[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 180 (Friday, September 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55959-55967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23775]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6870-4]


Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year 
Urban Buses; Approval of a Notification of Intent To Certify Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of EPA approval of a notification of intent to certify 
equipment.

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

SUMMARY: This Federal Register describes the certification of the 
Engelhard Corporation's ETX Plus rebuild kit pursuant to the Urban Bus 
Rebuild Requirements. The kit is certified to comply with the 0.10 
grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) particulate matter (PM) 
standard for certain engines (see below).
    EPA received a notification of intent to certify (that is, an 
``application'' for) the ETX Plus rebuild kit, signed November 17, 
1998, from the Engelhard Corporation (Engelhard) pursuant to Title 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 85 subpart O, entitled ``Urban 
Bus Rebuild Requirements.'' The kit applies to Detroit Diesel 
Corporation's (DDC) diesel-fueled 6V92TA urban bus engines of model 
years 1988 through 1993 that are equipped with the second version of 
Detroit Diesel Electronic Control (DDEC II). Engelhard's principal 
place of business is 101 Wood Avenue, Iselin, New Jersey 08830-0770.
    On April 29, 1999 EPA published a notice in the Federal Register 
(64 FR 23072) that the Engelhard application had been received, and 
that made the application available for public review and comment for a 
period of 45 days pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1407. EPA has completed its 
review and determined that it meets the requirements for certification. 
The effective date of certification is discussed below under DATES.
    Certification of this kit does not initiate (that is, ``trigger'') 
any program requirements for urban bus operators, because the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr PM standard is already in effect for the engines to which the 
ETX Plus applies. Additionally, Engelhard did not provide the life 
cycle cost information that is required to trigger a standard. However, 
certification of the ETX Plus kit will provide additional choices for 
urban bus operators.

ADDRESSES: The Engelhard application, as well as other documents 
specifically relevant to it, is contained in Public Docket A-93-42, 
Category XXV-A, entitled ``Certification of Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild 
Equipment.'' 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 EPA for copying docket materials.

DATES: Today's Federal Register document describes EPA's decision to 
certify the ETX Plus kit, and establishes the effective date of 
certification. This certified kit may be used immediately by urban bus 
operators, as discussed in Section VI below. Urban bus operators having 
affected engines and using compliance program 1 are currently required 
to use kits certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard when the 
applicable engines are rebuilt or replaced.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Rutledge, Certification and 
Compliance Division (mail code 6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington 
D.C. 20460. Telephone: (202) 564-9297. Email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Program Background

    On April 21, 1993, EPA 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 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: Option 1 sets PM emissions requirements for 
each urban bus engine in an operator's fleet which is rebuilt or 
replaced; Option 2 is a fleet averaging program that sets out a 
specific annual target level 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 (also referred to as ``kits''). To meet either of the 
two compliance options, operators of the affected buses must use kits 
which are certified by EPA. Emissions requirements under either of the 
two options depend on the availability of retrofit/rebuild kits 
certified for each engine model. To be used for Option 1, kits must be 
certified as meeting a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or as achieving a 25 
percent reduction in PM. Kits used for Option 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.
    Under Option 1, additional information regarding cost must be 
submitted in the application for certification, in order for 
certification of that kit to trigger program requirements for a 
particular engine model. In order for the kit to serve as a trigger, 
the certifier must guarantee that the kit will be offered to affected 
operators for $7,940 or less at the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM level, or for 
$2,000 or less for the 25 percent or greater reduction in PM. Both of 
the above amounts are based on 1992 dollars and include life cycle 
costs incremental to the cost of a standard rebuild.

II. Certification Application and Kit Identification

    In an application signed November 17, 1998, Engelhard applied for 
certification of equipment under the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements. 
The application is clarified in letters from Engelhard dated December 
14, 1998, and June 30, 2000. The equipment is referred to as the ETX 
Plus rebuild kit and applies to 1988 through 1993 model year DDC 6V92TA 
urban bus engines equipped with DDEC II.
    The ETX Plus kit is intended to be installed at the time of a 
standard engine rebuild, and results in one mechanical configuration to 
update all

[[Page 55960]]

applicable engines to an ETX Plus configuration of either 253 or 277 
horsepower (Hp). The basis of the ETX Plus kit is a 6V92TA DDEC II 
engine that is rebuilt to a standard 1991 to 1993 DDC specification, 
but with some changes. When rebuilt with the ETX Plus kit, the engine 
will utilize an improved CMX(\TM\)-6 integrated catalytic converter 
muffler, a coated turbocharger, a specific blower drive gear, and must 
include other emission-related components identified on the engine 
specific parts list that is provided in the kit. (Use of parts other 
than the specific parts listed for the kit will place an engine in an 
uncertified kit configuration.)
    The CMX-6 is designed to replace the existing noise muffler of a 
bus and incorporates Engelhard's oxidation catalyst technology to 
reduce PM emissions in the exhaust. The CMX-6 is different from the 
CMX-5 converter of the Engelhard kit that EPA certified earlier to the 
0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for the same engines (see 63 FR 50225; September 
21, 1998). Therefore, previously-certified CMX converters cannot be 
used in place of the new CMX-6 converter in the ETX Plus kit. The 
specific CMX-6 to be used depends on the type of coach as well as the 
type of engine. Engelhard's application provides a table listing the 
various catalytic converter kits available for different engine/coach 
combinations.
    Engelhard indicates that the turbocharger of the ETX Plus kit has a 
coated housing and operates like a typical turbocharger but with 
improved efficiency and airflow. The improved airflow improves 
combustion efficiency which reduces engine-out PM.
    The 1988 to 1990 model year engines also receive an upgraded 
software control program for the electronic control module, if 
necessary. The control program is listed on an updated ETX Plus parts 
list provided in the letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, which can be 
found in the public docket at the address listed above.
    The contents of the ETX Plus kit will vary depending upon the model 
year of the engine to be rebuilt. For the 1988-1990 model year engines, 
the kit will include components necessary to update the older 
applicable engines to the 1991-1993 configuration. For 1991-1993 model 
year engines, the kit does not include the emission-related components 
that are typically replaced during an engine rebuild of those engines. 
However, the operator is still responsible for purchasing and using the 
components on the engine specific parts list of the kit because such 
components are emissions related and necessary to assure the engine is 
the certified ETX Plus configuration.
    The engine specific parts list of the ETX Plus kit identifies the 
components that, while not provided with the kit, are necessary to 
complete an engine rebuild. The engine specific parts list for the 
1988-1990 model year engines identifies only the cylinder head and 
blower (which are common to all model year engines). The components 
that are necessary to complete the ETX Plus rebuild for 1988-1990 
engines, including those original equipment (OE), emission related 
components necessary to upgrade to the 1991-1993 model year 
configuration, are provided with the kit because the components would 
not typically be used for rebuilding 1988-1990 engines.
    The engine specific parts list for 1991-1993 model year engines 
identifies the cylinder head and blower (again, common to all model 
year engines), cylinder kits, fuel injectors and camshafts. These 
components are necessary to complete an engine rebuild using the ETX 
Plus kit but would typically be replaced by an operator during rebuild 
of the 1991-1993 model year engines. It is an operator's responsibility 
to assure that all components of the ETX Plus kit, including the 
components of the engine specific parts list, are acquired and properly 
installed.
    The emissions defect warranty will cover the components which 
Engelhard supplies in the ETX kit. Engelhard states that the ETX Plus 
kit will require no additional maintenance compared to a standard 
engine.
    Using engine dynamometer testing conducted in accordance with the 
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for heavy-duty diesel engines, Engelhard 
documented in its November 17, 1998 application, PM emissions complying 
with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. This test data is shown below in Table 
1. In Table 1 EPA has also included baseline data from testing 
conducted in conjunction with the Engelhard kit certified earlier to 
the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard and described in the Federal Register on 
September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225). The PM emissions level of an original 
engine, prior to installation of the Engelhard kit, may be less 
relevant because all emissions-related components are required to be 
replaced upon installation of the kit.
    The same engine block (that is, same serial number) was used for 
all emissions testing. The engine was initially rebuilt to a 1988 
California configuration, subsequently rebuilt to a 1991 through 1993 
model year DDC DDEC II standard configuration (using a DDC DDEC II 
upgrade kit), and then finally rebuilt with the ETX Plus rebuild kit. 
The testing documentation related to each of the rebuilds can be found 
in the public docket A-93-42, category XXV-A, at the address listed 
above. Transient testing was performed in accordance with the federal 
test procedure of 40 CFR Part 86, subparts N and I.
    The certification testing documents a PM emissions level that 
complies with the PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr, and also shows that 
emissions of hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX), and smoke opacities comply with the applicable 
standards.
    Based on the testing summarized in Table 1, EPA believes that all 
ETX Plus equipped engines will meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard 
because installation of the kit upon engine rebuild results in the 
replacement of all emissions-related components with a specific set of 
components, the combination of which has been demonstrated to comply 
with the PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

                         Table 1.--Summary of Engelhard Testing of a DDC 6V92TA DDEC II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         g/bhp-hr
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Gaseous and particulate test            HDDE standards        1988 6V92TA
                                         ------------------------  (California)     1991 6V92TA     6V92TA with
                                           1988    1990    1991     baseline 3      baseline 3    ETX Plus kit 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Date...............................  ......  ......  ......        02/19/97        03/10/97        05/26/98
Test Cell...............................  ......  ......  ......               7               7               7
    HC..................................     1.3     1.3     1.3             0.8             0.5            0.02
    CO..................................    15.5    15.5    15.5             1.4             1.9             0.4
    NOX.................................    10.7     6.0     5.0             5.5             4.7             5.0

[[Page 55961]]

 
    PM..................................    0.60    0.60    0.25            0.43            0.28            0.10
    BSFC1...............................  ......  ......  ......           0.481           0.498           0.488
    Hp (R/O) 2..........................  ......  ......  ......         277/273         277/281         277/278
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Smoke test                     Maximum opacity
                                                 standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCEL...................................            20%                       4%              7%              3%
LUG.....................................            15%                       1%              1%              1%
PEAK....................................            50%                       6%             15%             6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) is measured in units of lb/bhp-hr.
2 Horsepower (Rated/Observed during testing).
3 All 6V92TA testing was performed on engine identification number 6VF-203466. See discussion in the text. The
  DDC upgrade kit (25% reduction) was used to configure the engine to the 1991 model year.

    Engelhard's application includes no life cycle cost information. 
Such information is required, pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1407, only to 
trigger the program standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr for applicable engines. 
That 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard was triggered for both federal (i.e., 
49-State) and California engines with the certification of the 
Engelhard ETX-2002 rebuild kit described in the Federal Register on 
September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225). The effective date is discussed below 
in section VI, ``Urban Bus Operator Responsibilities.''
    In accordance with program requirements of 40 CFR 85.1409, 
Engelhard's application includes emissions defect and emissions 
performance warranties for the ETX Plus kit.
    The ETX Plus kit is certified to a PM emission level of 0.10 g/bhp-
hr for all 1988 through 1993 DDC 6V92TA DDEC II urban bus engines using 
either diesel fuel #1 or #2 (including engines originally certified, or 
rebuilt, to meet California emissions standards). Table 2 below lists 
the applicable engine models and certification levels associated with 
the certification announced in today's Federal Register.

                                         Table 2.--Certification Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Applicable models                Applicable engine codes               Certified PM level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988-1993 Detroit Diesel 6V92TA DDEC II..  ALL (including those         0.10 g/bhp-hr.
                                            certified or rebuilt to
                                            meet California or 50-
                                            state emissions standards).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's certification of the ETX Plus kit includes certification 
for engines originally certified, or rebuilt, to meet emissions 
standards of California. The impact of this on urban bus operators is 
discussed below in the ``Transit Operator Requirements'' of section VI 
below.

III. Summary and Analysis of Comments

    Comments were received from three parties in response to the 
Federal Register document of April 29, 1999 (64 FR 232072): Johnson 
Matthey, Incorporated (JM), Engine Control Systems, Limited (ECS), and 
Golden Gate Transit. JM is a company that has several kits certified 
under the urban bus program, including a kit certified to the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr standard for the same engines to which the ETX Plus kit is 
applicable. ECS is a company that has kits certified under the urban 
bus program, and also provides catalytic converters for a DDC kit that 
is certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for the same engines to 
which the ETX Plus kit is applicable. Golden Gate Transit is an 
operator of urban buses in an area to which the Urban Bus Rebuild 
Requirements apply.
    Comments and issues generally fell into the following categories:
    (A) Components in the ETX Plus kit; (B) Potential safety concern; 
(C) Durability and in-service concerns related to the ETX Plus kit; (D) 
Certification test engine; (E) Kit Compliance; and, (F) Other comments. 
These comments and issues are discussed below. The overwhelming 
majority of comments were provided by JM.
    Copies of the complete comments and other documentation are 
available in the public docket, which is located at the address stated 
above.

A. Components in the ETX Plus Kit

    1. JM notes that Engelhard intends to supply the ETX Plus kit 
components alone, while bus operators will procure the engine-specific 
components on their own. JM states that EPA should require Engelhard to 
clearly state that transits are required to purchase and install all of 
the components in both the Engelhard-supplied kit and the non-
Engelhard-supplied kit.
    Engelhard states that it has clearly stated that a transit needs to 
install all of the specified components to be certified.
    EPA notes that the Engelhard application shows that the ETX Plus 
Installation Instructions states ``Ensure that all required parts are 
used per the Engelhard ETX Plus Parts List.'' Additionally, the 
components list provided by Engelhard in its letter dated June 30, 
2000, show unique components lists for 1988-1990 and 1991-1993 6V92TA 
DDEC II engines, and installation of either list would result in an 
engine rebuilt to a standard 1991 to 1993 engine specification of 
either 253 or 277 horsepower.
    2. Golden Gate Transit comments that there will be a ``wide gap'' 
in warranty coverage, between the components

[[Page 55962]]

Engelhard plans to put in the kit, and the warranty that DDC provides 
for other engine components that are not part of the certified kit, but 
are necessary to complete an engine rebuild when installing a kit. 
Emissions will be compromised if there is failure of engine components 
not in the certified kit, when past the DDC warranty period, and places 
the burden on the bus operator. Components that are not in the 
certified kit include pistons, cylinder liners, and piston rings. 
Golden Gate believes that EPA should apply the bus program warranty to 
all emission-related components of an engine, even if components are 
not in a certified kit.
    EPA notes that the intent of the defect warranty of the regulation 
(40 CFR 85.1409) is to provide bus operators with the ability to obtain 
replacement components of a retrofit/rebuild kit that is still under 
warranty and fails to perform. Engelhard has met this requirement for 
the parts in its kits. Regarding the potential for a ``wide gap'' in 
warranty coverage between kit parts and other engine parts, Golden Gate 
is correct when referring to the kit applicable to 1991 through 1993 
model year engines because certain engine parts are not provided with 
the kit. However, for kits for those model year engines, the warranty 
coverage for those standard engine parts when used with the kit (as 
they must) would be the same as the coverage when used with other 
standard engine rebuilds (such as rebuilding a 1991 model year engine 
to a standard 1991 configuration).
    EPA notes that the ETX Plus kit for 1988 through 1990 model year 
engines includes the cylinder kits, fuel injectors, and camshafts and, 
all components of the kit are covered by the emission warranties 
required by 40 CFR 85.1409. These engine components are part of the kit 
because they are not standard rebuild parts for these model years.
    EPA has no information that the presence of certified kits will 
result in the other components failing earlier than would otherwise 
occur. Therefore, EPA does not believe that there is a need for the kit 
certifier to warrant such components under the warranty requirements of 
the bus program. Further, the non-special emissions-related engine 
components are OEM type components and not unique with regard to the 
specific engine being rebuilt. In the absence of the bus program, an 
operator would bear the costs of such components replacement if beyond 
any manufacturer's warranty period. In summary, EPA does not believe 
that it is necessary for a kit certifier to warrant components that are 
not part of its kit, and does believe that Engelhard has met its 
obligations under the regulatory warranty requirements of 40 CFR 
85.1409.
    3. In the preamble to the April 29, 1999 Federal Register document 
(64 FR 23072) that started the 45-day review of the Engelhard 
application, EPA stated that during the certification review it would 
address the issue of the supply method that Engelhard proposed for the 
ETX Plus kit and, whether the supply method compromises the ability of 
the kit to achieve the emission reductions in the field.
    As noted previously, the ETX Plus kit is expected to be installed 
at the time of a standard engine rebuild, and the contents of the kit 
will vary depending upon the model year of the engine to be rebuilt. 
For rebuilding a 1988-1990 model year engine, the kit includes the 
original equipment emission related components needed to upgrade the 
engine to the 1991-1993 configuration. However, for a 1991-1993 model 
year engine, the kit will not contain those emission related 
components. This is because operators of 1991-1993 engines typically 
acquire such standard components when rebuilding 1991-1993 engines, and 
must do the same when installing the ETX Plus kit on these engines. In 
other words, urban bus operators are expected to acquire, from their 
routine supply sources, the standard components that are specified for 
the kit. EPA does not believe that this supply method will affect the 
ability of the kit to achieve emission reductions in the field and, 
therefore, EPA is not requiring that the kit for 1991-1993 engines 
provide the standard engine components that are typically acquired by 
the operator for a standard rebuild of the 1991-1993 engines. This 
supply method will not affect the in-use performance of the ETX Plus 
kit because EPA believes that operators will continue to procure the 
proper components as listed on Engelhard's engine specific parts list, 
which are typically replaced during a routine 1991-1993 engine rebuild. 
However, because these specific engine components are not common to 
1988-1990 model year engines, the components are part of the kit for 
1988-1990 engines.
    The emissions performance warranty and emissions defect warranty 
provided by Engelhard as required by 40 CFR 85.1409, cover the 
components provided in the kit. This supply method is consistent with 
what has been provided for previous certifications, such as for the JM 
Cam Converter Technology (CCT TM) upgrade kit for these same 
engines as described on December 3, 1998 at 63 FR 66798, and the 
Engelhard ETX-2002 kit for the same engines as described on September 
21, 1998 at 63 FR 50225.
    4. JM notes that Engelhard includes the blower drive gear part 
number 5122918, which is for a non-hardened gear. However, this is not 
an appropriate component because DDC standardized the gear train to 
include hardened gears (JM refers to DDC service information bulletin 
18-D-88, but does not provide it). According to JM, DDC has indicated 
that hardened and non-hardened gears should not be mixed.
    Engelhard states that the appropriate blower drive gear will be 
specified depending on the application.
    EPA notes that the blower drive gear, to be supplied with the ETX 
Plus kit, must be covered by the program warranty per 40 CFR 85.1409, 
because the blower drive gear specified by Engelhard is not part of a 
standard rebuild for the engine. In general, EPA believes that an 
emission-related component should be included in a certified ``kit'' if 
the component is not part of a standard rebuild for an engine (subject 
to the rebuild requirements). 5.A. JM notes that the certification word 
codes (CWC) on the ETX Plus components list are not compliant with the 
Consent Decree requirements that were agreed upon by the U.S. Justice 
Department and the engine manufacturer (DDC).
    Engelhard states that the consent decree CWC's were not available 
when the original application was submitted. However, the appropriate 
CWC will be used.
    EPA notes that Engelhard, in its letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, 
has provided applicable CWCs for the engines for which the ETX Plus is 
applicable. EPA notes that no kits are certified that are to be re-
programmed with an original certification word code because such 
software includes programming that EPA considers a defeat device that 
is prohibited by the Clean Air Act.

B. Potential Safety Concern

    JM has several concerns regarding the use, operation, and 
durability of the ceramic coated turbocharger that is provided by 
Engelhard as part of the ETX Plus kit. First, JM states that the 
ceramic coating will most likely result in higher exhaust temperature 
in the piping between the turbocharger and the CMX. Higher than normal 
exhaust temperature could be a fire hazard. EPA should require 
Engelhard to provide exhaust temperature data for this coated 
technology to compare to existing engines operating with standard 
turbochargers, to determine whether

[[Page 55963]]

there is a safety hazard. JM suggests that additional insulation may be 
necessary on the piping and CMX catalytic muffler that are in close 
proximity to fluid lines, body panels, or the customer compartment.
    In response, Engelhard states that only a very small portion of the 
turbocharger is coated and it is insufficient to produce a change in 
heat loss of the turbocharger. Also, Engelhard has told EPA that the 
coating is not designed as a thermal barrier, and that the turbocharger 
does not significantly change the exhaust temperature. Furthermore, the 
turbocharger is the same unit as used on the original ETX kit certified 
earlier as described in the Federal Register at 63 FR 50225 on 
September 21, 1998. In its letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, Engelhard 
states that these units have been in-service on urban buses for the 
last several years without a problem.
    EPA believes, as JM also notes, that there may be many different 
exhaust configurations in the various bus models for the piping between 
the turbocharger and CMX. Also, regardless of whether the ETX Plus kit 
is used, the heat radiated from this section of the exhaust system is 
related to the exhaust pipe configurations, plus other factors that 
influence engine load, such as passenger loading, terrain, etc. EPA is 
not convinced that there is a safety concern with the ETX Plus kit, 
given the description of the coating and the in-service experience to 
date. Operators with concerns regarding the variations of particular 
bus models, and the possibility for increased exhaust pipe 
temperatures, should discuss their concerns with Engelhard. EPA notes 
that kits are available from other manufacturers if concerns can not be 
resolved.

C. Durability Related to the ETX Plus Kit

    1. JM comments that EPA should be concerned about the actual level 
of PM attained by Engelhard's technology. It is a well-accepted fact 
that over time and use, both engine performance as well as catalyst 
performance will show some level of degradation resulting in an 
increase in emissions. JM says that the ETX Plus kit functions at a PM 
level of 0.103 to 0.105 g/bhp-hr which allows for no in-use 
deterioration. Because of the difficulty and impracticality of testing 
the performance of in-use kits, the industry would never know if this 
technology would consistently meet the 0.10 PM standard either 
initially or after any engine and/or catalyst deterioration.
    As noted in other discussion on this subject, EPA is concerned 
about in-use deterioration. However, in its comments, JM has neither 
substantiated a need to account for deterioration, nor determined what 
that amount or test margin should be. JM has not supplied any data 
relevant to deterioration of Engelhard's catalysts or on its own 
catalysts that might be relevant to the CMX-6. EPA's review of its 
electronic database of new engine certification applications for 
diesel-fueled, catalyst-equipped, urban bus engines does not support 
the need to account for PM deterioration. Of the 23 engine families 
certified since 1997 (EPA's electronic database goes back to model year 
1997), 83 percent have deterioration factors of 1.000. This indicates 
that the engine manufacturers have determined that the over-whelming 
majority of their urban bus engine systems that use exhaust catalysts 
will have no measurable PM emissions deterioration over the useful life 
of these engines. These new urban bus engine families have a PM 
standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr and a useful life of 290,000 miles. For the 
Urban Bus Rebuild Program, the most rigorous PM standard is 0.10 g/bhp-
hr, and the emissions performance warranty period (comparable in 
concept to useful life for new engines) is 150,000 miles. In summary, 
the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements do not burden certifiers with a 
durability demonstration requirement as part of the certification 
process, but instead rely on the emissions warranties required pursuant 
to 40 CFR 85.1409, and EPA authorities to decertify per 40 CFR 85.1413, 
and recall non-compliant certified kits.
    JM is correct that it would be difficult to conduct an in-use 
testing program using the dynamometer test procedure that is used for 
kit certification. However, EPA expects that its ability to conduct 
future in-use testing programs may be facilitated by the availability 
of on-road testing systems such as the ROVER type of system that EPA 
has developed. ROVER is a mobile measurement system designed to measure 
exhaust emissions from vehicles under actual in-use conditions. While 
ROVER is not currently configured to measure emissions for determining 
compliance of certified kits with the urban bus program, the system has 
to date been used successfully in several heavy-duty on-road 
enforcement actions. This or other systems may be applicable to 
measuring the emissions associated with certified kits in the future.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1413, EPA has authority to decertify 
equipment for various reasons, including if use of certified equipment 
is causing urban bus engine emissions to exceed emission requirements 
for any regulated pollutant. Further, pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1406(f), 
Engelhard has agreed in its certification application to notify 
operators who have installed this equipment and repair the equipment 
without cost to the operator when EPA determines that a substantial 
number of the equipment kits, when properly maintained and used, and in 
actual use throughout the in-use compliance period, do not meet 
emission requirements.
    2. JM has several questions related to durability and the 
turbocharger of the kit. JM asks how, if it is assumed that the coated 
turbocharger has a higher than normal exhaust temperature, the 
temperature will affect durability. JM asks whether the turbocharger 
will have to be rebuilt prior to 200,000 miles, or lead to quicker 
degradation of the lubricating oil, or whether the higher temperature 
will lead to degradation of the turbocharger performance. JM also 
expresses concerns for the durability of the ceramic coating on the 
turbocharger. JM suggests that due to the duty cycle of a turbocharger, 
there are concerns that the coating will not survive. EPA should 
require Engelhard to demonstrate that the elevated temperature does not 
affect the durability of the turbocharger, and to provide durability 
data to demonstrate that the coating will survive over the required 
150,000 miles of transit operation.
    Engelhard, as noted above in response to an earlier comment, has 
stated that the turbocharger does not significantly change the 
temperature of the exhaust.
    Additionally, EPA notes that Engelhard, in its letter to EPA dated 
December 14, 1998, states that the turbocharger in the ETX kit is 
almost identical to a turbocharger in operation on a revenue-service 
6V92 DDEC II bus with over 75,000 miles, and the transit operator is 
extremely happy with the improved fuel economy and performance due to 
the installation of the turbocharger. Engelhard also notes that a 
similar turbocharger operated on a Class 8 tractor trailer test rig 
utilized by Engelhard for over 150,000 miles with no degradation of 
performance. While there may be differences in operating cycles, and 
other factors, EPA believes that this type of in-use durability 
evaluation is relevant to the general durability of the unit, and 
therefore supportive of the durability of the turbocharger in the ETX 
Plus kit.
    Moreover, in its letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, Engelhard notes 
that the same turbocharger is used in its original ETX kit, which is 
described in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225). 
Engelhard notes that this

[[Page 55964]]

unit has been used on many buses without a problem.
    EPA notes that, while the program regulation does not contain 
specific requirements relating to demonstration of durability, EPA is 
concerned with equipment durability. This subject is discussed in the 
preamble to the final rule (at 58 FR 21379; April 21, 1993). 
Additionally, the regulation at 40 CFR 85.1409 require manufacturers to 
provide both an emission performance warranty, to extend for a period 
of 150,000 miles from when kits are installed and, an emission defect 
warranty, to extend for a period of 100,000 miles. The regulation is 
clear that EPA maintains the option of performing in-use testing. Based 
on the information provided by Engelhard, EPA at this point has no 
reason to request further information regarding durability.
    3. JM comments that in the Engelhard letter of December 14, 1998 in 
response to EPA's question on field data and durability, Engelhard 
provides inadequate information. Engelhard compares its modified 
turbocharger to a standard, unmodified DDC turbocharger durability and 
offers one case for their modified turbocharger with no data to 
substantiate their claim. Additionally, Engelhard presents durability 
data from a Cummins B5.9 engine as proof of the durability of the CMX-6 
catalytic muffler for transit bus operations. This is not an 
appropriate comparison for transit operation, because there are 
significant differences between these two engines and their respective 
applications. JM states that the information should not be considered 
evidence of durability for transit operation, and that EPA should 
require Engelhard to provide similar data from a unit operating on a 
transit bus before any consideration is given to certifying the ETX 
kit.
    In response, EPA notes (as discussed above) that Engelhard has 
presented in-use examples relevant to the durability of the 
turbocharger in the ETX Plus kit. Regarding the CMX-6 catalyst of the 
ETX-Plus kit, Engelhard states that it is very similar to the current 
CMX catalysts and standard OEM catalysts. In support of its technology, 
Engelhard has submitted data from EPA's new engine certification 
program that indicate no PM deterioration from two 1994 model year 
engines using Engelhard catalysts. Also submitted are a graphical 
presentation showing the PM reduction performance over 1,000 hours of 
an Engelhard catalyst on a 1991 Cummins 5.9 liter engine, and an SAE 
paper written by Cummins on the durability of Engelhard diesel 
oxidation catalysts in use. EPA believes that while these engine/
vehicle applications may not be identical to an urban bus, such 
information is supportive of certification of important components of 
the ETX Plus kit. EPA at this point has no reason to request further 
information regarding durability.
    4. ECS comments that a turbocharger, as a general design feature, 
has clearance between the intake compressor, exhaust impeller and 
housing to allow for expansion and contraction of components due to 
temperature changes. An abrade-able coating to eliminate clearances may 
initially improve turbocharger efficiency but as components expand and 
contract and bearings wear, further abrading of the coating must be 
expected. Therefore, some definite loss in turbocharger efficiency and 
increase in PM must occur. ECS believes that this bolsters their 
comment that the zero emissions deterioration position is not 
defendable in regard to this application given the nature of the 
coating and the intended operation of a turbocharger.
    Engelhard responds that the break-in of a turbocharger and engine 
operates the engine at a very high temperature, thus the coated 
turbocharger will achieve its minimum clearance (thus abrading the 
maximum amount of coating) during break-in. There will not be any 
additional loss of coating during operation over the life of the kit. 
Turbochargers are designed to operate in excess of 300,000 miles before 
needing to be reconditioned. Bearing wear will be minimal and will have 
no effect at all on the performance of the coated turbocharger.
    EPA has no evidence that the Engelhard turbocharger is any less 
durable that an original equipment unit. Further, the coated Engelhard 
turbocharger is part of the certified ETX Plus kit and is therefor 
covered by the emissions warranty requirement of the program 
regulations (40 CFR 85.1409).

D. Test Engine

    JM states that EPA should require Engelhard to identify the origin 
of the 1988 DDC 6V92TA DDEC II test engine to determine whether it was 
an appropriate choice for testing. Also, the list of components used 
for the rebuild to the 1988 California DDEC II 277 Hp configuration was 
not provided in the Engelhard application. EPA should require Engelhard 
to provide the list.
    Engelhard responds that a components list for the engine rebuild 
was provided previously to EPA but is not relevant to the emissions 
testing, and the components list (for the ETX Plus kit) represents the 
status of the engine for the certification testing.
    EPA notes that JM does not indicate why the origin of the test 
engine is important to determining whether the test engine is an 
appropriate choice for testing. Similarly, EPA does not know why the 
earlier (California) engine configuration is relevant to the 
configuration used for certification testing with the ETX Plus kit, 
because of the substantial number of parts replaced to generate the ETX 
Plus configuration. Finally, EPA notes that the components list for the 
test engine, in its 1988 model year California configuration, is 
available. This information was provided by Engelhard in conjunction 
with the Engelhard kit certified earlier to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM 
standard and described in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998 
(63 FR 50225). The same engine block (that is, same serial number) was 
used for all emissions testing. The engine was initially rebuilt to a 
1988 California configuration, subsequently rebuilt to a 1991 through 
1993 model year DDC DDEC II standard configuration (using a DDC DDEC II 
upgrade kit), and then finally rebuilt with the ETX Plus rebuild kit. 
The testing documentation and lists of components used in each of the 
rebuilds can be found in the public docket A-93-42, category XXV-A, at 
the address listed above.

E. Kit Compliance

    1. Engine Control Systems (ECS) comments that PM emissions actually 
exceed the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, and that there is therefore no basis 
for approval of this application. ECS notes that there must be zero 
emissions deterioration over the 150,000 miles of the emissions 
warranty requirement, and absolutely zero emission variance between 
different rebuilt engines. The Engelhard position on the matter does 
not allow for any emissions variance between different rebuild engines. 
ECS believes that this position cannot be defended to the transit 
industry.
    EPA appreciates the concerns expressed by ECS. The program 
regulations require neither multiple certification tests nor durability 
demonstration. As discussed above, however, Engelhard has met the 
requirements of the urban bus program. EPA notes that its ability to 
conduct future in-use testing may be facilitated by the availability of 
on-road testing systems such as the ROVER type of system that EPA is 
currently evaluating.
    2. JM states that it is their position that an oxidation catalyst, 
even in combination with a turbocharger that boosts exhaust 
temperatures above

[[Page 55965]]

typical temperatures, will not reduce a large enough portion of both 
the soluble organic fraction (SOF) and soot particles to reach 0.10 g/
bhp-hr over the FTP transient cycle. JM is not convinced that this 
technology can and will consistently produce emission levels that will 
meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. EPA should require Engelhard to 
provide turbocharger exit temperatures across the FTP cycle, baseline 
FTP data, and a PM analysis for SOF to allow EPA and catalytic 
technology experts to assess the true likelihood that this technology 
can consistently meet the 0.10 PM emission standard. JM submits exhaust 
emission data from DDC indicating a composite PM level of 0.225 g/bhp-
hr for a 1991 6V92TA DDEC II.
    Engelhard responds that JM's summation is not correct. The ETX Plus 
kit includes a blower drive gear and improved turbocharger that 
dramatically affect the engine-out particulate. Additionally, 
Engelhard's CMX-6 catalyst is substantially more efficient, so that 
JM's conclusions are not correct. Engelhard's certification engine was 
not ``tuned'' as JM suggests and actually emitted 0.277 g/bhp-hr PM 
when rebuilt to a baseline 1991 277 hp 6V92 50-State DDEC 
configuration. After baseline testing, the Engelhard turbocharger, new 
blower drive gear and CMX-6 catalyst were added to achieve the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr standard.
    EPA notes that the certification test engine for the ETX Plus kit 
and the baseline engine emitting 0.277 g/bhp-hr PM is the same engine 
serial number used for testing of its original ETX kit (the 
certification of which is described on September 21, 1998 at 63 FR 
50225). The 0.277 g/bhp-hr PM level of Engelhard's baseline test engine 
is on the high side compared to both the data that JM submitted for a 
1991 configuration (0.225 g/bhp-hr), and from data supplied by DDC for 
new engine certification of the 1991 model year 6V92TA DDEC coach 
(engine family MDD0552FZL1), which shows a level of 0.25 g/bhp-hr. EPA 
notes that all the parameter data that JM requests is not required by 
the bus regulation. As noted above, Engelhard states that after 
baseline testing, the Engelhard turbocharger, new blower drive gear and 
CMX-6 catalyst was added to achieve the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard of the 
urban bus program. In conclusion, Engelhard has demonstrated compliance 
of the ETX Plus kit with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard in accordance with 
the bus program requirements.
    3. JM states that EPA should require Engelhard to provide baseline 
exhaust emission FTP data on the test engines so that the initial PM 
emissions can be part of the overall assessment of the technology. This 
includes the baseline exhaust emissions for the 1988 California, and 
the 1991 model year federal engine. JM's concern is whether the 
baseline emissions are truly representative. JM asks, ``Or was 
exceptional care taken in selection of components and in rebuilding the 
engine that the actual PM emissions were much lower, so that use of 
only an oxidation catalyst would reduce PM to 0.103 g/bhp-hr?'' EPA 
should require Engelhard to provide this data to ensure that the test 
engine is representative.
    Engelhard states that such information is not required for 
certifications because Engelhard is certifying the kit to a certain 
standard rather than a specific amount of reduction versus a baseline 
engine.
    EPA notes that the emissions data that Engelhard presents in its 
certification application (signed November 17, 1998) demonstrates 
compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard in accordance with section 
85.1406(a). Additional hot start test data complying with the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr PM standard is provided in Engelhard's letter to EPA dated 
December 14, 1998 (supporting documentation for this test is provided 
in the June 30, 2000 letter to EPA). While multiple tests, including 
testing of different stages of engine rebuild or different engine 
configurations, might provide additional comfort regarding the ability 
of a kit to meet standards, the regulations do not require this level 
of scrutiny. Indeed, it might be edifying to EPA and others to know the 
emissions reduction associated with each component of a kit. However, 
the program regulations are not intended to impose such a burden on a 
kit certifier. Additionally, as noted previously, EPA has made 
``baseline'' engine emissions data available in Table 1 above.
    4. JM states that Engelhard should submit baseline data for the 
1988 California engine because it is essential to determine whether an 
oxidation catalyst can theoretically reduce emission on this engine 
below 0.10 g/bhp-hr level. Also, the selection of a California engine 
is inappropriate for comparison of fuel economy penalties for Federal 
engines because the 1988 California NOX standard (6.0 g/bhp-
hr) is lower than the standard (10.7 g/bhp-hr) for federal engines. An 
engine operating with lower NOX has higher fuel consumption. 
By using a baseline engine with high fuel consumption, Engelhard would 
be able to show a lower fuel penalty when comparing the performance of 
the ETX kit. EPA should require Engelhard to provide a baseline test of 
a federal engine for both the 1988--1990 model configuration as well as 
the 1991--1993 configuration in addition to the California baseline.
    Engelhard responds that the baseline is not relevant because 
Engelhard is certifying a complete rebuild kit that essentially creates 
a new engine.
    EPA notes that there is no specific regulatory requirement to 
submit data for fuel consumption comparison because Engelhard is not 
certifying the ETX Plus kit to life cycle cost requirements. However, 
this information is available for the certification test engine and 
when the (same serial number) engine was tested as a 1991 model year 
and 1988 model year California configurations. This data is provided in 
Table 1 above.
    5. JM notes that the calculated PM level, when rounded to three 
places past the decimal, is 0.103 g/bhp-hr. JM argues that, while 
rounding is an acceptable practice, rounding off a number that is 
higher than the specific emissions standard is unacceptable because the 
standard was not achieved. EPA notes that the relevant PM standard for 
the Urban Bus Rebuild Program, as stated at 40 CFR 85.1403(b), is 0.10 
g/bhp-hr. It is EPA's practice, in the context of its programs 
measuring exhaust emissions, to use the ``rounding-off method'' stated 
in American Standards and Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E29 
entitled ``Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine 
Conformance with Specifications.'' According to this method, the 
numeric value of the bus program PM standard (0.10) expresses an 
implied level of precision (that is, two places beyond the decimal 
point) to which emission calculations are rounded in order to compare 
to the standard to determine compliance. Therefore, the calculated 
value of the test data produced for Engelhard's ETX Plus kit (0.103 g/
bhp-hr) rounds to 0.10 g/bhp-hr, and this rounded test result complies 
with the urban bus program standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr.
    6. JM notes that the Engelhard certification testing completed in 
May 1998 was done on an engine having piston ring set 23522064 (DDC 
part number). This ring set was superseded by DDC in January 1999 with 
a piston ring set with DDC part number 23524349. In a telefax to EPA 
dated September 15, 1998, DDC indicated that this new ring set includes 
a grooved fire control ring for improved lubrication and states that 
the new ring carries more oil to the cylinder walls resulting in an 
increase in oil consumption of 21 percent. (This telefax from DDC to 
EPA is attached to JM's comments to EPA

[[Page 55966]]

dated June 14, 1999.) In the telefax, DDC calculates that the increase 
in oil consumption will cause an increase in PM by an average of 0.002 
g/bhp-hr. JM estimates that the PM increase will be higher from the 
increased oil consumption than is presented because the Engelhard 
engine is a 1991 model year and its base emissions are higher than that 
used in the DDC calculations. JM calculates that with the minimum 
increase of 0.002 g/bhp-hr, the ETX Plus kit with the new ring set will 
emit at a PM level of 0.105 g/bhp-hr. JM rounds this to 0.11 g/bhp-hr, 
and states this clearly does not meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.
    Engelhard responds with a calculation, concluding that the increase 
in PM due to additional oil consumption would be impossible to measure. 
However, EPA believes that Engelhard has incorrectly assumed that the 
0.002 g/bhp-hr is an engine-out increase. Instead, the 0.002 g/bhp-hr 
value was calculated in an engineering analysis performed by DDC as an 
average increase in catalyst-out total PM, for the catalysts of three 
different manufacturers.
    EPA notes that DDC's revised cylinder kit (part number 23524343) is 
for use in the DDC rebuild kits for both DDEC and MUI engines, and 
expects that the cylinder kits will be also be used in engines rebuilt 
with the ETX Plus kit. Therefore, EPA believes that the calculations of 
the DDC engineering analysis that JM references, are relevant to the 
ETX Plus kit. In its analysis, DDC calculates the increase in catalyst-
out PM from its 0.10 kit, due to the increased oil consumption with the 
new cylinder kit. DDC assumes that the additional oil consumption 
results in an increase only in the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of 
the total PM, that the exhaust catalyst will oxidize most of this 
additional SOF, and that the fuel-derived and soot components of the 
total PM are not affected by the revised cylinder kit changes. 
Therefore, EPA knows of no reason why the magnitudes calculated in the 
DDC analysis would not apply to the Engelhard engine, even though it is 
configured basically to a 1991 model year. The DDC analysis calculates 
the total catalyst-out PM increases associated with the catalytic 
converters of three different manufacturers that might be used with the 
DDC kit. When the highest catalyst-out PM increase (that is, that 
associated with the catalyst having the lowest PM conversion 
efficiency--22 percent) is added to the total PM of the ETX Plus kit 
(0.103 g/bhp-hr from the Engelhard certification testing), the total PM 
for the ETX Plus kit is estimated to be 0.105 g/bhp-hr. While EPA does 
not know the conversion efficiency of the CMX-6 catalytic muffler unit 
of the ETX Plus kit, EPA expects it to be greater than the 22 percent 
conversion efficiency used in the DDC analysis for the catalyst with 
the lowest efficiency. In accordance with the ASTM E29 rounding 
practice referenced above, the rounded value of 0.105 g/bhp-hr for the 
ETX Plus kit complies with the urban bus program standard of 0.10 g/
bhp-hr. Therefore, the ETX Plus kit when used in conjunction with an 
engine rebuild using the DDC's new piston ring set, will still meet the 
0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.
    7. JM notes that Engelhard submitted exhaust emission data for a 
hot-start test that showed a total PM measurement of 0.098 g/bhp-hr. JM 
states that EPA should require Engelhard to submit the formal data 
sheet from the test lab before it is used as part of any assessment of 
the technology. Also, JM notes that it results in a composite FTP PM 
level of 0.101 g/bhp-hr (presumedly when combined with the cold-start 
test data from the certification test) to which the minimum value of 
0.002 g/bhp-hr PM (the increase from the piston ring set change) must 
be added. JM states that this results in a final PM level of 0.103 g/
bhp-hr that clearly does not meet the requirement for a 0.1 PM 
standard.
    EPA notes that Engelhard, in its letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, 
has submitted the formal data sheet from the test laboratory, for the 
additional hot-start test data. This hot-start data is submitted by 
Engelhard in support of its previously-submitted certification test 
data (which consists of cold and hot-start test data). Additionally, 
while Engelhard has not provided any cold start test data associated 
with the additional hot-start test, EPA notes that the ``final PM 
level'' of 0.103 g/bhp-hr mentioned by JM, if rounded per ASTM Practice 
E29 as has been discussed above, would be in compliance with the urban 
bus program standard for PM of 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

F. Other Comment

    ECS comments that Engelhard has told EPA of Engelhard's intent to 
withdraw their original 0.10 DDEC II kit (the certification of which is 
described in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998 at 63 FR 50225) 
from the Urban Bus Program. ECS asks whether Engelhard will guarantee 
to offer the ETX Plus kit for actual sale to the transit industry. ECS 
suggests that applicants who have no intention to offer products for 
sale to the transit industry obviously have other commercial reasons 
for the application, and that EPA should deny certification to 
applicants that have no intention to offer the products for sale to the 
transit industry. Applications for kits that will not be offered for 
sale are a misuse of the Urban Bus Program. Such applications dilute 
the EPA's ability to expedite other certification applications. Also, 
such dilution can result in undue financial hardship to other serious 
applicants and an unnecessary delay of competitive products to the 
marketplace.
    EPA notes that the program regulations require, for kits certified 
to life cycle cost requirements, that a certifier guarantee to offer 
the kit for sale to all operators for less that the applicable life 
cycle cost. Such information is required, pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1407, 
only to trigger the program standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr for applicable 
engines. Providing life cycle cost information is optional and the 
related guarantee is not specifically required from certifiers that do 
not intend their kit to trigger an emission standard. Engelhard has not 
provided this information for the ETX Plus kit, but EPA has no reason 
to suspect that Engelhard will not offer the ETX Plus kit to the 
transit industry. However, EPA agrees with ECS that the urban bus 
program is intended to certify kits that are to be sold to the transit 
industry for use on urban bus engines.

IV. California Engines

    The NOX emission standard for new engine certification 
applicable to 1988 through 1990 model year engines sold in the State of 
California is 6.0 g/bhp-hr. For 1991 through 1993, the standard is 5.0 
g/bhp-hr. The emissions testing presented by Engelhard demonstrate a 
NOX emissions level that complies with the 5.0 g/bhp-hr 
standard. Therefore, today's certification of the ETX Plus kit for DDEC 
II engines applies to DDEC II engines certified to meet California 
emissions standards.
    The kit certified today may require additional review by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) before use in the State of 
California. EPA recognizes that special situations may exist in 
California that are reflected in the unique emissions standards, engine 
calibrations, and fuel specifications of the State. While requirements 
of the federal urban bus program apply to several metropolitan areas in 
California, EPA understands the view of CARB that a kit certified under 
the urban bus program, to be used in California, must be provided with 
an executive order exempting it from the anti-tampering prohibitions of 
that State. Parties interested in additional information should contact 
the Aftermarket Part Section of CARB, at (818) 575-6848.

[[Page 55967]]

V. Certification

    EPA has reviewed this application, along with comments received 
from interested parties, and finds the ETX Plus kit described in the 
Engelhard application and other relevant documents:
    (1) Complies with a PM emissions standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr, without 
causing the applicable engine families to exceed other applicable 
emission requirements;
    (2) Will not cause an unreasonable risk to the public health, 
welfare or safety;
    (3) Will not result in any additional range of parameter 
adjustability; and
    (4) Meets other requirements necessary for certification under the 
Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements (40 CFR Sections 85.1401 through 
85.1415).
    EPA hereby certifies this kit for use in the Urban Bus Retrofit/
Rebuild Program. The equipment, the ETX Plus\TM\ Emissions Rebuild Kit, 
may be used immediately by urban bus operators subject to the Urban Bus 
Rebuild Requirements.

VI. Urban Bus Operator Responsibilities

    Today's Federal Register document announces certification of the 
above-described Engelhard kit, when properly applied, as meeting the 
0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard of the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements, for 
urban bus engines certified as meeting either federal and California 
emissions standards. Affected urban bus operators that choose to comply 
with compliance program 1 are required to use this or another kit that 
is certified to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard, for any engines 
listed in Table 2 which are rebuilt or replaced after the applicable 
deadline, as discussed below.
    The 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard was triggered on September 21, 1998. 
As described in a Federal Register notice on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 
50225), EPA certified the ETX-2002\TM\ Emissions Rebuild Kit supplied 
by the Engelhard Corporation. The ETX kit applies to 1988 through 1993 
model year Detroit Diesel Corporation 6V92TA DDEC II engines having 
electronic fuel control and rated at either 253 or 277 horsepower (hp). 
That certification means that transit operators using compliance 
program 1 must use rebuild kits certified to the 0.10 standard when 
rebuilding or replacing the applicable engines after March 22, 1999 
(that is, 6 months after September 21, 1998).
    The September 21, 1998 Federal Register notice states that 
certification of Engelhard's ETX kit, as it applies to engines of model 
years 1988 through 1990, is conditional pending demonstration by 
Engelhard that any replacement engine control module (ECM) or any 
replacement ECM program used in conjunction with the kit would not 
adversely impact the emissions of NOX. In a letter dated 
March 2, 1999, to Engelhard, EPA stated that the conditional status was 
removed and that the ETX kit can be used by transit operators in 
compliance with the requirement of the rebuild program. In a letter 
dated March 29, 1999 from EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance to Santa Clara Valley Transportation 
Authority, EPA stated that due to confusion surrounding the conditional 
certification, it will not take action against an operator who does not 
install 0.10 kits between March 22, 1999 and May 21, 1999. Further, EPA 
stated in the letter that it will extend this period of no action past 
May 21, 1999, if the general counsel for a bus operator certifies in 
writing to EPA that it has exercised due diligence since September 21, 
1998, to procure the necessary 0.10 kits, but could not obtain them in 
time to begin installing 0.10 kits by May 22, 1999. In no event will 
the period of no action be longer than September 1, 1999. A copy of 
this letter is located in docket XXV-A located at the above address.
    Urban bus operators who choose to comply with compliance program 2 
may use the certified Engelhard kit, and those who use this kit may 
claim the respective PM certification level from Table 2 when 
calculating their Fleet Level Attained (FLA).
    Urban bus operators must be aware of their responsibility for 
maintenance of records pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 85.1403 through 
85.1404. The ETX Plus kit may not include, depending upon model year of 
the applicable engine, fuel injectors, engine camshafts, cylinder kits, 
or ECM software. As stated in the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements (40 
CFR 85.1401 through 85.1415), operators should maintain records for 
each engine in their fleet to demonstrate that they are in compliance 
with the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements beginning on 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. 
Urban bus operators must be able to demonstrate that all components 
used in the rebuilding of engines are in compliance with program 
requirements. In other words, urban bus operators must be able to 
demonstrate that all required components of the kit certified in 
today's Federal Register document are installed on applicable engines.

    Dated: September 8, 2000.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 00-23775 Filed 9-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P