62052 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume

No. 5. The Service Agreement adds

Dupont as an eligible customer under

the Tariff.

PP&L requests an effective date of

October 27, 1997, for the Service

Agreement.

PP&L states that copies of this filing

have been supplied to Dupont and to

the Pennsylvania Public Utility

Commission.

Comment date: November 24, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

21. The Dayton Power and Light

Company

[Docket No. ER98–290–000]

Take notice that on October 27, 1997,

Dayton Power and Light Company

(Dayton), submitted service agreements

establishing Delmarva Power and Light

Company, Entergy Power Marketing

Corp., Ohio Power Valley Electric

Corporation, QST Energy Trading, Inc.,

as customers under the terms of

Dayton’s Open Access Transmission

Tariff.

Dayton requests an effective date of

one day subsequent to this filing for the

service agreements. Accordingly,

Dayton requests waiver of the

Commission’s notice requirements.

Copies of filing were served upon

establishing Delmarva Power and Light

Company, Entergy Power Marketing

Corp., Ohio Power Valley Electric

Corporation, QST Energy Trading, Inc.,

and the Public Utilities Commission of

Ohio.

Comment date: November 24, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

22. PP&L, Inc.

[Docket No. ER98–291–000]

Take Notice that on October 27, 1997,

PP&L, Inc., (formerly known as

Pennsylvania Power & Light Company)

(PP&L), filed a Service Agreement dated

October 1, 1997, with Eastern Power

Distribution Incorporated (EPDI), under

PP&L’s FERC Electric Tariff, Original

Volume No. 5. The Service Agreement

adds EPDI as an eligible customer under

the Tariff.

PP&L requests an effective date of

October 27, 1997, for the Service

Agreement.

PP&L states that copies of this filing

have been supplied to EPDI and to the

Pennsylvania Public Utility

Commission.

Comment date: November 24, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

23. Fall River Rural Electric

Cooperative, Inc.

[Docket No. OA98–1–000]

Take notice that on October 8, 1997,

Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative,

Inc., tendered for filing a petition for

waiver of the requirements of Order No.

888 and Order No. 889.

Comment date: November 24, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

24. Wolverine Power Supply

Cooperative, Inc.

[Docket No. OA98–4–000]

Take notice that on October 30, 1997,

Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative,

Inc. (Wolverine), tendered for filing a

Request for Waiver, in accordance with

Section 35.28(d) of the Commission’s

Regulations, 18 CFR 35.28(d).

In Wolverine’s Request for Waiver,

Wolverine seeks a waiver of the OASIS

and standards of conduct requirements

of Order Nos. 889 and 889-A.

Comment date: November 25, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

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

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–30466 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5924–7]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Public Review of a Notification of

Intent To Certify Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of a

notification of intent to certify

equipment and initiation of 45-day

public review and comment period.

SUMMARY: NOPEC Corporation has

submitted to EPA a notification of intent

to certify urban bus retrofit/rebuild

equipment pursuant to 40 CFR part 85,

subpart O. The notification describes

equipment consisting of biodiesel fuel

additive in combination with a

particular exhaust system catalyst.

Pursuant to section 85.1407(a)(7),

today’s Federal Register document

summarizes the notification, announces

that the notification is available for

public review and comment, and

initiates a 45-day period during which

comments can be submitted. EPA will

review this notification of intent to

certify, as well any comments it

receives, to determine whether the

equipment described in the notification

of intent to certify should be certified.

If certified, the equipment can be used

by urban bus operators to reduce the

particulate matter of urban bus engines

as discussed below.

The candidate equipment is identical

to equipment supplied by Twin Rivers

Technologies, Limited Partnership, and

which was previously certified as

described in the Federal Register on

October 22, 1996 (61 FR 54790).

The NOPEC notification of intent to

certify, as well as other materials

specifically relevant to it, are contained

in category XVIII of Public Docket A–

93–42, entitled ‘‘Certification of Urban

Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment’’. This

docket is located at the address listed

below.

Today’s document initiates a 45-day

period during which EPA will accept

written comments, as discussed further

below, relevant to whether or not the

equipment described in the NOPEC

notification of intent to certify should be

certified. Comments should be provided

in writing to Public Docket A–93–42,

Category XVIII, at the address below,

and an identical copy should be

submitted to William Rutledge, also at

the address below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before January 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit identical copies of

comments to each of the two following

addresses:

1. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Public Docket A–93–42

(Category XVIII), Room M–1500, 401 M

Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

2. William Rutledge, Engine

Compliance Group, Engine Programs

and Compliance Division (6403J), 401

‘‘M’’ Street S.W., Washington, DC

20460.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62053

The NOPEC 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

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 Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

Telephone: (202) 564–9297.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Program Background

On April 21, 1993, EPA published

final Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for

1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban

Buses (58 FR 21359). The retrofit/

rebuild program is intended to reduce

the ambient levels of particulate matter

(PM) in urban areas and is limited to

1993 and earlier model year (MY) urban

buses operating in metropolitan areas

with 1980 populations of 750,000 or

more, whose engines are rebuilt or

replaced after January 1, 1995.

Operators of the affected buses are

required to choose between two

compliance options: Option 1

establishes PM emissions requirements

for each urban bus engine in an

operator’s fleet which is rebuilt or

replaced. Option 2 is a fleet averaging

program that establishes specific annual

target levels for average PM emissions

from urban buses in an operator’s fleet.

A key aspect of the program is the

certification of retrofit/rebuild

equipment. To meet either of the two

compliance options, operators of the

affected buses must use equipment

which has been certified by EPA.

Emissions requirements under either of

the two compliance programs depend

on the availability of retrofit/rebuild

equipment certified for each engine

model. To be used for Option 1,

equipment must be certified as meeting

a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or as

achieving a 25 percent reduction in PM.

Equipment used for Option 2 must be

certified as providing some level of PM

reduction that would in turn be claimed

by urban bus operators when calculating

their average fleet PM levels attained

under the program. For Option 1,

information on life cycle costs must be

submitted in the notification of intent to

certify if certification of the equipment

is intended to initiate (or trigger)

program requirements. To trigger

program requirements, the certifier must

guarantee that the equipment will be

available to all affected operators for a

life cycle cost of $7,940 or less at the

0.10 g/bhp-hr PM level, or for a life

cycle cost of $2,000 or less for the 25

percent or greater reduction in PM. Both

of these values are based on 1992

dollars.

As noted above, operators of affected

buses must use equipment which has

been certified by EPA. An important

element of the certification process is

input from the public based on review

of notifications of intent to certify. It is

expected that engine manufacturers, bus

manufacturers, transit operators, and

industry associations will be able to

provide valuable information related to

the installation and use of particular

equipment by transit operators. Such

information will be useful to the Engine

Programs and Compliance Division in

its role of determining whether any

specific equipment can be certified.

II. Notification of Intent To Certify

By a notification of intent to certify

signed February 6, 1997, NOPEC

Corporation, with principal place of

business at 1248 George Jenkins

Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida 33815,

applied for certification of equipment

applicable to certain urban bus engines

manufactured by Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC).

The NOPEC notification of intent to

certify is unique in that the NOPEC

candidate equipment conforms to the

specifications of equipment previously

certified by EPA for use in the Urban

Bus Retrofit/Rebuild program. The

specifications for the previouslycertified equipment, supplied by Twin

Rivers Technologies, Limited

Partnership, are public information and

described in a Federal Register

document dated October 22, 1996 (61

FR 54790). The October 1996 document

provides complete equipment

specifications, including specifications

of the biodiesel component of the

certified Twin Rivers’ equipment. The

NOPEC notification relies on the same

emissions certification data that is the

basis of the Twin Rivers’ certification.

Both the emissions test data and

biodiesel specification referenced in the

NOPEC notification, are public

information. As just noted, the

specifications for the biodiesel was

published in the October 1996

document. The testing used to

demonstrate the emissions performance

of the Twin Rivers’ equipment was

conducted under the auspices of the

National Biodiesel Board, which has

indicated in a letter to EPA that the data

is in the public domain. Additionally, as

with the Twin Rivers’ equipment, the

NOPEC equipment utilizes the same

Engelhard exhaust catalyst and, with

some configurations, fuel injection

retard.

Today’s document will begin a 45-day

period during which the public can

review and comment on the candidate

equipment and other aspects of the

NOPEC notification. The following is a

brief description of the candidate

equipment.

III. Description of Previously-Certified

Equipment and Identical Candidate

Equipment

The equipment is applicable to

petroleum-fueled Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) two-stroke/cycle

engines originally equipped in urban

buses from model year 1979 to model

year 1993, excluding the 1990 model

year DDC model 6L71TA engines. The

two configurations of the equipment,

described more fully below, are: (1) a

biodiesel fuel additive used in

conjunction with an exhaust system

catalytic converter muffler; and, (2) the

biodiesel additive and catalytic

converter used in conjunction with a

fuel injection timing retard.

The certification announced in the

Federal Register document of October

22, 1996, applies to equipment

configurations of B20, catalyst, and

timing retard that comply with

specifications described below. NOPEC

intends to comply with identical

specifications.

The key component of the equipment

is a particular oxidation catalyst-muffler

unit designed to replace the typical

noise muffler in the exhaust system of

applicable recipient engines. The

particular catalyst is the CMX’’

manufactured by the Engelhard

Corporation and certified for use in the

urban bus retrofit/rebuild program on

May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28402). The

NOPEC equipment must use CMX’’

catalyst muffler units supplied by

Engelhard and meeting the

specifications covered by Engelhard’s

certification of May 31, 1995. EPA

requires that use of catalysts of any

other specification, or supplied by any

other catalyst supplier, be the subject of

a separate notification of intent to

certify. In a letter to EPA dated February

17, 1997, Engelhard states that it will

notify EPA and NOPEC if the

specifications for its catalyst change.

Engelhard’s letter is in the public

docket. The technical specifications for

the CMX are confidential information

available to EPA.

Another component of the equipment

is use of biodiesel provided by NOPEC

as an additive that complies with the

specifications below. In general,

biodiesel is an ester-based fuel

oxygenate derived from biological
62054 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

sources for use in compression-ignition

(that is ‘‘diesel’’) engines. It is the alkyl

ester product of the transesterification

reaction of biological triglycerides, or

biologically-derived oils. While many

biological oil sources can produce esters

through this reaction, the candidate

equipment is limited to the identical

specification of the certification

announced in the Federal Register

document of October 22, 1996. It will

comply with the following specification.

The biodiesel component of the

equipment is to be supplied by NOPEC

and must be blended at a nominal 20

percent volume with federally-required

low sulfur diesel fuel (with a maximum

sulfur content of 0.05 weight percent).

This blend is referred to as ‘‘B20’’. The

B20 blend is no less than 19 percent and

no more than 21 percent by volume

biodiesel, with the specified diesel. The

use of B20 alone (that is, without the

catalyst) is not candidate for

certification because emissions test data

is not available which sufficiently

demonstrate that it will reduce PM. The

biodiesel component is limited to monoalkyl methyl esters meeting the

specifications of Table 1 below.

TABLE 1.—BIODIESEL COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS

Feedstock: Original-use, plant oil sources only

Composition: Methyl esters of the following carbon chain length:

Sum of C16 + C18’s ........................................................................................................................ 90.5 wt % min ........... Determined by GC.

Fraction < C16 ................................................................................................................................. 2.0 wt % max ............ Determined by GC.

Fraction > C18 ................................................................................................................................. 7.5 wt % max ............ Determined by GC.

Blend Ratio: minimum 19 percent and maximum 21 percent by volume biodiesel complying with the above specifications for feedstock and

composition, and the balance federally required low sulfur diesel fuel complying with 40 CFR Section 80.29.

The biodiesel component of the

candidate equipment must comply with

the specifications of Table 1. The

biodiesel component of the NOPEC

notification is limited to a nominal B20

blend, and to biodiesel meeting the

specified carbon chain-lengths and

consisting of esters produced from

methyl alcohol and feedstocks of

original-use plant oil sources. Because

the certification testing was conducted

solely using soy methyl ester, EPA

believes that compliance with the

carbon chain-length specifications and

the specified blend ratio of Table 1 are

appropriate to provide assurance of the

emissions performance. This

specification, including the feedstock

and alcohol limitations, is discussed

further in the following section.

Consistent with the previously certified

Twin Rivers’ equipment, blend ratios

less than 19 percent or greater than 21

percent is not part of the NOPEC

notification.

The candidate equipment includes a

biodiesel component having a relatively

limited specification. Biodiesel not

complying with the specifications of

Table 1, and biodiesel provided or

produced by others, must be certified to

be used in compliance with the urban

bus program. Certification by other

parties or involving other biodiesel

specifications may be appropriate upon

satisfactory compliance with the

requirements of the urban bus program

(40 CFR part 85, subpart O).

EPA understands that industry

consensus-based fuel specifications of

such physical and fuel properties for

biodiesel is being developed by the

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM), in cooperation with

petroleum, engine, and biodiesel

industry interests. NOPEC states that it

will maintain compliance with ASTM

specifications as they evolve.

For certain DDC engines equipped

with MUI as indicated in Table 2, the

candidate equipment includes fuel

injection timing retard from zero to four

(4) degrees from stock timing. The

emission data indicate that PM is

reduced 24.5 percent when timing is

retarded four (4) degrees. While these

data do not show 25 percent reduction,

EPA believes the data support

certification of retard from zero to three

(3) degrees as providing PM reduction of

at least 25 percent on MUI engines. Zero

to three (3) degree range of retard, then,

can be used by operators electing either

compliance program 1 or 2 and

otherwise in compliance with program

requirements. MUI engines retarded

four (4) degrees do not reduce PM

emissions by at least 25 percent and,

therefore, can be used only by operators

electing compliance Option 2. Operators

electing compliance program 2 and

using any retard, must use the PM

certification level specified in Table 3

for the applicable engine when

calculating fleet emissions averages.

Injection retard on MUI engines is

accomplished by adjusting fuel injector

height (for four degrees retard, 0.028

inches is added to the stock injector

timing height).

As discussed in the Federal Register

document of October 22, 1996, analysis

indicates that 1990 through 1993 model

year Detroit Diesel Corporation 6V92TA

DDEC engines (when using B20 with

catalyst) will exceed applicable federal

standards for NOx unless timing retard

is used. Therefore, the only

configuration for these engines requires

retarding the injection timing one (1)

degree. The NOPEC notification states

that one (1) degree retard on these DDEC

engines is accomplished by relocating

the reference timing sensor.

IV. Emissions Test Data and

Certification Levels

Reductions in PM emissions are

demonstrated using engine

dynamometer (transient) testing in

accordance with the Federal Test

Procedure for heavy-duty diesel

engines. The engine dynamometer data,

the same used previously by Twin

Rivers, are shown below in Table 2, and

are the bases for the PM reduction

attributed to the candidate NOPEC

equipment when used on applicable

engines. The emissions test data are part

of NOPEC’s notification of intent to

certify. A letter from the National

Biodiesel Board (NBB) states that the

emissions data are in the public domain.

All testing was conducted using soy

methyl ester (SME) additive blended

with #2 low-sulfur diesel fuel.

Hereinafter, the term B20 is used to

mean biodiesel blended at the ratio of

20 percent by volume with federally

required low-sulfur diesel fuel (with a

maximum sulfur content of 0.05 weight

percent). The letter from NBB and

NOPEC’s notification are available in

the public docket located at the abovementioned address.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62055

TABLE 2.—TEST ENGINE EMISSIONS (TRANSIENT TESTS)

Gaseous and particulate Smoke

Comment

HC CO NOX PM ∆PM ACC LUG PEAK

Engine: g/bhp-hr (percent) Percent opacity

1.3 15.5 10.7 0.60 .................. 20 15 50 1988 HDDE Standards.

Engine Dyno:

1977 6V71N MUI 1 ............. 0.86 3.18 11.72 0.282 .................. 1.2 1.8 1.8 Baseline (2D).

Do ................................ 0.42 1.64 11.72 0.159 ¥43.6 1.4 2.1 2.1 2D + cat.

Do ................................ 0.38 0.86 12.11 0.166 ¥41.1 0.9 1.7 1.7 B20 3 + cat.4

Do ................................ 0.53 1.37 8.1 0.247 ¥12.4 4.6 5.4 5.6 2D, cat + 4° retard.

Do ................................ 0.42 0.94 8.47 0.213 ¥24.5 2.2 2.8 2.9 B20, cat + 4° retard.

g/bhp-hr ∆PM

(percent)

Percent opacity

1988 6V92TA DDEC 2 II .... 0.60 1.60 8.52 0.20 .................. 6.0 5.3 8.7 Baseline (2D).

Do ................................ 0.21 0.95 9.06 0.11 ¥45.0 3.7 1.7 6.9 B20 + cat.

Do ................................ 0.29 1.21 8.18 0.14 ¥30.0 6.5 2.1 11.6 2D, cat + 1° retard.

Do ................................ 0.25 1.05 8.35 0.12 ¥40.0 5.1 2.5 8 B20, cat + 1° retard.

1 MUI = Mechanical Unit Injector.

2 DDEC = Detroit Diesel Electronic Control.

3The B20 used is SME blended 20 percent by volume with low-sulfur diesel fuel.

4The data include an invalid cold cycle. See the FEDERAL REGISTER document on October 22, 1996 (61 FR 54790) for discussion.

Table 3 below lists PM certification

levels for the equipment. These levels

are determined by applying the PM

percentage reductions, predicted by the

test data of Table 2, to the pre-rebuild

PM levels provided in the program

regulations [section 85.1403(c)]. The test

data indicate that PM is reduced by 41.1

percent on the MUI engines (24.5

percent with 4 degrees retard) and 45.0

percent on DDEC engines (40.0 percent

with 1 degree retard). No configuration

of the candidate equipment is certified

for the 6L71TA MUI of model year 1990,

because the MUI test engine was

determined not to be a ‘‘worst-case’’ test

engine as required by the program

regulations at section 85.1406(a)(2).

TABLE 3.—EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATIONS AND PM EMISSIONS LEVELS

Engine model Model year

Equipment configuration

B20, Cat + stock timing B20, Cat + retard 1

6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................................. 79–87 0.29 .................................... 0.38 2

6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................................. 88–89 0.18 .................................... 0.23 2

6V92TA DDEC I ....................................................................................................... 86–87 0.16 .................................... 0.18

6V92TA DDEC II ...................................................................................................... 88–89 0.17 .................................... 0.19

6V92TA DDEC II ...................................................................................................... 90–91 Not certified ........................ 0.19

6V92TA DDEC II ...................................................................................................... 92–93 Not certified ........................ 0.15

6V71N MUI ............................................................................................................... 73–87 0.29 .................................... 0.38 2

6V71N MUI ............................................................................................................... 88–89 0.29 .................................... 0.38 2

6V71T MUI ............................................................................................................... 85–86 0.29 .................................... 0.38 2

8V71N MUI ............................................................................................................... 73–84 0.29 .................................... 0.38 2

6L71TA MUI ............................................................................................................. 90 Not certified ........................ Not certified

6L71TA MUI ............................................................................................................. 88–89 0.18 .................................... 0.23 2

6L71TA DDEC .......................................................................................................... 90–91 0.16 .................................... 0.18

1 Up to and including four (4) degrees fuel injection retard for MUI engines, and one (1) degree retard for DDEC engines.

2 Not certified for compliance program 1.

As discussed in the Federal Register

document of October 22, 1996, the data

support a net programmatic benefit from

certifying B20 with the oxidation

catalyst, basically because it shows PM

reductions compared with the baseline

of conventional (low sulfur) diesel fuel

without an exhaust catalyst. EPA

believes that most of the reduction in

PM emissions from the kit is probably

attributable to the exhaust catalyst,

although some additional PM emissions

reduction is expected to be realized

from addition of biodiesel.

The Federal Register document of

October 22, 1996, discussed limited data

provided by Twin Rivers which indicate

that engine-out emissions of

unregulated aldehydes may increase

when fuel injection timing is retarded.

As stated in that document, it is

uncertain whether there would be an

increase in ambient levels of aldehydes

or, if there is an increase, whether it

would become irritating to exposed

populations. Operators concerned with

the possibility for increased irritation to

exposed populations may want to

minimize the potential for increased

ambient levels through management

practices. Additional discussion is

provided in the Federal Register

document of October 22, 1996.

As stated in the October 1996 Federal

Register, EPA is, in general, concerned

when unregulated emissions increase.

While EPA has not conducted a formal

health risk analysis associated with the
62056 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

above-mentioned increase in

unregulated aldehyde emissions, it is

uncertain whether there is any potential

for an increased health risk. In the

judgement of the Director of the Engine

Programs and Compliance Division, the

increase in emissions does not appear to

be significant. Additionally, EPA

believes that certifying the Twin Rivers’

configurations with retarded timing is

beneficial, for several reasons. The

configuration of B20, catalyst, and

timing retard meet the program

requirement to reduce PM emissions,

when compared to the baseline of neat

diesel fuel without catalyst, plus

provide a benefit of reduced emissions

of NOX. The Twin Rivers’ certification

made those configurations available as

options to interested operators.

In summary, while there are

uncertainties, in EPA’s judgement, the

program benefits and above factors

offset these uncertainties. Therefore,

EPA certified the Twin Rivers

configurations with retarded injection

timing and proposes to certify the

NOPEC equipment likewise.

While unregulated aldehyde

emissions data from buses using the

certified Twin Rivers’ equipment and

the candidate equipment described in

today’s Federal Register document are

limited, the data indicate that the

directional changes in emissions

relative to conventional diesel are

dependent upon the fuel injection

timing employed with a catalyst. If stock

timing is used, aldehyde emissions can

be expected to decrease relative to a

baseline of conventional diesel without

a catalyst. However, if retarded timing is

used, then aldehyde emissions can be

expected to increase relative to the

baseline. Transit operators should be

aware that with configurations using

retarded timing, there is a possibility for

ambient levels of aldehydes to increase.

An increase in ambient levels is most

likely to occur in micro environments

having topographic or construction

features (e.g., without adequate

ventilation) that limit ambient

dispersion of pollutants, such as

enclosed bus malls or maintenance

bays. If there is an increase in ambient

levels, then there may be increased

respiratory irritation by exposed

populations. In summary, it is uncertain

whether there would be an increase in

ambient levels or, if there is an increase,

whether it would become irritating to

exposed populations. Operators

concerned with the possibility may

want to minimize the potential for

increased ambient levels through its

management practices, such as bus

routing, bus scheduling, and/or mix of

emission reduction technologies.

In the October 1996 Federal Register

document, EPA stated that it is

interested in gathering additional

information on unregulated aldehyde

emissions, and requested the public and

industry provide information with

regard to the content of the exhaust of

compression-ignition engines fueled

with any blend of biodiesel.

Additionally, we requested operators

using the retarded configuration to

provide EPA information on related

public complaints or comments, and

actions taken to avert or correct

perceived problems. No new

information has been received since that

document.

All configurations, that is, the

biodiesel additive and catalyst, are

covered by emissions performance and

defect warranties offered by NOPEC

described by the urban bus regulations

at section 85.1409.

Section 211 of the Clean Air Act

establishes fuel and fuel additive

prohibitions, and gives EPA authority to

waive certain of those prohibitions.

EPA, however, does not believe that

NOPEC must obtain a fuel additive

waiver under section 211(f)(4) of the

Clean Air Act before certifying its

additive system for the following

reasons.

The Act prohibits the introduction

into commerce of any fuel or fuel

additive that is not substantially similar

to a fuel or fuel additive used in the

certification of any model year 1975 or

later vehicle or engine under section

206. The Administrator may waive this

prohibition, if she determines that

certain criteria are met. EPA believes

that certification of an urban bus retrofit

system constitutes the certification of an

engine under section 206 for the

purposes of the urban bus retrofit/

rebuild program, and, since the additive

is used in the certification of the system,

a waiver is not required to market the

additive in the limited context of use

with the certified retrofit system. This

determination does not affect whether

the additive is ‘‘substantially similar to

any fuel or fuel additive’’ outside the

context of the urban bus retrofit/rebuild

program. EPA’s position on this matter

is discussed in additional detail as it

relates to use of another fuel additive

(Lubrizol Corporation) at 60 FR 36139

on July 13, 1995.

If EPA certifies the candidate NOPEC

equipment, then operators may use it

immediately, as discussed below.

NOPEC’s notification indicates that the

candidate equipment is to be certified

for compliance option 2; however, as

discussed below, EPA believes that

configurations utilizing the catalytic

muffler and reducing PM by at least 25

percent may also be used in compliance

with some option 1 requirements (that

is, for those particular engines requiring

equipment certified to reduce PM by at

least 25 percent). It cannot be used for

engines for which the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard is triggered.

In a Federal Register document dated

May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28402), EPA

certified the CMXTM exhaust catalyst

manufactured by the Engelhard

Corporation, as a trigger of program

requirements. Until the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

PM standard is triggered, that

certification means that rebuilds and

replacements of applicable urban bus

engines performed 6 months or more

after that date of certification (that is,

rebuilds or replacements after December

1, 1995), must be performed using

equipment certified to reduce PM

emissions by 25 percent or more. Under

Option 1, operators could use the

NOPEC equipment if certified to reduce

PM by at least 25 percent, or other

equipment certified to provide at least a

25 percent reduction, unless equipment

is certified which triggers the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr PM standard. The 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard has been triggered for 6V92TA

MUI engines, such that rebuilds or

replacements after September 14, 1997

must be performed using equipment

certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

The configuration of B20 blend,

Engelhard catalyst, and injection retard

has been demonstrated to comply with

the standard to reduce PM by at least 25

percent, but only when used with the

following engines: 6V92TA DDEC I and

DDEC II, and 6L71TA DDEC.

Operators who choose to comply with

Option 2 and install the NOPEC

equipment, would use the PM emission

level(s) established during the

certification process, in their

calculations for target or fleet level as

specified in the program regulations.

In accordance with the program

requirements of section 85.1404(a),

operators using the candidate NOPEC

equipment would have to maintain

purchase records of the B20 blend if the

operator purchases the premixed blend

from a fuel supplier, or, of biodiesel and

low-sulfur diesel fuel if the operator

mixes the B20. Such records would be

subject to review in the event of an

audit of an urban bus operator by EPA.

To be in compliance with program

requirements, operators must be able to

demonstrate that B20 is being used in

the proper proportions required by the

candidate equipment.

At a minimum, EPA expects to

evaluate the NOPEC notification of

intent to certify, and other materials

submitted as applicable, to determine

whether there is adequate
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62057

demonstration of compliance with: (1)

the certification requirements of section

85.1406, including whether the testing

accurately substantiates the claimed

emission reduction or emission levels;

and, (2) the requirements of section

85.1407 for a notification of intent to

certify.

EPA 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 candidate

equipment on applicable engines; and,

(b) whether the equipment is compatible

with affected vehicles.

The date of this document initiates a

45-day period during which EPA will

accept written comments relevant to

whether or not the equipment described

in the NOPEC notification of intent to

certify should be certified pursuant to

the urban bus retrofit/rebuild

regulations. Interested parties are

encouraged to review the notification of

intent to certify and provide comment

during the 45-day period. Please send

separate copies of your comments to

each of the above two addresses.

Additionally, EPA is aware that the

biodiesel industry is working to address

other regulatory issues related to the

EPA’s fuel and fuel additive

requirements under 40 CFR part 79.

Today’s Federal Register document

applies to the limited context of the

urban bus program, and is not intended

to set precedent as a generic definition

of ‘‘biodiesel.’’

EPA will review this notification of

intent to certify, along with comments

received from interested parties, and

attempt to resolve or clarify issues as

necessary. During the review process,

EPA 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: November 13, 1997.

Robert D. Brenner,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–30519 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

November 14, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before January 20, 1998.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M St.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collection(s), contact Judy

Boley at 202–418–0214 or via internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.: 3060–0490.

Title: Section 74.902, Frequency

assignments.

Form No.: FCC 330/FCC 327.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit.

Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Time Per Response: 0.5

hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirement.

Cost to Respondents: N/A.

Total Annual Burden: 2.5 hours.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.902

dictates that when a point-to-point ITFS

station on the E and F MDS channels is

involuntarily displaced by an MDS

applicant, that the MDS applicant files

the appropriate application for suitable

alternative spectrum. The applications

that would be used would be the FCC

327 (3060–0055) and the FCC 330

(3060–0062). The burdens for these

involuntarily displaced ITFS are

included in the estimates for the FCC

327 and 330. Additionally, Section

74.902(i) requires that a copy of this

application be served on the ITFS

licensee to be moved. The data will be

used by the ITFS licensee to oppose the

involuntary migration if the proposal

would not provide comparable ITFS

service and to ensure that the public

interest is served.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0491.

Title: Section 74.991, Wireless Cable

Application Procedures.

Form No.: FCC 330/FCC 304.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit.

Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Time Per Response: 4.5

hours (0.5 hours respondent/4 hours

attorney).

Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirement.

Cost to Respondents: $116,240.

Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.991

requires that a wireless cable

application be filed on FCC 330 (3060–

0062), Sections I and V, with a complete

FCC 304 appended. The application

must include a cover letter clearly

indicating that the application is for a

wireless cable entity to operate on ITFS

channels. The applicant must also,

within 30 days of filing its application

give local public notice in a newspaper.

The specific data that must be included

in the newspaper publication is

contained in Section 74.991(c). The

notice must be published twice a week

for two consecutive weeks. The data is

used by FCC staff to insure that

proposals to operate a wireless cable

system on ITFS channels do not impair

or restrict any reasonably foreseeable

ITFS use. The data is also used to insure

that applicants are qualified to become

a Commission licensee and that

proposals do not cause interference.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0206.

Title: Part 21, Multipoint Distribution

Service.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit.

Number of Respondents: 8,299.