26798 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices

rebuilding or replacing the applicable

engines. If certified, the candidate kit

would meet, and exceed, this

requirement. The candidate kit could

also be used in full compliance if the

program requirement to use equipment

certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard is

triggered.

If the Agency certifies the candidate

equipment, then operators who choose

to comply with Program 2 and install

this equipment, would use the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr certification level in their

calculations for fleet level attained

(FLA) as specified in the program

regulations.

The date of this notice initiates a 45-

day period during which EPA will

accept written comments relevant to

whether the equipment described in the

JM notification of intent to certify

should be certified pursuant to the

urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations.

Interested parties are encouraged to

review this notification, and provide

written comments during the 45-day

review period. Separate comments

should be provided in writing to each of

the addresses listed under the

Addresses section of this notice.

At a minimum, EPA expects to

evaluate this notification of intent to

certify, and other materials submitted as

applicable, to determine whether there

is adequate demonstration of

compliance with: (1) the certification

requirements of § 85.1406, including

whether the testing accurately

substantiates the claimed emission

reduction or emission levels; and, (2)

the requirements of § 85.1407 for a

notification of intent to certify.

EPA requests that those commenting

also consider these regulatory

requirements, plus provide comments

on any experience or knowledge

concerning: (a) problems with installing,

maintaining, and/or using the

equipment on applicable engines; and,

(b) whether the equipment is compatible

with affected vehicles.

EPA will review this notification of

intent to certify, along with comments

received from the interested parties, and

attempt to resolve or clarify issues as

necessary. During the review process,

EPA may add additional documents to

the docket as a result of the review

process. These documents will also be

available for public review and

comment.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 98–12849 Filed 5–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6013–8]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Certification of Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of EPA certification of

equipment provided by Detroit Diesel

Corporation.

SUMMARY: Today’s Federal Register

notice announces EPA’s decision to

certify equipment to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard for the Urban Bus Retrofit/

Rebuild Program. The equipment is

provided by the Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC).

DDC submitted to EPA a notification

of intent to certify equipment, in

materials signed July 16, 1997, pursuant

to the program regulations at 40 CFR

Part 85, Subpart O. On November 6,

1997, EPA published a notice in the

Federal Register that the DDC

notification had been received and

made the notification available for

public review and comment for a period

of 45 days (62 FR 60077). EPA has

completed its review and the Director of

the Engine Programs and Compliance

Division has determined that it meets all

requirements for certification.

Therefore, EPA certified this equipment

in a letter to DDC dated April 6, 1998.

The equipment consists of the base

engine components used on the 25%

reduction retrofit/rebuild kit certified by

DDC, components from the 25% retrofit

catalyst kit certified by Engine Control

Systems, Ltd. (ECS) and a TurboPac

supercharger system supplied by

Turbodyne Systems, Inc. that supplies

additional air for combustion during

engine acceleration.

The kit is applicable to 6V92TA urban

bus engine models made by Detroit

Diesel Corporation (DDC) from model

years 1979 to 1989 and equipped with

mechanical unit injectors (MUI), and

may be used immediately by transit

operators in compliance with program

requirements. The kit would be

available in three horsepower levels

(253, 277, and 294).

EPA has determined that this DDC kit

complies with the 0.10 gram per brake

horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) particulate

matter (PM) standard for the applicable

engines. EPA has not determined that

DDC’s notification complies with the

life cycle cost requirements of the

program regulations because no life

cycle costs were supplied with the

application.

Today’s Federal Register notice does

not trigger any additional program

requirements for transit operators. The

0.10 g/bhp-hr PM level has already been

triggered for all engines covered by this

notification.

The notification of intent to certify, as

well as other materials specifically

relevant to it, are contained in Category

XX–A of Public Docket A–93–42,

entitled ‘‘Certification of Urban Bus

Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment.’’ This

docket is located at the address listed

below.

Additional details concerning this

certification, the DDC’s kit, and

responsibilities of transit operators, are

provided below.

DATES: EPA certified this equipment in

a letter to DDC dated April 6, 1998.

Today’s Federal Register notice

announces this certification. The 0.10

g/bhp-hr standard was triggered on

March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12166) for all

engines covered by this certification.

ADDRESSES: The DDC notification, as

well as other material specifically

relevant to it, are contained at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

Public Air Docket A–93–42 (Category

XX–A), Room M–1500, 401 ‘‘M’’ Street

SW, Washington, DC 20460.

The DDC notification of intent to

certify, as well as other materials

specifically relevant to it, are contained

in the public docket indicated above.

Docket items may be inspected from

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

through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR

Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged

by EPA for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Erb, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6403J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

‘‘M’’ St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Telephone: (202) 564–9259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Description of the Certified Kit

The certified kit described in today’s

Federal Register notice is provided by

DDC. It is certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard but does not comply with the

applicable life cycle cost requirements

of the program. No cost data was

provided in the notification.

The certification described in today’s

notice applies to 1979 through 1989

model year DDC 6V92TA engines that

are equipped with mechanical unit

injectors (MUI) and certified to federal

emissions standards. It does not apply

to engines certified to California

emissions standards. The impact of this

decision on transit operators is

discussed in more detail in the ‘‘Transit

Operator Requirements’’ section below.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices 26799

The kit, described further below,

consists of base engine components

used on the 25% reduction kit certified

by DDC earlier, a catalytic exhaust

muffler supplied by Engine Control

Systems, Ltd. (ECS), and a TurboPac

supercharger system supplied by

Turbodyne Systems, Inc. that supplies

additional combustion air during

acceleration. The kit is available in three

horsepower (hp) ratings (253, 277, and

294 hp).

For retrofit with the DDC kit, an

engine is rebuilt in accordance with

standard DDC rebuild procedures, using

specified engine components. This

component set essentially includes the

equipment certified by EPA to provide

a 25% particulate reduction on October

2, 1995, at 60 FR 51472. These

components are provided in two

separate sets of parts. The first set of

components is comprised of newly

manufactured parts, including a gasket

kit, air inlet hose, cylinder kits (piston

assemblies and cylinder liners) a bypass valve and a truck type throttle

delay. The second set of components

includes Reliabilt TM remanufactured

parts, including the fuel injectors,

camshafts, blower assembly,

turbocharger, and head assemblies. Kit

usage is based on engine rotation

(righthand (RH) or lefthand (LH)),

engine orientation, right bank cam gear

mounting (bolt or nut), and engine

power output based on injector size.

The only difference from the previously

certified equipment according to DDC is

the inclusion of a truck-style throttle

delay, adjustment of the throttle delay

and injector timing settings to improve

driveability. Additionally, the cylinder

kit components have been modified to

improve durability.

The converter is the same size and

shape as the catalytic converter muffler

certified by ECS for the Urban Bus

Program as described in the Federal

Register on January 6, 1997 (61 FR 746),

is a direct replacement for the original

equipment muffler, and is designed to

fit the specific bus/engine combination.

The use of diesel fuel that has been

mixed with crankcase oil is prohibited

by DDC.

The third constituent of the kit

consists of an electrically powered

supercharger system which is supplied

by Turbodyne Systems, Inc. This

component set, referred to as the

TurboPac TM supplies additional intake

air during engine acceleration from low

engine speeds. DDC states that in

addition to decreasing PM emissions

and visible smoke during engine

acceleration, the supercharger also

improves engine response and vehicle

driveability by reducing the fuel

modulation during acceleration. The

basic system consists of a supercharger

blower, a diverter valve, a boost

pressure sensor, an electrical control

box and power cables, and a throttle

switch for detecting the start of the

engine acceleration mode, and will be

supplied in two kits. One includes those

components common to all installations

and a second kit to accommodate the

installation requirements of the various

engine and vehicle configurations.

To complete an engine rebuild two (2)

base engine component kits, one (1)

converter muffler kit, and two (2)

supercharger kits are required. The

specific kits used will depend on the

engine/vehicle combination.

DDC states there are no differences in

the service intervals or maintenance

practices for the base engine associated

with the installation of the upgrade kit.

The converter/muffler requires no

regularly scheduled maintenance, only

an occasional cleaning if the maximum

back pressure of the exhaust system is

exceeded. The supercharger does not

require scheduled maintenance;

however, a visual inspection for air

leaks is recommended whenever the

engine is serviced.

Standard procedures as described in

the service manual for 92 Series engines

are to be used when rebuilding the base

engines using the candidate equipment.

No unique rebuild procedures are

required.

Use of the candidate kit is restricted

to 6V92TA Detroit Diesel Corporation

engines manufactured from January

1979 through December 1989, equipped

with mechanical unit fuel injectors

(MUI), and originally certified to meet

Federal emission standards. The

required fuel is low sulphur (0.05% max

by weight) diesel fuel, either number 1

or number 2. Complete rebuild kits will

be sold by DDC through normal

distribution channels.

All of the testing presented by DDC

for this certification was conducted

using original equipment (OE) parts,

except for the converter muffler and the

TurboPac components. EPA has no

assurance that engines rebuilt using

parts that are not (OE) would comply

with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

Therefore, use of engine parts that are

not the specified OE parts are not

covered by the certification described in

today’s Federal Register notice.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1409, DDC will

provide a 100,000-mile defect warranty

and a 150,000-mile emissions

performance warranty for the kit, and all

of its components.

EPA’s certification of the Engelhard

Corporation’s ETX TM kit (62 FR 12166;

March 14, 1997) triggered the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr standard for 1979–1989 6V92TA

MUI engines. That kit provided the

three power ratings: 253, 277, and 294

hp that are included in this certification.

Consequently, the certification of the

DDC kit described in today’s Federal

Register notice, does not trigger the 0.10

g/bhp-hr standard for engines included

in the certification.

II. Background and Basis for

Certification

In a notification of intent to certify

equipment, composed of an initial

document signed July 16, 1997 and

subsequent documents, DDC applied for

certification of the kit under the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild

Program. Engines applicable to the

certified kit are 6V92TA urban bus

engine models made by Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) from model years

1979 to 1989 that are equipped with

mechanical unit injectors (MUI) and

certified to, or rebuilt to, comply with

federal emissions standards. The

certifier’s principal place of business is:

Detroit Diesel Corporation, 13400 Outer

Drive, West, Detroit, Michigan 48329–

4001.

Using engine dynamometer (transient)

testing in accordance with the Federal

Test Procedure for heavy-duty diesel

engines, DDC demonstrated compliance

with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr particulate

matter (PM) emissions standard. Engine

dynamometer data, shown below in

Table A, is the basis for the certification

approval of the kit when used on

applicable engines. The emissions test

data is part of DDC’s notification of

intent to certify, which is available in

the public docket located at the abovementioned address. All testing was

conducted using #2 low-sulfur diesel

fuel.

TABLE A.—EXHAUST EMISSIONS

SUMMARY

Gaseous and particulate test

g/bhp-hr

1989

HDDE

standards

6V92TA

MUI

with

DDC kit

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

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

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

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

BSFC 1 ...................... .................. 0.464

Smoke Test: Standards ..............

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

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

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

1Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC)

is measured in units of lb/bhp-hr.
26800 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices

The exhaust emissions data presented

by DDC is from testing a Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) engine model

6V92TA, in accordance with procedures

set forth at 40 CFR Part 86, Subparts N

and I. The engine model was tested after

being equipped with the DDC kit. The

6V92 engine was tested in one

horsepower (hp) rating: 277hp.

The data of Table A demonstrates that

the test engine, when rebuilt with the

DDC kit, PM emissions are less than

0.10 g/bhp-hr and, emissions of

hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide

(CO), NOX and smoke opacity are within

applicable federal standards.

This action applies a PM emissions

level of 0.10 g/bhp-hr to all 1979

through 1989 DDC 6V92TA MUI urban

bus engines, when properly equipped

with the DDC kit and when using either

diesel fuel #1 or #2. Table B lists the

applicable engine models and

certification levels associated with the

certification announced in today’s

Federal Register.

TABLE B.—CERTIFICATION LEVEL OF

DDC KIT

Engine

models Engine codes CertificationPM level

1979–1989

DDC

6V92TA

MUI.

All certified to

meet federal emissions

standards.

0.10 g/bhphr.

All engines for which the DDC kit is

intended to apply are expected to meet

the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard because

the kit instructs the rebuilder to replace

all emissions-related parts during the

rebuild with DDC specified parts

included in the kit, install the converter

muffler and install the TurboPac system.

The engine-out emissions level

(upstream of the catalyst) is expected to

be predictable because all emissionrelated parts are replaced using the DDC

specified emissions-related parts and

settings of the kit. As demonstrated by

the test engine, the combination of the

specified parts, the specified settings of

the kit, the converter muffler and the

TurboPac system, result in a PM level

less than 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

A life cycle cost analysis is necessary

only for certification of equipment that

is meant to trigger a program emissions

standard. Certification of Engelhard

Corporation’s ETXTM kit triggered the

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for 6V92TA MUI

engines, and made available kits rated at

253, 277, and 294 hp. The DDC

certification does not include a cost

analysis and one is not necessary for

this certification. DDC states that

engines equipped with the kit will have

no additional maintenance or service

requirements.

III. Summary and Analysis of

Comments and Concerns

Comments were received from five

parties in response to the Federal

Register notice of November 6, 1997 (62

FR 60077). The commenters are Johnson

Matthey Incorporated (JMI), Engelhard

Corporation (Engelhard), the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (WMATA), the Maryland

Department of Transportation Mass

Transit Administration (MTA), and the

Milwaukee County Transit System

(MCTS). JMI and Engelhard provided

extensive comment. JMI is a

manufacturer of equipment certified to

meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for the

1979–1989 6V92TA MUI engines (see 62

FR 60079; November 6, 1997).

Engelhard is the manufacturer of

equipment certified under the urban bus

program that triggered the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard for the 1979–1989 6V92TA

MUI engines (see 62 FR 12166; March

14, 1997). WMATA, the MTA, and the

MCTS are large transit bus operators in

major metropolitan areas, which are

subject to requirements of the urban bus

program. The transits provided

generally favorable comments on their

experience with the equipment.

Comments or issues fell into the

following general categories: (A)

applicability of the kit; (B) description

of the kit; (C) testing demonstration and

documentation; (D) life cycle cost

analysis; (E) warranty; (F) durability,

and (G) in-use experience. All

correspondence, comments, and other

documentation are located in the public

docket at the address above.

(A) Applicability

In the November 6, 1997, Federal

Register notice, EPA stated that the

information provided in DDC’s

notification applied to 6V92TA DDC

engines manufactured from January

1979 to December 1989 equipped with

mechanical unit injectors (MUI) and

originally certified to meet Federal

emission standards.

In comments dated December 19,

1997, Engelhard stated that DDC has

failed to provide information

demonstrating that this retrofit system

can be applied safely to all vehicles.

Engelhard commented that the electrical

charging systems of urban buses can

vary by make and design and asked how

can we be sure that this system can be

installed in all urban buses without an

assessment of the charging system and

information on the stress that the system

that the DDC system will place on the

charging system. Additionally,

Engelhard commented that the

Turbodyne system uses a high speed

motor that draws over 300 amps for 8

seconds while the bus is accelerating.

This will dramatically increase the load

on the bus’ electrical system and will

cause premature wear of the alternator,

battery and electrical systems according

to Engelhard. The motor that Turbodyne

uses to drive the compressor can also

fail. Engelhard asked if there are any

durability data or effective life data for

this motor, and noted that because

urban buses stop and start continuously

the Turbodyne system will be operating

during a large portion of the bus

operating time.

According to Engelhard this system is

not designed to operate continuously

and the urban bus application will

require it to operate much more

frequently than it is designed to operate.

DDC needs to provide information,

demonstrating that it is reasonable to

expect the Turbodyne system will

remain operational for 150,000 miles.

Engelhard commented that it had

thoroughly tested the Turbodyne system

and found air leaks and malfunctioning

of the controller system occurred

frequently. In its comments of December

19, 1997 JMI states that the Turbodyne

system appears to have two states: on

and off. Considering the performance

cycle of a typical urban bus, this system

would be turned on every time a bus

would pull away from the curb. Since

the system has a high amperage draw on

the bus’ electrical system long term use

could prematurely wear out the battery

or starter solemoid. What are the long

term impacts on the life to the electrical

system? Was a standard bus battery/

starter system used in the test cell? How

high is the amperage and could this

require modifications to the bus’

electrical system? Could rewiring be

required and are there concerns of

shorts, or fire hazards?

In response to these comments, DDC

states that The TurboPac unit is

intended to compensate for the inherent

lag in the engine turbocharger during

rapid accelerations from low speed/light

load conditions. During these periods

the TurboPac operates at high speed

with a current draw of approximately

300 amps. At all other times when the

engine is operational, the TurboPac runs

at low speed in the ‘‘standby’’ condition

with a current draw of about 10 amps.

Accelerations sufficient to trigger high

speed TurboPac operation are expected

to occur quite frequently in urban bus

applications. However, the duration of

the high speed TurboPac operation is

very short. The system limits high speed

operation to a maximum of eight
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices 26801

seconds. In most cases the system

returns to standby operation in a shorter

period of time after a preset air box

pressure has been achieved. DDC logged

data on a pilot bus installation at MATS

in Milwaukee to determine the realworld duty cycle and current draw of

the TurboPac 2500. The bus was run on

a city route through downtown

Milwaukee in November 1997. The data

logger recorded data for approximately

eight hours in one second intervals. The

data analyzed encompass a 3 hour time

period from just before noon to

approximately 3:00 p.m. This portion

was chosen due to the relatively low

idle time in this sample and the

inability of the software to

accommodate additional data. In the

evaluation, when off it was assumed to

draw 10 amps and when it was on it was

assumed to draw 300 amps. The data

based on this evaluation indicates that

the TurboPac will be active in the high

speed mode approximately 10% of the

time. The time average draw is about 35

amps.

DDC states that in order to operate on

a dedicated electrical circuit, unit power

is taken directly from the battery, so

there are no modification necessary to

the bus electrical system. A 500 amp

fuse is installed on the circuit to the

controller to protect the system in case

of a short. DDC began field trials of the

retrofit system in July 1997. To date,

eight complete retrofit units have been

installed in buses and are in regular

revenue operation at four major U.S.

transit services. DDC stated that there

have been no problems with the

electrical systems or batteries on these

buses. These units have almost 40,000

miles of customer service with the high

mileage unit having accrued over 13,000

miles. In addition, TurboPac systems

were installed on two buses operating in

transit service. One of these units

experienced an early failure of a hand

assembled prototype controller. The

other bus has operated over 18,000

miles with no failures to the TurboPac

system.

DDC states that the in-use evaluation

program has not revealed any problems

with leaks. Consequently, no

improvements have been found

necessary to reduce leaks. Since leaks

have not been a problem, DDC has not

quantified the size of leak that would be

sufficient to impair performance. With

regard to the Engelhard comment

concerning system leaks, DDC

commented that the TurboPac system

which Engelhard evaluated in early

1996 was a prototype design. In this

design, the TurboPac and the engine

turbocharger compressor were

configured in parallel and a diverter

valve was placed downstream where the

two flow paths merged. During

TurboPac operation, the valve was

positioned to permit flow from the

TurboPac to enter the engine and to

block off flow from the turbocharger.

When the TurboPac was not

operational, the valve assumed the

opposite position. In some early units,

the diverter valve did not seal

adequately and there was backflow

through the turbocharger during

TurboPac operation which resulted in

reduced system performance. The

current system has been completely

redesigned to alleviate this problem.

The TurboPac and engine turbocharger

are now in a series arrangement. A

check valve is placed downstream of the

TurboPac and allows the engine to draw

its intake air either from the TurboPac

or directly from the engine air cleaner.

The check valve has been shown to seal

adequately and prevent backflow during

TurboPac operation. DDC noted that the

check valve operates in a relatively low

pressure zone compared to the earlier

diverter valve which was exposed to the

full pressure supplied by the

turbocharger.

Additional batteries or larger capacity

alternators have not been installed in

any of the pilot units and there have

been no problems with the electrical

system. DDC states that because the

electrical connections for the TurboPac

system are independent of the bus

electrical system, it is not necessary to

rewire electrical systems on buses. No

fires or electrical shorts are expected

and none have been reported during the

pilot installations. DDC does not expect

any negative impacts on the long term

viability and integrity of bus electrical

systems. During emission testing

electrical power for the TurboPac was

batter supplied.

DDC has stated that the Delco-Remy

50dn alternator rated at 270 or 300 amps

is the standard in the transit industry

and is the only alternator that DDC

offered with the 6V–92 transit engines.

DDC cannot state that no other

alternator is or could be used on

affected transit buses, but does state that

the use of another type alternator would

be extremely rare. Delco-Remy provided

a statement that the 50dn alternator is

an approved candidate for use with the

DDC kit. It further states that the 50dn

charging system is designed to operate

at full capacity and that electrical

demand beyond the alternators capacity

will not adversely affect the alternators

performance, reliability or durability.

Based on the above discussion and

the responses provided by DDC

concerning the comments, EPA finds no

clear evidence that the DDC system is

inadequately designed to operate on the

urban bus engines to which it applies.

Further, the in use evaluation program

has demonstrated the ability to operate

without adversely effecting the bus

electrical systems. Therefore, EPA can

find no reason based on the above

comments not to grant certification of

this kit. EPA further notes that DDC is

required to provide a 100,000 mile

defect warranty and 150,000 mile

emissions performance warranty for the

DDC kit and all of its components.

JMI commented that a Turbodyne

representative stated publicly at APTA’s

Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program

Panel session in Nashville, TN in

August 1997, that Transit buses with

routes that would require the TurboPac

to operate more than 30% of the time

would not be good candidates for using

this system to reduce PM levels below

0.1 g/bhp-hr. JMI noted that this was not

referenced in the notice of intent to

certify and asked if this statement is still

accurate? What data is available to

substantiate DDC/Turbodyne’s claim

and is industry be informed of this

comment? In response, Turbodyne

provided information in letters dated

February 23 and February 27, 1998 that

during the August 1997 APTA Bus

Maintenance Workshop in Nashville, a

transit operator commented that the

TurboPac on his routes ‘‘would be on all

the time.’’ The Turbodyne

representative replied that he would not

recommend the TurboPac for

applications that exceeded 30% highspeed duty cycle. The ceiling of a 30%

duty cycle was based on the assumption

that the bus alternator would not have

sufficient excess capacity for this type of

duty cycle. Excess alternator capacity is

a direct function of the accessory load

and alternator rating. In citing an

example, a 270-amp system with a total

electrical load including the accessories

of lighting and air conditioning would

be 160 amps. The excess alternator

capacity in this situation would be 110

amps. Assuming a 10% duty cycle, this

system would have more than sufficient

excess alternator capacity to meet the

average current draw from the TurboPac

of 35 amps.

However, if a hypothetical duty cycle

of 40% were to exist, the TurboPac

would require a time-average draw of

140 amps and in this scenario the

alternator would need to be upgraded

before the TurboPac would be

appropriate. Turbodyne stated,

however, that duty cycles that exceed

30% are not expected. In practice,

Turbodyne stated it would be very hard

to envision a scenario that would

demand 30% high speed operation for

more than a few minutes. However,
26802 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices

DDC/Turbodyne will analyze and make

recommendations for any situation in

which the operator believes the vehicle

electrical system capacity may be in

question.

(B) Description of the DDC Kit

In its comments Engelhard asked how

DDC will ensure that future rebuilds

using this kit will use a new catalyst

and not an existing catalyst. Will all

parts be purchased from DDC? What is

the price? Will the catalyst be different

from the standard ECS 25% catalyst?

Will the catalyst be labeled as part of the

DDC kit? Can DDC ensure catalysts are

not swapped between buses? In

response, DDC states that a converter

muffler will be part of each rebuild kit.

Complete kits will be sold by DDC

through normal distribution channels. It

will not be possible to purchase a

complete rebuild kit without a

converter/muffler assembly included.

Swapping of catalysts between buses

should not be an issue since a new

catalyst is provided with each kit. The

converter muffler which will be

included in the DDC rebuild kits are

supplied by Engine Control Systems,

LTD (ECS) and are identical to the ECS

converter/mufflers certified to provide a

25% reduction in PM emissions on DDC

engines on January 6, 1997 as referenced

earlier. The catalyst will be labeled with

an ECS serial and model number.

Pricing information on the catalyst was

not provided as this kit is not being

certified within the cost ceiling

requirements.

In its comments, JMI asked how many

superchargers are actually installed on

the engine? What are the physical space

requirements for the supercharger(s)?

Will there be adequate space for the

supercharger(s) on all engines and why

are two base engine component kits

required?

DDC indicates that one TurboPac

Supercharger unit is required for each

installation. However, the equipment

will be supplied in two kits, one

containing components required for all

installations and a second which

includes those components needed to

accommodate the installation

requirements of the various engine and

vehicle configurations. With regard to

the space issue, DDC indicates that it

has performed pilot installations on

eight different buses which represent

five different configurations and all

have had adequate space to install all kit

components. According to DDC, these

configurations represent over 60% of

the MUI buses in operation. The

remaining designs have been reviewed

by DDC and found to be similar.

JMI and Engelhard commented that

the DDC instructions for installation tell

the installer to, ‘‘provide support to the

TurboPac as required.’’ JMI asked what

support is required and if the TurboPac

is not supported as required does this

negate the warranty? Engelhard asked if

this means that additional support of

the unit is necessary to prevent damage

to it or to keep it from contacting other

engine components. Engelhard also

expressed the concern that the

directions for installation of the

Turbodyne TurboPac are insufficient to

ensure proper installation and operation

of the system. Engelhard further noted

that the instructions require the

assembler to ‘‘mount the controller in

the engine compartment. The location of

the controller must be in a position

which will allow connection of the

motor leads directly to the TurboPac.

The location should provide easy

connection to the engines starter and in

a location which will receive adequate

air circulation.’’ Engelhard asked what

is adequate air circulation? Engelhard

asked if heat would damage the

controller and whether the unit needs to

be shielded?

In regard to the support concerns,

DDC states that the motor and

compressor weigh 16.5 pounds and will

need to be properly supported. There

are mounting holes on the unit to which

the bracket can be attached. In the pilot

installations, either the transit property

or the DDC distributor has fabricated a

simple bracket to support the unit. DDC

will provide installation instructions in

the assembly and installation manual

provided with each kit to assist

maintenance personnel in selecting

appropriate support. DDC states that if

the equipment is not properly installed,

damage to the TurboPac due to faulty

support is not warrantable. DDC states

that support failure will not damage the

engine because the location of the motor

and compressor is sufficiently away

from the engine and does not require

contact of any kind with the engine

components. DDC states that extreme

heat would damage the controller.

Therefore, the controller will be located

away from exhaust system components,

preferably in a area where air can

circulate around it. It is not

recommended that the electronic

controller be shielded. DDC will provide

guidance on locating the controller in

the installation instructions that are

provided with each kit. EPA finds that

based on the pilot installation

experience cited by DDC and its review

of remaining designs, the guidance

provided by DDC in its installation

instructions should be adequate to

properly support and locate the kit

components. EPA further notes that

failure of kit components which are

installed according to DDC instructions

will be covered under the warranty

provisions.

Engelhard commented that DDC did

not provide a component list for the

retrofit engine and stated that the list is

necessary for comparison of the parts

used in a standard rebuild to the DDC

retrofit kit. Engelhard asked if the truck

check valve was installed on the test

engine and whether it will be included

in the DDC retrofit kit? In response DDC

provided information that the build list

for the test engine corresponds to ‘‘new

part kit’’ number 23522349 and

‘‘reliabilt kit’’ number R3518035

included in Parts List Number 3 of the

notification; TurboPac kits as defined in

Parts List Number 5 and converter

muffler part number 6000–005D as

shown in Parts List Number 6 also in

the notification. The check valve is

integral to the throttle delay assembly

and was included in the ‘‘new part kit’’

on the test engine.

JMI commented that the DDC

application states that ‘‘the throttle

delay was set for optimum vehicle

driveability.’’ JMI questioned how you

adjust for optimum vehicle driveability

in the engine test cell? Was the throttle

delay changed to account for the faster

response of the engine with the

TurboPac? If not, what is the rationale

behind this decision? In response, DDC

stated that the throttle delay is a

dashpot device which delays the

movement of the injector rack to the full

fuel position. The setting dimension

controls the rack position at which

delays are incurred. A higher numerical

setting dimension results in the rack

being further from the full fuel position

and results in more delay and poorer

driveability. The minimum numeric

setting dimension positions the rack

closest to the full fuel position before

any delay is incurred. This results in the

minimum delay and the best

driveability. During development testing

for the retrofit system, DDC determined

that the 0.10g/bhp-hr PM level and

acceptable engine smoke opacity could

be achieved with the minimum throttle

delay setting of 0.490 inches. The orifice

through which the oil is purged during

engine acceleration is the same for both

truck and bus throttle delays. The truck

throttle delay has a smaller fill hole

which slows the fill rate of the oil in the

throttle delay body. Bus throttle delays

have a larger fill hole to provide a more

rapid fill. The use of the retrofit system

has shown that the more rapid fill of the

bus throttle delay is no longer required

to achieve 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices 26803

acceptable smoke control. Therefore, a

truck type throttle delay was specified

in order to provide improved

driveability.

JMI commented that in the

notification DDC states that; ‘‘Pursuant

to 40 CFR Section 85.1406(e), * * *

does not alter or render inoperative any

feature of the on-board diagnostic

system incorporated by the engine

manufacturer.’’ JMI asked what type of

diagnostic systems are incorporated on

MUI engines? In response, DDC states

that MUI engines are not equipped with

a computer which can store problem

codes that can be used later by a service

technician to diagnose an engine

problem. The reference statement was

provided by DDC as part of the standard

format for notifications of intent to

certify under the urban bus retrofit/

rebuild program.

(c) Testing

JMI commented that the notification

started that the rebuilt engine for the

test program was originally a 1984

engine but it doesn’t state that the

engine was rebuilt to a 1984

configuration prior to testing. What was

the configuration of the baseline engine

and is it consistent with the claims

made by DDC? Engelhard commented

that DDC has not included a baseline

test for comparison with the proposed

retrofit kit and that this data is

necessary to verify that the equipment

being installed on the engine does not

affect engine performance or fuel

economy.

EPA notes that DDC did not perform

baseline testing for this notification.

Under the urban bus retrofit/rebuild

program baseline testing is required

when certification is requested within

specified life cycle cost limitations. In

such cases, baseline testing is needed to

demonstrate equipment impact on fuel

economy and associated life cycle costs.

EPA does not require baseline testing

when demonstrating compliance with

the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard when

certification with life cycle cost

requirements is not requested and if all

applicable engines are to be converted

to the test engine configuration during

retrofit/rebuild. In view of the fact that

this certification is not being made

within life cycle cost limits, and all

converted engines will be retrofit to the

test engine configuration, baseline

testing is not required for this

certification.

Prior to performance of the emissions

test, the test engine was rebuilt using

the DDC kit. DDC stated that the test

engine was in a post-rebuild

configuration which is not related to a

particular model year. However, DDC

noted that the test engine was

mechanically similar to a 1989

configuration.

JMI commented that DDC stated in the

notification that the 277 hp rating was

chosen because, ‘‘it represents the

engine injector combination on which

the candidate equipment will be used.’’

JMI commented that this statement is

understandable if DDC is certifying only

277 hp engine kits. However, the DDC

application also claims 0.10 g/bhp-hr

PM levels for 253 hp and 294 hp engine

kits. JMI asked what FTP test date is

available to demonstrate that this

technology is effective on 253 hp and

294 hp engine. JMI stated that the EPA

should require DDC to demonstrate that

they can attain 0.10 g/bhp-hr level for

these two horsepower ratings before

including them in DDC’s application.

Additionally, Engelhard commented

that DDC has not tested the worst case

engine for its system. The Turbodyne

system is designed to force additional

air into the intake before the standard

turbocharger can spool up. According to

Engelhard, it is the amount of air

supplied during aceleration that allows

better combustion which reduces the

particulate emissions during

acceleration. The amount of air supplied

is critical for obtaining PM reduction.

The emissions data supplied by DDC is

for a 277 hp engine. Engelhard states

that to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr level, the

Turbodyne system will have to supply

more air for a 294 hp engine. However,

DDC has provided no justification or

data demonstrating that the device is

large enough to accommodate the air

flow requirements of the 294 hp engine.

This requirement is supported by the

fact that DDC uses a different turbo with

a higher A/R ratio for the 294 hp engine

than the 277 hp engine.

DDC stated that it selected the 277 hp

engine rating for certification testing

because this is the rating most

commonly used in transit bus

operations. DDC agrees that the 294 hp

engine will require more airflow than an

engine rated at 277 hp when both

engines are operating at their respective

full rated power. DDC also points out

that the TurboPac is not intended to

deliver the full airflow requirements of

the engine. The purpose of the TurboPac

is to provide additional air during

engine accelerations to compensate for

the lag of the engine turbocharger, and

its air supply performance is the same

for all engines regardless of power

rating. DDC states that an engine at the

294 hp rating is capable of injecting

more fuel than an engine at the 277 hp

rating, but the difference in fueling is

small. The 294 hp rating has a peak

torque of 875 lb-ft at 1200 rpm while the

277 hp rating has a peak torque of

880lb-ft at 1000 rpm. At 1200 rpm, full

load, under steady state conditions, the

294 hp rating delivers 71.0 lb/hr of fuel

vs. 68.5 lb/hr for the 277 hp engine.

DDC notes that this is only a 3.6%

difference. DDC has not measured

fueling differences for the two ratings

during rapid accelerations, but because

the throttle delay limits fueling to some

fraction of the full rack fueling, the

fueling difference during acceleration

would be somewhat less than the steady

state difference. Since the fueling

difference is small, DDC believes the

TurboPac will provide sufficient

supplementary air to provide adequate

particulate control with the 294 hp

engine.

EPA’s urban bus certification

requirements for heavy-duty urban bus

diesel engines, 40 CFR 85.1406 (a)(2)(i)

states ‘‘The test engine used must

represent the ‘worst case’ with respect

to particulate emissions of all those

engine configurations for which the

retrofit/rebuild equipment is being

certified. The worst case engine

configuration shall be the engine

configuration having the highest engineout particulate matter emission levels,

when properly maintained and used,

prior to installation of the retrofit/

rebuild equipment.’’ Based on available

information, it is not clear whether an

engine rated at 253 hp, 277 hp, or 294

hp would have significantly different

exhaust emissions or, which would

represent the worst case for this

certification decision.

EPA believes that a comparison with

the criteria for selecting test engines

under EPA’s new engine certification

program is relevant. EPA’s new engine

certification requirements for heavyduty diesel engines, 40 CFR § 86.090–24

(b)(3)(ii) for test engine selection state

‘‘* * * Within each combination, the

engine that features the highest fuel feed

per stroke, primarily at the speed of

maximum rated torque and secondarily

at rated speed, will usually be selected’’

for a test engine. In a facsimile dated

March 7, 1998, DDC provided

information on the fuel feed rate for

each hp at maximum rated torque. That

information shows that the fuel feed per

stroke for the 277 hp engine clearly

exceeds the 253 hp at maximum rated

torque (88.8 mm/stroke vs. 77.4 mm/

stroke). With regard to the 294 hp

engine, DDC has provided information

that the fuel feed per stroke for the 277

hp engine is virtually identical to the

fuel feed per stroke of the 294 hp engine

at maximum rated torque (88.8 vs. 88.9

mm/stroke). While a strict comparison

of this data indicates that the 277 hp

engine does not meet the ‘‘highest fuel
26804 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices

feed per stroke’’ criteria as stated, it is

within one-tenth of one percent of the

294 hp rating with regard to this

measurement. DDC’s March 27, 1998

submission has been placed in the

docket at the above address.

In conjunction with the discussion

above and the following reasons, EPA

believes that the 6V92TA engine

equipped with the DDC kit rated at

277hp, is acceptable for compliance at

the 253, 277 and 294 hp ratings. First,

the 6V92TA MUI test engine is clearly

the engine model for which DDC is

claiming applicability of the DDC kit.

Further, the hp rating of the certification

is the most popular power rating. It is

therefore the most representative power

rating. Second, it is consistent with the

use of a 277hp test engine by JMI for

certification applicable to various hp

ratings applicable to 6V92TA model

engines (see 62 FR 60079; November 6,

1997). In EPA’s approval of this JMI

certification kit, EPA allowed the

certification test engine at the 277 hp

rating to represent additional hp ratings

which were certified. No additional

information was presented by JMI or

Engelhard in their respective comments

relative to different emission levels from

the various ratings. Lacking such

information EPA can find no reason to

change from the decision made in the

JMI certification to allow the 277 hp test

engine to represent the additional

ratings. Additionally, it is not clear that

an engine of the DDC rated 253 hp or

294 hp would have significantly

different exhaust emissions from the

certified test engine. Because of the

above noted reasons, and consistent

with EPA’s decision in that JMI

certification, EPA finds that the 277 hp

rating is acceptable to represent the 253

hp and the 294 hp ratings in this

certification. EPA retains the authority

to conduct in-use testing of any certified

equipment for compliance with the

150,000 mile performance warranty on

all certified equipment.

JMI commented that the test data

states that the muffler was installed 6

feet from the turbocharger exit. JMI

asked if this is the way it will be

installed in the buses. JMI noted that the

converter muffler is a direct bolt on

replacement for the original muffler.

With the extreme variation in diameter

from muffler to muffler, how many

different size catalyst elements are

used? If more than one, which one was

used during the FTP test? If only one,

the EPA should require DDC to provide

assurances that the catalyst was sized to

achieve 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM for the

complete range of 6V92TA MUI engines

form 1979 to 1989.

DDC stated that the converter muffler

was tested at a location of six feet from

the turbocharger outlet. The installation

on a particular urban bus will vary

based on the original muffler location.

DDC tested at this distance as most

urban bus mufflers are installed within

this distance from the turbocharger and

chose this location to represent a worst

case in terms of exhaust temperature.

EPA accepts the placement of the

converter at six feet from the

turbocharger in this instance and notes

that EPA has accepted this distance in

previous certification approvals.

DDC stated that parts list number six

in the notification provides a listing of

the different converter/muffler

configurations that will be used. The

particular converter/muffler

configuration used to generate the

emission test results in the notification

was a 12 inch by 23 inch oval cross

section design, 22 inches in length. This

unit has the minimum catalyst volume

of the different converter/muffler

configurations that will be used

according to DDC and corresponds to

part number 6000–005D of that list.

Engelhard asked how the

backpressure was set for emissions

testing. DDC testing was performed at

Southwest Research Institute in San

Antonio, Texas. With a standard muffler

installed in the test cell exhaust system,

the damper was closed (with the test

engine at rated speed) to adjust the

backpressure to 80% of the specified

maximum, or 2 inches of mercury. The

standard muffler was then removed, and

the catalyst was installed in its place.

Certification testing was conducted

without changing the position of the

throttling valve. The resulting

backpressure was 2.7 inches of mercury

with the catalyst installed. Engelhard

asked where did the original muffler

come from and is it a bus muffler? The

muffler was provided by the testing

facility and was selected to represent an

urban bus muffler.

(D) Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Engelhard commented that DDC has

not provided a life cycle cost calculation

for this retrofit equipment. Engelhard

noted that this is extremely important

due to the complexity of the installation

required for the Turbodyne system, the

potentially expensive maintenance of

the system, the detrimental effect of the

huge electrical demand of the

Turbodyne system on the buses

charging system, and the increased fuel

consumption of the Turbodyne system.

Engelhard commented that this

information is needed so bus companies

can make a valid assessment of this

technology’s cost effectiveness. DDC’s

application also did not include prices

or installation costs for any of the

retrofit kits. JMI also commented on the

cost of the DDC/Turbodyne kit. It asked

about the labor costs to install the DDC/

Turbodyne system because the addition

of a supercharger is over and above

what is done during a standard rebuild.

Are there any periodic maintenance

requirements that would increase the

cost of the system? What is the impact

of the DDC/Turbodyne technology on

fuel consumption? Should a fuel

penalty be assessed?

As stated earlier, DDC has not

provided life cycle cost information in

conjunction with this notification. Such

a cost analysis is necessary for

certification of equipment that is meant

to trigger a program emissions standard.

Certification of Engelhard Corporation’s

ETXTM kit triggered the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard for 6V92TA MUI engines, and

made available kits rated at 253, 277,

and 294 hp. The DDC certification does

not include a cost analysis, and one is

not necessary for this certification. DDC

states that engines equipped with the kit

will have no additional maintenance or

service requirements and the system

will not have a detrimental impact on

the electrical system as discussed

earlier. Based on the field installations

to date, DDC estimates that the

installation of the TurboPac unit will

average an additional eight hours of

labor beyond the labor associated with

a standard rebuild. However, this figure

could vary depending on the specific

installation requirements. No claims

have been made by DDC with regard to

the impact of this system on fuel

economy and the impact of this system

on fuel economy is undetermined. No

specific information on fuel economy

impact was provided in the comments.

EPA notes that it is not appropriate to

assess a fuel economy penalty in a

certification that does not contain life

cycle cost information. With regard to

fuel consumption, the brake specific

fuel consumption (BSFC) measured

during emission testing of the DDC kit

was 0.464 lb/bhp-hr. In testing

conducted for the three notifications for

0.1 g/bhp-hr PM certification for

6V92TA MUI engine models that EPA

has received to date, the BSFC measured

during emission testing after the

installation of the retrofit/rebuild kits

has been between 0.438 and 0.471 lb/

bhp-hr.

JMI asked if there are any components

or ancillary parts that are required in

order to install the DDC/Turbodyne

system that are not included on any of

the parts lists included with DDC’s

application? If so, what are the

additional costs associated with these
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices 26805

parts? In response, DDC states that the

parts list in the application does not

include the electrical wire (16 AWG and

00 cable), and some nuts and bolts. DDC

states that it believes these are standard

items commonly available in bus repair

facilities. Total cost for all of these parts

is estimated by DDC to be between $20

and $40, depending on the length of the

00 cable. No additional batteries or

other changes are required to the battery

charging system. No rewiring of the bus

electrical system is needed according to

DDC.

(E) Warranty

Engelhard commented that DDC does

not provide any coverage for damage

resulting to other engine components,

such as the charging system, due to the

installation of its retrofit kit. In

response, DDC notes that field

evaluations have not resulted in any

failures to bus charging or electrical

systems. Neither DDC nor Delco-Remy

anticipate that use of the TurboPac

system will increase failure rates of the

vehicle charging and electrical systems.

Standard warranty coverages, if not

expired, will remain in effect for any

failures which may occur in these

systems. DDC will not provide

additional warranty coverage for these

systems. Based on the review of

comments and the in-use pilots, EPA is

not award of any damage to other

components as a result of the

installation of this equipment and does

not see reason not to approve this

certification. If significant in-use

problems were to develop, EPA can take

action and, ultimately, has authority to

decertify equipment.

(F) Durability

JMI commented that DDC stated in its

notification; ‘‘The cylinder kit

components were modified to improve

durability.’’ JMI expressed concerns that

changes to any parts of the cylinder kits

could result in increased soot formation

in the oil or increased oil consumption.

JMI further questioned what the

modifications were, how will they be

made, who will make them, how DDC

will control uniformity and quality,

whether the change was made for all 92

series engines or just the engines with

the kit and whether the parts will be

made available on a nationwide basis.

Engelhard commented that though

durability data is not a requirement of

the Urban Bus regulation, the EPA has

required verification of durability and

data supporting the claim that the

system will last 150,000 miles.

In response DDC stated that the

primary change in the cylinder kit is the

elimination of a ‘‘J-relief’’ groove. The Jrelief was a machining process to the

lower side of the bottom compression

ring groove which was designed to

relieve any pressure build-up between

the upper and lower compression rights.

The change to the piston eliminates the

machining operation. DDC states that

this change has no affect on the

combustion process, and will have no

affect on generation of soot during the

combustion process. According to DDC

the change was made strictly to improve

the durability of the lower compression

ring. The changes have been

incorporated in the cylinder kits used to

service all DDC series 92 engines,

whether used to service truck, bus, or

nonroad engines. The new piston domes

are also used on production engines.

Therefore, the parts are subject to the

same quality control as any other DDC

production or service part. The new kits

are available worldwide through DDC’s

distributor network.

EPA is concerned, in general, with

equipment durability, and believes that

certifiers will want to evaluate the

durability of their equipment in order to

minimize their liability resulting from

the emissions defect and performance

warranties. However, program

regulations do not require a durability

demonstration. EPA believes that DDC’s

explanation 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 has

the authority to conduct in-use testing

of certified equipment to determine

compliance with the requirements of the

program. In addition, equipment

certifiers must provide a 100,000 mile

defect warranty and a 150,000 miles

emissions performance warranty on all

certified equipment

(G) In-Use Experience

The Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority (WMATA), the

Maryland Department of Transportation

Mass Transit Administration (MTA),

and the Milwaukee County Transit

System (MCTS) provided favorable

comments on the DDC system. WMATA

noted that one DDC kit was installed on

September 17, 1997 and that WMATA

has not encountered any installation or

servicing problems with the engine and

there have been no failures. The MTA

commented that it has installed the DDC

kit and it has performed ‘‘flawlessly.’’

The MCTS commented that it has

installed five DDC kits. The first kit was

installed in September 1997. To date,

MCTS has not experienced ‘‘any’’

electrical component problems on the

buses. By electrical problems, MCTS

stated it meant any alternator, regulator,

battery, or wiring problems. MCTS

commented that it experienced ‘‘one’’

TurboPac electrical turbo motor failure

early in the test process. MCTS

commented that the DDC kit is reliable

but that it was too early in the process

to determine if there are any fuel or

power increases.

IV. Certification

The Agency has reviewed the

notification of intent to certify and other

information provided by DDC, along

with comments received from interested

parties, and finds that the DDC kit

described above:

(1) Complies with the particulate

matter exhaust emissions standard of

0.10 g/bhp-hr, without causing the

applicable engine families to exceed

other exhaust emissions standards;

(2) 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).

Therefore, today’s Federal Register

notice announces certification of the

above-described DDC kit for use in the

urban bus retrofit/rebuild program as

discussed below in section V.

V. Transit Operator Responsibilities

Today’s Federal Register notice

announces certification of the abovedescribed DDC kit, when properly

applied, as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

particulate matter standard of the Urban

Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program.

In a Federal Register notice dated

March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12166), EPA

announced certification of a retrofit/

rebuild kit produced by the Engelhard

Corporation (the ETXTM kit). That

certification means that urban bus

operators using compliance program 1

must use equipment certified to the 0.10

g/bhp-hr standard when rebuilding or

replacing applicable 1979 through 1989

model year DDC 6V92TA MUI model

engines after September 14, 1997. The

certified DDC equipment described in

today’s notice may be used by operators

in compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard. Operators using compliance

program 2 having applicable engines

may use the certified DDC kit and claim

the certification PM level from Table B

above, when calculating their Fleet

Level Attained (FLA). Under program 2,

an operator must use sufficient certified

equipment so that its actual fleet

emission level complies with the target

level for its fleet.
26806 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Notices

As mentioned above, certification of

the Engelhard ETXTM kit triggered the

0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for applicable

1979–1989 6V92TA MUI engines. That

kit provides three power ratings: 253,

277, and 294 horsepower. DDC will

offer the DDC kit in these three power

ratings as well: 253, 277, and 294hp.

Engines of urban buses certified to

meet California emissions standards are

not applicable to the DDC kit discussed

in today’s Federal Register notice.

Additionally, the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard is not triggered for engines

certified to meet California emission

standards. Operators of such urban

buses, who choose to comply with

program 1, are not required to use

equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

PM standard until the standard has been

triggered for such engines. Operators of

urban buses having engines certified to

meet California emission standards, and

who choose to comply with program 2,

may not use the DDC kit described in

today’s notice to meet program

requirements.

As stated in the program regulations

(40 CFR 85.1401 through 85.1415),

operators must, beginning January 1,

1995, maintain records for each engine

in their fleet to demonstrate that they

are in compliance with the requirements

of the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild

Program. These records include

purchase records, receipts, and part

numbers for the parts and components

used in the rebuilding or urban bus

engines.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 98–12850 Filed 5–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6013–6]

Acid Rain Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA today announces the

allocation of allowances to small diesel

refineries for desulfurization of fuel

during 1997. The eligibility for and

calculation of allowances to small diesel

refineries is in accordance with Section

410(h) of the Clean Air Act,

implemented at 40 CFR part 73, subpart

G.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Barylski, EPA Acid Rain Division

(6204J), 401 M St., SW, Washington DC;

telephone (202) 564–9074; or the Acid

Rain Hotline at (202) 564–9620.

Electronic copies of this rulemaking and

technical support documents can be

accessed through the Acid Rain Division

website at www.epa.gov/acidrain.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA’s

Acid Rain Program was established by

Title IV of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) to reduce

acid rain in the continental United

States. The Acid Rain Program will

achieve a 50 percent reduction in sulfur

dioxide (SO2) emissions from utility

units. The SO2 reduction program is a

flexible market-based approach to

environmental management. As part of

this approach, EPA allocates

‘‘allowances’’ to affected utility units.

Each allowance is a limited

authorization to emit up to one ton of

SO2. At the end of each calendar year,

each unit must hold allowances in an

amount equal to or greater than its SO2

emissions for the year. Allowances may

be bought, sold, or transferred between

utilities and other interested parties.

Those utility units whose annual

emissions are likely to exceed their

allocations may install control

technologies or switch to cleaner fuels

to reduce SO2 emissions or buy

additional allowances.

Section 410(h) of the Clean Air Act

provides allowances for small diesel

refineries that desulfurize diesel fuel

from October 1, 1993 through December

31, 1999. Small refineries are not

otherwise affected by the Acid Rain

Program and do not need the allowances

to comply with any provision of the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the allowances

serve as a financial benefit to small

diesel refineries desulfurizing diesel

fuel.

The following table lists allowances to

be allocated to eligible refineries for

desulfurization of diesel fuel during

calendar year 1997.

Refiner Refinery/location Allocation

Big West Oil ................................................................... Flying J ........................................................................................................ 1304

Cenex ............................................................................. Laurel, Montana .......................................................................................... 1500

Frontier ........................................................................... Cheyenne, Wyoming ................................................................................... 1500

Giant ............................................................................... Ciniza .......................................................................................................... 1500

Giant ............................................................................................................ 1151

Holly ................................................................................ Lea .............................................................................................................. 1469

Navajo ......................................................................................................... 1420

Montana ...................................................................................................... 329

Hunt ................................................................................ Tuscaloosa, Alabama ................................................................................. 1402

Inland Refining ............................................................... Woods Cross, Utah ..................................................................................... 757

Kern ................................................................................ Bakersfield, California ................................................................................. 1500

La Gloria ......................................................................... Crown Refinery, Tyler, Texas ..................................................................... 1500

Lion ................................................................................. El Dorato ..................................................................................................... 1500

Paramount ...................................................................... Paramount, California ................................................................................. 1282

Pennzoil .......................................................................... Atlas ............................................................................................................ 1500

Rasville ........................................................................................................ 487

Pride ............................................................................... Abilene, Texas ............................................................................................ 1226

Sinclair ............................................................................ Little America .............................................................................................. 1500

Sinclair, Wyoming ....................................................................................... 1500

Tulsa, Oklahoma ......................................................................................... 1500

U.S. Oil & Refining ......................................................... Tacoma, Washington .................................................................................. 1072

Witco ............................................................................... Golden Bear ................................................................................................ 66

Wyoming Refining .......................................................... Denver, Colorado ........................................................................................ 691

A total of 27,656 allowances are

allocated to 17 refiners, which produced

55,111 thousand barrels of desulfurized diesel fuel. These allowances have a

compliance year of 1998.