34778 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Gasoline,

Reformulated gasoline, Conventional

gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution.

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 80 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 80

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 114, 211, and 301(a) of

the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.

7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

Section 80.46 is amended by revising

the paragraphs under (f)(F)(3)(i) and

(g)(G)(9)(i) to read as follows:

§ 80.46 Measurement of reformulated

gasoline fuel parameters.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) Alternative Test Method. (i) Prior

to September 1, 1998, any refiner or

importer may determine aromatics

content using ASTM standard method

D–1319–93, entitled ‘‘Standard Test

Method for Hydrocarbon Types in

Liquid Petroleum Products by

Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption.’’ For

purposes of meeting any testing

requirement involving aromatic content,

provided that

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(9)(i) Prior to September 1, 1998, and

when the oxygenates present are limited

to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiaryamyl alcohol, and C1 to C4 alcohols,

any refiner, importer, or oxygenate

blender may determine oxygen and

oxygenate content using ASTM standard

method D–4815–93, entitled ‘‘Standard

Test Method for Determination of

MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiaryAmyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in

Gasoline by Gas Chromatography,’’ for

purposes of meeting any testing

requirement; provided that

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–17027 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 90

[FRL–5530–8]

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Today EPA is proposing a

revision of 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 would increase the

standard from 469 grams per kilowatthour (g/kW-hr) to 519 g/kW-hr. This

proposed action is necessary to address

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

would 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 proposes to

give the Administrator the option to

permit the use of open crankcases in

engines used exclusively to power

snowthrowers. This proposed change

will give EPA the flexibility to allow

certain engine manufacturers to certify

engines to be used in snowthrowers

without making technological changes

that would severely impair the ability of

the engine to function or that would be

economically prohibitive.

DATES: Written comments on this NPRM

must be submitted by August 2, 1996.

EPA will hold a public hearing on this

NPRM sometime between [Insert date 15

days from date of publication] and

August 2, 1996. If one is requested by

July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted (in duplicate, if possible)

to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket,

Attention Docket No. A–96–02, room

M–1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M St.,

SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Materials

relevant to this rulemaking are

contained in docket no. A–93–25 and

docket no. A–96–02, and 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. Members of the

public may call the contact person

indicated below to find out whether a

hearing will be held and if so, the exact

location. Requests for a public hearing

should be directed to the person

indicated below. The hearing, if

requested, will be held in Michigan.

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:

horne.laurel@epamail.epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

Do ...... 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 section 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 notice of

proposed rulemaking 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 34779

1 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995, codified at 40 C.F.R.

part 90. The docket for the Phase 1 small SI engine

rulemaking, EPA Air Docket #A–93–25, is

incorporated by reference.

2See section 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.

3For additional discussion of engine classes and

handheld engine qualifications, see 60 FR 34585,

July 3, 1995.

4Class 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.

5Throughout its utility engine regulations, CARB

uses horsepower (hp) measurements, while in its

small SI engine regulations, EPA refers to kilowatts

(kW). To convert kilowatts to horsepower multiply

kW by 1.34 and round to the same number of

significant digits. In this case, 300 g/bhp-hr = 402

g/kW-hr.

6See CARB Mail-out #94–20, May 4, 1994, Utility

and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engine Test Fuel

Specifications.

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://gopher.epa.gov/ Follow

menus for: Offices/Air/OMS

FTP:

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 Help line:

919–541–5384.

Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 AM to

12:00 noon EST.

A user who has not called TTN

previously first 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.

<T> GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL

AREAS (Bulletin Boards)

<M> OMS—Mobile Sources Information

<K> 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 <G>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

Authority for the actions set forth in

this rule is granted to EPA by sections

213 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as

amended (42 U.S.C. 7547 and 7601(a)).

IV. The Carbon Monoxide Standard

and Fuel Specification Issue

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 Sparkignition (SI) Engines At or Below 19

Kilowatts, hereafter referred to as the

Phase 1 small SI engine regulations.1

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 2 under the

current CO standard, or (2) revise the

CO standard for nonhandheld small

engines from 469 grams per kilowatthour (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.3 Class I engines

are less than 225 cubic centimeters (cc)

displacement, and Class II engines are

greater than or equal to 225 cc

displacement.4 In response to the Briggs

and Stratton petition, EPA is revising

the Phase 1 small SI engine regulation

by increasing the CO standard for Class

I and II nonhandheld small SI engines

from 469 g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr.

To help the reader understand EPA’s

response to the petitioner’s request, the

following text provides background on

prior actions taken by the State of

California’s Air Resources Board

(CARB), EPA, and industry relating to

the fuel requirements and the CO

standard for nonhandheld small SI

engines.

Both EPA and CARB have regulations

that pertain to nonhandheld small SI

engines. Nonhandheld small SI engines

manufactured for sale in the United

States must meet EPA emission

regulations starting with the 1997 model

year. Engines produced for sale in

California must also meet regulatory

requirements specified by CARB. The

small engine industry and other

stakeholders have been actively

involved in the development of EPA

and CARB nonroad engine regulations.

CARB’s CO Standard and Fuel

Specifications

CARB began the process of

developing emission regulations for

small nonroad engines under the

authority of the California Clean Air Act

of 1988. In December 1990, the

California Regulations for 1995 and

Later Utility and Lawn and Garden

Equipment Engines (hereafter referred to

as the utility engine regulations) were

initially approved. Among other

requirements, CARB’s Tier 1 utility

engine regulations, as formally adopted

in March 1992, specified that Class I

and Class II engines produced from

January 1, 1995, through December 31,

1998, must certify to a 300 gram per

brake horsepower-hour (g/bhphr)carbon monoxide exhaust emission

standard.5

In regard to certification fuel

specifications, CARB’s utility engine

regulations referenced CARB on-road

vehicle certification fuel specifications,

which were adopted in 1987 and

amended in July 1991. Consequently,

engine manufacturers could select to

certify their engines using either

Indolene Clear or California Phase 1

Reformulated Gasoline. A later

amendment to the utility engine

regulations revised the certification fuel

specifications to incorporate the most

recent on-road motor vehicle fuel

specification, California Phase II

Reformulated gasoline. In a related mailout, CARB stated that it had intended

for engine test fuel specifications to be

consistent with the on-road motor

vehicle fuel specifications 6; in the

future, approved amendments to the

CARB on-road vehicle fuel

specifications will be immediately
34780 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

7See CARB Mail-out #95–43, Notice of January

25, 1996 Public Hearing.

8CARB Resolution 96–1, January 25, 1996.

9See Table 3 in Appendix A to Subpart D of Part

90 of the proposed Phase 1 regulations, available in

EPA Air Docket #A–93–25, item III–A–2.

10 59 FR 25419, May 16, 1994.

11 60 FR 34584, July 3, 1995.

12See Response to Comments on the NPRM, in

EPA Air Docket #A–93–25, item V–C–01.

13See 40 CFR 90.308(b)(1).

14Letter from Chester France, EPA to Jed Mandel,

EMA, November 3, 1995. A copy of this letter is

included in the docket for this rulemaking.

15Letter from Paul Machiele, EPA to Addresses,

January 24, 1996. A copy of this letter is included

in the docket for this rulemaking.

applicable to engine certification test

fuels.

In July, 1995, Briggs and Stratton

Corporation petitioned CARB to amend

its 300 g/bhp-hr CO standard for Class

I and II engines to 350 g/bhp-hr. The

company argued that it was not

technically feasible to meet the 300 g/

bhp-hr CO standard. After consideration

of Briggs and Stratton’s petition, CARB

prepared a notice of public hearing and

an accompanying staff report.7 While

expressing several concerns about the

petition in the staff report, CARB staff

recommended that the Board approve

Briggs and Stratton’s request. At a

public hearing on January 25, 1996, the

Board granted Briggs and Stratton’s

request, and adopted the recommended

amendment to raise the Class I and II

CO exhaust emission standard to 350 g/

bhp-hr (equivalent to 469 g/kw-hr).8

EPA’s CO Standard and Fuel

Specifications

Not long after CARB began developing

its utility engine regulations, EPA

decided to adopt a phased approach for

regulating emissions from small SI

engines under the authority of section

213(a) of the Clean Air Act. For the first

phase, EPA determined that the

regulations would be similar to the

CARB’s Regulation for 1995 and Later

Utility and Lawn and Garden

Equipment Engines. EPA published its

proposed rules on May 16, 1994. One

provision of the proposal was that

nonhandheld engines would be required

to certify to a CO standard set at 402 g/

kW-hr—equivalent to CARB’s original

CO standard of 300 g/bhp-hr. However,

the certification test fuel specified in the

Phase 1 proposal was different from

CARB’s. In its notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM), EPA specified a

fuel referred to as Clean Air Act

Baseline (CAAB).9 EPA noted in its

preamble that although oxygenated and

reformulated gasoline fuel was available

in different areas around the United

States, the availability varied widely.10

Reformulated or oxygenated gasoline

was therefore not specified as a

certification test fuel for the Phase 1

NPRM.

Following publication of the Phase 1

NPRM, Briggs and Stratton submitted

proprietary engine development data

and analysis to EPA. The company

argued that the data established a need

for an increase to the nonhandheld CO

standard from the proposed level of 402

g/kW-hr. The Engine Manufacturers

Association (EMA) also provided

comments in support of increasing the

CO emission standard for Class I and II

nonhandheld engines from the proposed

402 g/kw-hr to 469 g/kw-hr. EMA

argued that it is not technically feasible

for a significant percentage of the

market to meet the more stringent

proposed standard.

On July 3, 1995, EPA published its

Phase 1 small SI engine final

rulemaking.11 The final provisions for

both the nonhandheld CO emission

standard and the certification fuel

specifications differed from the

proposed provisions. Based on its own

review and analysis of the data

submitted by Briggs and Stratton

following publication of the NPRM, EPA

decided to raise the CO standard for

nonhandheld engines from the proposed

level of 402 g/kw-hr to 469 g/kw-hr. The

rationale for the increase of the

nonhandheld CO standard is discussed

in further detail in the final rule

response to comments document.12

In the preamble to its final Phase 1

small SI engine rule, EPA discussed the

provisions for the type of fuel to be used

for certification and confirmatory

testing. In response to comments

received on the NPRM, the Agency

decided to expand the range of

specifications for certification fuels such

that the fuel commonly referred to as

Indolene Clear, in addition to the Clean

Air Act Baseline (CAAB) fuel that was

discussed in the proposal, would be

allowed.13 Indolene is the trade name

for the gasoline fuel specified at 40 CFR

86.113 and 40 CFR 86.1313 for most onhighway federal compliance test

procedures. 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. Unknown by the

Agency at the time EPA finalized the

rule, Briggs and Stratton’s data

supporting the increased standard was

based on testing conducted with

oxygenated fuels, rather than the federal

fuel specified in the NPRM.

In sum, while EPA had hoped its

allowance of Indolene as a test fuel

would facilitate consistency with

CARB’s program and allow

manufacturers to conduct a single test

for both the federal and CARB program,

the Agency in fact set a standard that

only engines tested on oxygenated fuel

had been demonstrated to meet. In

conjunction with a test fuel like

Indolene the 469 g/kW-hr nonhandheld

CO emission standard set in the Phase

1 small SI engine regulations 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.

Again, at the time EPA set the

standard, the Agency did not know

Briggs and Stratton’s data had been

generated through testing with

oxygenated fuels. In addition, when

CARB decided to relax its CO standard

to 350 g/bhp-hr (469 g/kW-hr) in

January 1996, it noted that the standard

would be less stringent than federal

regulations due to CARB’s allowance of

oxygenated, reformulated gasoline for

certification. Although the CARB 350 g/

bhp-hr CO standard and the federal 469

g/kW-hr CO standard are numerically

equivalent, the latter does not allow for

the use of oxygenated fuels such as

Phase II reformulated gasoline, and is

therefore more stringent than EPA

believes is appropriate in light of the

factors EPA is directed to consider in

CAA section 213(a)(3). The Agency

believes it is important to correct its

nonhandheld CO emission standard to

align with CARB’s new standard, and

more importantly, to ensure that the

federal standard is technologically

achievable and otherwise appropriate

under section 213(a) by accounting for

the CO emission offset between

nonoxygenated and oxygenated fuels.

Following publication of the Phase 1

small SI engine final rule, Briggs and

Stratton raised concerns in meetings

with EPA that the Class I and II 469 g/

kW-hr CO emission standard was not

technologically feasible given the

finalized certification fuel provisions.

The Agency indicated in a letter to the

EMA on November 3, 1995, that any

change to the CO standard necessary to

reflect differences in fuel effects would

require that the Agency initiate a notice

and comment rulemaking process.14

Additionally, EPA stated in

correspondence on January 24, 1996,

that if Briggs and Stratton submitted an

adequately supported petition to

reconsider the final rule on this issue,

EPA would initiate a rulemaking to raise

the Phase 1 CO standard for

nonhandheld engines by the amount of

the emission offset.15 On March 4, 1996,

Briggs and Stratton formally petitioned
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 34781

16See 42 U.S.C. 7547(a)(3).

the Agency to amend the Phase 1 small

SI engine regulations in one of two

ways: To permit the use of oxygenated

fuels for certification while maintaining

the 469 g/kW-hr CO standard, or to raise

the CO standard for nonhandheld

engines to 536 g/kW-hr.

Basis for the Briggs and Stratton Petition

In its petition, Briggs and Stratton

describes the grounds on which it

believes the Agency should grant its

petition. The company argues that the

Clean Air Act requires EPA to grant the

petition and that granting the petition

will further the primary purposes of the

Phase 1 small SI engine regulations by

enhancing the in-use control of NOX

emissions in small engine exhaust.

Briggs and Stratton states in its

petition that the Agency is compelled by

statute and by its prior findings to grant

the petition. The company points out

that the Clean Air Act specifies that the

emission standards must be achievable

giving appropriate consideration to the

cost of applying available technology

within the period of time available to

manufacturers. EPA decided in its Phase

1 small SI engine final rule, states Briggs

and Stratton, that the 469 g/kW-hr CO

standard was the most stringent

achievable CO standard for Class I and

II nonhandheld engines when taking

into account cost and leadtime

concerns. Briggs and Stratton

additionally argues that the law requires

that the feasibility and stringency of

federal emission standards depend upon

the test procedures used to measure

compliance. Because the data supplied

by Briggs and Stratton and used by EPA

to set the 469 g/kW-hr CO standard for

nonhandheld engines was data collected

using oxygenated fuels, while EPA’s

final rule does not allow for the use of

an oxygenated certification test fuel,

Briggs and Stratton argues that the rule

must be revised to allow for the effect

of the fuel difference.

In general, EPA agrees with Briggs

and Stratton’s argument that a change to

the nonhandheld Phase 1 CO emission

standard is necessary based on the

Clean Air Act’s requirement that the

standard reflect the greatest degree of

emission reduction achievable through

the application of technology which

EPA determines will be available for the

regulated engines, giving appropriate

consideration to the cost of applying

such technology and other factors.16 The

Agency did determine that the 469 g/

kW-hr CO standard for nonhandheld

engines was appropriate based in part

on test data supplied by Briggs and

Stratton. Prior to publication of the final

rule it was never indicated to EPA that

the fuel these tests were conducted on

was something other than what EPA had

proposed in its NPRM. Absent any

indication to the contrary, EPA had

assumed that Briggs and Stratton had

used a nonoxygenated fuel such as

Clean Air Act Baseline when

conducting the tests that generated the

data the Agency used to set its

nonhandheld CO emission standard.

Had EPA been made aware of the fact

that Briggs and Stratton had in fact used

oxygenated fuel as the test fuel, the

Agency would have taken the difference

in the effect of the fuel into account

when setting its final CO standard for

nonhandheld engines. Analysis of data

recently supplied by Briggs and Stratton

of comparison testing using oxygenated

and nonoxygenated fuels substantiates

the company’s claim that the fuel type

affects CO emissions. EPA’s analysis of

Briggs and Stratton’s data and of data

collected in testing conducted by the

Agency after publication of the Phase 1

small SI engine final rule indicates that

nonhandheld engine CO emissions are

indeed lower when run on oxygenated

fuels than they are when run on

nonoxygenated fuels.

Briggs and Stratton also argues, as

grounds for EPA granting its petition,

that allowing the use of oxygenated fuel

would improve in-use control of NOX in

small engine exhaust. However, Briggs

and Stratton’s argument is theoretical,

and not supported by any data analysis.

As shown in the Regulatory Support

Document (RSD) for this rule, the

Agency’s analysis of the test data

recently supplied by Briggs and Stratton

and of EPA’s own test data indicate that

the differences of changes in NOX and

HC depending on the use of oxygenated

or nonoxygenated fuels are minimal.

V. Snowthrower Open Crankcase Issue

Specific engine manufacturers and the

Engine Manufacturers Association

(EMA) have raised concerns about the

closed crankcase certification

requirement specified in the Phase 1

small SI engine final rule at section

90.109. The Agency specified in its

Phase 1 small SI proposal that

crankcases must be closed as a

requirement of certification in order to

eliminate emissions that would

otherwise occur when a crankcase is

vented to the atmosphere. It was EPA’s

understanding that since most currently

produced engines do have closed

crankcases, this requirement would

impact relatively few manufacturers. No

comments were submitted in response

to EPA’s NPRM on this issue, and EPA

finalized the provision requiring closed

crankcases. Subsequent to publication

of the Phase 1 small SI engine final rule,

however, the Agency has been made

aware of concerns specific to

manufacturers of engines used

exclusively in snowthrowers. These

manufacturers have 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 have provided evidence

that the cost to close these crankcases

and prevent freeze up would be

prohibitively expensive—possibly in

excess of the cost of the engine.

Furthermore, they have argued that the

emissions benefit does not justify the

cost. HC + NOX emissions resulting

from having the crankcase open for

snowthrower equipment will have no

impact on summer ozone

concentrations. Manufacturers claim

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. The Agency seeks additional

and more detailed comment on the cost

and emission impacts of open

crankcases on engines used exclusively

to power snowthrowers.

At this time the Agency has not

received notification from any other

parties regarding similar difficulties.

The Agency seeks comment on whether

there are engines used in other

equipment types that face similar

difficulties in meeting the closed

crankcase requirement. The Agency

requests that if such situations are

identified, commenters submit

documentation regarding the technical

and economic need for utilizing an open

crankcase.

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,

EPA proposes that the Administrator be

given the flexibility to allow open

crankcases in certain circumstances for

engines used exclusively in

snowthrowers. The Administrator

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

an open crankcase would be prohibitive.

The Agency seeks comment on this

proposed provision and on what criteria

the Administrator might apply in
34782 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

17See the Response to Comments document in

EPA Air Docket # A–93–25.

18Letter from Chester France, EPA to Jed Mandel,

EMA, November 3, 1995.

determining whether costs are

prohibitive.

VI. Provisions of This Rulemaking

In response to the petition submitted

by Briggs and Stratton Corporation, EPA

has decided to propose revising the CO

emission standard for Class I and II

nonhandheld small SI engines from 469

g/kW-hr to 519 g/kW-hr. 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.

Briggs and Stratton suggested two

options that the Agency might take to

revise the Phase 1 rule in a way that

would address the company’s concerns.

The first suggested option was for the

Agency to permit the use of appropriate

oxygenated gasolines for emissions

certification testing as a direct

alternative to Indolene under the

current CO standard. The Agency has

decided not to take this approach for

several reasons. 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 V

engines. The Agency’s greatest concern

regarding the allowance of oxygenated

fuels generally is the effect on the

stringency of the emission standards. 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

final rule when the engines are run on

nonoxygenated fuels in the field. In

addition, the Agency has concerns about

the nationwide availability of

oxygenated fuel. While it is required in

certain nonattainment areas, those areas

of the country that are in attainment

may not have reformulated or

oxygenated fuels commercially

available. Correcting the CO standard is

also the simplest and least complicated

solution to address the problem

presented by Briggs and Stratton’s

petition in a timely manner, which is

critical so that engine manufacturers

will be able to certify their model year

1997 production engines. Therefore, the

Agency has decided to address the issue

of the appropriateness of the

nonhandheld CO emission standard by

proposing to revise the CO standard for

Class I and II engines while retaining

the specified certification test fuel.

To determine the amount by which to

propose a revision to the standard, EPA

analyzed the comparative test data

recently supplied by Briggs and

Stratton. When Briggs and Stratton

submitted the data, the company noted

in a cover letter that the use of

oxygenated fuels reduced CO emissions

by up to 47 g/kW-hr. However, Briggs

and Stratton requested in its petition

that the Agency revise its CO standard

upward by 67 g/kW-hr, which would

mean a new standard of 536 g/kW-hr.

No additional data was supplied to the

Agency to support such an increase. The

rationale given by Briggs and Stratton

for requesting an additional 20 g/kW-hr

is that the test data supplied represents

a limited number of engine tests, and

does not account for production

variability. EPA’s response to the

petitioner’s argument is that the Agency

took production variability into account

when setting the original 469 g/kW-hr

standard for the Phase 1 final rule. Any

change to the CO emission standard

should thus be based solely on

differences in fuel type.

Analysis of Briggs and Stratton data

and of EPA test data indicates that

indeed there are cases where the effects

of fuel differences on the CO standard

may be as much as 50 g/kW-hr. Given

the limited quantity of data, EPA

considered quantifying the difference in

fuel types and the resultant change in

CO emission standard by comparing the

two means from sample data using the

two fuel types. As explained in the RSD,

statistical tests comparing the means of

the two populations (oxygenated fuel

and nonoxygenated fuel) indicate an

average difference of 30.6 g/kW-hr for

Class I engines, and 26.6 g/kW-hr for

Class II engines. However, EPA

determined that it is most appropriate,

and in keeping with its approach for

establishing the 469 g/kW-hr standard

in the final rule,17 to adjust the standard

to take into account the largest offsets

observed in the Briggs and Stratton and

EPA data, and to ensure harmonization

with CARB. The Agency thus concludes

that in order for engine manufacturers to

achieve the greatest CO emission

reduction with the technology available

within the given time limits of the Phase

1 small SI engine regulation that it is

appropriate to increase the

nonhandheld CO standard by 50 g/kWhr to 519 g/kW-hr. In reaching this

conclusion, EPA has attempted to

determine an appropriate offset

attributable to the effect of oxygenated

fuel, while preserving to the greatest

extent possible the balance made by the

final Phase 1 rule of various factors such

as technical feasibility, cost, lead time,

and harmonization with CARB.

This proposed action will further

harmonize the Class I and II CO

standard with California’s analogous

standard, considering CARB’s recent

action to increase its CO standard to 350

g/bhp-hr (469 g/kW-hr). The Agency

considers a nonhandheld CO emission

standard of 519 g/kW-hr with the use of

a nonoxygenated fuel such as Indolene

to be roughly equivalent to CARB’s

Class I and II CO standard of 350 g/bhphr with the use of an oxygenated fuel

such as California Phase II.

As indicated in EPA’s November 3,

1995, letter to EMA, the Agency already

provides a mechanism for those

manufacturers who certify in California

using oxygenated fuel and wish to use

those test results for certification with

EPA. Manufacturers may apply to EPA

under the alternative test procedures

provision contained in the Phase 1

small SI engine final rule (section

90.120(b)). If a manufacturer’s submitted

data indicates that its test engine would

comply with the applicable federal

emission standard using federal fuel,

EPA would determine that the engine

family meets the requirements of Phase

1 and issue a certificate of conformity.

EPA has stated 18 that it will work with

manufacturers to assist them in making

the required technical demonstrations

under the alternative certification

procedures.

This proposed action would also

provide the Administrator with the

option of permitting open crankcases on

engines used exclusively to power

snowthrowers, provided that the

affected engine complies with

applicable standards and the

manufacturer demonstrates that the cost

of closing the crankcase is prohibitive.

VII. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 34783

II nonhandheld engines subject to this

rule is used during the summer months,

when CO nonattainment is generally not

a concern. Many nonhandheld engine

models are expected to have CO

emission levels well below the standard

since CO levels are controlled in

meeting the HC + NOX emission

standards which are not affected by this

action.

The provision to provide the

Administrator with the option of

permitting open crankcases in engines

used exclusively to power

snowthrowers will require

manufacturers seeking to demonstrate

the need for open crankcases to 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.

VIII. Economic Effects

The Agency anticipates that this rule

will have minimal, if any, affect 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.

IX. Effective Date

EPA is proposing to make these

regulations effective upon signature of

the final rule because these regulations

will not require any lead time for

compliance.

X. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

The Agency welcomes comments on

all aspects of this proposed rulemaking.

All comments (preferably in duplicate),

with the exception of proprietary

information, should be directed to the

EPA Air Docket Section, Docket No. A–

96–02 (see ADDRESSES). Commenters

who wish to submit proprietary

information for consideration should

clearly separate such information from

other comments by:

• labeling proprietary information

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

and

• sending proprietary information

directly to the contact person listed (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and

not to the public docket.

This will help ensure that proprietary

information is not inadvertently placed

in the docket. If a commenter wants

EPA to use a submission labeled as

confidential business information as

part of the basis for the final rule, then

a nonconfidential version of the

document, which summarizes the key

data or information, should be sent to

the docket.

Information covered by a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA

only to the extent allowed and by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission when it is

received by EPA, the submission may be

made available to the public without

notifying the commenters.

B. Public Hearing

Anyone wishing to present testimony

about this proposal at the public

hearing, should one be requested, (see

DATES) should, if possible, notify the

contact person (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) at least two

business days prior to the day of the

hearing. The contact person should be

given an estimate of the time required

for the presentation of testimony and

notification of any need for audio/visual

equipment. A sign-up sheet will be

available at the registration table the

morning of the hearing for scheduling

those who have not notified the contact

earlier. This testimony will be

scheduled on a first-come, first-served

basis, and will follow the testimony that

is arranged in advance.

The Agency recommends that

approximately 50 copies of the

statement or material to be presented be

brought to the hearing for distribution to

the audience. In addition, EPA would

find it helpful to receive an advance

copy of any statement or material to be

presented at the hearing at least two

business days before the scheduled

hearing date. This is to give EPA staff

adequate time to review such material

before the hearing. Such advance copies

should be submitted to the contact

person listed.

XI. 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

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 costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless EPA explains why

this alternative is not selected or the
34784 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because the rule proposed here 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,

thereby potentially creating beneficial

effects on small businesses by easing

one provision required of small engine

manufacturers by the Phase 1 small SI

engine regulations. As a result, EPA

certifies 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.

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: June 26, 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:

§ 90.103 Exhaust emission standards.

(a) * * *

EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

[Grams per kilowatt-hour]

Engine displacement class

Hydrocarbon plus

oxides of nitrogen

HydrocarbonCarbon

monoxide

Oxides of

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:

§ 90.109 Requirement of certification—

closed crankcase.

* * * * *

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of

this section, the Administrator may

exercise the option to permit open

crankcases for engines used exclusively

to power snowthrowers based upon a

manufacturer’s demonstration,

approved in advance by the

Administrator, that all applicable

emission standards will be met by the

engine and that the cost of closing the

crankcase is prohibitive.

[FR Doc. 96–16856 Filed 7–02–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–119; RM–8667]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Dafter,

MI

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a

petition filed by Dafter Community

Broadcasters proposing the allotment of

Channel 293A to Dafter, Michigan. See

FR 38539, July 27, 1995. Petitioner

failed to provide sufficient information

to establish community status for Dafter.

Therefore, in keeping with Commission

policy to refrain from allotting channels

to communities lacking community

status, we have dismissed the petiton

for Dafter. With this action, this

proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 95–119,

adopted May 8, 1996, and released June

21, 1996. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M

Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037, (202) 857–3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.