[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