[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60079-60090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29397]


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

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

[[Page 60080]]

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 Technology-Cam, has been discontinued by 
JMI. The kit will be marketed by JMI under the name, Cam Converter 
Technology (CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>) upgrade kit. Therefore, today's notice 
will refer to the equipment as the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> Kit

    The certified CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit described in today's Federal 
Register notice, the Cam Converter Technology (CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>) 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>-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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> include a fuel modulator 
to limit throttle advance during acceleration, as replacement of the 
standard throttle delay of the original coach engine configuration. The 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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

[[Page 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/bhp-hr 
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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 ETX<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit in four power ratings: 253, 277, 294, and 325 hp. 
Certification of the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 (CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>) 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 low-sulfur diesel fuel.

                                        Table 1.--Summary of JMI Testing                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            1988 HDDE standards                 
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1984       1984                  1983             
      Gaseous and particulate test            g/bhp-hr       6V92TA     6V92TA     6V92TA     6V71TA     6V71TA 
                                                              MUI        MUI      MUI with     MUI      MUI with
                                                           baseline<SUP>1  baseline<SUP>1  CCT<SUP>TM \1\   baseline    CCT<SUP>TM  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
NO<INF>X.....................................             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
BSFC<SUP>2...................................  ....<SUP>...........      0.475      0.456      0.470      0.468      0.464
Hp (R/O)<SUP>3...............................  ........<SUP>.......    253/249    277/269    277/274    225/211    265/254
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Smoke Test                  Standards (%)                                                        
(4)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 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All 6V92TA testing was performed on engine identification number 6VF-118287.                                
\2\ Brake 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit does not increase NOx emissions. With 
CCT<INF>X</INF> kits installed, the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit 
with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. Further action

[[Page 60082]]

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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM Kit               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Certification PM  
        Engine models             Engine codes              level       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979-1989 DDC 6V92TA MUI....  All certified to      0.10 g/bhp-hr.      
                               meet federal                             
                               emissions standards.                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All engines for which the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 engine-
out 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
ETX<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM Kit for 6V92TA Engines   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1997 dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT<SUP>TM Upgrade Kit Maximum Cost............................    $11,495.00
Cost Offset (for Kit parts normally replaced during                     
 standard rebuild)........................................  \1\ (3,978.5
                                                                      8)
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<divide> 140.3)............     9,060.54 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weighted 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit, including all specified engine parts, is $11,495.
    The proprietary camshafts and other specified engine components 
provided with the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 ETX<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit, as shown above in the 
summary of Table 3.

                          Table 4.--CCT<SUP>TM Upgrade Kit Parts List for 6V92TA MUI Engines                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  October 1996                  
                                       No. Part            Part of standard           cost        May 1997 cost 
                                                               rebuild?           (CPI=158.3)      (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....................  ...............  ...............

[[Page 60083]]

                                                                                                                
 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit will 
have no additional maintenance or service requirements. Therefore, 
incremental maintenance costs for engines equipped with the 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit including the CEM II, the 
proprietary camshafts, and all of the specified emissions related 
engine parts. Under supply option 2, the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 
emissions-related 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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

[[Page 60084]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> dropped in 1990 to 6.0 g/bhp-hr 
and in 1991 to 5.0 g/bhp-hr. (The NO<INF>X</INF> 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 electronically-controlled fuel injection.
    In comments dated March 14, 1997, DDC stated that the 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 California-certified engines are not adversely affected by 
the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit, CARB cannot allow use of the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> Kit

    Engelhard commented that the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> engine. JMI will provide cylinder compression 
specifications with the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit.
    Both Engelhard and DDC provide numerous comment on the unique 
components and settings in the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 real-world 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>

[[Page 60085]]

kit use larger injectors than the corresponding original DDC ratings.
    JMI acknowledges that the fuel injector height setting (1.420 
inches) of the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit are larger than those typically used in 
corresponding DDC ratings. EPA recognizes that the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>-
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit will not cause additional maintenance 
and/or engine failure.
    JMI has presented information in support of the durability and 
performance of the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit. No evidence has 
been presented that indicates a specific problem with the design, 
operability, or durability of the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 long-term performance of all certified equipment. 
However, any conclusions regarding decreased performance, durability, 
or operability of CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>-equipped engines are speculative at 
present, and the in-use information presented by JMI does not indicate 
concern with the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit,

[[Page 60086]]

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-open-throttle. Back-pressure 
measurements made at any other condition will under-represent 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 in-use 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 wide-open-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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions increase, and NYCTA believes that some buses equipped with 
the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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, NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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

[[Page 60087]]

emissions testing data from a 6V71TA engine model, which also 
demonstrates compliance of the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit and baseline engine, and comments 
that the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>-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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>-
equipped engines, EPA is not aware of any clear evidence indicating a 
performance concern. Actual in-use experience, although limited, 
suggests that the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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

[[Page 60088]]

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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit--the maintenance checks 
required for a standard DDC engine also apply, at the same interval, to 
a CCT<SUP>TM</SUP>-equipped engine. There is no scheduled replacement 
of the CEM II catalyst.
    NYCTA notes the significant difference in the torque 
characteristics of the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 ETX<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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

[[Page 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 JMI-rated 277 hp certification engine indicates a fuel penalty of 3 
percent for the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit, the fuel modulator is 
installed in place of the throttle delay. EPA believes that use of the 
fuel modulator in a CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 ETX<SUP>TM</SUP> kit (62 FR 12166; March 14 1997), both using 
cost information provided by DDC, and others, at those times. For the 
evaluation of the CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit of today's 
notice. As noted previously, JMI restricted the specified emissions-
related 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 
above-described CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 ETX<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 ETX<SUP>TM</SUP> 
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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit in four 
power ratings: 253, 277, 294, and 325 hp. Certification of the 
CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> kit described in today's

[[Page 60090]]

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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 CCT<SUP>TM</SUP> 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