[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66081-66083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32001]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 90

[FRL-6195-2]
RIN 2060-AE29


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing notice 
of the availability for public review information received by the 
Agency following the publication of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) for new nonroad spark-ignition (SI) engines at or below 19 
kilowatts (25 horsepower). These engines are used principally in lawn 
and garden equipment, both in nonhandheld applications such as 
lawnmowers, and also in handheld applications such as trimmers and 
chainsaws. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 
27, 1998, and the close of the comment period for the NPRM was March 
13, 1998. The additional information received since the publication of 
the NPRM relates to whether final standards more stringent than those 
contained in the NPRM would be achievable by the regulated industry.
    The additional information cited in this document was gathered in 
response to the NPRM. This additional notice of availability is not 
required, but is intended to inform the public of information included 
in the rulemaking record upon which EPA may rely when adopting the 
final program. Due to the short deadline for a final rulemaking, EPA is 
not reopening the comment period on the NPRM, but will endeavor to 
review and place in the docket any comments submitted in response to 
this document, to the extent time allows.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in EPA 
Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No. A-96-55, Room M-1500 
(mail code 6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. These 
materials may be viewed from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The 
docket may also be reached by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided 
in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for 
photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Larson, Office of Mobile 
Sources, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, (734) 214-4277, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document contains two sections. The 
first section provides background on the pending small SI engine 
rulemaking. The second section contains a listing of relevant 
information available in the docket for the pending rulemaking made 
available to the Agency since the publication of the NPRM.

I. Background

    On January 27, 1998, EPA issued a NPRM proposing a second phase of 
regulations to control emissions from new nonroad SI engines at or 
below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower) (``small SI engines'') (63 FR 3950). 
This action was preceded by a March 27, 1997, Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (62 FR 14740). EPA solicited comment on virtually 
all aspects of the NPRM. The public comment period for the NPRM closed 
March 13, 1998.
    EPA held a public hearing on February 11, 1998, and the oral 
testimony and written material provided at that hearing have been added 
to the docket for this rule. This information was supplemented by more 
extensive documentation provided as written comment to the NPRM, which 
is also included in the docket for this rule.1 At the public 
hearing, in response to a request by the Engine Manufacturers 
Association (EMA) to extend the comment period so as to allow written 
comments to reflect the information provided at a March 26, 1998, 
hearing of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) concerning its 
rules impacting many of these same engines, EPA committed to also 
consider all publicly available information of which EPA was informed 
and which was provided to the State of California for their 
deliberations. This information regarding the recently adopted small 
engine standards by the State of California has also been incorporated 
in the docket.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A listing of these items is in Section II.A. of this 
document.
    \2\ A listing of these items is in Section II.B. of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA's standards to 
achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through 
the application of technology which the Administrator determines will 
be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost, lead time, 
noise, energy and safety factors. The NPRM contained lengthy discussion 
of the proposed standards, the expected costs of their implementation, 
and the potential costs and benefits of adopting more stringent 
standards such as those that were under consideration by the California 
ARB. In the NPRM, EPA explicitly asked for comment regarding the level 
of the proposed standards and the impacts and timing for implementing 
more stringent standards, so as to allow it to establish the most 
appropriate standards in the final rule. In particular, EPA requested 
comment on the impacts and timing for

[[Page 66082]]

implementing emission standards that would require the same types of 
technology as anticipated by proposed rules under consideration at that 
time by the California ARB.
    After the close of the comment period and upon reviewing the 
information supplied during the comment period, EPA determined that it 
was desirable to get further details regarding the technological 
feasibility, cost and lead time implications of meeting standards more 
stringent than those contained in the NPRM. EPA's NPRM already 
contained estimates of the costs and feasibility of more stringent 
standards. Some commenters had charged that, based on these 
discussions, EPA's proposed standards would not satisfy the stringency 
requirements of Clean Air Act Section 213(a)(3). For the purpose of 
gaining additional information on feasibility, cost and lead time 
implications of more stringent standards, EPA had several meetings, 
phone conversations, and written correspondence with specific engine 
manufacturers, with industry associations representing those 
manufacturers, with representatives of state regulatory associations, 
and with members of Congress. Summaries of those meetings, phone 
conversations, and written correspondence have also been placed in the 
docket.3 EPA also sought information relating to the impact 
on equipment manufacturers, if any, of changes in technology 
potentially required to meet more stringent standards than were 
contained in the NPRM. Summaries of this information have been placed 
in the docket.4 Additionally, EPA received numerous comments 
on the NPRM requesting closer harmonization with the compliance program 
provisions adopted by the State of California. In some cases, EPA also 
discussed these harmonization issues with manufacturers to improve the 
Agency's understanding of the needs and benefits to the industry of 
such harmonization; when applicable, these conversations are also noted 
in the meeting documentation provided to the docket.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A listing of these items is in Section II.C. of this 
document.
    \4\ A listing of these items is in Section II.D. of this 
document.
    \5\ A listing of these items is in Section II.C. of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA received numerous pieces of correspondence, much of it 
after the formal comment period closed, from representatives of the 
model airplane and related hobbyist community. This correspondence has 
also been included in the docket and will be considered by EPA in 
developing its final rule.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As EPA has stated on prior occasions, in adopting the final small 
SI engine rule EPA intends to consider all relevant information that 
becomes available. This includes information received during the 
comment period on an NPRM, and, to the extent possible, important 
information which becomes available after the formal NPRM comment 
period has concluded. Regarding the small SI engine rulemaking, to the 
extent that post-NPRM information has expanded or updated the knowledge 
of the Agency regarding technological feasibility, production lead time 
estimates for incorporating improved designs, cost to manufacturers, 
cost to consumers and similar factors, it is reasonable to expect that 
the improved information may result in changing assessments of how the 
pending rule can best achieve regulatory goals compared to what had 
been expected at the time of the NPRM. This is especially true in the 
case of a rulemaking concerning an industry, like small SI engines, 
that is undergoing relatively rapid technological achievement.

II. Summary of Information Available in Docket to This Rule

    The following is a listing of information received by EPA after the 
publication of the NPRM that is available in the docket to the pending 
rulemaking, EPA Air Docket #A-96-55. This listing may be incomplete, as 
new material may be added to the docket, and may have already been 
added following signature of this document but before its publication 
in the Federal Register. Readers may wish to review docket materials 
for information other than that specifically identified in this 
document.

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

    Oral testimony was presented on behalf of 8 individuals or 
organizations at the February 11, 1998, public hearing. The docket 
contains a transcript of the hearing and a listing of hearing attendees 
(Items IV-F-01 and IV-F-02), as well as copies of written materials 
presented at the hearing (Item IV-D-28). In addition, written comments 
from 22 individuals or organizations were submitted to the docket 
(Items IV-D-01 through IV-D-22) by the close of the comment period.

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

    The California ARB issued a Mail-Out (#MSC 98-02) on January 27, 
1998, noticing a March 26, 1998, Public Hearing to Consider Amendments 
to the Small Off-Road Engine Regulations, and containing the staff 
proposal and report on this topic (Item IV-G-06). At the March 26, 
1998, Public Hearing, California ARB staff made available a modified 
version of the regulation portion of Mail-Out 98-02, which staff 
proposed to the Board at the hearing (Item IV-G-07). The California ARB 
staff presentation made at the hearing, as well as written materials 
submitted in response to the hearing notice are also contained in the 
docket (Items IV-G-05, and Item IV-D-27). Finally, on March 9, 1998, 
the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association (PPEMA) 
forwarded to EPA the ``PPEMA Proposal for ARB Tier II Emissions 
Regulations'' (Item IV-D-23).

C. Summaries of Meetings, Phone Conversations, and Correspondence 
Received by the Agency Regarding Programs for Nonhandheld and Handheld 
Engines

    First, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or 
meetings with nonhandheld engine manufacturers or industry associations 
representing those manufacturers, including EMA, Tecumseh Products, 
Briggs & Stratton, Honda, and Kohler, between May 1998 and September 
1998, regarding topics such as standards and implementation dates for 
Class I engines, in-use verification testing and compliance, useful 
life definitions, a technology to reduce emissions on OHV engines, and 
Class I and II Phase 2 Final Regulations, are contained in the docket 
(see Items IV-C-01, IV-C-02, IV-D-25, IV-D-26, IV-E-15, IV-E-16, IV-E-
19, IV-E-25. IV-E-44, IV-E-45, IV-E-46, IV-E-48, IV-E-49, IV-E-53, IV-
E-54, IV-E-57, IV-E-59, IV-E-60, IV-E-63, IV-E-64, and IV-G-26).
    Second, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or 
meetings with handheld engine manufacturers or industry associations 
representing those manufacturers, including PPEMA, John Deere, Poulan, 
McCulloch, Dolmar, Tanaka, and Stihl, between June 1998 and September 
1998, regarding topics such as a PPEMA proposal for Phase 2 standards 
and effective dates, including Phase 3 standards in the Phase 2 final 
rule, standards for handheld engines that would skip Phase 2 levels and 
go directly to Phase 3 levels, appropriate emission standards for 
commercial

[[Page 66083]]

products, a technology for reducing handheld 2-stroke emissions, and 
Phase 2 handheld engine emission standard feasibility, are contained in 
the docket (see Items IV-C-03, IV-E-09, IV-E-11 through IV-E-14, IV-E-
17, IV-E-18, IV-E-20, IV-E-21, IV-E-23, IV-E-26, IV-E-40, IV-E-43, IV-
E-50, IV-E-51, IV-E-56, IV-E-62, IV-E-65, IV-E-66, IV-G-22, IV-G-27, 
and IV-G-28).
    Third, summaries of separate discussions held between EPA and 
Honda, American Suzuki Motor Corporation, and Tecumseh Products 
concerning the displacement cutoff for an additional nonhandheld class 
are contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-24, IV-E-52).
    Fourth, summaries of a September 16, 1998 telephone conversation 
between EPA and Tom Cackette (California Air Resources Board) and a 
September 17, 1998 telephone conversation between EPA and Jason Grumet 
(NESCAUM) regarding the development of final Phase 2 regulations for 
small engines is contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-61 and IV-E-
22).
    Fifth, summaries of correspondence between EPA and members of 
Congress, including Representative Jo Ann Emerson and three colleagues 
to EPA, regarding pending Phase 2 regulations for small SI engines, 
Senator Herb Kohl to EPA on behalf of constituent Cliff Feldmann, 
President of the Auger and power Equipment Manufacturers Association 
(APEMA), Representative Frank Lucas to EPA on behalf of constituent Mr. 
Dick Roberts, a member of the Auger and Power Equipment Manufacturers 
Association (APEMA), are contained in the docket, (Items IV-C-06, IV-C-
05 and IV-C-04).
    Finally, summaries of substantive correspondence, conversations, or 
meetings with other individuals or organizations, including May 20, 
1998 information from and September 3, 1998 meeting with Boswell Energy 
Systems regarding a technology for reducing emissions from small SI 
engines and June 22, 1998 correspondence from Autonnic Research to EPA 
regarding the Autonnic Maintenance Alert Meters, June 16, 1998 meeting 
and October 20 telephone conversations between EPA, Pyrotek Inc. and 
others regarding Spark Plug Technology for Emission Reductions for 
Small SI Engines At or Below 19 kW, and correspondence from MECA to EPA 
regarding catalytic technology for small SI nonroad engines, are 
contained in the docket (Items IV-D-24, IV-E-07, IV-G-13, IV-E-42 and 
IV-E-41, and IV-G-25).

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

    EPA sought information on the impact on equipment manufacturers, if 
any, of changes in technology potentially required to meet more 
stringent standards than were contained in the NPRM. Summaries of 
substantive correspondence received or conversations or meetings held 
regarding the impact of standards on equipment manufacturers are 
contained in the docket (see Items IV-E-27 through IV-E-39, IV-E-52, 
IV-E-55, IV-E-58 , IV-E-67, and IV-G-20).

E. Correspondence from Representatives of the Model Airplane and 
Hobbyist Community

    EPA received numerous pieces of correspondence before and after the 
close of the comment period on the NPRM from representatives of the 
model airplane and related hobbyist community (Items IV-D-07; IV-G-08 
through IV-G-12; IV-G-14 through IV-G-19; IV-G-21; IV-G-23, and IV-G-
24).

    Dated: November 20, 1998.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 98-32001 Filed 11-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P