4528 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Notices

Western Power under Commonwealth’s

FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume

No. 6, accepted for filing in Docket No.

OA96–167–000.

Comment date: February 6, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

23. Commonwealth Electric Company

[Docket No. ER97–1151–000]

Take notice that on January 8, 1997,

Commonwealth Electric Company

(Commonwealth), tendered for filing a

non-firm point-to-point transmission

service agreement between

Commonwealth and Cambridge Electric

Light Company (Cambridge).

Commonwealth states that the service

agreement sets out the transmission

arrangements under which

Commonwealth will provide non-firm

point-to-point transmission service to

Cambridge under commonwealth’s

FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume

No. 6, accepted for filing in Docket No.

OA96–167–000.

Comment date: February 6, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

24. Cambridge Electric Light Company

[Docket No. ER97–1152–000]

Take notice that on January 8, 1997,

Cambridge Electric Light Company

(Cambridge), tendered for filing a nonfirm point-to-point transmission service

agreement between Cambridge and

Equitable Power Services Company

(Equitable Power). Cambridge states that

the service agreement sets out the

transmission arrangements under which

Cambridge will provide non-firm pointto-point transmission service to

Equitable Power under Cambridge’s

FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume

No. 8, accepted for filing in Docket No.

OA96–178–000.

Comment date: February 6, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

25. New England Power Company

[Docket No. ER97–1153–000]

Take notice that on January 8, 1997,

New England Power Company (NEP),

filed three service agreements with

Plum Street Energy Marketing, Inc.,

Coral Power, L.L.C. and Equitable Power

Services Company for non-firm, pointto-point transmission service under

NEP’s open access transmission service,

FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume

No. 9.

Comment date: February 6, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

26. Public Service Electric and Gas

Company

[Docket No. ER97–1154–000]

Take notice that on January 8, 1997,

Public Service Electric and Gas

Company (PSE&G), tendered for filing

agreements to provide non-firm

transmission service to Central Vermont

Public Service Corporation and Plum

Street Energy Marketing, Inc., pursuant

to PSE&G’s Open Access Transmission

Tariff presently on file with the

Commission in Docket No. OA96–80–

000.

PSE&G further requests waiver of the

Commission’s regulations such that the

agreements can be made effective as of

December 31, 1996.

Comment date: February 6, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

27. Interstate Power Company

[Docket No. ER97–1171–000]

Take notice that on December 24,

1996, Interstate Power Company

requests that Rate Schedule No. 21 be

removed from the Ratis report.

Comment date: February 5, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

28. Clear Lake Cogeneration Limited

Partnership

[Docket No. QF83–205–006]

On January 17, 1997, Clear Lake

Cogeneration Limited Partnership

(Applicant) tendered for filing a

supplement to its filing in this docket.

No determination has been made that

the submittal constitutes a complete

filing.

The supplement provides additional

information pertaining primarily to the

ownership and the electric power

production capacity of the cogeneration

facility.

Comment date: February 12, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

29. Cogenron Inc.

[Docket No. QF85–116–003]

On January 17, 1997, Cogenron Inc.

(Applicant) tendered for filing a

supplement to its filing in this docket.

No determination has been made that

the submittal constitutes a complete

filing.

The supplement provides additional

information pertaining primarily to the

ownership and the electric power

production capacity of the cogeneration

facility.

Comment date: February 12, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

30. Western Resources, Inc.

[Docket No. ER97–1143–000]

Take notice that on January 7, 1997,

Western Resources, Inc. (Western

Resources), tendered for filing a

proposed change to its Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission Electric Rate

Schedule No. 250. Western Resources

states the purpose of the change is to

modify the Electric Power Supply

Agreement between Western Resources

and the City of Burlingame, Kansas, by

adding Service Schedule GD to the

contract. The change is proposed to

become effective March 10, 1997.

Copies of the filing were served upon

the City of Burlingame and the Kansas

Corporation Commission.

Comment date: February 6, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2308 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5682–4]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Public Review of a Notification of

Intent to Certify Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Agency receipt of a

notification of intent to certify

equipment and initiation of 45-day

public review and comment period.

SUMMARY: Johnson Matthey

Incorporated (JMI) has submitted to the

Agency a notification of intent to certify
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Notices 4529

urban bus retrofit/rebuild equipment

pursuant to 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O.

The equipment, referred to by JMI as the

Catalytic Reduction Technology-Cam

(CRT–C) kit, consists of proprietary cam

shafts, a CEM IITM catalytic exhaust

muffler, and instructions that the engine

must be rebuilt using specific engine

rebuild parts and certain engine

settings. The candidate kit is applicable

to all 6V92TA, 6V71T, and 6V71TA

urban bus engine models made by

Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) from

model years 1979 to 1989 and equipped

with mechanical unit injectors (MUI).

JMI intends this equipment to be

certified to the particulate matter

standard of 0.10 grams per brakehorsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) for less

than the applicable life cycle cost limit.

If the Agency certifies that this (or other)

equipment complies with the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr standard and is available for less

than the applicable cost limit, then

operators with affected engines will be

required to use equipment certified to

the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

Pursuant to § 85.1407(a)(7), today’s

Federal Register notice summarizes the

notification, announces that the

notification is available for public

review and comment, and initiates a 45-

day period during which comments can

be submitted. The Agency will review

this notification of intent to certify, as

well as any comments it receives, to

determine whether the equipment

described in the notification of intent to

certify should be certified. If certified,

the equipment can be used by urban bus

operators to reduce the particulate

matter of urban bus engines.

The notification of intent to certify, as

well as other materials specifically

relevant to it, are contained in Category

XV–A of Public Docket A–93–42,

entitled ‘‘Certification of Urban Bus

Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment’’. This

docket is located at the address listed

below.

Today’s notice initiates a 45-day

period during which the Agency will

accept written comments relevant to

whether or not the equipment included

in this notification of intent to certify

should be certified. Comments should

be provided in writing to the addresses

below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit separate copies of

comments to each of the two following

addresses:

1. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Public Air Docket A–93–42

(Category XV–A), Room M–1500, 401 M

Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

2. William Rutledge, Engine

Compliance Programs Group, Engine

Programs and Compliance Division

(6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington,

DC 20460.

The JMI notification of intent to

certify, as well as other materials

specifically relevant to it, are contained

in the public docket indicated above.

Docket items may be inspected from

8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR

Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged

by the Agency for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Rutledge, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6403J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Telephone: (202) 233–9297.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 21, 1993, the Agency

published final Retrofit/Rebuild

Requirements for 1993 and Earlier

Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).

The retrofit/rebuild program is intended

to reduce the ambient levels of

particulate matter (PM) in urban areas

and is limited to 1993 and earlier model

year (MY) urban buses operating in

metropolitan areas with 1980

populations of 750,000 or more, whose

engines are rebuilt or replaced after

January 1, 1995. Operators of the

affected buses are required to choose

between two compliance options:

Option 1 establishes particulate matter

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 establishes a

specific annual target level for average

PM emissions from urban buses in an

operator’s fleet.

A key aspect of the program is

certification of retrofit/rebuild

equipment, which begins when an

equipment manufacturer submits an

application for certification (referred to

in the rule as a notification of intent to

certify). To meet either of the two

compliance options, operators of the

affected buses must use equipment that

has been certified by EPA. Emissions

requirements under either of the two

options depend on the availability of

retrofit/rebuild equipment certified for

each engine model. To be used for

Option 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 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 notification, in order

for certification of that equipment to

initiate (or trigger) program

requirements for a particular engine

model. In order for the equipment to

serve as a trigger, the certifier must

guarantee that the equipment 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. Notification of Intent to Certify

In a notification of intent to certify

equipment signed December 9, 1996,

Johnson Matthey (JMI) has applied for

certification of equipment under the

Environmental Protection Agency’s (the

Agency) Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild

Program. The candidate kit is applicable

to all 6V92TA, 6V71T, and 6V71TA

urban bus engine models made by

Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) from

model years 1979 to 1989 and equipped

with mechanical unit injectors (MUI).

The equipment, referred to as the

Catalytic Reduction Technology—Cam

(CRT–C) kit, consists of proprietary cam

shafts, a CEM IITM catalytic exhaust

muffler, and installation instructions

that require the engine to be rebuilt

using specified engine rebuild parts and

certain engine settings. The CRT–C kit

would be available in three horsepower

levels (253, 277, and 340) for 6V92TA

engines, and in one horsepower level

(265) for 6V71 engines.

The CEM IITM catalytic exhaust

muffler of the CRT–C kit contains a

different formulation from the CEMTM

certified for the urban bus program as

described in the Federal Register on

April 17, 1996 (61 FR 16773). Therefore,

transit operators cannot use the

previously certified CEMTM in place of

the new CEM IITM. The CEM IITM is the

same size and shape as the CEMTM, is

a direct, bolt-on replacement for the

original equipment muffler, and is

designed to fit the specific bus/engine

combination.

The CRT–C kit is to be used in

conjunction with an engine rebuild

performed in accordance with standard

DDC rebuild procedures using a list of

specified engine rebuild parts. The

installation instructions state that the

list of parts for the rebuild (excluding

the cams) can be purchased from

traditional DDC or equivalent parts

sources. The subject of equivalent parts
4530 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Notices

is discussed below. The notification

states that the candidate equipment

achieves a particulate matter (PM) level

of 0.10 g/bhp-hr, and the life cycle cost

is guaranteed by JMI to be less than

$7,940 (in 1992 dollars) for all affected

operators. The use of the equipment by

transit operators to meet program

requirements is discussed below.

The kit instructions includes new

settings for the fuel injector height and

fuel modulator, as appropriate to each

engine model.

JMI presents exhaust emissions data

from testing two Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) engines in

accordance with procedures set forth at

40 CFR Part 86, Subparts N and I. The

notification indicates that the test

engines were selected as ‘‘worst case’’

based on Table 3 of 58 FR 21373 (April

23, 1993). A DDC engine model 6V92TA

MUI was tested both in a 1984 model

year configuration and retrofitted with

the CRT–C kit, and a DDC engine model

6V71TA MUI (originally 1983 model

year) was only tested retrofitted with the

CRT–C kit. Table A below summarizes

the data.

TABLE A.—EXHAUST EMISSIONS SUMMARY

Gaseous and particulate test

g/bhp-hr

1988 HDDE

standards

1984

6V92TA MUI

baseline

6V92TA MUI

with CRT–C

6V71TA MUI

with CRT–C

HC ............................................................................................................................... 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.2

CO .............................................................................................................................. 15.5 1.1 0.5 0.8

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 10.7 9.5 10.2 10.2

PM .............................................................................................................................. 0.60 0.56 0.08 0.096

BSFC 1 ........................................................................................................................ 0.475 0.470 0.464

Smoke test Standards

percent

Percent opacity

ACCEL ........................................................................................................................ 20 3.1 2.9 2.3

LUG ............................................................................................................................ 15 2.0 2.0 1.3

PEAK .......................................................................................................................... 50 4.8 3.6 2.9

1Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) is measured in units of lb/bhp-hr.

The data of Table A indicate that for

both test engines, when rebuilt with the

CRT–C kit, PM emissions are less than

0.10 g/bhp-hr, and emissions of

hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide

(CO), and smoke opacity are within

applicable federal standards. The data

also indicate that the candidate kit

increases NOx emissions roughly 7

percent above the level of the baseline

1984 model year configuration. This

level (that is, with CRT–C installed) is

less than the 1985–1989 federal

standard for NOX (10.7 g/bhp-hr). The

Agency requests comments on whether

the emissions test data presented by JMI

demonstrate that all engines for which

certification is requested will meet

applicable federal standards with the

candidate kit installed.

The Agency does not believe that the

information provided supports

certification of engines beyond model

year 1989, because the federal new

engine standard for NOX dropped in

1990 to 6.0 g/bhp-hr and in 1991 to 5.0

g/bhp-hr. (The NOX level of either test

engine, when rebuilt with the candidate

kit, is greater than 10 g/bhp-hr.)

Additionally, the Agency believes that

there is no support for certification of

DDC’s ‘‘DDEC’’ engines, because neither

test engine is equipped with

electronically-controlled fuel injection.

Therefore, applicability of the candidate

kit has been restricted to 6V92TA,

6V71T, and 6V71TA urban bus engine

models made by Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) from model years

1979 to 1989 and equipped with

mechanical unit injectors (MUI).

For the 6V92TA test engine, JMI also

presents baseline test data from a

standard 1984 model year configuration.

This data documents PM emissions of

0.56 g/bhp-hr in the 1984 model year

configuration. A list of parts used in the

engine rebuild is provided in the

notification. Other engines, for which

the CRT–C kit is intended to apply, are

expected to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard because the kit instructs the

rebuilder to replace all emissionsrelated parts during the rebuild with

JMI-specified parts. The emission level

of the recipient engine, prior to

installation of CEM–II catalyst, is

expected to be predictable because all

emission-related parts are replaced

using specific rebuild components and

settings specified with the kit. The

combination of the specified engine

rebuild parts, proprietary camshafts,

new settings of the kit, and CEM–II,

results in a PM level less than 0.10 g/

bhp-hr. The Agency requests comments

on whether the emissions data

presented by JMI demonstrate that all

engines for which certification is

intended will meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

PM standard.

The part numbers of the specified

rebuild components are provided in

JMI’s notification. JMI indicates that

replacing such emission-related

components is typically part of a

standard rebuild. JMI also states that

other parts, equivalent to DDC parts, can

be used for the standard rebuild

required with installation of the

equipment. JMI defines equivalent parts

as parts which are substituted for

original-equipment (OE) parts and have

been engineered to represent equal

usage with equivalent specifications,

materials of construction, tolerances,

and warranty, et cetera, and must have

gained acceptance in the market place

as equivalent replacements. The Agency

asks for public comment regarding how

an operator, or the Agency, knows that

an aftermarket part is equivalent to an

OE part, especially with respect to

parameters that affect emissions

performance, and what assurance there

is that such parts would result in the

same emissions performance. The use of

aftermarket parts might also impact life

cycle costs, which is discussed below.

JMI’s notification provides life cycle

cost information for the candidate kit.

JMI guarantees that it will offer the kit

for less than the life cycle ceiling of

$7,490 (in 1992 dollars) as applicable, to

all affected operators. If certified as

proposed in the notification (and in the

absence of other earlier certification that

triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr), the

candidate kit would trigger program

requirements for the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard for applicable engines. Table B
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Notices 4531

below summarizes the life cycle costs

for the CRT–C kit that are incremental

to the cost associated with a standard

rebuild.

TABLE B.—CRT–C KIT LIFE CYCLE

COST SUMMARY

[1992 dollars]

Maximum CRT–C Equipment

Cost ....................................... $6,550

Maximum Installation Cost (2

hours catalyst installation) ..... 70

Fuel Economy Impact ............... 0

Maintenance Cost ..................... 0

Less Cost for Standard Camshafts ..................................... (785)

Maximum CRT–C Equipment

Cost ....................................... 6,550

Maximum Life Cycle Cost (Sum

of Above) ............................... 5,835

The Agency has determined that the

value of the maximum CRT–C

equipment cost ($6,550) is

approximately equivalent to $7,404 in

today’s dollars. This is determined by

multiplying the $6,550 from Table B

above by the Consumer Price Index for

All Urban Consumers (that is, the CPI–

U for all items) for November 1996, and

then dividing by the average CPI–U

determined for 1992. According to the

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPI–

U before seasonal adjustment in

November is 158.6 (on a reference base

of 1982 to 1984 = 100), and the average

CPI–U for 1992 is 140.3. The value may

change as the CPI–U changes.

JMI indicates that the engine is to be

rebuilt according to the engine

manufacturer’s standard written rebuild

procedures and specifications except

where amended by JMI written

instructions. Therefore, JMI claims that

the life cycle cost ($5,835) of the CRT–

C kit is incremental to the cost of a

standard rebuild. Installation of the

CRT–C kit is essentially identical to a

standard engine rebuild and the

installation of a muffler. The life cycle

cost (in 1992 dollars) of the JMI kit is

stated to be $5,835, which includes the

maximum purchase cost for the kit of

$6,550, and maximum installation cost

of $70. The incremental maintenance

cost and fuel economy impact are stated

to be zero. The camshafts provided with

the CRT–C kit offset the need and cost

for camshafts otherwise replaced during

an engine rebuild ($785).

As noted above, the CRT–C kit would

be sold as complimentary to a standard

engine rebuild. The balance of the

specified parts for the standard rebuild

(excluding the cams) would be

purchased by the rebuilder from

traditional DDC or equivalent parts

sources. JMI indicates that because the

parts would typically be replaced

anyway during an engine rebuild,

purchase of the specified parts on the

list would not represent an incremental

life cycle cost. The list of the specific

emission-related parts are an essential

part of the CRT–C kit from an emissions

standpoint, although the parts, per se,

are not provided with the kit. The

Agency requests public comment

concerning whether the specified parts

present incremental costs to a standard

rebuild. This point is important because

the life cycle cost analysis provided by

JMI assumes that use of the listed part

numbers will not impact life cycle costs

of the candidate equipment.

JMI states in its notification that there

is no fuel economy penalty associated

with the candidate equipment. As

shown in Table A above, this is

supported by the data from the baseline

and retrofit tests on the 6V92TA engine

that indicate no fuel consumption

impact of the CRT–C kit. At this point,

the Agency has not determined whether

a fuel consumption penalty exists, and

requests comments concerning this

issue. The Agency will use information

gathered through public comment and

from the certifier to resolve this issue.

The JMI notification provides a

product warranty that references the

emissions performance and emissions

defect warranties required in

accordance with section 85.1409 of the

program regulations.

Even if ultimately certified by the

Agency, the equipment described in

JMI’s notification may require

additional review by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) before use in

California. The Agency 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,

the Agency understands the view of

CARB that equipment 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. Those interested in additional

information should contact the

Aftermarket Part Section of CARB, at

(818) 575–6848.

If the Agency certifies the candidate

equipment and no other certification

triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, then

urban bus operators who choose to

comply with compliance Option 1 of

this regulation will be required to use

equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard no later than six months after

certification, when applicable engines

are rebuilt or replaced. If certified, then

operators using Option 2 will use the

certification levels in calculations for

fleet level attained (FLA).

The date of this notice initiates a 45-

day period during which the Agency

will accept written comments relevant

to whether the equipment described in

the JMI notification of intent to certify

should be certified pursuant to the

urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations.

Interested parties are encouraged to

review this notification, and provide

written comments during the 45-day

review period. Separate comments

should be provided in writing to each of

the addresses listed under the

Addresses section of this notice.

At a minimum, the Agency expects to

evaluate this notification of intent to

certify, and other materials submitted as

applicable, to determine whether there

is adequate demonstration of

compliance with: (1) the certification

requirements of § 85.1406, including

whether the testing accurately

substantiates the claimed emission

reduction or emission levels; and, (2)

the requirements of § 85.1407 for a

notification of intent to certify,

including whether the data provided by

JMI complies with the life cycle cost

requirements.

The Agency requests that those

commenting also consider these

regulatory requirements, plus provide

comments on any experience or

knowledge concerning: (a) problems

with installing, maintaining, and/or

using the equipment on applicable

engines; and, (b) whether the equipment

is compatible with affected vehicles.

The Agency will review this

notification of intent to certify, along

with comments received from the

interested parties, and attempt to

resolve or clarify issues as necessary.

During the review process, the Agency

may add additional documents to the

docket as a result of the review process.

These documents will also be available

for public review and comment within

the 45-day period.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–2324 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5682–2]

Notice of Open Meeting of the

Environmental Financial Advisory

Board on March 19–20, 1997

The Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA) Environmental

Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will