Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices 60079

DDC presents exhaust emissions data

from testing a Detroit Diesel Corporation

(DDC) engine in accordance with

procedures set forth at 40 CFR Part 86,

Subparts N and I. A 1984 model year

DDC 6V92TA MUI model engine (277

HP) was rebuilt to the 1989 urban bus

configuration as per the previously

certified DDC kit and was retrofit with

the specified components of the 0.1 g/

bhp-hr kit prior to testing. In the rebuild

process, all parts not included in the

rebuild kit were inspected. Prior to

testing the engine was tuned with the

injector timing set at 1.460 in. The

throttle delay was set for optimum

vehicle driveability according to DDC.

The data is summarized in Table A

below.

TABLE A.—EXHAUST EMISSIONS

SUMMARY

g/bhp-hr

1989 HDDE

standards

6V92TA

MUI with kit

Gaseous and

particulate

test:

HC .............. 1.3 0.1

CO .............. 15.5 0.4

NOX ............ 10.7 9.8

PM .............. 0.60 0.091

BSFC1 ........ — 0.464

Standards

Smoke test:

ACCEL ....... 20% 3.3%

LUG ............ 15% 2.5%

PEAK ......... 50% 4.2%

1Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC)

is measured in units of lb/bhp-hr.

The data of Table A indicate that,

when rebuilt with the kit, PM emissions

of the test engine 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 Agency requests

comments on whether the emissions test

data presented by DDC demonstrate that

all engines for which certification is

requested will meet applicable Federal

standards with the candidate kit

installed.

Applicability of the candidate is

restricted to 6V92TA, urban bus engine

models made by Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) from model years

1979 to 1989 and equipped with

mechanical unit injectors (MUI). The

Agency requests comments on whether

the emissions data presented by DDC

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 DDC’s

notification.

DDC’s notification does not provide

life cycle cost information for the

candidate kit. Therefore, this kit will not

be certified to comply with the life-cycle

cost requirements of the program. The

0.10 g/bhp-hr PM level has already been

triggered for all the engines covered by

this notification. If certified as proposed

in the notification, this equipment may

be used by operators who are required

to use equipment that meets the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr PM level based on earlier trigger

certification.

DDC indicates that the engine is to be

rebuilt according to the engine

manufacturer’s standard written rebuild

procedures and specifications except

where amended by DDC written

instructions. The incremental

maintenance cost and fuel economy

impact are not provided in DDC’s

notification and are not necessary for

certification as the cost limitation is not

being certified to by DDC.

The DDC 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

DDC’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, then urban bus operators

who choose to comply with compliance

Option 1 of this regulation will have the

option to use this equipment or other

equipment which has previously been

certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard

when applicable engines are rebuilt or

replaced. If certified, then operators

using Option 2 will use the 0.10 g/bhphr certification level 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 DDC 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.

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.

Dated: October 29, 1997.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–29394 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5918–5]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Certification of Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of EPA certification of

equipment provided by Johnson

Matthey Incorporated.

SUMMARY: Today’s Federal Register

notice announces EPA’s decision to
60080 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices

certify equipment to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard for the Urban Bus Retrofit/

Rebuild Program. The equipment is

provided by Johnson Matthey

Incorporated (JMI).

JMI submitted to EPA a notification of

intent to certify equipment, in materials

signed December 9, 1996, pursuant to

the program regulations at 40 CFR part

85, subpart O. On January 30, 1997, EPA

published a notice in the Federal

Register that the JMI notification had

been received and made the notification

available for public review and

comment for a period of 45 days (62 FR

4528). EPA has completed its review

and the Director of the Engine Programs

and Compliance Division has

determined that it meets all

requirements for certification.

Therefore, EPA certified this equipment

in a letter to JMI dated September 8,

1997.

The certified equipment, initially

referred to by JMI as the Catalytic

Reduction Technology-Cam kit, is a kit

consisting of proprietary camshafts,

CEM II catalytic exhaust muffler, and

specific engine rebuild parts and certain

engine settings. The nomenclature of the

kit, Catalytic Reduction TechnologyCam, has been discontinued by JMI. The

kit will be marketed by JMI under the

name, Cam Converter Technology

(CCTTM) upgrade kit. Therefore, today’s

notice will refer to the equipment as the

CCTTM kit.

The kit is applicable to 6V92TA urban

bus engine models made by Detroit

Diesel Corporation (DDC) from model

years 1979 to 1989 and equipped with

mechanical unit injectors (MUI), and

may be used immediately by transit

operators in compliance with program

requirements. The kit is available in

four horsepower ratings (253, 277, 294,

and 325 horsepower).

EPA has determined that the CCTTM

kit complies with the 0.10 gram per

brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)

particulate matter (PM) standard for the

applicable engines. In addition, because

JMI will offer the kit to all parties for

$7,940 (in 1992 dollars) or less,

incremental to the cost of a standard

rebuild, EPA has determined that JMI’s

notification complies with the life cycle

cost requirements of the program

regulations. JMI may make an

alternative supply option available to

purchasers.

Today’s Federal Register notice

triggers requirements for transit

operators utilizing compliance Program

1 that have engines rated above 294

horsepower in their fleet covered by this

certification (excluding engines certified

to meet California emissions standards).

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.

Additional details concerning this

certification, the JMI CCTTM kit, and

responsibilities of transit operators, are

provided below.

DATES: EPA certified this equipment in

a letter to JMI dated September 8, 1997.

Today’s Federal Register notice

announces this certification, and

triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for

applicable engines above 294 hp. The

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard was triggered on

March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12166) for

applicable engines rated at 294 hp and

below.

ADDRESSES: The JMI notification, as well

as other material specifically relevant to

it, are contained at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

Public Air Docket A–93–42 (Category

XV–A), Room M–1500, 401 ‘‘M’’ Street

SW, 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 EPA 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. Description of the Certified CCTTM Kit

The certified CCTTM kit described in

today’s Federal Register notice, the Cam

Converter Technology (CCTTM) upgrade

kit, is provided by Johnson Matthey

Incorporated (JMI). It is certified to the

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, and complies

with the applicable life cycle cost

requirements.

The certification described in today’s

notice applies to 1979 though 1989

model year DDC 6V92TA engines that

are equipped with mechanical unit

injectors (MUI) and certified to federal

emissions standards. It does not apply

to engines certified to California

emissions standards. The impact of this

decision on transit operators is

discussed in more detail in the ‘‘Transit

Operator Requirements’’ section below.

The CCTTM kit, described further

below, consists of a CEM II catalytic

exhaust muffler, proprietary cam shafts,

specified emissions-related engine

rebuild parts, and specified engine

settings. The kit is available in four

horsepower (hp) ratings (253, 277, 294

and 325 horsepower).

The CEM II is the same size and shape

as the CEM catalytic exhaust muffler

(certified for the Urban Bus Program as

described in the Federal Register on

April 17, 1996, at 61 FR 16773), is a

direct, bolt-on replacement for the

original equipment muffler, and is

designed to fit the specific bus/engine

combination.

The camshafts, a proprietary JMI

design, change exhaust valve lift and

duration. The CCTTM kit includes a

timing height gauge for the unique

timing height of the fuel injectors. The

procedure and specifications for setting

the exhaust valve clearance is

unchanged from the DDC recommended

procedure.

For retrofit with the CCTTM kit, an

engine is rebuilt in accordance with

standard DDC rebuild procedures, using

specified engine parts that produce

unique engine configurations. The

specified emissions-related engine parts

consist of the following DDC

components: turbocharger, fuel

modulator, piston dome kit, piston skirt,

piston ring set, cylinder liner, blower

drive gear, blower assembly, fuel

injectors, blower by-pass valve, and

governor assembly. The specified engine

settings apply to the fuel injector height

and fuel modulator setting. The

specified settings and part numbers for

the emissions related DDC parts are

provided in letters from JMI dated July

18, 1997 and August 21, 1997.

For service of a CCTTM-equipped

engine, the DDC compression check

procedure remains applicable and JMI

will provide compression specifications

with the kit instructions. Other DDC

service procedures remain applicable.

All configurations of the CCTTM

include a fuel modulator to limit

throttle advance during acceleration, as

replacement of the standard throttle

delay of the original coach engine

configuration. The CCTTM kit includes

instructions for installation of the fuel

modulator, and adjustment settings for

the fuel modulator.

All affected transit operators may

purchase the specified emissions-related

parts from JMI as part of a CCTTM kit.

Additionally, JMI may make available a

second supply option whereby the kit

consists of the CEM II, proprietary

camshafts, and a list of the specified

emissions-related parts and engine

settings. With the second supply option,

an operator is responsible for acquiring

the specified parts from sources of its
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices 60081

own choosing, as discussed further

below. Neither option includes parts

that are rebuilt by transit operators.

All of the testing presented by JMI for

this certification was conducted using

OE parts, except for the CEM II and

camshafts. As a result, EPA has no

assurance that engines rebuilt using

parts that are not original equipment

(OE) would comply with the 0.10 g/bhphr standard. Therefore, use of engine

parts that are not the specified OE parts,

or engine parts rebuilt in-house, are not

covered by the certification described in

today’s Federal Register notice.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1409, JMI will

provide a 100,000-mile defect warranty

and a 150,000-mile emissions

performance warranty for the CCTTM kit,

and all of its components regardless of

which of the two supply options is used

by a transit operator.

JMI states that the maximum cost of

the CCTTM kit for 6V92TA MUI engines

is $11,495.00 (in 1997 dollars), which

includes the CEM II, proprietary

camshafts, specified emissions-related

parts, and specified engine settings. JMI

indicates that installation of the whole

CCTTM kit requires an additional two

hours (for installation of the CEM II)

beyond the labor associated with a

standard rebuild.

EPA’s certification of the Engelhard

Corporation’s ETXTM kit (62 FR 12166;

March 14, 1997) triggered the 0.10

g/bhp-hr standard for 1979—1989

6V92TA MUI engines. That kit provided

three power ratings: 253, 277, and 294

horsepower (hp). JMI will offer the

CCTTM kit in four power ratings: 253,

277, 294, and 325 hp. Certification of

the CCTTM kit described in today’s

Federal Register notice, which includes

compliance with life cycle cost

requirements, triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard for engines rated above 294 hp.

This topic is discussed further below.

II. Background and Bases for

Certification

In a notification of intent to certify

equipment, composed of an initial

document signed December 9, 1996 and

subsequent documents, Johnson

Matthey (JMI) applied for certification of

the CCTTM kit under the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Urban Bus

Retrofit/Rebuild Program. Engines

applicable to the certified kit are

6V92TA urban bus engine models made

by Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC)

from model years 1979 to 1989 that are

equipped with mechanical unit injectors

(MUI) and certified to comply with

federal emissions standards.

The equipment, referred to in initial

documents as the Catalytic Reduction

Technology—Cam kit, was renamed by

JMI to the Cam Converter Technology

(CCTTM) upgrade kit. The certifier’s

principal place of business is: Johnson

Matthey Incorporated, Environmental

Products, Catalytic Systems Division,

460 East Swedesford Road, Wayne,

Pennsylvania 19087–1880.

Using engine dynamometer (transient)

testing in accordance with the Federal

Test Procedure for heavy-duty diesel

engines, JMI demonstrated compliance

with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr particulate

matter (PM) emissions standard. Engine

dynamometer data, shown below in

Table 1, are the bases for the

certification approval of the CCTTM kit

when used on applicable engines. The

emissions test data are part of JMI’s

notification of intent to certify, which is

available in the public docket located at

the above-mentioned address. All

testing was conducted using #2 lowsulfur diesel fuel.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF JMI TESTING

Gaseous and particulate test g/bhp–hr

1988 HDDE standards

1984

6V92TA

MUI

baseline1

1984

6V92TA

MUI

baseline1

6V92TA

MUI with

CCTTM 1

1983

6V71TA

MUI

baseline

6V71TA

MUI with

CCTTM

HC ................................................................................................... 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.2

CO ................................................................................................... 15.5 1.1 0.9 0.5 1.7 0.8

NOX ................................................................................................. 10.7 9.5 13.0 10.2 10.4 10.2

PM ................................................................................................... 0.6 0.56 0.251 0.08 0.329 0.096

BSFC2 ............................................................................................. .......................... 0.475 0.456 0.470 0.468 0.464

Hp (R/O)3 ........................................................................................ .......................... 253/249 277/269 277/274 225/211 265/254

Smoke Test Standards (%) Percent Opacity

ACCEL ............................................................................................ 20 3.1 1.3 2.9 2.0 2.3

LUG ................................................................................................. 15 2.0 0.5 2.0 2.6 1.3

PEAK ............................................................................................... 50 4.8 3.3 3.6 3.0 2.9

1All 6V92TA testing was performed on engine identification number 6VF–118287.

2Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) is measured in units of lb/bhp–hr.

3 Horsepower (Rated/Observed during testing).

The exhaust emissions data presented

by JMI are from testing Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) engine models

6V71TA and 6V92TA, in accordance

with procedures set forth at 40 CFR part

86, Subparts N and I. The two engine

models were tested in baseline

configurations and equipped with the

CCTTM kit. The baseline 6V92 engine

was tested in two horsepower ratings:

253 and 277.

The data of Table 1 demonstrate that

for both test engines, when rebuilt with

the CCTTM 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

for the 6V92TA engine indicate that the

kit increases NOX emissions roughly

seven (7) percent above the level of the

baseline 6V92TA rated at 253 hp. The

data for the 6V71TA engine indicate

that the CCTTM kit does not increase

NOx emissions. With CCTX kits

installed, the NOX levels for both the

6V92 and 6V71 certification engines are

less than the federal standard for model

years 1985—1989 (10.7 g/bhp–hr).

To facilitate the review process, JMI

requested in a letter dated August 6,

1997, that EPA temporarily restrict its

review to 6V92TA engine models.

Therefore, today’s Federal Register

notice describes certification of

equipment only for 6V92TA MUI engine

models. The emissions data for the

6V71TA engine is included in today’s

notice to support the demonstration of

compliance of the CCTTM kit with the

0.10 g/bhp–hr standard. Further action
60082 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices

taken with regard to 6V71 engines

would be done by subsequent Federal

Register notice.

This action applies a PM emissions

level of 0.10 g/bhp–hr to all 1979

through 1989 DDC 6V92TA MUI urban

bus engines, when properly equipped

with the CCTTM kit and when using

either diesel fuel #1 or #2. Table 2 lists

the applicable engine models and

certification levels associated with the

certification announced in today’s

Federal Register.

TABLE 2.—CERTIFICATION LEVEL OF CCTTM KIT

Engine models Engine codes Certification PM

level

1979–1989 DDC 6V92TA MUI .................................................. All certified to meet federal emissions standards ..................... 0.10 g/bhp–hr.

All engines for which the CCTTM 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 emissions-related parts

during the rebuild with JMI-specified

parts, and install a CEM II. The engineout emissions level (upstream of the

CEM–II catalyst) is expected to be

predictable because all emission-related

parts are replaced using the JMI

specified emissions-related parts and

settings of the kit. As demonstrated by

the two test engines, the combination of

the specified parts, proprietary

camshafts, specified settings of the kit,

and CEM–II, results in a PM level less

than 0.10 g/bhp–hr.

Summarized below in Table 3 is a life

cycle cost analysis presented by JMI for

the CCTTM kit. A cost analysis is

necessary only for certification of

equipment that is meant to trigger a

program emissions standard.

Certification of Engelhard Corporation’s

ETXTM kit triggered the 0.10 g/bhp–hr

standard for 6V92TA MUI engines, and

made available kits rated at 253, 277,

and 294 hp. The Engelhard certification

does not provide a kit rated above 294

horsepower. JMI’s emissions

demonstration and cost analysis applies

to engines rated at 253, 277, 294, and

325 hp. Therefore, the certification

described in today’s notice triggers the

0.10 g/bhp–hr standard for engines rated

above 294 horsepower.

JMI’s initial notification presented a

life cycle cost analysis based on the

CCTTM kit containing the CEM II, the

proprietary cam shafts, and a list of

specified emissions related parts and

settings. In a letter dated June 2, 1997,

JMI stated its intent to market the

CCTTM kit to include all emissions

related parts. In a letter dated July 3,

1997, JMI presented a cost analysis in

accordance with section 85.1403, for the

supply option where JMI provides all

components of the CCTTM kit, including

the specified engine parts. EPA

determines that, based on this

information, the notification meets life

cycle cost requirements. The analysis is

discussed below.

As shown in the summary of Table 3,

total life cycle costs are less than the life

cycle cost ceiling specified in the

program regulations ($7,940 in 1992

dollars). The life cycle cost ceiling,

updated to May 1997, is to $9,060.54.

TABLE 3.—LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF CCTTM Kit for 6V92TA ENGINES

1997 dollars

CCTTM Upgrade Kit Maximum Cost ...................................................................................................................................................... $11,495.00

Cost Offset (for Kit parts normally replaced during standard rebuild) .................................................................................................. 1 (3,978.58)

Installation Labor for CEM II (2 hours) .................................................................................................................................................. 79.88

3% Fuel penalty ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 964.30

Total Life Cycle Costs .................................................................................................................................................................... 8,560.60

LCC Ceiling 2 ($7,940 x 160.1÷ 140.3) .................................................................................................................................................. 9,060.54

1Weighted Rebuild Costs for parts, normally replaced during a standard rebuild, are from 62 FR 12166, March 14, 1997, and adjusted to 1997

dollars using a base CPI of 158.3 for October 1996, and the CPI of 160.1 for May 1997. 2 CPI for 1992=140.3. CPI for May 1997=160.1.

As shown above in Table 3, JMI states

that the maximum cost of the CCTTM kit,

including all specified engine parts, is

$11,495.

The proprietary camshafts and other

specified engine components provided

with the CCTTM kit result in an ‘‘offset’’

for parts which otherwise are replaced

during a standard engine rebuild. The

costs for the individual rebuild parts

that are offset by the kit parts, as shown

in Table 4 below, were determined by

EPA in (1996 dollars) for certification of

Engelhard Corporation’s ETXTM kit (see

62 FR 12166; March 14, 1997). JMI

updates the costs to May 1997 based on

a ratio of the Consumer Price Indexes

(CPI) noted in Table 4. These ‘‘offset’’

costs are subtracted from the maximum

purchase cost of the CCTTM kit, as

shown above in the summary of Table

3.

TABLE 4.—CCTTM UPGRADE KIT PARTS LIST FOR 6V92TA MUI ENGINES

No. Part Part of standard

rebuild?

October

1996 cost

(CPI=158.3)

May 1997

cost

(CPI=160.1)

1 ...................................................................................................................... CEM II .............. No ..................... ....................

2 ...................................................................................................................... Cam RB ............ Yes ................... $607.45 ...... $614.363

3 ...................................................................................................................... Cam LB ............ Yes ................... 607.45 ........ 614.364

4 ...................................................................................................................... Modulator ......... No ..................... ....................
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices 60083

TABLE 4.—CCTTM UPGRADE KIT PARTS LIST FOR 6V92TA MUI ENGINES—Continued

No. Part Part of standard

rebuild?

October

1996 cost

(CPI=158.3)

May 1997

cost

(CPI=160.1)

5 ...................................................................................................................... Blower drive

gear 40T.

No ..................... ....................

6 ...................................................................................................................... Blower bypass

valve.

No ..................... ....................

7 ...................................................................................................................... Governor Ass’y No ..................... ....................

8 ...................................................................................................................... Governor cover

ass’y.

No ..................... ....................

9 ...................................................................................................................... Turbocharger .... Yes ................... 464.43 ........ 469.71

10 ...................................................................................................................... Fuel Injectors .... Yes ................... 420.50 ........ 425.28

11 ...................................................................................................................... Dome kit or

crown.

Yes ................... 1,522.74 ..... 1,540.05

12 ...................................................................................................................... Piston Skirt ....... Yes ................... With #11 ..... With #11

13 ...................................................................................................................... Ring Set ........... Yes ................... With #11 ..... With #11

14 ...................................................................................................................... Cylinder Liner ... Yes ................... With #11 ..... With #11

15 ...................................................................................................................... Blower Ass’y ..... Yes ................... 311.28 ........ 314.82

Offset Total ................................................................................................ ........................... ........................... .................... 3,978.58

Except where amended by JMI written

instructions, an engine is to be rebuilt

according to the engine manufacturer’s

standard written rebuild procedures and

specifications. Therefore, installation of

the CCTTM kit is essentially identical to

a standard engine rebuild plus the

installation of the CEM II catalyst

exhaust muffler. Therefore, the labor

cost for installation of the kit,

incremental to a standard rebuild, is

based on an additional two hours for

installation of the CEM II. The two

hours additional installation time is

added to the life cycle costs of the kit,

as shown above in Table 3. In

accordance with section 85.1403, the

labor rate specified in the regulation,

$35/hour (in 1992 dollars), when

updated to May 1997, is $39.94/hour.

JMI states that engines equipped with

the CCTTM kit will have no additional

maintenance or service requirements.

Therefore, incremental maintenance

costs for engines equipped with the

CCTTM kit is zero.

JMI presents baseline data from

testing two standard 1984 model year

configurations rated at 253 and 277

horsepower. Based on comparison with

the testing of the baseline 277 hp

engine, fuel consumption when the

CCTTM kit is installed is determined to

be three (3) percent higher. Based on

this 3 percent penalty, the incremental

fuel cost for the kit is calculated in

accordance with section

85.1403(b)(1)(ii)(c)(1), and added to the

life cycle costs as shown above in Table

3.

The total life cycle costs for the

CCTTM kit, as shown above in Table 3,

is determined to be $8,560.60. The life

cycle cost ceiling ($7,940 in 1992

dollars), when updated to May 1997

using a ratio of the CPIs noted in Table

3, is $9,060.54. In conclusion, based on

the above analysis, EPA determines that

the CCTTM kit for 6V92TA MUI engines

complies with the life cycle cost

requirements of the urban bus program.

In a letter dated August 6, 1997, JMI

requested the ability to supply transits

under two supply option scenarios.

Under supply option 1, JMI would

supply the CCTTM kit including the

CEM II, the proprietary camshafts, and

all of the specified emissions related

engine parts. Under supply option 2, the

CCTTM kit would include the CEM II,

the proprietary camshafts, and a list of

specified parts with certain fuel injector

and fuel modulator settings. JMI

indicated that supply option 2 might

include specific parts that could be

rebuilt by transits to JMI specifications

and subject to strict controls by JMI.

EPA approves supply option 1 and

part of supply option 2. For supply

option 1, transit operators purchase the

entire CCTTM kit from JMI or its

distributors. This supply option is the

option upon which life cycle costs have

been determined, and upon which the

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard is triggered for

engines having ratings above 294

horsepower. Therefore, the supply

option 1 is required to be available to

any and all operators. Supply option 2,

described below, may be made available

at JMI’s discretion. Operators that

choose the supply option 2, do so

voluntarily, and EPA makes no

representation concerning the impact of

this supply option on life cycle costs.

The certification of today’s Federal

Register notice does not include use of

parts that are rebuilt by transit operators

because EPA lacks assurance that parts

rebuilt by transit operators would have

the same emissions performance.

For supply option 2, JMI will provide

the list of specified DDC emissionsrelated engine parts and engine settings

to transit operators upon purchase of the

CEM II and proprietary camshafts.

Transit operators will then purchase the

specified emissions-related parts

(excluding the CEM II and proprietary

camshafts, which must be obtained from

JMI) through supply channels of the

operator’s choosing. The certification of

today’s Federal Register notice does not

include use of parts that are rebuilt by

transit operators.

III. Summary and Analysis of

Comments and Concerns

Comments were received from three

parties in response to the Federal

Register notice of January 30, 1997 (62

FR 4528). The commenters are Detroit

Diesel Corporation (DDC), Engelhard

Corporation, and New York City Transit

Authority (NYCTA). DDC and

Engelhard, provided extensive

comment. DDC is the original

manufacturer of the engine models to

which the CCTTM kit applies, and has

applied for certification of equipment to

comply with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

Engelhard is the manufacturer of

equipment certified under the urban bus

program that triggered the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard for the 1979–1989 6V92TA

MUI engines (see 62 FR 12166; March

14, 1997). NYCTA, as a large transit bus

operator in a major metropolitan area, is

subject to requirements of the urban bus

program.

Comments or issues fell into the

following general categories: (A)

applicability of the kit; (B) description

of the kit; (C) testing demonstration and

documentation; (D) life cycle cost
60084 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices

analysis; and, (E) warranty. All

correspondence, comments, and other

documentation are located in the public

docket at the address above.

(A) Applicability

In the January 30, 1997, Federal

Register notice, EPA stated that the

information provided in JMI’s initial

notification did not support certification

of engines beyond model year 1989,

because the federal new engine standard

for NOX dropped in 1990 to 6.0 g/bhphr and in 1991 to 5.0 g/bhp-hr. (The

NOX level of either certification test

engine, when rebuilt with the kit, is

greater than 10 g/bhp-hr.) Additionally,

EPA noted that the JMI notification

lacked support for certification of DDC’s

‘‘DDEC’’ engines, because neither test

engine is equipped with electronicallycontrolled fuel injection.

In comments dated March 14, 1997,

DDC stated that the CCTTM kit should

not be certified for numerous types of

DDC two stroke/cycle engines including

all California engine models. In general,

DDC indicated that the JMI notification

lacked support of testing demonstration

and/or documentation, and because the

test data showed that the kit exceeds the

California NOX standards. DDC also

noted that engines rated at 325 and 340

hp are beyond the range normally used

in urban bus applications.

In a letter dated December 17, 1996,

JMI restricted its notification to DDC

6V92TA, 6V71T, and 6V71TA MUI

engines of model years 1979 through

1989. Furthermore, in a letter dated

August 6, 1997, JMI requested that EPA

temporarily restrict its review to

6V92TA MUI engines in order to

expedited the certification process.

Therefore, today’s Federal Register

notice pertains only to EPA’s

certification of the CCTTM kit as

applicable to 6V92TA MUI engine

models. EPA also notes that

documentation from Dallas Area Rapid

Transit indicates that it has buses

equipped with 325 hp 6V92TA MUI

engines. EPA therefore believes it

appropriate to include the 325 hp rating

in the certification described in today’s

notice.

In a letter to JMI dated March 17,

1997, the California Air Resources

Board (CARB) indicated that, without

further test data showing that Californiacertified engines are not adversely

affected by the CCTTM kit, CARB cannot

allow use of the CCTTM kit. 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

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.

(B) Description of the CCTTM Kit

Engelhard commented that the CCTTM

kit specifies use of a fuel modulator, and

notes that it is not standard on 6V92TA

coach engines. Standard equipment on

such coach engines is a throttle delay.

Engelhard claims that the fuel

modulator will cause serious bus

driveability problems if not properly set

and used in combination with the

appropriate engine configuration. DDC

states that it has no experience with the

hardware combinations for which JMI

has requested certification. Both DDC

and Engelhard indicate that the effect of

the CCTTM kit on bus driveability needs

to be determined before the kit is

certified.

EPA notes that field experience to

date, although limited, does not indicate

driveability problems. (Field experience

is discussed further below.) The basis

for Engelhard’s claim concerning

driveability problems appear to be

conjecture based on theory of how an

improperly set fuel modulator would

function in conjunction with an engine

operating on ‘‘low’’ boost pressure.

Given the field experience presented by

JMI, EPA does not believe there is

justification for a delay in certification.

DDC questions JMI’s original proposal

to allow operators to use aftermarket

parts equivalent to original equipment,

noting that DDC’s design and

manufacturing specifications and

tolerances are proprietary and not

available to aftermarket part suppliers.

Relatedly, NYCTA questions the use of

non-DDC components, and expresses

concern regarding the maintenance,

durability, emissions levels, and

warranty coverage associated with such

parts.

In response, JMI modified its

notification in a letter dated June 2,

1997, to restrict the specified parts of

the CCTTM kit to DDC-supplied original

equipment. EPA notes that JMI’s

6V92TA certification engines were

equipped with DDC components.

DDC questions the applicability of its

procedures for checking cylinder

compression and camshaft timing, given

the unique combination of parts in the

CCTTM kit. JMI states that the injector

cam maintains a standard profile, and

the exhaust valves open less and for a

shorter time. JMI states that the DDC

service method for checking camshaft

timing by measuring cam lift versus

crank angle remains applicable. JMI

indicates that the procedure for

checking cylinder compression remains

appropriate, but that the compression

specifications are different as a result of

the lower compression ratio of the

CCTTM engine. JMI will provide

cylinder compression specifications

with the CCTTM kit.

DDC references section 85.1406(d) of

the program regulations, which includes

the requirement that ‘‘* * * installation

of any certified retrofit/rebuild

equipment shall not * * * result in any

additional range of parameter

adjustability or accessibility to

adjustment than that of the vehicle

manufacturer’s emission related part’’,

and notes that the JMI injector height

setting of 1.420 inches is outside the

range of 1.460 to 1.520 inches which

DDC allows and supports with gauges

for service adjustment.

EPA notes that the purpose of the

cited passage of section 85.1406(d) is to

prevent retrofit/rebuild equipment from

increasing the likelihood or potential for

tampering. Although the CCTTM kit

requires a unique fuel injector timing

height, the kit does not change the

inherent ‘‘range of adjustability’’ or

‘‘accessibility to adjustment’’ of DDC’s

basic fuel injector system. The height

setting of the CCTTM kit is not

tampering, indeed it is a requirement of

the kit to ensure compliance with

emissions levels demonstrated by JMI’s

testing. JMI will provide a gauge, for

setting fuel injector height, with the

CCTTM kit.

Both Engelhard and DDC provide

numerous comment on the unique

components and settings in the CCTTM

kit, and are concerned that there is not

sufficient field or in-use experience.

DDC notes that the JMI fuel injection

height specification (1.420 inches) is

less than the minimum DDC allows

(1.460 inches), and states that a

potential unfavorable stack-up of

component and adjustment tolerances

may cause engine problems due to

injector follower bottoming in realworld operating conditions. DDC notes

that its minimum timing height

specification takes into consideration

such unfavorable stack-up plus the

potential separation of the injector

actuation linkage which can occur

under engine overspeed (over-revving)

conditions. Engelhard notes that JMI’s

277 and 294 hp ratings use the same

injector, asks how much power the JMI

325 hp rating actually produces, and

asks for explanation of why the CCTTM
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices 60085

kit use larger injectors than the

corresponding original DDC ratings.

JMI acknowledges that the fuel

injector height setting (1.420 inches) of

the CCTTM kit is outside DDC’s normal

range. However, JMI states that testing

performed on injectors at Southwest

Research Institute and JMI distributors

indicate that the injectors bottom-out

between 1.380 and 1.390, and that

successful operation has been sustained

at a setting of 1.400. JMI believes that

the specified injector setting will

present no risk to the correct operation

of the engine. JMI notes that the CCTTM

technology, including the 1.420 setting,

has been used extensively in other

industry applications, as described

further below. JMI will provide a gauge

for setting injector height with the

CCTTM kit.

EPA does not know whether or how

prevalent engine over-speed conditions

occur in transit operation (for example,

whether it may occur during long

downhill conditions when a bus might

drive its engine to high speeds), or how

significant of a problem it presents to

the JMI settings for the injectors.

Consequently, EPA does not know

whether there is an adequate margin of

safety in the injector height setting of

the CCTTM kit to preclude any engine

problems under all potential bus engine

operating conditions. JMI, however, has

demonstrated engine-dynamometer

experience, some in-use transit bus

operation (discussed further below), and

in-use experience in other industries

with no noted problems. Additionally,

an emissions defect warranty, pursuant

to section 85.1409 of the program

regulations, is provided by JMI for all

components of the CCTTM kit, which

include the fuel injectors and

proprietary camshaft. The warranty may

leave other parts of the injector

actuating mechanism without coverage.

However, EPA does not believe such

coverage to be necessary at present. EPA

may take additional action, if significant

in-use problem develop. For example,

EPA has authority under section

85.1413 of the program regulations to

decertify equipment if, for example, use

of certified equipment severely degrades

driveability, operation, or function.

EPA does not believe it necessary for

JMI to explain why injectors in the

CCTTM kit are larger than those typically

used in corresponding DDC ratings. EPA

recognizes that the CCTTM-equipped

engine is a unique combination of

components, and fuel injectors are

clearly emissions-related components.

Engelhard comments that the severe

injection advance plus lower

compression ratio of the CCTTM kit will

result in problems, including cold

weather starting problems, shorter

engine life, reduction in low speed

performance and higher fuel

consumption, and calls for JMI to

demonstrate the need for the injection

advance and the affect on durability,

fuel economy and performance.

Engelhard states that JMI should use a

non-biased third party test facility to

demonstrate that the kit does not

degrade performance. DDC notes that

the kit differs from DDC configurations

and that they have no experience with

it.

Engelhard and DDC also comment on

the design of the proprietary camshaft,

indicating that a change in camshaft

design can impact engine performance

and durability. Engelhard’s concerns

range from the dynamics of the valve

train, which might affect durability of

valve train parts, to increased internal

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), which

might increase wear of cylinder liners

and rings due to increased oil

contamination with soot. Engelhard

calls for durability data to verify that the

valve train will not fail prematurely,

and to ensure that the CCTTM kit will

not cause additional maintenance and/

or engine failure.

JMI has presented information in

support of the durability and

performance of the CCTTM kit. JMI states

that it has two field trials underway.

One is a 1983 Gillig powered by a

6V92TA MUI at Kitsap Transit in

Bremerton, Washington. No problems

have been reported as of July, with

16,000 miles of routine transit service.

A second transit trial on a 6V92TA

DDEC II engine has been initiated in an

un-named northern city. JMI presents

three routine analyses of the lubrication

oil from the Kitsap transit bus, and

indicates that the analyses show typical,

normal patterns of engine break-in with

no unusual results. Soot is

unmeasurable in the oil at 4,451 miles.

In a letter to EPA dated June 10, 1997,

the Kitsap Director of Vehicle

Maintenance, acknowledging that six

weeks and 12,000 miles of accumulated

service is a relatively short period of

time, notes that the bus is responsive to

driver demands in a fashion that is in

keeping with this engine (somewhat

more powerful), and no increase in fuel

or oil consumption.

Additionally, JMI presents

information that the engine components

of the CCTTM kit have been used on

several engines in the oil and water

pumping industries in stationary source

locations, with no reported problems. In

general, these stationary engines operate

in a cyclic mode from low speed to

wide-open-throttle, full load, to supply

power for drilling and pumping rigs.

One such engine, a 6V92TA, has been

run for more than 3,500 hours with no

reported problems. Another diesel

engine has been run more than 13,000

hours with no reported problems.

In comments dated July 21, 1997,

DDC states that the differences in fuel

modulator and throttle delay response

characteristics may also be observed in

real world driving conditions. DDC

further notes that, although the Kitsap

tests may not be representative of all

engine, bus, and driving pattern

combinations, it suggests that the

CCTTM kit can be employed without

serious loss of vehicle performance and

the tests go a long way to allaying the

concern expressed in DDC’s original

comments.

Regarding its proprietary camshaft,

JMI states that the injector cam profile

of its proprietary cam is identical to the

original equipment (OE) cam profile,

and the ramps and acceleration of the

exhaust cam are the same as the original

equipment (OE) camshaft. Additionally,

the transition from the cam base circle

to the first rise is slightly more gradual

than the OE camshaft. JMI states that the

dynamics of the CCTTM camshaft

(exhaust valves open less and for a

shorter time) may result in improved

mechanical durability compared to the

OE camshaft. While noting that the

CCTTM technology slightly increases the

amount of internal EGR, JMI notes the

above-described long-term experience in

the oil and pumping industry. Further,

oil analyses being conducted in the

Kitsap field trial, described above,

indicates no additional soot

contamination of the lubrication oil.

JMI presented the above-discussed

information in support of the operability

and durability of the CCTTM kit. No

evidence has been presented that

indicates a specific problem with the

design, operability, or durability of the

CCTTM kit. While there is no

requirement under the program

regulations for a certifier to demonstrate

operability or durability of equipment,

EPA remains concerned about the longterm performance of all certified

equipment. However, any conclusions

regarding decreased performance,

durability, or operability of CCTTMequipped engines are speculative at

present, and the in-use information

presented by JMI does not indicate

concern with the CCTTM kit. As noted

above, EPA has authority under section

85.1413 to decertify equipment that fails

to comply with requirements of the

regulations.

EPA notes that JMI is required to

cover the fuel injectors, camshaft,

cylinder liners, pistons, piston rings,

and other components of the CCTTM kit,
60086 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices

regardless of supply option, under the

emissions defect warranty required

pursuant to section 85.1409.

DDC notes that its maximum back

pressure limit for the 6V92TA MUI bus

engines is typically 3 inches of mercury,

and expresses concern that the addition

of the CEM II catalytic muffler could

cause DDC exhaust back pressure limits

to be exceeded in many bus

installations. DDC also is concerned

about the JMI’s field service procedure

for checking exhaust back pressure,

which states that it should be measured

at full stall conditions. DDC indicates

that the only way to check back pressure

for conformance with DDC back

pressure limits is with an engine

operating at rated speed and wide-openthrottle. Back-pressure measurements

made at any other condition will underrepresent the full engine exhaust back

pressure, and checking back pressure

under these conditions may lead to

excessive back pressure when the

engine is operated in service. DDC calls

for assurances that the CEM II will not

cause DDC back pressure limits to be

exceeded for any affected bus

application. Verification must account

for not only for the restriction of a clean

catalyst core, but must also account for

restrictions imposed by other exhaust

system components, and the effects of

core aging and ash accumulation over

time.

JMI states that the CEM II is

physically identical to the design of the

original CEM, and its back pressure

performance will be identical to the

back pressure performance of the CEM

under the same conditions. JMI notes

that back pressure due to standard

commercial mufflers vary, and may

range from less than 0.5′′ mercury (Hg)

to more than 1.0′′ Hg. Additionally, total

back pressure may vary according to

exhaust system design, engine speed or

horsepower. JMI states that back

pressure testing was conducted, as

standard production practice, on CEM

and CEM II units, using a 6V92TA of

322 hp, to ensure compliance with the

3.0′′ Hg maximum set by DDC. All CEM

models tested had back pressure values

between 1.0′′ to 1.5′′ mercury.

EPA, in general, is concerned with inuse problems resulting from excessive

back pressure. However, no information

presented by commenters substantiate a

concern for excessive back pressure

with the CEM II. More specifically, EPA

has not received comments from transit

operators or others indicating significant

problems with high back pressure from

the CEM catalyst muffler, which JMI

indicates is physically identical to the

CEM II.

Regarding the ‘‘full stall’’ method of

checking back pressure, JMI states that

it is a common, practical tool used by

transit operators to measure exhaust

backpressure. JMI notes that conducting

measurements at rated speed and wideopen-throttle is difficult because transit

operators typically do not have chassis

dynamometers available to permit such

measurements. EPA notes that, as a

general diagnostic tool, such

measurement of back pressure could be

useful with any exhaust system (catalyst

or muffler). While the full transmission

stall test may under represent full back

pressure, it appears to provide some

usefulness as a back pressure check. As

with other CCTTM kit components, JMI

is required to warrant the CEM II under

the warranties required pursuant to

section 85.1409. As noted previously,

EPA can take action in the event of

significant in-use problems and,

ultimately, has authority to decertify

equipment.

Few certifiers have extensive

experience from in-use transit service to

comprehensively demonstrate the

durability and performance of

equipment certified for the urban bus

retrofit/rebuild program. Nor does the

program regulation require such

comprehensive demonstration. JMI has

presented information of in-use

experience in support of these

characteristics of the CCTTM kit, and

EPA knows of no reason at this time to

oppose certification.

(C) Testing Demonstration and

Documentation

NYCTA comments that the PM

emissions levels of the certification

engines are close to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard, expresses concern that CCTTM

equipped engines will emit above the

standard after in-use operation, and asks

whether deterioration factors have been

included in the certification levels.

NYCTA also notes that the emissions

data for the 6V92TA engine indicates

that NOX emissions increase, and

NYCTA believes that some buses

equipped with the CCTTM kit will emit

above the 1988 emissions standard (10.7

g/bhp-hr).

The urban bus program regulations do

not specifically require manufacturers to

demonstrate the durability of their

candidate equipment. Similarly, there is

no requirement for certifiers to develop

an empirical basis for determining a

deterioration factor. During the initial

design of the urban bus program, EPA

recognized that durability

demonstration would impose a

significant burden on certifiers, and

expected that such burden would

prevent technologies from coming

forward. A program without certified

technology would provide minimal

emission reductions. Instead of

requiring a durability demonstration,

the program is based on the requirement

for certifiers to warrant their equipment

for defects and emissions performance

(as specified in section 85.1409), on

EPA’s authority to perform in-use

testing of certified equipment, and on

EPA’s authority to decertify

noncompliant equipment (as specified

in section 85.1413). As stated in the

preamble to the final rule of April 21,

1993 (58 FR 21379): ‘‘EPA believes that,

therefore, it is sufficient to hold

manufacturers responsible for the

emissions performance of their

equipment through an emissions

performance warranty * * *’’ and

‘‘Manufacturers will want to evaluate

the durability of their equipment before

selling it under this program to

minimize their liability risk.’’ Section

85.1413 provides authority to EPA to

decertify equipment that EPA

determines does not meet emissions

requirements in-use. These emissions

requirements include the HC, CO, NOX,

and smoke standards of a particular

engine, in addition to the PM standards

of the urban bus regulation.

The JMI notification indicates that the

test engines were selected as ‘‘worst

case’’ based on Table 3 of 58 FR 21373

(April 23, 1993). Engelhard comments

that the test engine is not worst case for

emissions from a catalyst-equipped

engine, basically because the exhaust

flow from higher horsepower engines

would increase engine exhaust back

pressure and reduce residence time of

the exhaust within the catalyst,

lowering catalyst effectiveness.

Engelhard also claims that the CEM II,

subject to higher exhaust temperatures

from the higher horsepower engines,

will have a greater tendency to make

sulfate. DDC comments that the exhaust

flow from higher hp engines is expected

to be greater, but the 277 hp engine is

the most popular for transit usage and

therefore makes it the proper choice for

certifying equipment for use on engines

rated at 253, 277, and 294 horsepower.

For several reasons, EPA believes that

the 6V92TA test engine equipped with

the CCTTM kit, and rated by JMI at 277

hp, is acceptable to demonstrate

compliance for 253, 277, 294, and 325

hp ratings. First, the test engine is

clearly the engine model for which JMI

is claiming applicability of the CCTTM

kit. Further, the rating of the

certification test engine is the most

popular power rating according to the

engine manufacturer. It therefore is the

most representative power rating.

Second, JMI has also presented
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices 60087

emissions testing data from a 6V71TA

engine model, which also demonstrates

compliance of the CCTTM kit with the

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

Regarding Engelhard’s concern for

higher exhaust flow with higher

horsepower, no information is presented

for the potential increase in sulfate

emissions and that contribution to the

total particulate emissions of any of the

engine ratings. Additionally, it is not

clear that an engine of the JMI-rated 294

hp or 325 hp, would have significantly

different exhaust emissions or flow rate

from the certification test engine. This is

because, as DDC notes, higher

horsepower ratings generally produce

higher exhaust temperatures which may

compensate for lower catalyst residence

time (that is, higher temperatures are

generally conducive to higher catalytic

conversion efficiency). Furthermore, JMI

analyzed data published for DDC engine

configurations, to show that exhaust

flow rates of higher horsepower engines

may increase only in the order of a few

percent over the flow rate of a 277 hp

engine. JMI notes that one 330 hp

6V92TA has a standardized flow rate

that is 1.4 percent greater, and another

330 hp 6V92TA has a standardized flow

rate that is 3.7 percent less, than the

published flow rate for a 277 hp

6V92TA coach engine. JMI states that

this increase in flow rate is well within

the margin of safety that is engineered

into the CEM II and will represent no

loss in conversion. In summary, EPA is

not convinced that exhaust flow is

clearly related to engine horsepower

rating, or that a higher horsepower test

engine would necessarily be worst case.

EPA is not aware of evidence suggesting

a problem with back pressure from this

catalytic muffler design. Also, JMI has

more than one catalyst biscuit size, and

the emissions testing on the 6V92TA

was performed on its smallest biscuit.

JMI bears the burden of the emission

performance warranty required by

program regulations.

In its letter of August 11, 1997,

Engelhard comments that the same fuel

injectors are used in the CCTTM kit for

the 277 hp rating and 294 hp rating, and

concludes that there is no 294 hp kit.

Engelhard indicates that JMI needs to

provide an explanation regarding the

injector specifications.

EPA is aware that typical industry

practice is to use larger fuel injectors for

higher horsepower, because, as

Engelhard notes in its comments, larger

injectors result in higher horsepower.

JMI has not provided EPA with torque

curves for its power ratings other than

the certification test engine rated at 277

hp. The requirements of the urban bus

program were designed to minimize

testing burden, while demonstrating

emissions compliance, but not to verify

performance of every engine rating.

While JMI has demonstrated compliance

with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard,

operators should be aware that EPA has

not verified the power output of ratings

other than that which JMI tested for

exhaust emissions.

Engelhard compares the engine torque

curves developed during JMI’s testing of

the CCTTM kit and baseline engine, and

comments that the CCTTM kit results in

an significant loss of low torque and

horsepower compared to a standard

urban bus engine. Engelhard concludes

that this will cause significant

performance, acceleration, and fuel

economy problems for users of the

CCTTM kit. In its initial comments of

March 14, 1997, DDC also notes the low

torque developed at low engine speeds.

DDC and Engelhard call for

demonstration of in-use performance

and durability evaluation.

In response, JMI states that low speed

acceleration of a bus equipped with the

CCTTM kit is improved, because the kit

includes replacement of the throttle

delay (standard equipment on bus

engines) with a fuel modulator. JMI

states that a bus equipped with a

standard throttle delay experiences a

limit on the full fuel acceleration. The

throttle delay is designed to make full

engine torque developed available in 4

to 7 seconds. An engine equipped with

the CCTTM kit will immediately have all

the torque developed available to the

driver for acceleration. Therefore, low

speed acceleration is improved.

Comments from Kitsap Transit,

reflecting limited experience with the

CCTTM-equipped engine, state that

‘‘* * * our drivers believe that on board

power has been improved.’’ In its

comments of July 21, 1997, DDC notes

that, although the Kitsap tests may not

be representative of all engine, bus, and

driving pattern combinations, it suggests

that the CCTTM kit can be employed

without serious loss of vehicle

performance and the tests go a long way

to allaying the concern expressed in

DDC’s original comments.

EPA recognizes differences between

the torque maps generated for the

baseline and the certification engine.

However, EPA believes that the torque

curve (that is, the torque map) generated

for transient emissions testing can be a

misleading representation of the torque

that would be available at any instant

from a similar engine during in-use

service. This is due to the manner in

which the torque map is generated for

the transient emissions test and the

particular fuel control means (such as

throttle delay or fuel modulator) used

on an engine. As DDC notes in its

comments, the torque map is generated

with the throttle delay fully discharged

and the fuel rack in the full fuel

position. Therefore, the influence of the

throttle delay on fuel control is not

reflected in the torque reported for the

torque map. DDC states that the

differences in fuel modulator and

throttle delay response characteristics

may also be observed in real world

driving conditions. EPA therefore

believes that conclusions based solely

on comparison of torque maps may be

misleading.

In summary, regarding the relative

performance of CCTTM-equipped

engines, EPA is not aware of any clear

evidence indicating a performance

concern. Actual in-use experience,

although limited, suggests that the

CCTTM kit provides performance

comparable to an original configuration.

DDC notes that during certification

testing the CEM II was installed at a

distance of six feet from the exhaust

outlet of the turbocharger turbine, and

comments that if the CEM II is installed

in a location on a bus which is more

than 6 feet from the turbine outlet, then

the exhaust gases will be cooler and the

effectiveness of the catalyst in oxidizing

soot emissions will be less than was

observed in the certification testing.

JMI presents exhaust temperature data

from testing performed during

certification of the CEM, which indicate

a reduction of 10 degrees in exhaust gas

temperature (from 627 degrees F to 617

degrees F) over a six-foot length

between the turbine outlet and CEM.

JMI states that if the CEM II is located

an additional three or even six feet away

from the outlet, then the exhaust

temperature would decline by only an

additional 5 to 10 degrees, which would

have no effect on catalyst activity.

The temperature of the exhaust gases

from a bus engine is continually

changing during in-use operation due to

variations in engine speed and load.

EPA has no information that an

additional few degrees drop in exhaust

gas temperature is of significant concern

regarding catalyst effectiveness. EPA has

accepted in the past, as demonstration

of compliance with emissions

requirement of the urban bus program,

emissions data developed from testing

catalysts at a distance of six feet from

the turbine outlet.

(D) Life Cycle Cost Analysis

NYCTA comments that the power

ratings of the JMI certification test

engine is above the range normally used

in urban bus applications, and this

should be included in the incremental

life cycle cost analysis because of
60088 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices

implications related to higher wear on

driveline components and higher fuel

consumption. Also, NYCTA states that

it is not clear what power ratings are

being offered by JMI.

JMI states that it will offer the CCTTM

kit for the 6V92TA models in four

horsepower ratings (253, 277, 294, and

325) that are for the most part, typical

to the transit industry. (JMI has asked

EPA to temporarily restrict its review to

CCTTM kits applicable to 6V92TA

engine models.) While JMI has not

provided EPA with torque curves for its

ratings other than the certification test

engine rated at 277 hp, EPA notes that

the certification engine produced a

maximum power of 274 hp during the

torque map, which is within roughly 1

percent of the JMI rating (277 hp).

Therefore, EPA believes that JMI’s

nomenclature (that is, the ‘‘rating’’) for

the CCTTM kit configuration it tested,

277 hp, is consistent with the actual

power produced for the emissions test.

EPA believes that operators having

engines originally rated at 277 hp will

most likely choose a retrofit kit of the

same horsepower rating.

NYCTA also comments that data is

needed, such as periodic catalyst

inspection or replacement, in order to

estimate the incremental maintenance

cost component of the life-cycle costs.

NYCTA also indicates that field testing

experience in transit service is needed

in order to estimate incremental life

cycle costs.

JMI states that there is no incremental

maintenance costs associated with the

CCTTM kit—the maintenance checks

required for a standard DDC engine also

apply, at the same interval, to a CCTTMequipped engine. There is no scheduled

replacement of the CEM II catalyst.

NYCTA notes the significant

difference in the torque characteristics

of the CCTTM equipped engine

compared to the original configuration.

NYCTA comments that modifications to

the drive train may be required to

maintain acceptable acceleration, and

this should be included in the life-cycle

estimates.

The need for drive train modifications

appear to be speculative at present. EPA

believes that comparing the torque maps

of the baseline and CCTTM equipped

engine as discussed above, may be

misleading for purposes of predicting

vehicle acceleration. Additionally, JMI

states that the field trial being

conducted at Kitsap Transit indicate

that the performance, power and

acceleration of the CCTTM equipped

engine is not impaired.

The JMI cost analysis includes

incremental costs for 2 hours of labor for

installation of the CEM II catalytic

muffler. Both DDC and Engelhard

question this cost. Engelhard comments

that an installation time of 4 to 6 hours

is more appropriate. DDC questions the

appropriateness of the time estimate for

installation of the CEM II, given that the

installation time budgeted for the

converter muffler of the Engelhard

ETXTM kit (see 62 FR 12166; March 14,

1997) is 6 hours, and installation of the

two converters are ‘‘* * * seemingly

similar activities * * *’’. DDC also

states that installation time should

include time to check that back pressure

limits are not exceeded, and should

account for installation of the water

drainage device required for some

applications of the kit, and incremental

maintenance costs associated with

routine vehicle maintenance.

JMI indicates that over 54 designs of

CEMs have been engineered to cover the

broad range of coach and engine

combinations. The initial application for

the CEM estimated a maximum

installation time of 6.5 hours as a best

estimate. JMI’s installation time for the

CEM II of 2 hours is based on field

experience with actual installation of

the CEM. JMI also has provided data

and statements from operators

supporting the accuracy of the two-hour

installation time.

EPA believes that 2 hour installation

time is appropriate for the cost analysis,

and is included above in Table 3. JMI

states that the water drainage device is

not necessary on any vertical exhaust

stack, and is therefore not included in

the LCC analysis. JMI provides an

emissions defect warranty, pursuant to

section 85.1409 of the program

regulations, which includes coverage of

the CEM II. JMI also states that the

CCTTM kit does not have additional

routine maintenance requirements,

incremental to standard DDC

maintenance, service or installation

procedures, including routine checks of

the CEM II.

Engelhard comments that JMI’s initial

baseline engine, a DDC 6V92TA engine

configured to a 253 hp rating, is invalid

for comparison because of the specific

parts used in the JMI certification

engine. Engelhard claims that the

turbocharger and fuel injectors of JMI’s

certification engine are from a 294 hp

configuration and, therefore, for an

accurate comparison of fuel economy

and emissions, the CCTTM kit of 277

rating needs to be compared with a

baseline engine of 294 hp. Engelhard

claims that comparing the JMI engine

with a 294 hp baseline engine from a

previous Engelhard test program shows

a 12 percent loss in fuel economy for the

CCTTM kit.

In response, JMI subsequently tested a

second baseline engine, a DDC

configuration rated at 277 hp as shown

above in Table 1. Engelhard comments

that this baseline engine is not

performing properly because the NOx

emissions (13.0 g/bhp-hr) are

significantly higher than the federal

standard (10.7 g/bhp-hr) applicable to

1985 through 1989 model year.

EPA notes that JMI’s 6V92TA

certification engine produced a

maximum power of 274 hp during the

torque map, which is within roughly 1

percent of the JMI rating (277 hp).

Therefore, EPA believes that JMI’s

nomenclature (that is, the ‘‘rating’’) for

the CCTTM kit configuration it tested,

277 hp, is consistent with the actual

power produced for the emissions test.

The actual combination of parts

developed by JMI for its 277 hp rating,

while perhaps unique, is not relevant to

choice of baseline engine for fuel

consumption comparison. EPA believes

that operators having engines originally

rated at 277 hp will most likely choose

a retrofit kit of the same horsepower

rating. Therefore, for comparison of fuel

consumption, engines of the same rating

should be compared.

Regarding the NOX emission level of

the 277 hp baseline engine, the

measured value (13.0 g/bhp-hr) may be

higher than typical for this rating.

However, EPA believes that the test of

the 277 hp baseline engine is adequate

for its sole purpose—to determine the

impact of the CCTTM kit on fuel

consumption.

DDC comments that the only proper

way to make fuel economy comparisons

is at equivalent power ratings, and

Engelhard in its comments notes the

potential for significant cell-to-cell

variations that make correlating data

between test cells unreliable.

DDC also comments that comparison

made at maximum hp and maximum

torque with DDC’s published values

suggests that the CCTTM kit imposes a 6

to 7 percent fuel economy penalty.

EPA believes that a typical operating

cycle for urban buses cannot be

characterized by fuel consumption

determined at steady state, full power

output, as DDC has suggested. EPA

notes that a comparison of the 253 hp

baseline engine with the certification

engine (JMI-rated at 277 hp) indicates a

one percent improvement with the kit.

Additionally, JMI references

preliminary in-service experience from

the Kitsap field trial that indicates a 20

percent improvement in fuel economy,

and states that JMI’s position is that no

fuel penalty should apply. Section

85.1407 of the program regulations

require that incremental fuel cost be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices 60089

determined based on testing performed

over the heavy-duty engine federal test

procedure, or an approved alternative

test procedure. EPA believes that it is

appropriate to compare data from

engines of the same horsepower and

from the same test cell, when available,

for determining the fuel economy

impact. This data is available from the

JMI testing and such comparison is

consistent with the requirements of the

regulations. Comparison of the baseline

DDC-rated 277 hp engine to the JMIrated 277 hp certification engine

indicates a fuel penalty of 3 percent for

the CCTTM kit. Using the calculations

required for this determination, as set

forth at section 85.1403(b)(1), the impact

on the life cycle cost analysis of the

CCTTM kit, as shown above in Table 3,

is determined to be a penalty of $964.30.

Engelhard states that fuel modulators

are not standard on 6V92TA coach

engines. The standard throttle delay will

have to be removed and the fuel

modulator installed and the additional

labor associated with this should be

included in the LCC analysis. JMI

indicates that a standard rebuild would

include the removal, and reinstallation

and re-calibration of the throttle delay.

This is necessary in order to remove and

replace the fuel injectors and other key

engine components. When an engine is

rebuilt with the CCTTM kit, the fuel

modulator is installed in place of the

throttle delay. EPA believes that use of

the fuel modulator in a CCTTM kit

presents no costs, incremental to the

costs of a standard rebuild.

In its comments of July 21, 1997, DDC

indicates that it is in fundamental

agreement with the JMI life cycle cost

analysis, except for the cost offset of the

proprietary cam of the CCTTM kit. The

cost offset in the analysis is $1229, and

DDC believes that the offset should be

$320, which is the cost for

remanufactured camshafts available

from DDC. DDC believes that most

operators would be expected to use

remanufactured parts when replacing

camshafts at the time of rebuild.

EPA determined the cost of a

‘‘weighted’’ rebuild for the cost

evaluation of DDC’s upgrade kit for the

6V92TA MUI (61 FR 37734; July 19,

1996), and later updated that cost for

certification of the Engelhard ETXTM kit

(62 FR 12166; March 14 1997), both

using cost information provided by

DDC, and others, at those times. For the

evaluation of the CCTTM kit, EPA relies

on the cost determination for a

‘‘weighted’’ rebuild published in the

Federal Register on March 14, 1997,

updated to May 1997. EPA has not

modified its March 14th determination

of the cost because it has no data on the

fraction of operators which are expected

to use remanufactured camshafts.

(E) Warranty

DDC commented that the JMI

warranty does not provide coverage for

non-JMI parts that are used in

conjunction with a CCTTM kit in

rebuilding an engine, and does not

cover any liability for labor costs or for

any incidental or consequential

damages. DDC also noted that use of

standard DDC parts in conjunction with

the CCTTM kit could result in the parts

being subjected to unduly harsh

operating environments, and DDC’s

parts warranty does not extend to parts

that have been misapplied or misused.

DDC noted that the warranty applies

coverage only if an engine is operated

with ‘‘unadulterated’’ diesel fuel, yet it

is common practice for many operators

to use fuel additives.

During the review process, JMI’s

warranty language underwent changes,

as did the description of the CCTTM kit

of today’s notice. As noted previously,

JMI restricted the specified emissionsrelated parts of the kit to DDC-supplied

parts. Also, JMI changed its warranty

language to make clear that it covers the

emissions-related parts that JMI

specifies to be used with the CCTTM kit.

Warranty coverage applies to both

supply options. The JMI warranty was

also modified so that coverage is not

conditioned on the use of

‘‘unadulterated’’ fuel. JMI states that

additives are permissible, but requests

to review the constituents of any

additives used by transit operators

before they are used by the transit.

With regard to labor costs, JMI is not

required to cover labor costs associated

with warranty repair because labor

associated with equipment installation

and maintenance is the responsibility of

the transit operator. (Maintenance

includes warranty repair.) This point is

stated in the preamble to the final rule

of April 21, 1993 ( 58 FR 21381): ‘‘Bus

operators will be responsible for the

proper installation and maintenance of

the equipment.’’ Additionally,

incidental or consequential damages, or

non-JMI parts used in conjunction with

retrofitting with a CCTTM kit, are not

required to be covered pursuant to the

warranty requirements of the program

regulations (section 85.1409). EPA is not

aware of any evidence that incidental or

consequential damages will occur. If

significant in-use problems develop,

then EPA may take action.

IV. Certification

The Agency has reviewed the

notification of intent to certify and other

information provided by JMI, along with

comments received from interested

parties, and finds that the CCTTM kit

described above:

(1) Complies with the particulate

matter exhaust emissions standard of

0.10 g/bhp-hr, without causing the

applicable engine families to exceed

other exhaust emissions standards;

(2) Complies with the life cycle cost

requirements pursuant to section

85.1403(b)(1);

(3) Will not cause an unreasonable

risk to the public health, welfare, or

safety;

(4) Will not result in any additional

range of parameter adjustability; and,

(5) Meets other requirements

necessary for certification under the

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (40

CFR Sections 85.1401 through 85.1415).

Therefore, today’s Federal Register

notice announces certification of the

above-described Johnson Matthey

CCTTM kit for use in the urban bus

retrofit/rebuild program as discussed

below in section V.

V. Transit Operator Responsibilities

Today’s Federal Register notice

announces certification of the abovedescribed CCTTM kit, when properly

applied, as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

particulate matter standard of the Urban

Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program.

In a Federal Register notice dated

March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12166), EPA

announced certification of a retrofit/

rebuild kit produced by the Engelhard

Corporation (the ETXTM kit). That

certification means that urban bus

operators using compliance program 1

must use equipment certified to the 0.10

g/bhp-hr standard when rebuilding or

replacing applicable 1979 through 1989

model year DDC 6V92TA MUI model

engines after September 14, 1997. The

certified JMI equipment described in

today’s notice may be used by operators

in compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard. Operators using compliance

program 2 having applicable engines

may use the certified CCTTM kit and

claim the certification PM level from

Table 2 above, when calculating their

Fleet Level Attained (FLA). Under

program 2, an operator must use

sufficient certified equipment so that its

actual fleet emission level complies

with the target level for its fleet.

As mentioned above, certification of

the Engelhard ETXTM kit triggered the

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for applicable

1979–1989 6V92TA MUI engines. That

kit provides three power ratings: 253,

277, and 294 horsepower. JMI will offer

the CCTTM kit in four power ratings:

253, 277, 294, and 325 hp. Certification

of the CCTTM kit described in today’s
60090 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Notices

Federal Register notice triggers the 0.10

g/bhp-hr standard for engines rated

above 294 hp. This means that urban

bus operators using compliance program

1 must use equipment certified to the

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard when rebuilding

or replacing applicable engines above

294 hp after May 6, 1998.

Urban bus engines certified to meet

California emissions standards are not

applicable to the CCTTM kit discussed in

today’s Federal Register notice.

Additionally, the 0.10 g/bhp–hr PM

standard is not triggered for engines

certified to meet California emission

standards. Operators of such urban

buses, who choose to comply with

program 1, are not required to use

equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp–

hr PM standard until the standard has

been triggered for such engines.

Operators of urban buses having engines

certified to meet California emission

standards, and who choose to comply

with program 2, may not use the CCTTM

kit described in today’s notice to meet

program requirements.

As stated in the program regulations

(40 CFR 85.1401 through 85.1415),

operators must, beginning January 1,

1995, maintain records for each engine

in their fleet to demonstrate that they

are in compliance with the requirements

of the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild

Program. 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 using the

supply option 2, as described previously

in today’s Federal Register notice, must

be aware of their responsibility for

maintenance of records pursuant to 40

CFR Sections 85.1403 through 85.1404,

because they do not purchase the

complete CCTTM kit from JMI. Urban

bus operators using supply option 2

must be able demonstrate that all parts

used in the rebuilding of engines are in

compliance with program requirements.

In other words, such urban bus

operators must be able to demonstrate

that all components of the kit certified

in today’s Federal Register notice are

installed on applicable engines.

Dated: October 29, 1997.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–29397 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5917–6]

Underground Injection Control

Program; Hazardous Waste Injection

Restrictions; Petition for Exemption—

Class I Hazardous Waste Injection;

CECOS International, Inc. (CECOS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final decision on

petition modification.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

modification of an exemption to the

land disposal restrictions under the

1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act has

been granted to CECOS, for the Class I

injection well located at Sulphur,

Louisiana. As required by 40 CFR part

148, the company has adequately

demonstrated to the satisfaction of the

Environmental Protection Agency by

petition and supporting documentation

that, to a reasonable degree of certainty,

there will be no migration of hazardous

constituents from the injection zone for

as long as the waste remains hazardous.

This final decision allows the

underground injection by CECOS, of the

specific restricted hazardous waste

identified in the exemption

modification, into the Class I hazardous

waste injection well at the Sulphur,

Louisiana facility specifically identified

in the modified exemption, for as long

as the basis for granting an approval of

this exemption remains valid, under

provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. As

required by 40 CFR 124.10, a public

document was issued July 31, 1997, and

closed on September 15, 1997. No

comments were received. This decision

constitutes final Agency action and

there is no Administrative appeal.

DATES: This action is effective as of

October 28,1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the modified

petition and all pertinent information

relating thereto are on file at the

following location: Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, Water

Quality Protection Division, Source

Water Protection Branch (6WQ–S), 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Dellinger, Chief, Ground Water/

UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone

(214) 665–7165.

Oscar Ramirez, Jr.,

Acting Director, Water Quality Protection

Division (6WQ).

[FR Doc. 97–29387 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5918–9]

National Environmental Justice

Advisory Council; Notification of

Meeting Public Comment Period(s) and

Environmental Justice Enforcement

Roundtable Open Meetings

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92–

463, we now give notice that the

National Environmental Justice

Advisory Council (NEJAC) along with

the subcommittees will meet on the

dates and times described below in

conjunction with a NEJAC and EPAsponsored Environmental Justice

Enforcement Roundtable. All times

noted are Eastern Standard Time. All

meetings are open to the public. Due to

limited space, seating at the NEJAC

meeting will be on a first-come basis.

Documents that are the subject of

NEJAC reviews are normally available

from the originating EPA office and are

not available from the NEJAC. The

NEJAC and subcommittee meetings will

occur at the Regal University Hotel,

2800 Campus Walk Avenue, Durham,

NC 27705–4479, telephone number:

919/383–8575. The NEJAC and EPAsponsored Environmental Justice

Enforcement Roundtable will occur at

North Carolina Central University in

Durham, NC.

The full NEJAC will convene Monday,

December 8 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

and from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and

Wednesday, December 10 from 9:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and from 6:45 p.m. to

9:00 p.m. to follow-up on pending items

from the May 1997 meeting, to hear a

presentation from the newly created

EPA’s Office of Children Health

Protection, and several NEJAC new

business interest items. NEJAC will

have a break in the meeting schedule

Monday, December 8 at 10:30 a.m. to

conduct a bus tour of local

environmental justice sites. There will

be public comment periods scheduled

from 7:00 p.m.—9:00 p.m. on Monday,

December 8 and on Wednesday,

December 10.

The six subcommittees will meet

Tuesday, December 9 from 9:00 a.m. to

6:30 p.m. Any member of the public

wishing additional information on the

subcommittee meetings should contact

the specific Designated Federal Official

at the telephone number listed below.