
manufacturers and the Agency, and possibly could create competitive
inequities among manufacturers. In addition, some manufacturers
previously shared information with the Agency regarding costs that the
Agency believes shows the technological fix that would generally be
required to close snowthrower crankcases are prohibitive. Consequently,
manufacturers will not need to make any demonstration of the cost to
close the crankcase on engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers.
The Agency received comment from the same three commenters on the
proposed provision that manufacturers demonstrate that the applicable
emission standards would be met with open crankcases. EMA states in its
comments that no test procedure has been defined nor test method
developed to measure the CO contained within the crankcase gasses
emitted from the open crankcase; EMA thus views the required
demonstration to be difficult if not impossible. In its comments,
Tecumseh also indicates that it does not support the requirement to
measure crankcase breather emissions because the amount of CO in
crankcase emissions is extremely small, and because no test procedure
is defined to measure CO emissions in crankcase gases. However,
Tecumseh expressed willingness to share with EPA the procedure it used
to determine the crankcase CO emissions, which it states are
approximately 1% of the exhaust CO emissions, regardless of operating
mode. Honda suggests in its concluding comments that the Agency should
allow open crankcases for snowthrower engines if the total CO emissions
from the breather and the exhaust are below the regulatory requirement
for CO. Honda's research on open crankcases indicates that gas flow
from the crankcase breather does not exceed 2.5% of the exhaust flow,
and crankcase breather CO gas flow accounts for only 0.025% of the
total exhaust flow. In its concluding comments, Honda states that since
the crankcase breather CO is very small when compared to the exhaust,
EPA should accept a manufacturer's engineering judgment when
determining the total engine CO.
Based on the comments, EPA believes that in many cases snowthrowers
with open crankcases would continue to meet all of the applicable
standards, including the CO standard. However, the data before the
agency is relatively limited and EPA is not in a position at this time
to conclude that no demonstration of compliance is needed for any such
engines before a certificate of conformity is issued. The comments do
reflect that manufacturers should often be in a position to demonstrate
that the standards are met with an open crankcase using best
engineering judgment. Only a limited amount of data generation would
seem necessary to make such a demonstration. Therefore the final rule
requires that manufacturers make such a demonstration, but makes it
clear that this may be based on best engineering judgment. Upon request
by EPA, the manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers
must explain to the Agency the procedure or methodology used to
determine that the applicable standards would be met.
C. Effective Date
As proposed in the July 1996 NPRM, this rule will be effective upon
signature by the Administrator. This rule is not adding regulatory
burdens to any regulated entities; rather, it is relieving burden. In
addition, EPA needs to act expeditiously in order that manufacturers
may certify their engine models to the Phase 1 emission standards and
make them available for the 1997 model year. Consequently, EPA believes
no delay in the effective date of this rule is necessary.
VI. Environmental Benefit Assessment
Although the change in the nonhandheld CO standard results in a
change from the 7% reduction in CO estimated in the final rule to a 2%
reduction in the CO inventory, the Agency has concluded that this rule
has no effect on the HC+NOX inventory and minimal effect on the CO
inventory in nonattainment areas. The majority of equipment powered by
the Class I and II nonhandheld engines subject to this rule is used
during the summer months, when CO nonattainment is generally not a
concern. Furthermore, the CO emission rate for many nonhandheld engine
models will remain unchanged despite the change in the CO standard
since CO levels often are controlled in meeting the HC+NOX
emission standards which are not affected by this action.
The provision to permit open crankcases in engines used exclusively
to power snowthrowers will require that manufacturers show compliance
with applicable standards. The Agency expects, therefore, that the
proposed open crankcase option will not affect the emission inventory
or the emission reductions to be achieved by the Phase 1 small SI
engine final rule.
VII. Economic Effects
The Agency anticipates that this rule will have minimal, if any,
effect on the costs or benefits of the Phase 1 small SI engine final
rule. Industry costs are unlikely to change because engine
manufacturers will not need to make additional modifications to meet
the relaxed CO standard. As there will be no additional cost for
industry to pass on to the consumer as a result of this rulemaking, EPA
is convinced that consumer cost impacts will remain unchanged. The
Agency therefore concludes that the economic effects of this rulemaking
are negligible.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the executive
order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
[[Page 58300]]
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof;
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the order.
EPA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new information requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
change the information collection requirements the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has previously approved. OMB has previously assigned
OMB control number 2060-0338 to the requirements associated with the
nonroad small SI engine certification information collection request
(ICR); this action does not change those requirements in any way.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed
into law on March 22, 1995) requires that EPA prepare a budgetary
impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year. Section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
requires EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and
informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA must identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be
prepared. EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule, unless EPA explains why this alternative is not
selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this rule is expected to result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less than
$100 million in any one year, EPA has not prepared a budgetary impact
statement or specifically addressed selection of the least costly, most
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative. Because small
governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this
rule, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small
governments.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) requires EPA to
consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business.
If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed regulation would
have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small business entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis must be
prepared.
This rule decreases the stringency of the CO exhaust emission
standard for Class I and II nonhandheld engines, and allows
manufacturers of snowthrowers to be relieved of the requirement that
crankcases be closed, thereby potentially creating beneficial effects
on small businesses by easing these two provisions required of small
engine manufacturers by the Phase 1 small SI engine regulations. As a
result, EPA has determined that this rulemaking will not have a
significant adverse effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Consequently, EPA has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis
for this rule.
IX. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and required information to the U.S. Senate, the
House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General
Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 90
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 5, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 90 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 90-CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215,
216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7522,
7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)).
Subpart B--[Amended]
2. Section 90.103 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 90.103 Exhaust emission standards.
(a) * * *
Exhaust Emission Standards
[Grams per kilowatt-hour]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrocarbon Oxides
Engine displacement class plus oxides Hydrocarbon Carbon of
of nitrogen monoxide nitrogen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................................................................. 16.1 ........... 519 ........
II................................................................ 13.4 ........... 519 ........
III............................................................... ........... 295 805 5.36
IV................................................................ ........... 241 805 5.36
V................................................................. ........... 161 603 5.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. Section 90.109 is amended by adding new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
[[Page 58301]]
Sec. 90.109 Requirement of certification--closed crankcase.
* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the
Administrator will allow open crankcases for engines used exclusively
to power snowthrowers based upon a manufacturer's demonstration that
all applicable emission standards will be met by the engine for the
combination of emissions from the crankcase, and exhaust emissions
measured using the procedures in subpart E of this part. This
demonstration may be made based upon best engineering judgment. Upon
request of the Administrator, the manufacturer must provide an
explanation of any procedure or methodology used to determine that the
total CO emissions from the crankcase and the exhaust are below the
applicable standard for CO.
[FR Doc. 96-29026 Filed 11-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P