[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14626-14637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7767]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 85
[FRL-5986-2]
RIN 2060-AH45
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year
Urban Buses; Additional Update of Post-Rebuild Emission Levels in 1998
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations governing EPA's Urban Bus
Retrofit/Rebuild Program to provide for the revision of post-rebuild
particulate levels based on equipment certified by July 1, 1998. This
amendment allows equipment manufacturers additional time to certify
equipment capable of influencing compliance under Option 2 (the fleet
averaging option) of the program. This amendment provides assurance
that the two compliance options of the program remain equivalent, and
that urban buses utilize the best retrofit technology reasonably
achievable as Congress required. In addition, the amendment provides
assurance that urban areas realize the full PM benefits of this
program.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this amendment are contained in Public
Docket No. A-91-28 at the address listed below. This docket is located
in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. Dockets 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 EPA for
copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Rutledge, Engine Programs and
[[Page 14627]]
Compliance Division (6403-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 564-9297.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this amendment consist of the
same entities currently regulated by the existing Retrofit/Rebuild
Requirements of 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O, and include urban transit
operators in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's) and Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSA's) with 1980 populations of
750,000 or more, and equipment manufacturers who voluntarily seek
equipment certification pursuant to the program regulations. Regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................... Equipment manufacturers who
voluntarily seek equipment
certification pursuant to the
program regulations.
Transit operators................ Transit bus operators in Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSA's) and
Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (CMSA's) with 1980
populations of 750,000 or more, that
operate 1993 and earlier model year
urban buses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a
guide for readers regarding entities regulated by this final rule. This
table lists the type of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be
regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility or
company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
existing urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations contained in 40 CFR
Part 85, Subpart O, and the preamble to the final rule (58 FR 21359,
April 21, 1993). If you have any questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Rulemaking Documents
In addition to being available at the location listed above at
ADDRESSES, copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
rulemaking are available electronically from two EPA internet Web
locations. This service is free of charge, except for any cost you
already incur for internet connectivity. An electronic version is made
available on the day of publication on the primary Web location listed
below. The EPA Office of Mobile Sources also publishes documents on the
secondary Web location listed below.
Primary Web location: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/ (either select
desired date or use Search feature).
Secondary Web location: http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/ (look in
``What's New'' or under the specific rulemaking topic).
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, minor changes in format, pagination, etc. may occur.
III. Contents
IV. Background
A. Legal Authority
B. General Program Background
C. Potential Inequality Between Compliance Options
V. Requirements of Today's Amendment to the Urban Bus Retrofit/
Rebuild Regulations
A. Equipment Certification
B. TLF Calculations; Use of Pre- and Post-Rebuild PM Levels
VI. Public Participation
A. Public Hearing
B. Public Comment and Agency Response
VII. Environmental Impact
VIII. Economic Impact
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
B. Impact on Small Entities
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
IV. Background
A. Legal Authority
Authority for the actions promulgated in this final rule is granted
to EPA by Sections 202, 206, 207, 219, and 301 of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990. This final rule was promulgated in accordance with
Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act.
B. General Program Background
Section 219(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 requires EPA
to promulgate regulations that require certain 1993 and earlier model
year urban buses, having engines which are replaced or rebuilt after
January 1, 1995, to comply with an emission standard or control
technology reflecting the best retrofit technology and maintenance
practices reasonably achievable. Section 219(d) restricts this
requirement to 1993 and earlier model year urban buses operating in
Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Areas with 1980 populations of 750,000 or more.
On April 21, 1993, EPA published final Retrofit/Rebuild Regulations
for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359). The
regulations require affected urban bus operators to comply with one of
two program options, beginning January 1, 1995. Option 1 establishes
particulate matter (PM) emissions requirements for each urban bus in an
operator's fleet when the engine is rebuilt or replaced. Option 2 is a
fleet averaging program that sets out specific annual target levels for
average PM emissions from urban buses in an operator's fleet. The two
compliance options are designed to yield equivalent emissions
reductions for approximately the same cost.
Option 1 requires affected urban buses to meet a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM
standard at the time of engine rebuild or replacement, if equipment has
been certified by EPA for at least six months as meeting the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr standard for less than a life cycle cost limit of $7,940 (in
1992 dollars). (The regulation allows a six month lead time before
requiring such equipment to allow transit operators to plan their
budgeting and procurement activities, and to help ensure that an
adequate supply of parts are available from equipment manufacturers.)
If equipment is not certified as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for
less than the life cycle cost limit, then affected buses must receive
equipment which reduces PM emissions by 25 percent, if such equipment
has been certified by EPA for at least six months as meeting the 25
percent reduction standard for less than a life cycle cost limit of
$2,000 (in 1992 dollars). If no equipment is certified to meet either
the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, or the 25 percent reduction standard, then
affected bus engines must be rebuilt to the original engine
configuration, or to an engine configuration certified to have a PM
level lower than that of the original engine.
Option 2 is an averaging-based program that requires bus operators
to meet an annual average fleet PM level, instead of requiring each
individual rebuilt engine to meet a specific PM level. On an annual
basis, an operator must reduce its ``actual'' PM emissions
[[Page 14628]]
from its buses to a level no greater than its annual target level for
the fleet (TLF). The operator calculates the TLF for each year of the
program, beginning calendar year 1996, based on actual fleet
composition, an assumed engine rebuild and retirement schedule, and
EPA's determination of expected PM levels for each engine model. As an
engine in a fleet is assumed to be rebuilt in a particular calendar
year, the TLF calculations ``switch'' from a ``pre-rebuild'' PM
emission level to a lower ``post-rebuild'' level that reflects the
assumed use of lower-emitting, certified equipment. Over the years of
the program, as the engines in a fleet are assumed to be rebuilt, this
``switching'' results in numerically lower TLF values. As discussed
further below, EPA established pre-rebuild levels in the final rule of
April 21, 1993, and has established post-rebuild levels based on
equipment certified for each engine model. The operator also calculates
its ``actual'' fleet level attained (FLA) for each year of the program,
which must not exceed its TLF. The FLA is a fleet weighted average PM
level based on the ``actual'' PM level of each affected engine. The
``actual'' PM level of each engine is determined by the certification
PM level of the equipment used to rebuild or retrofit the engine. If no
retrofit equipment is installed on an engine, or if no retrofit
equipment is certified for the engine, then the actual PM level is the
pre-rebuild PM level.
In the final rule of April 21, 1993, EPA established pre-rebuild PM
levels for all engine models, but could only estimate the post-rebuild
PM levels because no equipment had been certified. EPA recognized that
estimated PM levels may not accurately reflect future equipment
certifications, therefore, the final rule contained provisions for EPA
to revise the post-rebuild PM levels based on equipment that is
actually certified by certain points in time. The final rule provides
for review of retrofit/rebuild equipment and for revision of post-
rebuild PM emission levels based on equipment certified by July 1,
1994, and again by July 1, 1996. In Federal Register documents of
September 2, 1994 (59 FR 45626) and August 16, 1996 (61 FR 42764), EPA
published post-rebuild PM levels based on equipment that was certified
as of July 1, 1994, and July 1, 1996, respectively.
Certification activity under the retrofit program has lagged
substantially behind the schedule anticipated by EPA when the final
rule of April 21, 1993 was promulgated. No equipment was certified when
EPA revised post-rebuild levels based on equipment certified by July 1,
1994. That revision is based on default provisions of the regulation
(40 CFR 85.1403(c)(1)(iii)). The first certification for the program
occurred on May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28402), almost a year after the post-
rebuild levels were revised the first time. Several rebuild/retrofit
kits were certified by July 1, 1996, but none were certified to the
0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard. Therefore, the revision of the post-rebuild
levels based on equipment certified by July 1, 1996 is based only on
equipment certified to reduce PM by 25 percent, or on no equipment (for
those engine models for which no equipment was certified as meeting
emissions and cost requirements).
EPA's assumption that certification activity would begin early was
incorrect, and more importantly, EPA's assumption that certification
activity would be complete by mid-1996 was incorrect. For example, EPA
recently certified equipment manufactured by Engelhard Corporation (see
62 FR 12166; March 14, 1997) that triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard
for 1979 through 1989 model year Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC)
6V92TA MUI engines. Additionally, Johnson Matthey Incorporated has
submitted an application to certify equipment to the same standard and
applicable to these, and other, DDC engines (see 62 FR 4528; January
30, 1997). As discussed below, EPA is also aware of other plans for
certifying equipment to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for several more
engine models. For these reasons, EPA expects equipment to be certified
that will trigger the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for a large segment of the
affected engine population.
C. Potential Inequality Between Compliance Options
As noted above, the post-rebuild levels based on equipment
certified by July 1, 1996, are based only on equipment certified to
reduce PM by 25 percent, or on no equipment in some cases. Absent
today's amendment, transit operators complying with Option 2 would
determine their TLFs based only on equipment reflective of those post-
rebuild levels. On the other hand, transit operators choosing to comply
with Option 1 are required to use equipment certified to the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr standard, when this standard is triggered. For example, under
Option 1 the above-mentioned Engelhard certification (62 FR 12166;
March 14, 1997) means that equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr
standard must be used when applicable urban bus engines are rebuilt or
replaced six months or more after the effective date of the
certification (that is, on rebuilds or replacements performed after
September 14, 1997). Without today's amendment, this and other such
equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard would result in
Option 2 producing less emission reductions than Option 1, and Option 1
becoming more costly than Option 2.
Given the current level of certification activity and continued
interest from equipment manufacturers, certification of additional 0.10
g/bhp-hr technology is likely. Without today's amendment to the program
regulations, transit operators, the majority of whom EPA currently
believes are complying with Option 1, would have significant incentive
to switch to Option 2. As a result, PM reductions would be
significantly reduced in those cities where transit operators switch to
Option 2. Furthermore, such a loophole is in direct conflict with the
Clean Air Act language that urban buses use the best retrofit
technology reasonably achievable.
To ensure equivalent compliance options, a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) was published on November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58022) to
maintain the continued link between the requirements of Option 2 and
Option 1. That notice proposed amending the program regulations to
provide for EPA's review of equipment certified by July 1, 1997, and
revision of the post-rebuild levels as necessary. The notice requested
comments on several aspects of the proposal, including the effect on
the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program, transit operators, equipment
manufacturers, and the timing of a third revision.
Today's action amends the program regulations to provide for EPA to
review equipment certified by July 1, 1998, and to revise the post-
rebuild levels for Option 2 TLF calculations, as appropriate. EPA is
using July 1, 1998 as the appropriate cut-off instead of the proposed
date of July 1, 1997 because, based on comments from an equipment
certifier (Johnson Matthey, Incorporated, in comments dated December 9,
1996), EPA expects equipment to be certified at a level of 0.10 g/bhp-
hr for additional engine models by mid-1998. These additional engine
models comprise a significant portion of the affected fleet. EPA thus
believes that providing one more year for review of certified equipment
will allow Option 1 and Option 2 to remain equivalent compliance
options.
[[Page 14629]]
V. Requirements of Today's Amendment to the Urban Bus Retrofit/
Rebuild Regulations
As discussed below, today's action amends 40 CFR 85.1403(c)(1) to
allow the Agency to include equipment certified by July 1, 1998 to the
0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for less than the life cycle cost ceiling of
$7,940 (1992 dollars) in the Option 2 fleet average program for the
purpose of setting post-rebuild levels. Thereafter, the Agency will
publish in the Federal Register the post-rebuild emissions levels that
will be required to be used under Option 2 for calculating the target
levels for the fleet (TLF). Post-rebuild levels revised as a result of
this amendment may be more stringent for calculating TLFs than the
post-rebuild levels published on August 16, 1996 (61 FR 42764).
EPA will base the final revision of post-rebuild PM levels on
equipment certified by July 1, 1998. This date provides six months lead
time prior to January 1, 1999, when the rebuild schedule in section
85.1403(c)(1) will begin to take into account the revisions in post-
rebuild levels resulting from any new certifications. Only the TLFs for
year 2000 and later are affected by today's amendment.
Also discussed below is a minor correction to the post-rebuild
levels used in the TLF calculations for certain model years.
A. Equipment Certification
Today's amendment does not limit the ability of equipment
manufacturers to certify equipment. Equipment manufacturers can still
certify equipment after July 1, 1998. However, EPA will not consider
equipment certified after July 1, 1998 in determining the appropriate
post-rebuild levels under Option 2. No additional revisions of post-
rebuild levels under Option 2 will occur beyond July 1998 because such
revisions would not be expected to impact a significant number of
rebuilds under this program.
B. TLF Calculations; Use of Pre- and Post-Rebuild PM Levels
The final rule of April 21, 1993, describes modeling used to
calculate, on an annual basis, the target level for a fleet using
Option 2. The target level for a fleet (TLF) establishes the maximum
average emissions from a fleet, and as such is a compliance standard
for a fleet, but it does not establish requirements on any specific bus
engine. In general, the model is based on an ``adjusted'' rebuild
schedule that predicts (i.e., ``assumes'') when each model year engine
in a fleet will be rebuilt. The model assumes that certified equipment
is applied at the time of an assumed rebuild occurring after program
start (January 1, 1995). (Each bus engine is assumed to receive several
rebuilds during its lifetime.) When an engine is assumed to be rebuilt
in a particular calendar year, the TLF calculations for subsequent
calendar years ``switch'' from one PM emission level to a lower ``post-
rebuild'' level that reflects the assumed use of lower-emitting,
certified equipment. This switch results in numerically lower TLF
values over the years of the program.
For the TLF calculations, engines in original configurations are
assumed to emit at pre-rebuild PM emissions levels. After an assumed
rebuild, engines are assumed to emit at post-rebuild levels reflecting
use of equipment certified to one of two emissions standards (depending
on what equipment is certified): a reduction in PM of at least 25
percent, or a more stringent 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. Numerical values
for the pre-rebuild PM levels are established in the final rule of
April 21, 1993 (58 FR 21359). The post-rebuild levels have been
established in Federal Register documents of September 2, 1994 (59 FR
45626) based on equipment certified by July 1, 1994, and August 16,
1996 (61 FR 42764) based on equipment certified by July 1, 1996.
Pursuant to today's amendment, revised post-rebuild levels based on
equipment certified by July 1, 1998, may affect TLFs for year 2000 and
beyond, depending on a particular fleet's composition.
Crucial to TLF model is the adjusted rebuild schedule, which is
described in the final rule of April 21, 1993, and found as a table in
the regulations at 40 CFR 85.1403(c)(1)(iv). The adjusted schedule
predicts when each model year engine is assumed to be rebuilt. This
schedule is shown below pictorially as Figure 1. For purposes of
calculating the TLF for each year of the program, the date at which the
emission level for a model year engine switches from one PM level to
another is January 1st of the year following a rebuild assumed to occur
subsequent to program start (January 1, 1995). Today's amendment does
not change either the adjusted rebuild schedule or the year of a switch
from one PM level to another.
Today's amendment also includes a minor correction regarding the
post-rebuild levels used for several year's TLF calculations. This
correction to the regulation will prevent overly stringent TLF values
for calendar years 1998, 1999, and 2000 (TLF98,
TLF99, and TLF2000, respectively) for operators
of fleets having 1984 and/or 1985 model year buses, that otherwise
might result from application of the original regulation promulgated on
April 21, 1993. The original regulation incorrectly assigns post-
rebuild levels, based on equipment certified by July 1996, to these two
model year engines for the TLF calculations for calendar years 1998,
1999, and 2000. This assignment is not correct because it is not
consistent with the adjusted rebuild schedule, which predicts that the
1984 and 1985 model year engines are rebuilt for the last time in 1995
and 1996, respectively. It therefore is not reasonable that the TLF
calculations (for these three calendar years) reflect post-rebuild
levels established after the last rebuilds of engines are assumed to
occur. (Post-rebuild levels were lowered for many engine models based
on equipment certified by July 1996.) Today's action corrects the
regulation at Sec. 85.1403(c)(1) so that the TLF calculations for these
three calendar years use post-rebuild levels based on equipment
certified by July 1, 1994, until any 1984 and 1985 model year engines
in a fleet is assumed to be retired (see Figure 1).
In general, for TLF calculations, the post-rebuild level used for a
particular engine in a fleet is the post-rebuild level effective at the
time the engine is assumed to be rebuilt, according to the adjusted
rebuild schedule. For the years subsequent to the assumed rebuild, the
post-rebuild level remains unchanged until the next rebuild is
predicted, at which point the same or a different post-rebuild level
may be effective, depending on whether it has been revised. The TLF
calculation for a given calendar year is based on engines no older than
15 years of age. (As noted previously, Option 2, as an averaging
program, places no specific requirements on individual engines. As a
result, the actual date that an engine is rebuilt is not relevant to
TLF calculations.)
Additionally, due to today's amendment and for reasons analogous to
those described in the preceding paragraphs, it is necessary to clarify
what post-rebuild levels are used for calendar year 2000 and later. For
fleets having any 1986, 1987, and 1988 model year engines, the TLF
calculations must use the post-rebuild levels based on equipment
certified by July 1, 1996, until the engines are assumed to be retired
(see Figure 1). This is consistent with the adjusted rebuild schedule,
which assumes 1986 model year engines are rebuilt for the last time in
calendar year 1997 and, 1987 and 1988 model year engines are both
assumed to be rebuilt for the last time in 1998. These model year
engines cannot reasonably
[[Page 14630]]
be expected to be equipped subsequent to their last presumed rebuild,
with equipment certified by July 1, 1998. Therefore, the TLF for year
2000 and later must be performed using post-rebuild levels that are in
effect for these three model year engines during the year that the last
rebuild is performed.
As a result, in accordance with the adjusted rebuild schedule, only
engines of model year 1989 through 1993 are assumed to have rebuilds in
1999 or later. Engines assumed to be rebuilt in 1999 are the first that
could employ applicable equipment certified by July 1, 1998. Therefore,
only 1989 through 1993 model year engines may have revised post-rebuild
PM levels based on equipment certified by July 1, 1998. The post-
rebuild PM levels for only these engines may be more stringent (based
on equipment certified by July 1, 1998) for calculating the TLFs for
year 2000 and thereafter.
For purposes of calculating the TLF for each year of the program,
section 85.1403(c)(1)(iv) of the regulation states when to use pre- or
post-rebuild PM levels. Today's rule revises the chart at 40 CFR
85.1403(c)(1)(iv) to clarify which emissions levels are used for
calculating the TLF for each year of the program (that is, whether to
use the pre- rebuild PM level, or the post-rebuild level based on
equipment certified by July 1, 1994; July 1, 1996; or July 1, 1998).
Figure 2 below is developed from Figure 1 and indicates what PM
emissions level is used, for each model year engine in a fleet, to
calculate the TLF for a given calendar year. Figure 2 is a pictorial
representation of the chart at 40 CFR 85.1403(c)(1)(iv), and as such,
indicates which emissions level to use--that is, whether to use the
pre- rebuild level; or the post-rebuild level based on equipment
certified by July 1, 1994; July 1, 1996; or July 1, 1998. For the
purpose of calculating TLFs, the date at which the emissions level for
each model year engine switches from one PM level to another is January
1st of the year following a rebuild assumed to occur (as shown in
Figure 1) subsequent to program start (January 1, 1995). For example,
for TLF2000, only 1985 and later model year engines in a
fleet are considered, all of which are assumed to be operating at an
appropriate post-rebuild level. For TLF2000, operators must
use the post-rebuild levels based on equipment certified by July 1,
1994 (59 FR 45626, September 2, 1994) for any 1985 model year engines,
the post-rebuild levels based on equipment certified by July 1, 1996
(61 FR 42764, August 16, 1996) for any 1986 through 1988, and 1991
through 1993 model year engines, and the post-rebuild levels based on
equipment certified by July 1, 1998, for any 1989 and 1990 model year
engines in their fleets.
As many followers of the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program are
aware, the Agency developed a computer spreadsheet (also known as
``URBAN7.WK1'') to assist operators by calculating TLFs and FLAs. With
today's action, it becomes apparent for a couple reasons, that
operators using URBAN7 may need to determine TLFs separately for
several distinct time periods. First, and obvious, some TLFs cannot be
determined until post-rebuild levels, based on equipment certified by
July 1, 1998, are known. Second, due to limitations in spreadsheet
design, URBAN7 accommodates only two PM emissions levels for each model
year engine--a pre- rebuild level and one post-rebuild level. URBAN7
does not have provisions for the engine model years that have more than
one post-rebuild level. (Some engines experience two assumed rebuilds
during the program, each of which may have associated with it a
different post-rebuild level.)
For such situations, the user must re-enter the post-rebuild levels
for such engines, and ``re-run'' URBAN7 to determine the TLFs for the
appropriate time period(s). It may be necessary to determine TLFs
separately for several distinct periods, depending on fleet composition
and post-rebuild levels based on equipment certified by July 1, 1998.
Presently, given that post-rebuild levels have been established at two
points in time (based on equipment certified by July 1, 1994, and July
1, 1996), URBAN7 can calculate the TLFs for calendar years 1996 through
1999. Once the post-rebuild levels based on equipment certified by July
1, 1998 are known, the TLFs for all periods can be calculated, although
possibly not in one ``run''. The Agency will revise the instructions
for URBAN7, but does not expect to revise the URBAN7 spreadsheet.
Revised instructions will be made available upon request to the person
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Irrespective of today's amendment, it is worthwhile to remind fleet
operators that it becomes increasingly difficult to keep buses older
than 15 years in their fleets, because the TLF for a particular
calendar year is calculated without consideration of buses that are
past 15 years of age. As a result, the TLF for a fleet becomes
numerically zero (0.00) when the youngest pre-1994 model year engine is
more than 15 years old. On the other hand, operators are able to retain
bus engines older than 15 years that have been retrofit with equipment
certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard or, that were originally
certified to a 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, because emissions from these
buses are not included in the FLA.
Figure 1.--Adjusted Rebuild Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year
Engine model year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... R1 ......... ......... R2 ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1992.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... R1 ......... ......... ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1991.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... R1 ......... ......... ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1990.................................................... ......... R1 ......... ......... ......... ......... R2 ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... RETIRE
1989.................................................... ......... R1 ......... ......... ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1988.................................................... R1 ......... ......... ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1987.................................................... ......... ......... R2 ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1986.................................................... ......... R2 ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1985.................................................... R2 ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1984.................................................... ......... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1983.................................................... ......... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1982.................................................... R3 ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1981.................................................... ......... ......... ......... RETIRE
1980.................................................... ......... ......... RETIRE
1979.................................................... ......... RETIRE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*January 1, 1995 is the start of the program.
R1, R2, R3 = First, second, and third engine rebuild, respectively.
[[Page 14631]]
Figure 2.--PM Emissions Levels for TLF Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``TLF-Year''
Engine model year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995* 1996** 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre pre post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\
1992.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre pre post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\
1991.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\
1990.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre pre pre post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\
1989.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre pre pre post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\ post \3\
1988.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre pre post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\
1987.................................................... ......... ......... ......... post \1\ post \1\ post \1\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\
1986.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre post \2\ post \2\ post \2\ post \2\
1985.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre post \1\ post \1\ post \1\ post \1\
1984.................................................... ......... ......... ......... post \1\ post \1\ post \1\ post \1\
1983.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre pre
1982.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre pre
1981.................................................... ......... ......... ......... pre
1980....................................................
1979....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*January 1, 1995 is the start of the program.
**First ``TLF-Year'' of the program.
``pre'' Pre-rebuild levels established in the final rule of April 21, 1993, pursuant to (c)(1)(iii)(A).
\1\ Post-rebuild level established pursuant to (c)(1)(iii)(B), that is, based on equipment certified by July 1, 1994.
\2\ Post-rebuild level established pursuant to (c)(1)(iii)(C), that is, based on equipment certified by July 1, 1996.
\3\ Post-rebuild level established pursuant to (c)(1)(iii)(D), that is, based on equipment certified by July 1, 1998.
VI. Public Participation
A. Public Hearing
The NPRM of November 12, 1996, stated that EPA would hold a public
hearing on the proposal on December 6, 1996 if any requests to testify
were received by November 22, 1996. EPA received no requests.
B. Public Comment and Agency Response
In the NPRM of November 12, 1996, EPA solicited written comments on
the proposed amendment and its effect on the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild
Program, transit operators and equipment manufacturers. In particular,
EPA asked for comments on the need to add a third revision of post-
rebuild PM levels, the timing of a third revision, the consistency of
the amendment with the original regulations, the need to address the
potential compliance loophole that may exist, how to ensure the same
compliance loophole issue addressed by the amendment does not happen
again, and any other aspects of the amendment.
EPA received comments on the NPRM from six parties, consisting of
the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA), New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and four
equipment certifiers. The four certifiers are Detroit Diesel
Corporation, Twin Rivers Technologies, Engelhard Corporation, and
Johnson Matthey, Incorporated. All comments are available in the public
docket at the above address. No comments were received from transit
operators.
Four commenters support the proposal of November 1996 to amend the
regulations: NYSDEC, MECA, Engelhard and Johnson Matthey. NYSDEC states
that it is aware of upcoming changes to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for particulate matter, and that today's amendment
will help New York State in its efforts to maintain compliance with
those air quality standards. MECA notes that the pace of certification
activity under the program has not occurred within the time frame
envisioned by EPA when it originally finalized the rule, that the
proposed change is needed to ensure that the two compliance programs
remain equivalent, and that the change is consistent with the intent of
Congress.
Two equipment certifiers support the amendment. Engelhard believes
that future revision to post-rebuild PM levels are necessary to
maintain equivalence between the two program compliance options.
Engelhard states that there is growing public concern about the health
effects of diesel particulates, and applauds EPA's efforts in trying to
ensure that the Urban Bus Program provides the maximum benefit and is
equally applicable to all municipalities. Engelhard fully supports
revisions to the post-rebuild PM levels that will ensure that the best
available control technology is an option for urban transits operating
under either compliance option.
JMI supports EPA's proposal to allow additional time for
manufacturers to certify equipment that would influence compliance
under Option 2, in order to eliminate the unintended, current disparity
between Option 1 and Option 2. JMI also notes its submittal to EPA of
an application to certify equipment (see 62 FR 4528; January 30, 1997)
applicable to two engine models that complies with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr
standard. JMI also states that additional testing is being conducted on
other engine models, expected to be completed in 1997, and requests
that EPA extend the program deadline for equipment certification to
January 1, 1998, to allow for the broadest range of engine models to be
included.
EPA expects equipment to be certified that will trigger the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr standard for a large segment of the affected engine population.
For example, EPA recently certified equipment manufactured by Engelhard
(62 FR 12166; March 14, 1997) that triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard
for 1979 through 1989 model year DDC 6V92TA MUI engines. Also, the
above-noted comments received from JMI indicate its intent to certify
equipment to this standard for these and additional DDC engines.
Moreover, EPA is aware, through its review of confidential test plans,
of two other equipment manufacturers intending to certify equipment to
the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for these and other engine models. EPA
discussed non-confidential information regarding the equipment of these
two manufacturers (Turbodyne Systems Incorporated and A-55 Limited
Partnership) during an EPA presentation at an American Public Transit
Association Conference in Anaheim, California, on October 10, 1996. (An
overview of the EPA presentation, dated October 10, 1996, is located in
the public docket). Certification of these equipment cannot occur prior
to July 1, 1997. As a result, EPA believes it appropriate to revise
post-rebuild levels on equipment certified by July 1, 1998 instead of
the July 1, 1997 date
[[Page 14632]]
proposed in the November 12, 1996 notice. The July 1998 date will
permit a significant portion of the affected engine population to be
covered and lessen the likelihood that an inequality will occur again
in the future. In addition, use of July 1, 1998 as suggested by JMI,
rather than January 1, 1998, allows bus operators to continue to
calculate averages using full years, while remaining consistent with
the six month lead time that has been used for the urban bus program.
Prospective equipment certifiers and transit operators should note
that the ``cut-off'' date (July 1, 1998) does not preclude subsequent
equipment certifications. Additionally, the cut-off date does not
prevent any operator from using any equipment certified under the Urban
Bus Program, to the extent the operator is otherwise in compliance with
program requirements.
Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) and Twin Rivers Technologies, L.P.
(TRT), provided comments in opposition to today's amendment. DDC
comments that the amendment will retroactively and unfairly deny
transit operators the compliance flexibility originally provided under
the program. Specifically, DDC argues that some operators may have
adopted an initial strategy of complying with both options until the
post-rebuild PM levels were established based on equipment certified by
July 1, 1996. Operators then may have taken irrevocable actions to
pursue only Option 2 because of lower compliance costs due to TLFs
assumed to be known and fixed. DDC states that an amendment would
disadvantage these operators in three ways. First, rebuild costs would
be increased if new, more costly equipment is certified. Second,
operators would be unable to avoid unknown durability, reliability and
operational issues that are likely to occur if equipment is certified
without adequate field experience. Third, having relied on the existing
rule, an operator's commitment to one option would now result in
sacrificing the flexibility to continue compliance under the other
option. DDC contends that all of this unfairly penalizes such
operators.
With regard to the first concern, EPA agrees that rebuild costs for
compliance will be increased if, or when, new equipment is certified,
but this is entirely consistent with the original rule. It is an
unmistakable expectation clearly spelled out in the final rule of April
21, 1993 that equipment triggering the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard can be
more expensive than equipment designed to reduce PM by 25 percent. For
reasons explained in the 1993 final rule, EPA believed, and believes,
that such extra costs are appropriate given the extra emissions
reductions produced and given the requirements of the statute. The 1993
final rule contemplated that technologies for at least some engines
would be certified to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. Moreover,
today's amendment merely helps assure that compliance Options 1 and 2
are equivalent. Today's amendment will result in no cost increase with
respect to the cost evaluation of the original rule. Bus operators
complying with Option 2 will still enjoy additional flexibility,
because requirements of the option are not engine-specific.
DDC's second contention, that operators will be unable to avoid
unknown durability, reliability and operational issues that are likely
to occur if equipment is certified without adequate field experience,
is not specifically related to either Option 1 or 2, or to this
amendment. Generally speaking, these issues may be important for any
equipment, and EPA continues to encourage equipment manufacturers,
transit operators, and others, to address such concerns during the
equipment certification process to assure that they are addressed.
Durability, reliability, and operational issues can apply regardless of
the standard to which equipment is designed. To the extent that such
concerns arise after certification, the program regulations provide
remedy in two ways. First, liability for durability of equipment is
provided by the emissions warranties required to be provided by
certifiers in accordance with 40 CFR 85.1409. Additionally, pursuant to
40 CFR 85.1413, EPA has authority to decertify equipment that fails to
comply with 40 CFR 85.1405 through 85.1414.
The final contention noted by DDC, that operators having relied on
the final rule and committing to one of the options may have sacrificed
the flexibility to continue compliance under the other option, appears
speculative. The Federal Register notice of August 16, 1996 (61 FR
42764) clearly provides notice that EPA was aware of potential
inequality between the options and was considering appropriate action
to ensure program integrity. In fact, the notice mentions the
possibility of a rulemaking to add a third post-rebuild PM level
revision (Id. at 42766).
Moreover, no transit operators have commented adversely to the
NPRM, or claimed to have lost flexibility retroactively as a result of
today's amendment. The final rule of April 21, 1993, states that an
operator may switch between compliance options if it is in compliance
with all requirements of the newly chosen option at all times since the
beginning of the program. Today's amendment does not change this
flexibility.
Twin Rivers Technologies, L.P. (TRT) states that the amendment is
ill-advised and improper for several reasons. The following discussion
presents each of these issues, and responds to each in turn. First, TRT
indicates that the amendment will create a moving compliance target,
and that the potential that no technology would be certified at 0.10 g/
bhp-hr was ``* * * a scenario completely envisioned by the rule's
authors'' and that ``Program 1 and 2 disparity * * * is the very fabric
of the program * * *''.
EPA agrees that today's amendment will create a compliance target
that is more variable than expected by the authors of the 1993 final
rule. However, the amendment does not present operators using Option 2
with more rigorous compliance requirements, in the aggregate, than
those presented to operators using Option 1. The two options were
expected in the 1993 rule to provide equivalent emissions reductions.
Today's amendment is fully consistent with that original intent, and
follows the original expectation that Option 2 levels would be based on
equipment certified to the emissions reduction and life cycle cost
requirements of Option 1.
EPA never intended ``flexibility'' to include switching between two
grossly unequal compliance options. Any contention that environmental
disparity between the compliance options was envisioned by the final
rule, or is the fabric of the program, is inaccurate. To the contrary,
the very fabric of the urban bus program is that the two options
provide equivalent emissions reductions, and today's amendment is
intended to assure this. As stated in the preambles to both the
original final rule (58 FR 21359; April 21, 1993) and the proposal
preceding it (57 FR 33141; July 27, 1992), EPA bases its legal
authority to develop an averaging program on meeting the statutory
standard-setting test of reflecting ``* * * the best retrofit
technology and maintenance practices reasonably achievable'' (section
219(d) of the Clean Air Act). In the absence of today's amendment, no
clear authority for the averaging option exists. Therefore, today's
amendment is consistent with the constraint that the fleet averaging
option be equivalent, in terms of emission reductions, to the engine-
specific option, and is completely appropriate given EPA's
responsibilities under section 219(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Regarding the concern that the amendment raises serious issues
among
[[Page 14633]]
transit operators, EPA does not believe this to be an accurate
assessment. EPA notes that no transit operators commented on the
amendment.
The second reason put forth by TRT is that the amendment is unfair
because it deprives the soundly managed transit the benefit of
selection of compliance option after completing the dual compliance
necessary to exercise that right. Additionally, TRT states that the
amendment ``* * * is an egregious example of * * * ex post facto
regulation'', and is improper because it is inconsistent with
regulatory law that require rules to be made on a prospective basis.
TRT also notes the matter of fairness to equipment certifiers that have
planned manufacturing and marketing around the regulation.
EPA recognizes that some transit operators may have maintained
compliance with both options with intentions of making a selection
based on equipment certified by July 1, 1996. The August 16, 1996
Federal Register notice revised post-rebuild PM levels, based on
equipment certified by July 1, 1996, and also provided notice of the
potential inequality between the compliance options and that EPA was
considering appropriate action to ensure program integrity. Today's
amendment ensures program integrity, but does not change the
flexibility of the original rule. Operators, otherwise in compliance
with both options, are not prevented from selecting to comply with only
one of the options.
EPA disagrees with the claim that today's amendment constitutes
``ex post facto'' regulation or is improper, because the changes of the
amendment solely effect the requirements of transit operators using
Option 2 for TLFs calculated after 1999. No violations of the
amendments promulgated today can occur prior to the year 2000. Nor
would any of the requirements for rebuilds scheduled to be performed
prior to 1999 be made more stringent because of these amendments.
Moreover, the comment misapprehends EPA's responsibilities under the
Act. EPA is permitted to amend its regulations in order to account for
new developments. Moreover, such amendments are completely appropriate
where, as here, failure to do so would lead to regulations that no
longer meet the technology requirements of the statute. Today's
amendments are fully consistent with the legislative requirement to use
the ``* * * best retrofit technology * * * reasonably achievable'', and
the original program design. The design of the original program
accomplishes the legislative requirement by providing for equivalent
emissions reductions from Option 1 and 2. Today's amendment assures
that emissions reductions from the two options remain equivalent.
With regard to the matter of fairness to transit operators, EPA
believes that selection between two compliance options that are not
equivalent is not the proper test of ``fairness''. As discussed above,
the intent of the original regulation is equivalent emissions reduction
from both Option 1 and Option 2. The test for fairness, therefore, is
relevant to switching between compliance options that are otherwise
equivalent. Indeed, ``fairness'' would not exist in the absence of
today's amendment to the program regulations, because the two
compliance options would be clearly and significantly unequal in terms
of emissions reductions and costs to operators.
With regard to the matter of fairness to equipment certifiers, the
regulation is clear that one level of technology (that is, equipment
certified to reduce PM by at least 25 percent) is meant to be
superseded by a more effective technology (equipment certified to the
0.10 g/bhp-hr standard), if such technology is certified. Though
equipment certifiers and transit operators may have different
expectations of final fleet requirements based on this rule, such
parties were always subject to possible changes in fleet requirements
based on certification of 0.10 g/bhp-hr technology. That certification
of such technology will be recognized in Option 2 two years later than
originally expected is not a fundamental change in the possible
outcomes regarding technology and fleet requirements that were always
inherent in the retrofit/rebuild program. Finally, as discussed above,
this amendment will only affect post-rebuild expected levels for bus
engines manufactured in at most five model years. Moreover, more
stringent post-rebuild levels for three of these model years (1991
through 1993) would not go into place until, at the earliest,
TLF2002.
Third, TRT notes EPA's assessments in the preamble to the original
rulemaking that limiting the number of revisions of the post-rebuild
levels is important to provide stability in the averaging program, and
that having more than two revisions could lead to a ``moving target''
for operators. TRT expresses concern for continued revisions to post-
rebuild levels in the future.
EPA recognizes the concern related to the ``moving target'' nature
of several revisions. However, a revision based on equipment certified
by July 1, 1998, will be only the second revision of substance, because
no equipment was certified for the ``first'' revision. This ``second''
revision is necessary to maintain Option 2 equivalent to Option 1. EPA
expects that the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard will be triggered for a
significant portion of the affected fleet by July 1, 1998. Therefore,
there is not expected to be further need to revise post-rebuild levels
subsequent to July 1, 1998.
Fourth, TRT indicates that there is no disparity in emissions
reductions between the two options, and expresses the following several
contentions in support of this point. Each is accompanied by EPA's
response.
In support, TRT first suggests that if the post-rebuild level for
only the 1979 through 1987 6V92TA engines are reduced from 0.30 to 0.10
g/bhp-hr, then TLFs for fleets with buses later than model year 1987
could increase after the year 2002, which could increase PM emissions.
This suggestion is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it
presumes that no technology will be certified for engines manufactured
from 1988 through 1993, which is by no means certain. Second, if in
fact technology is not certified for later engines, then this
regulatory amendment will have little effect because, as explained
above, Option 2 post-rebuild levels for engines manufactured prior to
1989 will not be affected by this amendment. Finally, TRT does not
explain how lowering the target post-rebuild level (TLF) for even a
subset of a fleet can ever increase actual emission levels (that is,
the FLA) for the fleet, compared with the actual levels that would
result from the fleet having to meet a less stringent target level.
Reluctance to retire engines seems irrelevant to the target level
calculation, because the emissions from any higher emitting engine,
even one that is greater than fifteen years old, must be counted as
part of a fleet's actual emissions, which will always create an
incentive to retire more polluting buses, whether they are older or
newer.
Also in support, TRT notes that only fleets that have maintained
simultaneous Option 1 and Option 2 compliance can currently choose to
comply with either Option 1 or 2 in the future. TRT believes that many
fleets have most likely lost their ability to claim Option 2
compliance. (Therefore, few fleets are currently using Option 2.) EPA
does not know the number of fleets complying with either or both
options, and TRT provides no data or information in support of its
statements. However, as stated above, EPA believes that today's
amendment is necessary to assure equivalent reductions from both
[[Page 14634]]
options and to maintain legal authority for the averaging option.
Moreover, given the minimal requirements of Option 2 following the
September 2, 1994 update, the notice in the August 16, 1996 update, and
the short period between the August 16 update and the NPRM, it is
unlikely that many operators would have lost this opportunity prior to
the publication of the NPRM.
Also in support, TRT states that EPA misunderstands both the lack
of action taken by Option 1 fleets to reduce emissions, and the many
actions required by Option 2 fleets. TRT states that Option 2 actually
provides no flexibility toward meeting the TLF. The TLF is never
approached in a fleet using only Option 1 (regardless of the post-
rebuild levels), because such fleets will rebuild less frequently, and
might eliminate rebuilding, given the increased cost of complying with
the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. TRT suggests that the retrofit/rebuild
program is responsible for fleets reducing their engine rebuilds from
once every seven years to less than half that rate. On the other hand,
TRT claims that Option 2, by virtue of the calculations that determine
TLFs based on specific assumed rebuild schedules, and retirement of
engines at 15 years of age, will provide an ever increasing annual
reduction in PM emissions. Option 2 reductions are not subject to the
actual rebuild strategy of a fleet, but to the requirements of
calculations that force a continual decrease in TLF with time. In
summary, TRT claims that a compliant operator using Option 2 will
generate greater emissions reduction than under Option 1. An operator
using only Option 1 could conceivably create zero emissions reductions,
regardless of the equipment certified.
EPA believes that TRT's perception of compliance under the two
options is somewhat, but not entirely, accurate. Further, TRT provides
no information to substantiate the statements regarding rebuild
frequency. No fleet operators commented.
As discussed in the April 21, 1993 rulemaking, EPA understands that
operators may eliminate some engine rebuilds, and move others forward
or back in time in order to minimize costs associated with the cost of
compliance with the urban bus program. The assumed rebuild schedule, a
key factor of the calculations used by Option 2 operators, is
``adjusted'' to reflect the expectation that rebuild schedules may be
changed. While EPA has only recently begun to audit fleet operators for
compliance with program requirements, we have no information that fleet
operators are not performing rebuilds.
Option 2 is designed to yield fleet-wide equivalent emissions
reductions with Option 1 based on three factors: an adjusted engine
rebuild schedule, the availability of certified technology, and an
assumed retirement schedule. EPA estimated the impact of certified
equipment technology (and incident costs) on the rebuild schedule of
each particular model year of engine. The rebuild presumptions include
elimination of some rebuilds for some model year engines, and moving
other rebuilds, either forward in time or back, to postpone or avoid
costs related to applying certified retrofit/rebuild equipment. Under
either compliance option, engines can be kept in a fleet as long as
desired. Under Option 1, if an engine is not retired, then rebuild or
replacement cannot be postponed indefinitely. When rebuild or
replacement occurs, compliance with the correct PM standard is required
(which may include the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard), regardless of when the
standard has been triggered. For Option 2, the TLF calculation for a
particular calendar year is based on engines 15 years of age and less.
Therefore, the TLF for a fleet becomes numerically zero (0.00) when the
youngest pre-1994 model year engine in the fleet is more than 15 years
of age. Option 2 encourages, but does not require, retirement of
engines at 15 years of age and greater. Engines that are older than 15
years and meet a 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, do not influence the
calculations for either the target level of the fleet (TLF) or the
fleet level attained (FLA). In summary, EPA believes that the two
compliance options will produce equivalent emissions reductions.
TRT's final comment is that, if EPA determines to provide
additional time to certify equipment affecting Option 2, then the
extension should be longer than January 1, 1998, based on TRT's
appraisal of the amount of time necessary for certification.
This comment is consistent with a similar comment from JMI, and EPA
agrees. With today's amendment, EPA will review equipment certified by
July 1, 1998, and revise post-rebuild PM levels if necessary. A
``July'' date provides an operator using Option 2 with approximately 6
months to plan a rebuild strategy to be taken for the subsequent year.
VII. Environmental Impact
The environmental impacts expected to result from the retrofit/
rebuild program are outlined in the final Regulatory Support Document
(RSD) for the final rule of April 21, 1993 and can be found in public
docket A-91-28 (see ADDRESSES section above). Today's amendment does
not result in any additional emissions reductions beyond those outlined
in the RSD. However, today's amendment will help ensure that these
expected reductions are actually achieved by closing an unintended
compliance loophole. If transit operators were allowed to take
advantage of the loophole in the 1993 final rule, then PM reductions
will not be achieved at the level EPA originally anticipated. In
addition, to the extent that transit operators can avoid installing
low-emitting technology on buses, such buses will not reflect the
``best retrofit technology * * * reasonably achievable'' as Congress
required.
VIII. Economic Impact
Today's finalized amendment is expected to have no additional
economic impact compared to the economic impact described in original
regulations finalized on April 21, 1993. While failure to take today's
final action could result in reduced costs for those transit operators
that could take advantage of the loophole, no additional costs
unaccounted for in the original regulations would be imposed on any
transit operators as a result of today's action. In conjunction with
the final rule of April 21, 1993, the costs associated with the program
have previously been determined to be reasonable and the program to be
cost-effective.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
EPA must obtain OMB clearance for any activity that will involve
collecting substantially the same information from 10 or more non-
Federal respondents.
Subsequent to the final rule of April 21, 1993, EPA received OMB
approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) document having
EPA ICR number 1702.01 and OMB ICR number 2060-0302. It is approved for
use through July 31, 1997. That ICR document estimates the public
reporting, record keeping, and testing burden for collecting
information necessary to implement and oversee the Urban Bus Retrofit/
Rebuild Program. The public burden is estimated to be a total of 7,214
hours, and includes estimates of time required of equipment
manufacturers and transit operators. Equipment manufacturers are
[[Page 14635]]
required to establish and retain for a period of five years after
equipment certification, information regarding the manufacturing and
testing of retrofit equipment. This includes such information as
production drawings, testing results and analysis, a description of
quality control plans, and in-service data or analyses. Transit
operators are required to maintain records concerning activities
associated with retrofitting and rebuilding urban buses, such as
reviewing program regulations, purchasing retrofit/rebuild equipment,
engine rebuilds and replacement, and maintaining evidence showing
compliance with the retrofit/rebuild program. Copies of the ICR
document may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch
(mail code 2136); EPA; 401 ``M'' Street SW, Washington DC, 20460, or by
calling (202) 260-2740.
EPA is preparing an ICR document, to submit for OMB approval, that
would continue information collection past the July 31, 1997 expiration
date of the above-mentioned document. Comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, may be sent to: Chief,
Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 ``M'' Street S.W., Washington DC,
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington DC, 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.''
B. Impact on Small Entities
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
The urban bus operators affected by the program regulations are not
small businesses. In addition, EPA determined that the original
regulations of the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program (58 FR 21359,
April 21, 1993) did not have an adverse impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Today's amendment does not impose any new costs
above those included in the original rulemaking. Today's action will
affect only a few businesses using the retrofit fleet averaging program
and will likely have an effect solely on a small portion of the
businesses' fleet. There may be benefit to those small business
entities that manufacture retrofit/rebuild equipment, since urban bus
operators may be required to use such equipment.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the executive
order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action as one that is
likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof;
(4) Raise novel legal policy issues arising out of legal mandate,
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the order.
EPA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed
into law on March 22, 1995) requires EPA to prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year.
Section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires EPA to
establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing, educating and
advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely
affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA must identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be
prepared. EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly,
most costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless EPA explains why this
alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is
inconsistent with law.
Today's amendment contains no Federal mandates that result in
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in aggregate, or by
the private sector, of $100 million in any one year. With the April 21,
1993 promulgation of the urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations, EPA
estimated that the nationwide cost would range from $2 million to $37
million per year, depending upon the year.
E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 85
Environmental protection, Confidential business information,
Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Warranties.
Dated: March 19, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Part 85 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 85--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 85 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 85.1403 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)
introductory text, (c)(1)(iii)(C) introductory text, and (c)(1)(iv);
removing paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C)(6); and adding paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(D) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1403 Particulate standard for pre-1994 model year urban buses
effective at time of engine rebuild or engine replacement.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) For the TLF calculations as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)
of this section, post-rebuild particulate emissions levels for a
specific engine model shall be equal to the following:
* * * * *
(C) For TLF calculations as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of
this section, post-rebuild particulate emission levels
[[Page 14636]]
for a specific engine model shall be equal to the following:
* * * * *
(D) For TLF calculations as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of
this section, post-rebuild particulate emission levels for a specific
engine model shall be equal to the following:
(1) 0.10 g/bhp-hr, for any engine model (other than those indicated
in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D)(4) of this section) for which equipment has
been certified by July 1, 1998 as meeting the emission and cost
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section for all affected urban
bus operators;
(2) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified
by July 1, 1998 as meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section for all affected urban bus operators, but for which equipment
has been certified by July 1, 1996 as meeting the emission and cost
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section for all affected urban
bus operators, the post-rebuild particulate emission level shall equal
the lowest emission level (greater than or equal to 0.10 g/bhp-hr)
certified by July 1, 1998 for any such equipment;
(3) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified
by July 1, 1998 as meeting the emission and cost requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, the post-rebuild
particulate emission level shall equal the pre-rebuild particulate
level;
(4) For any engine model with a pre-rebuild particulate level below
0.10 g/bhp-hr, the post-rebuild particulate emission level shall equal
the pre-rebuild particulate level;
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D)(3) of this section, if
by July 1, 1998, no equipment has been certified to meet the emission
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section for any of
the engine models listed in the table at paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of
this section, then the post-rebuild particulate levels shall be the
pre-rebuild particulate levels specified in the table at paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section; and
(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D)(3) of this section, if
by July 1, 1998, equipment has been certified to meet the emissions
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section for any of
the engine models listed in the table at paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of
this section, but no equipment has been certified by July 1, 1998 to
meet the life-cycle cost requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of
this section, then the post-rebuild particulate levels shall be as
specified in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-
Pre-rebuild rebuild PM
Engine model Model year sold PM level level (g/
(g/bhp-hr) bhp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDC 6V92TA.................................... 1979-1987............................. 0.50 0.30
1988-1989............................. .30 .30
DDC 6V92TA DDECI.............................. 1986-1987............................. .30 .30
DDC 6V92TA DDECII............................. 1988-1991............................. .31 .25
1992.................................. .25 .25
1993 (no trap)........................ .25 .25
1993 (trap)........................... .07 .07
DDC Series 50................................. 1993.................................. .16 .16
DDC 6V71N..................................... 1973-1987............................. .50 .50
1988-1989............................. .50 .50
DDC 6V71T..................................... 1985-1986............................. .50 .50
DDC 8V71N..................................... 1973-1984............................. .50 .50
DDC 6L71TA.................................... 1990.................................. .59 .59
1988-1989............................. .31 .31
DDC 6L71TA DDEC............................... 1990-1991............................. .30 .30
Cummins L10................................... 1985-1987............................. .65 .46
1988-1989............................. .55 .46
1990-1991............................. .46 .46
Cummins L10 EC................................ 1992.................................. .25 .25
1993 (trap)........................... .05 .05
Alternatively-fueled Engines.................. Pre-1994.............................. .10 .10
Other Engines................................. Pre-1988.............................. .50 .50
1988-1993............................. (\1\) (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) New engine certification level.
(iv) To determine which particulate (PM) emission level from
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section is used for a particular model
year engine in a fleet for the TLF of a given calendar year, use the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year for which
Model year of TLF is being Particulate emission level (see
engine calculated Sec. 85.1403(c)(1)(iii))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............... 1996-1998........ Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
1999-2001........ Post-Rebuild Level.\3\
2002-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\4\
1992............... 1996-1998........ Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
1999-2003........ Post-Rebuild Level.\3\
2004-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\4\
1991............... 1996-1997........ Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
1998-2002........ Post-Rebuild Level.\3\
2003-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\4\
1990............... 1996-1999........ Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
2000-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\4\
1989............... 1996-1999........ Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
2000-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\4\
1988............... 1996-1998........ Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
[[Page 14637]]
1999-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\3\
1987............... 1996-1998........ Post-Rebuild Level.\2\
1999-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\3\
1986............... 1996-1997........ Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
1998-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\3\
1985............... 1996............. Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
1997-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\2\
1984............... 1996-thereafter.. Post-Rebuild Level.\2\
Pre-1984........... 1996-thereafter.. Pre-Rebuild Level.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The pre-rebuild PM level established in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of
this section.
\2\ The post-rebuild PM level established pursuant to paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
\3\ The post-rebuild PM level established pursuant to paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(C) of this section.
\4\ The post-rebuild PM level established pursuant to paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(D) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-7767 Filed 3-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
