Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices 28401

market area expansion. Southern states

that this expansion is an enhancement

of its current facilities to enable

Southern to transport an additional 140

MMcfd through its Toca Compressor

Station, which is currently operated at

or near full capacity. Southern contends

that it has determined that the gas

supply is available and has identified

the facilities modifications required to

relieve its system bottleneck at Toca.

According to Southern, the major

unresolved issue in the post-636

environment is which industry segment

should initially pay the cost of this type

of system enhancement. Southern states

that the distribution segment of the

industry believes that producers should

contribute to the cost of expanding

facilities in order to make their gas

supplies available to the market. It is

stated that producers have taken the

lead in constructing facilities to attach

gas supply to the existing pipeline

infrastructure but do not believe that

they should bear the additional cost of

expanding jurisdictional pipeline

capacity required to move new supplies

downstream. At the same time,

Southern argues that it would be unfair

to expect interstate pipelines to make

substantial investments in new facilities

without an opportunity to earn a

reasonable return on their investments.

To strike an appropriate balance,

Southern states that its proposal is an

effort to allocate among the stakeholders

the cost of this expansion project that

benefits the system as a whole. It is

stated that the cost sharing proposal

represents a reasonable sharing—

between the producers for the first 10

years and the transportation customers

thereafter—of the costs required to

expand Southern’s production area

capacity. By adding additional

compression at its Toca Compressor

Station, Southern states that it will

increase its capacity to transport gas

supplies through Toca by 140 MMcfd.

In addition, Southern submits that it

will require, as part of the transportation

agreement, a commitment from the

producers to attach 150 Bcf of new

reserves for every 50 MMcfd of

Transportation Demand, or

approximately 400 BCF of additional

reserves to Southern’s system. Based

upon extensive discussions with

producers that have prospects in the

areas near Southern’s supply system

and with Southern’s transportation

customers, Southern believes that an

expansion of its Toca Compressor

Station as proposed would benefit the

system as a whole and is in the public

interest.

It is stated that producers would

benefit from obtaining firm

transportation service in Southern’s

production area at a competitive rate.

With firm service to the

interconnections Southern has with

other interstate pipelines in this area,

Southern contends that the producers

will have assured access to a substantial

portion of the natural gas markets in the

eastern United States. It is stated that

they can elect to sell any of the new gas

supplies they connect to the Southern

system to markets served by the

Southern system, and in such case,

those gas supplies would likely be

transported under the purchaser’s firm

and/or interruptible transportation

service agreements.

Southern states that the requirement

that producers commit to attach new

reserves to the Southern system

provides a substantial benefit to

Southern’s firm and interruptible

transportation customers. It is stated

that they will have the opportunity to

compete for these new sources of supply

without incurring, under Southern’s

proposed rate treatment, any increase in

their transportation costs as a result of

the construction of the facilities for an

initial 10-year period. Whether these

new supplies are transported in the

production area under one of the new

10 year service agreements or to a

market on the Southern system,

Southern submits that the proposed

expansion of the Toca Compressor

Station will eliminate a capacity

constraint and enable an additional 140

MMcfd to flow into the Southern system

via the ‘‘east leg’’. It is stated that this

increase in the ‘‘east leg’’, however, will

not cause an increase in capacity on

Southern’s main line.

Southern requests that the

Commission act on its request in two

steps. First, Southern requests that the

Commission issue an initial

determination that the construction and

operation of the proposed facilities to

provide capacity necessary for the

performance of firm production area

transportation services on the terms and

conditions described in the application

are required by the present or future

public convenience and necessity.

Southern states that it is willing to

accept an at-risk condition in the initial

determination because its application

does not include the requisite showing

of market demand. Second, after it has

submitted executed Firm Transportation

Service Agreements for 100 percent of

the additional capacity containing the

terms and conditions described herein

and after completion of the

environmental review of the proposed

facilities, Southern requests that the

Commission issue an order adopting the

initial decision as its final action in this

proceeding and removing the at-risk

condition.

Comment date: June 13, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

2. ANR Storage Company

[Docket No. CP95–504–000]

Take notice that on May 18, 1995,

ANR Storage Company (ANR), 500

Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan

48243, filed in Docket No. CP95–504–

000, pursuant to Section 7(b) of the

Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended,

and §§ 157.7 and 157.18 of the

Commission’s Regulations thereunder,

an application requesting permission

and approval for abandonment of

storage service performed for United

Cities Gas Company (United Cities), all

as more fully set forth in the application

on file with the Commission.

ANR states that it is requesting

authorization for retroactive

abandonment of storage service that it

provides for United Cities under Rate

Schedule X–6 and contained in Original

Volume No. 2 of its FERC Gas Tariff.

This service was authorized in Docket

No. CP79–453–000. ANR requests the

abandonment of Rate Schedule X–6

effective April 1, 1995, the date of the

termination agreement between ANR

and United Cities. ANR further states

that at United Cities’ request,

commencing April 1, 1995, this service

would be provided under ANR’s FERC

Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.

ANR states that no facilities are

proposed to be abandoned.

Comment date: June 13, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

F. Any person desiring to be heard or

to make any protest with reference to

said application should on or before the

comment date, file with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to

intervene or a protest in accordance

with the requirements of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211)

and the Regulations under the Natural

Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests

filed with the Commission will be

considered by it in determining the

appropriate action to be taken but will

not serve to make the protestants parties

to the proceeding. Any person wishing

to become a party to a proceeding or to

participate as a party in any hearing

therein must file a motion to intervene

in accordance with the Commission’s

Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to

the authority contained in and subject to
28402 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices

1EPA promulgated the Retrofit/Rebuild

Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year

Urban Buses on April 23, 1993 (58 FR 21359). This

final rule established the provisions for an urban

bus retrofit/rebuild program as required by section

219(d) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)

of 1990.

the jurisdiction conferred upon the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas

Act and the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, a hearing will

be held without further notice before the

Commission or its designee on this

application if no motion to intervene is

filed within the time required herein, if

the Commission on its own review of

the matter finds that a grant of the

certificate and/or permission and

approval for the proposed abandonment

are required by the public convenience

and necessity. If a motion for leave to

intervene is timely filed, or if the

Commission on its own motion believes

that a formal hearing is required, further

notice of such hearing will be duly

given.

Under the procedure herein provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for applicant to appear or

be represented at the hearing.

G. Any person or the Commission’s

staff may, within 45 days after issuance

of the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR

385.214) a motion to intervene or notice

of intervention and pursuant to

§ 157.205 of the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefor,

the proposed activity shall be deemed to

be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for filing a protest. If a

protest is filed and not withdrawn

within 30 days after the time allowed

for filing a protest, the instant request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13228 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5212–8]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Approval of an Application for

Certification of Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Agency approval of an

application for equipment certification.

SUMMARY: The Agency received an

application dated August 2, 1994 from

the Engelhard Corporation (Engelhard)

with principal place of business at 101

Wood Avenue, Iselin, New Jersey for

certification of urban bus retrofit/

rebuild equipment pursuant to 40 CFR

85.1401–85.1415. On September 16,

1994 EPA published notification that

the application had been received and

made the application available for

public review and comment for a period

of 45 days (59 FR 47581). EPA has

completed its review of this application

and the Director of the Manufacturers

Operations Division has determined that

it meets all the requirements for

certification. Accordingly, EPA

approves the certification of this

equipment effective May 31, 1995.

The candidate equipment provides a

25 percent or greater reduction in

emissions of particulate matter (PM) for

certain petroleum fueled diesel engines

relative to the original engine

configuration and on engines that have

been retrofit/rebuilt with certified new

rebuild kits that do not include

aftertreatment devices. In addition, this

equipment will be offered to all parties

for $2,151 or less (2,000 or less in 1992

dollars). The certification of this

equipment triggers requirements for all

operators utilizing Program 1 that have

engines in their fleet that are covered by

this certification.

ADDRESSES: The Engelhard application,

as well as other materials specifically

relevant to it, are contained in Public

Docket A–93–42, entitled ‘‘Certification

of Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild

Equipment’’. This docket is located in

room M–1500, Waterside Mall (Ground

Floor), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

Docket items may be inspected from

8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR

Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged

by the Agency for copying docket

materials.

DATES: The date of this document May

31, 1995 is the official certification date

for this application. The equipment is

immediately available for installation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Erb, Technical Support

Branch, Manufacturers Operations

Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:

(202) 233–9259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 2, 1994 Engelhard

submitted an application under EPA’s

Urban Bus/Retrofit program 1 for

certification of a catalytic converter

muffler (CCM) for use on 2-cycle and 4-

cycle petroleum fueled diesel urban bus

engines for 1993 and earlier model

years. Engelhard has since withdrawn

the 4-cycle engines from consideration

pending development of additional test

data.

The CCM functions as a catalytic

converter and a muffler. It takes the

place of the original muffler in the

engine exhaust system. Engelhard

documented that the candidate

equipment provides a 25 percent or

greater reduction in emissions of

particulate matter (PM) for petroleum

fueled diesel heavy-duty urban bus

engines as listed in Table A.

TABLE A. CERTIFICATION LEVELS

Engine model Model year

PM level

with standard rebuild

and addition

of CCM

Code Family designation

DDC 6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................. 1979–1987 1 .38 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................. 1988–1989 .22 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................. 1979–1989 2 .18 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 6V92TA DDEC I ....................................................................................... 1986–1989 .23 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 6V92TA DDEC II ...................................................................................... 1988–1991 .23 ALL ............... ALL

1992 .19 ALL ............... ALL
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices 28403

TABLE A. CERTIFICATION LEVELS—Continued

Engine model Model year

PM level

with standard rebuild

and addition

of CCM

Code Family designation

1993 .19 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 6V71N ....................................................................................................... 1973–1989 .38 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 6V71T ....................................................................................................... 1985–1986 .38 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 8V71N ....................................................................................................... 1973–1984 .38 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 6L71TA ..................................................................................................... 1990 .44 ALL ............... ALL

1988–1989 .23 ALL ............... ALL

DDC 6L71TA DDEC .......................................................................................... 1990–1991 .23 ALL ............... ALL

DDC–8V–92TA .................................................................................................. 1979–1987 .40 ALL ............... 8V–92TA

1988 .29 ALL ............... ALL

DDC–8V–92TA–DD ........................................................................................... 1988 .31 ALL ............... 8V–92TA–DDEC II

DDC–8V–92TA .................................................................................................. 1989 .35 9E70 ............. KDD0736FW8 9

DDC–8V–92TA .................................................................................................. 1989 .29 9A90 ............. KDD0736FW8 9

DDC–8V–92TA .................................................................................................. 1989 .26 9G85 ............ KDD0736FW8 9

DDC–8V–92TA–DDEC ...................................................................................... 1989 .31 1A ................. KDD0736FZH 4

DDC–8V–92TA .................................................................................................. 1990 .35 9E70 ............. LDD0736FAH 9

DDC–8V–92TA–DDEC ...................................................................................... 1990 .37 1A ................. LDD0736FZH 3

DDC–8V–92TA–DDEC ...................................................................................... 1991 .19 1A OR 5A ..... MDD0736FZH 2

DDC–8V–92TA .................................................................................................. 1992–1993 .16 1D ................. NDD0736FZH 1 &

PDD0736FZH X

DDC–8V–92TA–DDEC ...................................................................................... 1992–1993 .22 6A ................. NDD0736FZH 1 &

PDD0736FZH X

DDC–8V–92TA–DDEC ...................................................................................... 1992–1993 .15 5A ................. NDD0736FZH 1 &

PDD0736FZH X

DDC–8V–92TA–DDEC ...................................................................................... 1992–1993 .19 1A ................. NDD0736FZH 1 &

PDD0736FZH X

1To attain these levels of PM reduction engines must be rebuilt to original manufacturers specifications, or in cases where the operator finds

the engines meet certain performance specifications as stated by Engelhard in the instructions to purchasers of the CCM kit, rebuild of the engine in order to claim the listed PM reduction would not be required. This applies to all engines listed in the table with the exception of those covered by footnote 2. 2 If the CCM is installed on these engines after rebuild using the ‘‘Engelhard Emission Rebuild/Retrofit Kit’’ in conjunction with the CCM, the

emission level certified to by Engelhard is 0.18 g/bhp-hr PM.

Emission test results supplied by Engelhard in the application are shown in Table B. The test data show a greater

than 25% reduction in PM. Hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and smoke emissions

were within the applicable emission standards with the CCM installed.

TABLE B.—CERTIFICATION EMISSION TEST RESULTS (GM/BHP–HR)

Baseline

engine before rebuild

Baseline

engine before rebuild

with catalyst

Baseline rebuilt engine

Rebuilt engine with

catalyst

HC .................................................................................................................................... 1.19 0.64 0.48 0.24

CO .................................................................................................................................... 2.53 1.32 1.53 1.00

NOX .................................................................................................................................. 9.55 9.70 10.31 10.46

PM .................................................................................................................................... 0.87 0.51 0.21 0.15

Smoke Test ...................................................................................................................... ................... ................... ................... ...................

Accel ................................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ................... 6.0%

Lug ................................................................................................................................... ................... ................... ................... 3.4%

Peak ................................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ................... 7.6%

Urban bus operators who choose to

comply with Program 1 will be required

to use this equipment (or other

equipment certified in the meantime)

beginning six months after the date of

this certification approval. Urban bus

operators who choose to comply with

Program 2 and use the Engelhard

equipment will use the PM emissions

values from Table A when calculating

their average fleet PM level.

The emission levels of the Engelhard

rebuild kit will be used to modify the

Program 2 post rebuild levels in July

1996.

II. Summary and Analysis of Comments

EPA received a variety of comments

on the Engelhard application during the

comment period. The comments

generally fall into the areas of

equipment effects and design, durability

and cost. Copies of the original

comments are to be found in EPA

Docket A–93–42.

An abbreviated summary of the major

comments is provided below.

Additional discussion of comments for

this decision can be found in the Final

Decision Document for the Engelhard

Application #1 (FDDEA1) which has

been placed in Docket A–93–42. A

limited number of copies of the

FDDEA1 are also available form the

contact person listed above (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

The most frequently raised concern

among commenters was the effect of the
28404 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices

CCM on engine backpressure and the

effect the backpressure could have on

the remaining life of the engine.

Backpressure with the CCM installed

will generally be higher than the

backpressure with the original muffler.

However, Engelhard has designed the

CCM to ensure that the engine

manufacturer’s maximum allowable

backpressure will not be exceeded for

any engine/exhaust combination. Since

backpressure will remain below the

manufacturer’s allowable limit, EPA

does not believe that engine life will be

diminished as a result of installing a

CCM. Furthermore, Engelhard has

recently reconfigured the catalyst that

will be marketed under this program to

provide a lower backpressure as

compared to the catalyst used in the

certification test.

Catalyst sizing, packaging and

installation applicability were raised as

issues by several commenters.

Specifically, commenters questioned

whether the catalyst would be

adequately packaged to fit the wide

range of engines and bus models, and

whether proper installation and

mounting hardware would be available

for each combination of bus /engine.

Clear instructions and proper

installation for each bus/engine

combination will be required to ensure

proper operation of the CCM. Engelhard

has designed specific installation

instructions and hardware for most

applications already. The CCM takes the

place of the muffler in the exhaust

system and each kit will contain all

components necessary to complete the

installation. Engelhard continues to

work with operators to develop

appropriate hardware and packaging for

specific applications.

The last major group of comments

centered around life cycle cost of the

CCM. One commenter proposed that

field data be collected to support fuel

economy impact claims contained in the

application for certification. Another

commenter noted that operators might

use the equipment beyond the 150,000

mile useful life, and questioned how the

costs associated with use beyond

150,000 miles are accounted for in the

life cycle cost.

Regarding field data to demonstrate

fuel economy claims, the regulations do

not require that life cycle fuel cost be

calculated using field data. At the time

of application for certification, a

certifier that is applying for certification

within life cycle cost limitations must

provide information on the fuel

economy impact of rebuild/retrofit

equipment. Engelhard provided brakespecific fuel consumption (BSFC) data

from transient tests performed on a

baseline engine and on an engine

equipped with a CCM. This data shows

the BSFC difference between these tests

to be within normal test to test

variability, and EPA does not find that

this equipment will have an impact on

fuel economy.

Regarding the second comment,

operators may indeed continue to use

certified equipment beyond the

statutory useful-life of 150,000 miles.

However, for the purpose of calculating

life cycle costs, only those costs

incurred within the useful-life are

relevant. Operators who operate

equipment beyond the useful-life are

responsible for costs to maintain the

equipment in proper operating

condition, and assume in-use emissions

performance liability.

III. Certification Approval

The Agency has reviewed this

application, along with comments

received from the interested parties, and

finds that this application meets the

requirements for certification under the

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (40

CFR 85.1401 and 85.1415). Thus, the

Agency hereby approves the

certification of this equipment.

IV. Operator Requirements and

Responsibilities

Operators who have chosen to comply

with Program 1 will be required to

utilize this equipment for any engines

that are listed in Table A that undergo

rebuild on or after December 1, 1995.

Under Program 2, this equipment is

immediately available to operators for

use and those who use this certified kit

may claim the PM emissions reduction

as stated in Table A when calculating

their Fleet Level Attained.

As stated in the regulations, operators

should maintain records for each engine

in their fleet to demonstrate that they

are in compliance with either program

1 or program 2 beginning in 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.

Dated: May 10, 1995.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–13246 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPPTS–62145; FRL–4947–6]

Instruction Manual on Interim Controls

and the Operation and Maintenance of

Lead-Based Paint for Abatement

Workers and Maintenance Personnel;

Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for preproposals.

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule

Lead: Requirements for Lead-Based

Paint Activities on September 2, 1994.

The objective of the proposed rule is to

provide standards for the training of a

workforce qualified to assist in the

evaluation and reduction of hazards

associated with lead-based paint. To

further the goal of improved training for

the workforce engaged in lead-based

paint activities, the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

has provided funds for the development

of a training curriculum and an

accompanying video on interim controls

and operations and maintenance for

lead-based paint. HUD has transferred

these funds to EPA for the management

of this project. EPA is requesting the

submission of preproposals from

qualified organizations that are

interested in developing a training

course and a video on these subjects.

This notice describes the eligibility and

criteria for the selection of preproposals.

DATES: All preproposals must be

submitted to EPA by June 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Preproposals should be sent

to the following address: Betty Weiner,

Chemical Management Division (7404),

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betty Weiner at (202) 260–2924 or write

to the address listed under the

ADDRESSES unit.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of September 2, 1994

(59 FR 45872), EPA issued a proposed

rule regarding regulations governing

lead-based paint activities. The purpose

of this document is to announce the

availability of funds to be administered

by EPA in the form of a cooperative

agreement with an organization with

demonstrated experience in lead-based

paint training activities. Any nonprofit

organization with such experience is

eligible to apply. These funds are to be

used for the development of a 1–day

course in interim controls for lead-based

paint and routine maintenance

activities. The basic elements of interim

controls are: paint stabilization, dust