746 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5672–8]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Approval of a Notification of Intent to

Certify Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Agency Certification

of Equipment for the Urban Bus

Retrofit/Rebuild Program.

SUMMARY: The Agency received a

notification of intent to certify

equipment signed December 13, 1995,

from Engine Control Systems Ltd. (ECS)

with principal place of business at 165

Pony Dr., Newmarket, Ontario, Canada

L3Y7V1 for certification of urban bus

retrofit/rebuild equipment pursuant to

40 CFR 85.1401–85.1415. The

equipment is applicable to petroleumfueled Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC)

two-cycle engines originally installed in

an urban bus from model year 1979 to

model year 1993, exclusive of the DDC

6L71TA 1990 model year engines, all

alcohol fueled engines, and models

which were manufactured with

particulate trap devices (see Table A).

On August 8, 1996 EPA published a

notice in the Federal Register that the

notification had been received and

made the notification available for

public review and comment for a period

of 45 days (60 F1 41408). EPA has

completed its review of this notification,

and the comments received, and the

Director of the Engine Programs and

Compliance Division has determined

that it meets all the requirements for

certification. Accordingly, EPA

approves the certification of this

equipment.

The certified equipment provides 25

percent or greater reduction in exhaust

emissions of particulate matter (PM) for

the engines for which it is certified.

The ECS notification, as well as other

materials specifically relevant to it, are

contained in Public Docket A–93–42,

category XIV–A, entitled ‘‘Certification

of Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild

Equipment’’. This docket is located in

room M–1500, Waterside Mall (Ground

Floor), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington,

DC 20460.

Docket items may be inspected from

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

through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR

Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged

by the Agency for copying docket

materials.

DATES: The effective date of certification

is established in a letter to ECS dated

December 9, 1996 for the equipment

described in the ECS notification. This

certified equipment may be used

immediately by urban bus operators.

Operators who have chosen to comply

with program 1 or program 2 can utilize

this equipment or other equipment that

is certified for any engine that is listed

in Table A that undergoes rebuild.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Erb, Engine Compliance

Programs Group, Engine Program &

Compliance Division (6403J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Telephone: (202) 233–9259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

By a notification of intent to certify

signed December 13, 1995, ECS applied

for certification of equipment applicable

to petroleum-fueled Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) two-cycle engines

originally installed in an urban bus from

model year 1979 to model year 1993,

exclusive of the DDC 6L71TA 1990

model year engines and models which

were manufactured with particulate trap

devices or alcohol fueled (see Table A).

The notification of intent to certify

states that the equipment being certified

is an oxidation converter muffler

(OCM). The OCM contains an oxidation

catalyst developed specifically for diesel

applications, packaged as a direct

replacement for the muffler. The

application demonstrates that the

candidate equipment provides a 25

percent or greater reduction in

emissions of particulate matter (PM) for

petroleum fueled diesel engines relative

to an original engine configuration with

no after treatment installed.

Certification is applicable to engines

that are rebuilt to original specifications,

or in-use engines that are not rebuilt at

the time the OCM is installed provided

the engine meets engine oil

consumption limits specified by ECS.

ECS is also certifying a 25 percent

reduction in PM for engines that are

retrofit/rebuilt with certified rebuild kits

that do not include after treatment

devices if the OCM is installed at the

same time the retrofit/rebuild occurs.

Currently, this applies to the DDC

retrofit/rebuild kit which was certified

on October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51472) for the

6V92TA MUI model and to the kit

certified on July 19, 1996 (61 FR 37738)

for the 6V92TA DDEC II model.

Certification of the OCM does not

trigger any new program requirements

for applicable engines, because the

requirement to use equipment certified

to achieve at least a 25% reduction has

already been triggered for these engines.

Using engine dynamometer testing in

accordance with the Federal Test

Procedure for heavy-duty diesel engines

on a 1991 DDC 6V92TA DDEC II engine,

ECS documented a 26% reduction in

PM emission after retrofit. The test

results for this engine with the certified

retrofit equipment installed meet

applicable Federal emission standards

for hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide

(CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and

smoke emissions. In chassis testing

performed over the Central Business

District (CBD) sequence on a 1987 DDC

6V71N engine, ECS demonstrated a 42%

PM emission reduction after retrofit.

Using chassis testing performed over the

New York Composite (NYC) sequence

on this same engine, ECS demonstrated

a 37% reduction in PM emission.

Table A provides the PM emission

certification levels for the ECS

equipment for the specified models and

model years.

TABLE A.—CERTIFICATION LEVELS

Engine models Model year PM Level 1

with OCM

PM

Level 2with

OCM and

DDC Certified Rebuild kit

Code/Family

6V92TA MUI ................................................................................................... 1979–87 .. 0.38 0.22 All.

1988–1989 0.23 0.17 All.

6V92TA DDEC I ............................................................................................. 1986–87 .. 0.23 N/A All.

6V92TA DDEC II ............................................................................................ 1988–90 .. 0.23 0.17 All.

1991 ........ 0.23 N/A

1992–93 .. 0.19 N/A All.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Notices 747

TABLE A.—CERTIFICATION LEVELS—Continued

Engine models Model year PM Level 1

with OCM

PM

Level 2with

OCM and

DDC Certified Rebuild kit

Code/Family

6V71N ............................................................................................................. 1973–89 .. 0.38 N/A All.

6V71T ............................................................................................................. 1985–86 .. 0.38 N/A All.

6L71TA ........................................................................................................... 1988–89 .. 0.23 N/A All.

6L71TA DDEC ................................................................................................ 1990–91 .. 0.23 N/A All.

1The original PM certification levels for the 1991 6V92TA DDEC II, and 6L71TA DDEC engine models are based on Family Emission Limits

(FELs)under EPA’s averaging, banking and trading program (AB&T). These limits are higher than the 1991 PM standard of 0.25 g/bhp-hr. The

PM level listed in this table for the engines that are equipped with the OCM provide at least a 25% reduction from the FEL. The 1992 to 1993

6V92TA DDEC II engine models were also certified using FELs under the AB&T program and likewise the PM levels for the engines equipped

with the OCM represent at least a 25% reduction from the FEL. 2For 6V92TA MUI and 6V92TA DDEC II models that are rebuilt using a certified DDC emissions retrofit kit, ECS is certifying the PM engine

emissions to reduced levels as provided in Table A. provided the OCM is installed at the same time the rebuild with the certified DDC upgrade

kit takes place. The DDC upgrade kit certification notifications were published in the Federal Register on October 2, 1995 (60 FR51472) and

July 19,1996 (61 FR37738) respectively.

Under Program 1, all rebuilds or

replacements of applicable engines must

use equipment certified to reduce PM

levels by at least 25 percent. This

requirement will continue for the

applicable engines until such time as it

is superseded by equipment that is

certified to trigger the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

emission standard for less than a life

cycle cost of $7,940 (in 1992 dollars).

ECS has established PM certification

levels as specified in Table A for this

equipment. Operators who choose to

comply with Program 2 and install this

equipment, will use the specified PM

emission levels in their calculation of

fleet level attained.

II. Summary and Analysis of Comments

EPA received comments from two

parties on this notification. The Detroit

Diesel Corporation (DDC) had a number

of comments in the following areas: test

engine selection, extrapolation of test

results, reductions in non-volatile

particulate matter, certification of

equipment for use on different stages of

engine rebuild, certified emission levels,

incomplete parts listing and

representivity of test data. The

Engelhard Corporation commented on

the following areas: worst case

demonstration, incomplete parts listing,

representivity of test data to cover all

engines and types, and the ability of the

OCM to reduce PM emissions.

DDC stated that the test configuration

of the 1991 DDC 6V92TA DDEC II

engine was not clearly documented and

that the original configuration of the test

engine was a 1992 code 4T engine

intended for use with a particulate trap.

DDC questioned the relevance of testing

performed on an engine with a unique

calibration originally intended for use

on trap equipped engines. DDC noted

that test data it developed during new

engine certification testing for the 1991

4C rating (a non-trap configuration) had

a total PM level of 0.218 g/bhp-hr with

a soluble fraction (SOF) of 21.5%. DDC

questioned how this engine could be

considered ‘‘worst case’’. Given that

oxidation catalysts primarily reduce the

SOF portion of PM, DDC questioned

whether the OCM could reduce PM

emissions on the 1991 code 4C rating by

25% when the entire SOF fraction is

only 21.5%.

Based on the information presented

by ECS, it is unclear whether the engine

rating at the time of testing was in the

4T or the 4C configuration. It was not

clear from ECS that the engine had been

converted from it’s original 4T rating.

Also, background historical information

for this engine could not be provided.

Since there is nothing in the record

which indicates that the engine was

converted to the 4C configuration, the

Agency assumes that it was tested in the

original 4T configuration. Therefore, it

is apparent that DDC’s comments

relative to SOF content of the 4C

configuration relative to the test

performed on the 4T configuration

would not be relevant in the

certification being discussed. However,

it is noted that because an oxidation

catalyst mainly reduces only the SOF

portion of PM, it would not be possible

to obtain a 25% reduction in PM for any

engine for which the SOF portion of PM

is less than 25%. EPA requests

information from industry and the

general public with regard to the

percentage of SOF that particular in-use

engines produce. This information

would be considered for the

certification being discussed in this

notice and in regard to the previous

certifications of oxidation catalysts

under the urban bus retrofit/rebuild

program.

In regard to DDC’s and Engelhard’s

contention that the 1991 6V92TA DDEC

II engine would not represent the worst

case according to the regulations, EPA

agrees. However, the 1987 6V71N does

qualify as a ‘‘worst case’’ engine for

testing purposes under the urban bus

retrofit regulations, and test results from

this engine provide the basis for the

certification discussed herein.

DDC questioned the relevancy of the

chassis dynamometer test results

obtained on the 6V71N engine using the

Central Business District (CBD) and

New York Composite (NYC) cycles and

noted that EPA should not rely on the

chassis test results in assessing whether

the OCM technology meets

requirements to reduce PM emission by

25%. In response, the regulations allow

a certifier to use chassis based test

procedures representative of typical

urban bus operation to show

compliance with the 25% or greater PM

reduction requirement. The CBD

simulates stop and go performance of

urban buses in the city and the NYC was

incorporated to represent some higher

average speeds not seen in the CBD

which an urban bus may on occasion

encounter. After review, EPA found the

proposed chassis testing plan to be

acceptable and approved the use of

chassis testing to demonstrate the 25%

reduction in PM.

EPA agrees with the comment from

Engelhard and DDC that it is tenuous to

base certification of OCMs, intended for

engines using non-particulate trap

ratings, on testing where the 4T-trap

based rating was utilized. However, ECS

provided acceptable chassis test results

performed on a non-trap engine that

demonstrate reduction of PM by at least

25%.

Engelhard also stated that the

reduction of 26% demonstrated on the
748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Notices

6V92TA DDEC II engine does not

demonstrate a sufficient margin beyond

the 25% level to account for in-use

deterioration of the catalyst over the

150,000 mile performance warranty

period. EPA finds that the results of this

test are not conclusive because the

engine configuration tested apparently

does not represent an urban bus engine

that could be used to demonstrate PM

reduction under the retrofit/rebuild

program since it was apparently in a

calibration for a particulate trap

equipped engine. However, chassis

testing data presented by ECS shows a

decrease in PM of at least 37%

providing ample margin beyond the

required 25% reduction.

In the notification, ECS sought to use

the OCM kit on engines which were not

in need of rebuild at the time of OCM

installation based on a review of

specified engine conditions. DDC

commented that certification should be

approved only with respect to engines

that have been rebuilt to original

specifications as the retrofit/rebuild

requirements do not apply until the

operator rebuilds an engine. DDC agreed

that under Program 2 operators could

conceivably install certified add-on

equipment without rebuilding the base

engine and use the certified emission

level in their fleet averaging, but

expressed concerns that the engine may

have worn cylinders or fuel injection

components in need of rebuild and, as

a result, the engine out PM emissions

may be high. DDC stated that engine

wear conditions would create difficulty

in achieving the certification level when

applying the OCM to an engine which

has not been rebuilt.

DDC’s claim that program

requirements do not apply until an

operator rebuilds an engine concerns

compliance programs. Operators

choosing to comply with Program 1 are

not required to take any action until an

affected engine is rebuilt or replaced.

However, operators choosing to comply

with Program 2 must ensure their fleet

is equal to or less than their target fleet

level at all times. Thus, program

requirements apply continuously to

Program 2 operators. In addition, if an

operator desires to be able to change

between programs, the regulations

require that both programs be complied

with prior to the switch.

While it is true that Program 1

requirements become effective when the

engine is rebuilt, EPA encourages the

installation of certified equipment prior

to the time it is required under the

regulations in accordance with the

manufacturer’s instructions.

In regard to DDCs’ concern that

engine wear needs to be evaluated prior

to installing this equipment, ECS has

modified its application to remove the

language referring to ‘‘specified engine

calibrations’’ which DDC stated was

vague and unenforceable and will

instead require that operators determine

the oil consumption rate for an engine

to determine engine wear and condition

prior to installing the OCM. If the rate

of oil consumption exceeds 1.5 quarts of

consumption per 10 hours of operation,

ECS will require that the engine be

rebuilt prior to OCM installation.

Furthermore, ECS is responsible for

meeting the performance warranty for a

period of 150,000 miles for each engine

under this certification. EPA believes

that operators will rebuild engines when

necessary in order to keep their fleet in

reasonable operating condition. The

decision to rebuild will not be affected

by the option to install a catalyst.

Rather, operators will only choose to

install the catalyst in order to reduce

emissions, and not in place of a needed

rebuild. It is noted that the chassis

testing data presented demonstrates a

37% to 42% reduction in the case where

the engine was rebuilt. Based on these

levels of reduction, it is apparent there

should be ample margin between the inuse emissions of an engine that the

operator finds is not in need of a rebuild

to reasonably project that the levels

stated in Table A can be met.

DDC questioned reported reductions

in the non-volatile PM fraction with the

OCM, noting that it is commonly

accepted that oxidation catalysts are

effective in oxidizing volatile

particulate, but have little effect on the

non-volatile component. In response,

ECS explains that effective diesel

oxidation catalysts will have some

activity towards reduction of the nonvolatile or insoluble portion of diesel

particulate. This activity allows the

catalyst to clean itself from carbon

build-up and prevents catalyst fouling,

particulate build-up and eventual

plugging of the substrate. ECS also

stated that it is important to recognize

that, in the measurements taken, the

volatile organic fraction and nonvolatile organic fractions were made

using the direct filter injection gas

chromatography analysis DFI/GC

technique developed by Southwest

Research Institute. Using this procedure

some small amount of high molecular

weight solubles that did not volatize

may exist in the unvolatized particulate

sample which would account for the

reduction seen. ECS stated that since

diesel engine oxidation catalysts all

operate on the same basic principle, the

points being made relative to volatile vs.

non-volatile components of urban bus

PM emissions apply to the industry as

a whole and should not be confined to

the ECS certification review process.

EPA concurs that this issue should be

addressed on an industry-wide basis.

Further, EPA does not have sufficient

information to resolve this issue based

on the comments submitted. Therefore,

EPA requests that industry and the

public provide any additional

information on this matter so that

resolution may be reached in the future.

DDC and Engelhard commented that

the rebuild on the 6V71N engine

appeared to be incomplete. DDC noted

that the rebuild performed did not

include fuel injectors, piston rings, or

cylinder liners all of which would be

replaced during a normal rebuild and

which, if not replaced, would cause

inflated PM levels. DDC stated that if

the Agency is to rely on the chassis test

data for certification of the OCM, it

should first make certain that it was

properly rebuilt to the original engine

configuration prior to the testing. In

response, ECS has provided additional

documentation that the piston rings,

cylinder liners and injectors were

replaced at the time of rebuild and that

the engine was rebuilt to standard

specifications. The failure to include

this in the original notification materials

was an oversight.

With regard to certified emission

levels, DDC commented that the

proposed certification levels do not

represent a full 25% reduction. For

example, for the 1991 6V92TA DDEC

engine codes 3C and 4C, the original

certification testing yielded PM

emission levels of 0.25 and 0.22 g/bhphr, respectively, and the proposed

certification level of 0.23 g/bhp-hr given

in Table A represents only a 8%

reduction on average from the original

certification test levels.

In response, the pre-rebuild levels

listed in section 85.1403 (c)(1)(iii)(A)

were determined by EPA based on

certification results or engineering data

and judgement. In Table A, of today’s

notice, ECS has listed the PM levels to

which it is certifying for listed models

and years. In a number of instances the

certification levels shown represent a

25% reduction from the pre-rebuild

levels that were listed in section

85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A) or the regulations.

In other instances, the number reflects

a 25% reduction from the level that was

certified by DDC during new engine

certification.

In the case of the 1991 6V92TA DDEC

II 4C engine configuration, the new

engine certification testing by DDC

yielded a PM emission level of 0.22 g/

bhp-hr. However, DDC certified the

engine to a family emission level (FEL)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Notices 749

of 0.30 g/bhp-hr. The certification level

of 0.23 g/bhp-hr PM provides for more

than a 25% reduction from the original

DDC certification level or FEL for this

engine and from the pre-rebuild level of

section 85.1403(c). In previous urban

bus retrofit/rebuild certifications, EPA

has based certification on the FEL

which the original manufacturer

certified to meet in-use. In fact, the ECS

certification levels for the models listed

are identical to those for which

oxidation catalyst kits have been

certified to date. In declaring a FEL, the

engine manufacturer states the emission

level it will achieve in-use. That is to

say, even though the certification test

level is determined, the engine

manufacturer declares a different

emission level that it can meet in-use.

Because the urban bus retrofit/rebuild

program applies to in-use buses, and

since the rebuild certifier is certifying

that a rebuilt engine with the retrofit

equipment will meet the rebuild

certification level during the warranty

period, it makes sense to apply the inuse certification level or FEL as a basis

for the reduction. To require certifiers of

urban bus retrofit/rebuild equipment to

reduce emissions from an initial level

that the original manufacturer did not

use during the original certification

would not be reasonable. As stated, EPA

used the FEL as a basis for the 25%

reduction in previous decisions. EPA

does not believe it would be reasonable

to change the basis for the 25%

reduction as DDC has requested.

DDC noted that in order to ensure

optimum engine performance,

emissions durability and fuel economy,

DDC specifies maximum exhaust back

pressure limits for all DDC engines. DDC

noted that there was a small

backpressure increase during testing

and questioned whether the catalyst

used in testing had been aged prior to

the test. DDC also noted that the

instructions to be given to operators did

not include backpressure specifications

or procedures for checking backpressure

after the catalyst is installed. ECS has

stated that careful attention will be paid

to optimizing the exhaust backpressure

to a level comparable to the original

muffler. The catalyst used during testing

was aged or degreened to provide

representative in-use performance. ECS

stated that it does not anticipate that

checking the backpressure should be

required under normal circumstances.

However, the converter mufflers

certified in this notice and produced by

ECS include a port to allow in-use

backpressure checks and ECS has

developed a procedure for checking and

cleaning the converter muffler that will

be distributed to operators who

purchase the kit.

DDC commented that EPA should

seek assurances that the certified

hardware will be available for all engine

bus combinations. ECS has indicated it

has completed design work on the

majority of converter mufflers required

for this market. If any specific design

should be encountered for which a

converter muffler cannot be provided

which will meet the performance

criterion, it will be reported to EPA.

This coupled with the fact that other

companies have already certified

equipment for the engines covered

under this application should provide

adequate coverage of the marketplace.

Engelhard commented that because

thermal insulation was required on the

pre-catalyst exhaust on testing

performed on the 6V92TA DDEC II

engine, insulation should be required on

all pre-catalyst components for ECS

converter mufflers to be covered by

certification. In response, ECS explained

that no insulation was used during the

chassis tests performed on the 6V71

engine for which PM reductions were

demonstrated. Insulation of the exhaust

system is not necessary for OCM

installation on 6V71, 6V92 and 6L71

mechanical engine families as the

exhaust temperatures are sufficient for

proper unit function. For the engine

dynamometer testing performed on the

6V92TA DDEC II engine, the entire

exhaust system was insulated. ECS

subsequently performed additional

testing which indicates that the

temperature loss between the

turbocharger and converter muffler is

insignificant and that insulation on the

piping between the turbocharger outlet

and the converter muffler is not needed.

However, ECS has determined that the

actual converter muffler must be

insulated in order to maintain minimum

catalyst temperature for the DDEC II

engine. Accordingly, ECS has designed

all converter mufflers for use on these

engines to include either insulation

located within the muffler shell or via

an external wrap/blanket over the

muffler casing.

Engelhard raised a concern based on

the different exhaust temperature

profiles and engine out emissions that

exist relative to engines that are

naturally aspirated, turbo charged or

turbo-charged after-cooled engines.

Engelhard questioned whether an

engine that achieves a 25% reduction on

a naturally aspirated engine could

achieve the same on a turbo-charged

engine. Engelhard stated that without a

demonstration that 25% reduction in

total PM could be obtained on all

versions of the 6V71, engine

certification should not be granted for

all engines. Unfortunately, while

Engelhard raised some interesting

questions in this area, it did not provide

any data or information on catalyst

efficiency as it relates to different

temperatures that could be used to

substantiate its claim. At this point, EPA

does not have information which would

lead it to conclude that the ECS catalyst

would not be able to provide the 25%

reduction on the models it has

identified. However, it is noted that in

testing the 1991 6V92TA DDEC II

engine, ECS provides information that

the OCM reduces emissions by 26% on

an engine where the temperature

reached a maximum of 320 degrees

Centigrade. These results address the

concern relative to the ability of the

OCM to reduce PM emissions on

engines that operate at the lower end of

the temperature spectrum. In regard to

the issue of differing emission rates,

EPA needs information to conclusively

deal with this on an industry-wide basis

and EPA welcomes such information

from the public and industry.

DDC commented that certification of

the ECS equipment should not cause

DDC to have additional liability. DDC

cited language in the preamble to the

final rule published in the Federal

Register on April 21, 1993, page 21381.

DDC’s concern was centered around the

following statement, ‘‘* * * However, if

an engine manufacturer supplies

retrofit/rebuild equipment, it is

responsible for the emissions

performance of the equipment.’’ DDC

suggested that it was EPA’s intent to

make engine manufacturers accept

additional liability for rebuild hardware

which they sell and which is

subsequently used in a rebuild which

has been approved under the program.

The statement simply means that if the

engine manufacturer supplies retrofit

equipment as part of a certified rebuild

kit (such as the DDC certified upgrade

kit) then the manufacturer is responsible

for the warranties associated with the

retrofit/rebuild regulations. If, on the

other hand, the manufacturer sells

equipment for rebuild through its

normal sales process, and such sale is

not part of a certified kit with which the

manufacturer is affiliated, the

manufacturer is not liable for equipment

performance beyond its normal liability.

That is to say, for equipment not sold

by the manufacturer to be included in

a certified kit under the retrofit/rebuild

program, the manufacturer is not

responsible for the defect warranty or

the performance warranty that is

associated with the retrofit/rebuild

program. The retrofit/rebuild equipment
750 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Notices

certifier, however, is responsible for

these warranties.

III. Certification Approval

The Agency has reviewed this

notification, along with comments

received from interested parties, and

finds that the equipment described in

this notification of intent to certify:

(1) Reduces particulate matter exhaust

emissions by at least 25 percent,

without causing the applicable engine

families to exceed other exhaust

emissions standards;

(2) Will not cause an unreasonable

risk to the public health, welfare, or

safety;

(3) Will not result in any additional

range of parameter adjustability; and,

(4) Meets other requirements

necessary for certification under the

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (40

CFR Sections 85.1401 through 85.1415).

The Agency hereby certifies this

equipment for use in the urban bus

retrofit/rebuild program as discussed

below in section IV.

IV. Operator Requirements and

Responsibilities

This equipment may be used

immediately by urban bus operators

who have chosen to comply with either

Program 1 or Program 2, but must be

properly applied. Currently, operators

having certain engines who have chosen

to comply with Program 1 must use

equipment certified to reduce PM

emissions by 25 percent or more when

those engines are rebuilt or replaced.

Today’s Federal Register notice certifies

the above-described ECS equipment as

meeting that PM reduction requirement.

Only equipment that has been certified

to reduce PM by 25% or more may be

used by operators with applicable

engines who have chosen Program 1.

Urban bus operators who choose to

comply with Program 1 may use the

certified ECS equipment (or other

certified equipment) until such time as

the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard is triggered

for the applicable engines.

Operators who choose to comply with

Program 2 and use the ECS equipment

will use the appropriate PM emission

level from Table A when calculating

their fleet level attained (FLA).

As stated in the program regulations

(40 CFR 85.1400 through 85.1415),

operators are required to maintain

records for each engine in their fleet to

demonstrate that they are in compliance

with the program requirements

beginning January 1, 1995. These

records include purchase records,

receipts, and part numbers for the parts

and components used in the rebuilding

of urban bus engines.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–41 Filed 1–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5673–4]

Notice of Federal Advisory Committee

Meeting, ORD Board of Scientific

Counselors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, Public Law

92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App. 2),

notice is hereby given that the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Office of Research and

Development’s (ORD), Board of

Scientific Counselors (BOSC), will hold

its Executive Committee Meeting,

January 13–14, 1997, at the Ritz-Carlton

Hotel, 1250 South Hayes Street,

Arlington, Virginia. On Monday, the

meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and will

recess at 5:00 p.m., and on Tuesday,

January 14, the meeting will begin at

8:00 a.m. and will adjourn at 4:30 p.m.

All times noted are Eastern Time.

Agenda items include, but are not

limited to, BOSC Operating Principles,

Laboratory Peer Review Discussion,

ORD Research Plan Evaluation: Methods

Development and Process and

Procedures for Formulating Research

Plans. Anyone desiring a draft BOSC

agenda may fax their request to Shirley

R. Hamilton (202) 260–0929. The

meeting is open to the public. Any

member of the public wishing to make

comments at the meeting, should

contact Shirley Hamilton, Designated

Federal Official, Office of Research and

Development (8701), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at

(202) 260–0468. In general, each

individual making an oral presentation

will be limited to a total time of three

minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shirley R. Hamilton, Designated Federal

Official, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Research and

Development, NCERQA (MC8701), 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,

202–260–0468.

Dated: December 24, 1996.

Joseph K. Alexander,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Research

and Development.

[FR Doc. 97–104 Filed 1–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collections Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

December 24, 1996.

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, 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 clarify 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: Persons wishing to comment on

this information collection should

submit comments March 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, DC

20554 or via internet to

dconway@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval No.: 3060–0599.

Title: Implementation of Sections 3(n)

and 332 of the Communications Act.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of an

existing collection.

Respondents: State or local

governments; Businesses or other forprofit; Small businesses or

organizations.

Number of Respondents: 85.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.66

hours.