[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 154 (Thursday, August 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41408-41411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20246]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5549-3]


Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year 
Urban Buses; Public Review of a Notification of Intent to Certify 
Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of a notification of intent to certify 
equipment and initiation of 45 day public review and comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency has received a notification of intent to certify 
urban bus retrofit/rebuild equipment pursuant to 40 CFR Part 85, 
Subpart O. Pursuant to Sec. 85.1407(a)(7), today's Federal Register 
notice summarizes the notification below, announces that the 
notification is available for public review and comment, and initiates 
a 45-day period during which comments can be submitted. The Agency will 
review this notification of intent to certify, as well as comments 
received, to determine whether the equipment described in the 
notification of intent to certify should be certified. If certified, 
the equipment can be used by urban bus operators to reduce the 
particulate matter of urban bus engines.
    The Engine Control Systems Ltd. (ECS) notification of intent to 
certify, as well as other materials specifically relevant to it, are 
contained in category XIV-A of Public Docket A-93-42, entitled 
``Certification of Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment''. This docket 
is located at the address below.
    Today's notice initiates a 45 day period during which the Agency 
will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the equipment 
included in this notification of intent to certify should be certified. 
Comments should be provided in writing to Public Docket A-93-42, 
Category XIV-A, at the address below. An identical copy should be 
submitted to Anthony Erb, also at the address below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit separate copies of comments to each of the two 
following addresses:

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket A-93-42 
(Category XIV-A), Room M-1500, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
2. Anthony Erb, Engine Compliance Programs Group, Engine Programs and 
Compliance Division (6405J), 401 ``M'' Street S.W., Washington, DC 
20460.

    The ECS notification of intent to certify, as well as other 
materials specifically relevant to it, are contained

[[Page 41409]]

in the public docket indicated above. Docket items may be inspected 
from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. As provided in 
40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged by the Agency for 
copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Erb, Engine Compliance and 
Programs Division (6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 233-9259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

    On April 21, 1993, the Agency published final Retrofit/Rebuild 
Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359). 
The retrofit/rebuild program is intended to reduce the ambient levels 
of particulate matter (PM) in urban areas and is limited to 1993 and 
earlier model year (MY) urban buses operating in metropolitan areas 
with 1980 populations of 750,000 or more, whose engines are rebuilt or 
replaced after January 1, 1995. Operators of the affected buses are 
required to choose between two compliance options: Program 1 sets 
particulate matter emissions requirements for each urban bus engine in 
an operator's fleet which is rebuilt or replaced; Program 2 is a fleet 
averaging program that establishes specific annual target levels for 
average PM emissions from urban buses in an operator's fleet.
    A key aspect of the program is the certification of retrofit/
rebuild equipment. To meet either of the two compliance options, 
operators of the affected buses must use equipment which has been 
certified by the Agency. Emissions requirements under either of the two 
compliance options depend on the availability of retrofit/rebuild 
equipment certified for each engine model. To be used for Program 1, 
equipment must be certified as meeting a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or 
as achieving a 25 percent reduction in PM. Equipment used for Program 2 
must be certified as providing some level of PM reduction that would in 
turn be claimed by urban bus operators when calculating their average 
fleet PM levels attained under the program. For Program 1, information 
on life cycle costs must be submitted in the notification of intent to 
certify in order for certification of the equipment to initiate (or 
trigger) program requirements. To trigger program requirements, the 
certifier must guarantee that the equipment will be available to all 
affected operators for a life cycle cost of $7,940 or less at the 0.10 
g/bhp-hr PM level, or for a life cycle cost of $2,000 or less for the 
25 percent or greater reduction in PM. Both of these values are based 
on 1992 dollars.

II. Notification of Intent to Certify

    By a notification of intent to certify signed December 13, 1995, 
ECS has applied for certification of equipment applicable to Detroit 
Diesel Corporation (DDC) two-cycle engines originally equipped in an 
urban bus from model year 1979 to model year 1993 (Table A). The 
notification of intent to certify states that the equipment being 
certified is an oxidation converter muffler (OCM). The OCM contains an 
oxidation catalyst developed specifically for diesel applications, 
packaged as a direct replacement for the muffler. The application 
states that the candidate equipment provides a 25 percent or greater 
reduction in emissions of particulate matter (PM) for petroleum fueled 
diesel engines relative to an original engine configuration with no 
after treatment installed. The engines are to be rebuilt to original 
specifications, or not rebuilt but able to meet specified engine 
calibrations. A 25 percent reduction is also claimed for engines that 
have been retrofit/rebuilt with certified new rebuild kits that do not 
include after treatment devices. The latter applies to the DDC 
retrofit/rebuild kits which were certified on October 2, 1995 (60 FR 
51472) and July 19, 1996 (61 FR 37738).

                     Table A.--Certification Levels                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       PM Level         
                                                PM      2 with          
                                             Level 1   OCM and    Code/ 
         Engine Models           Model Year    with      DDC      Family
                                               OCM    Certified         
                                                       Rebuild          
---------------------------------------------------------Kit------------
6V92TA MUI....................      1979-87     0.38      0.22       All
                                  1988-1989     0.23      0.17       All
6V92TA DDEC I.................      1986-87     0.23       N/A       All
6V92TA DDEC II................      1988-90     0.23      0.17       All
                                       1991     0.23       N/A   .......
                                    1992-93     0.19       N/A       All
6V71N.........................      1973-89     0.38       N/A       All
6V71T.........................      1985-86     0.38       N/A       All
6L71TA........................      1988-89     0.23       N/A       All
6L71TA DDEC...................      1990-91     0.23       N/A      All 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The original PM certification levels for the 1991 6V92TA DDEC II,   
  and 6L71TA DDEC engine models are based on Federal Emission Limits    
  (FELs) under the averaging, banking and trading program. These limits 
  are higher than the 1991 PM standard of 0.25 g/bhp-hr. The PM level   
  listed in this table for the engines that are equipped with the OCM   
  provide at least a 25% reduction from the original certification      
  levels. The 1992 to 1993 6V92TA DDEC II engine models were also       
  certified using FELs under the trading and banking program and        
  likewise the PM levels for the engines equipped with the OCM represent
  at least a 25% reduction from the original certification levels.      
\2\ For 6V92TA MUI and 6V92TA DDEC II models that are rebuilt using a   
  certified DDC emissions retrofit kit, ECS is certifying the PM engine 
  emissions to reduced levels as provided in Table A. provided the OCM  
  is installed at the same time the rebuild with the certified DDC      
  upgrade kit takes place. The DDC upgrade kit certification            
  notifications were published in the Federal Register on October 2,    
  1995 (60 FR 51472) and July 19,1996 (61 FR 37738) respectively.       


[[Page 41410]]


    ECS indicates that the maximum cost in 1995 dollars will not exceed 
$2,169.00 (or $2,000 in 1992 dollars). Equipment cost is listed to be 
$2,089.00 and installation costs are not to exceed $80.00 (maximum of 
2.0 hours of labor time estimated). ECS states that there is no fuel 
economy impact based on the fuel economy data generated during testing, 
and that no incremental maintenance will be necessary due to the 
addition of this equipment. Therefore, this equipment may qualify as a 
trigger for program requirements for the 25% reduction standard. 
However, it is noted that designation as a trigger is not necessary in 
this case as trigger technology is already certified for the 25% 
reduction standard for every engine model for which this technology 
would be certified.
    ECS presents exhaust emission data from testing the candidate 
equipment configurations on two engines using the federal engine-
dynamometer test procedures of 40 CFR Part 86, as well as chassis 
dynamometer testing. A 1991 model year DDC 6V92TA DDEC II engine was 
tested on an engine dynamometer and a 1987 model year DDC 6V71N engine 
was tested on a chassis dynamometer. The 6V71N engine was selected to 
represent a ``worst case'', with respect to PM, for the engines for 
which certification of the equipment is being sought based on a pre-
rebuild PM level for the 6V71N of 0.50, from the table in 40 CFR 
section 85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A). The 6V71N engine qualifies as a ``worst 
case'' engine for all two-stroke/cycle engines with the exception of 
the 1990 DDC 6L71TA. The 1991 6V92TA DDEC engine was tested to show the 
ability of the OCM to reduce PM based on a ``pre-rebuild'' 
certification level of 0.31 g/bhp-hr. All testing was conducted using 
test fuel having a maximum sulfur level of 0.05 weight percent.
    Baseline testing was conducted on the 6V71N engine after rebuild to 
the manufacturer's original engine configuration. The 6V92TA DDEC II 
engine was a former durability test engine that had been used by the 
manufacturer (DDC) and was purchased from DDC in 1994. This engine was 
not rebuilt and had accumulated 1120 hours of operation prior to the 
baseline test. Subsequent engine tests were performed after the 
candidate equipment was installed.
    Table B summarizes the emission levels from the engine dynamometer 
testing for the 6V92TA DDEC II engine and for the chassis tests 
performed on the 6V71N engine. The driving cycles used for the chassis 
testing were the Central Business District (CBD), and the New York Bus 
Composite Cycle (NYC). Additional testing information is provided in 
the attachments to the notification.

                                         Table B.--Test Engine Emission                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Gaseous and Particulate          Smoke                                          
           Engine            -------------------------------------------------              Comment             
                                HC     CO    NOX     PM    ACC    LUG    Peak                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Dyno.................                                                                                    
(3) g/bhp-hr                                                                                                    
(2) percent opacity                                                                                             
                                                                                                                
                             -------------------------------------------------                                  
1991 6V92TA DDEC............   1.3   15.5   10.7    0.25  20     15     50     1991 EPA stds.                   
                               0.42   1.19   4.95   0.18  3.4    0.6    5.8    Baseline.                        
                               0.14   0.39   4.87   0.13  3.8    0.8    6.4    With catalyst.                   
                                                                                                                
                             -------------------------------------------------                                  
Chassis Dyno................                                                                                    
(3) g/mile                                                                                                      
(2)percent opacity                                                                                              
                                                                                                                
                             -------------------------------------------------                                  
1987 6V71N..................   3.25  43.04  31.93   2.94  N/A    N/A    N/A    Baseline CBD.                    
                               0.57   3.47  26.16   1.64  N/A    N/A    N/A    CBD with catalyst.               
                               4.82  35.56  26.61   2.47  N/A    N/A    N/A    Baseline NYC.                    
                               1.46   6.80  25.54   1.55  N/A    N/A    N/A    NYC with catalyst.               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 85.1406(a) of the program regulations state ``The test 
results must demonstrate that the retrofit/rebuild equipment * * * will 
not cause the urban bus engine to fail to meet any applicable Federal 
emission requirements set for that engine in the applicable portions of 
40 CFR part 86 * * *''.
    ECS's emission test data indicate that the candidate equipment 
reduces hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), when compared with 
baseline (pre-retrofit) emissions. In the test sequence, for the 1991 
6V92TA DDEC engine, the test on the engine that was equipped with the 
catalytic converter shows a 26% decrease in PM emissions compared to 
the baseline engine. This test also shows that hydrocarbon (HC), carbon 
monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions are within 
the applicable emission standards. ECS provided smoke emission test 
measurements for this engine indicating that the engine complies with 
applicable smoke standards with the OCM installed. In the CBD chassis 
test sequence for the 1987 6V71N engine, the test with the OCM in place 
produced a 42% reduction in PM compared to the baseline test. In the 
NYC chassis test sequence the reduction in PM with the OCM in place was 
37%. The information submitted by ECS indicates that this equipment 
achieves a 25% or greater reduction in PM emissions and will be sold 
for less than the cost ceiling of $2,000 (1992 dollars). Urban bus 
operators are currently required to use equipment that is certified to 
provide 25% or greater equivalent reduction to comply with Program 1 of 
the regulation. Certification of the ECS equipment will provide another 
choice of certified equipment from which operators may choose. Under 
Program 1, the requirement to use equipment providing a 25% reduction 
will continue until equipment which reduces PM emissions to 0.10 g/bhp-
hr is certified at or below the $7,940 life cycle cost ceiling. If 
equipment is certified to the 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM level below the life-
cycle cost ceiling, operators under Program 1 will be required to use 
it.
    If EPA approves ECS's certification request, urban bus operators 
who chose to comply under Option 2 of this regulation may also use this 
equipment.
    At a minimum, EPA expects to evaluate this notification of intent 
to certify, and other materials submitted as applicable, to determine 
whether there is adequate demonstration of compliance with: (1) The 
certification requirements of Sec. 85.1406, including whether the 
testing accurately substantiates the claimed emission reduction or 
emission levels; and, (2) the requirements of Sec. 85.1407 for a 
notification of intent to certify, including whether the data provided 
by ECS complies with the life cycle cost requirements.
    The Agency requests that those commenting also consider these

[[Page 41411]]

regulatory requirements, plus provide comments on any experience or 
knowledge concerning: (a) Problems with installing, maintaining, and/or 
using the candidate equipment on applicable engines; and, (b) whether 
the equipment is compatible with affected vehicles.
    The date of this notice initiates a 45 day period during which the 
Agency will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the 
equipment described in the ECS notification of intent to certify should 
be certified pursuant to the urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations. 
Interested parties are encouraged to review the notification of intent 
to certify and provide comment during the 45 day period. Please send 
separate copies of your comments to each of the above two addresses.
    The Agency will review this notification of intent to certify, 
along with comments received from interested parties, and attempt to 
resolve or clarify issues as necessary. During the review process, the 
Agency may add additional documents to the docket as a result of the 
review process. These documents will also be available for public 
review and comment within the 45 day period.

    Dated: August 1, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 96-20246 Filed 8-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P