12166 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5710–5]

Agency Information Collection

Activities Under OMB Review

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):

Manufacturing, Processing and

Distribution in Commerce Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of submission to OMB.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

the Information Collection Request (ICR)

entitled: Polychlorinated Biphenyls

(PCBs): Manufacturing, Processing and

Distribution in Commerce Exemptions

[EPA ICR No. 0857.07; OMB Control No.

2070–0021] has been forwarded to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval

pursuant to the OMB procedures in 5

CFR 1320.12. The ICR, which is

abstracted below, describes the nature of

the information collection and its

estimated cost and burden.

The Agency is requesting that OMB

renew for 3 years the existing approval

for this ICR, which is scheduled to

expire on May 31, 1997. A Federal

Register notice announcing the

Agency’s intent to seek the renewal of

this ICR and the 60 day public comment

opportunity, requesting comments on

the request and the contents of the ICR,

was issued on September 12, 1996 (61

FR 48152). EPA did not receive any

comments on this ICR during the

comment period.

DATES: Additional comments may be

submitted on or before April 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY

CONTACT: Sandy Farmer at EPA, (202)

260–2740, and refer to EPA ICR No.

0857.07 and OMB Control No. 2070–

0021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing

EPA ICR No. 0857.07 and OMB Control

No. 2070–0021, to the following

addresses:

Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Information

Management Division (Mailcode:

2137) 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460

And to:

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) Attention: Desk Officer

for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Review Requested: This is a request to

renew a currently approved information

collection pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12.

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 0857.07;

OMB Control No. 2070–0021.

Current Expiration Date: Current

OMB approval expires on May 31, 1997.

Title: Polychlorinated Biphenyls

(PCBs): Manufacturing, Processing and

Distribution in Commerce Exemptions.

Abstract: Section 6(e)(3)(A) of the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

prohibits the manufacture, processing

and distribution in commerce of PCBs.

TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) provides that

any person may petition the EPA for an

exemption from these prohibitions and

that the EPA may grant such an

exemption for a one-year period if (1) an

unreasonable risk of injury to health or

environment would not result, and (2)

good-faith efforts have been made to

develop a substitute chemical substance

for PCBs that does not present an

unreasonable risk of injury to health or

the environment.

Interim Procedural Rules at 40 CFR

Part 750 Subparts B and C outline the

procedures for filing exemption

petitions, the procedures that EPA will

follow when a petition is submitted and

the procedures for filing a request to

renew an exemption previously granted.

Under these rules, EPA may request

information from each petitioner to

determine whether the petitioner meets

the statutory requirements to qualify for

an exemption.

Responses to the collection of

information are mandatory (see 40 CFR

part 750). Respondents may claim all or

part of a notice confidential. EPA will

disclose information that is covered by

a claim of confidentiality only to the

extent permitted by, and in accordance

with, the procedures in TSCA section 14

and 40 CFR part 2.

Burden Statement: The annual public

reporting burden for this collection of

information is estimated to average

approximately two to eight hours per

response for three respondents. These

estimates include the time needed to

review instructions; develop, acquire,

install and utilize technology and

systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating and verifying information,

processing and maintaining

information, and disclosing and

providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information. No person is

required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s

regulations are displayed in 40 CFR Part

9.

Respondents/Affected Entities:

Entities potentially affected by this

action are those persons who petition

the Environmental Protection Agency

for exemptions from the prohibition on

the manufacture, processing and

distribution in commerce of PCBs.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 3.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 18 hours.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Changes in Burden Estimates: There

is a decrease of 37 hours in the total

estimated respondent burden as

compared with that identified in the

information collection request most

recently approved by OMB, from 55

hours currently to an estimated 18

hours. This reflects the fact that new

procedures that EPA has or plans to put

in place with respect to the regulation

of PCBs will reduce the number of

exemption petitions that respondents

need to file, and will eliminate the need

to file renewal requests for exemptions

previously granted. This, in turn, will

reduce the burden associated with this

information collection.

According to the procedures

prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has

submitted this ICR to OMB for review

and approval. Any comments related to

the renewal of this ICR should be

submitted as described above.

Dated: March 10, 1997.

Joseph Retzer,

Director, Regulatory Information Division.

[FR Doc. 97–6507 Filed 3–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5710–3]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Approval of a Notification of Intent To

Certify Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of agency approval of an

application for equipment certification.

SUMMARY: The Agency received an

application dated March 22, 1996 from

the Engelhard Corporation (Engelhard)

with principle place of business at 101

Wood Avenue, Iselin, New Jersey for

certification of urban bus retrofit/

rebuild equipment pursuant to 40 CFR

85.1404–85.1415. The equipment is

applicable to Detroit Diesel
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices 12167

Corporation’s (DDC’s) petroleum-fueled

6V92TA model engines having

mechanical unit injectors (MUI) that

were originally manufactured between

January 1979 and December 1989. On

May 6, 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 (61 FR 20249). EPA has

completed its review and the Director of

the Engine Programs and Compliance

Division has determined that it meets all

the requirements for certification.

Accordingly, EPA certifies this

equipment effective March 14, 1997.

The certified equipment complies

with the 0.10 gram per brake

horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) particulate

matter (PM) standard for the engines for

which it is certified (see below). In

addition, the equipment will be offered

to all parties for $7,940 or less (in 1992

dollars) incremental to the cost of a

standard rebuild. The certification of

this equipment triggers requirements for

transit operators utilizing compliance

Program 1 (excluding engines originally

manufactured as meeting California

emissions standards) that have engines

in their fleet covered by this

certification.

DATES: The effective date of certification

is March 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Engelhard application,

as well as other materials specifically

relevant to it, are contained in Public

Docket A–93–42, Category VIII–A,

entitled ‘‘Certification of Urban Bus

Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment’’. Docket

items may be inspected from 8:00 a.m.

until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a

reasonable fee may be charged by the

Agency for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Stricker, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6403J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Telephone: (202) 233–9322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Equipment

Identification

By a notification of intent to certify

signed March 22, 1996, Engelhard

Corporation (Engelhard) applied for

certification of equipment applicable to

Detroit Diesel Corporation’s (DDC)

6V92TA model urban bus engines

having mechanical unit injectors (MUI)

that were originally manufactured

between model years 1979 and 1993.

Today’s certification, however, applies

only to 6V92TA MUI engines originally

manufactured between model years

1979 and 1989, because DDC ceased

production of the 6V92TA MUI after

model year 1989. The certified

equipment, referred to as the ETX kit,

consists of an engine ‘‘upgrade’’ kit, a

CMX–5 catalytic converter-muffler, and

a proprietary coating, referred to as

GPX–5m, applied to the piston crowns

and cylinder head combustion

chambers. The engine upgrade portion

of the kit consists of specified DDC

cylinder kits, cylinder heads, camshafts,

turbocharger, blower, blower drive gear

(hardened or non-hardened, as

appropriate), fuel injectors, and gasket

kit. The specific combination of parts to

be used depends upon the direction of

engine rotation, orientation of the

engine (tilt), and engine power level.

Injector height and throttle delay must

be set to 1.460 inches and 0.636 inches

respectively for each of the three

certified horsepower (HP)

configurations (253 HP, 277 HP, and 294

HP).

Using engine dynamometer testing

conducted on January 26, 1996 in

accordance with the Federal Test

Procedure (FTP) for heavy-duty diesel

engines, Engelhard documented in its

March 22, 1996 notification, PM

emissions below the 0.10 g/bhp-hr level.

Engine throttle delay and fuel injector

height settings for the ETX certification

test were set to 1.466 inches and 0.594

inches respectively in order to comply

with FTP cycle statistics requirements.

Baseline exhaust emissions data were

developed by testing an engine rebuilt

to a 1979 urban bus configuration. This

testing occurred on April 4, 1994. This

set of baseline and ETX test data, is

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘original’’

baseline and ETX certification tests, and

are shown in Table A.

TABLE A.—‘‘ORIGINAL’’ BASELINE AND ETX CERTIFICATION DATA

ETX kit including coated exhaust manifolds, turbocharger Y-pipe, cylinder heads, and piston crowns, and throttle delay of 1.466 inches and injector height of 0.594 inches

‘‘Original’’ baseline 1979 model

year

‘‘Original’’ ETX

certification test

1988/89 federal

standard

Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr):

HC ................................................................................................................................... 0.5 0.2 1.3

CO ................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.4 15.5

NOX ................................................................................................................................. 10.3 10.1 10.7

PM ................................................................................................................................... 0.213 0.08 0.6

Smoke emissions (% opacity):

Accel ................................................................................................................................ NA 0.9 20

Lug .................................................................................................................................. NA 0.6 15

Peak ................................................................................................................................ NA 1.3 50

In response to comments from the public (discussed in detail below), Engelhard removed the coated exhaust components from the ETX kit, and respecified the throttle delay and injector height specifications to 1.460 inches and 0.636

inches respectively. Additional FTP testing of the ETX kit was conducted on September 27, 1996, again documenting

PM emissions below the 0.10 g/bhp-hr level, while complying with FTP statistical requirements. Additional baseline

data were developed on October 7, 1996 by testing an engine rebuilt to a 1986 urban bus configuration. This set

of baseline and ETX test data, submitted to EPA in letters of October 21, 1996 and October 2, 1996 respectively,

is hereafter referred to as the ‘‘secondary’’ baseline and ETX certification tests, and are shown in Table B.

TABLE B.—‘‘SECONDARY’’ BASELINE AND ETX CERTIFICATION DATA

ETX kit including only coated cylinder heads and piston crowns, and throttle delay of

1.460 inches and injector height of 0.636 inches.1

‘‘Secondary’’

baseline 1979

model year

‘‘Secondary’’

ETX certification test

1988/89 federal

standard

Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr):

HC ................................................................................................................................... 0.5 0.2 1.3
12168 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices

TABLE B.—‘‘SECONDARY’’ BASELINE AND ETX CERTIFICATION DATA—Continued

ETX kit including only coated cylinder heads and piston crowns, and throttle delay of

1.460 inches and injector height of 0.636 inches.1

‘‘Secondary’’

baseline 1979

model year

‘‘Secondary’’

ETX certification test

1988/89 federal

standard

CO ................................................................................................................................... 1.4 0.5 15.5

NOX ................................................................................................................................. 11.4 10.5 10.7

PM ................................................................................................................................... 0.194 0.083 0.6

Smoke emissions (% opacity):

Accel ................................................................................................................................ NA 1.4 20

Lug .................................................................................................................................. NA 1.4 15

Peak ................................................................................................................................ NA 1.9 50

1These are the injector height and throttle delay settings approved as part of today’s certification.

Both sets of emissions test data

provided by Engelhard demonstrate PM

emission levels are below 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

However, the ‘‘secondary’’ data

represent the ETX equipment

configuration upon which today’s

certification is granted. The data

indicate that applicable engines with

the certified equipment installed

comply with the federal 1988 model

year emission standards for

hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide

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

smoke emissions.

Engelhard’s March 22, 1996

notification of intent to certify requests

certification for DDC 6V92TA MUI

engines originally certified as meeting

both federal and California emissions

standards. However, as described in

more detail in the Summary and

Analysis of Comments section below,

today’s certification is limited to 1979

through 1989 DDC 6V92TA MUI

engines originally certified as meeting

federal emissions standards. Today’s

certification does not extend

certification of equipment to engines

originally certified as meeting California

emissions standards. The impact of this

decision on transit operators is

discussed in more detail in the Transit

Operator Requirements section below.

Additionally, EPA approves several

supply options proposed by Engelhard

for transit operators to obtain this

certified equipment. Transit operators

must purchase the CMX–5 and the

GPX–5m coated components of the ETX

kit from Engelhard or its distributors.

However, in order to provide as much

flexibility to transit operators as

possible while ensuring emissions

reductions, EPA has approved several

options for obtaining the remainder of

the components of the kit. For the first

supply option, transit operators

purchase the entire ETX kit from

Engelhard or its distributors. This

supply option must be available to any

and all transit operators, and is the

option upon which life cycle costs have

been determined, and upon which the

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard is triggered. The

second and third options, described

below, may be available at Engelhard’s

discretion. Transit operators who

choose either of the options below, do

so voluntarily, and EPA makes no

representation concerning the impacts

of either on life cycle costs.

For the second supply option, transit

operators purchase the specified DDC

upgrade parts (excluding the coated

cylinder heads and piston kits, which

must be obtained from Engelhard)

through normal supply channels.

Engelhard will provide the appropriate

DDC parts list to the transit operator

upon purchase of the CMX–5 and

coated engine parts. ‘‘Equivalent’’

aftermarket parts are not permitted

under this certification, because EPA

has no assurance that such parts can

achieve the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard.

Engelhard provides the applicable

100,000 mile defect warranty and

150,000 mile emissions performance

warranty for all parts included in the

kit, whether purchased from Engelhard,

or through normal supply channels.

Manufacturers of ‘‘equivalent’’

aftermarket parts may choose to certify

their parts for use in the ETX kit in a

separate proceeding subject to testing

and certain warranty concerns.

For the third supply option, the

transit operator obtains most parts in the

same manner described in the second

option above, but rebuilds or

remanufactures in-house the camshafts,

blower, and/or turbocharger. Transit

operators can perform in-house

rebuilding of these three components

provided the transit operator meets the

requirements of the ‘‘Engelhard

Certified Remanufacturer Program’’, and

the camshafts, blower, and/or

turbocharger are rebuilt to the specified

DDC configuration.

The Engelhard Certified

Remanufacturer Program, to be

administered by Engelhard, is covered

by today’s certification as it relates to

the third supply option. For transit

operators who choose to rebuild the

camshafts, blower, and/or turbocharger

in-house, the Certified Remanufacturer

Program requires the transit operator to

possess a minimum of five years

remanufacturing experience. In

addition, Engelhard will perform an

initial inspection of the remanufacturing

operation to assess facility capabilities,

and will conduct a complete review of

the quality control procedures and

component reject rate of the

remanufacturing operation. Transit

operators who perform adequately will

be designated by Engelhard as

‘‘probational’’ remanufacturing sites.

This facility will then be required to

maintain records of all critical

measurements of remanufactured

camshafts, blowers, and/or

turbochargers. These records will be

inspected periodically by Engelhard.

Upon completion of at least two

Engelhard periodic reviews without any

problems, the facility may be upgraded

to an ‘‘Engelhard Certified

Remanufacturer’’. This option provides

EPA with reasonable assurance that the

0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard will be

achieved, while providing transit

operators with reasonable sourcing

flexibility.

Engelhard is required to provide a

100,000 mile defect warranty and

150,000 mile emissions performance

warranty for the ETX kit and all of its

components regardless of which of the

three approved supply options is used.

Furthermore, EPA has authority to

conduct in-use testing of certified

equipment to determine compliance

with the requirements of the program.

As noted above, EPA is certifying

option 2 and 3 to increase transit

operator flexibility. The option 3

Engelhard Certified Remanufacturer

Program is to be administered by

Engelhard without further explicit

involvement of EPA. As with any

certification, if EPA determines that any

supply option is not resulting in a

certified engine configuration, then EPA

has the authority pursuant to 40 CFR

section 85.1413. Transit operator

responsibilities are described in more
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices 12169

detail in Section IV of today’s Federal

Register notice.

The ETX equipment is certified to a

PM emission level of 0.10 g/bhp-hr for

all 1979 through 1989 DDC 6V92TA

MUI urban bus engines using either

diesel fuel #1 or #2 (excluding those

originally certified as meeting California

emissions standards). Table C lists the

applicable engine models and

certification levels associated with the

certification announced in today’s

Federal Register.

TABLE C.—CERTIFICATION LEVELS

Engine models Engine code Certified

PM level

1979–1989 Detroit diesel

6V92TA MUI.

all (excluding those originally certified as meeting California emissions standards) ..................... 0.10 (g/bhp-hr)

II. Summary and Analysis of Comments

Comments were received from nine

parties in response to the Federal

Register notice (61 FR 50549, May 6,

1996). Commenters include Detroit

Diesel Corporation (an engine

manufacturer), Johnson Matthey (an

equipment manufacturer), and several

transit properties including Milwaukee

County Transit System (Milwaukee

County), Long Beach Transit, New York

City Transit (NY MTA), New Jersey

Transit (NJ Transit), Kansas City Area

Transportation Authority (KCATA),

Connecticut Transit (CT Transit), and

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART).

Comments generally fell into the

following categories: kit applicability,

maintenance, fuel economy, ability of

the equipment to meet the 0.10 g/bhphr standard, backpressure, durability,

toxic emissions, part sourcing, and

supply options. Comments outside of

these categories were also received, and

are discussed separately below.

In general, transit fleets commenting

on this equipment are concerned with

fuel economy impacts, part sourcing,

and equipment cost. DDC, as the

original manufacturer of the engines to

which this equipment is intended,

noted it’s desire to ensure that

certification of this equipment would

not negatively impact the reliability,

durability, performance, or fuel

economy of its engines, or in any way

damage their product reputation or

relationship with their customers. EPA

appreciates the extensive comments

provided by DDC, which are discussed

in more detail below. JMI also provided

extensive comments related to this

equipment. Most significant are JMI’s

concerns that the technology of spray

coating components is unproven, and

that Engelhard’s proposed supply

options may present barriers to

competition. JMI’s complete comments

are also discussed in detail below.

a. Ability of the Kit to Meet 0.10

g/bhp-hr

EPA received detailed comments from

DDC regarding the ability of the ETX to

meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard.

DDC performed Federal transient

emissions testing of the ETX kit in

various configurations. In addition, two

transits, Long Beach and DART, raised

question regarding the ability of the ETX

to consistently achieve the 0.10 g/bhphr level to which Engelhard requests

certification.

DDC performed testing on each of the

three HP ratings described by Engelhard

in its original notification. In addition,

DDC performed testing to determine the

relative PM reductions associated with

catalyst alone versus the entire ETX kit.

DDC was unable to demonstrate PM

emissions at or below the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

level on any of their tests, and suggested

that additional verification of emission

reductions be obtained prior to

certification. In addition, DDC stated

that it had experience with components

using ceramic coatings, noting they have

seen little, if any, benefits associated

with the use of such coatings. DDC

requested that EPA quantify the

reductions associated with each facet of

the ETX kit prior to certifying the

equipment. The issues raised by DDC

are discussed below.

Regarding DDC’s comments on the

ability of the ETX kit to achieve 0.10 g/

bhp-hr, no explanation was provided by

DDC for the difference in test results

between it’s testing and Engelhard’s

testing. DDC and Engelhard together

reviewed test procedures, engine

condition, parts condition, etc., and

could not agree on why the test results

differed.

However, subsequent additional

review by Engelhard revealed

differences that Engelhard believes

could potentially impact emission

results. As described in a September 12,

1996 letter to EPA, prior to performing

it’s original certification test, Engelhard

performed a 100-hour break-in on the

test engine to ensure proper and

adequate seating of the piston rings and

to stabilize emissions results. DDC, in

it’s testing of the ETX kit, performed

only 25 hours of engine break-in.

According to its July 18, 1996

comments, DDC believes that 25 hours

is sufficient to stabilize emission results

for these engines. Engelhard, however,

pointed out that measured engine

motoring losses at rated speed for the

DDC testing was 280 Newton-meter

(Nm), versus 250 Nm for the Engelhard

testing, implying that the DDC test

engine experienced more internal

frictional loss compared to the

Engelhard engine. Engelhard believes

that the higher frictional loss measured

by DDC resulted from insufficient breakin, and could explain the higher PM

emissions measured by DDC.

In a November 22, 1996 letter to EPA,

DDC explained that the 280 Nm

motoring loss was from the DDC’s

testing of the 253 HP version of the ETX

kit, whereas the 250 Nm obtained in

Engelhard’s testing was from the 294 HP

version of the ETX kit. DDC states that

when it tested the 294 HP version, the

motoring loss was 274 Nm. DDC’s

published specification for running loss

on the 294 HP version 6V92TA MUI is

268 Nm. DDC believes that the

measured motoring loss (274 Nm) is not

unusually high, but rather, Engelhard’s

measured loss is unusually low. DDC

believes that use of SAE30W lubrication

oil, rather than the DDC-specified

SAE40W, may account for this

difference.

Engelhard also noted that DDC

performed testing at a measured exhaust

backpressure of 11.9 kPa (3.5 inches

Hg.) compared to 6.77 kPa (2.0′′ Hg.) for

Engelhard’s January 26, 1996 test.

General industry practice is to test

engines at 80 percent of manufacturer’s

recommended maximum backpressure

at rated speed. The test engine

specification for maximum

recommended backpressure is 2.4′′ Hg.,

resulting in a backpressure setting for

testing of 2.0′′ Hg. DDC claims to have

been unable to achieve the 2.0′′ Hg.

setting, stating the catalyst unit itself

imposed a backpressure of 2.9′′ Hg. In

its November 22, 1996 letter to EPA,

DDC noted a difference between the

catalyst Engelhard used in its

certification testing and the catalyst
12170 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices

1As discussed elsewhere in today’s notice, in

response to EPA and public comments, Engelhard

had modified the ETX kit by removing coated

exhaust components from the kit, and returning the

injector height and throttle delay settings to their

original specifications. The testing performed on

September 27, 1996 served three purposes; 1) to

address DDC’s test data regarding the ability of the

kit to achieve 0.10 g/bhp-hr; 2) to ensure that the

0.10 g/bhp-hr level could be achieved in spite of the

removal of the coated exhaust components and

resetting of injector height and throttle delay; and

3) to provide additional data to be used for

determining the fuel economy impact of the ETX

kit.

Engelhard provided to DDC for their

testing. DDC contends that Engelhard’s

certification testing was conducted with

a simple flow-through catalyst, rather

than a catalytic muffler, as utilized in

DDC’s testing. DDC believes that the

backpressure of a catalytic muffler is

greater than that of a simple flowthrough catalyst, thus explaining DDC’s

inability to obtain the 2.0′′ Hg.

backpressure specification.

An October 17, 1996 conversation

with Engelhard revealed that the

catalyst utilized by Engelhard in its

certification testing had to be modified,

due to dynamometer interference, in

order to be properly installed in the test

cell. Such modification was not

necessary for proper installation into

DDC’s test cell. Engelhard contends that

the incremental backpressure associated

with the muffler portion of the CMX–5

is minimal compared to the

backpressure associated with the

catalyst portion of the unit. Engelhard

conducted additional hot-start FTP tests

to demonstrate the impact of increased

backpressure on the ability of the ETX

kit to achieve the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard. Two FTP transient FTP tests

were conducted at 3.0′′ Hg. and one at

4.5′′ Hg. As discussed in a November 24,

1996 letter from Engelhard to EPA, in

each case, PM results were below 0.10

g/bhp-hr, and were very close to

Engelhard’s original and secondary

certification test results. Emissions of

HC, CO and NOX remained below

Federal standards. Based on this

additional testing, EPA believes that the

catalyst configuration difference and

potential difference in backpressure

does not explain the difference in PM

results obtained by Engelhard and DDC.

In a September 4, 1996 letter to EPA,

Engelhard noted another difference

between it’s testing and DDC’s is the

fuel injectors. Engelhard’s test engine

used injectors which fall into the DDCdesignated category of ‘‘premium’’

Reliabuilt injectors. Engelhard states

that fuel flow variances among premium

injectors are less variable than on nonpremium Reliabuilt injectors. The

injectors used by DDC, although

consistent with the part number

identified by Engelhard, did not fall into

this same category. At the time of

Engelhard’s original ETX certification

test of January 26, 1996, Engelhard was

unaware that the fuel injectors used in

their test engine were ‘‘premium’’. Only

after attempting to resolve the testing

differences with DDC did Engelhard

become aware of this fact. Engelhard

believes the more consistent fuel

distribution associated with premium

injectors could impact emissions, and

could account for some or all of the

difference in measured emissions

between Engelhard and DDC. As a

result, Engelhard has specified the use

of premium matched fuel injectors to be

used with the ETX kit. In telephone

follow-up with DDC on December 6,

1996, DDC stated that premium

Reliabuilt injectors contain more new

parts, and fewer remanufactured or used

parts, compared to non-premium

Reliabuilt injectors. DDC believes the

emissions performance of Reliabuilt

premium injectors is equivalent to the

emissions performance of non-premium

injectors, but acknowledges that

premium injectors may demonstrate

superior in-use durability due to the

higher percentage of new parts in the

injector.

In spite of the differences noted by

Engelhard between it’s testing and

DDC’s testing, EPA believed that

additional data were necessary in order

to address the uncertainty raised by

DDC’s comments. To that end, EPA

requested that Engelhard retest the ETX

kit in the presence of an EPA test

observer. This course of action is

consistent with DDC’s recommendation

in its comments that EPA pursue

‘‘additional verification’’ of the ETX kit.

On September 27, 1996, Engelhard

performed a secondary ETX certification

test at SouthWest Research Institute, in

San Antonio, TX.1 The results of this

testing indicate that the ETX kit can

achieve the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM level. The

EPA observer found no testing or

procedural violations. According to

DDC, two days prior to EPA’s visit, a

DDC representative observed testing of

the Engelhard equipment at the same

facility, and likewise found no

indication of testing concerns.

In addition to conducting the abovenoted additional test in the presence of

an EPA observer, Engelhard provided

additional hot-start transient test data in

its September 4, 1996 letter (both with

and without coated exhaust

components) that supports the

consistent ability of the ETX kit to meet

the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

In summary, EPA believes that

Engelhard has sufficiently demonstrated

the ability of the ETX kit to achieve the

0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard. Although

there is no clear explanation for the

difference in test results between

Engelhard’s testing and DDC’s testing,

EPA believes Engelhard has provided

sufficient supplemental data which

demonstrates the ability of the ETX kit

to achieve the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard. EPA retains authority to

conduct in-use testing of certified

equipment as described in 40 CFR

Subpart O. In addition, equipment

manufacturers must provide a 100,000

mile defect warranty, and a 150,000

mile emission performance warranty on

certified equipment.

Regarding DDC’s suggestion that

Engelhard quantify the relative PM

benefits associated with different

aspects of the kit, EPA notes that no

such requirement exists in the

certification requirements of this

program. EPA has in the past expressed

its position that components that do not

contribute to the ability of equipment to

reduce emissions, or which are not

reasonably necessary to provide the

equipment manufacturer with adequate

liability protection, will not be

considered part of a certified equipment

package. DDC comments that, based on

it’s past experience, the coatings used

by Engelhard in this kit may not

contribute to any PM reductions.

However, DDC has not provided any

evidence that coatings which DDC has

evaluated are the same, or similar to, the

GPX–5m coating of this equipment

package. In fact, Engelhard provided

EPA with a confidential description of

the coating and it’s application

technique, that support Engelhard’s

claim that the coating composition has

changed over time, and likely

contributes to PM reduction. Without a

clear indication that the current GPX–

5m coating does not contribute to PM

reduction, EPA believes it reasonable for

Engelhard to include such coating as an

emissions-related part of the ETX kit.

b. Equipment Durability

Several commenters raised questions

with regard to the durability of the ETX

kit, or its components, in actual use. NY

MTA comments that operating

experience with the ETX kit is limited,

and questions the performance

characteristics of the ETX kit on inservice buses. Long Beach commented

that there is no information to

substantiate that this equipment will

effectively provide an average engine

life of 300,000 miles after rebuild. KCTA

stated that it has had an unfavorable

experience with previous generation

ceramic engine coatings. KCTA has used

GPX coatings on three buses in the past.

One bus is still in service (after 21⁄2
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices 12171

years of operation), a second bus lasted

only 5 months, and a third lasted only

10 months. No details were provided by

KCTA explaining the reason these buses

were removed from service. KCTA

recommends additional testing of

ceramic coatings prior to certification.

NJ Transit expressed concern that

degradation of the proprietary spray

coating could leave them open to noncompliance penalties should an engine

equipped with the ETX kit fail to meet

emissions standards in-use.

DDC provided several comments

regarding durability. First, DDC states

that new engine manufacturers are

required to conduct durability testing

for new engine certification. DDC

acknowledges that the urban bus

retrofit/rebuild regulations do not

require such testing, but expressed

concern whether emissions would

remain below the standard throughout

the life of the rebuild. In addition, DDC

states that some oxidation catalyst

formulations can suffer from poisoning

through contact with exhaust gases, and

states that no data have been presented

which shows this particular catalyst

formulation is resistant to poisoning.

Finally, DDC comments that its

experience with ceramic coatings

indicates that they can become overlaid

with combustion deposits, reducing

their efficiency. However, DDC also

states that they have no reason to

believe that thermal barrier coatings do

not retain their thermal insulating

properties over time.

JMI also provided several comments

regarding durability. First, JMI states

that ceramic spray coatings are

unproven technologies in diesel

engines. JMI expressed concern that

surface contaminants, such as oil, on

both new and rebuilt parts may interfere

with proper adhesion of the coating

material to the coated engine part. In

addition, JMI referenced a report

prepared for the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) and

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) which

concludes that ‘‘(r)eliability and

durability of thermal barrier coatings

remain major issues’’.

EPA appreciates that transit operators

are concerned with the durability of this

equipment, and subsequent additional

costs or engine damage that potentially

could result from premature equipment

failure. EPA is also concerned, in

general, with durability of equipment

certified under this program because of

the potential impacts on emissions.

However, EPA notes that the urban bus

retrofit/rebuild regulations do not

require an in-service durability

demonstration as a condition of

certification, nor is certified equipment

required to be durable for 300,000 miles.

Rather, equipment certifiers, including

Engelhard, are required pursuant to 40

CFR Section 85.1409 to provide a

100,000 mile equipment defect warranty

and a 150,000 mile emissions

performance warranty.

KCTA’s limited experience with

ceramic coated engine parts resulted

unfavorably. Unfortunately, KCTA’s

comments do not correlate the early

removal from service of the two KCTA

buses with the use of previous

generation ceramic coated engine

components. Nonetheless, these

comments raise a legitimate concern

regarding durability—a concern also

raised by DDC and JMI in their

comments, which EPA addresses below.

Regarding catalyst poisoning raised by

DDC, EPA has no reason to believe, nor

did DDC provide a reason to suspect,

that the catalyst formulation used in this

kit will suffer from exhaust gas

poisoning. Engelhard’s previously

certified CMX catalytic converter (60 FR

28402, May 31, 1995) has been in use

in the retrofit/rebuild program for over

a year, during which time which EPA

has not become aware of any incidents

of catalyst poisoning. The catalyst in the

ETX kit is an improved version of the

CMX. EPA will continue to monitor

problems with this, or other, certified

equipment, and encourages transit

operators to provide any information

regarding catalyst poisoning.

JMI bases its comments regarding the

viability of spray coatings primarily on

the conclusions reached in the NASA/

DOE report prepared in 1991. However,

EPA cannot rely on the JMI comments

as a basis to deny certification because

JMI has provided no information to

suggest the coating technology analyzed

in the NASA/DOE report is the same as,

or similar to, the GPX–5m coating used

in the ETX equipment package. In fact,

Engelhard’s confidential description of

the ceramic coating and it’s application

technique provided to EPA, highlights

differences between the coatings

examined in the NASA/DOE study

compared to the coating Engelhard has

developed for the ETX kit. The NASA/

DOE findings of 1991 indicate that, at

that time, additional development of

coatings may have been necessary to

make coating technology viable in the

diesel engine market place. According

to the confidential information provided

by Engelhard, the ceramic coating

technology has developed compared to

that examined in the NASA/DOE study.

EPA has previously certified an

Engelhard equipment package utilizing

GPX coatings (60 FR 47170, September

11, 1995). From the standpoint of

physical durability of the coating, EPA

is not aware of any premature wear or

failure of this certified equipment. As

mentioned previously, in response to

concerns about the physical durability

of the new GPX–5m coating, Engelhard

provided EPA a detailed confidential

description of the coating and its

application technique. In addition, in a

May 23, 1996 letter to EPA, Engelhard

provided data from three in-use buses

using previous generation GPX–4

coatings. Coating thickness

measurements were made on piston

crowns and cylinder head combustion

chambers, and were found to be within

nominal design specifications at an

average of 123,000 miles. In addition,

deposit formations on the combustion

surfaces were nearly non-existent.

Engelhard indicates that design

advances in the current GPX–5m

coatings are intended to further reduce

deposit formation and increase coating

durability beyond that of the GPX–4

coating.

EPA is concerned, in general, with

equipment durability, and believes that

certifiers will evaluate the durability of

their equipment in order to minimize

their liability resulting from the

emissions performance warranty.

However, program regulations do not

require a durability demonstration. EPA

believes the available information does

not indicate a durability concern with

the equipment certified in today’s

notice, and therefore, does not provide

sufficient basis to deny certification on

these grounds. EPA retains authority to

conduct in-use testing of any certified

equipment for compliance with the

requirements of the program. In

addition, equipment certifiers must

provide a 100,000 mile defect warranty

and a 150,000 mile emissions

performance warranty on all certified

equipment.

Lastly, regarding NJ Transit’s concern

for being subject to penalties if degraded

coatings cause an engine to fail to meet

its certified PM level, EPA notes that the

equipment certifier is responsible for

the emissions performance of the engine

through the 150,000 mile emissions

performance warranty period, if the

transit properly installs and maintains

equipment in accordance with the

equipment manufacturer’s instructions.

The transit operator is responsible for

proper installation and use of certified

equipment, and is responsible for the

emissions performance of equipment

operated beyond the 150,000 miles

emissions warranty period. Also, the

retrofit/rebuild program does not

obviate compliance with any state or

local emission requirements, such as

inspection/maintenance (I/M) or smoke

testing programs.
12172 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices

c. Exhaust Backpressure

DDC provided comments related to

the exhaust backpressure resulting from

installation of the CMX–5 catalytic

muffler, and its potential impact on

engine performance and durability. DDC

provided these comments in response to

the proposed certification, and in a

November 22, 1996 letter to EPA.

DDC notes that the maximum

recommended exhaust backpressure for

6V92TA MUI engines generally ranges

from 2.5′′ Hg. to 3.5′′ Hg. at full rated

power, with the majority of engines

having a backpressure specification

between 3.0′′ Hg. and 3.5′′ Hg. DDC is

concerned that the backpressure

imposed by the CMX–5 catalyst may

cause engines to exceed the maximum

exhaust backpressure specification

recommended by DDC. DDC references

chassis dynamometer testing performed

on several engines utilizing the original

CMX version catalytic muffler produced

by Engelhard and certified by EPA

under this program. DDC comments that

the chassis testing shows average

backpressure at rated speed and full

load of 5.3′′ Hg. with the CMX installed,

versus 3.3′′ Hg. with the standard

exhaust muffler installed. Finally, DDC

expressed its opposition to the

procedure recommended by Engelhard

for determining whether the catalyst

unit requires cleaning. Engelhard’s

instructions involve operating the

engine in a rated speed, no load

condition (high idle) and recording the

pressure drop across the CMX–5 unit.

This is the same procedure

recommended by Engelhard for

determining backpressure across the

original CMX catalytic muffler, and was

derived from DDC Service Information

Bulletin 7–D–95. DDC, however,

contends that this service procedure

was only intended for a limited

population of 6V92TA engines that were

originally equipped with particulate

traps. Pursuant to an agreement with

EPA, these traps were removed and

replaced with catalytic convertermufflers because of severe durability

concerns.

The chassis dynamometer data

provided by DDC were generated on

buses operated by a fleet located in the

Northeast. The Agency’s follow-up

conversations with that fleet indicate

that a venturi was improperly installed

when measuring the backpressure,

resulting in unusually high

backpressure readings with the CMX

installed. With the measurement

conducted properly, exhaust

backpressure was 3.2′′ Hg., which is

below the recommended maximum

backpressure for those engines.

Therefore, EPA does not believe that

DDC’s comments with respect to

measured in-use backpressure are

convincing.

EPA does not dispute that a catalytic

muffler, in general, may increase the

engine exhaust backpressure compared

to a standard noise muffler. In fact,

when the ‘‘secondary’’ ETX certification

test was conducted, EPA requested a

backpressure comparison between a

standard muffler and the CMX–5. EPA

selected the standard muffler, and

Engelhard measured the incremental

difference between the muffler and the

CMX–5 at rated speed and full load. The

test revealed a 0.6 inches Hg. difference

in backpressure (2.0 inches Hg. with the

muffler installed versus 2.6 inches Hg.

with the CMX–5 installed). The

previously-certified CMX has been in

service for over a year, and EPA has not

become aware of any problems relating

to or resulting from increased

backpressure. During a December 17,

1996 conversation, representatives of

the Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Agency (WMATA) stated they

have not seen any discernable difference

in backpressure or fuel economy

associated with use of Engelhard’s

previously certified CMX catalyst. In a

December 2, 1996 letter to EPA,

Engelhard provided data demonstrating

that the backpressure resulting from the

CMX–5 unit is equal to, or lower than,

the backpressure resulting from the

certified CMX over a wide range of

exhaust flow rates. Finally, DDC has

provided no explanation of the

difference, in terms of susceptibility to

backpressure impacts, between the

engines for which Service Information

Bulletin 7–D–95 was intended, and

those which are covered by this, and

other, retrofit certifications utilizing

catalytic mufflers.

Any future information provided by

interested parties regarding the impacts

of certified equipment on exhaust

backpressure would be taken under

consideration. EPA appreciates that

there may room for improvement in

maintenance procedures of equipment

certified under this program. Such

concerns, in general, can also occur

with procedures relating to new

engines. EPA encourages all equipment

certifiers to issue revised check

procedures when appropriate. If

Engelhard determines that another

check is appropriate, or if EPA becomes

aware that backpressure is exceeding

manufacturer limits on in-use buses,

then Engelhard should revise such

procedures. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section

85.1413, EPA has authority to decertify

equipment that does not comply with

the requirements of the regulations.

d. Supply Options

As originally proposed in an

addendum dated March 25, 1996, three

supply options would be available at

Engelhard’s discretion. Under proposed

option 1, Engelhard would supply all

components of the kit (GPX coated

parts, CMX–5 converter muffler and all

new and rebuilt parts specified in

Attachment 1 of the notification of

intent to certify) to the transit operator.

Under option 2, Engelhard would

supply the GPX coated components

(exhaust manifolds, turbocharger Ypipes, cylinder kits, and cylinder heads)

and the CMX–5 converter muffler. The

other engine components (fuel injectors,

camshafts, air inlet hose, blower, blower

drive gear, blower bypass valve,

turbocharger, turbocharger Y-pipe,

exhaust manifolds, and gasket kit)

would be purchased separately or

supplied separately as long as such

parts were Engelhard OEM specified

components or their equivalent. Under

option 3, Engelhard would provide the

GPX coated parts described in option 2

above, as well as the CMX–5 converter

muffler, and the new engine parts listed

in Attachment 1 of the notification of

intent to certify (gasket kit, cylinder kits,

air inlet hose, and blower bypass valve).

The remanufactured parts required to

complete the kit (fuel injectors,

camshafts, blower, blower drive gear,

turbocharger, exhaust manifolds, and

turbocharger Y-pipe) would be rebuilt

in-house by the transit operator if the

transit operator was deemed an

‘‘Engelhard Certified Remanufacturer’’.

To obtain this status, transit operators or

third parties would be required to

undergo training from Engelhard, and be

certified by Engelhard as capable of

remanufacturing components within

required tolerances. In addition, transit

operators would be required to maintain

records to demonstrate continued ability

to meet these requirements.

With regard to option 2 proposed by

Engelhard, DDC commented that

allowing the use of ‘‘equivalent’’ parts is

not appropriate. DDC, as the original

engine manufacturer to which this

applies, has developed products over

many years which encompass a myriad

of subtle design features intended to

ensure proper engine function,

performance, and durability. DDC does

not make it’s specifications publicly

available, and therefore, believes

Engelhard is not qualified to determine

‘‘equivalency’’ of parts. DDC notes that

the certification tests conducted by

Engelhard utilized DDC engine parts.

DDC believes that additional tests on

specific non-OE parts should be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices 12173

required if these parts are eligible for

use in this kit.

DDC’s comments regarding supply

option 3 are similar to those described

above. DDC does not believe that

Engelhard can provide transit operators

with the appropriate specifications,

tolerances, and quality control

procedures to which a transit operator

must rebuild in order to become a

Certified Engelhard Remanufactured.

Finally, DDC comments that each

supply option proposed by Engelhard

should be evaluated separately for it’s

impact on life cycle cost.

JMI provided substantial comments

regarding the proposed supply options.

Regarding option 1, JMI commented that

Engelhard should be required to

disclose the allowable sources and

specification of ‘‘equivalent’’ parts. JMI

comments that coatings for engine parts

will be provided by Engelhard’s wholly

owned technology division. JMI believes

that EPA must account for the

possibility of interrupted availability of

coated components resulting from such

interruptions as union problems,

divesture, natural disaster, etc.

Regarding option 2, JMI commented

that it is beyond Engelhard’s legal

authority to create a qualified vendor

list on behalf of a public transit agency,

and that doing so would create a

conflict of interest. KCTA mirrored this

concern stating that the various supply

options allow Engelhard to dictate parts

choice of transit operators. In addition,

JMI believes that allowing Engelhard

discretion to choose which supply

options will be made available

represents a restraint of trade.

Lastly, JMI comments that Engelhard’s

proposed supply options will result in

labor problems for transit operators who

may be forced to eliminate or close their

repair operations.

EPA, in general, shares many of the

concerns noted by commenters

regarding supply of the ETX kit. EPA

believes that Engelhard, in proposing a

flexible kit distribution plan, attempts to

avoid many of the issues raised by

commenters. However, EPA must be

assured that any increase in flexibility

does not undermine emissions

reductions expected from certification

of equipment. In order to resolve the

extensive comments surrounding the

proposed supply options, significant

follow-up activity was pursued by EPA,

as described below.

EPA fundamentally agrees with DDC

that certification should be limited to

that equipment which has been

demonstrated to achieve the claimed

certification level. In this case,

Engelhard conducted all testing of the

ETX kit using DDC engine parts in

conjunction with the Engelhard

catalytic converter and coatings.

Engelhard provided no demonstration

or other assurances, other than it’s

required commitment to honor the

urban bus warranties, that ‘‘equivalent’’

engine parts would result in PM

emissions of 0.10 g/bhp-hr or less. EPA

does not dispute the possibility that

certain non-DDC parts may provide

equivalent function, performance, and/

or emissions characteristics as the DDC

parts used in Engelhard’s certification

testing. However, none of these parts

were tested, nor was any engineering

argument made by Engelhard to indicate

equivalent performance. In the absence

of emissions data or technical argument

relating to the characteristics or design

features of OEM and non-OEM parts

that affect emissions performance, EPA

has no basis for certification of the

Engelhard equipment when an engine is

rebuilt using parts other than those

which Engelhard has demonstrated will

achieve the stated emissions level.

EPA also agrees with JMI that, at a

minimum, identification of allowable

equivalent parts and the means by

which this equivalency was determined

is required in order to determine if such

parts are potentially capable of

achieving the claimed reductions.

In an August 23, 1996 letter, EPA

requested that Engelhard provide a

listing of specific brands and part

numbers which Engelhard determined

to be ‘‘equivalent’’, and the means by

which Engelhard determined this

equivalency. In addition, EPA requested

clarification as to what specifications

Engelhard would provide a transit

operator who wished to become a

Certified Engelhard Remanufacturer and

continue to rebuild engines in-house.

In its September 4, 1996 response to

EPA’s request, Engelhard was unable to

identify specific brands or part numbers

which it believed to be ‘‘equivalent’’ to

the DDC parts used in the certification

testing. Engelhard will supply only DDC

parts for those parts supplied under

option 1. Under option 2, Engelhard

specifies only DDC parts, which fleets

can obtain through normal supply

channels rather than from Engelhard,

thus providing fleets with part sourcing

flexibility while maintaining reasonable

assurance that the claimed PM level is

achieved. Therefore, under both option

1 and option 2, transit operators must

use the specified DDC parts in

conjunction with the remaining ETX kit

components, as demonstrated by

Engelhard to be capable of achieving the

0.10 g/bhp-hr PM level. The practical

difference between these two options is

that under option 2 the fleet has

flexibility to obtain DDC parts through

it’s normal channels, while option 1

requires purchase of all parts from

Engelhard. Manufacturers of

‘‘equivalent’’ aftermarket parts may

choose to certify their parts for use in

the ETX kit in a separate proceeding

subject to testing and certain warranty

concerns.

Regarding the option 3 Engelhard

Certified Remanufacturer program, EPA

supports the notion of fleets

maintaining the ability to remanufacture

and rebuild certain components inhouse. Outside of the clear requirement

to technology demonstrated to reduce

PM exhaust emissions, the Urban Bus

Retrofit/Rebuild Program was not

intended to significantly impact current

fleet rebuilding practices. With regard to

the 25 percent PM reduction standard,

transit operators currently have

flexibility to choose add-on reduction

equipment, thus allowing continued inhouse rebuilding of engines and

components. On the other hand, if EPA

were to certify a trigger of the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr PM standard that did not allow

for continued rebuild of components inhouse, and if this were the only

equipment available to meet the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr standard, then certain transits

would be required to cease rebuilding

these components or risk being in

violation of program requirements.

EPA believes it reasonable to allow inhouse rebuild of certain components by

transit operators utilizing the ETX kit,

under certain conditions. First, in-house

rebuilding is limited to camshafts,

blowers, and turbochargers. EPA

believes that allowing rebuild of other

components, such as fuel injectors,

cylinder liners and cylinder heads,

would raise substantial concerns

whether the resulting engine could meet

the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard because of

their key role in oil and fuel control of

the engine. Allowing in-house rebuild of

camshafts, blowers and turbochargers

introduces some uncertainty with

respect to the PM emissions

performance of the resulting engine

because of their role in controlling

combustion air flow within the engine.

However, EPA imposes the following

measures to mitigate this uncertainty.

First, Engelhard must specify, and fleets

must rebuild to, the relevant DDC

camshaft, blower and turbocharger part

number utilized in the certification test

engine. Second, Engelhard will

implement it’s Engelhard Certified

Remanufacturer program for any and all

fleets affected by the Urban Bus Retrofit/

Rebuild Program choosing to rebuild

these components in-house. This parts

supply option necessitates that

participating fleets undergo periodic

quality checks, performed by Engelhard,
12174 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices

of components rebuilt in-house.

Unsatisfactory performance would

result in the fleet losing, or not

achieving, the status of Engelhard

Certified Remanufacturer, and

subsequently losing the option to

rebuild these components in-house.

Engelhard provides the defect and

emissions performance warranties

required pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1409 for

engines using components rebuilt by

Engelhard Certified Remanufacturers.

EPA has been informed that the

ability to continue some level of inhouse rebuilding is important to the

needs of transit operators. The

Engelhard Certified Remanufacturer

program, combined with the limited set

of components that can be rebuilt inhouse, result in increased flexibility for

transit operators yet allow EPA to

maintain reasonable assurance

concerning PM reduction.

Regarding DDC’s comment that each

supply option be evaluated separately

for it’s impact on life cycle costs, EPA

believes this is unnecessary. EPA has

determined that supply option 1—the

option in which Engelhard supplies all

necessary components of the kit—

complies with the life cycle cost

requirements of the Urban Bus Retrofit/

Rebuild Program, as described below. At

a minimum, this supply option must be

provided to any and all transit

operators. Therefore, certification of this

supply option ‘‘triggers’’ the 0.10 g/bhphr standard. Use of the other two supply

options is strictly voluntary, and any

cost savings or added costs are accepted

voluntarily by the fleet operator.

f. Life Cycle Cost

Section 1403(b)(1)(ii) describes those

items which must be considered when

analyzing life cycle cost of equipment,

including equipment purchase price,

incremental fuel cost/savings,

installation costs, maintenance costs,

and other costs specific to fuel additives

and fuel conversions. Most commenters

provided input on at least one costsensitive topic area. Comments received

are described below, and are grouped by

general topic area within the larger

context of life cycle costs.

i. Maintenance Cost

NY MTA, NJ Transit, and CT Transit

each expressed concern that Engelhard

did not include any allowance in the

life cycle cost analysis for maintenance

of the equipment. EPA believes that the

engine upgrade portion of this

equipment requires no additional

maintenance incremental to that

required on a standard rebuild. In

addition, the coated component portion

of the kit cannot be serviced because the

coated parts are internal to the engine.

Therefore, no additional maintenance is

expected related to the coated

components. EPA believes any concerns

related to incremental maintenance

would apply only to the catalyst unit.

Engelhard maintains that the CMX–5

catalyst unit is maintenance-free over

the emissions performance warranty

period of 150,000 miles, and notes that

the currently certified CMX has been in

operation for over a year. During this

time neither Engelhard nor EPA has

become aware of any additional

maintenance required to keep the unit

functional, when the engine is

maintained in accordance with

instructions. Engelhard stated that

several CMX catalysts which have

accumulated over 150,000 miles

without maintenance have been

inspected and found to be functioning

properly. EPA questioned Engelhard

regarding the prescribed catalyst

cleaning procedure, and the need for

such a procedure if the unit is truly

maintenance free. Engelhard responded

that an improperly operating or

improperly tuned engine could lead to

clogging of the catalyst unit. To the

extent this happens, transit operators

must have instructions for cleaning the

unit. Routine cleaning of the catalyst

unit on properly tuned engines is not

required, and thus no life cycle cost is

associated with this cleaning procedure.

Therefore, EPA has determined that no

additional maintenance costs,

incremental to costs associated with a

standard rebuild, are associated with the

use of this equipment.

ii. Incremental Fuel Cost

EPA received numerous comments

regarding the fuel economy impact of

the ETX kit. DDC’s testing of the ETX kit

showed a brake-specific fuel

consumption (BSFC) ranging from 0.469

to 0.472 lbs./bhp-hr. DDC believes that

comparing these BSFC measurements

with Engelhard’s original 1979 and

supplementary 1986 baseline tests

(0.421 and 0.442 lbs./bhp-hr) may not be

appropriate given that DDC and

Engelhard testing were conducted at

different laboratories which may use

different test procedures and

equipment. However, DDC believes that

comparing it’s BSFC data for the ETX kit

to a 1979 6V92TA baseline engine tested

by DDC recently in its own retrofit

certification program (60 FR 51472,

October 2, 1995) is valid. Comparison of

the original ETX certification test with

DDC’s baseline testing shows an average

2.2 percent fuel economy penalty for the

ETX kit. In its November 11, 1996 and

November 22, 1996 follow-up letters to

EPA, DDC notes other factors, such as

blower drive ratio and catalyst

backpressure, which are consistent with

increased fuel consumption with the

ETX kit. Considering these qualitative

factors, combined with its test data,

DDC believes that a 2–4 percent fuel

penalty is appropriate.

JMI commented that a four percent

fuel economy penalty, as demonstrated

by Engelhard’s original certification and

baseline test data, should be used to

assess the fuel economy impact of the

ETX kit. In addition, JMI referenced a

report prepared for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) for the U.S. Department of

Energy, which concludes that thermal

barrier coatings on diesel engine

combustion components can result in

up to a two percent fuel economy

penalty compared to baseline ‘‘metal’’

(i.e., non-coated) components. EPA

notes that the relevancy of this report to

this particular certification is unclear.

Milwaukee County, Long Beach

Transit, CT Transit, NJ Transit, and NY

MTA all commented regarding the fuel

economy impacts associated with the

ETX kit. In general, these transits

believe that the Federal transient test

procedure does not represent real-world

urban bus operation, and therefore, the

actual fuel economy impact is

unknown. One commenter suggested

that fuel economy impact be determined

through testing over the Advanced

Design Bus Cycle chassis dynamometer

test, which the commenter believed to

be more representative of urban bus

operation.

Regarding the comments from transit

operators, 40 CFR 85.1407(a)(3)(ii)

states, in part, that certifiers must

include in their notification of intent to

certify ‘‘(t)he percent change in fuel

economy * * * based on testing

performed over the heavy-duty engine

Federal test procedure or an approved

alternative test procedure’’. Engelhard

complied with this requirement by

providing the percent change in fuel

economy resulting from use of this kit

as measured over the heavy-duty engine

Federal test procedure described at 40

CFR Part 86 Subpart N. While test data

generated using the Advanced Design

Bus Cycle could be useful to EPA when

determining fuel economy impacts, it is

not required. In addition, in order to

demonstrate compliance with the 0.10

g/bhp-hr PM standard, testing must be

conducted using the engine-based

Federal test procedure. Requiring

additional testing to demonstrate fuel

economy on a chassis-based test cycle

would be an expense of unknown

benefit.

Regarding DDC and JMI comments,

the following describes the available
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices 12175

data on the subject. Table D below

summarizes the available transient

BSFC data for both baseline engines and

engines with the ETX kit.

TABLE D.—AVAILABLE BASELINE AND ETX TEST DATA

Test description Test date BSFC1

(lbs./bhp-hr)

Engelhard’s original 1979 baseline ......................................................................................................... March 1, 1996 .................... 0.421

Engelhard’s original ETX certification test .............................................................................................. January 26, 1996 ............... 0.438

Engelhard’s supplementary 1986 baseline ............................................................................................. October 4, 1996 ................. 0.442

Engelhard’s supplementary ETX certification test .................................................................................. September 27, 1996 .......... 0.447

DDC’s 1979 baseline .............................................................................................................................. NA ...................................... 0.461

DDC’s ETX test average ......................................................................................................................... June/July 1996 ................... 0.471

Brake-specific fuel consumption measured in units of pounds per brake horsepower-hour.

In it’s original application for

certification, Engelhard claimed no fuel

economy penalty associated with the

ETX kit, even though Engelhard’s

original certification data for the ETX

configuration indicate a 4 percent fuel

economy penalty compared to a

standard 1979 6V92TA MUI baseline

rebuild.

In a March 8, 1996 letter to EPA,

Engelhard further explained its rationale

for the claim of no fuel economy impact,

noting that the cylinder liners (part

number 8923348) used in the 1979

baseline rebuild have larger inlet ports

compared to those currently available

for rebuilding engines, thus improving

volumetric efficiency of the engine.

Such an improvement in volumetric

efficiency, Engelhard claims, would

lead to improved fuel economy

compared to an engine with lower

volumetric efficiency. In addition,

Engelhard claims that the 1979 liner

used to rebuild the original baseline test

engine allows more oil into the

combustion chamber, causing an

increase in PM, but also an

improvement in fuel economy

compared to cylinder kits with a smaller

inlet port. Engelhard provided data

showing a PM oil fraction for the 1979

baseline test of 0.076 g/bhp-hr,

compared to 0.046 g/bhp-hr for the

January 26, 1996 ETX certification test.

In addition, Engelhard argues that the

4 percent demonstrated on the original

1979 baseline is reasonably close to the

plus/minus 3 percent variability of the

fuel economy measurement. This is

supported by the supplemental baseline

testing conducted on October 7, 1996 on

an engine rebuilt to a 1986 6V92TA MUI

configuration. The fuel consumption

data for this test is shown in Table D

above, and shows virtually no fuel

economy impact (about 1 percent)

compared to the ETX configuration.

In its November 11, 1996 letter, DDC

refutes Engelhard’s claim that the larger

port in the 1979 configuration improves

the fuel economy relative to a smaller

ported liner. DDC states that the liner

port is dimensioned such that the

bottom of the port remains constant in

the liner, with the top of the port being

higher in larger port sizes. In DDC’s

opinion, port size has a relatively small

impact on fuel economy compared to

factors such as engine exhaust

backpressure and blower drive ratio. In

addition, DDC notes that the liner used

in Engelhard’s original 1979 baseline

test engine had 0.95 inch ports, which

are still readily available today. EPA

recognizes that fuel economy may vary

from test to test depending on several

factors including base engine design and

measurement technique. The statistical

determination of the variability of this

combination would require additional

testing and is beyond the practical

requirements of the Urban Bus Program.

EPA, therefore, makes the following

decision on the impact of fuel economy

on life cycle costs based on the available

data. EPA believes the most reasonable

approach, based on the available data, is

to average the fuel economy impacts

demonstrated by Engelhard on its 1979

and 1986 rebuild configurations (about

1 percent and four percent,

respectively), resulting in a fuel

economy penalty of about 2 percent.

This figure is consistent with that

demonstrated by DDC (about 2 percent),

and other qualitative statements made

by JMI and DDC. Using this 2 percent

figure and the equations of Section

85.1403 of the program regulations, EPA

determines the fuel economy impact

associated with the ETX rebuild kit to

be $563.36 (in 1992 dollars), or $635.64

(in October 1996 dollars).

iii. Purchase Price (Cost of a Standard

Rebuild)

According to Section

85.1403(b)(1)(iii)of the program

regulation, the purchase price of

equipment is defined as ‘‘the price at

which the equipment * * * is offered

to the operator’’, and ‘‘excludes * * *

costs * * * for a standard rebuild’’. In

Engelhard’s original notification of

intent to certify, Engelhard proposed a

purchase price plus installation cost of

$13,502, and a standard rebuild cost of

$5,562. Thus, the net incremental life

cycle cost proposed by Engelhard

totaled $7,940 (in 1992 dollars).

Engelhard’s proposed standard rebuild

cost of $5,562 was based on the

maximum purchase price guaranteed by

DDC in it’s April 11, 1995 application

for certification of the 6V92TA MUI

upgrade kit.

DDC commented that Engelhard’s

proposed cost for a standard rebuild of

$5,562 includes approximately $97 for

the blower bypass valve, which is not

always replaced during a standard

rebuild. In addition, DDC noted some

apparent inconsistencies with respect to

current year dollars versus 1992 dollars.

For example, Engelhard states in it’s

application that all costs are in 1992

dollars, while the $5,562 cost from

DDC’s April 11, 1995 application are in

1995 dollars.

JMI commented that basing the cost of

a standard rebuild on the price DDC

proposed for it’s upgrade kit is not

representative of the cost of a standard

rebuild. JMI stated that numerous fleets

receive a minimum 18 percent discount

on DDC parts compared to the list price

upon which Engelhard’s standard

rebuild cost was based. Applying an 18

percent discount to the $5,562 OE list

price cost, JMI claims a standard rebuild

cost of $4,561. In addition, JMI

comments that fleets typically can

rebuild using non-OE parts at a savings

of 40 percent compared to OE list price.

JMI states that this 40 percent discount

results in a standard rebuild cost of

$3,337. JMI did not indicate a cost

associated with using a combination of

non-OE parts and discounted OE parts,

nor did they indicate which of these two

proposed standard rebuild costs it

considers more representative of the

actual cost.

In response to DDC comments, EPA

notes that the blower bypass valve is not
12176 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices

2‘‘Survey of Heavy-Duty Engine Rebuilding,

Reconditioning, and Remanufacturing Practices’’,

August 1987, CARB Contract #A4–152–32, Prepared

by Sierra Research, Inc.

included in the cost of a standard

rebuild since it is not always replaced.

Also, the cost analyses presented below

are updated to reflect current dollars.

EPA announced the certification of

the DDC MUI upgrade kit on the basis

of meeting life cycle cost requirements

in a Federal Register notice dated July

19, 1996 (61 FR 37734). In that July 19,

1996 notice, EPA responded to

comments relating to the cost of a

standard 6V92TA MUI rebuild, and

determined that a ‘‘weighted’’ rebuild,

which accounts for use of OE, non-OE,

and rebuilt parts is likely more

representative of typical fleet rebuilding

practices than using only OE parts. That

weighted rebuild analysis resulted in a

cost of $3,747.66 (in 1995 dollars), and

was based on the best information

available at the time. Table E below

provides a summary of that analysis,

and is shown in December 1995 dollars.

TABLE E.—COST OF A WEIGHTED REBUILD SUMMARIZED FROM 61 FR 37734, JULY 19, 1996

[1995 Dollars]

Item in kit OE list cost Non-OE

cost

OE list less

18%

Weighted

rebuild 1 DDC Kit

Cylinder Kit ............................................................................................... $1,844.52 $1,139.94 $1,512.51 $1,391.05 ....................

Gasket Kit ................................................................................................. 220.16 132.10 180.53 164.74 ....................

Air Inlet Hose ............................................................................................ 14.95 8.97 12.26 11.19 ....................

Blower Bypass Valve ................................................................................ 97.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 ....................

Fuel Injectors ............................................................................................ 444.96 266.98 364.87 332.96 ....................

LB Camshaft ............................................................................................. 581.84 349.10 477.11 435.38 ....................

RB Camshaft ............................................................................................ 581.84 349.10 477.11 435.38 ....................

Blower Assembly ...................................................................................... 442.80 199.26 0.00 199.26 ....................

Turbo Assembly ........................................................................................ 783.00 352.35 0.00 352.35 ....................

Heads Assembly ....................................................................................... 944.84 425.18 0.00 425.18 ....................

Totals ................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... 3,747.48 5,561.92

1The weighting factors used to arrive at each individual weighted component cost are described in detail in the Federal Register notice referenced above.

In letters dated October 8, 1996, and October 21, 1996, Engelhard provided additional information to EPA in response

to JMI’s cost comments on the ETX kit, and in response to the weighted rebuild cost shown in Table E. As a result

of contacting various fleets and parts distributors, Engelhard states that several adjustments to EPA’s weighted cost

approach are warranted.

Engelhard states that the OE list prices for the various engine components have risen significantly since the DDC

approval. Engelhard also states that JMI’s assumption that fleets typically receive an 18 percent discount from OE

list is incorrect. DDC provided current OE list costs and suggested fleet costs of individual engine components. Table

F below represents an update of the weighted cost analysis presented in the July 19, 1996 Federal Register, updated

to reflect current (October 1996) OE list and fleet prices reported by DDC.

TABLE F.—COST OF A WEIGHTED REBUILD 1

[October 1996 Dollars]

Item in kit OE list cost Non-OE

cost

OE list less

18%

Weighted

rebuild 1

Cylinder Kit ....................................................................................................................... $1,967.34 $1,174.02 $1,691.40 $1,522.74

Gasket Kit ......................................................................................................................... 234.82 140.89 201.27 181.59

Air Inlet Hose .................................................................................................................... 16.20 9.72 13.88 12.52

Blower Bypass Valve ........................................................................................................ 103.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fuel Injectors .................................................................................................................... 484.98 290.99 447.96 396.79

LB Camshaft ..................................................................................................................... 738.80 443.28 633.25 571.32

RB Camshaft .................................................................................................................... 738.80 443.28 633.25 571.32

Blower Assembly .............................................................................................................. 488.01 219.60 0.00 219.60

Turbo Assembly ................................................................................................................ 801.00 360.45 0.00 360.45

Heads Assembly ............................................................................................................... 1,083.56 487.60 0.00 487.60

Totals ......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,323.93

1This table is intended to represent the weighted rebuild cost analysis from Table E above, update to reflect October 1996 dollars.

In addition to updating EPA’s

previous cost analysis to reflect current

prices, Engelhard identified several cost

areas of the previous weighted cost

analysis it felt should be modified. First,

Engelhard states that typical non-OE

parts cost 25 percent less than the OE

part, compared to the 40 percent

assumed in the weighted rebuild

analysis of the July 19, 1996 Federal

Register. Engelhard also notes that some

aftermarket parts actually cost more

than the OE part. Engelhard contacted

DDC, two parts distributors, and various

transits to obtain this information. JMI,

on the other hand, contacted only one

parts distributor to form the basis of it’s

comments. EPA believes that

Engelhard’s estimation of non-OE part

cost differential is more consistent with

information in a study conducted for the

California Air Resources Board on

heavy-duty diesel rebuilding.2 The

authors of the study contacted four parts

distributors and found that aftermarket

parts are generally less expensive than
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices 12177

OE parts. Comparing the cost

differential of a limited number of parts,

the aftermarket parts cost about 10 to 20

percent less than OE parts. Based on

this information, and the sources

contacted for that information, EPA

believes that the 25 percent cost

difference noted by Engelhard is likely

more representative than the 40 percent

difference claimed by JMI.

Second, Engelhard states that the

weighted cost approach should be

adjusted to reflect an additional cost to

transit operators who rebuild in-house,

because parts are occasionally

unrebuildable due to catastrophic

failure. Engelhard stated that 10 percent

of turbochargers and blowers are not

rebuildable, and that 50 percent of

cylinder heads are not rebuildable. This

information is consistent with EPA’s

current understanding based on

discussions with DDC. When parts are

unrebuildable, a transit operator would

typically purchase a new component at

fleet cost. The nominal cost of these

components assumes the exchange of a

rebuildable core. If the core is not

rebuildable, then the operator pays a

core charge plus the nominal cost of the

component. The sum of the component

fleet price plus the core charge represent

additional costs to fleets that rebuild inhouse, due to unrebuildable parts.

When weighted based on the frequency

at which the part is unrebuildable, it

yields an additional cost on a per

components basis. EPA’s weighted

rebuild from the July 19, 1996 Federal

Register assumes in-house rebuild of

three components: the turbocharger, the

blower, and the heads. Therefore, Table

G below summarizes estimates of the

additional costs related to the in-house

rebuild of these parts.

TABLE G.—IMPACT OF UNREBUILDABLE PARTS

[1996 Dollars]

Item OE fleet

price

In-house

rebuild cost

Percent

damaged Core charge

Added Cost

(OE fleet

price + core)

(damaged)

Actual inhouse

rebuild Cost

Blower ............................................................................... $450.73 $219.60 10 $466.00 $91.67 $311.28

Turbo ................................................................................. 739.81 360.45 10 300.00 103.98 464.43

Heads ................................................................................ 1,000.78 487.60 50 425.00 712.89 1,200.49

Finally, Engelhard states that OE parts

carry a 100,000 mile warranty, while

transit remanufactured parts and nonOE parts carry less, if any, warranty.

Engelhard believes the cost implications

of the warranty coverage should be

included in the analysis with respect to

use of non-OE and transit

remanufactured parts, and provides

discussion.

EPA does not dispute that some

additional cost might be associated with

different warranties provided by

different part manufacturers. However,

the cost impacts associated with

warranties cannot be adequately

quantified based on the available

information. EPA believes that any

additional cost would be related to

repairs necessary for non-OE parts

failing beyond the warranty for the nonOE part, but within the warranty period

required for equipment certified under

this program. No information has been

provided on this subject, but the impact

of this analysis on life cycles costs is

expected to be minimal.

In summary, EPA is making the

following three adjustments to its

analysis of the cost of a weighted

rebuild described in the July 19, 1996

Federal Register. First, all costs are

updated to reflect October 1996 dollars

(this singular revision is shown in Table

F). Second, the weighted rebuild is

modified to reflect non-OE parts cost of

25 percent less than OE cost, rather than

40 percent. Finally, the costs of

unrebuildable parts cores are reflected

in the costs of these three components,

as discussed previously, for fleets

rebuilding parts in-house. Table H

shows the cost of a weighted rebuild

including the three aforementioned

adjustments.

TABLE H.—COST OF A WEIGHTED REBUILD (REFLECTING IMPACT OF UNREBUIDABLE PARTS AND 25 PERCENT NON-OE

PARTS DISCOUNT)

[1996 Dollars]

Item in kit OE list cost Non-OE

Cost

OE fleet

price

Weighted

rebuild

Cylinder Kit ....................................................................................................................... $1,967.34 $1,174.02 $1,691.40 $1,522.74

Gasket Kit ......................................................................................................................... 234.82 176.12 201.27 193.07

Air Inlet Hose .................................................................................................................... 16.20 12.15 13.88 13.32

Blower Bypass Valve ........................................................................................................ 103.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fuel Injectors .................................................................................................................... 484.98 363.74 447.96 420.50

LB Camshaft ..................................................................................................................... 738.80 554.10 633.25 607.45

RB Camshaft .................................................................................................................... 738.80 554.10 633.25 607.45

Blower Assembly .............................................................................................................. 488.01 311.28 0.00 311.28

Turbo Assembly ................................................................................................................ 801.00 464.43 0.00 464.43

Heads Assembly ............................................................................................................... 1,083.56 1,200.49 0.00 1,200.49

Totals ......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,340.72

EPA believes that, for the purposes of

determining purchase price for the

Engelhard ETX kit, the cost of a

standard rebuild for a DDC 6V92TA

MUI engine is best approximated by the

weighted rebuild costs shown in Table

H. EPA uses the $5,340.72 cost (in 1996

dollars) as the cost of a standard rebuild

to determine the life cycle cost of this

equipment.
12178 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices

iv. Catalyst Installation

As defined in 40 CFR 85.1403

(b)(1)(ii)(B), the installation cost of

certified equipment is ‘‘the labor cost of

installing the equipment on an urban

bus engine, incremental to a standard

rebuild, based on a labor rate of $35 per

hour’’ (in 1992 dollars). Engelhard states

the CMX–5 catalyst unit requires a

maximum time of six hours to install on

an urban bus engine, or $210 (in 1992

dollars). The urban bus engines for

which this equipment is intended were

not originally equipped with catalytic

convertors. Therefore, the muffler unit

must be removed from the engine, and

the CMX–5 unit installed in its place.

As a result, the $210 is incremental to

the cost of a standard rebuild.

v. Life Cycle Cost Calculation

In a December 16, 1996 letter to EPA,

Engelhard revised the price it will

charge transit operators for the ETX kit.

The maximum purchase price for the

ETX kit purchased wholly from

Engelhard (the supply option upon

which EPA is basing its determination

of compliance with the life cycle cost

requirements) is stated to be $13,425 (in

October 1996 dollars). This cost

includes all components of the ETX kit,

including the coated cylinder heads and

piston kits, the CMX–5 converter

muffler, and the turbocharger, blower,

blower drive gear, blower bypass valve,

camshafts, fuel injectors, air inlet hose,

and gasket kit.

Based on this maximum purchase

price, EPA determines that the ETX kit

complies with the $7940 (in 1992

dollars) life cycle cost requirement of

section 85.1403(b) for equipment

meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard.

A summary of life cycle costs is shown

in Table I below.

TABLE I.—LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Cost item Cost in 1996

dollars

Cost in 1992

dollars

Maximum ETX Kit Purchase Price .......................................................................................................................... $13,425.00 $11,898.47

2% Fuel Economy Penalty ....................................................................................................................................... 635.64 563.36

Catalyst Installation (6 hours) .................................................................................................................................. 236.94 210.00

Cost of Standard Rebuild ......................................................................................................................................... (5,340.72) (4,733.44)

Total Life Cycle Cost ........................................................................................................................................ 8,956.83 7,938.37

g. California Engines

DDC commented that Engelhard’s

request for certification of the ETX

system on California engines is

unsupported by any data. DDC notes

that the NOX standard for California

engines for 1984 and later model years

is more stringent than the corresponding

federal NOX standard. While

Engelhard’s test engine NOX level of

10.5 g/bhp-hr (secondary ETX

certification test) complies with the

1989 and earlier federal NOX standard,

it exceeds the California standards for

these same model years. DDC comments

that while the fuel injector part number

listed in the NIC for the 277 HP and 253

HP California versions of the ETX kit

have a slight internal timing retard

which would tend to reduce NOX, these

same injectors would also tend to

increase PM. DDC also comments that

the NOX reductions resulting from the

slight internal timing retard would not

be sufficient to ensure that California

engines remained below applicable

California NOX standards. DDC believes

the certification of the ETX kit for

California engines must be predicated

on evidence which shows such engines

comply with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard and comply with applicable

California NOX standards.

EPA agrees with DDC and determines

that insufficient data have been

provided to justify certification of the

ETX kit for use on engines originally

certified as meeting California emissions

standards. Section 85.1406(a)(1) of the

program regulations state, in part, that

the equipment certifier must

demonstrate that the equipment ‘‘will

not cause the urban bus engine to fail to

meet any applicable Federal emission

requirements set for that engine’’.

However, a unique situation exists

with respect to engines originally

certified as meeting California

standards. The DDC 6V92TA MUI

engines have, since the 1977 model

year, been certified to a more stringent

NOX standard in California. EPA has

granted California several waivers of

federal preemption in order to allow

these more stringent standards.

Engelhard must provide emission data

to demonstrate that California engines,

when retrofit with the ETX kit, will not

exceed applicable California standards.

Engelhard has provided no such data. In

fact, the data which were presented

indicate that engines with the ETX kit

installed will substantially exceed the

California NOX standard. EPA agrees

with DDC that if modifications were

made to the ETX kit or its components

to reduce NOX from the level

demonstrated by Engelhard’s test

engine, to the levels required to comply

with California standards, then, in the

absence of additional PM data, it is

unclear whether the equipment would

comply with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

This is because, generally speaking,

engine design measures taken to reduce

NOX emissions would likely increase

PM emissions. Therefore, EPA is not

certifying this equipment for use in

California at this time, and today’s

Federal Register notice does not trigger

the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard of the

urban bus retrofit program for engines

originally certified as meeting California

emissions standards.

Engelhard may submit an additional

notification of intent to certify the ETX

kit for use on engines certified as

meeting California emissions standards.

EPA would make the notification

available for a 45-day public review and

comment period. After resolution of

comments and concerns, EPA would

render a certification decision. In

addition, EPA understands the

California Air Resources Board’s

(ARB’s) view 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.

h. Other Comments

In its November 22, 1996 letter, DDC

stated its concern that the description of

the ETX kit has changed substantially

since the May 6, 1996 Federal Register

notice seeking public comment.

Specifically, DDC states that the

removal of coated exhaust parts and the

changing of fuel injector height and

throttle delay settings should have

prompted another opportunity for

public comment.

EPA notes that only two substantive

changes have been made to the ETX

since the initial notification of intent to

certify. Removal of coated exhaust parts

by Engelhard was done in response to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices 12179

public comments, including DDC’s.

Concerns were expressed by both the

public and EPA about the ability to

control the coating process on such

parts considering the part-to-part

variability in surface area, shape, etc.

Engelhard acknowledged that the coated

exhaust parts were originally included

in the ETX kit to provide an extra

compliance margin relative to the 0.10

g/bhp-hr PM standard, but were not

absolutely necessary to comply. Since

these parts were not considered

‘‘essential’’ by Engelhard to comply

with the standard, they were removed

from the kit. Engelhard believes that the

coating on the piston crowns and

combustion chambers is necessary to

provide an adequate compliance

margin. Any additional public comment

on this matter would be moot since the

coated exhaust components are no

longer present in the kit.

The second change to the ETX kit

involved the fuel injector height and

throttle delay settings. Engelhard

originally proposed settings of 1.460

inches and 0.594 inches, respectively

(the OEM settings for most engines

covered by this application are 1.466

inches and 0.636 inches, respectively).

The reason Engelhard modified the

OEM settings in its original application

was to ensure compliance with FTP

cycle performance statistics, rather than

for any specific engine or emissions

related performance reasons. (In fact,

the settings originally proposed by

Engelhard would tend to have a

negative impact on PM emissions.)

When Engelhard conducted

supplemental testing requested by EPA

to address fuel economy and emissions

issues, Engelhard was able to comply

with FTP cycle statistics using the OEM

settings of 0.636 inches and 1.466

inches. While returning these settings to

the OEM specifications is a change, EPA

believes it does not warrant reopening

the comment period because the change

is minor and directionally would tend

to reduce PM emissions.

JMI and DART expressed concern

about possible toxic emissions related to

the ETX kit. DART questions whether,

during assembly of the engine, coating

material may become ‘‘airborne’’,

resulting in a potential health concern.

In addition, DART and JMI question

whether the combustion process may

result in undesirable products. JMI

postulates that free heavy metals, such

as cobalt, molybdenum, nickel,

chromium, boron, silicon, and

vanadium, may be released if the

coating becomes cracked or spalled.

Such free metals, JMI states, when

exposed to sulfur from diesel fuel at

high temperatures and pressures (2200

degrees Fahrenheit, and 5 to 8

atmospheres), could react to form ‘‘a

variety of toxic compounds’’. In

addition, JMI states this could result in

deactivation of the catalyst unit located

in the exhaust stream.

EPA does not believe the conditions

upon which JMI’s (and DART’s) concern

is based will be present in engines using

the ETX kit. Primarily, JMI’s concern is

based on an assumption that the GPX–

5m coating is not durable, and thus will

spall and crack, allowing free metals to

react with sulfur. As described

elsewhere in today’s notice, durability

testing is not required under this

program. However, as discussed above,

the available data does not indicate that

the GPX–5m coating is not durable. In

addition, Engelhard contends that any

metals used in the GPX–5m coating are

applied to surfaces in such manner that

machining is required for removal.

DDC comments that it should not be

responsible for providing emission

defect or performance warranties under

the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program

for equipment certified by Engelhard,

even though DDC parts are required to

be used.

Engelhard, as the equipment certifier,

must provide all warranties required by

the urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulation.

Engelhard is aware of its responsibility

to provide such warranties, including

cases where transit operators obtain

DDC parts from Engelhard or through

their normal supply channels under the

approved supply options.

III. Certification Approval

The Agency has reviewed this

notification, along with comments

received from interested parties, and

finds the equipment described in this

notification of intent to certify:

(1) Complies with a particulate matter

emissions standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr,

without causing the applicable engine

families to exceed other exhaust

emission 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 described

below in Section IV.

IV. Transit Operator Responsibilities

Today’s Federal Register notice

announces certification of the abovedescribed Engelhard equipment, when

properly applied, as meeting the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr particulate matter standard of

the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program

for urban buses originally certified as

meeting Federal emissions standards.

Urban buses of the type described in

Table C of today’s notice, which were

originally certified as meeting California

emissions standards, are not covered the

certification announced today. Affected

urban bus operators who choose to

comply with program 1 are required to

use this, or other equipment that is

certified as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

particulate matter standard, for any

engines listed in Table C which are

rebuilt or replaced on or after September

15, 1997. The 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard is not triggered for urban buses

originally certified as meeting California

emission standards. Therefore, operators

of such urban buses, who choose to

comply with program 1, are not required

to use such equipment until the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr PM standard has been triggered

for such engines.

Urban bus operators who choose to

comply with program 2 may use the

certified Engelhard equipment

immediately, and those who use this

equipment may claim the respective

particulate matter certification level

from Table C when calculating their

Fleet Level Attained (FLA). Again,

because this equipment is not certified

as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard for engines originally certified

as meeting California emission

standards, operators of such urban

buses, who choose to comply with

program 2, may not use this equipment

to meet program requirements. In

addition, such operators, when

calculating their FLA, may not claim the

PM levels shown in Table C because the

program requires use of certified

equipment.

As stated in the program regulations

(40 CFR 85.1401 through 85.1415),

operators should 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 beginning on 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. Urban

bus operators using supply options 2

and 3, as described previously in

today’s Federal Register notice, must be

aware of their responsibility for

maintenance of records pursuant to 40

CFR 85.1403 through 85.1404, because

they do not purchase the complete ETX

kit from Engelhard. Urban bus operators

using supply option 2 or 3 must be able

demonstrate that all parts used in the
12180 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Notices

rebuilding of engines are in compliance

with program requirements. In other

words, such urban bus operators must

be able demonstrate that all components

of the kit certified in today’s Federal

Register notice are installed on

applicable engines.

Dated: March 7, 1997.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–6505 Filed 3–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPPTS–140254; FRL–5593–3]

Access to Confidential Business

Information by Science Applications

International Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its

contractor, Science Applications

International Corporation (SAIC), of

Reston, Virginia, access to information

which has been submitted to EPA under

all sections of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA). Some of the

information may be claimed or

determined to be confidential business

information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data

submitted to EPA will occur no sooner

than March 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Hazen, Director, Environmental

Assistance Division (7408), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

E–545, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460, (202) 554–1404, TDD: (202) 554–

0551; e-mail: TSCAHotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

contract number 68–W4–0005,

contractor SAIC, of 11251 Roger Bacon

Drive, Reston, VA, will assist the Office

of Waste and Chemicals Management

and Regional Offices RCRA

Enforcement, Permitting and Assistance

Program in the implementation of

RCRA/TSCA related initiatives. Major

areas of support include permitting

activities, Subtitle D solid waste,

corrective actions and RCRA program

planning.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j),

EPA has determined that under EPA

contract number 68–W4–0005, SAIC

will require access to CBI submitted to

EPA under all sections of TSCA to

perform successfully the duties

specified under the contract. SAIC

personnel will be given access to

information submitted to EPA under all

sections of TSCA. Some of the

information may be claimed or

determined CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform

all submitters of information under all

sections of TSCA that EPA may provide

SAIC access to these CBI materials on a

need-to-know basis only. All access to

TSCA CBI under this contract will take

place at SAIC’s site located at 18702 N.

Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA.

SAIC will be authorized access to

TSCA CBI at its facility under the EPA

TSCA Confidential Business

Information Security Manual. Before

access to TSCA CBI is authorized at

SAIC’s site, EPA will approve SAIC’s

security certification statement, perform

the required inspection of its facility,

and ensure that the facility is in

compliance with the manual. Upon

completing review of the CBI materials,

SAIC will return all transferred

materials to EPA.

Clearance for access to TSCA CBI

under this contract may continue until

January 5, 1999.

SAIC personnel will be required to

sign nondisclosure agreements and will

be briefed on appropriate security

procedures before they are permitted

access to TSCA CBI.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Access to

confidential business information.

Dated: March 7, 1997.

Oscar Morales,

Acting Director, Information Management

Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics.

[FR Doc. 97–6517 Filed 3–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[ER–FRL–5478–4]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared February 24, 1997 Through

February 28, 1997 pursuant to the

Environmental Review Process (ERP),

under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act

and Section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act as amended.

Requests for copies of EPA comments

can be directed to the Office of Federal

Activities at (202) 564–7167.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in FR

dated April 5, 1996 (61 FR 15251).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–K65193–NV Rating

EO2, Griffon Mining Project,

Implementation, Issuance Plan of

Operations Approval, HumboldtToiyabe National Forests, Ely Ranger

District, White Pine County, NV.

Summary: EPA had environmental

objections to the proposed project based

on its potential impacts to a wet

meadow and disturbance of more land

for waste rock dumps, impacts to water

quality and habitat in Ellison Creek,

facilities design, and air quality. EPA

requested additional information

regarding water quality impacts and

objectives, facilities design, mitigation

measures, the waste rock

characterization and handling plan, and

access roads. EPA recommended that

the Forest Service select as its preferred

alternative Alternative C with

backfilling of the Hammer Ridge pit.

ERP No. DC–NPS–K61029–CA Rating

EC2, Yosemite National Park General

Management Plan, Yosemite Housing

Project, Updated Information on

Yosemite Valley Housing Plan, New and

Replacement Housing, Mariposa,

Modera and Tuolumne Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that the new

preferred alternative would move fewer

park employees out of Yosemite Valley

than previously identified alternatives,

and an employee transportation system

would not be developed. EPA

recommended the analysis of an

additional alternative which combines a

more aggressive development of EL

Portal housing with an alternative fuels

employee transportation system.

ERP No. DS–NOA–E86002–00 Rating

LO, Sapper Grouper Fishery,

Amendment 8 to the Fishery

Management Plan, Regulatory Impact

Review, South Atlantic Region.

Summary: EPA lacked objections to

the proposed 17 regulatory actions to

improve fisheries in US EEZ and

recommended more emphasis on

nonpoint pollutions, as a factor

exacerbated declines in fishery stock.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–BLM–K65188–CA Eagle

Mountain Landfill and Recycling Center

Project, Land Exchange, Right-of-Way

Grants and COE Section 404 Permit

Issuance, Riverside County, CA.

Summary: Review of the final EIS was

not deemed necessary. No formal

comment letter was sent to the

preparing agency.

ERP No. F–FHW–E40738–NC US–220

Connecting the Star/Biscoe/Candor

Bypass, Improvement, Funding, Rightof-Way, Possible COE Permit,