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
64052 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

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 establishes PM 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 programs 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.

As noted above, operators of affected

buses must use equipment which has

been certified by EPA. An important

element of the certification process is

input from the public based on review

of notifications of intent to certify. It is

expected that engine manufacturers, bus

manufacturers, transit operators, and

industry associations will be able to

provide valuable information related to

the installation and use of particular

equipment by transit operators. Such

information will be useful to the Engine

Programs and Compliance Division in

its role of determining whether any

specific equipment can be certified.

II. Notification Of Intent To Certify

By a notification of intent to certify

signed August 18, 1995, and

subsequently modified by letter dated

October 5, 1995, Twin Rivers

Technologies, Limited Partnership

(TRT), with principal place of business

at 780 Washington Street, Quincy,

Massachusetts 02169, applied for

certification of equipment applicable to

certain urban bus engines manufactured

by Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC).

The notification states that the

candidate equipment will provide

reductions in exhaust PM, as discussed

below, dependent upon the

configuration used, from petroleumfueled diesel engines that have been

properly calibrated or rebuilt to the

original engine manufacturer’s

specifications.

TRT requests certification for the

following two configurations of

equipment: (1) Biodiesel fuel additive

blended with diesel fuel (the blend is

referred to as ‘‘B20’’) in combination

with a particular exhaust system

oxidation catalyst; and, (2) B20 and the

catalyst, plus retarded fuel injection

timing. Certification, if approved by the

Agency, would apply to the

combination of catalyst and biofuel

supplied by TRT or its licensed

distributors. The fuel B20 (alone) is not

candidate for certification under this

notification.

One configuration of the candidate

equipment, as applied to some engines,

provides PM reductions greater than 25

percent and the other configuration does

not. This is discussed further below.

TRT has not provided life cycle cost

information with the notification and

has not requested to be certified as being

available for less than the life cycle cost

ceiling.

A key component of both

configurations of the candidate

equipment is use of biodiesel as an

additive at a 20 percent by volume

blend ratio with diesel fuel. Biodiesel is

an ester-based fuel oxygenate derived

from biological sources for use in

compression-ignition (that is ‘‘diesel’’)

engines. Biodiesel is the alkyl ester

product of the transesterification

reaction of biological triglycerides, or

biologically-derived oils. Any biological

oil source, such as vegetable oils, animal

fats or used cooking oils and fats, can

produce esters through this reaction.

TRT has registered biodiesel under the

Agency’s Fuel/Fuel Additive

Registration Program, which defines

Twin Rivers biodiesel (marketed as

‘‘EnviroDieselTM’’ and ‘‘EnviroDiesel

PlusTM’’) as an alkyl ester containing

C1–C4 alcohols and C6–C24 acids. The

fuel handling procedure differs from

that for diesel fuel only in that it

requires mixing by the fuel distributor

or bus operator of 20 percent by volume

biodiesel with low-sulfur diesel fuel.

TRT is a company created specifically

for the production of biodiesel.

A key component of both

configurations of the candidate

equipment is a particular oxidation

catalyst-muffler unit (discussed further

below) designed to replace the typical

noise muffler in the exhaust system of

applicable recipient engines. In a report

included as an attachment to TRT’s

notification, it is indicated that the

combination of B20 and the catalyst

achieve greater PM reductions than with

the catalyst alone. Improved PM

reduction associated with that

combination may be due to an apparent

shift in the composition of total exhaust

particulates, when using B20, toward a

lower soot fraction and higher soluble

organic fraction (SOF). It is the SOF

portion of the exhaust particulates that

an oxidation catalyst is most effective in

reducing.

The exhaust catalysts are to be

matched to specific urban bus and

engine configurations. Further, the

maximum allowable exhaust pipe

length between engine and catalyst is

108 inches. Exhaust system

backpressure is designed to remain

within the engine manufacturer’s

specified limits. The catalyst unit has no

additional maintenance requirements

for the life of the catalyst.

The second configuration of the

candidate equipment includes the retard

of fuel injection timing in combination

with B20 and the above-described

exhaust catalyst. All applicable engines

using this second configuration and

equipped with mechanical unit

injection (MUI) would use a timing

retard of four (4) degrees. All applicable

engines using this configuration and

equipped with electronically-controlled

fuel injection would use a timing retard

of one (1) degree. The notification states

that timing is retarded by a shift of the

timing sensor. The Agency requests

comment and information concerning

the reasonability of these timing

specifications.

For its certification testing, TRT used

catalytic muffler units that were

manufactured by Engelhard Corporation

and are the same formulation and

configuration that is certified by the

Agency for use in the urban bus

program (see 60 FR 28402, dated May

31, 1995, for that certification). While an

agreement is in place for Engelhard to

supply TRT with catalysts, the physical

specifications of the catalyst to be used

in production are neither part of the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64053

TRT notification of intent to certify nor

provided to TRT as part of that

agreement. In general, the Agency has

concerns when a certifier is not aware

of the technical specifications of

equipment it wants to certify and when

the potential exists for a change in

equipment specifications to adversely

affect emissions reduction performance.

Such a change in specifications may

occur, for example, with a change in

catalyst production which may not be

known to the certifier. In a letter

provided to the Agency, Engelhard

states that it will notify both TRT and

the Agency in the event of changes to

specifications of the catalytic converter

muffler provided to TRT. The

specifications for the catalyst have been

provided to the Agency as a confidential

part of Engelhard’s notification of intent

to certify its CMXTM catalyst muffler. A

copy of this letter can be found in the

public docket at the address indicated

above. This provides the Agency with

assurance that changes to catalyst

specifications will be brought to the

Agency’s attention, and the Agency

proposes to restrict certification for

candidate TRT equipment to use of

catalyst muffler units supplied by

Engelhard and covered by Engelhard’s

certification, and require that use of

catalysts supplied by any other supplier

be the subject of a separate notification

of intent to certify.

TRT presents exhaust emission data

from testing the candidate equipment

configurations on three engines using

the federal engine-dynamometer test

procedures of 40 CFR Part 86, as well

as chassis dynamometer testing. A 1977

model year DDC 6V71N and 1988 model

year DDC 6V92TA DDEC II were tested

on engine dynamometers, and another

1988 model year DDC 6V92TA DDEC II

was tested on a chassis dynamometer.

The 6V71N engine was selected to

represent a ‘‘worst case’’, with respect to

PM, for most of the engines for which

certification of the equipment is being

sought, and also to represent engines

equipped with MUI. Based on a prerebuild PM level for the 6V71N of 0.50,

from the table in 40 CFR section

85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A), TRT states that the

6V71N qualities as ‘‘worst case’’ for all

two-stroke/cycle engines with the

exception of the 1990 DDC 6L71TA. The

1988 6V92TA DDEC engines were tested

to show the results of the biodiesel fuel

on engines having electronic fuel

control, and also to represent the ‘‘worst

case’’ engine configuration for such

engines, based on their ‘‘pre-rebuild’’

level of 0.31 g/bhp-hr. The notification

states that the fuel used for testing, both

the biodiesel and diesel, are

representative of commercially available

biodiesel and low-sulfur diesel fuels.

Baseline testing was conducted after

two of the test engines were rebuilt to

the original engine manufacturer’s

configurations. A third engine had not

been used prior to testing. Baseline

testing was conducted using low sulfur

test fuel having a maximum sulfur level

of 0.05 weight percent. Subsequent

testing of the engines was done after the

candidate equipment was installed.

Table 1A below summarizes the

emission levels from the engine

dynamometer testing. Table 1B

summarizes the chassis testing in terms

of range of impact on exhaust emissions

of the candidate equipment from three

driving cycles. The driving cycles used

for the chassis testing were the Central

Business District, New York Bus

Composite Cycle, and the Arterial Cycle.

A report attached to TRT’s notification

provides specific emission rates

measured for each driving cycle and

equipment configuration. Table 2

summarizes, for each test engine, the

changes in PM and NOX emissions with

use of each configuration of the

equipment. The reductions listed for the

chassis testing include double weighting

of the emission data from the Arterial

Cycle, because TRT believes the

resultant combination of the chassis

driving cycles is more representative of

the Agency’s Urban Dynamometer

Driving Schedule for Heavy-Duty

Vehicles (40 CFR Part 86, Appendix I).

Table 3 provides a summary of all

engine models for which TRT intends

the equipment to apply, and the

associated percent reductions in PM

emissions for these models, based on

the test data. Table 4 summarizes the

PM certification levels for each engine

model for which certification is sought,

based on reductions of Table 3 applied

to the pre-rebuild levels established in

the program regulations. Additional

testing information is provided in

reports from the facilities which

conducted the emission testing (these

reports are attachments to the

notification).

TABLE 1A.—TEST ENGINE EMISSIONS

Engine

Gaseous and Particulate Smoke

Comment

HC CO NOX PM ACC LUG Peak

g/bhp-hr percent opacity

Engine Dyno ........................................................... 1.3 15.5 10.7 0.60 20 15 50 1988 EPA stds.

1977 6V71N MUI .................................................... 0.86 3.18 11.72 0.282 1.2 1.8 1.8 Baseline (low S, 2D).

1977 6V71N MU ..................................................... 0.38 0.86 12.11 0.166 0.9 1.7 1.7 B20 + cat.

1977 6V71N MU ..................................................... 0.42 0.94 8.47 0.213 2.2 2.8 2.9 B20, cat + 4° retard.

1988 6V92TA DDEC II ........................................... 0.60 1.60 8.52 0.20 6.0 5.3 8.7 Baseline (low S, 2D).

1988 6V92TA DDEC II ........................................... 0.21 0.95 9.12 0.11 3.7 1.7 6.9 B20 + cat.

1988 6V92TA DDEC II ........................................... 0.25 1.05 8.35 0.12 5.1 2.5 8 B20, cat + 1° retard.

TABLE 1B.—CHASSIS TESTING: RANGE OF PERCENTAGE CHANGE 1 IN EMISSIONS FROM BASELINE (LOW SULFUR DIESEL)

Pollutant B20 + catalyst B20 + catalyst + 1.5° retard

HC .................................................................................... ¥59 to ¥39 ..................................................................... ¥33 to +3

CO .................................................................................... ¥85 to ¥54 ..................................................................... ¥38 to ¥19

NOX .................................................................................. +4 to +8 ............................................................................ ¥5 to ¥2

PM .................................................................................... ¥56 to ¥22 ..................................................................... ¥46 to ¥7

1Three different chassis driving cycles were used.
64054 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

TABLE 2.—EMISSIONS CHANGES FROM TEST ENGINES

Test Engine

Configuration Per cent

PM

change

Per cent

NoX

change

Test/dyno

B20 CAT Timing

retard

1977 6V71N ............................................................................................... √ √ None .... ¥41 +3 Engine.

MUI ............................................................................................................ √ √ 4° ......... ¥24.5 ¥28

1988 6V92TA DDEC ................................................................................. √ √ None .... ¥45 +6 Engine.

II ................................................................................................................. √ √ 1° ......... ¥40 ¥2

1988 6V92TA DDEC ................................................................................. √ √ None .... ¥40 +4 Chassis.

II ................................................................................................................. √ √ 1.5° ...... ¥27 ¥5

TABLE 3.—APPLICABLE ENGINES AND PM REDUCTION

Engine model Model year

Configuration and per

Cent PM Reduction

B20 + cat B20, cat +

retard

6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................................................................ 79–87 41.1 24.5

6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................................................................ 88–89 41.1 24.5

6V92TA DDEC I ....................................................................................................................................... 86–87 45.0 40.0

6V92TA DDEC II ...................................................................................................................................... 88–91 45.0 40.0

6V92TA DDEC II ...................................................................................................................................... 92–93 45.0 40.0

6V71N MUI .............................................................................................................................................. 73–87 41.1 24.5

6V71N MUI .............................................................................................................................................. 88–89 41.1 24.5

6V71T MUI ............................................................................................................................................... 85–86 41.1 24.5

8V71N MUI .............................................................................................................................................. 73–84 41.1 24.5

6L71TA MUI ............................................................................................................................................. 90 41.1 24.5

6L71TA MUI ............................................................................................................................................. 88–89 41.1 24.5

6L71TA DDEC ......................................................................................................................................... 90–91 45.0 40.0

TABLE 4.—PM CERTIFICATION LEVELS

Engine model Model year

Equipment Configuration

B20 + cat B20, cat +

retard

6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................................................................ 79–87 0.29 0.38

6V92TA MUI ............................................................................................................................................ 88–89 0.17 0.23

6V92TA DDEC I ....................................................................................................................................... 86–87 0.17 0.18

6V92TA DDEC II ...................................................................................................................................... 88–91 0.17 0.19

6V92TA DDEC II ...................................................................................................................................... 92–93 0.14 0.15

6V71N MUI .............................................................................................................................................. 73–87 0.29 0.38

6V71N MUI .............................................................................................................................................. 88–89 0.29 0.38

6V71T MUI ............................................................................................................................................... 85–86 0.29 0.38

8V71N MUI .............................................................................................................................................. 73–84 0.29 0.38

6L71TA MUI ............................................................................................................................................. 90 0.34 0.44

6L71TA MUI ............................................................................................................................................. 88–89 0.18 0.23

6L71TA DDEC ......................................................................................................................................... 90–91 0.17 0.18

Section 85.1406(a) of the program

regulations state ‘‘The test results must

demonstrate that the retrofit/rebuild

equipment * * * will not cause the

urban bus engine to fail to meet any

applicable Federal emission

requirements set for that engine in the

applicable portions of 40 CFR part 86

* * *’’. TRT’s emission test data

indicate that both configurations of the

candidate equipment reduce

hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide

(CO), when compared with baseline

(pre-retrofit) emissions. There is,

however, potential for concern with

regard to NOX emissions from other

engines with which the candidate

equipment might be certified, because

an increase of three percent was

measured for the MUI test engine when

equipped with the B20-catalyst

configuration without fuel injection

retard, and six percent for the

electronically-timed DDEC II test

engine. Because test data is not available

on all engines for which certification of

the equipment is sought, TRT performed

analyses to determine whether such

increases would indicate that other

engines exceed applicable NOX

standards. The analysis, in general,

applies each of the measured increases

to the NOX certification levels

established by the engine manufacturer

for engines tested under the Agency’s

new engine certification program. (New

engine certification testing results are

reported yearly by the Agency in its

‘‘Federal Certification Test Results’’.)

Three percent increase in NOX is

evaluated for engines equipped with

MUI, and six percent increase is

evaluated for engines equipped with

electronically-timed injection. The

increased NOX level is compared with

the relevant standard for the particular

engine. TRT’s analyses is in the public

docket, and discussed below.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64055

TRT’s analysis for MUI engines is

broken down by engine model year to

account for two new engine certification

test procedures, each having particular

emissions standards. The ‘‘13 mode’’

engine dynamometer test procedure was

used for heavy-duty engine testing prior

to the 1985 model year, and the

‘‘transient’’ engine dynamometer test

procedure is used for 1985 and later

model years. For certification under the

urban bus program, TRT tested the 1977

model year 6V71N MUI engine using

the ‘‘transient’’ procedure. While the

‘‘13 mode’’ test was used for new engine

certification of the 1977 model year, the

‘‘transient’’ test is the current standard

test procedure for heavy-duty engines

and is generally recognized as more

representative than the ‘‘13-mode’’ test.

Therefore, the Agency believes that the

NOX increase measured by TRT using

the ‘‘transient’’ test data is a relevant

gauge of the impact of the candidate

equipment. TRT’s analysis applies the

increase to the new engine certification

data available for engines of 1984 and

earlier model years. Prior to 1985, there

was no federal emission standard for

NOX alone. The relevant emission

standards (for engines that were

certified using the ‘‘13-mode’’

procedure) are 16 g/bhp-hr for 1974

through 1978 model year engines and 10

g/bhp-hr for 1979 through 1984 model

year engines, for the sum of HC

emissions added to NOX emissions.

TRT’s initial analysis applied three

percent increase to the new engine

certification levels for HC + NOX

emissions for 1982 and later model year

engines for which such data is available.

This predicts that only one engine (a

325 horsepower version of 1982 model

year 6V92TA engine family

CGM0552FWG5) would exceed its NOX

standard. Further analysis for this

engine, applying three percent increase

in its NOX emission level added to 50

percent decrease in its reported HC

certification level, indicates that the

combined federal emission standard

would not be exceeded for this engine

if equipped with the candidate

equipment. Based on this analysis and

TRT’s emission test data indicating

significant reductions in HC emissions

(at least 50 percent), the Agency

believes that for any applicable pre-1985

engine equipped with MUI, an increase

in NOX emissions of the percentage

measured on the 1977 6V71N MUI test

engine will be more than offset by a

decrease in HC emissions, such that the

HC + NOX standard will not be

exceeded.

Another part of TRT’s analysis

pertains to engines equipped with MUI

and certified using the ‘‘transient’’ test

procedure (that is, the engines of model

year 1985 and later). TRT’s analysis,

applying three percent increase to NOX

levels developed during new engine

certification testing, indicates that no

1985 or later engine equipped with MUI

would exceed the applicable federal

standard if equipped with the candidate

equipment. TRT also analyzed the

impact of six percent increase in NOX

emissions on electronically-controlled

engines, because their data show that

NOX emissions for the 1988 model year

6V92TA DDEC II test engine increase

roughly six percent when equipped

with the B20-catalyst configuration

without injection retard. This increase

in NOX emissions is important,

especially because federal standards for

NOX were lowered to 6.0 g/bhp-hr for

the 1990 model year and 5.0 g/bhp-hr

for the 1991 model year. Therefore, TRT

analyzed the impact of six percent

increase in NOX emission levels

developed during new-engine

certification testing on Detroit Diesel

Corporation’s DDEC engines. (Under the

new engine certification program, all

DDEC engines have been tested using

the ‘‘transient’’ procedure.) The results

indicate that NOX levels for the engine

families in Table 5 would exceed the

appropriate federal emission standard.

Therefore, the Agency proposes that use

of the candidate equipment without fuel

injection retard on any urban bus

engines of the engine families listed in

Table 5 not be covered by certification

under the urban bus program.

TABLE 5.—ENGINE FAMILIES NOT COVERED BY CERTIFICATION

Configuration: B20 and Catalyst (without injection retard)

Model year Model Engine family

1990 ......................................................... 6V92TA DDEC II ........................................................................................................ LDD0552FZG6

6V92TA DDEC II Coach ............................................................................................ LDD0552FZL2

1991 ......................................................... 6L71TA DDEC ALCC ................................................................................................. MDD0426FZFX

6V92TA DDEC II ........................................................................................................ MDD0552FZG5

6V92TA DDEC II ........................................................................................................ MDD0552FZL1

1992 ......................................................... 6V92TA DDEC II ........................................................................................................ NDD0552FZG4

6V92TA DDEC II Coach ............................................................................................ NDD0552FZL0

1993 ......................................................... 6V92TA DDEC II ........................................................................................................ PDD0552FZG2

6V92TA DDEC II Coach ............................................................................................ PDD0552FZL9

The Agency requests comment,

additional analysis, or additional

emission test data or for engine families

to which the equipment is intended to

apply, to determine whether regulatory

requirements are met with urban bus

engines using the candidate equipment.

While absolute smoke opacity levels

during testing of the 1977 6V71N MUI

test engine were well below relevant

standards, increases were measured

between the baseline test and testing

using B20, catalyst and retarded timing.

This is not of significant concern

because the Agency believes the

absolute level of increase is more

relevant than the percentage increase.

Further, the absolute level of increase in

opacity is believed not significant in the

context of the current smoke test and

opacity standards (in other words, there

is probably no real increase in smoke

opacity, given the nature of the smoke

test and level of the standards). Finally,

smoke emissions from heavy duty diesel

engines, in general, have declined over

the years as engines are designed to

comply with declining federal PM

emissions standards. The Agency

believes that even if this test data

accurately predicts an increase in smoke

emission opacity with other engines for

which the equipment is intended to

apply, it is not a significant increase.

The Agency requests comment

regarding the applicability of that data

to other engines having MUI for which

the equipment is intended to apply.

Smoke emission measurements for the

1988 engine indicate compliance with

applicable standards.

As indicated in the notification, the

6V71N test engine qualities as a ‘‘worst

case’’ for all two-stroke/cycle engines

with exception of the 1990 DDC
64056 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

6L71TA. (The 1990 model year DDC

6L71TA has a pre-rebuild PM level of

0.59 g/bhp-hr.) While TRT requests

certification coverage for the 1990 DDC

6L71TA and warrants comparable

particulate emissions reduction

percentages for it as is demonstrated by

the 6V71N test engine, the requirement

of the program regulations have not

been met. Therefore, the Agency

believes that the notification lacks

sufficient basis for certification of the

candidate equipment with the 1990

DDC 6L71TA.

Section 85.1406(d) of the regulations

governing urban bus equipment

certification states, in part, ‘‘* * *

installation of any certified retrofit/

rebuild equipment shall not cause or

contribute to an unreasonable risk to the

public health, welfare or safety * * *’’.

Information for considering whether

B20 in this context would affect any

potential human health risks associated

with exposure to conventional diesel

emissions has been provided by TRT

with its notification of intent to certify.

This information will be reviewed by

the Agency. The Agency has made this

information part of the public docket at

the address listed above. Any findings

based on this information, together with

any other information that may be

considered, will be made part of the

public docket located at the address

noted above, and considered by the

Agency in its decision regarding

certification of the candidate

equipment. The Agency requests

additional information, including

information on combustion by-products,

for considering whether and, if so how,

the use of the subject biodiesel blend,

that is, B20, in diesel engines would

affect any potential health risks

associated with exposure to

conventional diesel emissions.

Section 211 of the Clean Air Act sets

forth fuel and fuel additive prohibitions,

and gives the Agency authority to waive

certain of those prohibitions. The

Agency, however, does not believe that

TRT must obtain a fuel additive waiver

under Section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air

Act before certifying its additive system

for the following reasons.

The Act prohibits the introduction

into commerce of any fuel or fuel

additive that is not substantially similar

to a fuel or fuel additive used in the

certification of any model year 1975 or

later vehicle or engine under Section

206. The Administrator may waive this

prohibition, if she determines that

certain criteria are met. The Agency

believes that certification of an urban

bus retrofit system constitutes the

certification of an engine under Section

206 for the purposes of the urban bus

retrofit/rebuild program, and, since the

additive is used in the certification of

the system, a waiver is not required to

market the additive in the limited

context of use with the certified retrofit

system. This determination does not

affect whether the additive is

‘‘substantially similar to any fuel or fuel

additive’’ outside the context of the

urban bus retrofit/rebuild program. The

Agency’s position on this matter is

discussed in additional detail as it

relates to use of another fuel additive

(Lubrizol Corporation) at 60 FR 36139

on July 13, 1995.

If the Agency certifies the candidate

TRT equipment, operators may use it

immediately, as discussed below. TRT’s

notification indicates that the candidate

equipment is to be certified for

compliance program 2; however, as

discussed below, the Agency believes

that configurations utilizing the

catalytic muffler and reducing PM by at

least 25 percent may also be used in

compliance with current program 1

requirements.

In a Federal Register notice dated

May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28402), the Agency

certified an exhaust catalyst

manufactured by the Engelhard

Corporation, as a trigger of program

requirements. For urban bus operators

affected by this program and electing to

comply with program 1 requirements,

that certification means that rebuilds

and replacements of all applicable

urban bus engines, performed 6 months

or more after that date of certification

(that is, rebuilds or replacements after

December 1, 1995), must be performed

with equipment certified to reduce PM

emissions by 25 percent or more. Under

Program 1, operators could use the TRT

equipment if certified to reduce PM by

at least 25 percent, or other equipment

certified to provide at least a 25 percent

reduction, until equipment is certified

which triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard. For Program 1, operators may

also use the B20 blend with the

Engelhard catalyst and injection retard

only for the following engines: 6V92TA

DDEC I and DDEC II, and 6L71TA

DDEC.

Operators who choose to comply with

Program 2 and install the TRT

equipment, would use the PM emission

level(s) established during the

certification process, in their

calculations for target or fleet level as

specified in the program regulations.

In accordance with the program

requirements of section 85.1404(a),

operators using the candidate

equipment would have to maintain

purchase records of the B20 blend if the

operator purchases the premixed blend

from a fuel supplier, or, of biodiesel and

low-sulfur diesel fuel if the operator

mixes the B20. Such records would be

subject to review in the event of an

audit of a urban bus operator by the

Agency. To be in compliance with

program requirements, operators must

be able to demonstrate that B20 is being

used in the proper proportions required

by the candidate equipment.

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.

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 TRT 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. 95–30405 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50-P

[OPP–180985; FRL–4988–6]

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).