[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58296-58301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29026]



[[Page 58295]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 90



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 13, 1996 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 58296]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 90

[FRL-5650-6]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule revises the Phase 1 carbon monoxide (CO) emission 
standard for Class I and II new nonroad spark-ignition (SI) engines at 
or below 19 kilowatts. Today's action increases the CO standard from 
469 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) to 519 g/kW-hr. This action 
addresses the CO emission difference between oxygenated and 
nonoxygenated fuels that was not reflected when the Agency previously 
set the CO standard for these nonhandheld engines in a final rule 
published July 3, 1995. This correction of the nonhandheld engine CO 
standard will ensure that the CO standard for manufacturers of Class I 
and II small SI engines used to power equipment such as lawnmowers is 
achievable and otherwise appropriate under the Clean Air Act and that 
it is technically feasible for manufacturers to certify their engine 
models to the Phase 1 emission standards and make them commercially 
available for the 1997 model year.
    In addition, today's action permits the use of open crankcases in 
engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers. This change will allow 
engine manufacturers to certify engines with open crankcases to be used 
in snowthrowers upon a demonstration that the engine still meets all 
applicable emission standards.

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

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in EPA 
Air and Radiation Docket No. A-93-25 and Docket No. A-96-02, at the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, room M-1500, 401 M St., S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20460. The materials in these dockets may be viewed 
from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The docket may also be reached 
by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a 
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Horne, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: 
(313) 741-7803. FAX: (313) 741-7816. Electronic mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which 
manufacture engines used in nonhandheld applications, such as 
lawnmowers, and those which manufacture engines used exclusively to 
power snowthrowers. Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of regulated entities   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.........................  Manufacturers of small (at or below  
                                    19 kW) nonroad engines used in      
                                    nonhandheld applications such as    
                                    lawnmowers.                         
Industry.........................  Manufacturers of small nonroad       
                                    engines used exclusively to power   
                                    snowthrowers.                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in Sec. 90.1 of title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.

II. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents

    Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this 
final rule are available electronically from the EPA internet site and 
via dial-up modem on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), which is an 
electronic bulletin board system (BBS) operated by EPA's Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards. Both services are free of charge, 
except for your existing cost of internet connectivity or the cost of 
the phone call to TTN. Users are able to access and download files on 
their first call using a personal computer and modem per the following 
information.

Internet:
    World Wide Web: http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW
    Gopher: gopher.epa.gov Follow menus for: Offices/Air/OMS
    FTP: ftp.epa.gov Change Directory to pub/gopher/OMS
    TTN BBS: 919-541-5742

(1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit)

    Voice Helpline: 919-541-5384.
    Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 AM to 12:00 noon EST.

    A user who has not called TTN previously will be required to answer 
some basic informational questions for registration purposes. After 
completing the registration process, proceed through the following menu 
choices from the Top Menu to access information on this rulemaking.

 GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards)
 OMS--Mobile Sources Information
 Rulemaking and Reporting
<6> Non-Road
<2> Non-road Engines

    At this point, the system will list all available files in the 
chosen category in reverse chronological order with brief descriptions. 
To download a file, select a transfer protocol that is supported by the 
terminal software on your own computer, then set your own software to 
receive the file using that same protocol.
    If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e. ZIP'ed) files, go to 
the TTN top menu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the 
necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest 
after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want 
onto your computer, you can quit the TTN BBS with the oodbye 
command.
    Please note that due to differences between the software used to 
develop the document and the software into which the document may be 
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.

III. Legal Authority and Background

    Authority for the actions set forth in this rule is granted to EPA 
by sections 213(a) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 
U.S.C. 7547(a) and 7601(a)).
    On July 3, 1996, the Agency published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule.1 That proposed rule contains 
substantial background information relevant to the matters discussed 
throughout this final rule. The reader is referred to that document for 
additional background information and discussion of various issues. 
Discussion in this notice will focus on the comments received during 
the public comment period and describe changes made from the proposal 
to the final rule. The two issues discussed in

[[Page 58297]]

the NPRM and this final rule are revision to the Phase 1 carbon 
monoxide exhaust emission standard for nonhandheld small engines, and 
changes to the closed crankcase requirement for engines used 
exclusively in snowthrowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On March 4, 1996, Briggs and Stratton Corporation submitted to EPA 
a petition requesting reconsideration and revision of the certification 
fuel requirements and carbon monoxide (CO) emission standard for 
nonhandheld engines. The petition asks the Agency to amend its July 3, 
1995 final rule, Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-ignition (SI) 
Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts, hereafter referred to as the Phase 1 
small SI engine regulations.2 Specifically, the petition requests 
that the Agency amend the Phase 1 small SI engine rule to either: (1) 
Permit the use of appropriate oxygenated gasolines for emissions 
certification testing as a direct alternative to Indolene 3 under 
the current CO standard, or (2) revise the CO standard for nonhandheld 
small engines from 469 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) to 536 g/kW-
hr, in order to reflect the emission characteristics of these engines 
when tested on nonoxygenated gasolines. Nonhandheld engines are 
intended for use in nonhandheld applications and fall under one of two 
classes based on engine displacement.4 Class I engines are less 
than 225 cubic centimeters (cc) displacement, and Class II engines are 
greater than or equal to 225 cc displacement.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995, codified at 40 CFR part 90. The 
docket for the Phase 1 small SI engine rulemaking, EPA Air Docket 
#A-93-25, is incorporated by reference.
    \3\ See Sec. 90.308(b) and page 34589 of the preamble for the 
certification fuel specification for the Phase 1 small SI engine 
rulemaking. Indolene is one possible Federal certification fuel. 
Indolene is not the only eligible fuel, but it is within the 
eligible range specified in part 86 (section 86.1313-94(a)) to which 
the Phase 1 small SI engine rule refers. The Phase 1 small SI engine 
rulemaking provides for a range and based on experience with the on-
highway program, EPA expects that engine manufacturers will use 
Indolene. California Phase II Reformulated Gasoline and other 
oxygenated fuels are not within the range specified in the Phase 1 
small SI engine rule.
    \4\ For additional discussion of engine classes and handheld 
engine qualifications, see 60 FR 34585, July 3, 1995.
    \5\ Class I engines are predominantly found in lawnmowers. Class 
II engines primarily include engines used in generator sets, garden 
tractors, and commercial lawn and garden equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specific engine manufacturers and the Engine Manufacturers 
Association (EMA) have also raised concerns about the closed crankcase 
certification requirement specified in the Phase 1 small SI engine 
final rule at Sec. 90.109. The Agency specified in its Phase 1 small SI 
rule that as a requirement of certification crankcases must be closed 
in order to eliminate emissions that would otherwise occur when a 
crankcase is vented to the atmosphere. Subsequent to publication of the 
Phase 1 small SI engine final rule, however, the Agency was made aware 
of concerns specific to manufacturers of engines used exclusively in 
snowthrowers. These manufacturers indicated that it is necessary to 
maintain an open crankcase in order to prevent the freeze up of the 
intake which would likely occur if a crankcase breather hose was 
required. Additionally, these manufacturers provided evidence that the 
cost to close these crankcases and prevent freeze up would be 
prohibitively expensive, with the emissions benefit not justifying the 
cost. Manufacturers also claimed that the CO emission impact on CO 
nonattainment will also be minor due to the limited numbers of these 
pieces of equipment and the small impact opening the crankcase has on 
overall CO emissions from this small number of engines.
    EPA addressed these issues in a notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on July 3, 1996. The public comment period closed on August 
2, 1996.

IV. Description of This Rule

    This final rule revises the CO emission standard for Class I and II 
nonhandheld small SI engines from 469 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr in 
response to the petition submitted by Briggs and Stratton Corporation 
(B&SC). The underlying technical analysis and a description of the data 
on which it is based is presented in the Regulatory Support Document, a 
copy of which is in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    Given that the Agency, had it known that Briggs and Stratton had 
used an oxygenated test fuel to generate the test data which EPA used 
to set the Class I and II nonhandheld standard, would have taken fuel 
effects into account when determining the CO standard, the Agency 
believes that it is appropriate, now knowing about the fuel 
differences, to revise the Phase 1 final rule to reflect the fuel 
effect on CO emissions.
    In addition, the Agency is convinced by the arguments presented by 
the manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers that a 
change to the closed crankcase requirement is appropriate. Therefore, 
the Administrator will allow open crankcases for engines used 
exclusively to power snowthrowers based upon a manufacturer's 
demonstration that all applicable emission standards will still be met 
by the engine. This demonstration may be based on best engineering 
judgment. Upon request of the Administrator, the manufacturer must 
provide an explanation of the procedure or methodology used to 
determine that the total CO emissions from the breather and the exhaust 
are below the regulatory requirement for CO. The Agency is convinced 
that the cost of abating emissions from an open crankcase would be 
prohibitive, and therefore seeks no further demonstration of 
prohibitive cost.

V. Public Participation and Comment

    The Agency received written submissions during the comment period 
for the NPRM from four commenters. Copies may be obtained from the 
docket for this rule (see ADDRESSES).
    This section responds to significant comments received and provides 
EPA's rationale for its responses.

A. Revision of the CO Standard

    In its petition to the Agency, Briggs & Stratton Corporation 
requested that EPA amend the small engine Phase 1 final rule to either 
permit the use of appropriate oxygenated gasoline for certification 
testing or revise the CO standard for nonhandheld engines from 469 g/
kW-hr to 536 g/kW-hr to reflect emission characteristics of these 
engines when tested on nonoxygenated gasoline. The Agency has decided 
to address the petitioner's concern by raising the Phase 1 CO standard 
for Class I and II nonhandheld engines from 469 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr.
    Both the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and Briggs and 
Stratton Corporation submitted comments on the NPRM indicating full 
support for modifying the CO standard. EMA supported the proposal to 
raise the standard to 519 g/kW-hr. However, Briggs & Stratton 
Corporation expressed concern about several points contained in the 
July 1996 NPRM.
    One concern raised by B&SC is that in the prior rulemaking leading 
to the Phase 1 standards the Agency never addressed comments submitted 
August 5, 1994, by the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and the 
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) which requested that EPA 
include a ``Phase 2 or later California/Federal certification fuel'' in 
the Phase 1 final rule. In these comments, EMA and OPEI argued that 
allowing such a fuel for certification would harmonize the EPA 
regulations with California's, and thereby eliminate the need for 
manufacturers to duplicate certification tests for EPA and California.
    In its small engine Phase 1 final rule, EPA did address the 
commenters'

[[Page 58298]]

concern about the need for duplicate certification testing by allowing 
for the use of Indolene fuel. Since the CARB regulation allows the use 
of either Indolene or Phase 2 fuel, a test performed using Indolene 
could be used to satisfy both Federal and CARB requirements for small 
SI engines. In addition, as EMA points out in its comments, the Agency 
already provides a mechanism under the alternative test procedures 
provision of the small engine Phase 1 final rule for those 
manufacturers who certify in California using oxygenated fuel and wish 
to use those test results for certification with EPA.
    B&SC also commented that while it supports EPA's decision to raise 
the CO standard, it believes the most efficient and technically correct 
method for addressing the concern raised in their petition would be for 
EPA to permit the use of certification test fuels allowed by CARB. As 
EPA explained in the July 1996 NPRM for this rule, the Agency set 
nonhandheld CO emission standards that only engines tested on 
oxygenated fuel had been demonstrated to meet. In conjunction with a 
test fuel like Indolene, the current 469 g/kW-hr nonhandheld CO 
emission standard is more stringent than the Agency intended because it 
did not take into account the effect of the oxygenated fuel used in the 
test data on which EPA based the standard. As described in detail in 
the July 1996 NPRM for this rule, it is the Agency's position that the 
most effective and timely way to address this problem is to raise the 
CO emission standard for nonhandheld engines. The Agency considered 
addressing the problem by allowing oxygenated fuels for certification, 
but because of several concerns about this approach, EPA has concluded 
that revising the CO standard is the preferred way to address the 
problem. In its July 1996 NPRM, the Agency described three concerns 
regarding the allowance of oxygenated test fuels for small SI engine 
certification. One concern is that while the Agency based its 
nonhandheld Class I and II emission standards on Briggs and Stratton 
test data, which it now knows was run on oxygenated fuels, the same 
cannot be said for the data EPA used to set its standards for Classes 
III, IV and IV. Allowing the use of oxygenated certification fuel for 
these other standards would be inconsistent with the technical basis 
used to set the standard, and would undermine the level of stringency 
expected by the Agency in adopting these standards. Secondly, if the 
Agency were to allow certification testing on oxygenated fuels but 
maintain its current standards, it would not be certain of the benefits 
of HC and NOX emission reductions described in the Phase 1 final 
rule when the engines designed to meet the new emission standards are 
run on nonoxygenated fuels in the field. In addition, the Agency wishes 
to maintain its longheld position that engines should be certified on 
fuels representative of fuels they will see in-use and representative 
of fuels on which the standards are based. The Agency believes that the 
current test fuel specifications meets this objective better than 
California Phase II Reformulated Gasoline. For these reasons, the 
Agency believes the most effective and timely method for addressing the 
problem raised by B&SC is not to change the certification test fuel 
specifications, but to raise the nonhandheld CO emission standard.
    B&SC also raised a concern about EPA's statement in the July 1996 
NPRM that the data was inconclusive regarding the potential for 
increases in in-use NOX emissions from not allowing certification 
testing on oxygenated gasoline. Briggs and Stratton states that a 
review of the Regulatory Support Document (RSD) does not support the 
position taken by EPA in the preamble that the data is inconclusive, 
but instead shows that the EPA data was inconclusive and the pertinent 
Briggs & Stratton data showed an increase in NOX emissions. EPA 
maintains that the data is inconclusive, and believes no change in the 
HC + NOX standard is required due to the change in the CO emission 
standard. EPA's analysis, as presented in the RSD, indicates that the 
Briggs & Stratton test data, based on the average of 6 engine models, 
shows a NOX increase of 0.14 g/kW-hr with the use of an oxygenated 
fuel over Indolene. EPA's data showed a NOX decrease of 0.08 g/kW-
hr with the use of an oxygenated fuel over a nonoxygenated fuel. EPA 
views the combined data to be inconclusive regarding the effect of 
oxygenated versus nonoxygenated fuel on NOX emissions.
    In its petition, Briggs & Stratton proposed a revised CO emission 
standard of 536 g/kW-hr to take into account not only the offset 
between test fuels but also production variability. B&SC argued that in 
order to account for the wider range in test results that would occur 
when an engine model enters high volume production and the family on a 
whole is tested in a product line audit, a 67 g/kW-hr change to the 
standard is necessary. Briggs & Stratton commented that in the July 
1996 NPRM EPA had failed to support its position that the Agency had 
taken production variability into account at an earlier stage of the 
small engine rulemaking process, and thus should increase the standard 
by 67 g/kW-hr to 536 g/kW-hr instead of by 50 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr. 
The Agency disagrees. EPA had stated in the NPRM that the data it 
analyzed to determine the CO emission difference between oxygenated and 
nonoxygenated fuels indicated that fuel differences may account for as 
much as 50 g/kW-hr. However, as EPA does not expect the production 
variability to change based on differences in fuel type, the Agency has 
no reason to increase the CO standard in this rule to account for 
production variability. As EPA mentions in the July 1996 NPRM and 
explains in the small engine Phase 1 final rule Response to Comments 
document,6 EPA took production variability into account when it 
increased the CO standard from 402 g/kW-hr to 469 g/kW-hr between the 
small engine Phase 1 NPRM and final rule. B&SC mischaracterizes EPA's 
position by stating that the underlying premise for EPA's position is 
that the degree of variability in mass emissions data will not increase 
in relation to mass. This was not EPA's underlying premise; EPA 
examined B&SC's production variability concern from the perspective of 
specifically addressing the high volume production issue that Briggs & 
Stratton raised in its petition. B&SC itself makes no claim regarding 
variability in relation to mass, nor provides data concerning mass 
emissions and variability. EPA believes it adequately addressed the 
production variability concern B&SC raised in its petition when the 
Agency increased the CO standard from 402 g/kW-hr to 469 g/kW-hr 
between the small engine Phase 1 NPRM and final rule. Accordingly, EPA 
believes the only rationale for increasing the CO emission standard in 
this rule is to account for emission differences between oxygenated and 
nonoxygenated fuels. The Agency is therefore increasing the nonhandheld 
Class I and II CO standard to 519 g/kW-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Open Crankcase for Snowthrowers

    In the July 1996 NPRM, EPA proposed allowing the Administrator the 
option to permit the use of open crankcases in engines used exclusively 
to power snowthrowers. As described in the NPRM, EPA would consider 
allowing open crankcases for these engines if adequate demonstrations 
are made by the manufacturers that the applicable emission standards 
would be met and that the cost of abating emissions from

[[Page 58299]]

an open crankcase would be prohibitive. EPA received comment on this 
issue from the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and two 
manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers, American 
Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and Tecumseh Products Company (Tecumseh).
    All of the commenters expressed support for the idea of allowing 
open crankcases on engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers. 
However, all three commenters oppose EPA requiring a demonstration to 
show that the cost of abating emissions from an open crankcase would be 
prohibitive. In addition, commenters expressed concern about the 
provision requiring manufacturers to demonstrate that the engine would 
meet applicable emission standards even with the open crankcase. After 
considering the comments received, EPA has determined that it will 
permit the use of open crankcases in engines used exclusively to power 
snowthrowers, based on a manufacturer's demonstration that the 
applicable standards will be met. This demonstration may be based on 
best engineering judgment. The Agency will not require a demonstration 
of prohibitive cost. However, the Agency will require manufacturers to 
provide to the Agency upon request the methodology or procedure used to 
determine that the applicable CO emission standard would be met.
    EPA is convinced by commenters arguments that requiring individual 
demonstrations of prohibitive cost would be burdensome for the 
manufacturers and the Agency, and possibly could create competitive 
inequities among manufacturers. In addition, some manufacturers 
previously shared information with the Agency regarding costs that the 
Agency believes shows the technological fix that would generally be 
required to close snowthrower crankcases are prohibitive. Consequently, 
manufacturers will not need to make any demonstration of the cost to 
close the crankcase on engines used exclusively to power snowthrowers.
    The Agency received comment from the same three commenters on the 
proposed provision that manufacturers demonstrate that the applicable 
emission standards would be met with open crankcases. EMA states in its 
comments that no test procedure has been defined nor test method 
developed to measure the CO contained within the crankcase gasses 
emitted from the open crankcase; EMA thus views the required 
demonstration to be difficult if not impossible. In its comments, 
Tecumseh also indicates that it does not support the requirement to 
measure crankcase breather emissions because the amount of CO in 
crankcase emissions is extremely small, and because no test procedure 
is defined to measure CO emissions in crankcase gases. However, 
Tecumseh expressed willingness to share with EPA the procedure it used 
to determine the crankcase CO emissions, which it states are 
approximately 1% of the exhaust CO emissions, regardless of operating 
mode. Honda suggests in its concluding comments that the Agency should 
allow open crankcases for snowthrower engines if the total CO emissions 
from the breather and the exhaust are below the regulatory requirement 
for CO. Honda's research on open crankcases indicates that gas flow 
from the crankcase breather does not exceed 2.5% of the exhaust flow, 
and crankcase breather CO gas flow accounts for only 0.025% of the 
total exhaust flow. In its concluding comments, Honda states that since 
the crankcase breather CO is very small when compared to the exhaust, 
EPA should accept a manufacturer's engineering judgment when 
determining the total engine CO.
    Based on the comments, EPA believes that in many cases snowthrowers 
with open crankcases would continue to meet all of the applicable 
standards, including the CO standard. However, the data before the 
agency is relatively limited and EPA is not in a position at this time 
to conclude that no demonstration of compliance is needed for any such 
engines before a certificate of conformity is issued. The comments do 
reflect that manufacturers should often be in a position to demonstrate 
that the standards are met with an open crankcase using best 
engineering judgment. Only a limited amount of data generation would 
seem necessary to make such a demonstration. Therefore the final rule 
requires that manufacturers make such a demonstration, but makes it 
clear that this may be based on best engineering judgment. Upon request 
by EPA, the manufacturers of engines used exclusively in snowthrowers 
must explain to the Agency the procedure or methodology used to 
determine that the applicable standards would be met.

C. Effective Date

    As proposed in the July 1996 NPRM, this rule will be effective upon 
signature by the Administrator. This rule is not adding regulatory 
burdens to any regulated entities; rather, it is relieving burden. In 
addition, EPA needs to act expeditiously in order that manufacturers 
may certify their engine models to the Phase 1 emission standards and 
make them available for the 1997 model year. Consequently, EPA believes 
no delay in the effective date of this rule is necessary.

VI. Environmental Benefit Assessment

    Although the change in the nonhandheld CO standard results in a 
change from the 7% reduction in CO estimated in the final rule to a 2% 
reduction in the CO inventory, the Agency has concluded that this rule 
has no effect on the HC+NOX inventory and minimal effect on the CO 
inventory in nonattainment areas. The majority of equipment powered by 
the Class I and II nonhandheld engines subject to this rule is used 
during the summer months, when CO nonattainment is generally not a 
concern. Furthermore, the CO emission rate for many nonhandheld engine 
models will remain unchanged despite the change in the CO standard 
since CO levels often are controlled in meeting the HC+NOX 
emission standards which are not affected by this action.
    The provision to permit open crankcases in engines used exclusively 
to power snowthrowers will require that manufacturers show compliance 
with applicable standards. The Agency expects, therefore, that the 
proposed open crankcase option will not affect the emission inventory 
or the emission reductions to be achieved by the Phase 1 small SI 
engine final rule.

VII. Economic Effects

    The Agency anticipates that this rule will have minimal, if any, 
effect on the costs or benefits of the Phase 1 small SI engine final 
rule. Industry costs are unlikely to change because engine 
manufacturers will not need to make additional modifications to meet 
the relaxed CO standard. As there will be no additional cost for 
industry to pass on to the consumer as a result of this rulemaking, EPA 
is convinced that consumer cost impacts will remain unchanged. The 
Agency therefore concludes that the economic effects of this rulemaking 
are negligible.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA 
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the executive 
order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that 
is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

[[Page 58300]]

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof;
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the order.
    EPA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not 
subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new information requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it 
change the information collection requirements the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has previously approved. OMB has previously assigned 
OMB control number 2060-0338 to the requirements associated with the 
nonroad small SI engine certification information collection request 
(ICR); this action does not change those requirements in any way.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed 
into law on March 22, 1995) requires that EPA prepare a budgetary 
impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any one year. Section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
requires EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and 
informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
    Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA must identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be 
prepared. EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly, 
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule, unless EPA explains why this alternative is not 
selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
    Because this rule is expected to result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less than 
$100 million in any one year, EPA has not prepared a budgetary impact 
statement or specifically addressed selection of the least costly, most 
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative. Because small 
governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this 
rule, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small 
governments.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) requires EPA to 
consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business. 
If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed regulation would 
have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of 
small business entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis must be 
prepared.
    This rule decreases the stringency of the CO exhaust emission 
standard for Class I and II nonhandheld engines, and allows 
manufacturers of snowthrowers to be relieved of the requirement that 
crankcases be closed, thereby potentially creating beneficial effects 
on small businesses by easing these two provisions required of small 
engine manufacturers by the Phase 1 small SI engine regulations. As a 
result, EPA has determined that this rulemaking will not have a 
significant adverse effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Consequently, EPA has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 
for this rule.

IX. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report 
containing this rule and required information to the U.S. Senate, the 
House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General 
Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 90

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle 
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 5, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 90 of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 90-CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES

    1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 
216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7522, 
7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)).

Subpart B--[Amended]

    2. Section 90.103 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec. 90.103  Exhaust emission standards.

    (a) * * *

                                           Exhaust Emission Standards                                           
                                            [Grams per kilowatt-hour]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Hydrocarbon                          Oxides 
                     Engine displacement class                      plus oxides  Hydrocarbon   Carbon      of   
                                                                    of nitrogen               monoxide  nitrogen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.................................................................       16.1    ...........       519  ........
II................................................................       13.4    ...........       519  ........
III...............................................................  ...........        295         805      5.36
IV................................................................  ...........        241         805      5.36
V.................................................................  ...........        161         603      5.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    3. Section 90.109 is amended by adding new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 58301]]

Sec. 90.109  Requirement of certification--closed crankcase.

* * * * *
    (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the 
Administrator will allow open crankcases for engines used exclusively 
to power snowthrowers based upon a manufacturer's demonstration that 
all applicable emission standards will be met by the engine for the 
combination of emissions from the crankcase, and exhaust emissions 
measured using the procedures in subpart E of this part. This 
demonstration may be made based upon best engineering judgment. Upon 
request of the Administrator, the manufacturer must provide an 
explanation of any procedure or methodology used to determine that the 
total CO emissions from the crankcase and the exhaust are below the 
applicable standard for CO.

[FR Doc. 96-29026 Filed 11-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P