64048 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

criteria that the Agency uses to evaluate

an application during the review

process, Cummins was contacted to

determine whether or not information

would be provided to operators that

would enable them to rebuild the

components of the certified kit and the

engine rebuild itself. Cummins’

representative stated that the

information will be made available to

authorized facilities only. Transit

operators who desire to rebuild in-house

have the option of being qualified as an

authorized facility by meeting certain

requirements through a Cummins

review and approval process. Cummins

stated that a few of the larger bus

operators have obtained this approval

already but noted that it may not be

feasible for smaller operators who

would not have a sufficient number of

engines to justify the investment of time

and resources necessary to become an

authorized facility. Rebuilds that are not

performed by an authorized facility

would not be covered under the

emissions warranties provided by

Cummins under this certification.

Based on the Cummins policy, it will

be necessary for an operator to perform

the initial retrofit/rebuild of this

equipment at an authorized Cummins

facility. However, the urban bus retrofit/

rebuild regulation allows a bus operator

to use retrofit/rebuild equipment

beyond the 150,000 mile warranty

period. Therefore, a bus operator could

perform maintenance (including

rebuilding certain parts) on retrofit/

rebuild equipment beyond the warranty

period. Under these circumstances, the

transit operator would be responsible

for maintaining the equipment in proper

operating condition, assumes

responsibility for emissions

performance, and is subject to the

enforcement penalties associated with

noncompliance under the retrofit/

rebuild program. Cummins would not

be responsible for warranty coverage as

stated in 40 CFR Sections 85.1409 (a)

and (b) for such engines after the

expiration of the initial warranty

periods.

In addition, it is noted that

certification testing is currently

underway for other equipment,

including aftertreatment devices, that

will allow operators to perform engine

rebuilds using current rebuild practices.

We anticipate that a number of these

applications will be presented to EPA

for approval in the near future.

Certification of these applications

should allow operators to maintain their

current rebuild procedures.

III. Certification Approval

The Agency has reviewed this

notification, along with comments

received from interested parties, and

finds that the equipment described in

this notification of intent to certify:

(1) Reduces particulate matter exhaust

emissions by at least 25 percent,

without causing the applicable engine

families to exceed other exhaust

emissions standards;

(2) Will not cause an unreasonable

risk to the public health, welfare, or

safety;

(3) Will not result in any additional

range of parameter adjustability; and,

(4) Meets other requirements

necessary for certification under the

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (40

CFR Sections 85.1401 through 85.1415).

The Agency hereby certifies this

equipment for use in the urban bus

retrofit/rebuild program as discussed

below in section IV.

IV. Operator Requirements and

Responsibilities

This equipment may be used

immediately by urban bus operators

who have chosen to comply with either

program 1 or program 2, but must be

properly applied. Currently, operators

having certain engines who have chosen

to comply with program 1 must use

equipment certified to reduce PM

emissions by 25 percent or more when

those engines are rebuilt or replaced.

Today’s Federal Register notice certifies

the above-described Cummins

equipment as meeting that PM

reduction requirement. Equipment that

has been certified to reduce PM by 25%

or more must be used by operators with

applicable engines who have chosen

program 1. Urban bus operators who

choose to comply with Program 1 may

use the certified Cummins equipment

until such time as the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard is triggered for the applicable

engines.

Operators who choose to comply with

Program 2 and use the Cummins

equipment will use the appropriate PM

emission level from Table B when

calculating their fleet level attained

(FLA).

As stated in the program regulations

(40 CFR 85.1401 through 85.1415),

operators should maintain records for

each engine in their fleet to demonstrate

that they are in compliance with the

requirements 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: November 14, 1995.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–30404 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5344–7]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Public Review of a Notification of

Intent to Certify Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of a

notification of intent to certify

equipment and initiation of 45 day

public review and comment period.

SUMMARY: The Agency has received a

notification of intent to certify urban

bus retrofit/rebuild equipment pursuant

to 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O. Pursuant

to § 85.1407(a)(7), today’s Federal

Register notice summarizes the

notification below, announces that the

notification is available for public

review and comment, and initiates a 45-

day period during which comments can

be submitted. The Agency will review

this notification of intent to certify, as

well as comments received, to

determine whether the equipment

described in the notification of intent to

certify should be certified. If certified,

the equipment can be used by urban bus

operators to reduce the particulate

matter of urban bus engines.

The Johnson Matthey, Inc. (JMI)

notification of intent to certify, as well

as other materials specifically relevant

to it, are contained in category XI–A of

Public Docket A–93–42, entitled

‘‘Certification of Urban Bus Retrofit/

Rebuild Equipment’’. This docket is

located at the address below.

Today’s notice initiates a 45 day

period during which the Agency will

accept written comments relevant to

whether or not the equipment included

in this notification of intent to certify

should be certified. Comments should

be provided in writing to Public Docket

A–93–42, Category XI–A, at the address

below. An identical copy should be

submitted to Anthony Erb, also at the

address below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before January 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit separate copies of

comments to each of the two following

addresses:

1. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Public Docket A–93–42

(Category XI–-A), Room M–1500, 401

M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64049

2. Anthony Erb, Engine Compliance

Programs Group, Engine Programs

and Compliance Division (6405J), 401

‘‘M’’ Street S.W., Washington, DC

20460.

The JMI 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 the Agency for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Erb, Engine Compliance and

Programs Division (6405J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

Telephone: (202) 233–9259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 21, 1993, the Agency

published final Retrofit/Rebuild

Requirements for 1993 and Earlier

Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).

The retrofit/rebuild program is intended

to reduce the ambient levels of

particulate matter (PM) in urban areas

and is limited to 1993 and earlier model

year (MY) urban buses operating in

metropolitan areas with 1980

populations of 750,000 or more, whose

engines are rebuilt or replaced after

January 1, 1995. Operators of the

affected buses are required to choose

between two compliance options:

Program 1 sets particulate matter

emissions requirements for each urban

bus engine in an operator’s fleet which

is rebuilt or replaced; Program 2 is a

fleet averaging program that establishes

specific annual target levels for average

PM emissions from urban buses in an

operator’s fleet.

A key aspect of the program is the

certification of retrofit/rebuild

equipment. To meet either of the two

compliance options, operators of the

affected buses must use equipment

which has been certified by the Agency.

Emissions requirements under either of

the two compliance options depend on

the availability of retrofit/rebuild

equipment certified for each engine

model. To be used for Program 1,

equipment must be certified as meeting

a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or as

achieving a 25 percent reduction in PM.

Equipment used for Program 2 must be

certified as providing some level of PM

reduction that would in turn be claimed

by urban bus operators when calculating

their average fleet PM levels attained

under the program. For Program 1,

information on life cycle costs must be

submitted in the notification of intent to

certify in order for certification of the

equipment to initiate (or trigger)

program requirements. To trigger

program requirements, the certifier must

guarantee that the equipment will be

available to all affected operators for a

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

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

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

percent or greater reduction in PM. Both

of these values are based on 1992

dollars.

II. Notification Of Intent To Certify

By a notification of intent to certify

signed September 6, 1995, Johnson

Matthey, Inc. (JMI) has applied for

certification of equipment applicable to

all Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC)

two-cycle engines originally equipped

in an urban bus from model year 1979

to model year 1993, exclusive of the

DDC 6L71TA 1990 model year engines

(see Table A). The notification of intent

to certify states that the equipment

being certified is a catalytic exhaust

muffler (CEM). The CEM contains an

oxidation catalyst developed

specifically for diesel applications,

packaged as a direct replacement for the

muffler. The application states that the

candidate equipment provides a 25

percent or greater reduction in

emissions of particulate matter (PM) for

petroleum fueled diesel engines relative

to an original engine configuration with

no after treatment installed. The engines

may either be rebuilt to original

specifications, or not rebuilt but able to

meet specified engine calibrations. A 25

percent reduction is also claimed for

engines that have been retrofit/rebuilt

with certified new rebuild kits that do

not include after treatment devices. The

latter would apply to the DDC retrofit/

rebuild kit which was certified on

October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51472).

TABLE A.—CERTIFICATION LEVELS

Engine Models Model Year PM Level 1

with CEM Code Family

6V92TA ........................................

MUI

1979–87 ...................................... 0.38 All ................................................ All.

1988–1989 .................................. 0.23 All ................................................ All.

6V92TA ........................................

DDEC I

1986–89 ...................................... 0.23 All ................................................ All

6V92TA ........................................

DDEC II

1988–91 ...................................... 0.23 All ................................................ All.

1992–93 ...................................... 0.19 All ................................................ All.

6V71N .......................................... 1973–87 ...................................... 0.38 All ................................................ All.

6V71N .......................................... 1988–89 ...................................... 0.38 All ................................................ All.

6V71T .......................................... 1985–86 ...................................... 0.38 All ................................................ All.

8V71N .......................................... 1973–84 ...................................... 0.38 All ................................................ All.

6L71TA ........................................ 1988–89 ...................................... 0.23 All ................................................ All.

6LV71TA ......................................

DDEC

1990–91 ...................................... 0.23 All ................................................ All.

8V92TA ........................................ 1979–87 ...................................... 0.40 All ................................................ 8V92TA

1988 ............................................ 0.29 All ................................................ 8V92TA

8V92TA–DD ................................. 1988 ............................................ 0.31 ALL .............................................. 8V92TA–

DDEC II

8V92TA ........................................ 1989 ............................................ 0.35 9E70 ............................................ KDD0736FW8

9

8V92TA ........................................ 1989 ............................................ 0.29 9A90 ............................................ KDD0736FW8

9

8V92TA ........................................ 1989 ............................................ 0.26 9G85 ........................................... KDD0736FW8

9
64050 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

TABLE A.—CERTIFICATION LEVELS—Continued

Engine Models Model Year PM Level 1

with CEM Code Family

8V92TA ........................................

DDEC

1989 ............................................ 0.31 1A ................................................ KDD0736FZH

4

8V92TA ........................................ 1990 ............................................ 0.35 9E70 ............................................ LDD0736FAH

9

8V92TA ........................................

DDEC

1990 ............................................ 0.37 1A ................................................ LDD0736FZH

3

8V92TA ........................................

DDEC

1991 ............................................ 0.19 1A or 5A ...................................... MDD0736FZH

2

8V92TA ........................................

DDEC

1992–93 ...................................... 0.16 1D ................................................ NDD0736FZH

1 &

PDD0736FZH

X

8V92TA ........................................

DDEC

1992–93 ...................................... 0.22 6A ................................................ NDD0736FZH

1 &

PDD0736FZH

X

8V92TA ........................................

DDEC

1992–93 ...................................... 0.15 5A ................................................ NDD0736FZH

1 &

PDD0736FZH

X

8V92TA ........................................

DDEC

1992–93 ...................................... 0.19 1A ................................................ NDD0736FZH

1 &

PDD0736FZH

X

1The original PM certification levels for the 1991 6V92TA DDEC II, 6LV71TA DDEC and 8V92TA DDEC engine models are based on Federal

Emission Limits (FELs) under the averaging, banking and trading program. These limits are higher than the 1991 PM standard of 0.25 g/bhp-hr.

The PM level listed in this table for the engines that are equipped with the CEM provide at least a 25% reduction from the original certification

levels. The 1992 to 1993 6V92TA DDEC II and 8V92TA DDEC engine models were also certified using FELs under the trading and banking program and likewise the PM levels for the engines equipped with the CEM represent at least a 25% reduction from the original certification levels.

Transit pricing level data has been

submitted with the notification, along

with a guarantee that the equipment

will be offered to all affected operators

for less than the incremental life cycle

cost ceiling of $2,000 in 1992 dollars.

JMI indicates that the maximum cost in

1995 dollars will not exceed $2,173.00.

Equipment cost is listed to be $1,926.00

and installation costs are not to exceed

$247.00 (6.5 hours of labor time

maximum). JMI states that there is no

fuel economy impact, and that no

incremental maintenance will be

necessary due to this equipment.

Therefore, this equipment may qualify

as a trigger for program requirements for

the 25% reduction standard. However,

it is noted that designation as a trigger

is not necessary in this case as trigger

technology is already certified for the

25% reduction standard for every

engine model for which this technology

would be certified. However, in the

future this technology may lower the

target PM level for bus operators under

Program 2 for particular engine models,

if the PM level for this technology is

lower than the PM certification level for

any other certified technology.

JMI presents data from testing the

equipment on a 2-stroke 1986 model

year DDC 6V92TA engine documenting

PM emissions reduction under two

different scenarios. In applications

involving aftertreatment devices, the use

of a ‘‘worst case’’ engine during testing

allows the certifier to extrapolate the

results to engines known to have engine

out PM levels that are equal to or less

than the test engine. Based on a prerebuild PM level for the 6V92TA of

0.50, from the table in 40 CFR section

85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A), the 6V92TA

qualifies as a ‘‘worst case’’ for all twostroke/cycle engines with the exception

of the 1990 DDC 6L71TA.

In the first test sequence, the baseline

test was performed on the engine prior

to rebuild. Then the catalytic converter

was added to the exhaust system and

another test was performed. The results

are presented in Table B. When the

results of the two tests are compared,

the test on the engine that was equipped

with the catalytic converter shows a

50% decrease in PM emissions

compared to the baseline engine. This

test also shows that hydrocarbon (HC),

carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) emissions are within the

applicable emission standards.

TABLE B.—CERTIFICATION EMISSION

TEST RESULTS

[Pre-Rebuild Composite Test Results (g/bhphr)]

Baseline

engine

Engine

with CEM

Percent

reduction

PM ............... 0.44 0.22 50

HC ............... 0.7 0.4 43

CO ............... 1.0 0.6 40

NOx ............. 10.5 10.2 3

Smoke:

Accel (percent) ..... 2 1

Lug (percent) ..... 1 1

Peak (percent) ..... 4 3

In the second test sequence, the

baseline test was performed on the

engine after rebuild. Then, as in the first

test sequence, the catalytic converter

was added and a comparison test was

performed. The results are presented in

Table C. When the results of these tests

are compared, the test on the engine

with the catalytic converter installed

shows a 38% reduction in PM emissions

when compared with the test results for

the baseline engine. The HC, CO, and

NOX emissions for this test are within

the applicable emission standards.

JMI also provided smoke emission

measurements for the engine in the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64051

rebuilt condition with the catalytic

converter installed. These

measurements indicate that the engine

complies with the applicable smoke

standards.

TABLE C.—CERTIFICATION EMISSION

TEST RESULTS

[Post-Rebuild Composite Test Results (g/bhphr)]

Baseline

engine

Engine

with CEM

Percent

reduction

PM ............... 0.13 0.08 38

HC ............... 0.6 0.3 50

CO ............... 0.7 0.4 43

NOX ............. 9.7 9.4 3

Smoke:

Accel (percent) ..... 1 1

Lug (percent) ..... 1 1

Peak (percent) ..... 6 5

The information submitted by JMI

shows that this equipment achieves a

25% or greater reduction in PM

emissions and will be sold for less than

the cost ceiling of $2,000 (1992 dollars).

If EPA approves the request for

certification of this equipment, urban

bus operators will be required to use

this equipment or other equipment that

is already certified to provide 25% or

greater equivalent reductions to comply

with Program 1 of this regulation

beginning December 1, 1995. This

requirement will continue unless other

equipment which reduces PM emissions

to 0.10 g/bhp-hr is certified at or below

the $7,940 life cycle cost ceiling.

If EPA approves JMI’s certification

request, urban bus operators who chose

to comply under Option 2 of this

regulation may also use this equipment.

If certification is approved by EPA, the

emission levels of the JMI equipment

may be used to modify the Option 2

post rebuild levels in July 1996, unless

other rebuild kits with life cycle costs

below the life-cycle cost ceiling and

lower PM emission levels are certified

before July 1996.

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,

including whether the data provided by

JMI complies with the life cycle cost

requirements.

The Agency requests that those

commenting also consider these

regulatory requirements, plus provide

comments on any experience or

knowledge concerning: (a) Problems

with installing, maintaining, and/or

using the candidate equipment on

applicable engines; and, (b) whether the

equipment is compatible with affected

vehicles.

The date of this notice initiates a 45

day period during which the Agency

will accept written comments relevant

to whether or not the equipment

described in the JMI notification of

intent to certify should be certified

pursuant to the urban bus retrofit/

rebuild regulations. Interested parties

are encouraged to review the

notification of intent to certify and

provide comment during the 45 day

period. Please send separate copies of

your comments to each of the above two

addresses.

The Agency will review this

notification of intent to certify, along

with comments received from interested

parties, and attempt to resolve or clarify

issues as necessary. During the review

process, the Agency may add additional

documents to the docket as a result of

the review process. These documents

will also be available for public review

and comment within the 45 day period.

Dated: December 1, 1995.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–30403 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5344–6]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993

and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses;

Public Review of a Notification of

Intent To Certify Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of a

notification of intent to certify

equipment and initiation of 45-day

public review and comment period.

SUMMARY: Twin Rivers Technologies’

(TRT) has submitted to the Agency a

notification of intent to certify urban

bus retrofit/rebuild equipment pursuant

to 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O. The

notification describes equipment

consisting of biodiesel fuel additive in

combination with a particular exhaust

system catalyst. Pursuant to

§ 85.1407(a)(7), today’s Federal Register

notice summarizes the notification,

announces that the notification is

available for public review and

comment, and initiates a 45-day period

during which comments can be

submitted. The Agency will review this

notification of intent to certify, as well

any comments it receives, to determine

whether the equipment described in the

notification of intent to certify should be

certified. If certified, the equipment can

be used by urban bus operators to

reduce the particulate matter of urban

bus engines.

The notification of intent to certify, as

well as other materials specifically

relevant to it, are contained in category

X of Public Docket A–93–42, entitled

‘‘Certification of Urban Bus Retrofit/

Rebuild Equipment’’. This docket is

located at the address listed below.

Today’s notice initiates a 45-day

period during which the Agency will

accept written comments relevant to

whether or not the equipment included

in this notification of intent to certify

should be certified. Comments should

be provided in writing to Public Docket

A–93–42, Category X, at the address

below, and an identical copy should be

submitted to William Rutledge, also at

the address below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before January 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit identical copies of

comments to each of the two following

addresses: 1. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Public Docket A–93–

42 (Category X), Room M–1500, 401 M

Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

2. William Rutledge, Engine

Compliance Group, Engine Programs

and Compliance Division (6403J), 401

‘‘M’’ Street S.W., Washington, DC

20460.

The TRT 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 the Agency for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Rutledge, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6403J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

Telephone: (202) 233–9297.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 21, 1993, the Agency

published final Retrofit/Rebuild

Requirements for 1993 and Earlier

Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).

The retrofit/rebuild program is intended