[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4959-4965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2180]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6531-4]


Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year 
Urban Buses; Approval of an Application for Certification of Equipment

AGENCY:  Environmental protection agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice of agency approval of an application for equipment 
certification.

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

SUMMARY:  The Agency received a request to amend a notification of 
intent to certify urban bus retrofit/rebuild equipment for 4-stroke 
petroleum fueled diesel engines pursuant to 40 CFR part 85, subpart O 
from Engelhard Corporation (Engelhard). Engelhard requested to amend 
the original notification to include additional engine models. Pursuant 
to section 85.1407(a)(7), a November 30, 1998 Federal Register document 
summarized the amendment and announced that the amendment request and 
accompanying data would be available for public review and comment, and 
initiated a 45-day period during which comments could be submitted. In 
the document, the Agency stated it would review this request to amend 
the notification of intent to certify, as well as comments received, to 
determine whether the equipment should be certified for the additional 
models.
    EPA has completed its review of this amendment request and the 
Director of the Certification and Compliance Division (CCD) has 
determined that the requirements for certification have been met. 
Accordingly, today's Federal Register document describes the 
certification of this equipment for the engine models listed in Table C 
of this document.
    Testing documentation presented to the Agency demonstrates a 
reduction in particulate matter (PM) of at least 25% for the engines 
listed in Table C. Life cycle cost information was not submitted by 
Engelhard and this approval does not trigger requirements for the 
additional models. Certification of this equipment makes it available 
for operators complying with the 25% particulate matter reduction 
requirements of compliance program 1 and may also be used by operators 
utilizing program 2 to achieve target fleet emission levels.

DATES:  Today's Federal Register document announces the Agency's 
decision to certify the CMX equipment for certain 4 stroke/cycle urban 
bus engines. The effective date of certification was established in a 
letter dated November 30, 1999 from the Director of the Certification & 
Compliance Division to Engelhard Corporation. A copy of this letter is 
in the public docket located at the address noted above. This equipment 
may be used immediately by urban bus operators.

ADDRESSES:  The application, as well as other materials specifically 
relevant to it, are contained in Public Docket A-93-42 (Category XVII-
A), entitled ``Certification of Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment''. 
This docket is located in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 
20460.

[[Page 4960]]

    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 
Programs Group, Certification & Compliance Division (6403J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone: (202) 564-9259. Email 
Address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Program 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 programs: Program 1 sets PM 
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.
    Certification of retrofit/rebuild equipment is a key element of the 
retrofit/rebuild program. To demonstrate compliance under either of the 
compliance programs, operators of the affected buses must use equipment 
that has been certified by the Agency. Emissions requirements under 
either of the two compliance programs depend on the availability of 
certified retrofit/rebuild equipment 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 November 18, 1996, 
Engelhard applied for certification of equipment applicable to all 
Cummins L-10 engines that were originally manufactured prior to and 
including 1993. The notification of intent to certify stated that the 
candidate equipment would reduce PM emissions 25 percent or more on 
petroleum-fueled diesel engines that are rebuilt to Cummins 
specifications.
    The candidate equipment consists of a ``catalytic converter 
muffler'' or CMXTM, that is an exhaust noise muffler 
containing an oxidation catalyst. Life cycle cost information was 
submitted with the original notification, along with a guarantee that 
the equipment would be offered to all affected operators for less than 
the incremental life cycle cost ceiling. After completion of its 
review, EPA determined that the certification approval for the November 
18 application was limited to the Cummins L-10 electronically 
controlled (EC) engines based on the testing data supplied. EPA 
certified this equipment as a trigger for the requirements for 
operators using compliance option 1, to reduce PM by 25% when 
rebuilding or replacing 1992-1993 Cummins L-10 EC models. A document 
was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1998 (63 FR 13660) 
announcing this certification.
    In a letter to EPA dated April 20, 1998, Engelhard requested that 
the March 30 certification be amended to include all pre-1994 Cummins 
L-10 models (including the non-electronically controlled models) and 
all other 4-stroke urban bus engines. On November 30, 1998 EPA 
published a document in the Federal Register requesting comment on the 
amendment request and on the appropriateness of the engines being 
considered for this certification and requested information on any 
additional engines for which this certification may be applicable. In 
response, the Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) commented that it had 
certified and produced the Series 50 engine for use in urban bus 
applications for which this certification might be applicable in the 
``all other 4-stroke'' general category. Accordingly, EPA has included 
the Series 50 engine for consideration in the ``all other 4-stroke'' 
urban bus engine category in this document. Table A below provides a 
listing of the 4-stroke urban bus engines and the certification levels 
for which the candidate equipment was considered.

                                      Table A.--Affected Models and Proposed Engelhard CMX Certification Levels \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Cummins                                                               Retrofit PM
                                                                       control                                      New Engine  Retrofit PM   level with
                    Cummins/other engine family                       parts list         Manufacture dates           PM level    level with    CMX and
                                                                        (CPL)                                                       CMX      Cummins kit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
343B...............................................................          780  11/20/85 to 12/31/87...........         0.58         0.44         0.26
343B...............................................................         0781  11/20/85 to 12/31/87...........         0.59         0.44         0.26
343C...............................................................         0774  11/20/85 to 12/31/89...........         0.46         0.34         0.26
343C...............................................................         0777  11/20/85 to 12/31/89...........         0.61         0.46         0.26
343C...............................................................         0996  12/04/87 to 08/19/88...........         0.61         0.46         0.26
343C...............................................................         1226  07/26/88 to 12/31/90...........         0.50         0.38         0.26
343F...............................................................         1226  07/12/90 to 08/26/92...........         0.45         0.34         0.26
343F...............................................................         1441  12/18/90 to 12/31/92...........         0.46         0.34         0.26
343F...............................................................         1622  04/24/92 to 12/31/92...........         0.46         0.34         0.26
343F...............................................................         1624  04/24/92 to 12/31/92...........         0.45         0.34         0.26
Other \2\ 4-stroke engines.........................................          N/A  Pre-1988.......................         0.50         0.38          N/A

[[Page 4961]]

 
    CAT
    GM
    IH/Navistar
    MAN
    Saab-Scania
    Volvo
Other 4-stroke engines.............................................          N/A  1988 to 1993...................        (\3\)        (\4\)          N/A
    CAT
    DDC/Series 50
    GM
    IH/Navistar
    MAN
    Saab-Scania
    Volvo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The new Engine PM certification levels for Cummins engines are based on the certification level or the average test audit result for each engine
  family. It is noted that for engine family 343F, although the PM standard for 1991 and 1992 was 0.25 g/bhp-hr and the NOX standard was 5.0 g/bhp-hr,
  Cummins certified the 1226, 1441, 1622, and 1624 CPLs to a Federal Emission Limit (FEL) of 0.49 g/bhp-hr PM and 5.6 g/bhp-hr NOX under the averaging,
  banking and trading program.
\2\ Applicable to the following 4-stroke engines installed in applicable urban buses: Caterpillar 8 cylinder engines, General Motors 6 cylinder and 8
  cylinder engines, International Harvester/Navistar 8 cylinder engines, MAN 6 and 8 cylinder engines, Saab-Scania 6 cylinder engines, and Volvo 6
  cylinder engines.
\3\ Certification level.
\4\ 25% reduction from certification PM levels.

    In today's Federal Register document, EPA is identifying the 
engines in the ``all other 4-stroke'' category as listed in Table A. In 
a letter to EPA dated March 16, 1998 Engelhard stated that the 
inclusion of ``all other 4-stroke engines'' in the Engine Control 
Systems certification dated January 29, 1998 (63 FR 4445) caused 
confusion in the marketplace because it was not clear which engines 
were included in the ``all other 4-stroke engine'' classification. 
Accordingly, the November 30 Federal Register document sought to 
clarify this matter by identifying the applicable engines. As stated, 
EPA's intent is that the list of engines apply to the candidate 
Engelhard certification discussed herein, the Engine Control Systems 
certification referenced above, and to future notifications of intent 
to certify equipment under the urban bus rebuild regulations that 
include engines in the ``all other 4-stroke'' classification.
    The equipment to be applied to the engines is a ``catalytic 
converter muffler'' or CMXTM, that is a muffler containing 
an oxidation catalyst. The CMX is intended to replace the standard 
muffler previously installed in the engine exhaust system. The CMX is 
intended to be maintenance free, requiring no service for the full in-
use compliance period. The engine fuel to be used with this equipment 
is standard diesel fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 0.05 weight 
percent sulfur.
    Engelhard presented exhaust emission data from testing a 1987 240hp 
Cummins L-10 engine, control parts list number 0777 (CPL 0777) and on a 
Cummins L-10 engine built to CPL 0774 along with additional data to 
support this certification. Table B below provides a summary of the 
emissions test data. Under 40 CFR 85.1406(a), a test engine must 
represent the ``worst case'' with respect to particulate emissions of 
all those engine configurations for which the equipment is being 
certified. The worst case configuration is defined as the engine 
configuration having the highest engine-out PM level, prior to 
installation of the retrofit/rebuild equipment. In the case at hand, 
the Cummins L-10 test engine has a specified pre-rebuild PM emission 
level of 0.61 g/bhp-hr listed in the table at section 
85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A). The PM levels listed in the table at section 
85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A) for all other models and are less than the stated 
level for the L-10 test engine. Accordingly, the engine tested for this 
certification qualifies as a worst case configuration for the engine 
models listed in Table A herein. Section 85.1406 of the urban bus 
rebuild regulation allows the emission results to be extrapolated to 
engine types and model years known to have engine-out PM levels equal 
to or less than that of the test engine.

                                  Table B.--Exhaust Emissions Summary G/BHP-HR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1987 L-10    1987 L-10    1987 L-10 w/CMX   1987 L-10 w/
             Gaseous and particulate test                 baseline     baseline   CPL# 0774 formula    CMX CPL#
                                                         CPL# 0774    CPL# 0777      1/formula 2         0777
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC....................................................         2.29         2.29          1.07/0.68         1.07
CO....................................................         2.19         2.65          1.52/1.01         1.31
NOX...................................................         5.50         5.89          5.23/5.09         5.41
PM....................................................        0.476        0.473        0.326/0.287        0.335
BSFC \1\..............................................        0.399        0.413        0.394/0.394        0.400
Smoke Test............................................  ...........  ...........  .................  ...........
ACCEL.................................................         8.2%        11.7%         9.3%/11.0%        10.9%
LUG...................................................         1.5%         1.7%          1.8%/1.4%         2.0%
PEAK..................................................        14.8%        29.2%        15.7%/20.3%       24.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) is measured in units of lb/bhp-hr.


[[Page 4962]]

    Engelhard did not provide life-cycle cost data relative to this 
amendment request to include the additional models. Therefore, this 
equipment is not being considered in today's Federal Register document 
for certification in compliance with the life cycle cost requirements 
for the additional engines covered by the amendment. However, in a 
letter dated December 4, 1998, Engelhard requested that life cycle 
costs apply for this equipment for all applicable models. In the 
December 4 letter, Engelhard has submitted pricing information along 
with a guarantee that this equipment will be offered to affected 
operators for less than the incremental life cycle cost of $2,000 (in 
1992 dollars). On July 30, 1999, a Federal Register document was 
published concerning this request to include life cycle costs (64 FR 
41417). Comments have been received in response to the July 30 document 
and are currently being reviewed by EPA. If certified to comply with 
life cycle cost requirements, this equipment will trigger program 
requirements for the engines included in the general category of ``all 
other 4-stroke engines.'' A separate document will be published in the 
Federal Register announcing EPA's decision on Engelhard's request to 
certify this equipment to include life cycle costs when the review is 
complete.
    The engines to which the certification announced in today's Federal 
Register document applies are listed in Table C below. The equipment is 
certified to post-rebuild PM certification levels listed in Table C for 
each respective engine. Under program 1, all rebuilds or replacements 
of applicable engines for which a 25% or greater reduction of PM is 
required may utilize this certified Engelhard equipment (or other 
equipment certified to reduce PM by at least 25 percent). Urban bus 
operators who choose to comply with program 2 and use this equipment 
will use the appropriate PM emission value from Table C when 
calculating their average fleet PM level.

                                                    Table C.--Engelhard CMX Certification Levels \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cummins                                                          Retrofit PM
                                                                            control                                 New Engine  Retrofit PM   Level with
                       Cummins/other engine family                         parts list       Manufacture dates        PM level    Level with  CMX Cummins
                                                                             (CPL)                                                  CMX          kit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
343B....................................................................          780  11/20/85 to 12/31/87......         0.58         0.44         0.26
343B....................................................................          078  111/20/85 to 12/31/87.....         0.59         0.44         0.26
343C....................................................................         0774  11/20/85 to 12/31/89......         0.46         0.34         0.26
343C....................................................................         0777  11/20/85 to 12/31/89......         0.61         0.46         0.26
343C....................................................................         0996  12/04/87 to 08/19/88......         0.61         0.46         0.26
343C....................................................................         1226  07/26/88 to 12/31/90......         0.50         0.38         0.26
343F....................................................................         1226  07/12/90 to 08/26/92......         0.45         0.34         0.26
343F....................................................................         1441  12/18/90 to 12/31/92......         0.46         0.34         0.26
343F....................................................................         1622  04/24/92 to 12/31/92......         0.46         0.34         0.26
343F....................................................................         1624  04/24/92 to 12/31/92......         0.45         0.34         0.26
Other \1\ 4-stroke engines..............................................          N/A  Pre-1988..................         0.50         0.38          N/A
    CAT
    GM IH/Navistar
    MAN
    Saab-Scania
    Volvo
Other 4-stroke engines..................................................  ...........  1988 to 1993..............        (\3\)        (\4\)          N/A
    CAT
    GM
    IH/Navistar
    MAN
    Saab-Scania
    Volvo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The new Engine PM certification levels for Cummins engines are based on the certification level or the average test audit result for each engine
  family. It is noted that for engine family 343F, although the PM standard for 1991 and 1992 was 0.25 g/bhp-hr and the NO standard was 5.0 g/
  bhp-hr, Cummins certified the 1226, 1441, 1622, and 1624 CPLs to a Federal Emission Limit (FEL) of 0.49 g/bhp-hr PM and 5.6 g/bhp-hr NO
  under the averaging, banking and trading program.
\2\ Applicable to the following 4-stroke engines installed in applicable urban buses: Caterpillar 8 cylinder engines, General Motors 6 cylinder and 8
  cylinder engines, International Harvester/Navistar 8 cylinder engines, MAN 6 and 8 cylinder engines, Saab-Scania 6 cylinder engines, and Volvo 6
  cylinder engines.
\3\ Certification level.
\4\ 25% reduction from certification PM levels.

III. Summary and Analysis of Comments

    EPA received comments from three parties on the Engelhard 
application during the comment period: Detroit Diesel Corporation 
(DDC), Johnson Matthey Corporation (JMI), and Engine Control Systems 
(ECS). DDC is the original manufacturer of the Series 50 engine. JMI 
and ECS are both certifiers and suppliers of equipment under the urban 
bus rebuild program.
    The Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) commented that the DDC Series 
50 engine should not be included in the certification. DDC also 
commented on the reported hydrocarbon results for the baseline test. 
Regarding DDC's comments relative to the Series 50 engine, DDC stated 
that it had certified and produced 1992-1993 model year Series 50 
engines for use in urban bus applications. DDC stated that the Series 
50 is an electronically controlled engine with PM emissions in the 
range of 0.07 to 0.13 g/bhp-hr that was not equipped with an exhaust 
catalyst when certified. DDC stated that the Series 50 model engines 
were not cited in the November 30,1998 Federal Register document and 
should not be included in this certification among the additional 
engines in the general class of ``all other 4-stroke engines'' based on 
the test data presented in the document. DDC noted that the Engelhard 
certification tests were for a 1987 model year Cummins L-10 with 
baseline test results of 0.47 g/bhp-hr 

[[Page 4963]]

PM and extremely high HC overall suggesting the engine may have 
a high soluble fraction. DDC stated that since catalysts are known to 
be most effective on the soluble fraction of particulate and relatively 
ineffective in reducing the dry soot, the overall catalyst 
effectiveness increases with the soluble fraction. DDC states that the 
Series 50 has low PM with a low soluble fraction. Because of the 
differences in the quantity and composition of particulate emissions 
from the two engines, it would not be appropriate to extrapolate the 
results of the Engelhard L-10 testing to conclude that the CMX will 
achieve the required 25% particulate reduction when applied to the 
Series 50 engines. Thus, DDC stated the Series 50 inclusion in this 
certification would not be justified.
    In response to DDC's comment, Engelhard provided data from testing 
conducted on a 1995 275 hp DDC Series 50 engine. Engelhard conducted 
testing using CMX technology exploring the effects of fuel sulfur on 
particulate matter emissions. Fuel sulfur levels of 500 parts per 
million (ppm) and 315 ppm were run on the CMX catalyst. The report 
containing this data titled, ``The Effect of Diesel Sulfur Content and 
Oxidation Catalysts on Transient Emissions at High Altitude from a 1995 
Detroit Diesel Series 50 Urban Bus Engine'' has been placed in the 
public docket listed above. After review of the above report and the 
comments received, EPA determined that additional information would be 
needed before it could be determined that Engelhard had demonstrated a 
25% PM reduction for Series 50 engine. Upon EPA informing Engelhard of 
the need for additional data and evaluation relative to the Series 50 
engine, Engelhard requested that the Series 50 be removed from 
consideration under this certification. Engelhard made this request so 
that certification approval for the remaining models would not be 
delayed due to time necessary to receive and evaluate additional 
information relative to the Series 50. Accordingly, EPA has removed the 
Series 50 model from consideration under this certification. However, 
as noted earlier the Series 50 was added to the general class of ``all 
other 4-stroke engines'' for consideration under the Urban Bus Rebuild 
Program.
    DDC's second comment concerns the hydrocarbon (HC) level reported 
as 2.29 g/bhp-hr in the baseline Cummins L-10 engine test. DDC states 
that this HC level is indicative of an engine fault and questions the 
certification data. In response, Engelhard notes that while this engine 
does have high HC emissions, data from five tests conducted after it 
had rebuilt this engine to various configurations consistently show HC 
emissions that are around 2.0 g/bhp-hr on average with standard Cummins 
rebuild specifications. The HC result for the certification test of the 
CPL 0777 configuration provided by Engelhard in the amendment was 2.29 
g/bhp-hr. EPA notes that based on the consistent HC results for this 
engine after rebuild, it is apparent that the HC results are inherent 
to this engine in a standard rebuild configuration. EPA notes that it 
has seen considerable variation in the test results for baseline 
engines for the applications that have been reviewed for certification. 
Consistent with 40 CFR 85.1406(a), the certification engine is not 
required to meet Federal emission standards before the retrofit/rebuild 
equipment is installed. The retrofit/rebuild regulation requires that 
the PM reduction must be shown to be incremental to a standard rebuild. 
Based on the fact that the baseline engine in this certification was 
rebuilt to a standard configuration with no obvious defects, EPA finds 
the results to be acceptable. It is noted that with the addition of the 
CMX technology the HC emissions are reduced to 1.07 g/bhp-hr during 
testing and are within specified standards in accordance with the 
regulations. After review of the data presented, EPA finds that the 
test engine and the emission results presented are acceptable.
    Engine Control Systems, Ltd. (ECS) commented that this application 
should be reviewed in conjunction with the life cycle costs as 
submitted in Engelhard's December 4 letter, in order to solicit the 
full range of comments needed to justify triggering the 25% PM 
reduction requirements for the affected engines. ECS also commented on 
catalyst applicability, effectiveness, performance, PM reduction, 
backpressure, and the identification of the different catalyst 
formulations. ECS commented on testing it has performed and results of 
Engelhard testing on Cummins N14 engines and other data conveyed by 
Engelhard. ECS also commented that it should be clearly stated that 
this certification applies only to applicable urban bus engines.
    With regard to the ECS comment that product performance and cost 
should be addressed together to solicit the full range of comments for 
those engines constituting the ``all other 4-stroke'' category, the 
urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulation allows for certification based on 
emission reduction without including cost data. In response, EPA 
believes that the urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulation clearly allows 
for certification based on emission reductions without cost data. In 
fact, prior to this certification review, EPA has reviewed and approved 
several certifications of equipment under this program without life 
cycle cost data.
    Life cycle cost data is necessary to trigger retrofit/rebuild 
requirements under program 1. Since Engelhard had not provided cost 
information with this amendment request, this certification will not 
trigger new requirements for any of the affected engines and a review 
of cost data is not necessary for approval. However, Engelhard has more 
recently requested to include cost data and to certify this equipment 
within the specified life cycle cost requirements. A document was 
published in the Federal Register on July 30, 1999 (64 FR 41417) 
regarding this amendment request to include life cycle costs for this 
certification. Comments have been received and are currently under 
review. A separate document will be published in the Federal Register 
announcing EPA's decision after review is completed.
    ECS has requested that Engelhard divulge its catalyst formulation 
and size publicly. Engelhard states that this information is 
proprietary and declines to provide this information in a public 
format. Customarily, EPA allows manufacturers to maintain catalyst 
specifications as confidential business information provided such 
information is presented for EPA review and is found to be acceptable. 
Engelhard has provided descriptions of the various catalysts and 
formulations used during testing and EPA finds the information 
presented to be acceptable under the urban bus program.
    ECS commented that it is not clear which formulation is being 
proposed to cover the 4-stroke engines included in this certification. 
If different formulations are proposed which catalysts are meant to 
cover the various engines? What data shows the effectiveness of these 
formulations and how will they be identified in the marketplace to 
ensure appropriate use? Engelhard has responded that it will provide a 
specific CMX unit for a specific bus and engine combination using the 
certified catalyst. In the amendment request and subsequent 
information, Engelhard documented tests performed on a wide range of 
catalyst formulations on an engine designated to be the ``worst case'' 
and has also provided data based on other engine configurations. In the 
regulations, EPA stated it will allow results of emission tests for 
after treatment devices to be extrapolated to

[[Page 4964]]

engine types and model years known to have engine-out PM levels equal 
to or less than the test engine. In the application, Engelhard has 
presented data from Cummins engine with CPL 0777 which is considered to 
be the worst case configuration for the engines to be included in this 
certification. In addition, Engelhard has presented data from tests 
performed on Cummins CPL 0774 to support this amendment request. 
Engelhard has responded that in order to simplify certification, it 
will only utilize the catalyst formulation tested on the Cummins L-10 
CPL 0777. EPA has reviewed the effectiveness of the formulation to be 
used with this equipment and designated for this certification and 
finds it to be acceptable. ECS commented that the emissions profile of 
Cummins L-10 engine (CPL 0777) that Engelhard tested was significantly 
different from the L-10 engine ECS tested for its certification. ECS 
commented that Engelhard testing of CPL 0774 showed very high insoluble 
carbon reductions and ECS questions on all the L-10 test data. The 
urban bus retrofit/rebuild rule does not specify the percentage 
reduction which must occur in either the soluble or insoluble PM 
fractions. In its March 30, 1998 submission, Engelhard provided data 
showing that the CMX technology reduces the total particulate matter by 
at least 25 percent based on the tests conducted on CPL 0774. While it 
is recognized that the insoluble portion of the PM appears relatively 
high, Engelhard has provided data showing the CMX technology reduces 
the soluble and the insoluble fraction of total particulate to meet the 
requirements of the bus regulation. Furthermore, Engelhard has provided 
test data for CPL 0777 demonstrating at least a 25% reduction in total 
PM. No data was provided by Engelhard regarding the soluble versus 
insoluble portion of the PM for CPL 0777. However, such data is not an 
explicit requirement of the regulation. Based on the total PM reduction 
shown in the test data, EPA finds that the test results demonstrate 
compliance with the standard of reducing PM by at least 25%.
    ECS commented that the tests conducted by Engelhard were conducted 
in a very uniform and procedural fashion with a backpressure setting 
which is atypical from actual in-use applications. Further, ECS 
commented that additional support data should be required to determine 
whether claimed PM reductions will occur on actual in-use buses. The 
regulation clearly states that the emission test to be used is the 
Heavy-Duty Engine Federal Test Procedure set forth in 40 CFR Part 86 
Subpart N or an approved alternative test procedure. EPA notes that the 
testing supplied by Engelhard for this certification was conducted 
according to the specified test procedure as put forth in 40 CFR and is 
accepted.
    The urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulation does not require 
durability testing or in-use testing. However, it does require that the 
certifier supply a defect warranty over the initial 100,000 mile period 
of use of a certified system. Accordingly, the certifier is required to 
replace any defective part that is included in the certified kit during 
the 100,000 mile warranty period. As well, the certifier is required to 
warrant that the equipment, if properly installed and maintained, will 
meet the emission requirements for a period of 150,000 miles from when 
the equipment is installed.
    ECS commented that both Engelhard and ECS are participating in 
Ottawa test programs. Specifically, Engelhard CMX technology has been 
retrofit on two buses equipped with Cummins N14 4 stroke/cycle engines. 
ECS asked if Engelhard will disclose the results of this testing to EPA 
and discuss the results. ECS believes that the data from the Ottawa 
program does not support a broad certification of the CMX for all 4 
stroke/cycle engines for a 25% PM reduction. In response Engelhard has 
stated that this information is not relevant to this application 
because the catalyst used during that program was undersized compared 
to the catalyst which would be supplied under this certification. 
Engelhard asserts that a properly sized CMX catalyst will achieve the 
25% reduction over the FTP on an N-14 engine.
    ECS provided documentation which ECS stated was presented by 
Engelhard at a recent workshop in Hong Kong. ECS comments that the data 
presented shows that the expected PM emissions reductions with the CMX 
converter muffler for several engine families is below 25%. In response 
Engelhard states that the referenced data incorporates testing on 
undersized catalysts and that the data referenced by ECS was based on 
obsolete catalyst formulations. Engelhard will utilize only the high 
activity catalyst formulation used for testing the Cummins L-10 CPL 
0777 in this application. A description of this catalyst was provided 
by Engelhard as confidential business information for EPA's review. EPA 
finds that Engelhard has demonstrated that this catalyst will provide 
for at least a 25% PM reduction on the applicable engines included in 
this certification. Engelhard states that it will size the catalyst 
according to the applicable engine size to achieve the specific PM 
reductions specified.
    In the data provided with this amendment, Engelhard has documented 
test results utilizing a range of catalyst formulations on the worst 
case configuration. EPA finds that this data demonstrates that the 
Engelhard CMX will reduce PM by a minimum of 25 percent. The regulation 
allows that after treatment devices such as the CMX equipment may be 
applied to other engines based on testing performed on the worst case 
engine. Engelhard has complied with this requirement for this 
certification.
    ECS requested that EPA specifically state, in granting of any 4-
stroke engine certification based on emissions from data from a single 
engine, that such certifications only apply to specific urban bus 
engines. In this document, EPA has identified the specific urban bus 
engines to which it applies. ECS also requested that EPA state that 
this certification should not be used by state agencies in the 
assessment of non-urban bus retrofit programs. EPA does not believe 
this statement is appropriate in this document because it is outside of 
the purview of the urban bus rebuild program.
    The Johnson Matthey Corporation (JMI) commented on the use of CPL 
0777 as the worst case configuration. JMI also commented on the use of 
two different catalyst formulations during emission testing and 
questioned which was used during certification testing and how each 
formulation would be identified for use.
    Johnson Matthey Corporation (JMI) commented that the worst case 
engine should be based on the highest exhaust flow rate rather than 
using the engine with the highest engine out PM. JMI commented that 
Engelhard should explain the reasoning for selecting CPL 0777. The 
regulations specify that the worst case engine configuration shall be 
the engine configuration having the highest engine-out particulate 
matter emission levels prior to installation of the retrofit/rebuild 
equipment. The Cummins engine CPL 0777 meets this criteria and 
qualifies as the worst case engine configuration for the engines 
included in this certification under the regulations.
    JMI commented that Engelhard provides performance data for two 
different catalyst formulations on the engine configured to CPL 0744. 
JMI commented that only one catalyst formulation was tested on CPL 0777 
and Engelhard should be required to identify which formulation was used 
for

[[Page 4965]]

certification testing. In addition, Engelhard should present conclusive 
information regarding the specific formulation tested. Further, if more 
than one formulation is being certified, the EPA should require 
Engelhard to clearly identify each formulation and where it may 
appropriately be used. Engelhard has responded that in order to 
simplify certification, it will only utilize the catalyst formulation 
tested on the Cummins L-10 CPL-0777. Engelhard has provided 
confidential business information on the catalyst formulation used in 
certification testing. EPA finds it to be acceptable.

IV. Certification Approval

    The Agency has reviewed this application, along with comments 
received from interested parties, and finds that this equipment reduces 
particulate matter emissions without causing urban bus engines to fail 
to meet other applicable Federal emission requirements. Additionally, 
EPA finds that installation of this equipment will not cause or 
contribute to an unreasonable risk to the public health, welfare or 
safety, or result in any additional range of parameter adjustability or 
accessibility to adjustment than that of the engine manufacturer's 
emission related part. The application meets the requirements for 
certification under the Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and 
Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (40 CFR 85.1401 and 85.1415).

V. Operator Requirements and Responsibilities

    This equipment may be used immediately by urban bus operators who 
have chosen to comply with either program 1 or program 2 and who have 
applicable engines. Currently, operators having certain of the 
applicable engines who have chosen to comply with program 1 must use 
equipment certified to reduce PM emissions by 25 percent or more when 
those engines are rebuilt or replaced. Today's Federal Register 
document certifies the above-described Engelhard equipment as meeting 
this PM reduction requirement for all engine models listed in Table C 
herein. Urban bus operators choosing to comply with program 1 must use 
the certified Engelhard equipment (or other equipment that is certified 
in the meantime to reduce PM by at least 25 percent) for any Cummins 
engine that is listed in Table C that undergo rebuild. The requirement 
to use certified equipment demonstration a 25 percent reduction in PM 
for the Cummins engines listed is based on an earlier certification by 
the Cummins Engine Company as published in a Federal Register document 
dated December 13,1995 (60 FR 64048). The requirement remain until such 
time as the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard is triggered for the applicable 
engines. For the engines included in the general class of ``all other 
4-stroke engines'' as listed in Table C the requirement to use 25 
percent reduction equipment will be based on EPA decision on the 
December 4, 1998 amendment request from Engelhard referenced earlier. 
In the December 4 request Engelhard submitted pricing information along 
with a guarantee that this equipment will be offered to affected 
operators for less than the incremental life cycle cost of $2,000 (in 
1992 dollars) for these engines. On July 30, 1999, a Federal Register 
document was published concerning this request to include life cycle 
costs (64 FR 41417). Comments have been received in response to the 
July 30 document and are currently being reviewed by EPA. If certified 
to comply with life cycle cost requirements, this equipment will 
trigger program requirements for the engines included in the general 
category of ``all other 4-stroke engines'' under program 1. Operators 
who choose to comply with program 2 and use the Engelhard equipment 
will use the appropriate PM emission level from Table C when 
calculating their fleet level attained (FLA).
    As stated in the regulations, operators should maintain records for 
each engine in their fleet to demonstrate that they are in compliance 
with the requirements, beginning January 1, 1995. These records include 
purchase records, receipts, and part numbers for the parts and 
components used in the rebuilding of urban bus engines.

    Dated: January 21, 2000.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 00-2180 Filed 2-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U