[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 160 (Friday, August 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42764-42767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20955]
[[Page 42763]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VIII
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban
Buses; Status of Equipment Certified and Emissions Levels To Be Used by
Operators Using Compliance Option 2; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 160 / Friday, August 16, 1996 /
Notices
[[Page 42764]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5547-7]
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year
Urban Buses; Status of Equipment Certified and Emissions Levels To Be
Used by Operators Using Compliance Option 2
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the preamble to the final rule regarding retrofit/rebuild
requirements for 1993 and earlier model year urban buses (58 FR 21359,
April 21, 1993), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that
it would review retrofit/rebuild equipment that was certified by July
1994, and again by July 1996, and publish the post-rebuild particulate
matter emission levels for urban bus engines affected by the program.
These post-rebuild levels are used by operators for calculating their
fleet emission levels under Option 2. In a previous Federal Register
document (59 FR 45626, September 2, 1994), EPA published the post-
rebuild PM levels based on equipment that was certified as of July
1994. Today's Federal Register notice fulfills EPA's obligation to
review equipment certified by July 1996, and to publish the post-
rebuild PM levels.
In addition, today's Federal Register provides notice to transit
operators regarding a program inequity that could result between
compliance Option 1 and Option 2, if EPA were to certify a 0.10 g/bhphr
PM reduction kit that met life cylce cost requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The information of this notice is effective as of
August 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: This notice, as well as other materials relevant to the
final rule, is contained in Public Docket A-91-28. This docket is
located in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 ``M'' Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20460.
Dockets may be inspected from 8:00 am until 5:30 pm, 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: Tom Stricker, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone: (202) 233-9322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 219(d) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate
regulations that require certain 1993 and earlier model year urban
buses having engines, which are replaced or rebuilt after January 1,
1995, comply with an emission standard or control technology reflecting
the best retrofit technology and maintenance practices reasonably
achievable. On April 21, 1993, EPA published final Retrofit/Rebuild
Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).
The Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program requires affected operators of
urban buses to choose between two compliance options. Option 1
establishes particulate matter (PM) emissions requirements for each
urban bus in an operator's fleet whose engine is rebuilt or replaced.
Option 2 is a fleet averaging program that sets out specific annual
target levels for average PM emissions from urban buses in an
operator's fleet.
In the final rule, EPA stated that it would review the retrofit/
rebuild equipment that was certified by July 1, 1994, and again by July
1, 1996, and publish the post-rebuild PM emission levels for urban bus
engines affected by the program. These post-rebuild levels are to be
used by operators choosing to comply with Option 2 for calculating
their fleet emission levels. In a previous Federal Register notice (59
FR 45626, September 2, 1994), EPA published post-rebuild PM levels
based on equipment that was certified as of July 1, 1994. Today's
Federal Register notice fulfills EPA's obligation to review equipment
certified by July 1, 1996, and to update the post-rebuild PM levels
accordingly. The emission levels contained in today's notice must be
used by operators using Option 2 for determining their Target Level for
the Fleet (TLF) for calendar years 1998 and thereafter. EPA expects
transit operators complying with Option 2 will begin taking fleet
actions on or after January 1, 1997, to ensure compliance with the TLF
beginning in calendar year 1998. Today's publication of the post-
rebuild PM levels will provide operators with adequate lead time to
begin planning these fleet actions.
II. Review of Certified Equipment and Program Requirements
As of July 1, 1996, no equipment had been certified for any engine
models as meeting the 0.10 g/bhphr PM standard for less than the
applicable life cycle cost requirement ($7,940 in 1992 dollars).
However, equipment had been certified for most engine models as meeting
the 25 percent reduction standard for less than the applicable life
cycle cost requirement ($2,000 in 1992 dollars). The following
paragraph briefly describes the equipment certified by EPA as of July
1, 1996. The reader is directed to the referenced Federal Register
cites for more information regarding each certification.
Engelhard Corporation was the first to be granted certification for
a technology that provided a 25 percent PM reduction and met life cycle
cost requirements (60 FR 28402, May 31, 1995). The technology consists
of a catalytic converter-muffler that replaces the original muffler
installed on the bus. This equipment triggered program requirements for
most two-stroke cycle engines under compliance Option 1. The second
certification granted by EPA was also to Engelhard Corporation for its
engine upgrade/catalytic converter muffler combination (60 FR 47170,
September 11, 1995). This kit consists of a catalytic converter
muffler, as well as several ceramic coated engine parts; however, the
kit is not certified as meeting life cycle cost requirements. The third
certification granted by EPA was to Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC)
for its 6V92TA MUI engine upgrade (60 FR 51472, October 2, 1995). The
original certification of this kit was on the basis of providing at
least a 25 percent PM reduction. However, EPA recently expanded
certification to include the basis of meeting life cycle cost
requirements.1 This certification did not trigger any additional
program requirements, because the 25 percent PM reduction standard for
the applicable engine models had already been triggered by the first
Engelhard certification. The fourth certification granted by EPA was to
Cummins Engine Company (Cummins) for its L10 engine upgrade (60 FR
64046, December 13, 1995). This equipment is certified as meeting both
the emissions requirements and life cycle cost requirements of the
regulations, and as such, it triggered program requirements for most
four-stroke cycle engines under compliance Option 1. The fifth
certification granted by EPA was to Johnson Matthey for its catalytic
exhaust muffler (61 FR 16773, April 17, 1996). The technology consists
of an exhaust catalyst that replaces the original muffler on the bus.
This equipment is certified as meeting both
[[Page 42765]]
the emissions requirements and life cycle cost requirements of the
regulations, but did not trigger any additional program requirements,
because the 25 percent PM reduction standard for the applicable engine
models had already been triggered by the first Engelhard certification.
Finally, EPA granted certification to DDC for its engine upgrade kit
for use on electronically controlled 6V92TA DDEC II engines.2 This
equipment reduces PM by at least 25 percent, but is not certified to
comply with the life cycle cost requirements of the regulations. It
does not trigger any additional program requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This certification approval is documented in a letter from
the Director of the Engine Programs and Compliance Division (EPCD)
to Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC), dated June 24, 1996.
Publication of this approval in the Federal Register was being
processed at the time of today's publication.
\2\ This certification approval is documented in a letter from
the Director of the Engine Programs and Compliance Division (EPCD)
to Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC), dated June 28, 1996.
Publication of this approval in the Federal Register was being
processed at the time of today's publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has reviewed all equipment certified as of July 1, 1996. In
accordance with 40 CFR 85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A), Table 1 lists the post-
rebuild PM emission level for engine models affected by program
regulations. For those engine models for which equipment was certified
by July 1, 1996, as meeting the 25 percent PM reduction standard and as
meeting the life cycle cost requirements, EPA selected as the post-
rebuild level the lowest emission level (greater than 0.10 g/bhphr)
certified for such equipment. For those engine models for which no
equipment was certified by July 1, 1996, as meeting the emissions
requirements and life cycle cost requirements, the post-rebuild level
has been selected to be equal to the pre-rebuild level as listed in 40
CFR 85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A). For engine models with a pre-rebuild PM
level below 0.1 g/bhphr, the post-rebuild PM level has been selected to
be equal to the pre-rebuild PM level listed in 40 CFR
85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A).
Transit operators complying with Option 2 must use the post-rebuild
PM levels shown in Table 1 to calculate their TLF for calendar years
1998 and thereafter.3 The determination of whether to use the pre-
rebuild emission level or the post-rebuild emission level must be made
in accordance with 40 CFR 85.1403(c)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Please refer to Section III of today's notice, Potential
Inequity Between Compliance Option 1 and Option 2, for additional
information regarding future TLF calculations.
Table A.-- Certification Levels Under Option 2 for Calculating TLF in Calendar Years 1998 and Thereafter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM post-
PM pre-rebuild rebuild
Engine models Model year certification certification Code Family
level level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDC 6V92TA MUI............... 1979-87......... 0.50.......... 0.30.......... All........... All.
1988-1989....... 0.30.......... 0.22.......... All........... All.
DDC 6V92TA DDEC I............ 1986-89......... 0.30.......... 0.23.......... All........... All.
DDC 6V92TA DDEC II........... 1988-91 (w/out 0.31.......... 0.23.......... All........... All.
PM trap).
1992-93 (w/out 0.25.......... 0.19.......... All........... All.
PM trap).
1993 (w/ PM 0.07.......... 0.07.......... All........... All.
trap).
DDC Series 50................ 1993............ 0.16.......... 0.16.......... All........... All.
DDC 6V71N.................... 1973-87......... 0.50.......... 0.38.......... All........... All.
DDC 6V71N.................... 1988-89......... 0.50.......... 0.38.......... All........... All.
DDC 6V71T.................... 1985-86......... 0.50.......... 0.38.......... All........... All.
DDC 8V71N.................... 1973-84......... 0.50.......... 0.38.......... All........... All.
DDC 6L71TA................... 1990............ 0.59.......... 0.59.......... All........... All.
DDC 6L71TA................... 1988-89......... 0.31.......... 0.23.......... All........... All.
DDC 6V71TA DDEC.............. 1990-91......... 0.30.......... 0.23.......... All........... All.
DDC 8V92TA................... 1979-87......... 0.50.......... 0.38.......... All........... 8V92TA
1988............ 0.39.......... 0.29.......... All........... 8V92TA.
DDC 8V92TA-DDEC.............. 1988............ 0.41.......... 0.31.......... All........... 8V92TA-DDEC II.
DDC 8V92TA................... 1989............ 0.47.......... 0.35.......... 9E70.......... KDD0736FW89.
DDC 8V92TA................... 1989............ 0.39.......... 0.29.......... 9A90.......... KDD0736FW89.
DDC 8V92TA................... 1989............ 0.34.......... 0.26.......... 9G85.......... KDD0736FW89.
DDC 8V92TA DDEC.............. 1989............ 0.41.......... 0.31.......... 1A............ KDD0736FZH4.
DDC 8V92TA................... 1990............ 0.47.......... 0.35.......... 9E70.......... LDD0736FAH9.
DDC 8V92TA DDEC.............. 1990............ 0.49.......... 0.37.......... 1A............ LDD0736FZH3.
DDC 8V92TA DDEC.............. 1991............ 0.25.......... 0.19.......... 1A or 5A...... MDD0736FZH2.
DDC 8V92TA DDEC.............. 1992-93......... 0.21.......... 0.16.......... 1D............ NDD0736FZH1 &
PDD0736FZHX.
DDC 8V92TA DDEC.............. 1992-93......... 0.29.......... 0.22.......... 6A............ NDD0736FZH 1 &
PDD0736FZHX.
DDC 8V92TA DDEC.............. 1992-93......... 0.20.......... 0.15.......... 5A............ NDD0736FZH 1 &
PDD0736FZHX.
DDC 8V92TA DDEC.............. 1992-93......... 0.25.......... 0.19.......... 1A............ NDD0736FZH 1 &
PDD0736FZHX.
CUMMINS L-10................. 1985-1987....... 0.65.......... 0.34.......... All........... All.
1988-1989....... 0.55.......... 0.34.......... All........... All.
1990-1992....... 0.46.......... 0.34.......... All........... All.
L-10EC....................... 1992............ 0.25.......... 0.25.......... All........... All.
Cummins L-10 EC w/trap....... 1993............ 0.05.......... 0.05.......... All........... All.
Alternatively Fueled Engines. pre-1994........ 0.10.......... 0.10.......... All........... All.
Other Engines................ pre-1988........ 0.50.......... 0.50.......... All........... All.
[[Page 42766]]
1988-1993....... Certification Certification All........... All.
level. level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An urban bus operator choosing to comply with Option 2 must be able
to demonstrate that its fleet level attained (FLA) is equal to or less
than its TLF. Using the formulas in 40 CFR 85.1403(c)(1) and Table 1
above, operators can calculate their TLF for calendar year 1998 and
thereafter. The FLA is calculated using the formula of 40 CFR
85.1403(c)(2) and the certification level of the specific equipment
installed on each bus. In order to ensure it is in compliance with its
TLF for calendar year 1998,4 transit operators are expected to
begin taking appropriate fleet actions beginning early in calendar year
1997. In order to provide adequate lead time to operators for planning
fleet actions, the final rule required EPA to base post-rebuild PM
levels on equipment certified as of July 1, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ An operator choosing to comply with Option 2 must be in
compliance with the TLF for a given calendar year beginning the
first day of that calendar year. For example, to be in compliance
with the TLF for 1998 calendar year, the FLA must be equal to or
below the TLF for 1998 beginning January 1, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Potential Inequity Between Compliance Option 1 and Option 2
The following provides notice to transit operators and other
interested parties that EPA has become aware of a potential inequity
between the two compliance options, and discusses the factors which
lead to this potential inequity.
Two compliance options are available to transit operators complying
with the retrofit/rebuild regulations. Option 1 establishes PM
emissions requirements for each urban bus in an operator's fleet whose
engine is rebuilt or replaced, and Option 2 is a fleet averaging
program that sets out specific annual target levels for average PM
emissions from urban buses in an operator's fleet.
In the early stages of developing the urban bus program, EPA
contemplated only one compliance program (current compliance Option 1).
However, based on public comments, and EPA's desire to offer
flexibility to transit operators, an averaging program (compliance
Option 2) was added to the program. EPA's intent was that the Option 2
averaging program yield equivalent PM reductions compared to Option 1,
for approximately the same cost to transit operators. The equivalency
of the two options is programmatically linked because the TLF for
Option 2 is dependent upon equipment certified for use under Option 1.
To the extent that a transit operator complying with Option 1 is
required to use PM reduction technology at the time of engine rebuild
or replacement (i.e., to the extent that program requirements are
triggered for Option 1), the Option 2 TLF is based on the same
equipment. In addition, EPA intended to ensure that transit operators
would have equivalent and adequate lead time to plan their compliance
strategies, regardless of which option they chose.
Despite EPA's efforts to ensure equivalency of the compliance
options, a potential inequity may result if equipment is certified
after the post-rebuild PM level revision of today's notice. If
equipment is certified as meeting the 0.10 g/bhphr PM standard for less
than the life cycle cost requirement ($7,940 in 1992 dollars), transit
operators choosing to comply with Option 1 will be required to use such
equipment (or other equipment certified as meeting 0.10 g/bhphr) when
rebuilding or replacing affected engines beginning six months after the
effective date of certification. On the other hand, because today's
Federal Register notice does not contain 0.10 g/bhphr as the post-
rebuild level for any engine models (excluding those originally
certified at or below 0.10 g/bhphr), Option 2 would be substantially
less stringent in terms of PM reductions and equipment costs.
During the development of the final rule of April 23, 1993, EPA
expected that certification activity under this regulation would be
completed by mid-1996. EPA expected industry to seek equipment
certification as early as possible after the final rule was promulgated
because the population of affected pre-94 model year buses would become
smaller each year. Delaying certification would be equivalent to
ignoring a portion of the potential market. At the same time, EPA
needed to determine when to schedule revisions of post-rebuild PM
levels for use under Option 2, such that; (1) the number of revisions
were not so numerous as to discourage use of Option 2, and (2) the
final revision considered virtually all equipment that would ultimately
be certified under this program. EPA determined that two revisions of
the post-rebuild PM levels, one in mid-1994 and one in mid-1996, would
be sufficient to address both concerns.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See discussion in the preamble to the final rule, 58 Fed.
Reg. 21359, April 23, 1993, pp. 21374-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification activity under this program has substantially lagged
behind the schedule anticipated by EPA and upon which the development
of the final rule was based. Certification of the first PM reducing
equipment was not granted until May 31, 1995, nearly one year after the
first revision of post-rebuild PM levels. EPA is currently reviewing
several notifications of intent to certify (including one intended to
trigger the 0.10 g/bhphr PM standard), and expects to receive several
more in the next few months. If EPA certifies equipment that triggers
the 0.10 g/bhphr PM standard under Option 1 and which creates
requirements under Option 1, but not under Option 2, then the two
program compliance options would be unequal. EPA is currently reviewing
the potential impacts this inequity could have on the retrofit/rebuild
program and ways to ensure that PM benefits are not lost as a result of
the potential inequity.
EPA stated in the final rule that it expects to publish, as an
appendix to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the final post-
rebuild PM levels to be used by transit operators choosing to comply
with Option 2. EPA will defer publication of this appendix in the CFR
until after the rulemaking to add a third post-rebuild PM level
revision. The PM levels contained in today's notice must be used in the
interim by transit operators for calculating their fleet emissions
levels.
[[Page 42767]]
Dated: July 31, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 96-20955 Filed 8-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P