Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20249

Applications Delivered by Hand: An

application that is hand-delivered must

be taken to Mr. Fred Sellers, U.S.

Department of Education, Student

Financial Assistance Programs, 7th and

D Streets, S.W., Room 3045, General

Service Administration Regional Office

Building #3, Washington, D.C. Handdelivered applications will be accepted

between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. daily

(Eastern time), except Saturdays,

Sundays, and Federal holidays.

An application that is hand-delivered

will not be accepted after 4:30 p.m. on

the closing date.

Program Information: Section 415C(a)

of the HEA requires that an annual

application be submitted for a State to

receive SSIG funds. In preparing the

application, each State agency should be

guided by the table of allotments

provided in the application package.

State allotments are determined

according to the statutorily mandated

formula under section 415B of the HEA

and are not negotiable. A State may also

request its share of reallotment, in

addition to its basic allotment, which is

contingent upon the availability of such

additional funds.

In fiscal year 1995, 50 States, the

District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, Guam, the Trust

Territory of the Pacific Island (Palau),

and the Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands received funds under

the SSIG Program.

Applicable Regulations: The

following regulations are applicable to

the SSIG Program:

(1) The SSIG Program regulations in

34 CFR part 692.

(2) The Education Department

General Administrative Regulations

(EDGAR) in 34 CFR part 75.60 through

75.62 (Ineligibility of Certain

Individuals to Receive Assistance), part

76 (State-Administered Programs), part

77 (Definitions that Apply to

Department Regulations), part 79

(Intergovernmental Review of

Department of Education Programs and

Activities), part 80 (Uniform

Administrative Requirements for Grants

and Cooperative Agreements to State

and Local Governments), part 82 (New

Restrictions on Lobbying), part 85

(Governmentwide Debarment and

Suspension (Nonprocurement), and

Governmentwide Requirements for

Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)), and part

86 (Drug-Free Schools and Campuses).

(3) The regulations in 34 CFR part 604

that implement section 1203 of the HEA

(Federal-State Relationship

Agreements).

(4) The Student Assistance General

Provisions in 34 CFR part 668.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further

information contact Mr. Greg Gerrans,

Pell and State Grant Section, U.S.

Department of Education, Student

Financial Assistance Programs,

Washington, D.C. 20202–5447;

telephone (202) 708–4607. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through

Friday. (20 U.S.C. 1070c–1070c–4)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 84.069, State Student Incentive

Grant Program)

Dated: May 1, 1996.

David A. Longanecker,

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary

Education.

[FR Doc. 96–11222 Filed 5–03–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5468–6]

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: Engelhard Corporation

(Engelhard) 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 an engine rebuild kit (fuel

injectors, cylinder kits, camshafts,

blower, turbocharger, cylinder heads,

by-pass valve, exhaust manifold and

associated gaskets) along with a

catalytic converter muffler that replaces

the existing muffler in the exhaust

stream. Several of the engine rebuild

components will have a proprietary

coating applied to the surface.

Engelhard has proposed a three-tiered

supply approach, discussed in more

detail below, intended to provide

flexibility to transit operators using this

equipment. Engelhard intends that this

equipment be certified to the 0.1 grams

per brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)

particulate matter standard for 1979–

1990 model year Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) 6V92TA engines

having mechanical unit injectors (MUI).

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

XIII 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 the addresses

below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 20, 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 XIII-A), Room M–1500, 401 M

Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

2. Tom Stricker, Engine Compliance

Programs Group, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6403J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

‘‘M’’ Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

The Engelhard 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

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

Friday. As provided in 40 CFR part 2,

a reasonable fee may be charged by the

Agency for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Stricker, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6403J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Telephone: (202) 233–9322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 21, 1993, EPA 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
20250 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

(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: Option 1 sets

particulate matter emissions

requirements for each urban bus engine

in an operator’s fleet which is rebuilt or

replaced; Option 2 is a fleet averaging

program that sets out a specific annual

target level 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 EPA.

Emissions requirements under either of

the two options depend on the

availability of retrofit/rebuild

equipment certified for each engine

model. To be used for Option 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 Option 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.

Under Option 1, additional

information regarding cost must be

submitted in the application for

certification, in order for certification of

that equipment to initiate (or trigger)

program requirements for a particular

engine model. In order for the

equipment to serve as a trigger, the

certifier must guarantee that the

equipment will be offered to affected

operators for $7,940 or less at the 0.10

g/bhp-hr PM level, or for $2,000 or less

for the 25 percent or greater reduction

in PM. Both of the above amounts are

based on 1992 dollars and include life

cycle costs incremental to the cost of a

standard rebuild.

II. Application for Certification

Engelhard Corporation has applied for

certification of equipment applicable to

1979–1990 model year Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC) 6V92TA diesel

engines with mechanical unit injectors

(MUI). The application states that the

candidate equipment achieves a

particulate matter (PM) level of 0.1

g/bhp-hr. Life cycle costs for operators

are stated to be less than $7,940 (in 1992

dollars) for all affected operators. The

use of the equipment by transit

operators to meet program requirements

is discussed further below.

The equipment being certified

consists of an engine rebuild kit in

conjunction with a catalytic converter

muffler that takes the place of the

original muffler installed in the engine

exhaust system. The engine rebuild kit

consists of two separate parts kits. One

kit contains new components including

cylinder kits, blower by-pass valve, air

inlet hose, and gaskets. The other parts

kit contains remanufactured

components including fuel injectors,

camshafts, blower assembly,

turbocharger, exhaust manifold(s),

turbocharger Y-inlet pipe, and cylinder

head assemblies. (The cylinder head(s),

valve faces, piston crowns, and exhaust

manifold(s), and turbo Y-inlet have a

proprietary coating applied to the

surface). One of each type of kit is

required, depending on the horsepower

rating of the engine, direction of engine

rotation, and camshaft mounting gear

type. A total of twelve combinations of

these two kits are available. The specific

catalytic converter part to be used

depends on the type of coach as well as

the type of engine.

Engelhard provides a table listing the

various catalytic converter kits available

for different engine/coach combinations.

The Engelhard catalytic converter used

in this equipment package is not the

same as the Engelhard catalytic

converter previously certified by EPA

(60 FR 28402, May 31, 1995), therefore,

transit operators cannot use the

previously certified converter in place

of the new converter in this kit.

Engelhard states its intention that

certification of this equipment trigger

program requirements for the 0.1 g/bhphr PM standard for applicable engines,

and provides life cycle cost information.

The life cycle cost of the Engelhard kit,

in 1992 dollars, is stated as $13,502,

which includes $10,686 for the engine

rebuild kit, $2,600 for the catalytic

converter muffler, and $216 for

installation of the catalytic converter

muffler. Engelhard indicates that the life

cycle cost ($13,502) is $7,940

incremental to the cost of a ‘‘standard’’

rebuild, which is listed as $5,562, and

therefore meets the life cycle cost

requirements. Engelhard uses $5,562 as

the cost a ‘‘standard’’ rebuild because

this figure is the purchase price (in 1992

dollars) quoted by Detroit Diesel

Corporation for its upgrade rebuild kit

(see 61 FR 8275, March 4, 1996). The

labor to rebuild an engine will be the

same for a ‘‘standard’’ rebuild and the

candidate kit, with the exception of the

additional labor required for installation

of the catalytic converter muffler.

Engelhard states in its notification that

there is no fuel economy penalty

associated with the candidate

equipment. EPA’s preliminary review of

the test data of the notification,

however, suggests a fuel economy

penalty of roughly four (4) percent with

the candidate equipment, and, if a 4

percent fuel economy penalty exists, it

would increase life cycle costs about

$1,140 (in 1992 dollars). At this point,

EPA has not determined whether a fuel

economy penalty exists, and requests

comments concerning this issue. EPA

will use information gathered through

public comment and from the certifier

to resolve this issue. If Engelhard cannot

show that its equipment will be offered

to all operators for less than $7,940 (in

1992 dollars), incremental to the cost of

a standard rebuild, then certification

may proceed but it would not trigger the

0.1 g/bhp-hr PM standard.

Engelhard presents data from testing a

1987 model year configuration Detroit

Diesel 6V92TA MUI engine with the

Engelhard upgrade kit and converter kit

installed, documenting a PM emissions

level of 0.08 g/bhp-hr. This test also

showed that emissions of hydrocarbon

(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of

nitrogen (NOX), and smoke were within

the applicable standards. Engelhard also

presents comparative baseline test data

from a standard 1979 rebuilt engine

configuration. These data document PM

emissions of 0.33 g/bhp-hr in the

standard rebuild configuration.

Although the PM level of the standard

1979 engine rebuild is somewhat low

(0.33 g/bhp-hr), EPA believes that

engines emitting in the 0.50 g/bhp-hr

range would still meet the 0.1 g/bhp-hr

PM standard with the Engelhard kit

installed because installation of the kit

results in the replacement of all

emissions related parts with a specific

set of parts, the combination of which

results in a documented PM level of

0.08 g/bhp-hr. In other words, the

emission level of the original engine,

prior to installation of the Engelhard kit,

may be irrelevant since all emission

related parts are replaced upon

installation of the kit. EPA requests

comments on whether or not all engines

for which certification is intended will

meet the 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM standard.

In a March 25, 1996 addendum to its

notification of intent to certify,

Engelhard requested approval of this kit

under three different supply scenarios

described below. The purpose of this

proposal was to provide increased

flexibility to operators and to allow

transits to make use of existing transit

personnel to the maximum extent

possible.

Under supply option 1, Engelhard

would provide the coated engine

components, the catalytic converter

muffler, and the cylinder kits. The
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20251

remaining parts (fuel injectors,

camshafts, blower and turbocharger)

could be purchased or supplied

separately as long as such parts were

Engelhard specified OEM components

or their equivalent.

Under supply option 2, Engelhard

would supply all components in the kit

as described in the notification of intent

to certify.

Under supply option 3, Engelhard

would supply the coated engine

components, the catalytic converter

muffler, and the new engine

components (cylinder kits, blower bypass valve, air inlet hose, and gaskets).

The remanufactured components (fuel

injectors, camshafts, blower assembly

and turbocharger) would be required to

be remanufactured by Engelhard

Certified Remanufacturers. Such

‘‘certified remanufacturers’’ would

consist of transits or other third parties

designated by Engelhard as capable of

remanufacturing these components

within the tolerances prescribed by

Engelhard with proper quality control.

Engelhard proposed to provide training

to those interested in becoming a

certified Engelhard remanufacturer.

EPA expects to evaluate each of these

supply options and their impact on life

cycle costs. Also, EPA will evaluate

whether any of these options will

compromise the ability of the Engelhard

kit to achieve 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM standard

in the field.

If EPA approves the request for

certification of this equipment, urban

bus operators who choose to comply

with compliance Option 1 of this

regulation will be required to use this

equipment or other equipment certified

to the 0.1 g/bhp-hr standard beginning

six months after certification approval,

when applicable engines are rebuilt or

replaced.

If EPA approves Engelhard’s

certification request, urban bus

operators who chose to comply under

compliance Option 2 of this regulation

may also use the Engelhard equipment.

If certification is approved by EPA, the

emission levels of the Engelhard rebuild

kit will be used to modify the Option 2

post-rebuild levels in July 1996.

The date of this notice initiates a 45

day period during which EPA will

accept written comments relevant to

whether or not the equipment described

in this application should be certified.

Interested parties are encouraged to

review this application, and provide

comments related to whether or not the

equipment described in it should be

certified pursuant to the urban bus

retrofit/rebuild program. Comments

should be provided in writing to the

address listed under the Addresses

section of this notice.

The Agency will review this

notification of intent to certify, along

with comments received from the

interested parties, and attempt to

resolve or clarify issues as necessary.

During the review process, EPA may

add additional documents to the docket

as a result of the review process. These

documents will also be available for

public review and comment within the

45 day period.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Richard Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Office of

Air and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 96–11077 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[Report No. 2129]

Petitions for Reconsideration and

Clarification of Actions in Rulemaking

Proceedings

May 1, 1996.

Petitions for reconsideration and

clarification have been filed in the

Commission’s rulemaking proceedings

listed in this Public Notice and

published pursuant to 47 CFR Section

1.429(e). The full text of these

documents are available for viewing and

copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800.

Opposition to this petition must be filed

May 21, 1996. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of

the Commission’s rules (47 CFR

1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must

be filed within 10 days after the time for

filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Amendment of the

Commission’s Regulatory Policies

Governing Domestic Fixed

Satellites and Separate International

Satellite Systems. (IB Docket No.

95–41)

Number of Petitions Filed: 4

Subject: Preemption of Local Zoning

Regulation of Satellite Earth

Stations (IB Docket No. 95–59)

Number of Petitions Filed: 8

Subject: Streamlining Broadcast EEO

Rules and Policies, Vacating the

EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement

and Amending Section 1.80 of the

Commission’s Rules to Include EEO

Forfeiture Guidelines (MM Docket

No. 96–16)

Number of Petitions Filed: 1

Subject: Implementation of Section 302

of the Telecommunications Act of

1996; Open Video Systems (CS

Docket No. 96–46)

Telephone Company-Cable;

Television Cross-Ownership Rules,

Sections 63–54—63–58 (CC Docket

No. 87–266 (Terminated))

Number of Petitions Filed: 1

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11176 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that

at 3:33 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30, 1996,

the Board of Directors of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation met in

closed session to consider matters

relating to the Corporation’s supervisory

activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board

determined, on motion of Vice

Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr.,

seconded by Director Joseph H. Neely

(Appointive), concurred in by Director

Eugene A. Ludwig (Comptroller of the

Currency), Director Jonathan L. Fiechter

(Acting Director, Office of Thrift

Supervision), and Chairman Ricki

Helfer, that Corporation business

required its consideration of the matters

on less than seven days’ notice to the

public; that no earlier notice of the

meeting was practicable; that the public

interest did not require consideration of

the matters in a meeting open to public

observation; and that the matters could

be considered in a closed meeting by

authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6),

(c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii) of the ‘‘Government

in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552b

(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii)).

The meeting was held in the Board

Room of the FDIC Building located at

550—17th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Valerie J. Best,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11296 Filed 5–2–96; 2:09 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

The Federal Maritime Commission

hereby gives notice of the filing of the